Nepalese Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli’s state visit to India, which started on Friday last week and lasted for three days, took place at a time when the relationship between India and Nepal is at an all-time low.
Proof of this is that, setting aside established protocol, Indian Minister of Home Affairs Rajnath Singh himself was at the Indira Gandhi International Airport to receive Oli.
Although during his visit, Oli said that “our friendship is historical, renewed and developed and very fruitful, and it is oriented towards future, not looking back, but looking forward,” it was during Oli’s tenure in 2015 that the relationship started experiencing an acute deficit of trust.
Even though the two countries have shared historical, cultural, economic, and bread and blood ties with each other, this has not been enough to narrow the widening gulf between them.
More to the point, the first major issue that dented the relationship between India and Nepal was when, despite India’s active efforts to help Nepal in the aftermath of the April 2015 earthquake, Nepalese recoiled at the presence of Indian media on their soil, charging the Indian government with indulging in a cheap public relations exercise.
When in September 2015, the Madhesi people blocked all the entry points to India, protesting against the new constitution adopted by the Second Nepalese Constituent Assembly, Oli accused India of carrying out an “unofficial blockade” in Nepal.
He became so critical of New Delhi that he started fostering engagement with China during and after the political crisis.
The shift in Nepal’s policy became clear when, just after his February 2016 visit to India, Oli went to China in March and agreed, among other things, to work with the Chinese government on major projects under the Belt and Road Initiative.
Beijing last year also announced an investment of US$8.3 billion in Nepal and in the same year, then-Chinese minister of national defense and state councilor General Chang Wanquan (常萬全) visited Kathmandu, offering a grant of US$32.3 million to the Nepalese Army to improve its ability to deal with natural calamities.
The Nepalese Left Alliance’s anti-India stance during their election campaign was much evident. In an oblique reference to the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, former Nepalese prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, and Oli said that the “unequal treaties” would be abrogated if the Left Alliance came to power.
Therefore, the massive electoral victory of the Left Alliance of Oli’s Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Prachanda-led Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center) in the 275-seat parliament and in many states, following the first parliamentary and provincial elections held under the 2015 Constitution, raised India’s concerns about Oli’s continued hostile approach toward India.
It was in this context that Indian Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj made a surprise visit to Nepal with the aim of conveying to the new political leadership of Nepal the Modi government’s desire to strengthen the bilateral ties.
However, the hosting of Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi by the Oli government in March took India by surprise. Subsequently, Oli also decided to revive the Budhi Gandaki Hydropower Project with China, which was canceled by the Nepali Congress government.
This in turn further angered India and an Indian government official was reported as saying that Nepal cannot expect India to buy from a Chinese-built project. He went on to say that Nepal was assisted by China in building the dams and then let China buy back the power produced there.
As India is increasingly fearful of losing Nepal to China under the Oli government, the Modi government wanted to use Oli’s visit to stop the two countries from drifting apart.
Modi announced the construction of an electrified rail line with India’s financial support to connect the border city of Raxaul in India with Kathmandu in Nepal. The two prime ministers took the decision to develop inland waterways for the movement of cargo, within the framework of trade and transit arrangements, providing additional access to the sea for Nepal.
While this new initiative would enable cost-effective and efficient movement of cargo between the two countries, these measures are seen as an attempt to limit China’s involvement in the infrastructure-building activities of Nepal.
However, aside from these developments, no agreement was signed between the two countries. What is more important is that Oli said in his speech that the ties between India and Nepal could reach new heights commensurate with the realities of the 21st century, implying that Oli would continue to foster closer engagement with China.
Beijing has also increased its engagement with other South Asian neighbors of India.
Expanding its foothold in South Asia, China has said it would provide Bangladesh with a US$9 billion loan at a low interest rate to build six rail projects.
Defense and military cooperation between Dhaka and Beijing has increased, with naval engagement being given special attention.
China has also become Sri Lanka’s largest trading partner and infrastructure construction partner, as well as the nation’s largest source of investment, donations and assistance.
While Pakistan has always been a close ally of China, the Maldives has endorsed China’s Maritime Silk Road, which is part of the Belt and Road Initiative. The two countries also signed a free-trade agreement in December last year.
It is also believed that a new law passed by the Maldives, allowing absolute foreign ownership of land on the condition that interested parties make a minimum investment of US$1 billion and at least 70 percent of the area is reclaimed from the sea, will greatly benefit China in expanding its foothold in the Indian Ocean.
It was these and other developments that forced India not to use military power to restore democracy in the Maldives [after former Maldivian president Mohamed Nasheed was in 2012 forced to step down.] Moreover, India’s status as the regional power in South Asia has been significantly dented due to China’s increasing influence in the region.
It is therefore urgent that India promote trust and confidence in its relationships with other South Asian countries, so that China’s hegemonic ambitions can be effectively checked.
Sumit Kumar is a Ministry of Foreign Affairs visiting fellow at National Chengchi University and a research fellow at the Chennai Center for China Studies.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past