Can Jayanta Prasad make difference in Nepal-India ties?
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Sometimes, an individual makes a big difference. This is more in diplomacy.
By diplomacy we generally mean a tool and approach to achieve foreign policy
goals. Traditionally foreign policy is defined as an extension of domestic
policy. But it may not always be true because domestic policy of a
particular country may change with the change of government or person in
power. Foreign policy is something that does not change frequently with the
change of the government and person in power. It may be more appropriate to
define foreign policy as the approach and strategy to serve the national
interest.
Foreign policy is and should, thus, be guided by national interest. A
country's policy and approaches may vary with different countries depending
upon the nature of the relationship. Accordingly, priorities differ with
different countries. Economic, trade, strategic, political and cultural
issues have direct bearing on the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy
with different countries. Diplomacy is, thus, conducted in a way which may
help achieve the foreign policy goals and serve the national interests.
Nepal's foreign policy has remained static and diplomacy in a state of
moribund. Diplomacy should be dynamic, which changes depending upon the
changed international situation. But the goal of foreign policy is always
one and uniformed. Nepal's foreign policy goal is to maintain its
independent status. The conduct of diplomacy of Nepal is, thus, guided by
survival strategy. This is a reason why Nepal's diplomacy is basically
neighbor-centric.
Being immediate neighbors, China and India occupy special place in the
conduct of Nepal's foreign policy and diplomacy. Nepal's relationship with
these two neighbors is multi-faceted encompassing political, cultural,
economic and strategic nature and sphere. As a small country between these
two big powers, Nepal has a greater challenge to maintain its independence
from political, economic, strategic and cultural standpoint. In other words,
the success of Nepal's diplomacy and foreign policy lies with its survival
strategy and keeping away from the direct influence and domination from any
of these two powers.
Theoretically, Nepal maintained its independence throughout its history even
though the entire South Asia came under British colonial rule. In practical
sense, Nepal was indirectly reduced to semi-colonial state by the British
especially after the Anglo-Nepal War that ended with signing of the Sugauli
Treaty in 1816. The 1814-1816 Anglo-Nepal war proved to be a disaster and
national humiliation for Nepal on Nepal by British colonial power. As a
result, Nepal not only lost a sizable territory but its national expansion
campaign also came to permanent halt.
Since then Nepal's foreign policy has remained India centric. The
geo-economic and geo-strategic compulsion also played vital role in shaping
Nepal's foreign policy. Although Nepal is surrounded by India and China, the
difficult Himalayan terrain often obstructed Nepal's economic and trade
expansion and activities with the northern neighbor, which made Nepal
dependent on India for trade and transit. New Delhi has, thus, been trying
to exploit this compulsion of Nepal.
By virtue of Nepal's geo-economic compulsion, India has tried to keep Nepal
within its security umbrella and safe and ensured market for Indian goods.
However, things have changed recently as China has already constructed its
high-speed rail way in Lhasa connecting with the rest of China. Beijing is
soon extending this railway link up to border with Nepal. This is going to
provide a tremendous opportunity for Nepal's trade and economic activities
which would significantly reduce over dependence on India. However, the
interlocutors of Nepal's foreign policy formulation do not seem to have
given an iota of thought towards this. As a result, our foreign policy
continues to be guided by traditional and outdated concept of over relying
on India.
Nepal is a small country and does not have other clout and resources to
influence the international community. Its only tool to have its presence
felt in the international arena is effective and mature diplomacy. However,
Nepal has glaringly lacked in this front in recent years especially after
the political change in 1990. Although Nepal's diplomacy was not as
effective as it should have been even prior to the 1990 political change,
the conduct of diplomacy was slightly better than what it is today. Nepal's
role was appreciable in the United Nations and several other international
forums in the past due to its active diplomacy. Recognizing, perhaps, this
role, Nepal was elected to Security Council as a non-permanent member twice
in the period of 20 years. But Nepal's role has hardly been felt in the
United Nations and other international forums in recent years.
The other aspect that needs to be mentioned when it comes to Nepal foreign
policy is the 'Zone of Peace Proposal', which had been supported by 116
countries in the world including China, United States and several other
major international powers. Support of 116 countries was a major diplomatic
achievement. However, the proposal was dumped soon after the 1990 political
change, ostensibly under pressure from India. India dubbed this proposal a
move of Nepal to come out of India's domination.
Now Nepal's diplomacy is so weak that Nepali diplomats hardly shape our
policy. Instead the foreign missions in Nepal shape our diplomacy abroad.
When it comes to the relationship and diplomacy with India and China or the
United States, our diplomats in New Delhi, Beijing and Washington do not
make decisions on bilateral issues but Indian, Chinese and US ambassadors in
Kathmandu set the agenda.
Despite this, Nepal does not have problem with many of the countries
including China and the United States. As a neighbor that shares a long
border, China has definitely its stake and interest in Nepal. However,
Beijing has never been over reactive and provocative but pursued quiet
diplomacy in dealing with Nepal. China has never publicly castigated Nepal
even though Beijing may not have been happy on certain matters especially
Nepal's poor handling of Tibet issue. China has pursued the policy of mutual
consultation and cooperation in dealing with the security matters with
Nepal.
But the issues are more complicated with our southern neighbor India. Like
China, India, too, has its interest and concerns in Nepal which both the
countries can settle in mutual consultation. But India's approach and
attitude is quiet different which is often not compatible with diplomatic
norms and neighborly spirit. As a result, Nepalese people are always
susceptible to India's attitude and intention. The last couple of years have
been more tumultuous in the bilateral relationship between Nepal and India.
Nepal-India relations saw rock bottom during the period of Rakesh Sood as
India's ambassador to Nepal. Sood's working style and behavior was not
compatible with diplomatic norms and rules which created a kind of popular
resentment and contributed to increased anti-India feelings in Nepal. He
was greeted with some humiliating remarks and actions including showing
black flag against him and hurling shoes at him. The South Block (Foreign
Ministry of India) knew well that Sood's undiplomatic activities and
behavior contributed to the growth of anti-India feelings in Nepal and at
one point contemplated to call back Sood and send someone else to Kathmandu
to restore India's image. The decision to call Sood back and appoint Jayanta
Prasad as new ambassador of Nepal was made in December last year, six months
ahead of his term was to expire. But a section in India's Foreign Ministry
lobbied for Sood's continuity until his term expired. This lobby argued that
recalling Sood would give a negative message. Moreover, Jayanta Prasad was
also not very much interested to take up the assignment in Nepal because of
the complicated nature of bilateral relations and Nepal's critical
situation. Jayanta Prasad is a kind of person, who is soft-spoken and
believes in quiet and persuasive diplomacy rather than coercive one. He is a
career diplomat who often shuns controversy and coercion. This was partly
responsible for the delay in his appointment as ambassador to Nepal and
lengthened Sood's term.
There is marked differences in the approaches and style between Sood and
Prasad. Sood possessed more hawkish and bossy attitude and style who often
tried to dictate. Sood's tenure as ambassador in Nepal created much uproar
and controversy. As a result, anti-Indian sentiment and feelings grew more
than ever. Sood, because of mishandling of affairs, failed in his job. Many
Nepali felt that India's intervention was more naked and blatant during
Sood's period. In other words, Sood was a diplomatic disaster for India in
the history of Nepal-India relations.
Although there is no fundamental shift in India's Nepal policy, different
impression has been created about India in Nepal since Jayanta Prasad
arrived at Kathmandu. This is mainly because of his approaches and working
style. His arrival coincides with the formation of a new coalition
government headed by Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai. When he arrived,
the process of government formation in Nepal was underway. There had been
different speculations in Nepali political circle. The speculations were
based on the activities of his predecessor Rakesh Sood, who directly
interfered in Nepali political affairs. He used money and muscle power and
even threatened some of the lawmakers. But Jayanta Prasad maintained a low
profile and kept himself away from this type of activities. India has its
permanent policy on Nepal which every ambassador is entitled to implement.
As an ambassador, Jayanta Prasad cannot go against his country's policy and
he would definitely work to implement India's policy. But Prasad
implemented it by successfully and shrewdly avoiding any kind of controversy
and criticism. From this point of view, Jayanta Prasad's tenure would be
better than that of Rakesh Sood so far as the bilateral relations between
Nepal and India are concerned.
It is true that India has multiple interests in Nepal ranging from security,
economic and political interest. Of them security and economic interests are
of more vital importance. But Nepal also has its own concern and complaints
when it comes to the relationship with India. Nepali population is very
sensitive and susceptible to India because of New Delhi's highhandedness and
hawkish policy. Being close neighbors, both the countries must understand
the sensitivity of one another. This has to be on reciprocal basis. Nepal
knows India's sensitivity and concerns but it wants similar approach from
New Delhi. India must understand that Nepal is a sovereign country which is
free to take any decision taking its national interest into account. When
Nepal takes any decision to protect its national interest, New Delhi should
not interpret it as anti-Indianism. India would thus need to depart from the
old colonial hangover and begin afresh to build Nepal-India relations on the
basis of mutual equality. India should understand that Nepal and Nepalese
people want friends and not masters. As long as India becomes Nepal's
genuine friend, everything will be alright. Problem starts only when India
tries to be a master. Perhaps, the new Indian ambassador knows it well and
acts sincerely to dispel apprehension of Nepali people about India.
Sometimes, an individual makes a big difference. This is more in diplomacy.
By diplomacy we generally mean a tool and approach to achieve foreign policy
goals. Traditionally foreign policy is defined as an extension of domestic
policy. But it may not always be true because domestic policy of a
particular country may change with the change of government or person in
power. Foreign policy is something that does not change frequently with the
change of the government and person in power. It may be more appropriate to
define foreign policy as the approach and strategy to serve the national
interest.
Foreign policy is and should, thus, be guided by national interest. A
country's policy and approaches may vary with different countries depending
upon the nature of the relationship. Accordingly, priorities differ with
different countries. Economic, trade, strategic, political and cultural
issues have direct bearing on the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy
with different countries. Diplomacy is, thus, conducted in a way which may
help achieve the foreign policy goals and serve the national interests.
Nepal's foreign policy has remained static and diplomacy in a state of
moribund. Diplomacy should be dynamic, which changes depending upon the
changed international situation. But the goal of foreign policy is always
one and uniformed. Nepal's foreign policy goal is to maintain its
independent status. The conduct of diplomacy of Nepal is, thus, guided by
survival strategy. This is a reason why Nepal's diplomacy is basically
neighbor-centric.
Being immediate neighbors, China and India occupy special place in the
conduct of Nepal's foreign policy and diplomacy. Nepal's relationship with
these two neighbors is multi-faceted encompassing political, cultural,
economic and strategic nature and sphere. As a small country between these
two big powers, Nepal has a greater challenge to maintain its independence
from political, economic, strategic and cultural standpoint. In other words,
the success of Nepal's diplomacy and foreign policy lies with its survival
strategy and keeping away from the direct influence and domination from any
of these two powers.
Theoretically, Nepal maintained its independence throughout its history even
though the entire South Asia came under British colonial rule. In practical
sense, Nepal was indirectly reduced to semi-colonial state by the British
especially after the Anglo-Nepal War that ended with signing of the Sugauli
Treaty in 1816. The 1814-1816 Anglo-Nepal war proved to be a disaster and
national humiliation for Nepal on Nepal by British colonial power. As a
result, Nepal not only lost a sizable territory but its national expansion
campaign also came to permanent halt.
Since then Nepal's foreign policy has remained India centric. The
geo-economic and geo-strategic compulsion also played vital role in shaping
Nepal's foreign policy. Although Nepal is surrounded by India and China, the
difficult Himalayan terrain often obstructed Nepal's economic and trade
expansion and activities with the northern neighbor, which made Nepal
dependent on India for trade and transit. New Delhi has, thus, been trying
to exploit this compulsion of Nepal.
By virtue of Nepal's geo-economic compulsion, India has tried to keep Nepal
within its security umbrella and safe and ensured market for Indian goods.
However, things have changed recently as China has already constructed its
high-speed rail way in Lhasa connecting with the rest of China. Beijing is
soon extending this railway link up to border with Nepal. This is going to
provide a tremendous opportunity for Nepal's trade and economic activities
which would significantly reduce over dependence on India. However, the
interlocutors of Nepal's foreign policy formulation do not seem to have
given an iota of thought towards this. As a result, our foreign policy
continues to be guided by traditional and outdated concept of over relying
on India.
Nepal is a small country and does not have other clout and resources to
influence the international community. Its only tool to have its presence
felt in the international arena is effective and mature diplomacy. However,
Nepal has glaringly lacked in this front in recent years especially after
the political change in 1990. Although Nepal's diplomacy was not as
effective as it should have been even prior to the 1990 political change,
the conduct of diplomacy was slightly better than what it is today. Nepal's
role was appreciable in the United Nations and several other international
forums in the past due to its active diplomacy. Recognizing, perhaps, this
role, Nepal was elected to Security Council as a non-permanent member twice
in the period of 20 years. But Nepal's role has hardly been felt in the
United Nations and other international forums in recent years.
The other aspect that needs to be mentioned when it comes to Nepal foreign
policy is the 'Zone of Peace Proposal', which had been supported by 116
countries in the world including China, United States and several other
major international powers. Support of 116 countries was a major diplomatic
achievement. However, the proposal was dumped soon after the 1990 political
change, ostensibly under pressure from India. India dubbed this proposal a
move of Nepal to come out of India's domination.
Now Nepal's diplomacy is so weak that Nepali diplomats hardly shape our
policy. Instead the foreign missions in Nepal shape our diplomacy abroad.
When it comes to the relationship and diplomacy with India and China or the
United States, our diplomats in New Delhi, Beijing and Washington do not
make decisions on bilateral issues but Indian, Chinese and US ambassadors in
Kathmandu set the agenda.
Despite this, Nepal does not have problem with many of the countries
including China and the United States. As a neighbor that shares a long
border, China has definitely its stake and interest in Nepal. However,
Beijing has never been over reactive and provocative but pursued quiet
diplomacy in dealing with Nepal. China has never publicly castigated Nepal
even though Beijing may not have been happy on certain matters especially
Nepal's poor handling of Tibet issue. China has pursued the policy of mutual
consultation and cooperation in dealing with the security matters with
Nepal.
But the issues are more complicated with our southern neighbor India. Like
China, India, too, has its interest and concerns in Nepal which both the
countries can settle in mutual consultation. But India's approach and
attitude is quiet different which is often not compatible with diplomatic
norms and neighborly spirit. As a result, Nepalese people are always
susceptible to India's attitude and intention. The last couple of years have
been more tumultuous in the bilateral relationship between Nepal and India.
Nepal-India relations saw rock bottom during the period of Rakesh Sood as
India's ambassador to Nepal. Sood's working style and behavior was not
compatible with diplomatic norms and rules which created a kind of popular
resentment and contributed to increased anti-India feelings in Nepal. He
was greeted with some humiliating remarks and actions including showing
black flag against him and hurling shoes at him. The South Block (Foreign
Ministry of India) knew well that Sood's undiplomatic activities and
behavior contributed to the growth of anti-India feelings in Nepal and at
one point contemplated to call back Sood and send someone else to Kathmandu
to restore India's image. The decision to call Sood back and appoint Jayanta
Prasad as new ambassador of Nepal was made in December last year, six months
ahead of his term was to expire. But a section in India's Foreign Ministry
lobbied for Sood's continuity until his term expired. This lobby argued that
recalling Sood would give a negative message. Moreover, Jayanta Prasad was
also not very much interested to take up the assignment in Nepal because of
the complicated nature of bilateral relations and Nepal's critical
situation. Jayanta Prasad is a kind of person, who is soft-spoken and
believes in quiet and persuasive diplomacy rather than coercive one. He is a
career diplomat who often shuns controversy and coercion. This was partly
responsible for the delay in his appointment as ambassador to Nepal and
lengthened Sood's term.
There is marked differences in the approaches and style between Sood and
Prasad. Sood possessed more hawkish and bossy attitude and style who often
tried to dictate. Sood's tenure as ambassador in Nepal created much uproar
and controversy. As a result, anti-Indian sentiment and feelings grew more
than ever. Sood, because of mishandling of affairs, failed in his job. Many
Nepali felt that India's intervention was more naked and blatant during
Sood's period. In other words, Sood was a diplomatic disaster for India in
the history of Nepal-India relations.
Although there is no fundamental shift in India's Nepal policy, different
impression has been created about India in Nepal since Jayanta Prasad
arrived at Kathmandu. This is mainly because of his approaches and working
style. His arrival coincides with the formation of a new coalition
government headed by Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai. When he arrived,
the process of government formation in Nepal was underway. There had been
different speculations in Nepali political circle. The speculations were
based on the activities of his predecessor Rakesh Sood, who directly
interfered in Nepali political affairs. He used money and muscle power and
even threatened some of the lawmakers. But Jayanta Prasad maintained a low
profile and kept himself away from this type of activities. India has its
permanent policy on Nepal which every ambassador is entitled to implement.
As an ambassador, Jayanta Prasad cannot go against his country's policy and
he would definitely work to implement India's policy. But Prasad
implemented it by successfully and shrewdly avoiding any kind of controversy
and criticism. From this point of view, Jayanta Prasad's tenure would be
better than that of Rakesh Sood so far as the bilateral relations between
Nepal and India are concerned.
It is true that India has multiple interests in Nepal ranging from security,
economic and political interest. Of them security and economic interests are
of more vital importance. But Nepal also has its own concern and complaints
when it comes to the relationship with India. Nepali population is very
sensitive and susceptible to India because of New Delhi's highhandedness and
hawkish policy. Being close neighbors, both the countries must understand
the sensitivity of one another. This has to be on reciprocal basis. Nepal
knows India's sensitivity and concerns but it wants similar approach from
New Delhi. India must understand that Nepal is a sovereign country which is
free to take any decision taking its national interest into account. When
Nepal takes any decision to protect its national interest, New Delhi should
not interpret it as anti-Indianism. India would thus need to depart from the
old colonial hangover and begin afresh to build Nepal-India relations on the
basis of mutual equality. India should understand that Nepal and Nepalese
people want friends and not masters. As long as India becomes Nepal's
genuine friend, everything will be alright. Problem starts only when India
tries to be a master. Perhaps, the new Indian ambassador knows it well and
acts sincerely to dispel apprehension of Nepali people about India.
Comments
Post a Comment