A recent article by Sudheer Sharma in the
Nepali press noted that unlike the 60s, when Jawaharlal Nehru protested
vociferously when Nepal opened the Tatopani trading point with China, there was
no protest from India this time around as China starts to build the
Kerung-Rasuwagadh pass. This road links Lhasa to Kathmandu, and then via
Birjung to India. India, in other words, has matured diplomatically since
the days of Nehru. Modi’s vision of a pan South Asian neighborhood prospering
together in many ways is the same as Xi Jinping’s vision of an interconnected
Asia.
The Chinese have been very interested in
the Silk Routes trading route, and in opening up ancient trade routes that used
to link different parts of Asia. They want to reach markets that for historical
reasons became closed to each other even though they are closer in
geographical space. China and India are closer to one another than they are to
Europe or the United States--indeed, they share the border in disputed
Arunachal Pradesh, which often becomes the fault-line for emotive nationalists
from India voicing fears of imminent Chinese invasion. The Chinese, however,
have shown time and again that they are interested in peaceful trade. The time
may now have come to take up that vision of a pan-Asian continent based on
mutual values of peace, co-existence and economic prosperity.
In much the same way as the European Union,
we need to figure out a way to share the wealth, and to think of joint ways to
trade which benefit both sides. At present, Nepal remains at a disadvantage,
tradewise. Although it produces some commodities in great quantities, for
instance ginger, this ginger cannot get a fair market price. It ends up being
sold for a pittance to Indian businessmen, who then resell it after processing
to export markets at a steep price. This trade is neither fair nor beneficial
for Nepal’s poor farmers. Kathmandu is too weak to negotiate with New Delhi
about trade and tariff restrictions that have kept Nepalese locked-in to the
dictates of the Indian market. With the opening up of trade with China,
however, there is the possibility of more competitive pricing. In addition, it
may be possible for Nepalese farmers to process their own ginger to export
quality, once they gain some real income from their produce.
India doesn’t realize that to lose this
small advantage-essentially, thinking of the Himalayas as its own private
backyard where it grows its almost free Dabur herbs, and where it is now
sourcing much of its fruit juice at immensely cheap rates—is holding back its
progress. With the opening of the border trade with China, it would have access
to a billion plus market. The trade won’t be one-way, of course. India also has
a lot to offer, including its world-class educational institutions, its highly
trained manpower well versed in English, and its ability to absorb technology
like osmosis.
The only thing I do not see the Chinese
buying from India and Nepal is sensitive food items like dairy. And the reason
is this. I was browsing through the web when I realized the Chinese are now
going to Australia to aggressively invest in the dairy industry there. They
need about 12 billion litres of milk a year. The baby milk contamination scare
has made the Chinese consumer wary of locally produced Chinese baby milk
formula. It occurred to me that Nepal is quite near China, and we too have a
longstanding tradition of raising cows and milking them for dairy products. In fact,
I’d say our Himalayan, free-range, grass-fed cow’s milk tastes far better than
Australia’s rather bland ranch-grown milk. So why are the Chinese not coming
here? And the answer goes back to sanitation, or the lack thereof, in South
Asia. The article I read quotes a Chinese businessman saying: “We found the
Australian dairies very clean.” And that’s the crux of what’s holding back
Nepal from partaking in a giant market. That despite our capacity to provide
the 12 billion liters of milk, we would not be considered a suitable place for
baby milk formula production because lets face it, the Nepalese, and the
Indians, have a sanitation problem. Without toilets, and basic
hygiene, how can the Chinese trust milk that has been produced for their
children is healthy, as claimed?
South Asia needs to grow up—both in terms
of the realities of the world market, as well as our capacities for trade with
neighbors. There is great potential for trade in agriculture, herbal medicines,
holistic healing, arts, culture, industrial goods and technology. But so far,
Asia has not even touched the tip of this trade, which used to flourish during
medieval times.
If we are to become like the European
Union—a space where different countries share easy access by ground transport,
and where the markets are interlinked, we have to stop fighting about history,
and move on with the future. The future says there are 2.5 billion waiting for
education, food of good quality, health care, and the basic amenities that make
up life. Lets not deny people access to those basic necessities that leads to a
good quality of life.
The one drawback of all this enthusiasm
about trade, without ensuring the social security of the bulk of the population
in a weak state like Nepal, is that there may be an exacerbation of poverty as
the wealthy start to monopolize the trade. This was nowhere more evident than
in a conversation I had with a herbal medicine maker in Bhaktapur. He told me
that black elaichi, a spice essential for
certain herbal preparation, had become so expensive he could no longer afford
to buy it. The price shot up ten times within the span of a year. Indian
businessmen came and bought up all the stock, and then reprocessed it and sent
it to export markets. “I've never seen prices rise like this in my life,” he
said. If almost every local delicacy ends up in the export market, there is not
a whole lot for Nepalese to do other than end up working in the Gulf. Or in
India as laborers in slave-like conditions. In other words, unrestricted trade
which doesn't give a fair price to farmers, and a fighting shot to local
consumers, is worse than no trade at all.
China and India will have to learn that
“development” that destroys the water, air and climate is self-destructive. No
amount of profit can trade for these. But if done in an environmentally and
socially sensitive way, these two countries may be able to do massive trade
with each other that would benefit both sides. Nepal, of course, is happy to
facilitate this trade.
Comments