Birendra P Mishra, 14 November, 2021. After independence India started reshaping its foreign policy. The independent India faced two realities-the growing influence of the western countries on Pakistan, on the one hand, and Tibet, which was brought under the direct control of the Chinese communist regime in 1949, on the other. The British Empire had treated Tibet as the buffer state between British India and China. Although China was not so powerful at that time as it is today, yet it was a power to be reckoned with. Previously, British India was not at all scared of independent Nepal for two reasons. First, Nepal, which was an independent kingdom, had some specific obligations to act for British India under the Treaty of Sugauli signed in 1815 and also under the treaty signed in 1923. In other words, Nepal was an independent kingdom for the world at large except for British India. Secondly, Tibet was the buffer state between British India and China. The regional balance changed drastically with the emergence of Communist China.
Political Restlessness in Nepal
Nepal was never a colony. However, it was ruled by the Rana oligarchy. Nepal could not remain cut off from the air of change blowing for getting independence from colonial rules in several parts of the globe after the end of the Second World War. The independence movement in India indirectly inspired the enlightened citizens of Nepal to have a democratic setup in place of the oligarchic rule. They formed their political outfits during 1947 to 1950 in India, as political activities were banned by the Rana regime. On the other side, in view of the Indian independence and people’s political awareness jointly made the regime restless to come into action. To meet people’s aspiration, the then Rana Prime Minister, Padma Shamsher JBR initiated the political reform by framing a new constitution for the country and held elections to the Rashtra Sabha (National Assembly) in 1949.
Jawaharlal Nehru: Setter of India’s Foreign Policy:
It is no exaggeration to state that its first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was the setter of India’s foreign policy. He was the Foreign Minister himself form 2 September 1946 to 27 May 1964 (till he died). His approach to Nepal can be divided in two parts: first from1947 to 1960 (before the royal takeover of BP Koirala’s elected government) and second, after 1961 and onwards.
Personal Idealism and Political Realism:
The foreign policy of India seemed to oscillate between the personal idealism and the political realism of Nehru. The personal idealism facilitated the smooth landing of a democratic setup from the oligarchic rule in Nepal when the Rana regime collapsed due to armed revolution led by the Nepali Congress (NC) and king Tribhuvan’s dissociation from the regime by self-exiling to India. The King took refuge in the Indian Embassy on 9 November and was flown to Delhi on November10, 1950. During his self-exile he accepted an Indian memorandum proposing a compromise formula after negotiating with the two ministers of the Rana Government, Bijaya Shamsher and Keshar Shamsher, the foreign and defence ministers respectively who returned to Kathmandu for finalizing the following three-point formula on 8 December 1950:
a. An elected Constituent Assembly (CA) to draft a new constitution;
b. An interim government with “popular” (with Nepali Congress) representation but a Rana prime minister; and
c. Recognition of King Tribhuvan.
After a long deliberation, an agreement was signed on 7 February 1951 in Delhi. (1) The compromise was executed by the King after reaching Kathmandu . A coalition government of the Ranas and the Nepali Congress headed by its last PM Mohun Shamsher JBR was formed to provide continuity of the government. The King was reestablished as the real sovereign. However, to constitute a CA was left to the King and the government. The government went on changing that prolonged the issue. The ‘ Delhi Compromise’ was the effect of his personal idealism on Indian foreign policy. (2)
India and Constituent Assembly (CA):
Perhaps, the idea of holding CA was the brainchild of Nehru, as he was for a democratic Nepal from the very beginning of the epochal political change in Nepal in early 1950s. There were four main political stakeholders in Nepal to initiate the issue of a CA. The first stakeholder was the king, second was the Rana Prime Minster, the third was the NC which had waged an armed struggle against the Rana regime and the last was the facilitator, the Indian establishment. The king could not be the originator of the idea of an elected CA, as he might not have an idea about any CA, since he was almost captive in his own palace from his very childhood. Moreover, had it been his project, he could have done some thing at least to hold CA election before his death in Switzerland in February 1955. The Ranas too could not have proposed a CA as they had already got a constitution drafted by some Indian experts a few years ago, which did not have any mention of it. Similarly, the NC too could not be its initiator, as BP Koirala, in his ‘Atmavritanta’ (autobiography) himself admits that no NC leaders including Koirala Brothers ( MP Koirala and himself) were allowed to have direct negotiation with the exiled King at the Hyderabad House in new Delhi to discuss about the contents of the ‘ Delhi Compromise’. He simply calls it,” an imaginary matter.”(3) Thus, Nehru intended to see Nepal to have an elected CA to frame a constitution to be governed democratically
Ultimately, the dream of Nehru was materialized on 20 September 2015 after a gap of 64 years. King Mahendra was not at all interested in CA. The NC leaders were not serious about having a CA, as the NC participated in the parliamentary election in 1959 under a new constitution promulgated by the King. Interestingly, even the people’s movement of 1990 did not entertain the agenda of CA. It accepted constitutional monarchy through the new constitution drafted by the representatives of the NC, CPN –UML and the nominees of the then king. Though, Gajendra Narayan Singh of Sadbhavana Party raised the issue of CA, he too did not stick to his demand due to his limited political sphere and lack of political shrewdness to fight for this just cause.
Significantly, the Maoists, who raised arms against the state in the early 1996, took up the issue of CA while negotiating peace with the government with three main demands:
However, it remained a matter of curiosity as to why did the Maoists demand CA being adherent to the political thought of one party rule and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Were the Maoist leaders under the influence of Indian leaders, both the leftist and the democratic, during their stay in India earlier and during insurgency? Or did they think of copying Indian democratic innovations for themselves? Perhaps, some of the democratic minded Maoist leaders, might have initiated and convinced their colleagues to go for an elected CA, a more democratic process to carry the people’s wish ultimately.
Nehru’s Personal Initiatives
Nehru’s relation with Nepal was somewhat personal. The relations between modern India and post-Rana Nepal can be better looked through the prism of the correspondence between PM Jawaharlal Nehru, King Tribhuwan and PM MP Koirala during the early 1950s. After the revolt of Raksha Dal, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote personal letter to the King on 27 January 1952, (4) addressing the King as ‘My dear friend’, and assured that an Indian small party of Army and Air Force officers visiting to Kathmandu would be of some assistance to Nepal. He writes, “ The whole purpose of this visit is to render assistance, in the shape of advice, where required and not to interfere in any other way with your Government arrangements”. To build harmony between the King and the Prime Minister, he wrote to PM Koirala, enclosing a copy of the letter addressed to the king, on February 28, 1952, (5) regarding the internal bickering of the NC and the relation between the two brothers. He writes “ I spoke quite frankly to him (BP Koirala) about the position in and the needs of Nepal and the great responsibility which rested on a few leading personalities in the movement for freedom in Nepal. These personalities obviously included you and BP. I told him that it was exceedingly injurious to the cause of Nepal, and of course to that of the Nepali Congress, for a conflict to take place between you and him. In fact, everybody should have the sense to pull together in this crisis, otherwise they will be swept away.”
He Writes Further, “I told BP that he had some excellent qualities, push, drive, etc., but he was far too impulsive and lacked ballast. No doubt with a little experience he will gain this ballast and be more balanced. He was young and he would have plenty of chances of working for big ends. But by over-reaching himself, he might not only injure his own chances but, what was more important, injure Nepal’s interests.” Keeping in view a presidential contest in the party, he suggests, “ It would be improper for a contested election to take place for the president ship of the Nepali Congress. Whoever might win, this would affect the unity of Government and the cooperation of the government with the NC. It would leave a trail of conflict and bitterness behind.” He asserts further, “It was immaterial to me whether the PM was the President of the NC or not. Much could be said for either course. But it was essential that the President of the NC and the PM should pull together… B.P., I think, was impressed by what I said. I said it all in a very friendly way, as I would talk to a young colleague of mine.” In the letter dated 23 April 1952, he writes to Koirala, “It is not for me to advise you in regard to domestic matters but, if I may say so, it might be possible to introduce some simple reforms with great speed. These reforms may relate to the judicial system, which, I understand, is very primitive. … May I also say that it would be desirable if the King as well as Ministers did not frequently go out of Nepal, more specially to big cities like Calcutta?”
Political Realism
Nehru’s considerate opinion on Nepal was strengthened by his response expressed on the request made by the then Nepalese ambassador to India, General Vijaya Shamsher, the son of Mohun Shamsher, who had resigned from the Prime Ministership. He wrote to the new PM MP Koirala on 5 December 1951 showing respect to Mohun Shamsher as His Highness Maharaja. He suggests that the Maharaja should not shift his headquarters to India, but to stay in Nepal and come to India from time to time when he wished. Realizing his difficulties he writes, “ He is an old man now and has seen many changes which naturally have shaken up a great deal. He is entitled to every courtesy and good treatment.”
Personal Treatment:
The correspondence between Nehru and PM MP Koirala and King Tribhuvan cited above, surprises one to note that Nehru’s addresses to the King as a friend and to PM MP Koirala as ‘Matrika Prasadji’ and also as ‘Matrika babu’ show his respect and affection for them. From such overtures, one should not hesitate to conclude that Nehru’s attitude towards Nepalese dignitaries was that of equals and there was personal touch in his treatment of the Nepalese leaders. Significantly, one can find from the correspondence that serious issues were discussed and Nehru’s suggestions were sought not because he was the PM of India but because he was a senior leader known personally to the Nepalese leaders, and he was one of the real well wishers of Nepal among the then Indian establishment and the people.
Nehru Alerts Nepalese Rulers:
The influence of political realism was evident from Nehru’s implicit and explicit overtures to the matters relating to Nepal’s foreign affairs. He advises Nepalese rulers to be cautious about engaging Americans and Chinese showing his concern over Indian security and also to have a joint approach to foreign policy. Interestingly, despite repeated suggestion from Nehru, Nepal succeeded in contacting the Chinese ambassador to India through the then Nepalese Ambassador in August 1954 paving the way for opening diplomatic channel with China.
He, while cautioning Nepal against employing foreigner and especially regarding US aid, writes on February 25, 1952, “There are all kinds of laws in the US governing help to foreign countries and wanting something in exchange for them. We have been dealing but the US for a long time past and have made it perfectly clear that while help is welcome, we will not have any political or other strings attached to it.”
Nehru categorically expresses his commitment not to interfere in the internal matters of Nepal on 6 June 1952, by writing, , “I have hesitated to write to you because it is none of my business to interfere in any way in the internal politics of Nepal.” He attaches importance to two elements in Nepal- stability and promise of progress. He shows his disgust for no progress on holding Constituent Assembly (CA) elections and functioning of the Advisory Council (AC). He writes further, “These two elements were: the King and the NC… As I know, no progress has been made towards the calling of the CA and the AC has not functioned at all… It is not my concern what kind of Government the Nepalese people would like to have themselves. But if something happens in Nepal, which endangers our own security, then of course this is a matter of great concern to us. … History and geography have thrown India and Nepal together. We cannot forget that history or change geography.”
On 31 July 1952, Nehru advises the PM again to be broader in outlook, “ If I may say so, as PM, you will have to keep this larger viewpoint before you. The country is more important than any individual or group, and it would be a tragedy if, because of group or individual conflicts, the country suffers.”
During Koirala ‘s second stint as PM, he was advised again by Nehru to be careful about American interference and also become realistic about the takeover of Tibet by China, which the whole world has accepted Chinese sovereignty over Tibet (8 May 1954). He was further advised, perhaps out of the way, not to seek extra-territorial rights and claiming Rs.10, 000 from Tibet and to have mutual consultation with both the countries over foreign affairs. (29 June 1954).
India’s Attitude Towards Nepal:
From the above correspondence, one can easily infer some conclusions regarding PM Nehru’s attitude towards Nepal. First, he wants to see Nepal to grow as an independent democratic country. Secondly, he wants stability in Nepal. Thirdly, he wishes economic development of Nepal. Fourthly, he cautions Nepal against the close relations with China and the United States. Fifthly, he wants Nepal to be serious about the Indian security perception. Sixthly, he does not want any interference in the internal matters of Nepal. And lastly, he has personal goodwill for Nepal and its leaders.
Coup d’etat by King Mahendra in 1960:
Curiously, King Mahendra, decided to go against the all good wishes of Nehru when on 15 December 1960, He dissolved the duly elected Parliament, suspended the constitution and arrested PM BP Koirala and his cabinet colleagues. On the royal coup, Nehru’s response was quoted by The Hindu, one of the oldest English daily published in India, It writes on 21December 1960, “ PM Nehru, initiating the debate on foreign affairs in the Rajya Sabha on 20 December20, was sharply critical of the Nepal King’s dismissal of the Koirala Ministry, suspension of the state’s constitution and country-wide arrests and detention of popular leaders. He said the king’s sanction came to him not as a surprise but a shock… But the king stated that the king and the Cabinet have not been working harmoniously for some months. He described as “vague” the charges leveled by the king against the Koirala Ministry. The Koirala Government has been functioning under difficult conditions having regard to the state’s history after the elimination of the Rana rule. Of course, no body could describe the Koirala Government as ideal and for that matter no Government anywhere could be regarded as ideal. The Hindu writes again on 19January 1961 thus, “ Prime Minister Nehru on January 18 reiterated his view that the recent development in Nepal was a serious setback to democratic setup. While it was for the people of Nepal to decide what they should do, all that he could say was not ‘a step in advance, but a step backward and that step backward will have to be retraced some time or other’. Mr. Nehru was replying to questions at his press conference.”
