India-nepal: The Reality Of Perceptions

India-Nepal Relations: The Reality Of Perceptions By R.P. Sharma Minutes after the polls closed in Nepal’s constituent assembly elections on April 10, the Indian government issued a statement hailing the historic democratic exercise. Some quarters in Nepal instantly began reading between the lines. To them, the promptness carried a sinister ring. This spark of suspicion may not have been potent enough to draw the attention of ordinary Indians. That certainly wasn’t the case eight years ago, when Bollywood heartthrob Hrithik Roshan was accused by some Nepalis of making derogatory comments about their country. Despite the actor’s repeated public denials, Kathmandu erupted in an orgy of violence. Half a dozen Nepalis lost their lives in rioting, as property worth tens of millions of rupees went up in flames. Here’s the real story: There is no Nepali, at least not to the knowledge of this writer, who has to this day come forth identifying the television interview in which Hrithik was alleged to have made those comments. Yet the rumour pushed bilateral relations to a new low. Even in the best of times, India’s relations with its northern Himalayan neighbor have been hard to define. Paradox of proximity may be an apt description, but it is little beyond that. Ordinarily the term “special relations” would connote profound affinity between people, societies and nations. For many Nepalis, it provokes deep-seated animosities. Demagoguery on the part of some Indians has only deepened those suspicions. Few in India really think Nepal ever belonged in the new union created in 1947. But there are some who still publicly assert that independent India’s first leaders made a monumental error by not incorporating Nepal as a state. For a nation that prides itself on being South Asia’s oldest nation, even one such voice is far too many. Distrust has bred alienation, which has bred even greater distrust. In “The Raj Lives,” Nepali journalist Sanjay Upadhya not only laments the cycle but also suggests ways of breaking it. Upadhya surveys the twists and turns of this relationship starting from British India, whose rise virtually coincided with that of the modern Nepali state. As someone who was once a student in India and who has widely interacted with Indians during his career, Upadhya claims to have been inspired by the imperative to bring our two peoples closer. If you read beyond the antagonistic title, you start to sense a good beginning. As you go deeper into the 350-page volume, you recognize how much it is a refreshing departure from what emanates from the “nationalist” section of Nepali scholarship. While Upadhya repeats a familiar litany of Nepali grievances against India, he concedes that many are more perceived than real. More importantly, he also faults his own country for some of the entrenched tensions.

The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship – which Upadhya suggests is the charter perpetuating the current manifestation of the Raj – remains a bone of contention on both sides of the border. Nepal wants to revise certain provisions, particularly those relating to security. India sees the treaty, signed in perpetuity, in its totality. Any pick-and-choose approach is inherently wrong. It is Upadhya who surprises us by saying that. To many Indians, conspiracy theories seem to mesh with ground realities at every turn to sour Nepali sentiments. This makes it hard for them to understand the collective Nepali mindset. The difficult cannot be allowed to discourage us from trying, especially since the two countries are inextricably bound at multiple levels. Yet we can ignore them at our own peril. Forces and trends inimical to Indian interests can find fertile ground in this bitterness. The last chapter “Reflections On Post Raj Realism” is powerful plea for joint action. Upadhya sets out to define a list of dos and don’ts for both nations in such vital areas as security, water resources, border management, and trade and transit. Archival photographs, maps and other relevant illustrations would have not only brightened the text but also amplified the author’s arguments. At places, paragraphs could have been tightened in the interest of clarity. All said, serious students of these unique relations as well as ordinary readers in both countries should find the volume useful. The Indian political, bureaucratic and security establishment, in particular, would do well to heed the author’s point that perceptions are as important as reality when it comes to crafting a new policy on a new Nepal.

The Raj Lives: India In Nepal Sanjay Upadhya New Delhi: Vitasta, 2008 350 pages; Rs.645