Indian Defence Review

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Nepal Prime Minister KP Oli

The Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi recently visited Brussels, Saudi Arabia and America in a record 97 hours which implied he slept a lot while travelling in transit, clearly showing his workaholic streak and met with a lot of success. Somehow closer home with Pakistan and Nepal the same success eludes the government. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Nepal Shree K P Sharma Oli just concluded a successful week long visit to China from 20 March 2016 to 27 March 2016.

The Prime Minister of Nepal also visited India about a month ago and the visit did not produce a joint communiqué signifying it was not a successful visit. This visit to China of the Nepalese PM, thus assumes significance as the atmosphere is not the same between India and Nepal thus its impact needs to be assessed. The current climate between Nepal and India has become hostage to the unofficial blockade syndrome of Nepal.

During his visit to China, the two countries signed 10 Memorandums of Understanding (MoU), including the transit and transportation treaty, and exchanged letters on various areas of cooperation. China also agreed to build a strategic railway link between the two countries through Tibet to reduce land-locked Nepal’s total dependence on India. A close look at reading the fine print between China and Nepal clearly shows that most of the issues agreed upon are subject to feasibility, implying Nepal is now fully playing the China card on India.

The people of Nepal are quite satisfied with the transit and transportation treaty that Nepal and China signed for the first time. It will end they feel Nepal’s total dependency on Indian for sea port facilities, just after the five month long standoff  by the Madhesh region over the promulgation of Nepal’s new constitution. Currently Nepal is dependent on Haldia port of Kolkata. With this agreement Nepal can use Tianjin port that is 3,000 km from Nepal border. The other agreements were generally on soft loans, construction of Pokhara airport, Free Trade Agreement to boost the bilateral trade and installation of solar panels for 32,000 households.

Macro Issues    

Which way are India-Nepal ties heading is the moot question? There are a large number of issues here. India and Nepal have age old ties and dependence on India for a port has been a fact of reality. Nepal may have felt a need but never felt strongly enough to open the dialogue with China for port facilities. This geo strategically allows China to cross the Himalayas and reach the Terai, thus is inimical to India’s long term security interest. India and Nepal also have deep cultural and religious ties which have withstood the test of posterity, and will continue to do so. Politically, currently Nepal has a pro Maoist regime in power, and the Maoist have used the China card, being ideologically closer to China. Will another government do the same and will Nepal be able walk its talk on China in the long run? How will a government headed by Nepali Congress react to China?  And what happens if this government is replaced by one led by Nepali Congress? Will Nepali Congress, which has traditionally been close to India, be as keen on China?[i].

Nepal and India are geographically linked, have proximity, and Nepal has constantly been a nation torn between China and India, one stroke of the pen cannot take away these hard realities, thus the special relationship will remain.  Currently 70% of Nepal’s trade is with India it will become difficult to change this dependency overnight. All these facts notwithstanding has India strategically blundered and driven Nepal to China, the results of the same may not happen overnight but a small opening for China is enough to exploit the situation?  

India’s Magnanimous Offer

There is a lot of talk and speculation that India was aware of the trade and transit treaty, Nepal was likely to sign with China. India was also aware that Kathmandu was apprehensive of moving all its supplies from one port. New Delhi thus decided to offer Visakhapatnam as an additional port, and also allowed Nepal transit via Bangladesh. The fall out of the blockade was thus obvious. Bitten by the blockade Katmandu was not seeing transit and development of infrastructure costs, but keen on playing the China card. The transit treaty thus with China was a fore gone conclusion, a price New Delhi has to pay, although how effective will it be is a matter of detail and a host of other issues remain before this route can be effectively used.

China and Nepal

The Chinese have been very keen to have good diplomatic relations with Nepal since 1960.  The Chinese also off late have started “One belt one road”, diplomacy. This has become a reality in India’s neighborhood.  To get goods from 3000kms in China, which is currently not economically viable will require a lot of infrastructure and this will require stretching this infrastructure to India’s border, have the Himalayas an impregnable  fortress been breached by poor diplomacy?

The Chinese have also offered to review and upgrade the 1960 peace and friendship between Nepal and China. Where does this leave India?  India and Nepal have a special relationship, but the Nepalese elite state that the 1950 peace and friendship between the two nations is unequal and not signed by a democratically elected leadership, although it was signed at Nepal’s behest. Nepal now wants to change that. Suddenly in India’s backyard its place of eminence is not only being challenged economically alone, but also through long term policy and treaties.

Nepal a bridge between China and India

The Chinese president Xi Jinping has indicated that Nepal can be a bridge between China and India[ii] . Xi also suggested as giving observer status to Nepal at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). India and Pakistan have observer status and are likely to get full membership. This now will become a platform for China to speed up trade with China. C Raja Mohan writing for Indian Express “Bridge to China”[iii] also states that “Delhi has bigger interests than some in Kathmandu in turning Nepal into India’s bridge with China”. The point at issue which nation has exercised initiative as the proposal was mooted by Nepal and China.

For India to now say it sees Kathmandu as a bridge is a case of making the worst from a best situation. If this was in national interest why was this proposal not acted upon earlier by all? These arguments do not take into consideration that no nation rises peacefully. There is no peaceful rise of China; it is just a façade for expansion. A strong China has been as assertive China. The Han Chinese has demographically ruined Tibet. Traditionally the Chinese have been north of the Himalayas there is no need to give them access south of the Himalayas.  Why should India connect to China via Nepal, it does not make strategic sense.

No Immediate Cause for Concern

The transit agreement currently will not be productive as it is not cost effective. The distance from Tainjin port in China to Nepal is around 3000kms. There is also no talk of any petroleum products in any of the current agreements.  Heavy goods have to be transported either by trucks or containers. The best method for cheap connectivity will be by rail. The rail connectivity is not going to fructify before 2020, thus immediately nothing is on the horizon. This route is going to be about three times more expensive.  In the long term Nepal and China will be connected by rail, which opens a Pandora box for moving heavy military equipment and rapidly building up forces which will be a cause of concern. The trading point of Tatopani between Nepal and China has been shut since the earth quake and there cannot be any immediate confirmation on its opening shortly.

Reactions from Nepalese and India media

As far as the Indian media is concerned Nepal is a case of gone off the radar, however, the China card did draw attention. There can be denying the fact that there will always be two views, but the fact of the matter is it did draw attention to China. Indians see it as a China card and are correct in their assessment. As far as the Nepalese media is concerned most did state the visit to China was hugely successful, and all feel that Nepal does need a second sea port but immediately turn their attention to India.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli claimed that unhindered access to sea through Chinese land as part of the transit transportation agreement for landlocked Nepal was one of the important achievements of his China visit. He claimed that the government had a policy of not comparing its relationship between two neighbors. [iv] This is a clear case of duplicity as far as India is concerned. Mani Shankar Aiyar writing in NDTV .com[v] is highly critical of handling the entire situation, but the fact of the matter is at the end of 66 years Nepal has signed a transit treaty with China.  The Indian nation does need to do introspection as to what drove Nepal to do that?

Conclusion

India and Nepal both must look at national interests with the scales being tipped on India’s favor for security reasons. A strong China has historically been an assertive China. The solution for the Indian state thus lies in protecting its national interests and also ensuring that its citizens are protected. Nepal will have to build its own foreign policy institutions for stability. Geography dictates to Nepal with its rivers flowing into India that Nepal maintains its traditional ties with India. Energy security for the South East Asian region is dependent via India; to try and tame the Himalayas may not be cost effective. The Chinese have upset the apple cart where ever they have gone whereas; India has maintained the status quo. Signing a treaty may show its right for independent which Nepal feels is short changed but implementing the same will bring more intangibles and more challenges, something that Nepal will find difficult to resist, the example of Tibet is for all to see.