The success of Nepal, India and China should be measured beyond achievements. The intricacies of bilateralism, trilateralism, regionalism, plurilateralism and multilateralism all converge on sustainable development, humble progress and durable economic growth.
Asia is a vast continental geo-space that connects every hemisphere and continent, even those separated by the Himalayas or the seas. It is home to nearly half of humanity, making Asia an abode of manifold human races, cultures, customs, and religions. Its social mores secure the survival of communities in tough times and difficult circumstances. Asia is a constellation of peoples fostering pluralism and diversity. The climatic, topographical, and geographical features of the Indic sub-continent are distinct. Nearly 3000 ethnic, cultural, and religious groups inhabit the region. After Indonesia, India is among the most diverse countries in Asia. South Asia, a sub-region of Asia, is a world of its own, belonging to the Indic world.
In the case of Nepal, 126 ethnic groups reside in this mountain world. Its centripetal relationship with India places New Delhi at the hub of regional dynamics. An Indologist like F. Max Müller bluntly remarked that neither size determines India’s greatness nor territory makes her a nation. The ideas of India and Nepal converge in their shared commitment to democracy and democratic peace in this New Millennium. Pangs of equi-distance, equi-proximity and special relations are perceived or received with hyped rhetoric or hyphenated bilateral narratives. Actually, the sum and substance of bilateral relations is mutual understanding, peace, and prosperity, aimed at nipping human underdevelopment in the bud within our neighborhood.
Also Read: India-EU Ties Signal a Shift in the Global Power Order
Nepal’s source of prosperity and strength is its enriching diversity and pluralism. From towering peaks and pinnacles of the Himalayas in the North to the scorching archipelago of the Maldives in the South, from Karachi to Chittagong and further from Kabool to Rangoon, people of this sub-continent have ‘many faces’ and many stories to tell the world. Hence, the Indic world is a home to polylingual, polyracial, and polyreligious peoples. Thus, its social and cultural mosaic absorbs and enchants people from beyond the region.
Nepal-India affairs date back to time immemorial. They are strengthened by immortal ties of history, culture, tradition, religion, and fine arts. The porous border shared by both countries is a rarity in the world, comparable only to the Canada–United States border and the Schengen arrangements among European Union states. The open border has pros and cons. Illicit migration and the “3 Ts” – trespassing, trafficking, and non-traditional security threats like terrorism, inimical elements create irritants in bilateral relations. Otherwise, it enhances the movement and flow of people across the borders without fear. Our relations attempt to amicably harness natural and human resources. There is an intensive and extensive public diplomacy in different manifestations.
Also Read: India, Energy Security and the Politics of Western Sanctions
India is a quintessence of multicultural enrichment and a plural society. Even though there is a provincial division of power in quasi-federal India, each state is distinct but operates within a shared constitutional framework. Two important religions – Hinduism and Buddhism originated in the Indic World and spread across the sub-continent; their syncretic traditions are visible in Nepal too. Later on, Christianity and Islam made inroads in India. Where they colonized, the imperialists fostered divisiveness in diversity for their self-aggrandizement and the rapacity of the cultural wealth of nations. The freedom movement sparked the uprooting of colonial powers for home rule or the right to self-determination across the Global South. Shapers of the Indian Constitution were astute enough to declare India a socialist, secular, democratic republic. A similar political framework was established in the Federal Republic of Nepal in the 21st Century.
Delving into foreign policy and diplomacy, a country preoccupied with domestic affairs often calibrates its international engagement beginning with the immediate neighbourhood. Domestic imperatives define the ethos of the state in the international arena. Therefore, domestic affairs witness the blurring of the boundary between national and international interests, concerns, and needs. Moreover, such trends, transformations, and transitions are enduring features in international relations. The democratic journey and democratic peace are grappling with trials and tribulations in the Indic World.
During his first tenure from 2014-2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi renewed India’s posture in the “neighborhood first” policy. After 17 years, an Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Nepal in 2014 generated euphoria, marked by persuasive oratory and commitments to deepen bilateral ties. Many perceived India’s outreach as an effort to soften past bitterness. Yet much remains to be done by Nepal, even when India approaches engagements with preparation and professionalism, as major powers like the United States do in global affairs. An occasional fillip to bilateral relations has brought tangible benefits to Nepal, though these are sometimes overshadowed by limited political will. One reason may be that, after embracing republicanism, Nepal has been navigating restructuring and transition, consolidating sovereignty in the hands of its people.
Also Read: Middle East Turmoil and Its Impact on India’s Strategic Interests
Culture is a soft power that leaves a lasting impression on foreigners. Nepal is a classical state where tradition and cultural moorings reflect an indestructible spirit of non-violence, happiness, peace, and contentment. A country’s stature in the hierarchy of nations is measured not only by material strength but also by moral authority. The depth of its conviction is innate in the ideals of its citizens, and the breadth of its magnanimity in the hearts of the world. A widened mental horizon enables nations to accommodate differences and overcome bitterness that proximity sometimes breeds.
In this spirit, Nepal welcomed Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2014 after a 17-year hiatus in prime ministerial visits from India. His visit focused on economic cooperation, religious sites conservation, and spiritual tourism. Many promises were made during the bilateral understanding. Some of them have been fulfilled, as reflected in tangible project accomplishments. However, the substantive momentum of Nepal-India bilateral relations takes time to commence and mature. The religious circuit of Hinduism and Buddhism would propel Nepal’s sustainable prosperity and wealth multiplier to new heights. Some even metaphorically comment that Nepal is Asia in itself. It exhibits a microcosm of the universe when one immerses in Nepal Mandala. And Dharma, meaning righteous conduct or ethics, knows neither boundaries nor frontiers nor barriers.
There are many bilateral and regional commitments (SAARC) at the South Asian level, but their continuity has been overshadowed by fluid domestic politics and long-running regional conflicts. There are limitations to seeing the full throttle of neighborly relations. There is curiosity shown by Orientalists about how diversity will remain intact in the age of globalization. The role of social scientists, particularly anthropologists and sociologists, in the last decade has been profound in order to tackle the repercussions of globalization, even at the grassroots.
Guy Sorman, in his books, says that there are “two contradictory tendencies in today’s world – individualization of human beings and withdrawing into communities.” Individualism is the highest stage of liberalism, and state personification is the extreme politics when the real executive power is vested in a personified state, especially in the Republic. Taking a cue from President Trump, who has withdrawn from global responsibility, nativism has become the rule rather than the exception. Patriotism is good for the health and quality of the nation-state against a revival of tribalism, which has centrifugal tendencies. Federalism is a poignant reminder in India, impinging on the foreign policy realm, and now in Nepal, it signals how uneasy bilateral relations might be managed across neighboring provinces.
Globalization accelerates interconnectedness whilst communitarianism forms its own solidarity. If the community seeks to become a nation-state, then endless balkanization surfaces. In essence, by depriving India or Nepal of cultural diversity in the world, can globalization guarantee that it would be compensated by peace, economic progress, and prosperity? As Orientalists encroach, we will inevitably witness culture-shocks and culture wars. The rest of the world is not the West, but many aspire to modernize in their own distinct ways.
Also Read: Venezuela Exposes the Crisis of Global Humanitarian Governance
On the other hand, Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, holds rather an ominous view that “the great divisions among mankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural…the fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” In an open and globalizing world, no country can remain immune from risks, challenges and threats – whether conventional or contemporary. Terrorism has affected the world, including India and Nepal, and the so-called fundamentalism or fanaticism is anti-Western and against the secular democratic credentials of the state because it heralds a theocratic society into the modern state, often as an imitation or grafting of the Western notion of the nation-state. Cultural linkages would remain constant, but their nexus faces a dilemma, whether to transform with global processes or remain conservative and status quo.
Tolerance and intercultural exchanges become meaningless if they are not routine; they must reflect the genuine respect for the values, rights, beliefs, creed and faiths of India and Nepal. Thus, the strengths and weaknesses of diversity are mutually exclusive. In Nepal’s case, culture is a connecting point to share our lineages and future state of relations in a multifaceted manner. Engaging the public sphere to rationally debate and conclude that bilateral relations are not dependent but interdependent—that one needs the other and vice versa—is essential. Secularism, social welfarism, and democracy form the crux of bridges that interface with our local knowledge systems.
India and Nepal can draw lessons from each other to contain the colours of violence and maintain spirituelle ordinaire. Otherwise, rapacious capitalism undermines the basis of the polyarchy that is emerging in Nepal. Democracy flourishes if its social roots are nourished well. Both diverse countries, India and Nepal have to adjust and accommodate inclusionary policies. A culture of democracy moves not in incongruity but in harmony with the pace of globalization, both tangible and ongoing. If both countries nurture local values and living ideals, then even the tremors of the external world remain innocuous to such quakes or shakes. This also alludes to the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950, which remains binding under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, though concerns persist regarding the implementation of some of its clauses. Often in exigent times and situations, diplomatic communication is shared covertly and overtly in shuttle diplomacy, abiding by the consultations and sharing of responsibilities to defend frontiers from unwanted elements and contain unfavourable diplomatic power play in the region and beyond. A New Treaty based on mutual trust and understanding has been proposed, as the Eminent Group of Persons (EGP), comprising experts from Nepal and India, prepared its report for submission to the Heads of Government to strengthen durable bilateral relations.
We shared common values, reciprocal respect and languages derived from Sanskrit and Indic traditions or Sanskar. It must be noted that peace among nations requires prayer, sacrifice and struggle. Nepal’s ordinary life bears the brunt of the excessive outflow of money abroad, either in goods or services (education and health care). There are apprehensions of continuing our life under hedonism and material gratification. Whole theatrics of politics and international relations are the current vogue if we follow the media (audio, visual, or electronic).
Our culture of peace is a commitment in reality and ensures human security (freedom from want, freedom from fear). These goals can be advanced if both countries prioritize them in their past, present, and future agendas. The leftovers of the unkempt promises of the past have to be executed so that a modicum of trust is built.
One overlooked issue is that bilateral relations have suffered from gender insensitivity, particularly when the media reports incidents of the trafficking of Nepalese girls and cases of rape, harassment, and murder of Nepalese women. The culprits must be booked and meted out maximum punitive measures. These dark episodes hamper trust and create the perception that Nepalese are unsafe in India. It embarrasses and causes angst—something both nations neither tolerate nor accept.
The world is topsy-turvy, and it is depressing to live amid such turbulence; whle navigating diplomacy, foreign policy and security concerns. However, India has lent credence to humanitarian diplomacy, extending not only to its citizens but also to Nepalese nationals abroad. In the recent past, India deserves appreciation for its commendable job when migrant workers of Nepal were on the battlefield in Lebanon in 2006, in Israeli airstrikes and in Yemen in March 2015 were rescued with its initiatives for her bonafide citizens as well as Nepalese citizens. This provided relief to the government of Nepal regarding the safety and security of its citizens in such plights.
The world is a priori, which means it existed before human life, and eons pass in the nick of time. It is daunting and arduous to foster bilateral relations when indoctrination of xenophobia and scars of insurgency have not quickly healed. Nepal’s democracy experienced bruises and scratches with ruinous fabrique sociale. The price of geopolitics, geo-economics and geo-culture of Nepal is invaluable and precious by the global standard.
Nepal, India and China could form triangular relations so that trilateralism becomes a tour de force, while simultaneously maintaining a non-alignment posture. The core or common interests are democratic peace and democratic traction. Understanding China and its transition would be equally interesting in times as democratic torchbearers in Hong Kong and Taiwan are perceived as enjoying greater freedom than in mainland China. Nepal’s relations with either India or China is independent of both giants too. If trios converge on dialogue of cultures, business and peace, then insurmountable challenges of distrust may appear diminutive in the realm of international relations.
The peace paradox prevails in Pax Asiana, and peace economics would relatively ease the burden and prolong our quality of life. Our preference is to maintain international peace and security and keep at bay the scourge of conflict or war on the frontlines. Diplomatic challenges do arise, but leaders with political will are adept at resolving the mountains of problems. The success of Nepal, India and China should be measured beyond achievements. The intricacies of bilateralism, trilateralism, regionalism, plurilateralism and multilateralism all converge on sustainable development, humble progress and durable economic growth. New Delhi is closer to Kathmandu than Beijing, but we know in the networked world, many countries symbolically exist within Nepal, as do the neighbours of India and China, reflected in the concentric circles of diplomatic missions in New Delhi and Beijing. This underscores the salience of diplomatic missions in the capital cities of host states across the world. Scholars muse over the proximity of diplomatic relations, often questioning whether such engagements primarily benefit elites or translate into broader prosperity that reaches ordinary citizens.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author solely. TheRise.co.in neither endorses nor is responsible for them. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
About the author
