Diplomatic faux pas?

Hot on the heels of government's decision to recall Nepal's ambassador in New Delhi Deep Kumar Upadhyaya, Indian Ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Rae became a subject of intense media speculations. But Foreign Secretary Shankar Bairagi promptly brushed them aside, in a quick reaction given to Lokaantar. New Delhi knows better if Rae's recall is under consideration; there is no way of knowing it in Kathmandu immediately.

It would not be a matter of surprise if Modi-led government indeed recalls Rae and takes initiatives to improve ties with Nepal. Anti-Indian sentiments flared up and ties between the two countries got strained after India imposed economic blockade on Nepal last September. Envoy Rae himself has conceded that anti-Indian sentiments have been on the rise. New Delhi must be aware of this emerging situation. Indian media has been constantly covering political developments in Nepal (some of which are of course inflated and are inaccurate at times).

Even if Ambassador Upadhyaya is said to have been recalled, reality is that he has been sacked from his post. Foreign Secretary's letter to him on Monday has corroborated the envoy's dismissal. After all, why did the Oli government sack him? Deputy Prime Minister Bhim Rawal alleged Upadhyaya of working 'against national interest'. Grounds for such serious allegations should be presented to the public and Upadhyaya should be put under trial if such allegations have any basis. Failing to do that would prove it is a manifestation of CPN-UML chairman's anger against Nepali Congress for allegedly inciting Prachanda to replace him as head of government. But if available media reports are any indication, Upadhyaya had been doing his best to bring derailed Nepal-India ties back on track in the face of challenges including the trade and transit blockade. And India also did not treat Upadhyaya, a politician with clean image, in an undiplomatic manner even when circumstances had worsened in the post-September period. He might, however, have complaints against his government for not fairly evaluating his performance in a particularly sensitive time.

The reasons given for dismissing Upadhyaya from his job contain phrases like 'conduct not compatible with his post'. Seasoned diplomatic analysts are seen expressing surprise about such phraseology because such an expression is often used by host countries when they decide to expel envoys. There are instances when India has used this phrase whenever it expels a Pakistani diplomat. Erstwhile Soviet Union also resorted to issuing such statements when they had to expel US diplomats from Moscow. Ironically, political leadership currently governing Nepal seems to have the normal diplomatic course reversed as it alleges its own envoy of such (mis)conduct. It is another matter if this is done to create a new chapter in Nepal's diplomatic history!

This episode has added risks of making future diplomatic practices controversial because a wrong precedent of institutionalising unhealthy norms including 'sharing the spoils' has been set. Incumbent coalition parties will one day sit in the opposition and the government of the day can blame them likewise to demean them. From this angle the recall decision displays Oli government's immaturity. In the current situation when ties between the two countries have soured, the post of ambassador will be vacant indefinitely. Will such a prolonged absence not cause harm? Obviously it will inflict colossal loss and damage on national interest. Who then will be accountable for all this?