It would be a mite premature, even irresponsible, for the Opposition in Nepal to debunk the forward movement in bilateral ties that was witnessed during Nepal Prime Minister Prachanda&’s visit to India, his first port of call after assuming authority. In a span of less than 18 months, Nepal has known three Prime Ministers. Equations have been on a roller-coaster, most particularly after the border blockade of food and fuel.

Yet there was no mistaking the anxiety on the part of Narendra Modi and his counterpart to strive towards stability. India&’s willingness to fulfil the Himalayan country&’s development priorities has been the striking upshot of the Nepal PM&’s visit and can be contextualised with Kathmandu&’s rejection of Delhi&’s aid package in the immediate aftermath of the devastating earthquake (April 2015). Particularly significant, therefore, is Mr Modi&’s announcement of a $ 750 million credit for post-earthquake reconstruction. Unlike his predecessor once more, the Maoist head of government has thus far abjured the China card. It would be pertinent to recall that K P Oli had sought supplies of essential items, including medicines, from Beijing when the Madhesi blockade seemed almost interminable. The forward movement comes ahead of the SAARC summit in Islamabad, which itself is under a cloud over the convulsions in Kashmir that have jolted India-Pakistan relations to their foundations.

There are two other facets of the visit — the Constitution and infrastructure development. Delhi didn’t seem to be readily impressed with Prachanda&’s packaging of the new Constitution as a “historic achievement”. A grandstanding on this issue was therefore ruled out. Mr Modi&’s emphasis on a “more inclusive system” was distinctly a nudge to address the disaffection of the Madhesis and certain other ethnic groups that inhabit the area alongside India&’s border with Nepal. “Our position is that we hope Nepal will successfully implement the Constitution reflecting the aspirations of all of its people,” was the foreign secretary, S Jaishankar&’s succinct summing up of the core issue. The nub of the matter must be that stability of relations will depend largely on the extent to which Nepal can contain sub-regional jingoism. The constitutional amendment motion, crafted to resolve the Madhesi issue, is yet to be introduced.

As regards shattered infrastructure, the development of the Terai — a region marked by ethnic ferment — should get a boost with the agreement to upgrade the Terai highway and an additional line of credit for new projects, notably roads, power transmission lines, and a polytechnic. Delhi&’s contribution will hopefully be matched with an earnest effort to take the disaffected ethnic segment on board. For now, an essay towards stable relations has been initiated.