Pick up the lost thread

Instead of clichéd nationalism and official discourse, the people of Nepal and India can creatively redefine their relations

Anil Bhattarai Kathmandu/Toronto

The official Nepal-India relations have become very narrow in focus and truncated in vision. This is ironical given the fact that these relations could be vastly expanded beyond the often sterile discussions about investments in a few mega projects, the empty nationalist posturing, and hawkish scare-mongering about the clichéd threat of extremism across the border. Obviously, this demands expanding the scope of trans- border dialogue to include the diverse range of actors beyond the currently dominant narrow circle of South Block diplomats, top political leaders, big media houses, big NGOs, mainstream security experts and big business houses.

To be more precise, small farmers, artisans, journalists, women, vernacular poets, theatre artistes, small businessmen, teachers, paramedics, and fruit vendors, to name a few, have genuine stakes in building relations based on respect, equity, justice and mutual exchange of practical ideas. Interactions among them, especially along open borders, occur on a daily basis through myriad forms. It is only by involving them and further strengthening these existing exchanges and also building novel ones that genuine people-to-people relations could be established between Nepal and India. This will also go a long way in transcending the narrow nationalist posturing on both sides. In the long run, it will be effective in dealing with the potential threats of a variety of extremism. This would enable both the States to spend less on killing machines and more on improving the lives of their people.

It has become a standard practice that when a Nepali prime minister makes an official visit to India, his/ her entourage includes political elites, owners of a few big business houses, international relations experts, top-level bureaucrats and media people. Predictably, the focus is on a few set of macro issues such as trade and transit, the curtailing of extremist activities, and investment promotion. Bihar's chief minister might add Kosi dam or UP's Mayawati might share concerns about cross-border crimes to the agenda. Needless to say, wheeling dealing often happens behind closed doors. Yet, the assumption is that these people would be able to represent Nepal's interests. But what we consider as Nepal's interest is in fact the interest of a small clique of Kathmandu elite, and what goes in the name of Nepal-India relation is in reality restricted to Kathmandu and Delhi.

The civil society interactions between these two countries have expanded the constituency a bit, but they still represent Kathmandu's politically savvy but narrow elites whose encounter with their counterparts occurs mostly in Delhi in the form of India International Center seminars and official tours (junkets) organised by the Indian Embassy. Much of the interactions that actually happen through our open borders are usually not part of the official discourse. It is here that a vast potential lies to transcend the truncated official vision.

Kathmandu and Delhi's bureaucrats and politicians obviously know that there is a more than 1600km of open border between Nepal and India. But they have shown little interest in exploring the vast potential this provides for genuinely building trans-border connections. In fact, especially on the Nepali side, the hard posturing on open border problems has become debilitating in exploring these potentials.