Amidst Nepal's desire for the scrapping of the Nepal-India Friendship Treaty of 1950 as well as a review of other unequal pacts and agreements between the two countries, Prime Minister Puspa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda' is planning his formal visit to India. In Nepal, most of the political parties and the people have been demanding the abrogation of the 1950 treaty in the process of making it an equal bilateral agreement, as they see its provisions are heavily weighted in India's favor and promoting a privileged security relationship as well. The Maoists have raised the issue since they started armed revolt a decade ago to overthrow the monarchy along with feudal and centralized state structure. The first Communist Prime Minister of Nepal Mana Mohan Adhikari had first raised the issue officially in 1996 during his state visit to India. One round of talks between foreign secretaries of two countries also had been held after this particular matter of revision of the treaty was agreed to with the Nepalese government in 2001.
It is said most of the treaties regarding water resources and other too, have been carried out at times when Nepal was embroiled in instability, internal disorder and similar situations when it could not resist its national interests and has loss many benefits. India is being failed to convince its neighbours is an opportunity concerning vast market and strong economy, but not a threat. It should demonstrate sensitivity towards its neighbours regarding vital concern as water resources, national integrity and interference in the name of cross boarder terrorism and security perceptions. .
The Maoists have strongly voiced this demand since they joined hands with seven other political parties to form an alliance making it a campaign issue during the constitution assembly elections. It was obvious as the 1950 treaty and other agreements have been a recurrent irritant in bilateral equations. The Nepal Communist Party-Maoist (NCP-Maoist) have a clear vision that the 1950 Nepal-Indo treaty is an unequal treaty therefore; it should be reviewed and, if possible, should be changed as per the new political context.
Maoist leaders time and again have expressed their commitment of maintaining good and friendly relations with all including neighboring countries as per the international regulations. Maoist Chairman Prachanda had previously clarified that his country would keep equal distance in political terms between its two giant neighbors India and China but that good relations with New Delhi were important as there was a sort of unity in interest between Nepal and India. Senior leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai clarifies that his party would maintain very cordial and balanced relations based on the welfare of the people, preservation of national sovereignty and independency. Chief of Maoist international command C.P. Gajurel also had explained that their topmost priority was to develop relations with foreign countries adopting state-to-state relations based on five principles of co-existence (Panchaseel) and develop party-to-party relations based on proletarian internationalism or people's level internationalism. Maoist has clear vision that the 1950 Nepal-Indo treaty is an unequal treaty therefore; it should be reviewed and, if possible, should be changed as per the new political context.
However, some section of Indian intelligentsias including the press are against the renegotiation because they think Nepal's proposal is a temptation to loose ties with India and look to China instead for support which obviously is not true. They think new treaty as demanded by Nepal might diminish India's sphere of influence and it would risk ceding space to China in Nepal. For the reason, they used to consider the Nepalese proposal of revision as anti-Indian stance some years ago. Now, to some extent, they seem to be realised that if the Majority of Nepali opinion is in favor of reviewing the friendship treaty, New Delhi must go along with this sentiment while making sure its interests are protected in any revision.
However, India's fear is hypothetical as Maoist's leaders have already said that it was against playing China card or Indian card against two countries or having special relation with the one at the cost of the other. Chief of the CPN-Maoist's foreign Department C.P.Gajurel while addressing a seminar on "Emerging Trend in India-Nepal-Relations" organised by the Indian External Ministry in Patna, Bihar, said the new constitution of Nepal would be based on the principles of "Panchaseel" and maintains cordial relations with both the countries. He stressed that his party with the support of other parties will form the government in Nepal and frame the constitution that would commit the country to pursuing the policy of "equi-proximity" with its two larger neighbor-China and India.
After Maoist Chairman Prachanda's suggestion that in the new context Nepal-India relations should be taken to a new height in a more positive and constructive way, the indications coming from India is obviously a welcoming development. The views expressed by the people who are close to the South Block indicates that India would not mind to abrogate and revise the 1950 Indo-Nepal treaties or other bilateral pacts if that is what Neplai people desire. It, obviously, is a hopeful approach that can form the basis to wipe out mistrusts between these two closest neighbors. Differences over the issue has erupted stress and has jeopardize bilateral relations on many occasions in the past.
Shayam Saran, a former ambassador to Nepal and a former foreign Secretary, who now is the Indian Prime Minister's Special envoy observes the renegotiations of the pact, which also defines the security relations between India and Nepal, "is no issue" as they have no reservations if this item is put back on the bilateral agenda. Saran does not see any conflict of interest between India and China as far as Nepal is concerned, adding it is far more important to India and Nepal to focus on building upon the very strong assets the two countries already have in existing relations. Similarly, another former envoy, K. V. Rajan opines demand for revision of the treaty was not unexpected, and it is a "widespread sentiment" among the people of Nepal. He suggests India now should see this opportunity to restructure its relations with Nepal and adopt a mature management, understand the Nepalese psyche, and show the self-confidence of a large country instead of necessarily equating Nepalese nationalism sentiments with anti-India sentiments. S. Nihal Singh also pledged that the open door and the deep cultural and religious ties with Nepal are undeniable, but it is time to annul such anachronisms as the Indo-Nepalese treaty of 1950.
Obviously, New Delhi, cannot pretend to be surprised by the call for the scrapping of the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship in quest of a more realistic one in the changed context nor by of a review of all other unequal bilateral agreements that concerned trade, commerce and transit rights. Many of the provision in these treaties have been creating difficulties to Nepal as the fact that Nepal is a landlocked country dependent on India for smooth transit of essential supplies. India as an emerging regional leader obviously would like to earn trust form its neighbors. For this, India must look serious about helping Nepal by taking Nepal-India relations to a new height in a more positive and constructive way in the new context.
(Vijaya Chalise is Editor-in-Chief of the Gorakhapatra daily)
The Indian dream of the colossal River Linking Project also is not without its due share of pitfalls for neighbouring countries. About 80 per cent of the Ganges water during dry season comes from Nepal and any project that joins the gangs with other rivers in India will have a direct impact on the use our water here in Nepal. Nepali experts say Indian project could bring many problems as Nepal may be obliged to consult with India in the event the former wants to develop the project on any rivers within its territory.
Not only the neighbours but also Indians themselves are against the 112 billion $ plan of interlinking 6 major and 27 moderate rivers, including the Brahmaputra. The issue of water is a local and state subject, so the very idea of interlinking rivers across states is itself unconstitutional. The seminar in its declaration said, the river linking proposal is completely insensitive to all those who would be affected, especially those whose lives, cultures and socio-economic well-being would be devastated as these projects will contribute to increased poverty with women being the hardest hit.
India intends to link the rivers flowing into Bangladesh, through 30 interlinking canal systems to divert waters from North to the drought-prone southern and eastern states to mitigate the growing menace of flood and drought in the country. India has initiated the project without consultations in India or with its neighbours threatening the environment of three countries-Nepal, India and Bangladesh- and the lives of millions of people living there. With the completion of the project India expects to irrigate additional 35million hectares of land and generate 34,000MW of electricity.
The erecting of the Mahalisagar dam by India in areas bordering Dang district in August 2002 resulted in displacement of several families from their households. This, therefore, is a cause of concern for Nepal and it should make it problem clear to India to try and prevent further dams and river linings next to the boarder. This can be done as outlined by conventions forbidding construction of unilateral embankments without heeding to concerns of upstream country. On this part no one should ignore the damage resulting out of the dams built too close to boarder with neighbouring countries. Working to the mutual benefit of both countries through negotiations could go a long way to further strengthen ties between the countries in the region.
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 had also directed the previous government to carry out the required move to settle the issue. These issues have affected the relation between two friendly countries.
Obviously, psychology of hegemonic attitude in the Indian bureaucracy and some section of political parties have helped developing distrust between two countries. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment