Nepal’s present transition has already set the contours of a New Nepal. Transforming the Nepali state into a full-fledged democratic state is under way and it is likely to be stabilised if the political forces involved in it work in unison and with the same spirit as they have been managing to do in accordance with the mandate of Jana Andolan II. Some fundamentals have already been identified and some others are being enforced in the post-Andolan period. The agenda of abolition of monarchy within a broad parameter of state restructuring has begun. The shift of loyalty of the Nepal Army to the new forces, fulfillment of demand for converting Nepal into a federal state, and emphasis laid on inclusive democracy, i.e. inclusion along with empowerment of ordinary people, are indicative of new changes. Above all, change in people’s mindset responding positively to the new development is positive for the stability and progress of the country.

Transition can be short and long or is even fraught with dangers of being abortive as had happened in the past. But its future depends on the astute handling by political leaders who are now in the helm. If they are serious and committed to transforming Nepali polity and society, no power on earth can hinder them. Nepali political parties have taken many independent decisions despite the cautionary advises to them by our foreign friends. And it is possible due to the backing of the Nepali people who want peace, democracy and progress. People indeed have displayed exemplary support to the leaders and would perhaps continue to do so if the leaders work together to fulfil the people’s mandate.

On the external front, however, it is also important to observe the unchanged psyche of politicians and others who try to apply the same old strategies to handle Nepal’s policy towards its neighbours. During the period of transition that aims at revolutionising the country in several aspects, politicians need to be pragmatic, cool, and committed to honouring the core values they cherish as well as to gaining the trust of friendly countries. The historical baggage the leaders carry might try to spoil relation with neighbours but the leadership in transition should not be embroiled in such controversies that have remained unresolved in the past. Under no circumstances should they be engaged in day-to-day events or mindset that creates unnecessary distrust between neighbours. The manner in which the Indo-Nepal relation is being handled on the pretext of border encroachment, for example, by the movement leaders does not help develop the elements of cooperative foreign policy.

India has committed to honour the wishes of the people, departing from the previous two-pillar policy — constitutional monarchy and multiparty system. Now India and other countries have reconciled to the concept of republic, despite their earlier reservations for declaring a republic through the interim parliament. Even the BJP has not rejected the change into republic but has only shown its reservation for the procedure adopted by the SPA.

India’s Nepal policy has two facets: security with stability, and adjustment to democratic change. India does not find many problems in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 but Nepali politicians try to project their nationalistic image by raising the issue of the same treaty. They also want India’s favour when they need, but continue to apply the same old strategy of trying to corner it by knee-jerk response to criticisms from various quarters. Nepali leaders are still less capable of diplomatic settlement of disputes as there is a tendency to blow up the issues to prove their rashtrabad. But PM Koirala has cautioned his colleagues not to be swayed by emotion as the existing border, and other issues that recur from time to time, need to be addressed coolly through diplomatic channels. Such careful handling is necessary at a time when Nepal is engaged in changing the course of its history.

My own assumption is that, given the continuation of old mindset and lack of new map of foreign policy, anti-Indianism is likely to be a natural phenomenon. Although the 1950 Treaty has continued to be a good recipe for those who want to find fault with it for overshadowing Indo-Nepal relations, persons or organisations with vested interests may find other excuses for raising anti-Indian sentiment. Since there is no serious study of the treaty, we are not on firm grounds as to what particular areas of the treaty are harmful to good neighbourly relations. Some try to see the free movement of people and open border as obvious negatives for Nepal without providing alternatives for improving relations. What would happen to Indo-Nepal relations if the two governments agree on the abrogation of the Treaty? In my opinion, treaty or no treaty, Indo-Nepal relation will not improve unless the Nepali politicians try to understand it from a new perspective.

Dr Baral is ex-ambassador to India