India-Nepal border dispute: revealing the region’s balance of power?
India-Nepal border dispute: revealing the region’s balance of power?
WRITTEN BY RUSHALI SAHA
12 June 2020
Nepal, a small landlocked country in the Himalayas has made its way to headlines across the world amidst a global pandemic following a boundary row with India. The dispute between New Delhi and Kathmandu is not new however. The border has been a protracted problem in bilateral relations in recent years with the current episode seriously affecting India-Nepal ties with the witnessing of a new paradigm in cartographic assertion.
In the current dispute the immediate reason behind tensions seems to be the Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s remote inauguration of a road which passes through territory claimed by both South Asian neighbours.
Nepal registered its objection to the move calling it “unilateral” and an event that "runs against the understanding reached between the two countries”, an assertion rejected by the Indian side. Under pressure from the opposition and Nepali civil society, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli issued a new political map of the country showing the disputed region within Nepal’s borders.
On 31 May, Nepal’s government tabled a constitutional amendment bill to “update” Nepal’s map to include the disputed territories in the national emblem. This bill is likely to go through with the required two-thirds majority as opposition parties currently support the Oli government in its row with India. Although the dispute has been limited to a diplomatic row and is likely to get resolved through dialogue, when placed against the backdrop of the larger geopolitical developments in South Asia it has the potential to wreak havoc to the sensitive balance of power in the Himalayan region.
Balancing Beijing and New Delhi
India and Nepal share a unique relationship in a region defined by historic political tensions, mistrust, cross border conflicts, high trade costs etc. Such is the closeness of ties between both states that residents are allowed to travel and work in each other’s countries without a visa. However this should not suggest that relations have always been smooth.
The statement by the Indian Army Chief Manoj Mukund Naravane about Nepal acting at the behest of others, a fairly direct reference to China, was not taken well by the Nepalese people and served to further bring attention to the larger geopolitical dynamics in the region
The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship which forms the foundation of the Nepal-India relationship has been the cause for serious disaffection especially amongst the Nepali population. Despite sharing more commonalities rather than differences, whether seen in terms of geography or culture, mutually assured cooperation has not proven to be automatic. Nepal’s chequered history with democracy has deeply impacted its relations with India and Indian involvement within the domestic politics in Nepal has been construed as interference by the Nepalese.
India’s discomfort with a Communist government coming to power in Nepal was visible, arguably for good reason, given that India has never had to face as adversarial a Prime Minister in Kathmandu as Prime Minister KP Oli. China’s support to the Communist groups in Nepal is visible from the statement it issued after the merger of the two main communist groups into one, applauding the country’s decision to choose a “social system and development path that suits its national realities”.
Growing rail and road linkages between Nepal and China are also increasingly visible, with growing Chinese investment on the Araniko Highway connecting Nepal and China and the Nepal-China Transit Transport Agreement. Both these projects matter as they give landlocked Nepal access to other countries via Chinese sea and land ports. This infrastructure also represents a deliberate attempt to reduce Nepal’s geography induced dependence on India and its ports.
Nepal’s closeness with China coincided with a strong downturn in India-Nepal relations caused by the unofficial Indian blockade in 2015. A move seen in opposition to certain terms of Nepal’s constitution which saw the triggering of anti-Indian sentiments across the country. Since then the Modi government has been trying to revive ties with Nepal by declaring it to be the “centrepiece” of the Indian government’s ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy with initiatives such as the launching of the Indo-Nepal bus service, from Janakpur (Nepal) to Ayodhya (India) as a way to boost to existing cultural ties between the two countries.
South Asia: Enter the United States
Nepal’s difficult balancing act between China and India is not a recent development and much like India’s own non alignment strategy following the Indo-China war of 1962 Nepal has been cultivating ties with both countries independently. Nepal and other small South Asian countries like Bangladesh, Sri-Lanka, Maldives have used the “China card” in an attempt to counter India’s natural domination of the region.
For a dynamic region like the Indo-Pacific, regional dynamics cannot be understood in isolation from the larger global power equations. At the global level strategic discourse is dominated by narratives of growing US-China competition with China’s rise undoubtedly a challenge for the American led global order but more immediately Beijing threatens America’s position in the Indo-Pacific as an extra regional power.
Having neglected the region following the 9/11 attacks when American grand strategy became overly concerned with the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific construct first introduced during the Obama administration and then strengthened under Trump can be seen as an attempt by Washington to regain ground lost to China.
In rhetoric at least the Trump administration is more assertive on a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”, as evident from various speeches and documents, being a means to contain Chinese influence in the region together with democratic countries of the region including India. In this framework, the U.S. has demonstrated its strong desire to elevate Nepal, and American diplomats have cautioned Nepal that further Chinese investment could lead to unsustainable debts. Washington has also sought to deepen defence ties with Nepal, as illustrated in the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy document stating the U.S. seeks deeper defence ties with Nepal “focused on HA/DR, peacekeeping operations, defence professionalization, ground force capacity and counterterrorism”.
Nepal which has formally committed itself to China’s Belt and Road Initiative has maintained a cautious approach to closer economic ties with Beijing. Given the inherent tensions between China’s BRI strategy and America’s Indo-Pacific vision, specifically the Millennium Challenge corporation deal to improve Nepal’s connectivity, Nepal is careful to maintain the balance between the two superpowers.
A significant tangential relationship in this respect is the growing closeness between ‘natural allies’ U.S. and India as evident in the growing closeness between Prime Minister Modi and President Trump and a desire to foster closer ties despite minor diplomatic hiccups. The U.S. sees India as a crucial partner in its Indo-Pacific strategy however this does not automatically mean a convergence in vision or strategy of the two countries as India has emphasised ASEAN centrality and reiterated that it is not directed against any one country a veiled reference to China.
Conclusion
It’s against this backdrop that the recent India-Nepal border skirmish must be viewed, which although a bilateral issue will inevitably affect the interconnected web of power relations in the Himalayan region. The recent statement by the Indian Army Chief Manoj Mukund Naravane about Nepal acting at the behest of others, a fairly direct reference to China, was not taken well by the Nepalese people. The comments served to further undermine India-Nepal ties and brought to the fore India’s fears regarding the shifting geopolitical dynamics in the Himalayan region.
The reality of Chinese involvement in the India-Nepal border dispute is hotly debated within Indian strategic policy circles, where some identify Chinese involvement more explicitly while others identify significant flaws in India’s wider Nepal policy. Meanwhile the United States has accused China of employing its own border clashes with New Delhi to shift the regional status quo. Tellingly the Trump administration has encouraged New Delhi to resist Beijing’s moves along the Line of Acutal Control, with the U.S. also looking to counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea.
The statements over the border tensions come at a time when Sino-American relations are at their lowest ebb since 1989, as both powers continue to engage in a blame game over the origin of the COVID-19 virus and mutual criticism over handling of the pandemic reposne. In the post COVID-19 world, the way relations evolve between Beijing and Washington will undoubtedly have an impact on the rest of the world. Nepal, which freed itself from the shackles of monarchy in the 21st century, is trying to redefine and consolidate its foreign policy vis-à-vis its neighbours in South Asia and the Himalayas. Will it be able to escape the balance of power compulsions of India, China and the United States and be truly independent? Only time will tell.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.
Author biography
Rushali Saha is pursuing her Master's from Jadavpur University in Kolkata, India. She previously worked with the Netaji Institute of Asian Studies as a Research Intern and was certified with distinction upon completing her training program with the National Human Rights Commission. Her research interests include South Asian politics, Indian foreign policy, and India-China relations. Image credit: Ministry of External Affairs/Flickr.