I read Prof. Birendra P Mishra’s article in The Himalayan Times dated January 29, 2007, under the title “Foreign policy: Will equidistance be realistic?”. It was in response to the foreign policy statement of our party made public by me over a month back in a press conference. The author has appreciated some of our positions and raised serious questions about a couple of issues, especially our party’s policy of keeping equidistant from India and China, our immediate neighbours.

Mishra seems to have criticised others for not having an equidistant policy towards India and China and also criticises us for adopting such a policy which, according to him, is not a realistic one. Herein I would like to quote his version which will help the readers understand the author’s opinion: “Some commentators did find fault in the foreign policy for not adhering to the equidistance policy between southern and northern neighbours. Some observers feel that Nepal hardly has a foreign policy. If it has any it is an India-centric policy connoting both anti- and pro-India. During the last six decades, the politics of Nepal has been overshadowed by India. King Tribhuvan went to India in 1950, many communist and Nepali Congress leaders organised and carried out their political activities from India. It was the political climate of India, which suited them. It was easy for them to slip into Indian territory at any time…Nobody went to Tibet or China for getting support there. Even the physical geography does not suit the equidistance policy as most of the rivers flowing from the Himalayas are south-bound. There are no snow-covered peaks and high mountains in the southern parts of the country to make the life of the people hard to live.”

He has exhibited his concern for the affinity between Nepal and India in different aspects, including the political atmosphere of India which was congenial for use as a shelter or for getting political support from various sections of India to bring about a political change in Nepal, as well as the conveniently accessible physical geography for Nepalis. Which I think is true. Besides, we have a 1,600 km-long porous border with India, through which people come and go in thousands every day. In defining the relationship of Nepal with India, it is desirable to take into account all these factors. But in no way are these decisive factors which determine the foreign policy or foreign relations between two sovereign countries. About this question the author seems to be confused. Another point of foreign policy he seems to be confused about is the question of equidistance. What do we really mean when we talk of a policy of equidistance? Firstly, it signifies that we will not be instrumental in getting favour or counterbalance one neighbour against the other. In view of the fact that India and China are no longer at loggerheads, there will be no such move by either India or China to play Nepal against each other. However, the United States is still working under the strategy of counterposing India against China. Thus, the US will definitely try to use Nepal for serving this strategy. In this regard, the significance of our policy of equidistance is self-evident.

Secondly, we should not identify ourselves as pro-Indian or pro-Chinese. We should maintain our independent identity and character. Being an independent and sovereign country, we should adopt our foreign policy to reflect a policy of non-alignment in relation to our neighbouring countries. When we say that we have ‘special relations’ with any of the neighbours, it will definitely create doubt in the minds of others, thereby hurting our own cause.

In order to justify his view that there should not be an equidistant policy towards India and China and, rather, it should be tilted towards India, Mishra has cited some geographical reasons: “Can all the physical conditions of both northern and southern parts of the country be equal? Neither Mount Everest can be shifted to south nor rivers like the Koshi be made to flow north upwards. If these can be done, these will indeed facilitate the equidistance foreign policy by Nepal for which some people living in Kathmandu are craving these days?”

It is true that neither Mount Everest can be shifted to the south nor rivers like the Koshi be made to flow north upwards. The way Mount Everest and the River Koshi are situated is a gift of Nature to us for which we should be obliged to it. As far as our foreign policy is concerned, it has little to do with this gift of Nature.

According to a well-known adage, you can choose your friends but not your neighbours. It seems to be true while determining the relationship with any neighbouring country. For us, the determining factor in relation to our immediate neighbours is how we can serve the interest of the Nepalis and Nepal the best. Secondly, how we can serve the interest of the oppressed people and the nations of the world.

Gajurel, CPN-Maoist central member, is in charge of Foreign Affairs