The 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty: Time to Revamp
26 Feb, 2001 · 467
Brig Chandra B Khanduri examines the irritants in the Indo-Nepal relations
The Indo-Nepalese relations, despite our protected history of cordial relationship have often waxed and waned and have even been under pressure, principally due to the 1950 Treaty.
Nepal in 1950, was designed to and has, in fact, provided-both direction and shape to the Indo-Nepalese relations since 1950. Containing 10 articles, Article V, interalia has been the bone of contention. It deals with “import of arms, ammunition, or warlike material and equipment necessary for the security of
Nepal ” and emphasises the need for mutual consultation. This was also followed by the 1965 "Understanding on Imports of Arms" by
Nepal and it reiterated the provisions of the previous treaty. Such an "Understanding" was necessitated as
India , at the behest of
Nepal , had equipped a 17,000 strong Royal Nepal Army brigade and some paramilitary forces, along with a generous standing offer of more equipment, if and when required.
Nepal . The fact that India is a large country and Nepal is a small, poor and land-locked country is said to be the cause of the Nepalese ‘suffering’ because of the Treaty bindings and India is ‘big brother attitudes.’ It is questioned, as to why should the Treaty ‘clamp’ the Nepalese desire to widen its choice of trading partners or not accept weapons and equipment from donors other than
India ? Such acts and overtures are equated with
India ’s reluctance to recognise and honour the Nepalese sovereignty. Nationalistic feelings, often orchestrated, are thus very much on the political agenda of
Nepal that seem to besmear the Treaty.
Kathmandu on the ‘British Army’s discriminatory treatment of the HMG Gorkhas’ finally being homed in to the Tripartite Treaty of 1947. It is in fact, a treaty between
UK ,
Nepal and
India on the share of the Gorkha battalions that got distributed during the partition in 1947. And yet there were many voices for bilateral agreements in preference to the Tripartite!
Delhi . And it is hoped that a hard and realistic look will be given to the Indo-Nepalese relations in the 21st century. While revamping the Treaty,
India has every reason to be generous to
Nepal ; nonetheless,
India must evince a willing Nepalese support and commitment to its security imperatives.
The Nepalese are never tired of raking the issue of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship in every seminar and symposium and political discussion. This requires a brief exposition here. Originated from the British Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1923, the 1950 Treaty signed for the two Governments by Maharaja Mohan Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, the Nepalese PM and Shri CN Singh, the Indian Ambassador to
The 1,700 km ‘open border’ between the two countries figures next. It is claimed by the detractors of the Treaty, that India is ‘swamping’ Nepal with the Indian population, although the larger beneficiary of this clause are the Nepalese, one fifth of whom are constantly migrating to India for jobs and settlement. Small and insignificant local boundary diversions are also exaggerated. Hence, places like Kapilbastu, Susta, Tanakpur, Kalapani and Bardia assume importance. Recently, for example, a furore was caused on a joint technical studies being done for the Pancheshwar multi-purpose project. Unfortunately, self-serving and narrow interpretation of small issues assumes emotive outbursts in
II saw last year during an international seminar at
It is a good measure, therefore, that the two Governments have begun seriously re-examine the irksome clauses of the Treaty from August 2000 when the two Prime Ministers met in
One of the most heartening aspects is what Shri CP Bastola wrote to me immediately after the unfortunate riots of December-January. The Minister wrote on January 24, “It cannot be denied that elements hostile to our common interests might have infiltrated to exploit the situation. However our two governments and the people neither harbour ill will, nor can go against each other in any circumstance. The common bonds of geography, history and culture are so powerful that they exert immediate resilience into our relationship to overcome any unpleasant situation.”
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
