Submit your Article

It’s not unusual for old ideas, even the ones you once seriously considered, to completely escape your mind. I was recently reminded of one such forgotten idea: Nepal-India-China trilateralism. The occasion was an AIDIA webinar in which I was invited to speak along with other guests from the three countries. The first question that crossed my mind when I got the invite: why now? This pie-in-the-sky dream is clearly not being realized soon. 

But then turning Nepal into a ‘vibrant economic bridge’ between the two Asian giants has been a stated foreign policy goal of the Oli government. India, mindful of China’s already considerable sway in Nepal, has shown no interest in it. Now in light of escalating border tensions between India and China—and Nepal’s own border skirmishes with India—the trilateral idea appears doomed. One suggestion offered in the webinar, by Indian and Chinese speakers alike, concerned the pursuit of trailaterism through track II and track III mechanisms. Build a consensus on it at an intellectual level before kicking it up for consideration at the political level, they suggested. 

An interesting idea, I thought. But, again, what is the point when those making the final decision simply don’t want to hear of it, especially in India? Instead, Nepal can look to improve its ties with the two neighbors separately, and if it can gain their confidence in due course, maybe then pursue the trilateral idea.  

Separately, the Chinese seem perturbed by India’s growing strategic proximity with the US and its implications for South Asia. They don’t understand why Nepal, a great friend of China, cannot follow Sri Lanka’s example and dismiss the MCC compact out of hand. Why is the ruling Nepal Communist Party, with excellent brotherly ties with its Chinese counterpart, hesitating to do the right thing? They also link the paucity of progress in BRI projects in Nepal to American interference, this time via the MCC. 

The burgeoning US-India strategic links also put the Chinese in a bind. They wanted to work with India under the BRI framework to keep the Americans from making mischief in South Asia. But the prospect of such extensive India-China cooperation in the region is getting bleaker. The India-China rivalry in Nepal may hence get an added edge in the days ahead. 

The Chinese attitude to the Oli government seems to be hardening too. Besides the long delay in BRI projects and Nepal’s hesitance to drop the MCC compact, their suspicions of Kathmandu have been heightened by the recent Nepal visits of RAW chief Samant Goel and Indian army chief M.M. Naravane, especially the latter, who insinuated China as the origin of Nepal’s claims over Kalapani. What is cooking in Kathmandu, they would like to know? 

The Chinese had for some time been trying to persuade the Indians of the mutual benefits of connecting the big markets of North India and West China. Nepal said it would be more than happy to act as a bridge between them. Made perfect economic sense, too. But as the recent Indian boycott of Chinese goods in India—and the Indian Premier League’s cancellation of its 440-crore-rupee-a-year contract with Chinese mobile giant VIVO—suggests, nationalism trumps economic calculations any day. If only the Indians and the Nepalis understood the ice-cold Chinese logic of pursuing development and poverty-alleviation at all costs. 

Ayurveda and traditional healing traditions from around the world are increasingly being dismissed as “pseudo-science”. The justification for this condescension? “Herbs haven’t gone though clinical trials.”

This argument is lazy. You can find medical research literature of herbs like gurjo, hibiscus, and timmur in the Western scientific tradition, archived online. I read these research articles via the US National Library of Medicine at the National Institute of Health. People do not bother to read them, even though they are only a click away.

The Kathmandu Post recently ran an article about Kathmandu traffic police planting Tinospora cordifolia or gurjo at the Tinkune Park. Gurjo is thought to prevent coronavirus. Traffic police officials, among our most vulnerable frontline workers, were grateful to have this healing herb.

This article called it an “untested herb”. There are over 300 scientific research articles about the herb and its usages, including for osteoarthritis to HIV/AIDS on the web, from respectable researchers. The fact the herb has been used by many ethnic groups in Nepal, creating a pool of “pharma testers” who’ve gone through clinical trials of its efficacy for hundreds if not thousands of years, seems lost on Western-educated people flaunting their infallible modern credentials.

I have written articles mentioning the medicinal value of timmur (Sichuan pepper). Trekking in Langtang in 2005, I came down with a severe headache as I was ascending to Kenjin Gompa. My friends suggested I descend. My headache was debilitating. I could see why people died from lack of oxygen to their brain. In Langtang, villages told me of the local remedy for altitude sickness: chewing timmur, and drinking lots of garlic soup. I may have taken a tablet of Western medicine as well. My pounding headache disappeared only the next morning. I was able to go up to the monastery and admire the cheese factory and the yak herders.

As an undergraduate at Brown University, I was hired by Professor Phil Lieberman to analyze speech of air-traffic controllers, looking at audio waveforms on a computer. Lieberman was researching speech, and if it could show how tired people had become and thereby predict aircraft accidents. In 2004, Lieberman sent students to track mountaineers climbing without oxygen. He wanted to see if there was a link between oxygen deprivation, speech impairment, and brain damage. I reported on this story. I knew that oxygen levels were important and could affect the body’s physiological functioning.

When the coronavirus epidemic was a few months old, observers (including me) started to have doubts about the efficacy of ventilators. Publications reported that doctors themselves were baffled. Although their oxygen levels were dropping through the floor, patients were sitting up, speaking, and talking. The doctors concluded that the symptoms were more akin to altitude sickness, and that they should stop using only mechanical indicators to calculate O2 levels, since pumping people full of oxygen could cause more harm than good.

When I wrote about timmur acting as a natural “ventilator” that pumps oxygen into people’s brains, I was bringing the strands of my life and education together. To my Twitter critics accusing me of “pseudo-science,” this ethnographic lived experience may have been lost.

I had never had hibiscus tea before I went to Bali in 2009. There, a wonderful woman called Janet O’Neefe organizes the Ubud Readers and Writers Festival, and I was one of the invited speakers. After the festival, I took a cooking class via her Casa Luna Cooking School. A jovial man led the session. The other dishes were usual Asian fare, but hibiscus tea stayed in my mind. With a flourish, the instructor took out the pistil and added bright red petals to boiling water. Then he added a dash of lime, turning purple wilted petals into a pink drink. It looked like a magic trick.

I drank this tea because it was refreshing. Only later did I realize its medicinal properties. When I have debilitating menstrual cramps, I drink hibiscus tea and am operational within half hour. As I researched online, I realized this botanical treasure is an ancient ayurvedic medicine. Rudrapushpam is deeply revered and has many usages. Hibiscus had the highest anti-viral effect on the avian flu virus in a research comparing different teas. People mistakenly think antibiotics will heal coronavirus. But what we need are anti-virals, not antibiotics which kill bacteria.

We already have powerful medicines that are stronger than any dubious Big Pharma drug. People infected with the coronavirus in the West die of blood clots. In Nepal, we eat turmeric daily—turmeric is a blood thinner. Hibiscus tea, chyawanprash, timmur, and other herbs, taken in moderate and in correct dose, don’t harm the kidney or liver. Hibiscus is available for free to all in the Indian subcontinent.

On Twitter, Baburam Bhattarai called for free hospitalization of coronavirus patients. This sounds like a responsible activist call, although Bhattarai was last seen infecting large Tarai crowds in an irresponsible vote-gathering endeavor. If government pays hospitals, there is a big chance people will be given unnecessary treatments that damage their lungs, livers, kidneys, and brains. Americans report a dramatic range of post-hospitalization symptoms, most likely caused by drugs and treatments.

It may be more responsible to fund district-wise ayurvedic, amchi and indigenous medicine production, deliver herbal medicine right to people’s doors, and provide care to those who need help at home.

The views are personal

The post-1990 era in Nepal, following the first people’s movement, has seen a surge of ‘independent citizens’ voices’. Press freedom and liberalization were among the remarkable changes the new democratic government brought. Hopes were high, and dreams were soaring.

But looking back after three decades at the years that followed, we can easily see the great divide that this phase has reinforced. Absence of an active royal family and the Panchayat elites did not automatically make Nepal a democratic haven. Economic liberalization became an opportunity for the select few business families to multiply their wealth through monopoly trading without putting the wealth into production or job creation. As of 2020, only 15 percent people are employed in industries. From three percent in 1992, it went up to 10 percent in 2000, and the graph has since been almost flat. Liberalization was hijacked by the nexus of wealthy businessmen and politicians, and nothing was done to strengthen the fundamentals of the economy.

As a result, Nepal’s economic state remains precarious, and almost 40 percent of GDP is dependent on remittance sent by youth working overseas in dangerous conditions.

Another big promise of the early nineties was of the democratic changes Nepali Society was expected to accommodate. We had INGOs and foreign-aided Nepalis penetrating the countryside with a missionary zeal. The change that was supposed to come from the grassroots was rather managed by those centered in Kathmandu who hardly had any connections to the grassroots.

As a result, we had an era of lost opportunities, misplaced priorities, unnervingly foolish initiatives, ineffective and inefficient wastage of precious funds, and a pilferage in the name of the oppressed and the poor.

In the 21^st century, till now, Nepal has undergone major political shifts. The political revolution against the Kathmandu-centric power, leading to the removal of monarchy and heralding of a federal republic, brought yet another era of promise. But the reality bit back harder this time. And we are in the midst of an anarchy characterized by policy shortsightedness, cheap populism, and mediocre and uninspiring politicians.

As I write this column ruminating about the disappointing path of democracy in Nepal, votes are being counted in the US elections. America had elected Trump as its president four years back, and this time also, he is in a neck-and-neck struggle for the top post with Democrat Joe Biden. And, gauging by the social media, not surprisingly, the elections in the US have Nepali intelligentsia hooked.

This brings us to a major dichotomy that I believe Nepal is facing. Some months back, when Nabaraj BK, a boy from a so-called lower caste, was beaten to death by upper caste people in Rukum, it had taken more than a month for the Dalitlivesmatter hashtag to trend in social media. That too did not happen organically, but was inspired by George Floyd's murder in the US and the resultant protests the world over.

By the very nature of this era fueled by technology, it has become easier to get news from Florida and France than from your own village in rural Nepal. It has become easier to understand what the white male American is thinking than what goes on in a Dalit Nepali’s mind in Rukum. And because of this great divide, what runs in the people's minds is biased towards the big and the global.

Social media, media, and the intelligentsia are supposed to influence the polity for the society’s betterment. But till the time we have people with foreign degrees and no exposure to the harsh realities of hinterland Nepal as opinion builders and decision makers, this fundamental fault line in our democratic ecosystem cannot be wished away.

The politicians know they can take the media and the intelligentsia for a ride because the inputs of the intelligentsia aren't based on real insights from the ground but are rather pretentious preaching of self-righteous snobs or the ranting of the privileged ones. To strengthen democracy, we need to look for a way to bridge this divide. We have to find a way, through the education system, to build democracy for the bottom up. And this new silent revolution has to be led by the country’s youth.

Not trying to be a doomsayer, but with the US and India getting closer militarily against China, things are going to get bleaker for Nepal. And if we don’t get our house in order and our priorities straight, we run the risk of feeling the horrors of a superpower rivalry. Not because we are important, but because we are unimportant and insignificant due to our poverty and weak military. That makes it a perfect proxy battleground for major powers.

They may not be eager to make us their enemies’ Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea. But as things stand, and from a realistic perspective, events beyond our control, and even the control of big powers, could lead to an ugly situation here. Time has come to study the not-so-distant history of China’s role in the Cold War, the Soviet mistakes, the plight of Afghanistan, and how they all led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are lessons for Nepal.

Let’s first look at the nature of the US-India defense cooperation: Weapons apart, one of the most important aspects of the recent US-India defense pact is information-sharing, under which India will have access to satellite images and other intelligence gathered by the US. Similarly, India will also get accurate GPS coordinates to target military installations in China, if things come to that. So, what's the big deal, you may ask? The big deal is that a real military alliance often starts with intelligence sharing because, information, as it was in history, is still a tool that decides the outcome of any war.

Sharing of sensitive intelligence between two friendly powers signals to the opponent that it now has to deal with the combined strength of the two (or more) powers and runs the risk of a two (or more) front war. China today finds itself in the position the Soviet Union did in the 1970s. Today’s India is what China was then, and China today is what the Soviet Union was for the US and China back then.

Let’s then look at the Sino-Soviet relations to better gauge what is in store for all powers—and for us.

The People’s Republic of China pursued the policy of yibian dao (“lean to one side”) immediately after its founding in 1949 and allied with the Soviet Union. But owing to various reasons the Sino-Soviet partnership started to crack and by the 60s they were sworn enemies. With the Soviet sympathizers in the Communist Party purged or killed or sent to reeducation camps during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), Chairman Mao faced no opposition in the party to get closer to the United States.

Soon, the two sides were openly talking and President Nixon’s China visit in 1972 led to the US-China strategic alliance against the Soviet Union. As expected, a major component of this alliance was modernization of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. The US began providing modern arms and technology to China, and China in turn allowed the US to maintain CIA posts in Xinjiang to gather intelligence against the Soviet Union. This kept both countries abreast of the Soviet military movements.

A slippery Soviet slope

This strategic alliance was what led to the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Soviets were now forced to deploy more forces along their borders with China. The cost of deploying troops in harsh terrains was not cheap, but the Soviets had no option. Similar to what China is faced with now.

The Soviets had to justify their rising military spending and prove they were not to be taken lightly and that they were not to remain quiet when an openly pro-Soviet regime in Kabul was threatened. The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and the US—supported by China, among others—decided to get involved to give the Soviets their own Vietnam. Also, through its proxies—the various factions of the Afghan resistance, the Mujahedeen—the US mounted a formidable defense. The Soviets were forced to retreat and soon after the Soviet Union became history.

But how does what happened then apply to today’s Nepal, you may ask? And that’s a valid question.

First, China will have to deploy more troops along its rough and harsh borders with India, which is not going to be cheap.

China’s defense spending will have to increase because despite being a major military power it is years behind the US in military technology. China understands that the US is not a power to be taken lightly and it always has a new weapon or two in its arsenal that most have not even dreamed of or have only vague knowledge about. And it’s always safer and better to avoid a direct confrontation. But China will have to operate with the assumption that the US could get involved in its military confrontations with India and that China could be subjected to a multiple-front attack. And the military spending has to go further up.

Rising military spending with trade restrictions imposed by the US and its allies could lead to economic problems and China will find itself, like the Soviets, having to justify its military spending to its people, to prove its international standing. As it also wants to avert direct confrontation against India and the US, it will be forced to look for less risky battlegrounds in its neighborhood.

If history is any guide, major powers refrain from directly confronting each other in their territory and even outside. They rather use proxies. China sent volunteers to Korean War, the Soviet Union and China provided money weapons and intelligence to Vietcong during the Vietnam War, and the US provided weapons and money to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

Nepal, the natural choice

Russia still dominates much of Central Asia, and China wouldn’t want to get involved there. South East Asia is a major economic powerhouse and it makes no sense to get involved there as well. Pakistan is a nuclear power and a sworn ally, therefore out of question. India is big and not as weak and now with the US as an ally isn’t to be touched. Afghanistan, with the presence of the US and NATO forces, isn’t a good option either. And other South Asian countries don’t share land borders with China. Naturally, in this case, Nepal appears to be the best choice to settle things with its opponents.

From the perspective of US-India alliance too, it makes sense to lure China in Nepal. India needs to find a way to end its rivalry with China or it would be faced with major economic consequences. The US too would have to find a way to work with China as well, lest other ‘rogue states’ side with China and create problems for the US elsewhere. (Or, for that matter, it could as easily be China luring US-India alliance in Nepal.)

Nepal, an ally of none and as such of no significance to any, is a poor economy with a weak military. Its political leaders have no long-term vision. Top party leaders are constantly embroiled in intra-party feuds concerning their positions on India or China. This allows the US-India alliance or China to wage a proxy war in Nepal. From the superpower perspective, it only makes sense. Not that they are waiting for it to happen but there’s nothing they can do to avoid it either.

Therefore let’s not be too optimistic and talk about peace and how India and China would settle their differences soon and all that.

The surge in Hindu and Han nationalisms in India and China respectively would make any amicable solution to their problems difficult, if not impossible. And things are unlikely to return to pre-Ladakh days soon. Both need to appear tough and now India, with the US by its side, is in no mood to back down, and for the Chinese inching back would signal weakness and the CCP doesn’t want to be portrayed as weak. Same with the Indian leadership. Add arms race to this dangerous mix and one has to snap sooner or later. They would both be glad to take their fight elsewhere, and Nepal is the most convenient battleground they can hope for.

Revolutions and counter-revolutions

Maybe Nepal will witness revolutions supported by one of US-India or China and counter-revolutions by the other, each side linking change here with their national security. And that is what is going to bring the superpower rivalry to us. Even if Nepal is totally destroyed, it’s not going to affect the world economy and security even a bit. One will instill its puppet regime and withdraw and the other would support the forces against the puppet regime, and that’s about it. The real fighting powers would have reached settlements and be in good terms with each other, and as big powers they need to be in good terms—and a messed-up Nepal then (just as it is now) will be no one’s immediate priority.

Maybe this is the reason Nepal has remained or been forced to remain weak—and is constantly being reminded of how insignificant it really is. While others get billions in aid and FDI and weapons and choppers, all we get are old discarded weapons, field hospitals, buildings to teach languages to our soldiers, and just enough aid to survive.

So, yes, Nepal is important in unimportant ways and this country can be bombed right and left to settle scores elsewhere.

And who do we blame for this? Without a doubt all leaders who ruled us after King Mahendra. Although he paid lip service to it, the king was no fan of non-alignment. He believed in pragmatic alignments. For instance, he was addressing the US Congress on 28 April 1950, the same day Nepal and China signed the treaty of friendship. Yet King Mahendra also refused to comply with the Chinese request to do something about the Khampa rebels in Mustang.

Sadly no one after him followed his policy and years of mismanagement have made us a friend of none—and reduced our status to a battleground where superpower strengths are tested and their rivalries settled.

Let’s just hope people living off our tax money are aware of this clear and present danger.

[email protected]