What are Nepal’s red-lines?

 

-         Devendra Gautam

Red-line. The word itself rings alarm bells, doesn’t it?

But what does it actually mean?

It means a limit or boundary which should not be crossed.

Why so?

Because across this line lies the territory that’s full of risks. Chances are that the territory does not even belong to you. 

What happens if someone crosses the line?

Let’s time-travel to the Treta Yug to get possible answers.

Ram, the eldest son of Dasharath and the natural successor to the throne of Ayodhya, is in a 12-year exile into the woods as a result of some royal conspiracy. Accompanying him are his wife Sita and brother Laxman.

In the forest, life isn’t easy. There, you are on your own, whether you are a royal or a lesser mortal.

The two royals often go deep into the woods in search of edibles.

On a fateful day, with his elder brother already deep into the woods, Prince Laxman follows the suit, leaving Sita to fend for herself. This, upon repeated proddings from Sita, who thinks she just heard her husband crying for help.

Before leaving, Laxman draws a line as a safety measure, cautioning his sister-in-law not to cross it for the sake of her own safety.

In a while, a hermit appears at the hut asking for alms. Moved, Sita shows up and seeks to give the alms away from a distance, heeding Laxman’s words of caution.

But the hermit won’t accept the offerings from a bit afar, taking it as a mark of disrespect and threatening to curse Sita if she does not cross the line.

When Sita crosses the line, the hermit shows his true colours and kidnaps her. It’s already late when Sita realises that the alms-seeker is none other than her husband’s arch-enemy, Ravan.  

The Ramayana hints that the crown prince of Ayodhya had also crossed what is known these days as a red-line.

This happened during a chance encounter between Ram, Laxman and Ravan’s sister Surpanakha.

Surpanakha asked Ram to marry her, the story goes. In turn, Ram made a mockery of her and ordered brother Laxman to cut her nose. Such an act would have been quite unbecoming of lesser mortals, leave alone the heir to the throne of Ayodhya.    

This act of disrespect sowed the seeds of Ram-Ravan enmity that culminated in the battle between the armies of Ram and Ravan after the abduction of Sita. 

The line that Laxman drew for the safety of Sita is called Laxman-rekha – a red-line no less.

Since that incident of the Treta Yug, Planet Earth has seen drawing of quite a lot of red-lines and violation of many among them – with human blood.

Red-lines may be visible or invisible.

People have red-lines, so do societies and countries, often defined by the laws of the land as well as international conventions. 

International borders between countries are an example of red-lines.

What are Nepal’s red-lines vis-a-vis the immediate neighbourhood and beyond?

For example, how deep, wide and high we, as a nation, should go in terms of our relations with our southern neighbour?

Should esteemed diplomats from the neighbour in question have unfettered access to our top political leadership, our bureaucracy? Should there be no official note-taker during such exchanges? Strictly in terms of reciprocity, do our men in Delhi get to meet top political leadership of the host country and convey our concerns?

Should our open border, marked by open and festering wounds, not act as a red-line vis-a-vis relations with the southern neighbour?

What about the wounds like the Susta? What about the Limpiadhura-Lipulek-Kalapani region?

What about Pashupatinagar, Manebhanjyang, Thori, Sandakpur and Maheshpur? What about the Mahakali river banks? Recent media reports point that India is unilaterally constructing an embankment along the Mahakali in Bangebagar, Darchula, an act that will further change the course of the river and put Nepali settlements in increased peril.

Such unilateral acts have become the norm, rather than the exception, for India, thanks to deafening silence on the part of Nepal.    

Does the Nepali state not see blatant violation of red-lines in these places?

Does it even bother to send a diplomatic note to their man in Kathmandu, protesting blatant violation of the border?

And what about the threat to Nepal’s national security as a result of unregulated entry of people through an open border with thin security presence via Indian territories? How will these wounds heal, if at all?

Is the Nepali state taking initiatives that will do the healing? What use do our state machineries like political parties, diplomatic corps,  intelligence agencies, military, police and paramilitary forces have if they cannot ensure inviolability of our borders?

What use is a government if it cannot protect a country?

Our diplomatic communications often stress the need to further strengthen our bilateral relations and take them to new heights. What further measures will take the ties atop the Sagarmatha?
Will these measures not further weaken Nepal’s national sovereignty, already weakened through several controversial deals/treaties?

What are our red-lines vis-a-vis relations with our northern neighbour?

Will the bilateral relations become great as the Great Wall of China if we give a go-ahead for the construction of some cross-border connectivity projects? Will they strengthen further if we continue to provide for Tibetan refugees as they come? Will they reach new heights if we continue to accept displaced populations from Myanmar? Will our let it be attitude towards the 40-point India-China agreement to facilitate cross-border trade through the Lipulek pass do the trick?

Or will our unwavering support for the one-China policy be enough? 

What about the sole superpower? Has the Parliament’s nod for the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact taken bilateral relations to desired heights? Or will some other deal take it atop?

What about the United Kingdom? How many wars, how many of our soldiers and how many Victoria Crosses will it take to make Nepal-UK relations rock-solid?

And what about Europe as a whole? What measures will it take for Nepal to address the concerns of the continent? How many projects and how many NGOs will be able to do this job? How long will it take? And at what cost for Nepal?

What about our ties with the United Nations? Should the ‘world body’ that is turning into the League of Nations of the 21^st century, thanks to the superpowerful five permanent members, keep mum even when relatively small countries like Nepal face a prolonged existential threat?        

The government in the making ought to think long and hard, for the answers are not blowing in the wind.

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3LYUkijdj4