1950 Treaty It need a revision

1950 Treaty


It need a revision

-Vijaya Chalise

There are some problems in over 1,700-kilometer-long open boarder between Nepal and India. From the time of British rule, India's neighboring countries have fought many wars over disputed areas. Though, there has been no stern hostility between Nepal and India after India became independent in 1947, the boarder issue has spurred controversies time and again. Nepali experts claim that there are 54 points along the Nepal-India boarders where Nepalese land has been encroached. India also has continued massive build-up of military and other infrastructures including high dams and broader roads along Nepali boarder areas.The issue of boarder encroachment in Susta and Gadda Chauki and Brahmapur has been in the spotlight for quite some time and the Parliamentary Natural Resource Committee has also directed the government to carry out the required move to settle the issue. These issues have affected the relation between two friendly countries.

Witnessing the grave conscequencies, the Indian side should immediately withdraw its security forces that have been occupying the Susta area since 1984. Nepal, as well, should expedite its political and diplomatic efforts to seek amicable solution of the issue on the basis of map prepared by the then British authority. If immediate attention is not given by the both side in reaching amicable solution including returning of encroached land to Nepal, the recent protest along boarder areas against encroachment might further spoil age long friendly relation of these two countries.

Obviously, psychology of hegemonic attitude in the Indian bureaucracy anf some section of political parties have helped developing distrust between two countries. Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar, in his Sunday column published in a recent edition of the Times of India, rightly observed "The US is a muscular bully. So is India in 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 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 thorn. It got him to sign 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 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 latter, when US forces failed dismally to bring peace and stability to Iraq, and now look set to exit Iraq much as India exited Sri Lanka. When the Maldives suffered a coup in 1988, Indian troupes 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 it not enough to portray the Indian psyche?

The relation between Nepal and India is based on Nepal-India treaty of peace and friendship signed in 1950 by the last Rana Prime minister in view of seeking support to their 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 uneasy relation between Nepal and India lies on the psychology of that very treaty. Many are of opinion that during the Rana period, the British ruled India and their policies towards Nepal was based on four special objectives of- to keep Nepal a supplier of manpower to the British army; to maintain Nepal as economic colony of British India; to utilize 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 relation seems guided by the same objectives. Hence, the treaty is no longer relevant with the aspiration and requirements of the present day Nepal. The fallouts of the same are affecting the Nepal-India relation today, and the treaty is now being considered as a matter of serious mistrust in the traditionally friendly relations between Nepal and India. Immediately after diplomatic relations were established between Nepal and India, the first agreement on the use of the Nepalese water resources was hastily signed between British India and Nepal. It was the treaty under which the water of Mahakali River was harnessed by India. Therefore it should be repeal and signed fresh in accordance with the recognized international conventions governing international relations as sea change have been taken place in the international as well as regional relations in the last fifty years.

In view of the fast changing development taking place in the international stage, both the countries must start a comprehensive review of its foreign policy. The review must be undertaken in order to bring out the necessary and appropriate readjustment in our foreign policy so that the implementation may 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 entered Nepal into a political arena of multiparty polity. Then after Nepal has witnessed a lot of political changes like party less political system along with multiparty again and now it is getting ready to enter into the federal republican system. The changes also have now become apparent in the balance of power situation in the sub-continent.

Obviously, no treaties should be considered as absolute, because a treaty after all governs the realities on the ground. With changing patterns of political landscape and the world realities, treaties call for suitable and timely amendments. Nepal commenced its desire to review and amend existing treaty of peace and friendship of 1950 between Nepal and India officially while the first communist Prime Minister Manamohan Adhikari paid his official visit to India and, however unwillingly, India accepted it could be reviewed. Indian foreign secretary Shiva Shanker Menon, during his visit to Nepal in December 2006, again stated that India has open minded to review or to abrogate the existing Nepal-India treaty of peace and friendship of 1950 if Nepal wishes so. If India really wants to revise the treaty, Nepal should not take time to this effect and expedite the high-level political dialogue and diplomatic move to have a new treaty with India based on equality.