It is almost customary in Nepal to warn its Prime Minister visiting India not to sign any treaty especially regarding water resources and extradition etc. Perhaps, it is due to its multi- facetedness of relation with India that has social, cultural, religious, economic, political, strategic, and individual overtones. It has remained so all along that several segments of society consider it differently. Interestingly, politicians view it in one way when in power and on the contrary when out. Similarly, diplomats, the ruling elite, and the common people too perceive it differently. Kathmandu, which still continues to decide all policies, differs in its view from that of the people settled on the borders. Hence, it is often questioned as to whether these divergent views suggest that the relations between the two countries is subjective due to the varied interests of the perceivers or it has any objectivity too?

Relevantly, J. Bentham can be quoted, who holds, “Nature has placed the mankind under two sovereign masters-pleasure and pain”, as the basis of his altruistic hedonism or utilitarianism. It will be apt to say that nature has placed the relations between Nepal and India under one sovereign master -the Himalayas? The Himalayas dictated the relation millions of years ago when a vast mass of land (the Indian plate) collided with the Asian mass giving birth to the lofty Himalayas. Since then, rivers were flowing into the southern slopes over which humankind has no say. Since political boundaries are human creation, harnessing the water resources should be aimed at human welfare at large, sometimes ignoring as to which side is benefited more. People were settled there before they were divided into two states. Peace and development cannot be made captive to the interests of a handful of persons or groups.

There seems to be two main sore-points in the relation, barring some secondary ones, for the government dominated by the people who suffer from the Kathmandu dominance syndrome. The first is the open border dispensation. The syndrome represents a mindset holding all Madheshis as emigrants from India and the influx still continuing causing demographic shift in the Tarai region in creating problems, notwithstanding the data of the census reports of last fifty years proving that the population has increased in the Tarai due to migration of the population from the hills. It also holds that the continued criminal activities in Nepal have their genesis in India, as criminals are active from there, who are difficult to control in Nepal without closing the border.

The Kathmandu ruling class, including the then monarchy, have been opposing directly and indirectly the open border phenomenon. In the past, it appears that India was pressurized indirectly to close its borders with Nepal. In the sixties, Chinese goods were imported and smuggled to India in enormous quantities and seemed to have three purposes: first, to get Indian currency for its economy; secondly, to please China by importing its goods and thirdly, to force India to close its borders to safeguard its economy. Moreover, it seems that Nepal is insensitive towards terrorists coming from Pakistan and Bangladesh to enter India with arms and fake Indian currency, which provides the logic to convince India that the open border dispensation is entirely responsible for such unchecked entries. Similarly, the unusual delay or reluctance in the signing of extradition treaty is sometimes interpreted as a pointer to this assertion.

The second sore-point is related to the water resources that have been harnessed in favour of India ignoring the interest of Nepal, as in the cases of Koshi and Gandak projects. Really, these were flood-controlling projects. It is true that had there been no Koshi project, the socio-economic transformation of the people of the eastern districts of Nepal would have hardly been possible or would have been delayed considerably. No doubt, by taming Koshi, the people of Bihar got rid of their enormous sufferings as Koshi was regarded as the “river of sorrow”. Comparatively, limited Nepalese land is saved from floods.

To improve the living conditions of the people, Nepal has to initiate steps to harness the water resources on its own or seek India’s cooperation for their mutual benefits as it can hardly afford to allow its people to live in the present condition.

The government should not shut its eyes on the fertile lands in the Tarai turning gradually into deserts by not taming the rivers as they are changing their courses frequently. For example, the river Ratu in Mahottari district has moved several kilometres eastward during the last three decades. Untamed rivers in Nepal are also posing gigantic problem of flood control for India and in turn, they also affect Nepal adversely. Hence, the relation between the two should not be sceptical, rather they should be reciprocal and cooperative.

Therefore, it appears unwise to allow a handful of elite to prevail upon the relation any more at the cost of unexpected fallout.

(Prof. Mishra is former election commissioner)