Six weeks after being sworn in as the 39th Prime Minister of Nepal, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ visited India from September 15-18. Traditionally, the first foreign port of call of newly elected Nepali prime ministers has been Delhi. This was not considered unusual, given the multiple strands that exist between the two countries. Prachanda had himself deviated from this tradition in his first term as the Prime Minister of Nepal in 2008, when he visited Beijing for the August inauguration of the Olympic Games. This had caused  more comment in Kathmandu than Delhi where Prachanda was received with an extraordinary display of cordiality and warmth in September, 2008. India’s cause for disillusionment with him still lay in the future.

Prime Minister Dahal was visiting India under the weight of several baggages. There was the baggage of the ‘cooling’ of relations between India and Nepal under the immediately previous dispensation of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli following India’s cool reaction to the promulgation of Nepal’s constitution, the widespread unrest in Madhes and the consequent  disruption of supplies from India (seen by the Kathmandu establishment as a blockade with malice aforethought). Reaching out to Beijing with visions of China replacing India as the supplier of essentials and becoming Nepal’s window to the outside world for trade went hand in hand with the demonization of India. Prime Minister Dahal had to soothe ruffled feathers in Delhi, ensuring that he did not ruffle any back home or be seen to be less than enthusiastic with regard to the new found paradigm of relations with China. Objectively, Mr Dahal would seem to have met these challenges.

The other baggage was the stern advice given to him before the visit to ensure that Nepal’s national interests were not sacrificed by arriving at any major agreements. The underlying assumption is, of course, that eternal vigilance has to be exercised in dealings with India. One recalls here the then prime minister Baburam Bhattarai being pilloried after his 2011 visit for concluding the agreement on bilateral investment protection, an internationally recognised procedure. One notes in parenthesis that no concerns were expressed following Mr Oli’s visit to China and concluding what are, potentially, significant agreements. On the face of it, this too was a challenge successfully negotiated by Prime Minister Prachanda.

What is apparent need not, however, prevent criticism. The UML, and Mr Oli personally, were sharply critical over PM Prachanda’s alleged subservience to India for having noted in the Joint Statement (there had been none during Mr Oli’s visit a few months ago) that the two shared similar views on major international issues. India’s appreciation of the efforts being undertaken to win the support of all stakeholders in the fulfilment of the constitution was seen as rank interference in Nepal’s  internal affairs with the added threat that there would be no changes in the constitution to meet with madhesi demands.

In fact, and judging by decisions and joint statements issued after past bilateral visits, the present one is only significant for its anodyne nature. Perhaps, Prachanda had taken to heart the advice given to him prior to his Indian odyssey, or maybe the Indians were careful about not causing him any embarrassment. Besides additional sums towards relief efforts, the joint statement essentially goes over what needs to be done with regard to languishing existing projects. It should not be a matter of satisfaction to either country that more than two decades after the agreement was signed, the Detailed Project Report on Pancheswar is yet to emerge – whoever may be responsible.

Initial reactions from China to Prachanda’s India visit are not clear. There is no confirmation yet on President Xi’s visit to Nepal in October. One early report suggested that the Chinese would not want the visit to take place until the Nepali side have completed their homework. A more recent report in a journal said to be close to government thinking expresses unhappiness at Nepal’s indifference to the agreements signed during Oli’s visit – supposedly to keep India happy. A fuller account of more rational thinking in Beijing is yet to emerge. That Beijing would be unhappy with Prachanda for having  fractured the unity of the left with Oli’s UML, despite its strong urging to the contrary, is understandable. But the Chinese are also masters of adjusting to ground realities.

In his public pronouncements and media interactions during his visit, Prime Minister Dahal was forthcoming and made no effort to dodge uncomfortable questions. He freely admitted to his past errors in denying the first presidentship of the country to Girija Prasad Koirala and needlessly trying to remove the army chief even as he was on the verge of retirement, being full at the time of ‘revolutionary romanticism’. He explained his support to the constitution even when it did not fully meet the demands of the madhesis and the janjatis because, he felt, they were on the verge of even the second constituent assembly being unable to deliver on a constitution and compromises were necessary. He affirmed that he remained committed to the core values for which he had fought and would strive to deliver. PM Dahal repeatedly expressed the nation’s gratitude for the timely and generous assistance provided by India after the April 2015 earthquake and sought India’s understanding and help in the tasks ahead of the nation.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’  leads only the third largest party in the present Nepali parliament and his term as Prime Minister has a span of nine months, before handing over the baton to Sher Bahadur Deuba for nine, before the next general elections. Within this span of now less than 18 months, local elections are mandated. But issues on delimitation of the local territories still remain in the balance and cannot be fully resolved without the necessary constitutional amendments. These are the wheels within wheels which continue to cast shadows on the full implementation of the constitution. As now configured, a  measure of consensus among the three major parties is necessary for the future to be successfully negotiated. From India’s perspective, Dahal’s visit has removed some of the tensions accumulated over the past months on Indo-Nepal relations, even though it is likely that both may be somewhat circumspect in their bilateral dealings for some time. Meanwhile, India would watch carefully how politics plays out in Kathmandu in the days to come.