Boudhanath Stupa in Nepal
Introduction
Historically, Nepal has prospered, until the advent of the East India Company into the subcontinent, as an economic corridor and a civilizational bridge between adjoining northern India and Tibet. Following the calamitous loss by Nepal in the Anglo Gurkha War of 1814-16, it was territorially reduced in size by around 33 percent and its prevalent national ‘geo-psychology’ was transformed from an emerging Himalayan empire aspiring to be an economic and cultural bridgehead between India and China to simply of a “yam between two boulders.” Subsequently, it sought to look inward and close its doors to the outside world. This paper attempts to examine the idea of a Trans-Himalayan Economic Corridor (THEC) centred on Nepal. It is based on the firm belief that a THEC can profoundly transform the entire southeastern Himalayan subregion and the Ganges Basin – where most of the world’s absolute poor and deprived peoples now live – with benefits for all.
The south-eastern Himalayan subregion and the Ganges Basin need a big push in infrastructure investments coupled with far more robust annual economic growth rates to meet the challenges posed by its poverty, mass unemployment and massive underemployment of its human capital. As also, risks arising from natural disasters, climate change, global warming, and not least, water, food, health and energy security threats. Amidst the development and security challenges faced by the Himalayan subregion, the emergence of Asia as a world economic fulcrum, led by China—and a China that is in the throes of its “look west” national strategy offers grand opportunities to deal with these challenges.
The Southern Silk Road (SSR)
The SSR existed historically.[1] It commenced in Yunnan connecting it to Myanmar, India, Nepal and Tibet with a loop back to Yunnan. It is believed that this Silk Road was at its peak in the 13th century with the Mongol Dynasty flourishing; but declined in the 14th century on account of the isolationist policies followed by the Ming Dynasty. It was also called the Tea and Horse Road. However, this has received scant attention. It was, if you like, the predecessor to the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIM-EC).[2] Yunnan is planned as bridgehead for inter-regional and subregional integration with Myanmar, Bangladesh, eastern India just as China’s Xingjiang is to Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan in reviving the more popular northern Silk Road.
Imagine the prospects, the “One Belt, One Road”[3] or OBOR extended to South Asia by executing the BCIM Corridor and, furthermore, reviving the SSR to connect the Tibetan Plateau to Nepal and extended it into Bihar in northern India and beyond by both road and rail and, even later on by energy grids. It is, indeed a vision of grandeur where all of Asia— North, Central, South, East and West— will be connected by China to Europe and Russia by road and rail. Even so, integration possibilities with Tibet and the Sichuan Province need to be studied and explored for Bhutan, Nepal, North India with and without the extension of the BCIM Economic Corridor with these new destinations.
The BCIM corridor could be extended to Nepal to realize the BBIN vision[4] of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It will also permit India’s Northeast to be connected to another Himalayan corridor through Nepal by land and the potential to have the BCIM countries connected in the near future to the railway network of China with the Lhasa-Kathmandu-Lumbini railway. Such a rail link would make it possible for Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal to trade by land with Pakistan and Afghanistan too.
Trans-Himalayan Economic Corridor
Nepal has made it clear that it wishes to act as a Himalayan land-bridge between Central and South and Southeast Asia. Thus it would welcome the ‘southern OBOR’ to be connected with Europe and also welcome the extension of the Chinese Railway into Kathmandu and Lumbini, the birth place of Lord Buddha. Nepal’s King Gyanendra raised the idea of Nepal as a ‘transit economy’ when he proposed this at the Second South-South Summit in Doha in 2005.[5] This strategic policy was well incorporated in the country’s Annual Budget of 2005 with this author, in his capacity as Finance Minister then. Further, the king asked this author to lead a delegation to Lhasa and Beijing to discuss matters about opening more routes on the China-Nepal border for bilateral trade as well as express Nepal’s interest that it would like to see the extension of the Beijing-Lhasa train to the Nepalese border and on to Kathmandu.
Five years later since the idea was first announced, Nepal’s Maoist Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) coined the concept “trilateral strategic relations” involving India, China and Nepal in 2010. He believed that this concept would “address concerns of all three at once”. In 2012, Prachanda, in his capacity as Chairman of Nepal’s Maoist Party, was reported to have signed a $3 billion deal with China-sponsored Asia Pacific Exchange Cooperation (APEC) to develop Lumbini as a world class religious tourism and cultural city.[6]The envisaged project would enormously benefit China, India and Nepal, especially Bodh Gaya, Sarnath and Kushinagar in Bihar. Maoist leader, Babu Ram Bhattarai, while addressing the Parliament on becoming Prime Minister in 2011 stated that, henceforth, Nepal should act as a “friendship bridge”[7] and dispense with the notion that it is a “yam between two stones”.
Arguably, India will prefer Nepal as the Himalayan bridge economy for national security reasons, pending non-settlement of China-India border disputes. Hence, it is of utmost importance for Nepal to take advantage of the Mid-Hill-East-West Highway and link it with Uttarakhand and Sikkim to create a Greater Himalayan Economic Corridor by extending the BCIM Economic Corridor to Bhutan and Nepal. Nepal needs to call for the revival of the SSR as a major new diplomatic thrust with China to establish a Trans Himalayan Economic Belt. It should be underscored here that China has already urged India to join this belt.[8] China foresees the Himalayas as the next frontier for global resource management and conservation particularly in (a) the wake of climate change and global warming and the fact that it serves as the Asian water tower for 4-5 billion peoples and (b) the yet unknown mineral deposits in the Himalayan subregion. Already it is reported that Afghanistan is endowed with $1 trillion of newly found mineral deposits.[9]
It was projected that trade through Sikkim’s Nathula Pass would be $ 48 million by 2007 and will rise to $ 527 million by 2010.[10] As it turns out, not more than $ 5-6 million of border trade actually occurs. This suggests that security and defense politics takes precedence over geo-economics. With such vast potentials, Nepal was quick to declare, in 2005, its interest to serve as a ‘transit economy’, which was eminently possible as per the Treaty of Transit with India. Nepal’s exports to Tibet rose from $ 5.8 million in 1991 to $ 33 million in 2005. A 10 percent of the projected traffic through the Nathula Pass, diverted to Nepal, would be highly significant for Nepal’s balance of trade with both China and India accruing from the transit fees.
It would also provide huge scope for the transit corridor from Birgunj, on the Indian border, to Tatopani on the Chinese border as an opportunity to invest in modern warehouses; container depots; material handling equipment; weighing bridges; inspection and testing laboratories; weighing bridges; repacking logistics centres as well as provide modern living and eating amenities for truckers, agents and freight forwarders. It was planned to also open many more North South Riverine transport corridors to make it possible for traffic in transit directly from West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in northern India.
No comments:
Post a Comment