Strategic Importance of Prime Minister’s visit to Lumbini

Context:

Prime Minister’s visit to Lumbini in Nepal is seen as a strategic and politically important visit amidst growing Chinese influence.

India and Nepal have long history of cultural and ethnic ties and also have porous border.
The visit is political in that it will hopefully end the pointless dispute over whether the Buddha was born in Nepal, which is a sensitive topic in Nepal.
Any claim to the contrary sparks anti-India protests in a country whose national identity is linked to Lumbini, the Buddha’s birthplace.
It is significant in light of China’s rising presence in Lumbini, which is close to the Indian border; the Chinese built the world’s largest monastery, and they finance and support major Buddhist conferences in Nepal, as well as massive celebrations of Buddhist festivals like Vesak.
The Chinese are leaving no stone unturned to exploit the soft power potential of Buddhism, a fast-growing religious tradition

Bodh Gaya, the site of Lord Buddha’s enlightenment; Sarnath, the site of his first sermon; and Kushinagar, the site of his Mahaparinirvana, are all in India.
Not to mention Shravasti, where the Buddha preached for many years, Nalanda, and Rajgir, to name a few. Unfortunately, except for a modest museum built with Indian funding in the late 1990s, India remains mostly unrepresented in Lumbini.

Not only do the two countries share an open border and unrestricted movement of people, but they also have strong relationships formed via marriages and familial ties, dubbed Roti-Beti ka Rishta.
The 1950 India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship is the cornerstone of the two countries’ special relationship.
Importance for India can be examined from two perspectives: a) strategic importance for India’s national security, and b) place in India’s international role view.
In terms of ecological and hydropower potential, rivers that originate in Nepal feed India’s perennial river systems.

Under the auspices of international law on trans-boundary water disputes, India should negotiate constructively with Nepal to resolve the boundary dispute.
The resolution of the boundary issue between India and Bangladesh should serve as an example in this case.
In terms of people-to-people contact, bureaucratic engagement, and political connections, India should be more proactive with Nepal.
Simple disagreements should not escalate into disputes, and both countries should address their difficulties peacefully.

Source: THE HINDU.