View from the Himalayas: India expects a firm stand on terrorism from Nepal

New Delhi has asked Nepal to demonstrate a firm position against what it regards as Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.

It is an everyday story of tens of thousands of Nepalis in the Terai plains. Countless numbers cross the open border – for work, shopping, tourism (including medical tourism), to meet family members, for pilgrimage and for many more reasons.

Porters cross the Shey La Pass in Dolpo region of the Himalaya in Nepal. (Getty Images)

One of the 26 killed in the terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22 was a young Nepali. A resident of Rupandehi district on the border with Uttar Pradesh, Sudip Neupane had travelled with his sister and brother-in-law to Kashmir on a ‘spontaneous’ visit. Butwal, his home town, is only six hours away from Lucknow, four hours from Ayodhya and three hours from Gorakhpur.

Nepal unequivocally condemned the attack. Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli spoke with Prime Minister Narendra Modi the next day, both expressing condolences to each other for the lives lost.

On April 30, Vijay Chauthaiwale, in-charge of the foreign affairs department of the Bharatiya Janata Party and a familiar face in political circles in Kathmandu, landed in Nepal. He met three key figures in office – Prime Minister Oli, home minister Ramesh Lekhak and foreign minister Arzu Deuba. He also paid courtesy calls to three former prime ministers – Sher Bahadur Deuba, Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal, all of whom also head their parties.

The visit (and concurrent diplomatic exchanges) stressed on three key points, according to multiple insiders. That India will make military strikes on Pakistan – the date, nature and scale remained undisclosed; India wants its South Asian neighbours, and Nepal indeed, to realise they are an integral part of fight against terrorism; and there could be some pro-Pakistani protests in pockets in Terai should there be an escalation.

When India launched Operation Sindoor in the early hours on May 7, Kathmandu had by then seen a flurry of diplomatic and political engagements. On May 8, the foreign ministry issued a statement. “The Government of Nepal,” it said, “is deeply concerned about the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, following terrorist attacks on innocent tourists in Pahalgam…in which a Nepali national also had lost his precious life. During this tragic period, Nepal and India stand in solidarity, united in shared grief and suffering.”

Some expressed disappointment that Nepal had failed to name and unequivocally condemn Pakistan and support the Indian move, given the fact that a Nepali had also been killed and another injured in the terrorist attack. Others argued that Nepal had already condemned the Pahalgam attack and there was no need to issue a statement in the fog of border skirmishes, and claims and counterclaims. Some others said, neither India nor Pakistan was happy with the statement and Nepal could have chosen to stay silent (”strategic ambiguity”), not least as the current Saarc chair.

The ongoing ceasefire (“cessation of hostilities”, in Delhi’s viewpoint) offers political space for reflection on the consequential Indian position vis-à-vis its South Asian neighbours and also their own response to India’s. Nepal is a hard place to be. It has been historically plagued by small-state insecurities on the one hand and the need to stand with India against an act of terrorism and a fast-changing geopolitical context on the other.

Here are some facts playing out on the ground. None of Nepal’s senior political leaders have yet visited Sandeep Neupane’s family, including finance minister Bishnu Poudel, who comes from PM’s Oli party, the CPN-UML, a Communist party. Poudel, as importantly, is elected from that part of the country.

New Delhi, meanwhile, has asked Nepal to demonstrate a firm position against what it regards as Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, calling for a serious review of the traditional Nepali approach of treating India and Pakistan on a similar diplomatic footing. “It should not be treated as business as usual” matter, which concludes with “boiler-plate statements”, says an Indian diplomat. “Western and European powers can issue such platitudes”, not those in the subcontinent.

Nepal’s ‘mixed response’ is, among others, rooted in its history. The idea that Nepal should consider itself a “Yam between two boulders” has deeply influenced its national imagination since the ‘unifier king’ Prithivi Narayan imagined modern-day Nepal. The decades-long effort in the 18th century was a combination of conquests, guile and diplomacy, which subjugated more than 50 smaller states. Nepal, until the early 19th century, remained a major regional player. In very recent history, Kathmandu has housed the Saarc secretariat since 1987. Hence its default diplomatic position on thorny bilateral issues between India and Pakistan – both Saarc members – has been one of neutrality.

That said, Nepalis are mindful of the fact that India has since grown to be the fifth-largest economy, poised to be the third largest and is governed by a Hindu revivalist party since 2013. New Delhi enjoys substantive diplomatic leverage in corridors of power in Kathmandu in bilateral forums. India is Nepal’s largest trading partner and Indian ports are transit points to most of Nepal’s trade, including with China. On multilateral forums in the region and beyond, India’s diplomatic heft is far greater than that of the much troubled Pakistan. Will Pahalgam be the inflection point?

Other than New Delhi, other powers – not least Beijing - are keeping a close eye on the developments in the neighbourhood.

Akhilesh Upadhyay is former Editor-in-Chief of The Kathmandu Post and a Senior Fellow at Center for Strategic Affairs at IIDS, a Kathmandu-based think tank. Views expressed are personal.