Prime Minister K P Oli must have heaved a sigh of relief after receiving a green signal to visit India towards the end of this Nepali month. The Foreign Secretary of India, Vikram Mishri, has handed over the invitation from Prime Minister Modi to his Nepali counterpart during his two-day visit that began last Sunday. Questions were continuously raised in the political arena regarding why the deviation was made by the southern neighbour from the age-old practice of inviting the newly-appointed prime minister first to visit India compelling him to make a visit to China instead.

That India had not quite put the bilateral relation in the front burner in recent times is clear from quite a few Indian diplomatic moves. Firstly, it did not accept the report prepared by the Eminent Group, which was set up by both India and Nepal. Secondly, it constructed a road leading to Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage unilaterally in the disputed territory. The situation further aggravated after it agreed with China to further this purpose. At least China assured Nepal that it would revisit this agreement if Nepal came forward with reliable proof thereby winning the hearts of a considerable number of Indian supporters in Nepal. Thirdly, it did not promptly extend an invitation to the newly-appointed Nepali prime minister ignoring the practice from the past.

Political observers are puzzled by this sudden change in the Indian stance of belatedly inviting the Nepali premier. There are many who believe that India is likely to be hopelessly isolated with China mooting another SAARC kind of association without India. Afghanistan, all-weather friend Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bangladesh appear to be willingly to enter the Chinese political fold. If Nepal also follows suit, which is not likely given the Indo-Nepal relation dating back to times immemorial, it would be miserably left with a solitary Bhutan. India must have realised how Nepal persisted with India in difficult times by singing the political chorus with it in its fight against terror when other countries, with the exception of Bhutan, either openly helped the Indian adversary or kept mum.

Heads of State were invited first to Delhi and then taken to other cities in the past.

The recent example was of the French president who came to Delhi and later visited the pink city of Jaipur, so called because of the buildings painted in pink. It may be remembered that this city was established by Maharaj Sabai Jai Singh in the year 1727 when Jagajjaya Malla was ruling Kantipur. It was designed following the Vedic city form, the Prastara. In Nepal also, Rajbiraj was planned following this Vedic form by engineer Dilli Jung Thapa after the then roaring town of Hanuman Nagar was washed away by the Koshi floods. But it least looks like a planned one as the plan was not implemented in totality. Only the core of the city and the departing roads provide a faint impression of Prastara city form. It will be impossible to host foreign guests in this city even in the distant future.

Despite this, question arises as to why Prime Minister Oli has been invited to Bodh Gaya and not to Delhi. It may appear new to us, but India has already made such a paradigmatic shift by hosting Chinese President Mr. Xi Jinping when he visited India in 2019, not in the capital city Delhi but in Mahaballipuram in the south.

Why was Mahaballipuram chosen despite the fact there were innumerable cities dotted across India? Indo-China relations then had not deteriorated as it did after the Balwan incident where 20 Indian soldiers were killed in the skirmish in 2020. Relations have further aggravated after China openly supported Pakistan in the war between Pakistan and India following the gruesome killing of 25 Hindus, including a Nepali national, in Pehalgam in April this year.

But relations between India and China were warm when Pallava King Narasimhadevburman was on the throne in the seventh century. Huen Tsang had made a visit to the Pallavan court then. As history repeats itself, the possibility of a thaw in Indo-China relation is thus projected.

When XI visited Nepal in 2019, we could not take him to Hadigaon, the Lichhavi capital, where Huen Tsang had also made a similar visit to Nepal. It was at a time when Narendra Dev, the Licchavi King, was reigning Nepal from the legendary palace, the Kailashkut Bhawan, whose description made by Huen Tsang is simply breathtaking.

Prime Minister Oli's visit from Bodh Gaya has to be seen in this light. Modi's historic perceptions are simply unparalleled. During his first visit as the Prime Minister, he buried the debate of the Buddha's birthplace forever by declaring that the Buddha was born in Nepal in the Nepali parliament. To practice as he preaches, he came to Lumbini in 2022 to pay homage to the Buddha on the occasion of his birthday. He also highlighted the bread and betrothal relation between India and Nepal by visiting Janakpur.

Now he has invited the Nepali Prime Minister to Bodh Gaya where Lumbini-born Siddhartha became the Buddha after attaining enlightenment. This trend is continuing unabated even at the present. Some of the illustrious Nepali leaders like B P Koirala and Mana Mohan Adhikari studied in Varanasi. Even now, many Nepali students go to India for higher education.

Modi seems to deliver two very important messages during this visit. Firstly, he likes to highlight the role of places like Lumbini, Bodh Gaya, Sarnath, and Kushinagar –landmark sites for Buddhism – that is looked upon as a panacea for peace in this troubled world. Secondly, more connectivity between these holy sites should promote Buddhist religious tourism to the enormous benefit of both the countries.