Dr. Rajan Bhattarai
Foreign Affairs Advisor to PM KP Sharma Oli
Indian
Minister for External Affairs Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar recently visited
Nepal to participate in the Nepal-India Joint Commission meeting. When he
visited Nepal earlier, the country was ready to announce the constitution on
which India had reservations but this time, we have a government formed on the
strength of the same constitution. Given Jaishankar's role for and against, can
you tell us how an individual can influence the bilateral relations?
Since
Nepal and India hare close neighbours there are ups and down in our
relationship. Sometimes the relations has reached newer heights while there
were situations when it reached to the lowest ebb.
Nepal-India
Joint Commission meeting is the highest bilateral mechanisms of the two
countries. Formed in 1897, the commission could assemble only three times so
far in1988, 2014 and 2016. The last meeting was revived during the premiership
of PM Oli himself and the then Minister for Foreign Affairs Mahendra Bahadur
Pandey had taken initiatives for it.
Given
the nature of historical, cultural and political relations between the two
countries, the bilateral relations should be handled at the political level. It
is not sufficient to practice it by just from one or two government
institutions. Meeting of the commissions should be organised on a regular basis
in order to review, discuss and revise the multidimensional partnership between
the two. Its inactivity has resulted in activation of other unnecessary forces
which had a sort of negative impact on the bilateral relations.
The
meeting has initiated positive discussions on various pertinent issues from
economic, trade, security, border, inundation, aviation and transit to
political level. Some of the issues have been resolved during the meeting while
the two countries agreed to address other issues at the earliest.
As
far as the role of Jaishankar in defining the bilateral relationship is
considered, I would say an individual's role is defined by his position in his
country. Jaishankar has just acted as per his professional responsibilities and
country's policy. We need to understand that. Every diplomat or envoy performs
as per the country's policy on their national interests. Earlier, he had come
as per the envoy of the government while now he has come in the capacity of the
foreign affairs minister to participate in the bilateral mechanism.
Nepal-India
are enjoying better political relations. Shall we hope that the two countries
are ready to hold open discussion at high-level on various bilateral issues? There
were also the cases in the past that the Indian bureaucracy obstructed the
smooth processes even though it was agreed at the political level in case of
trade and transit treaty.
We
believe that the bilateral relations with any country should be handled at the
political level. During the conflict period, India might have different
perspective on Nepal due to its own security concerns. But we have activated
multiple mechanisms and channels for dialogue and talks are intensified.
Telephone conversations are happening when there is no possibility of physical
meeting. Ministry-wise interactions and dialogues are also moving ahead as per
requirement. We have given priority to the political conversations between the
two neighbours. We are enjoying the environment of confidence.
When
we have confidence on each other on a political level, it will guide all other
activities and dialogues in a broader perspective. Both the countries have
political stability, bold and powerful government which are set to develop the
relations as per the public interest, changing contexts and globalisation. The
commission meeting and Jaishankar's views on bilateral relations and
cooperation has solidified the bonds more. When there is political stability,
there is policy stability as well. We re also set to resolve the issues that
were long pending.
It
has also been heard that there was one-to-one dialogue between Prime Minister
KP Sharma Oli and Jaishankar. But the contents of the meeting were not made
public? Was there something serious?
There
is a culture of expressing reactions based on our own convictions rather than
understanding of the external environment. The one-on-one meeting is in
practice for many centuries in the past. It was practiced by the developed
countries before the World War II. Likewise, Nepal and India had practiced this
model in the past as well. I wonder why people are making negative comments about
it. It’s not the case that this thing is happened now or for the first time in
the history of the two countries. There were one-on-one meetings between PM Oli
and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi during Oli's visit to India and Modi's
visit to Nepal in the recent past. Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping had
one-on-one meeting as well. In addition to it, telephone conversations between
the leaders of different countries has become a modern culture. Such meeting
only discussed the issues and when it comes to implementation, other agencies
and leaders are involved automatically.
In
the past, we had culture of high-profile political leaders visiting the mission
of foreign country in Kathmandu. It’s not the problem of the government but the
respective leaders themselves. Jaishankar had special message from Indian PM
which he conveyed to PM Oli. The message was to activate important bilateral
mechanisms and enhance further economic cooperation. PM Oli wants to complete
India-assisted projects in Nepal in time. He conveyed the same to Jaishankar
during the one-on-one meeting.
There
has been delay in India accepting the EPG report. Why?
The
issue has been raised at various bilateral meetings. For the first time, the
two countries have reviewed all the past agreements. EPG was an open platform
to discuss the plethora of issues between the countries. It’s been a year since
the EPG has prepared the report and there was a delay in accepting the report
in the part of Indian government. The EPG had a very positive development by
preparing a single combined report. It has included all the aspects of
bilateral relations, past treaties and conventions. There were dialogues
between Nepal and India at various levels and the latter had not said that it
wouldn't accept it. Jaishankar has also expressed positive views regarding it.
It’s
also been said that India did not accepted Nepal's constitution but working
with the government formed as per the constitution.
The
issue of accepting the constitution is not an issue anymore. We have made our
constitution and we own it so every other friendly country should accept it.
The same has been happened. It is useless to backtrack from the achievements
made so far.
People
also want to know your views on the annulment of the Article 370 of Indian
constitution and making Kashmir a special territory by India.
I
am not aware of any dialogues between the PM and Jaishankar on the issue. I
think due to our geopolitical situation, we should maintain neutrality in some
of the issues. Our policy is not to allow any force to use our land against our
neighbours and friendly countries. We are adhering to this policy four our own
national interest. Our fundamental policy in foreign affairs is stable in this
regard.
Some
of the major agenda were not included in the meeting of the Joint Commission
although dozens of agenda were prepared for the meeting. Important issues like
compensation for the people affected by the Koshi flood were ignored.
This
is not a recent problem. Its there for the last 60 years. You should know that
for the first time India-Nepal joint committee has observed the inundation area
in the plains of both the countries and submitted its report. It has clearly
said that the India make structures near the border have caused inundation in
Nepal. The meeting had decided to implement the recommendations of the special
committee. Similarly, air route issue is being handled by the civil aviation
ministries of both the countries. The meeting makes agreement in principle and
the line ministries work to execute it. Nepal and India have agreed to review
trade and transit treaty. Its not a trade imbalance but an alarming situation.
There
were some gap in understanding the nature of the mechanism and issues discussed.
It is blamed
that Nepal was not able to update itself and present its part on joint meeting
of EPG, is it so?
It
is just a blame. Some people have expressed their views without reading the
report. Let the report get published first and it will be clear that several
things of national interest have been revised in that. How can anybody blame of
the success or failure before going through the report?
Was
the one-on-one dialogue necessary now?
Governments
were not stable in past which was why priorities differed from one government
to another and such dialogues seemed to be useless. But now, stable and strong
governments are there which means issues of such dialogue would be utilized in
national interest.
Let’s
be realistic. India is ready to revise the trade and transit treaty. It’s a
great achievement for us. The damages in Nepali sides due to the
infrastructures made in Indian sides are accepted for the first time in its
last meeting. This is positive.
Are you satisfied with government's performance?
Yes, I am satisfied with the performance
because historic achievement has been made in the last one-and-a-half-years' time
of the present government. Integration of employees is settled, and more than
300 laws were drafted or are in the process of formulation. Economy has shown
signs of improvement and investment has begun to come in. There were some
genuine efforts to institutionalise the new constitution. Enough policies have
been drafted to effectively implement the new political structure and lead the
country to the path of inclusive democracy. In addition to it, resource and tax
management is settled smoothly.
The government was forced to backtrack from
its position in some of the bills. Do you consider it a failure?
Proposing a legal provision and obtaining
agreement of opposition parties and people on that is a democratic process. A
proposal can fail. It’s the beauty of democracy, and it’s a natural process.
Parties may not agree every-time on the issues. But parties in the Parliament
have agreed on media council and human rights bills.
What does PM’s address stating that the
democracy was in danger reflect for?
In the past, several attempts were made to
damage the achievements the country made in several aspects. Internal and
external factors are activated when there is a weak leadership. Perhaps, PM’s
address reflects the worry for that, since he always advocated a stronger
leadership to fulfil the public aspirations.
Several foreign diplomatic missions are
shifting their offices elsewhere from Nepal which is troubling people for getting
needful services. Is the government making any efforts to bring the services of
the missions to Nepal?
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is working on
that. None of the missions shifted elsewhere in my note. If it has happed there
may be issues which will be settled soon. Some of the missions have shifted
their visa services to New Delhi due to economic reasons. France and Australia
have recently shifted their visa services to New Delhi to reduce their cost.
The MoFA is also reviewing the need and positioning of Nepali missions abroad.
Some of the bilateral projects are lingering for
decades. Has there been any commitment by India in terms of implementing them
in the immediate future?
Deadline has been fixed for such projects.
Projects which are lingering since long will be revised and concrete decisions
will be taken for that. Only those projects which could be completed on time
would be carried out for further processes. Diplomacy with accountability is
the demand of time.
Published in The Rising Nepal daily on 26 August 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment