To His Excellency Ranjit Rae

-- Sumit Sharma Sameer

Your Excellency,
I write this letter to you not merely as a citizen of Nepal, but as a concerned South Asian who thinks that India should play a leading role at the global level. Though the reputation of Modi government has hit nadir in Nepal, given India's democratic credentials and a strong social-cultural ties with Nepal, many Nepalese would want India to further advance her democratic image in front of the global audience.
There are reasons behind it. This is because we understand that Narendra Modi alone is not India. And, the India we know cannot be morally bankrupt. Equally important, Nepal shares a close social, cultural and spiritual affinity with India. If Paul Brunton's celebrated book, 'In Search of Secret India' is any reference, one can easily unpack why Indian spiritual gurus choose Nepal as a place for their spiritual inquiry. Our people-to-people relation is beyond the scope and definition of classical political science.


In addition, despite having a large Hindu majority, Nepal is a mosaic of different castes and ethnic groups with more than 120 languages spoken among its population of nearly thirty million. 'Diversity', a characteristic common to both countries, has put them on a similar spectrum where both have learnt and grown together in the past. Thus, as nation-states, we have common strength and weakness.

'Diversity' is both strength and weakness depending upon how the notion is exploited by political and social engineers. Unfortunately, both in India and Nepal, the complexities entangled with 'diversity' have been misused by the political class. Nepal's leadership may not be the best candidates to understand and deal with the complexities of diversity. Like the elites of any society, they may also be reluctant to share power with diverse groups and communities.

Your Excellency, but what about the Indian leadership? Why are the top Indian artists and intellectuals returning national awards citing 'climate of intolerance' under Narendra Modi's regime? Why Sumantra Bose, an Indian origin professor of International and Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics, argues that: "…the project of integrating the 'nation' seems to have been a very partial success. This is manifested most graphically in the growth of powerful and popular secessionist insurgencies during the eighties and nineties in Kashmir, Assam, Punjab and elsewhere. But the tragedies of these disturbed areas are but symptoms of a deeper structural malaise."

Perhaps, you will not disagree with me when I say that managing the complexities related to diversity is not an easy task. India is not a modern democracy; its democratic norms and values are rooted in its Vedic past. Didn't King Bharata pass his throne to Bhumanyu, son of Bhardwaj citing the incompetency of his own sons to rule India? Despite practicing democratic norms since time immemorial, India still faces challenges in managing 'diversity'. It was not long ago that it lost its leaders Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi for failing to manage its diversity. How then can India turn a blind eye to its own experiences and expect Nepal to address diversity issues in no time?
Nepal has drafted a constitution that is far more progressive and inclusive as compared to its own constitutions of the past. However, this is not to claim that this document is devoid of any shortcomings. Yes, Madhesi community has expressed its disagreements. Tharus, indigenous people in the southern plain, have their own reservations. Multi-ethnic nations are bound to face diverse challenges whenever federal lines are demarcated. How can India impose a 'blockade' based upon the failure of Nepal's leadership to manage these internal grievances? Should Nepal or any other international players criticize India for failing to manage its diversity in Kashmir, Assam, Punjab and elsewhere?

Your Excellency, we are very saddened by the failure of the Indian policymakers to understand that India is as important to Nepal to advance its political and economic interest as Nepal is to India. India's emphasis that Nepal should work to serve India's interest is not misplaced. And India is better placed to exercise its leverage over Nepal as compared to China. This has been succinctly captured by Charu Lata Hogg. She writes, "A shared sense of history, cultural and ethnic commonalities, economic interdependencies, and common borders in the case of Nepal, are all factors which India believes give it a cultural capital China can never procure."

Nevertheless, Nepal too wants its share of interest to be served by India. And these interests cannot be served merely through economic exchanges. Any economic benefits in Nepal, unlike in India, are shared by the country's elites, political class and bureaucracy. Only seldom do they trickle to the very bottom of society. What is at the core of Nepal's interest is the acknowledgement by India that it is a sovereign nation. Shortage of fuel, medicines and daily subsistence has not hurt Nepalese much. What has really hurt us is India's high-handedness towards Nepal for producing a democratic and inclusive constitution without following New Delhi's prescription.

This is not to say Nepal is not grateful to all the help India has extended at difficult times. But sending a special envoy at the last minute to abide by the New Delhi's prescription is an attempt to hammer upon the dignity of a Nepali critical mass that has not yielded to any powers in the past. I remember my professor, Bernard D' Sami, often quoting from Nani A. Palkhivala celebrated book 'We The People' in 'Indian Constitution' class during my undergraduate years at Loyola College, Chennai. Borrowing Palkhivala's words, he would reiterate, "India is today the Sick Man of Asia. But this nation will come back to health and grow strong and puissant....when the leaders have the wisdom to perceive the truth and the courage to say it to the people."

I'm not sure whether my professor would find present day India strong and puissant. But he must be saddened to find India ailing in the corridors of its most trusted neighbour which is committed to its interest. Nepal's commitment towards India's interest is, however, not to appease the Modi government; it is a deep respect to the Indian commoners who have stood by our sides during difficult times. We are deeply saddened by the death of Ashish Kumar Ram, a young man from Raxaul. May his soul rest in peace.
Your Excellency, we expect India to lift its blockade imposed upon Nepal at the earliest. This will not only ease the lives of common Nepalese, but will also facilitate the creation of common space where Nepali moderate voices can come together to fight for an inclusive Nepali state.
(Sameer is a freelance development consultant in Nepal)

Your Excellency,

I write this letter to you not merely as a citizen of Nepal, but as a concerned South Asian who thinks that India should play a leading role at the global level. Though the reputation of Modi government has hit nadir in Nepal, given India's democratic credentials and a strong social-cultural ties with Nepal, many Nepalese would want India to further advance her democratic image in front of the global audience.

There are reasons behind it. This is because we understand that Narendra Modi alone is not India. And, the India we know cannot be morally bankrupt. Equally important, Nepal shares a close social, cultural and spiritual affinity with India. If Paul Brunton's celebrated book, 'In Search of Secret India' is any reference, one can easily unpack why Indian spiritual gurus choose Nepal as a place for their spiritual inquiry. Our people-to-people relation is beyond the scope and definition of classical political science.

In addition, despite having a large Hindu majority, Nepal is a mosaic of different castes and ethnic groups with more than 120 languages spoken among its population of nearly thirty million. 'Diversity', a characteristic common to both countries, has put them on a similar spectrum where both have learnt and grown together in the past. Thus, as nation-states, we have common strength and weakness.

'Diversity' is both strength and weakness depending upon how the notion is exploited by political and social engineers. Unfortunately, both in India and Nepal, the complexities entangled with 'diversity' have been misused by the political class. Nepal's leadership may not be the best candidates to understand and deal with the complexities of diversity. Like the elites of any society, they may also be reluctant to share power with diverse groups and communities.

Your Excellency, but what about the Indian leadership? Why are the top Indian artists and intellectuals returning national awards citing 'climate of intolerance' under Narendra Modi's regime? Why Sumantra Bose, an Indian origin professor of International and Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics, argues that: "…the project of integrating the 'nation' seems to have been a very partial success. This is manifested most graphically in the growth of powerful and popular secessionist insurgencies during the eighties and nineties in Kashmir, Assam, Punjab and elsewhere. But the tragedies of these disturbed areas are but symptoms of a deeper structural malaise."

Perhaps, you will not disagree with me when I say that managing the complexities related to diversity is not an easy task. India is not a modern democracy; its democratic norms and values are rooted in its Vedic past. Didn't King Bharata pass his throne to Bhumanyu, son of Bhardwaj citing the incompetency of his own sons to rule India? Despite practicing democratic norms since time immemorial, India still faces challenges in managing 'diversity'. It was not long ago that it lost its leaders Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi for failing to manage its diversity. How then can India turn a blind eye to its own experiences and expect Nepal to address diversity issues in no time?

Nepal has drafted a constitution that is far more progressive and inclusive as compared to its own constitutions of the past. However, this is not to claim that this document is devoid of any shortcomings. Yes, Madhesi community has expressed its disagreements. Tharus, indigenous people in the southern plain, have their own reservations. Multi-ethnic nations are bound to face diverse challenges whenever federal lines are demarcated. How can India impose a 'blockade' based upon the failure of Nepal's leadership to manage these internal grievances? Should Nepal or any other international players criticize India for failing to manage its diversity in Kashmir, Assam, Punjab and elsewhere?

Your Excellency, we are very saddened by the failure of the Indian policymakers to understand that India is as important to Nepal to advance its political and economic interest as Nepal is to India. India's emphasis that Nepal should work to serve India's interest is not misplaced. And India is better placed to exercise its leverage over Nepal as compared to China. This has been succinctly captured by Charu Lata Hogg. She writes, "A shared sense of history, cultural and ethnic commonalities, economic interdependencies, and common borders in the case of Nepal, are all factors which India believes give it a cultural capital China can never procure."

Nevertheless, Nepal too wants its share of interest to be served by India. And these interests cannot be served merely through economic exchanges. Any economic benefits in Nepal, unlike in India, are shared by the country's elites, political class and bureaucracy. Only seldom do they trickle to the very bottom of society. What is at the core of Nepal's interest is the acknowledgement by India that it is a sovereign nation. Shortage of fuel, medicines and daily subsistence has not hurt Nepalese much. What has really hurt us is India's high-handedness towards Nepal for producing a democratic and inclusive constitution without following New Delhi's prescription.

This is not to say Nepal is not grateful to all the help India has extended at difficult times. But sending a special envoy at the last minute to abide by the New Delhi's prescription is an attempt to hammer upon the dignity of a Nepali critical mass that has not yielded to any powers in the past. I remember my professor, Bernard D' Sami, often quoting from Nani A. Palkhivala celebrated book 'We The People' in 'Indian Constitution' class during my undergraduate years at Loyola College, Chennai. Borrowing Palkhivala's words, he would reiterate, "India is today the Sick Man of Asia. But this nation will come back to health and grow strong and puissant....when the leaders have the wisdom to perceive the truth and the courage to say it to the people."

I'm not sure whether my professor would find present day India strong and puissant. But he must be saddened to find India ailing in the corridors of its most trusted neighbour which is committed to its interest. Nepal's commitment towards India's interest is, however, not to appease the Modi government; it is a deep respect to the Indian commoners who have stood by our sides during difficult times. We are deeply saddened by the death of Ashish Kumar Ram, a young man from Raxaul. May his soul rest in peace.

Your Excellency, we expect India to lift its blockade imposed upon Nepal at the earliest. This will not only ease the lives of common Nepalese, but will also facilitate the creation of common space where Nepali moderate voices can come together to fight for an inclusive Nepali state.

(Sameer is a freelance development consultant in Nepal)

- See more at: http://setopati.net/opinion/10076/To-His-Excellency,-Ranjit-Rae/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed#sthash.cHLb7BSg.dpuf