Rabi Lamichhane Meets Indian Leaders Amidst Border Controversy

During his five-day visit to India, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairman Rabi Lamichhane received a grand welcome from the Indian government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in New Delhi. Lamichhane, who arrived in New Delhi on Jestha 18 at the invitation of BJP leader Nitin Naveen, held meetings with high-level officials including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar.

It is rare for the BJP to accord such a grand welcome to the chairman of a party from a neighboring country. Amidst the controversy generated by Prime Minister Balendra Shah's statement regarding the Nepal-India border, the high importance given to Lamichhane is being viewed with significant diplomatic meaning. Here is an edited excerpt of an interview conducted by Ratopati correspondent Ganesh Pandey with Nilambar Acharya, former ambassador of Nepal to India, on this very issue:

• How do you view the high-level meeting between the Chairman of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and the Indian Prime Minister?

Both countries are close friends. We have extensive relations that have been developing since ancient times and have reached the modern era. We have cooperation in many areas. Therefore, I believe this visit will contribute something towards advancing this relationship according to modern standards. This is because Rabi Lamichhane is the chairman of a major party with a strong presence and public mandate in parliament.

Therefore, I believe the meeting with him and the welcome accorded to him are not just towards him, but towards the Nepali people and Nepal itself. I consider this visit to be generally positive and useful. Such visits between two neighbors should also take place at the governmental level. As for the details of what happened during this visit, some may be good, some may require a little criticism, that's a separate matter. But overall, it was good that this visit happened. I am pleased with the way the welcome was given and the meetings were organized.

• Are these meetings a continuation of the past or is a different message being conveyed?

This is a continuation of the past and also a product of the changes that have occurred in the present time. It is also influenced by the current context. Therefore, all these factors are mixed.

• There were discussions about RSP senior leader Prime Minister Balen Shah visiting India. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri was preparing to come to Nepal for the Prime Minister's visit preparations, but it was halted midway. What could be the reason for India giving such high honor to the party chairman?

Why should the chairman of a ruling party not be welcomed and given meetings? Shouldn't he be welcomed? Therefore, the matter should be viewed as it is. There is no need to look for negativity in this. If he had not been given meeting time or such a welcome, we would have questioned – 'He didn't meet, he disrespected Nepal'. Therefore, we must abandon that tendency. What appears positive should be called positive. Another thing is, our Prime Minister said he would not visit. News had come that the visit was being prepared, but it was later shelved. Neither the foreign secretary's visit, which was supposed to happen, nor the exchange of visits by foreign ministers took place. It was expected that the Prime Minister's visit would be prepared, but that also did not happen. This made us wonder if there hasn't been a slight chill in our relations. Therefore, if there was a chill, this visit helped to remove it.

• Coincidentally, there is widespread controversy regarding Prime Minister's statement in parliament about the Nepal-India border. While it is being said that his statement will affect diplomacy between the two countries, can Rabi's visit resolve the issue?

It's not impossible. Because, we have only seen the news that came out from here. We still have to see the details of the internal discussions during the visit, what we raised, what we didn't, and what we agreed upon. Only after those details emerge can a different opinion be formed, and a different review and analysis can be done. As for the Prime Minister's statement, it was indeed unfortunate. It is surprising that the Prime Minister formally stated in parliament that Nepal has encroached upon or occupied India's land, which is not true at all. It was not appropriate to say that and it is unfortunate. He will correct it. Efforts are being seen to withdraw that statement. Because his own spokesperson said, 'He did not say that, the intention was different', which means it is realized that the statement was wrong.

• Is it enough for the Prime Minister to withdraw his statement to correct the mistake, or will it weaken Nepal's stance in the future?

This is not just a slip of the tongue. There is the matter of admitting the mistake and withdrawing it by saying, 'I said it based on wrong information'. The sooner it is withdrawn, the better – this is the first thing. Another thing is, even if a statement is withdrawn and removed from the record, everyone knows what was said and how it was said. It has already caused the damage it was supposed to cause. It caused damage to him, and it caused damage to the country. Therefore, if a person like the Prime Minister had spoken in parliament with good preparation, without violating rules and procedures, this would not have happened.

• While speaking in parliament, the Prime Minister also sought the participation of the friendly nation Britain regarding the Nepal-India border dispute. How much does this serve Nepal's interests?

We are two friendly nations. Friendly nations can resolve problems by working together. If our relations were in such a bad state that dialogue was difficult, that would be a different matter. There is no need for Trump here, nor for Britain. Although America and Britain are also our friendly nations, and we must advance relations with them, I believe that Nepal and India are capable of advancing their relationship bilaterally. India has never encouraged the involvement of a third country, and I do not see the need for it either. You are also the former ambassador of India to Nepal. As a diplomat, what suggestions would you give to take the relationship between Nepal and India to an even higher level and resolve problems, given that the current government was formed in a special situation after the Janji movement and has a powerful government with an overwhelming majority compared to the past?

We should move forward with the good things that exist, advance economic cooperation, and also strengthen people-to-people relations. There are some pending issues, and they should not be left as they are. They should also be prioritized and moved towards a solution. There is a need for constructive dialogue and progress between the two countries. Since we are friendly nations, the tendency to take offense when discussing problems openly should be removed, and friendly dialogue should continue.