1950 Treaty Comprehensive Review Needed [ 2008-2-8 ]

1950 Treaty Comprehensive Review Needed [ 2008-2-8 ]


Vijaya Chalise

Border encroachment at Susta, Gadda Chauki and Brahmapur by India has been in the spotlight for quite some time, and the Parliamentary Natural Resource Committee has directed the government to carry out the required steps to settle the issue. There are certain problems along the more than 1,700 km-long open border between Nepal and India. Since the time of British rule, India's neighboring countries have fought many wars over disputed territory. Although there has been no stern hostility between Nepal and India after India became independent in 1947, the border issue has spurred controversies time and again.



Border encroachment

Nepali experts claim that India has encroached Nepalese territory at 54 points along the border. India has also been building up massive military and other infrastructure, including high dams and border roads, along Nepali border areas. These issues have affected the relation between the two countries. Given the grave consequences that could arise, the Indian side should immediately withdraw its security forces that have been occupying the Susta area since 1984.



Nepal, on its part, should expedite its political and diplomatic efforts to seek an amicable solution to the issue on the basis of the map prepared by the then British authority. If immediate attention is not paid by both the sides in reaching an amicable solution, including the return of encroached land to Nepal, the recent protests along the border areas could further damage the age-old ties between these two countries.



Obviously, the hegemonic attitude of the Indian bureaucracy and some political parties has helped develop distrust between the two countries. Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar, in his Sunday column published in a recent edition of the Times of India, rightly observed that ?The US is a muscular bully. So is India in the South Asian region." He further writes, ?Imperial powers through the centuries aimed to grab foreign territories. The US does not seek to grab territory, and so is not a conventional imperialist. But is a military and economic superpower, and since 9/11 is more willing than ever to use its military and financial muscle. This is not the old colonialism, yet is a sort of hegemonism. But is India's muscularity in South Asia different? India has repeatedly restored to force in the region, most famously by splitting Pakistan into two in 1971. In 1950, India ousted the Ranas in Nepal and put King Tribhuwan on the throne. It got him to sign the treaty of peace and friendship that is still condemned today by some Nepalese politicians as imperialist.



?In the early 1980's India trained the Tamil Tigers to start a rebellion in Sri Lanka. When the rebellion got out of hand, India used its muscle to get Sri Lanka to agree to an Indian Peace Keeping Force to bring peace and a political settlement. However, the Tamil refused to lay down arms and attacked the IPKF, which could not crush the militants and ultimately exited ignominiously.



?This was a prophetic prequel of what happened two decades later, when US forces failed dismally to bring peace and stability to Iraq, and now looks set to exit Iraq much as India exited Sri Lanka.



When the Maldives suffered a coup in 1988, Indian troops captured the coup leaders and restored Prime Minister Gayoom's rule. In this episode, as in all others, India promoted its private interest while claiming to work for regional peace and high moral norms."



Is this not enough to portray the Indian psyche?



The relations between Nepal and India are based on the Nepal-India treaty of peace and friendship signed in 1950 by the last Rana Prime minister while seeking support for his autocratic rule from India. Obviously, the intention of India at that time was to see Nepal as its protectorate.

Evidently, the controversial treaties and agreements with India were almost a renewal of the policy of British India. The problem regarding the uneasy relation between Nepal and India lies in the intention of that very treaty.



Many are of the opinion that during the Rana period, the British ruled India and their policies towards Nepal was based on four special objectives - to keep Nepal a supplier of manpower to the British army; to maintain Nepal as an economic colony of British India; to utilise Nepal's vast natural resources in their interest; and to use Nepal as a buffer zone from the security point of view. Until now Nepal-India relations seem to be guided by the same objectives. Hence, the treaty is no longer relevant with the aspiration and requirements of present day Nepal. The fallouts of the treaty are affecting Nepal-India relation today, and the treaty is now being considered as a matter of serious mistrust in the traditionally friendly relations between the two countries.



Immediately after diplomatic relations were established between Nepal and India, the first agreement on the use of Nepalese water resources was hastily signed between Nepal and British India. It was the treaty under which the water of the Mahakali River was harnessed by India. In view of the fast changing developments taking place in the international stage, both the countries must start a comprehensive review of their foreign policy. The review must be undertaken in order to bring out the necessary and appropriate readjustments in our foreign policy so that the implementation can be carried out in accordance with the new requirement.



It should remembered that in less than a year after the treaty was signed by the Rana Prime Minister, the century-old Rana regime was ended, and Nepal entered into a polity of multiparty democracy. Since then, Nepal has witnessed a lot of political changes, like the partyless political system, the re-establishment of multiparty democracy, and now its entry into a federal republican system. The changes have also now become apparent in the balance of power in South Asia. Therefore, the treaty should be repealed and signed afresh in accordance with recognised international conventions governing international relations as sea change have taken place in the international as well as regional relations in the last 50 years.



Ground reality

No treaty should be considered as absolute, because a treaty after all governs the realities on the ground. With the changing patterns of the political landscape and the world realities, treaties call for suitable and timely amendments. Nepal showed its desire to review and amend the existing Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 between Nepal and India officially while the first communist Prime Minister Manmohan Adhikari paid his official visit to India.



India, although unwillingly, seems to have accepted it. Indian foreign secretary Shiva Shanker Menon, during his visit to Nepal in December 2006, had stated that India was open minded in reviewing or abrogating the existing Nepal-India treaty if Nepal so desired. If India really wants to revise the treaty, Nepal should expedite high-level political dialogue and diplomatic moves to have a new treaty with India based on equality.

(Vijaya Chalise is Editor-in-Chief of the Gorakhapatra Daily)