Submit your Article

As expected, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Nepal brought to the fore the bitterness in Nepal-India relations and also between the Hills and the Madhes. Nonetheless, there is much to be said about an Indian Prime Minister visiting Nepal three times in quick succession in a context where there had been no official visits from India to Nepal for over two decades before Modi’s tenure. And without improv­ing economic ties and establishing mutual respect with India, it is vir­tually impossible for Nepal to even begin to flourish. Though Modi did not publicly apologize for the block­ade, which most Nepalis wanted, there was tact in his demeanor this time that said in no unquiet terms that he knows what he had done.

With the blockade over two years behind us, Modi’s visit did open up the avenue for a new and redefined relationship with India, albeit per­haps not as revolutionarily redefined as some of us might have hoped.

Changing narrative

If we go back to 3 August 2014, and remember Modi’s address to Nepal’s then-Constituent Assem­bly, the change in his language and narrative to accommodate the cur­rent political realities of a UML-led government is quite apparent. In fact, the way in which politics was dealt with this time was seemingly not to deal with it at all; all atten­tion was shifted to the political rel­evance of the religious purpose of Modi’s visit.

It was quite apparent that elec­tions in India had driven Modi’s “pil­grimage” to Nepal. Nonetheless, for our political actors, some space was created to engage with India about its promises to deliver on develop­ment programs in Nepal.

Addressing Parliament on May 13, PM Oli shared an overview of Modi’s visit, and although little can be known about the intentions to realize any of the plans, Oli had thought through what he was look­ing to achieve from Modi’s visit. PM Oli however did not receive the public applaud he had hoped for his attempts to redefine relations with India, for example, by not going to welcome Modi himself at the airport or accompanying him everywhere. In fact, Modi’s visit and the way the Nepali state handled it have elicited mixed responses.

In particular, it was odd to see that in Janakpur, the provincial government played an integral role in engaging with the Indian Prime Minister on his visit to the Janaki temple, whereas on his visit to Muktinath, the provincial gov­ernment was nowhere to be seen. There were other anomalies that were also brought up on social media platforms, for example, the government’s decision to host the program at Rastriya Sabha Griha primarily in English and secondarily in Nepali, raising concerns over the relevance to do so.

Trade deficit

Toward the end of Modi’s trip, the Nepal-India joint statement released on 12 May has set a September 2018 deadline to outline a clear imple­mentation plan for bilateral agree­ments. To understand the gravity of the agreements’ implementation, let’s take one agreement as an exam­ple: The two prime ministers have agreed to review the considerable trade deficit between the two coun­tries and find ways to address it.

Our trade dependency with India is high. Whereas 64 percent of our total import comes from India, only 12 percent comes from China. Similarly, 66 percent of our total export goes to India while only 3 percent goes to China. According to the Trade and Export Promo­tion Center (TEPC), Nepal’s trade deficit in 2017 was around Rs 500 billion; we imported goods worth around Rs 540-550 billion whereas we exported goods worth only Rs 30-40 billion.

Furthermore, in the last decade, the average growth in export is 4.2 percent whereas the average growth in import is 18.2 percent. Our current Finance Minister has been relentlessly going on about how without increasing investment and production in the country, there is no way to address the trade deficit with India.

In sum, if tangible methods to decrease the trade deficit with India are implemented jointly by the two governments, Nepal will gain much in terms of economic growth. But it’s very clear it will require more than lip service on the part of both the Indian state and our own leaders.

The agreement on addressing the trade deficit is just one of the many others that were reached, which if sincerely implemented, could pro­foundly impact Nepal’s everyday reality. Arun III hydroelectric proj­ect, which ironically was obstructed by the UML for over a decade, has been inaugurated.

There have been agreements on more air routes, more cross-bor­der routes, the Ramayana circuit etc. which have the potential for tremendous positive impact. But it ultimately boils down to the will and resources on the part of both actors to bring the agreements to fruition. PM Oli may well try to pressurize India to act, and act fast, for his visit to China has also just been con­firmed for June. Stay tuned.

Besides the senseless “tra­dition” of our prime minis­ters making India their first foreign port of call following the 1990 political change, there is another irritating ritual that is not much discussed. Nepal needs to assure, promise and pledge that it will not allow its land to be used against India at the end of every bilateral talk between the leaders of the two countries. While our leaders may feel it’s just a simple ritualistic statement to make their hosts or guests happy, it nonetheless implies that we either were or are insensitive to India’s security concerns. Now, if one looks at history, it’s always India that is insensitive to our security interests and allows its territory to be used against the government of the day. As the late social scientist Saubhagya Shah once wrote, no “revolution” in Nepal has succeeded without India’s active support, a state­ment which was later corroborat­ed by the writers close to Indian establishment in their books on the Maoist insurgency and polit­ical transition in Nepal. Likewise the Nepali Congress used Indian territory against the Nepali state throughout the 1960s and the most of the 1970s. But we are yet to be assured by the Indian side; nor do we seek assurances that it will not allow its territory to be used against us.

Plane hijacking an excuse

The “ritual” has been repeated so often that almost every Nepali “scholar” writing on Nepal-In­dia relations has to suggest that our government appears sensitive to India’s security concerns. We cannot even buy modern weapons for our forc­es because it is interpreted as being insensitive to Indian securi­ty interests. Forget weapons, we can’t even implement our nation­al security policy lest we offend Indian sensitivities.

True, a plane belonging to an Indian airliner was hijacked from the Kathmandu airport in 1999 and the Indian government had to release some notorious ter­rorists in exchange for the hos­tages. And there’s been reports of anti-India criminal and terror­ist outfits operating from Nepal. But terrorists have hijacked planes from secure airports around the world, including in India, and there’s been similar release of terrorists in exchange for hostages. And no country can claim that it’s free of terrorist net­works. Using the hijacking as an excuse, India installed its own security check before boarding Indian aircraft from Kathmandu, to prove that Nepal’s commit­ment to India’s security cannot be trusted. Sadly, while the hijacking is remembered, Nepal’s help in suppressing the 1948 Hyderabad revolt is forgotten.

Nepal is doing all it can to address India’s concerns with whatever limited capacity it has. It is no secret that Nepal Police, either working on tip-offs from Indian police/intelligence or acting on its own, routinely arrests and hands over wanted criminals and terrorists to India, and the Indian police does the same with Nepali criminals hiding in India.

What India wants

Then what is it that the Indian government really wants? In the short run, it wants us to limit our engagement with China and who­ever it deems a threat. It wants us to follow its lead on foreign policy. And we are already witnessing it. It has succeeded in making the most of the world view Nepal through the Indian lens. Rarely do heads of state/government from other countries visit us, nor are our heads of state/government invited to other countries, except India and China, for official or state visits.

In the long run, just like any aspiring regional power, India wants to bring us under its security umbrella by making us and others believe that we have the capacity neither to address India’s security concerns nor to handle our defense by our­selves. All aspiring powers need to exercise power in their neighbor­hood to prove they are not to be taken lightly.

PM Oli, how about putting it this way when you need to follow the ritual next? So far we have done everything in our capacity to address India’s security concerns and we will continue to do so, and we expect our good neighbor India to reciprocate.

The strain of very badly played instruments permeates through the closed widows. Ho hum… must be a wedding in the neighborhood. And not just one! Weddings, like buses, tend to come along all at the same time. There is what are called, ‘wedding seasons’. I get the fact that there are days which are more auspicious than others for weddings and I understand that some months in the year are just not great for cele­brations. Planting, harvesting, mon­soon—all would have made it diffi­cult in the past to hold a wedding which might involve your guests walking for hours from nearby vil­lages. But I would have thought that in Kathmandu and other cities, the social calendar no longer needs to revolve around the agricultural year. Or does the agriculture year now revolve around weddings?Whether for genuine belief in the gods appointing an auspicious day for a wedding, or whether bowing to convention, weddings all happen at one time. Or that is how it appears anyway! I have friends who have to rush from one party palace to anoth­er on the same day to attend sev­eral weddings. The roads become even more congested than usual as the many wedding cars make their way from one location to the next. Last Friday, I was delighted to see a carriage drawn by two white hors­es near my house. The usual red-clothed brass band was present as well as a crowd of invitees and curi­ous passers-by. Well, not actually ‘passing by’ as the road was blocked. I had to squeeze through the throng of excited aunties and children.

I’ve attended weddings in villages, in a range of party palaces, and in 4-star hotels, and they all have one thing in common. What’s with the sad-faced bride? Even love marriag­es or marriages where the bride and groom are extremely happy with the choice of spouse, where does it say that the bride needs to look like she is in a dentist waiting room? She sits there in her fine clothes and gold jewelry on a raised platform so that everyone can see what a lucky man the groom is.

Well, yes probably I wouldn’t be looking too happy either under these circumstances. And not being able to join in the dancing? My face is falling by the minute! For what is a wedding without dancing? On the whole the main reason for me attending a wedding is for the dancing! Wheth­er that is a Scottish wedding with traditional dances such as the Gay Gordons and Strip the Willow (don’t these names sound a little strange today?) or a Nepali wedding with Bollywood and Nepali tunes, I just love to dance. And why shouldn’t the bride be allowed to dance also?

I’ve been at weddings where the brides look petrified. At a friend’s village wedding I sat talking to his bride for quite some time as she looked completely lost and vulnera­ble. Years later, I was introduced to my friend’s now smiling and happy wife. She did not remember me, despite me being the only foreigner at her wedding. The whole day for her was just a blur of ritual, red vermilion, and no doubt the fear of what was to come. While the rest of us were dancing and eating to our hearts content and generally having a great time, she, like so many other brides, was not.

So when I hear that far-from-mu­sical wedding band, I usually feel quite unsettled. The young bride has no idea what is in store for her. But, hopefully her ‘new’ family will be good to her. However, I suspect a little bit of her dies that day. And if you have no idea what I am talking about… you must be a man.

Thriller

RAAZI

CAST: Alia Bhatt, Vicky Kaushal, Jaideep Ahlawat, Rajit Kapur

DIRECTION: Meghna Gulzar 

4 STARS ****

Even with the plethora of spy-thrillers Bollywood has been churning out of late, Meghna Gulzar’s ‘Raazi’ feels dif­ferent. The smartly woven film recounts the life journey of its female protagonist, from a meek homely girl to a fearless spy. A mas­terly performance by Alia Bhatt suc­cessfully glues together the film’s moral complexities and nationalist sentiments, making it an important film to have come out of India in recent times. During the volatile times in the build-up to the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War, 20-year-old Sehmat Khan (Alia Bhatt) is plucked from her sheltered life as a student in Delhi University and made to train as an Indian spy by her father (Rajit Kapur), a sea­soned Indian spy himself with ties to a high-ranking Pakistani army official. To plant his daughter inside Pakistan, he arranges Sehmat’s mar­riage to the Pakistani army official’s youngest son Iqbal (Vicky Kaushal).

With Sehmat installed in her in-laws’ place in Pakistan, she becomes the eyes and ears of India, which wants to know if Pakistan is trying to outflank it on a crucial war-front. The task isn’t easy as we see her walk on eggshells, conniving and cajoling to scavenge just about any information on Pakistani mili­tary tactics which she can secretly pass on to her Indian superiors. And she has to do all this without blowing her cover of a naïve young wife and daughter-in-law.

‘Raazi’ is based on the novel ‘Calling Sehmat’ (2008) by former Indian military man Harinder Sikka. Gulzar and her co-writer Bhavani Iyer’s adaptation retains the broad “nothing above national interest” theme. But they are also successful in telling the story without the kind of chest-thumping patriotism that’s become the standard staple of so many Indian spy genre flicks, be it Neeraj Pandey’s ‘Baby’ or Nikhil Advani’s ‘D-Day’. In this Raazi is more of a character study than a desperate flag-waving film.

Pakistan for a change isn’t por­trayed as filled with villains. Gulzar doesn’t resort to cheap tricks like pulling a sub-plot where Sehmat gets abused by her controlling in-laws, just to massage the anti-Pakistani pathos. Vicky Kaushal, who plays Sehmat’s unsuspecting husband Iqbal, is shown to be an understand­ing partner who on the night of their wedding insists on sleeping on a separate sofa and allows his wife to settle and grow familiar with him. Sehmat and Iqbal’s relation­ship grows to such an extent that it threatens to doom her real mission.

Bhatt, who debuted in 2012 with the high school movie ‘Student of the Year’ has in recent times taken up more challenging and serious roles (most notably in ‘Udta Punjab’ and ‘Highway’), where she peels off her good looks for good acting. The character of Sehmat feels realistic in Bhatt’s subtle hands. She fascinates and has the audience rooting for her right through the nearly two-and-a-half-hour film. I can only hope her star power will help the film reach more moviegoers.

In addition to its riveting plot and characters, ‘Raazi’ also boasts of terrific period production design. Much care has gone into giving the film a vintage look and style through, often the gentle interplay of Urdu language and Kashmiri cul­ture. Similarly, the songs penned by Gulzar (Meghna Gulzar’s father) and music by Shankar-Ehsan-Loy are well-crafted and evocative.

Raazi is a film where the women have the upper hand. Steered by a capable director, with a splendid performance of its female lead, it’s a wholehearted emotional ride and a pulsating thriller. Do not miss .