Expanded dimensions of geopolitical relations

Easy access to global markets is possible from India itself. Until we 'solidify' our relations with India, we will always be fluid in our foreign relations. Also, as we have 'currency pegging' with India, partnership is important in economic development. India has already signed an agreement to purchase about 10,000 megawatts of electricity from Nepal in 10 years. There have also been achievements in Nepal's electricity trade with Bangladesh through India's land. Indian tourists can make payments in Nepal through QR codes recently. There have been some signs of improvement in economic relations in the last two years. After Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister of India, apart from the bitter experience like the blockade, India has given good support to the connectivity of Nepal.

There is always a special relationship between Nepal and India, but sometimes there is an experience of bitterness in practice. Nepal has been urbanized only around 5 km from the border area with India's population of around 320 million. It is the Mahendra Lokmarg Serofero which is the lifeline of Nepal. Due to massive urbanization and population accumulation in the Terai region, a new situation has developed in which life depends on commercial, cultural, religious contacts and relations with India's Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. What will the government-people relationship look like in the future with the ruler in Kathmandu using the anti-India card to stay in power and the people tending to settle towards Nepal near the border? Discussion is essential. China does not seem to want to expand the border and for strategic reasons, our access to trade with China is less.

The Nepal-India relationship is so multifaceted and complex that it is not only influenced by state policies. From buying sugar and soap in the Indian market, Indians coming to work in Nepali industries, going on pilgrimages, visiting each other's countries to expand political and diplomatic ties. On the other hand, criminals range from fleeing to each other's countries to operating human trafficking networks. The visa-free policy and open borders of both countries have made this relationship complex, different, emotional, sensitive.

There are three ideologies regarding India in Nepal – the leftist ideology which explains Indian expansionism and American imperialism. The breadwinner theme that forms the cultural and religious foundation of the relationship. And, democratic solidarity which says that all the democrats of the world should be united. Among these, the leftist ideology seems to be more influential because the leftist political parties in Nepal can make a strong impression on the people, which is very less among the democratic camp parties. The leftist comment that some democratic party sold all the industrial wealth of Nepal in 2046 is hanging on the public tongue. However, it has not been possible to comment that this situation has come about due to the privatization atmosphere of the time, the increase in the price of raw materials, and the ideological flow of the open market economy. Leftist commentary has identified India as more expansionist, thus making India already 'defensive'. He tries to promote the left party in Nepal with the communist regime in China. Since India has a democratic system of governance, he supports the democratic parties here. In this way, ideological and political conflicts are also seen between the two neighbors.

relationship problems

Nepal has not managed its multi-faceted relationship with India properly. In this, China and to some extent the American element also got involved in time. India does not seem to prefer any other power in Nepal in the areas of sensitive infrastructure such as hydropower and airports. Despite the construction of Pokhara and Bhairahawa Airports, the fact that India has not yet been able to operate without providing an air route seems to be a security and strategic interest of India. India's main goal seems to be to stop China in trade and business in Nepal and to weaken the West in its religious, cultural and political grip.

With the issue of Hindu religion being raised again in Nepal and the cultural nationalist BJP ruling in India, everyone is interested in how this issue will proceed. The ideological debate of Hindutva in India and Sanatan in Nepal has taken root. Some commentators say that Nepali people are on the 'traditional Hindu' side, while some analysts emphasize that they should move in the direction of cultural nationalism. They are worried that by raising the issue of Hindutva again, the marginalized community will be excluded again.

Nepal-India are part of one civilization and two sovereign nations. Nepal has to work hard to balance the fine line between common culture and universality. Also India's 'Big Brother' attitude from time to time proves it. If rapid development continues in India and Nepal is always stuck in economic poverty, it seems that a great effort should be made to deepen the thin circle between 'one civilization and two sovereign nations' with India.

Our government capacity seems very weak. Who is justified in choosing the ministry like choosing chocolates and complaining that the employees who have worked in the relevant ministry for 20 years are not trained? We think that our minister has shown great bravery if he knows how to speak even normal English and has a formal interaction. Do you need any qualifications to lead the country? It has been a situation of being elected by the people's vote on the basis of sweet speech and not being able to understand its dignity after reaching power. But people expect good results from such characters, this is a sad situation.

Some Nepalis believe that since the Hindu party is in the government in India, it will help to restore Hinduism in Nepal as well. Again, he says that Nepali India's interventionist role has increased. Some time ago RPP Vice President Ravindra Mishra published an article in India's 'The Print' stating that India's help is needed for the restoration of Hindu state and monarchy in Nepal. A leader of a party in Nepal calls upon India to intervene in Nepal's affairs. Is this irony or an innocent plea for help? When I worked as a visiting fellow in a defense think tank in Delhi for three months, the researchers there said that there is now a lot of power play in Nepal, the diaspora is expanding, and the political parties of Nepal are suddenly untrustworthy. Since Nepal's public policy is now being controlled by the social media crowd, they used to say that they had to stay on a 'low profile' after India's blockade of 2072 and said that there was no way to completely disengage in the changing situation.

The speed of development of India and China, the power friction of these two nations is seen in the field of Nepali politics and diplomacy. It seems that these two nations will be the ones to create a power coalition or to lose power. Currently, India and America seem to have the same opinion on world issues, and there is some agreement on the Nepal issue as well. Even China does not agree with India and America on the Nepal issue. In Nepal, a situation of massive confrontation between 'Indo-American lobby and Chinese lobby' is being created. This scenario shows that the situation is developing which forces Nepal to do its share. The tendency to label India, America or China while doing any work in Nepal has also increased.

upcoming path

Looking at the history of Nepal, it is a country that was saved by making agreements with foreign powers. The treaties of 1872, 1980 and 2007 are examples of this. In all these, it seems that the then Nepali ruler made some 'compromise' and the foreign powers 'accepted' something. It seems that in the Sugauli Treaty of 1872, the then East India Company accepted the existence of Nepal and Nepal agreed to give one-third of its land.

In the year 1980, the then Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher signed the Nepal-Britain Treaty and canceled the Sugauli Treaty and established Nepal as an independent state. Clause 5 of the treaty provides that Nepal can import goods duty-free from the then British India port and seems to have started the culture of consuming foreign goods in Nepal. The peace and friendship treaty with independent India in 2007 and the tripartite agreement in Delhi put Nepal under India's security umbrella and the reason for doing so is the greed to preserve the power of the then Rana regime, the goal of Congress and BP Koirala to maintain a sovereign and independent Nepal. As for Britain and America, it seems that the strategy of building a buffer state by protecting Nepal from Mao Zedong's fifth policy (Five Fingers Policy) in China has worked. Prithvi Narayan Shah also said that 'Nepal is a yam between two stones', which in geopolitical terms is a buffer state. The contract continues to exist in a buffer state.

It is unlikely that Nepal can deal with India, China and America at the same table. Our position does not allow us to deal with it in different ways. The only solution is that Nepal should sign a quadrilateral agreement with all three countries. With this agreement, the interests of these three powers will be the same in Nepal affairs and it will be easy for us to protect and develop the existence of our country. History is a witness, not only the treaties made by Nepal in 1872, 1880, 2007 but also the 12-point agreement in Delhi in 2062 was of a similar nature.

-Pant is a geopolitical researcher.