Weeks after the visit of Nepal’s Prime Minister K.P. Oli to Delhi, officials say they are planning for a visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Kathmandu and Janakpur in mid-May, before the end of the Baishakh. Ahead of Mr. Modi’s visit, Nepal’s former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, who has split from the ruling Communist parties, and is visiting India, says a full overhaul of the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty is the first priority. Excerpts:
PM Modi is expected to travel to Nepal in the second week of May, his first visit with a new government in place. What should the priority be for India and Nepal now?
Number one priority for both PMs should be to resolve all the outstanding issues raised by the Eminent Person’s Group, that have been left by history, and then to focus on economic development. Nepal should ensure that strategic interests of India are maintained, and India should cooperate in the development of Nepal.
When you say issues raised by the EPG, there is a demand for revising boundaries, for more regulation of India-Nepal border and the provision of compulsory work permits for Indians, leading to a total overhaul of the 1950 Peace treaty. These are not issues India has been in favour of. Why do you think they are necessary?
The land boundaries must be revised and regulation is necessary to cater to the needs of the 21st century. There must be a new treaty, one which is to the advantage of both the countries. Why should we stick to the old treaty, which suffers from a colonial hangover. On the one side [Nepal], the signatory was the Maharaja-Prime Minister, while on the other, it was the Indian Ambassador. How can you continue such a treaty in modern times?
But in India, Nepal’s desire for a revised treaty is seen as an attempt to pull away from India, particularly when China is establishing its presence in Nepal.
No, nothing of the sort. I think India should be a more secure power. Why should India be insecure about its relationship with Nepal. China can never be a substitute to India. Indians should establish their advantage in Nepal, and not be scared of China. Of course, we are also in favour of better relations between India and China, as that will benefit the whole world. Revising the treaty has nothing to do with China.
What is your impression of PM Oli’s visit to India? Have the issues of the past over the Constitution been put at rest?
Generally, it was seen as a positive visit, especially since the personal relations of PM Oli had soured with the establishment in Delhi, and that seems to have been fixed. But no visit can be successful until the long-pending issues between India and Nepal are fixed. On the Constitution, it is entirely an internal matter of Nepal and it is for the Nepali people to decide their Constitution. Unfortunately, the ego clash between Mr. Oli and the government in Delhi [in 2015] has meant that issues with the Constitution, such as ensuring the federal structure by establishing 10 provinces and the rights of not just Madhesis but also Janjatis and Tharus and women have suffered. Nepal has a huge trade deficit with India, we import 15 times of what we export. But now that we do have a Constitution and a government, it is time to work towards a new structure of ties.
PM Oli is expected to further consolidate power in the next few weeks or days with a merger of his Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist) with former PM Pushpa Kumar Dahal ‘Prachanda’s’ CPN (Maoist). You have been left out of this, despite your links with them, how do you see this new unified Communist party?
Talks are still on for this, but even if the unification happens, I can see serious differences between the Maoists and the UML. So it will not be sustainable. I have been saying that instead of merging two parties, we should form a new inclusive front across Nepal. Given the economically backward situation and the multi-ethnic, multilingual social composition and a very sensitive geopolitical positioning between India and China, the old political ideology won’t work, and we need something new. That’s why, by choice I left the party, so I haven’t been left out.
