After his return from India earlier this month, Nepal Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ kept himself quite busy — justifying how successful his trip to the south was. In doing so, he even overemphasised the visit at times, just as Opposition parties dismissed it as “ritualistic”.
One of the much talked about aspects of the visit was the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to export up to 10,000 MW of electricity from Nepal to India over a period of 10 years. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, too, made an announcement on June 1 to this effect during a joint press briefing following delegation-level talks. The MoU followed bilateral agreements on India building at least two hydropower plants in Nepal.
However, there’s a catch. Opposition parties and Mr. Prachanda’s critics have accused him of handing over the multi-billion-dollar projects to India on a platter, without any competitive bidding.
Two other issues that became a source of criticism for Mr. Prachanda were his statement on “swapping” the disputed Kalapani area with India for a strip of land in the Indian territory, and an elaborate puja offered by him at the Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain. Mr. Prachanda, an erstwhile revolutionary known for his staunch nationalist posture and never missing a chance to stoke anti-India sentiments, has had a tough time convincing his critics at home.
Observers say Mr. Prachanda, who had been eagerly waiting for a trip to India since having taken charge as Prime Minister on December 25, 2022, used his four-day visit from May 31-June 3 to appease New Delhi, after sensing the weak domestic turf he was standing on.
Power politics
Nepali Prime Ministers have traditionally been known to make a dash to New Delhi after assuming power. Their stated reason is the strengthening of bilateral ties; the two countries share historical and close relations, with an 1,800-km open border allowing citizens to move freely — a unique feature between any two nations in the modern-day world. But what’s also true is, observers say, one of their major goals is to be in Delhi’s good books to remain in power.
“He surely stands on precarious ground,” said C.K. Lal, a writer and political analyst. “Prachanda knows very well that it’s difficult to remain in power without maintaining good relations with India. But Delhi does not have confidence in him.”
Mr. Lal says Mr. Prachanda did all he could to appease the establishment in the south, but signs of frustration are palpable, as he is exploring various options, including the revival of a communist grouping or forming a socialist front. On June 20, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist), a coalition partner, and two other parties outside the government announced a communist front.
Mr. Prachanda’s Maoist Centre emerged as the third-largest party in Parliament in the November elections. Yet, he was the biggest beneficiary of the perpetual political bickering in Nepal, which catapulted him into power for a third time. Despite his promises of good governance, he is hardly finding any time to govern, as he finds his position invariably threatened. The CPN (Unified Socialist), a government partner with 10 seats, warned on June 10 that it would not hesitate to withdraw support to the government if it did not “correct” some Budget features. Nevertheless, it voted in favour of the budget on Wednesday.
Backlash at home
K.P. Sharma Oli, the leader of the main Opposition Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), led from the front when it came to undermining Mr. Prachanda’s visit, as the former Prime Minister went on to accuse the Maoist leader of behaving like a milquetoast. Mr. Oli charged that the Prime Minister failed to stand up to India and failed to talk about the mural map installation in the new Indian Parliament depicting Kapilvastu and Lumbini, which fall under the territory of modern-day Nepal. He even criticised the Maoist leader for making a public statement on land swapping.
Mr. Prachanda, in his defence, has maintained that he did raise the issue of the mural map and that his remarks on land swapping were part of efforts to find a solution to the border disputes which have been a constant irritant for the two countries.
“To those who have been criticising my visit to India, I would like to say the welcome accorded to me was unprecedented and I have returned after making a successful trip with some substantial agreements,” Mr. Prachanda said while speaking in Parliament. “That the Indian Prime Minister himself for the first time spoke about resolving border issues in itself is an achievement.” Kathmandu believes New Delhi has for long cold-shouldered Nepal’s calls to discuss border issues between the two countries, especially about the Kalapani region, which both countries claim as their own.
Agreements
Of the various agreements signed, the one that was projected as the highlight of the visit was the MoU on India importing 10,000 MW of electricity from Nepal in 10 years and exporting Nepali electricity to Bangladesh via the Indian territory.
“It’s a positive outcome, but we don’t know the modality yet,” said Dinesh Bhattarai, a commentator who has served as foreign relations adviser to at least two former Prime Ministers in Nepal. “But there is no need to get carried away. There are several pressing issues that the Prime Minister failed to raise, including the report prepared by the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) on Nepal-India relations. Then there was this air route issue, which failed to make any headway.”
The EPG was formed in 2016 with four members each from Nepal and India to review the overall bilateral relations and make recommendations. The group finalised its report in 2018, but it has been gathering dust due largely to Mr. Modi’s “busy schedule” — it is supposed to be submitted to the Prime Ministers of both countries. Mr. Prachanda said upon his return that he did not raise the EPG issue because he did not want to “spoil” the environment. But his critics say he did not want to risk offending Delhi.
On air routes, especially for the Bhairahawa International Airport near the Indian border, Nepal should have been able to extract a deal,” Mr. Bhattarai said. “Nevertheless, Delhi’s reluctance to acknowledge Kathmandu’s assurances that it would address [all of India’s legitimate concerns] shows there still is a huge trust deficit between the two countries.”
Vijay Kant Lal Karna, a former Ambassador who leads a Kathmandu-based think tank, however, believes there were three major points of departure during Mr. Prachanda’s recent Delhi visit. “Power agreements, Mr. Modi’s admission on border issues and connectivity, including on digital payment,” Mr. Karna said. “This shows Prachanda has been able to earn Delhi’s trust to some extent. Now that Mr. Modi himself has acknowledged border disputes, this at least opens the door for negotiations.”
Stance on religion
The puja that Mr. Prachanda performed, clad in saffron robes, at the Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain offered enough grist for talking mills in Nepal. Mr. Prachanda once led a 10-year “people’s war” during which his People’s Liberation Army would attack priests and temples. One of the major agendas of the war was to transform Nepal into a secular republic. In 2008, after he became Prime Minister for the first time following a 2006 peace deal that ended the war, his decision to remove priests of Indian origin from the Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu met with massive criticism. The backlash was so huge that he had to backtrack.
Many see Mr. Prachanda’s visit to the Hindu temple in India as a bid to appease Mr. Modi.
“But that’s not just limited to Mr. Modi,” Mr. Lal said. “Prachanda knows very well that the nationalist Hindutva is a huge constituency in India. And there is a similar Nepali nationalist constituency.”
Mr. Lal believes the puja in the Indian temple was largely aimed at pandering to the Nepali nationalist constituency. “When he was offered with a chance that could suit the palate of the constituencies both in India and Nepal, he grabbed it.” Mr. Prachanda, on his part, has maintained that he believes in secularism, hence he has equal faith in all religions.
“I wore the saffron robes because it was mandated by the protocol of the temple,” Mr. Prachanda has said on more than one occasion in response to criticism. “Had I refused, it would have meant hurting the sentiments of Indians.”
Mr. Bhattarai, a former adviser to two prime ministers, said no matter how many times Mr. Prachanda defended his temple visit, there were chances it was arranged in such a way that he was left with no option but to oblige.
“And even if he has changed from an anti-religious communist to a religion-loving person, that should be fine. People change,” Mr. Bhattarai said. “The aim of such visits should be to reinforce bilateral ties and bridge the trust deficit rather than to strengthen one’s position at home.”
Mr. Karna said it was a wrong move on Mr. Prachanda’s part to offer puja at a temple in the capacity of Nepal’s Prime Minister.
“It was clearly part of an exercise to appease a certain constituency for his political benefit,” Mr. Karna said. “Not in good taste, to say the least.”
Sanjeev Satgainya is an independent journalist based in Kathmandu
