In an exclusive conversation with Onlinekhabar, former Indian Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Nepal, Shyam Saran, reflects on two decades of India–Nepal diplomacy and the importance of moving beyond outdated suspicions.
Shyam Saran has played a pivotal role in shaping India–Nepal relations over the past 25 years. Serving as India’s Ambassador to Nepal from 2002 to 2004, and soon after as Foreign Secretary, Saran was instrumental in facilitating the 12-point agreement between Nepal’s then seven-party alliance and the Maoists in New Delhi. That agreement laid the groundwork for Nepal’s 2005–06 people’s movement, which led to the end of monarchy and the establishment of federalism and secularism.
Even after retirement, Saran remained actively engaged in Nepal’s peace and constitution-making processes, serving as a special envoy of then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. A respected diplomat and author of acclaimed books such as How India Sees the World and How China Sees India and the World, Saran recently visited Kathmandu, where he spoke with Onlinekhabar’s Janardan Baral.
Excerpts from the interview follow.
During your tenure as Ambassador to Nepal, the country was under a constitutional monarchy. Later, as India’s Foreign Secretary, you witnessed the major political changes in Nepal around 2005–2006. How would you characterize the transformations in Nepal during this period?
I don’t want to get into a debate about internal matters of Nepal here. I would only like to say that, for 10 years, Nepal was suffering from a very violent insurgency. People all over the country were deeply distressed because of the violence, and we know that a large number of Nepali citizens left the country as a result. The economic situation was also badly affected.
One significant achievement of the peace process was that it brought an end to that ten-year period of intense violence in Nepal’s history, and that in itself is a very big achievement. There are very few peace movements in the world that have actually succeeded; Nepal is one of the few countries in recent history with a record of a successful peace process. That is something for Nepal to be proud of.
Secondly, despite all its faults and the setbacks we have seen over the last few years, the country remains a very vibrant multi-party democracy. That is also something to be proud of. From my perspective, the success of the peace process and the emergence of Nepal as a vibrant multi-party democracy are very important achievements.
You are credited with being closely involved in the 12-point agreement of November 2005, which paved the way for Nepal’s peace process. Could you elaborate on India’s role in facilitating this agreement and your personal involvement?
No, there was no personal involvement, nor was there any intermediary role played by India. This was something that was actually negotiated and agreed upon between the seven-party alliance and the Maoists. The role that India played was to provide the venue for such a meeting to take place and for such an agreement to be reached. We did not have a role in determining the various points of the agreement; this was contributed to essentially by the political parties of Nepal and the Maoists themselves. So, India did not play an active role.
However, as a large neighbor and a country friendly to Nepal, we certainly tried to facilitate the process. There is a misperception that India actually drafted the agreement, but that is not true.
Recently, there have been pro-monarchist movements in Nepal, with some in Nepal believing that certain sections of India may be supporting these activities. What is your perspective on these claims, and do you think there is any basis to the perception that Indian forces are backing these movements?
No, I have no evidence regarding any kind of support for, or opposition to, the political movements in Nepal. People should realize that these are matters, in which it is the people of Nepal who have to decide.
Even if I go back to the Jan Andolan period, I remember that as Foreign Secretary, I was asked, “Do you support the two pillars policy of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy?” My answer was that India will support whatever the people of Nepal want. I do not think that, despite changes in government, there has been any change in that approach from India. It is not for India to decide what the political dispensation in Nepal should be; it is for the people of Nepal to decide. And I think that is the position we would stand by.
India and Nepal share an open border and deep people-to-people ties. In your view, what are the primary benefits and challenges of maintaining this unique border arrangement in the current geopolitical context?
You know, I have always thought of borders not as barriers, but as connectors. We should have a different mindset when looking at the border. What is very unique about India and Nepal is that, despite this being a very challenging situation to maintain, by and large, over the last several decades, this open border has, on balance, been an asset rather than a liability.
Obviously, when you have an open border, some issues will inevitably arise. There is the problem of criminal activity and the movement of contraband back and forth across the borders. Those, of course, are issues that must be dealt with. But I believe these issues can be addressed without giving up this great asset we have in the open border. We should make certain that we preserve something so fundamental to the very strong people-to-people links that exist between our two countries, and the deep affinities between the people of Nepal and the people of India.
This should not be impacted by efforts to make the border much more strictly regulated or to interfere with the free flow of goods and people across it. This is my personal opinion, based on my own experience of Nepal, and I believe that, on balance, the open border is an asset to both India and Nepal rather than a liability. That is how I would put it.
India and Bangladesh successfully resolved their longstanding and complex border disputes in 2015. In contrast, border issues such as Kalapani and Susta continue to strain Nepal-India relations, even though they are not considered as complex. In your opinion, what are the main reasons these disputes remain unresolved?
The first point I would like to make is that many people do not know that more than 95% of the India-Nepal border has not only been settled but also demarcated. There are detailed maps showing the exact alignment of the border. It is actually only about 5% that remains to be resolved, and as you mentioned, this relates to both Susta and Kalapani. Sometimes, these issues become bigger than they should be because of domestic political reasons, and that is something we may have to contend with. I would say that, in the current political situation here in Nepal—and the same applies in India—it is very difficult for any government to be seen as conceding on territorial issues. These have become very sensitive political matters.
I think both countries have taken the right approach: acknowledging that there are differences over some parts of the border, setting those aside for the time being, and focusing on expanding our relations and people-to-people linkages; at an appropriate time, we can see whether it is possible to resolve these remaining issues.
Nepal’s strategic location requires it to balance its relations with both India and China. India has expressed concerns about China’s growing presence in Nepal. How do you assess Nepal- China relations and their implications for Nepal-India ties?
First of all, we have no issue with Nepal and China establishing good relations and maintaining a relationship of cooperation. If Nepal is able to benefit from economic cooperation with China, that is Nepal’s right to have those relations.
Where I think India would be concerned is if there are activities indulged in by China, which compromise India’s security. This is where we should ensure that the great asset of an open border, as I mentioned earlier, does not come under any shadow because of certain activities by China in the border areas.
Ideally, Nepal can benefit from being close to both China and India, both of which are large and dynamic emerging economies. I think Nepal can take advantage of this unique position. Having said that, I would like to point out that, in my mind at least, there is no comparison in the nature and broad scope of relations between India and Nepal, and Nepal and China. The kind of people-to-people linkages, and the very strong cultural and religious ties that exist between India and Nepal and go back to ancient times, simply do not exist with China.
So, we should also keep in mind that there is a difference in the nature of the relationship between Nepal and India, and Nepal and China. As an independent country, Nepal is, of course,
free to decide what kind of relationship it wants with China or with any other country. However, I would say that there is no real comparison in the nature of these relationships compared to that between Nepal and India. And, I would hope that our decision-makers and political leadership recognize this as well.
There have been periodic allegations in Nepal regarding perceived Indian interference in its internal affairs. How do you respond to such perceptions, and what is your perspective on finding the right balance between support and non-interference?
You know, unfortunately, there is a perception and then there is reality. As far as reality is concerned, I believe that Nepal is an independent, sovereign country and will decide on issues in its own best interest. Even if India gives advice or expresses certain opinions about what Nepal does, ultimately the decision has to be Nepal’s alone.
So, this perception that India is somehow interfering or conspiring all the time is, I think, a mindset that has unfortunately developed over a period of time. The sooner we get rid of this mindset, the better it will be.
The Eminent Persons Group (EPG) formed by the governments of India and Nepal prepared a report with full consensus, but it has not yet been submitted, reportedly due to India’s reluctance. What do you see as the main obstacles to accepting and implementing the EPG report?
Look, first of all, I am not in government. Secondly, I am not very familiar with the contents of the EPG report. This is really a matter for the two governments to decide, and we should leave it to them. I don’t have a comment to offer on this because I don’t want to speak about something I am not very clear about.
