Modi’s third trip to Nepal

PM Narendra Modi’s third visit to Nepal in four years, an unprecedented privilege for the Himalayan Republic, demonstrates the desire of the two sides to turn the page on what has been an acrimonious relationship for the best part of the last three years. It wasn’t like that in the beginning. Public opinion in Nepal had reacted adversely in 2015 to the Indian endeavour to “set the terms” for framing its Constitution. This perception and a trade “blockade” sank Modi’s diplomatic and political investments during his last two visits as PM to Nepal. In this context, the visit is back to the drawing board for both countries with the added imperative of factoring in China’s moves in Nepal.

Both countries have started off on the right note. Nepal has indicated that much water has flown under Bagmati since the present PM K P Oli spear-headed an agitation against India for allegedly imposing an `informal blockade’ and stirring Madhesi discontent. During Modi’s third visit, Nepal’s mild emphasis on revisiting the Indo-Nepal treaty is a sure shot indicator that bilateral ties are on the mend as is Kathmandu’s assurance to be sensitive to India’s interests and not allow its territory to be used against India. PM Modi had attempted the same elements as in his previous visits — a strong emphasis on religious-cultural similarities and the promise of rapid development.  But keeping past experience in mind, he avoided any homilies on Nepal’s domestic political structures this time.

Indo-Nepal bonds of close anthropological links are unique among modern nation states. Modi’s emphasis on them seeks to make a qualitative distinction with China’s siren call to Nepal for an alliance of development. The risk in New Delhi’s excessive emphasis on the historical reality of close socio-cultural ties, as has happened in the past, is its misinterpretation in Nepal as paternalistic attitude. China’s presence in Nepal, whether bilaterally or via the BRICS Bank, cannot be wished away. India needs to grasp the positive signals from a stable government in Kathmandu and avoid the mistake of over-emphasising religious-cultural ties which cannot be a substitute for realism and national interest.