The Prime Minister of Nepal and the leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” visited India from 14-18 September.  This was his first visit after the formation of the new government in Nepal following the elections to the Constituent Assembly and the declaration of Nepal as a federal republic.

Although the peoples of Nepal and India have been very close historically, there has been much tension in the relations between the two countries in modern times.  The British rulers in India were never able to turn Nepal into their colony, but they used their power to put pressure on Nepal and impose several unjust agreements on it. 

The Indian ruling class after 1947 in many ways adopted the attitude of the British colonialists towards Nepal.  Starting from the Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950, the Indian state has repeatedly interfered in the internal affairs of Nepal and also used its own might and Nepal's vulnerability as a much smaller, landlocked state, to impose a number of agreements which the people of Nepal have considered against their interests.

These include several agreements relating to the sharing and management of river waters that run through Nepal into India, such as the Kosi Agreement (1954), the Gandak Agreement (1959), the Tanakpur Agreement (1991) and the Mahakali Treaty (1996).  In the Kosi Agreement, it was clearly spelt out that the Indian side was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the embankments on the river within Nepal.  But as the recent catastrophe has showed, this provision was violated, leading to the massive inundation of land and mass suffering both in Nepal and Bihar.  The unpopular water agreements and the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty, both strongly opposed by the CPN(M),  were major issues in the recent elections in Nepal.

The Indian state was always a staunch supporter of the feudal monarchy in Nepal, and gave it political, financial and military assistance in the monarchy's suppression of the people's struggles.  However, in the most recent jan andolan of the Nepali people which culminated in the abolition of the monarchy, the Indian state saw the writing on the wall and gave up its policy of openly supporting the monarchy.

The Indian state has been particularly hostile to any signs of Nepal developing closer relations with China, its northern neighbour.  Its displeasure at Prachanda visiting Beijing in August before visiting New Delhi was apparent.

This, then, was the background to the Nepal Prime Minister's recent visit to India.  In the official and public statements by both sides during this visit none of these tensions were referred to.  On the contrary, the joint statement issued at the end of the visit to New Delhi repeatedly affirmed the need to take a “forward-looking approach in tune with the current realities”.

The new Nepal government showed a keen interest in cooperating with both the Indian state and private Indian companies to carry out “mega-projects” in Nepal in the area of infrastructure and hydel projects, and promised to create an “enabling business environment” for it.  Prachanda said that accelerated economic development was a necessity in his country for the elimination of poverty.

The Government of India agreed to provide Rs 20 crore as immediate flood relief for Nepal, and to set up joint commissions to explore the possibilities of cooperating in harnessing river waters for irrigation, flood control and hydroelectricity.  The contentious Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950 was not mentioned at all, but it was agreed to have a “comprehensive review” of all trade and transit agreements.  The Indian government also “expressed full support to the peaceful, political, democratic transition in Nepal”, while the government of Nepal “appreciated the positive support extended by the people and Government of India throughout the peaceful political democratic transformation in the country.”

Overall, it can be said that in spite of the momentous changes in Nepal, both sides appeared to have decided not to make a public issue of their differences and to carry on doing business with each other in their own interests.  Despite the genuine interest shown by Indian people in this visit, the Indian government decided to deal with it in a low-key and pragmatic way.  The point to note is that whether India-Nepal relations can be put on a new footing or not depends on the strength and resolve of the people of Nepal to stand together and firmly defend their own interests and sovereignty in both domestic and foreign affairs.  It would be a mistake to rely on the goodwill and good faith of the Indian state alone, as this state represents the interests of the bourgeoisie that has great ambitions to step up the exploitation of resources and markets both at home and abroad.  The Indian working class supports the development of relations with Nepal that are beneficial to the peoples of both our countries, and on the basis of complete equality and respect for sovereignty.