[It still feels like the
joy, excitement and effect of the recent Modi Nepal Visit has not worn off yet
in Kathmandu. The visit has changed the hearts and minds of Nepalese people and
should Mr. Modi honestly deliver what he has promised in front of Nepalese
people then, of course, there are better days ahead for Nepal, no doubt.
There are talks also about possible revision or scrapping of Indo-Nepal 1950
Treaty which was Nepalese Maoists’ demand No. 1 in their 40 point memorandum submitted on February 4, 1996 to the Government of Nepal. Now, the Maoists may
not raise this issue as vigorously as they had done in the past because, in front of the Indian leaders and officers, they have now only a painful loss of their pride frankly. Interestingly, an Indian
scholar spoke to BBC only few days ago and implied the treaty has benefitted
Nepal than India but, in plain words, his was a partisan talk because the open
border makes Nepal vulnerable all the time. For example, Indian
para-military force 'invaded' Kathmandu Baneshowr area, a decade and half or so ago and such
kinds of invasions are regular occurrences in Nepal. The open border makes Nepal one of the world's top 10 destinations for some people from
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh also. Those people work in Nepal and send money home (Please see the picture and read a post from The Economic Times below). Another hair raising news has now again come
from Nepal that a visiting BJP Nepal Desk Leader provoked Nepalese Teraian
leaders who often pose as some separatists themselves. A serving defense minister Mr. Sharad Singh Bhandari told he would even go for severing Terain districts in a public programme on September 28, 2011.
So, Nepalese people should be asking themselves what actually is BJP's policy
towards a broader Nepal ? - The Blogger]
By Buddhi Narayan Shrestha
The
Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty, signed on 31 July 1950 has become the
hot topic of discussion and debate in recent days. In fact, the treaty
triggered a great hullabaloo right after the emergence of the CPN (Maoist) as
the largest political force in the election to Constituent Assembly. Maoist
Chairman Prachanda has said that the 1950 Treaty should be abrogated as per the
changed context. He has also opined that the replacement of the treaty with a
new one is imperative to define Nepal-India relationships in a new light.
In
its electoral manifesto, the CPN (Maoist) has clearly stated "In line with
the principle of Panchasheel, Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty-1950 will
be abrogated in order to sign a new one for mutual benefits apart from the
standardization of the system of border security force." Similarly, in his
proposal presented on behalf of the CPN (Maoist) on 27 April 2003, Dr Baburam
Bhattarai said, "All the unequal treaties including Nepal-India Peace and
Friendship Treaty-1950, must be annulled and Nepal's foreign policy must be
guided by the principles of Panchasheel and non-alignment,"
On
the other hand, CP Gajurel, Chief of the Foreign Affairs (Maoist), has raised
the issue of reviewing the Treaty by making necessary amendments in related
Articles, during a program "Emerging Trend in India-Nepal Relations"
organized in Patna, India from 26-28 April 2008. Speaking at the same program,
Shyam Saran, former Indian envoy to Nepal, said "Reviewing the treaty is
not a great issue. If this issue is forwarded as a bilateral agenda, we will
not have any objection." Saran attended the program as the special
speaker.
Now,
the major question that crops up in one's mind is whether the Treaty should be
reviewed or annulled.
Unequal provision
Quite
notably, the two plenipotentiaries, who jointly signed the Treaty representing
their respective countries, are found to be of asymmetrical position. While
signing the treaty, Nepal was represented by the Prime Minister while an
Ambassador was assigned by India for the same purpose.
The
next incoherence is related to the imposition of some more conditions in the
letter of exchange between the two countries with the signing of the Treaty.
In
some sections of the exchanged letters, one can find the provision that says
the first priority should be given to India and its people. Press Trust of
India, quoting the General Secretary of CPI (Marxist) Prakash Karat, recently
stated, "There should be no room for unequal treaties irrespective of the
hugeness of the countries involved in it."
Treaty and letter of exchange
A
number of provisions of the Treaty have never been implemented while some
others have been partially implemented. It is also conspicuously clear that one
signatory has been unscrupulously leveraging the Treaty unilaterally to serve
its vested interests. For example, Articles 2 and 8 of the Treaty and Section 1
of the letter of exchange have never been implemented in practice. Some other
Articles such as 5, 6, and 7 and Section 2 and 4 have been ignored by India and
overlooked by Nepal in an unequal manner. Undoubtedly, many Articles stipulated
by the Treaty are in limbo.
If
we take as an example of border management between Nepal and India, it could
well be deemed as an informal means adopted for reciprocal movement of the
peoples of the two countries in each other's territory. But, there is not a
single clause in any of the treaties, agreements, and understandings reached
between Nepal and India that inscribe open border system.
In
this connection, the then Indian envoy Sanjay Verma had said on 25 June 2004,
"In the 1950 Treaty, not a single point speaks that there must be an open
border system between Nepal and India. But open border should be best construed
as a symbol of intimate bond between the two neighbors." What should be
well understood is that India has accepted that there is no open border
mentioned in the Treaty. But, India has been unilaterally adopting regulated
border system as well as closed border system in some crossing-points in a
discretionary manner.
Liberty of expression
The
Indian side, ignoring the spirit of the Treaty, has cast blight on the basic
tenets of the Treaty by launching an assault against the liberty of expressing
opinions of Nepali people. The frequent visits of Sita Ram Yechuri, SD Muni, KV
Rajan, Ashok Meheta and Karan Singh could be taken as a maneuvered Indian
attempt to hold sway over the conscience of Nepali people. As such, Nepal has
never been free from the perspective of guiding itself by its own conscience
even though the Treaty guarantees this liberty.
The
other fascinating thing is that Sardar Patel had forwarded a letter to
Jawaharlal Nehru on 7 November 1950 stating India should strengthen her
northern frontier to include the border of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling
and Assam tribal territory. This shows that India is exerting political and
psychological pressure on Nepal by misinterpreting this Treaty. So, the 1950
Treaty is serving as a 'trump card' for India to influence Nepali political
domain.
Review or abrogation
It
is, of course, rational to discuss whether the Treaty should be only reviewed
or completely annulled. Interestingly, India was in favor of annulling the
Treaty during the 1990s. Nevertheless, Indian foreign secretary Shiv Shankar
Menon recently expressed willingness on behalf of India to review the Treaty as
per the demands of time. Former Indian envoy to Nepal Dev Mukahrjee had also
opined, "In my perspective, the Treaty is not unequal. If it is so, it
should be reviewed." The other former Indian Ambassadors like Shiv Shankar
Mukharjee, Shyam Saran, and KV Rajan, apart from Indian communist leader
Yechuri, had also aired their views in favor of altering the thorny clauses of
the Treaty.
Quite
depressingly, the Nepali side is still undecided as to whether the Treaty
should be reviewed or rendered null and void. Even though Nepali political
honchos fervently raise the issues related to the Treaty, they seem flippant as
far as meticulously scanning the contentious contents of the same goes. Our
political parties never do well organized homework to clearly explain how the
Treaty has adversely affected Nepal. The pathetic absence of a clear-cut
perspective in the country's political realm about the Treaty is palpable. One
could say that it is the absolute asymmetry in the political spectrum of Nepal
about the 1950 Treaty. However, the CPN (Maoist) is in favor of replacing the
existing Treaty into a new one with the changing situation.
Last item
If
the new treaty would be carved, it must take into account the factors like
mutual benefits, territorial integrity and, on top of all, equality on a wider
concept. While framing the new treaty, it behooves Nepal to pay sincere
attention to the crucial subject matters like hydro-power generation, resource
mobilization, human resources development, mineral exploration, tourism, border
management and demarcation and industrial turnaround, among others.
Posted
on: May 14, 2008
*
[The top 10 destination countries for Indians include the UAE, Saudi Arabia, US, Bangladesh, Nepal, UK, Sri Lanka, Canada, Kuwait and Oman. Experts point out that softer immigration laws in the US and the search for better economic opportunities fuelled a surge in the overseas migration of Indians. Unlike previous phases of migration, emigration sent better educated Indians in the last decade especially to the US, UK and Canada.]
By
Himanshi Dhawan
NEW
DELHI: For Indians, the umbilical cord is never severed. India has now captured
one-tenth of global remittance flows, making it the world's largest single
recipient. An estimated $27.1 billion was remitted to India in 2006-2007.
The
Indian diaspora is estimated at 20 million. Migrant remittances have recently
surged to the forefront of development agendas worldwide but the growth in
India has been dramatic.Total remittances has grown steadily over the past 15
years, and dramatically in the past 10, skyrocketing from $2.1 billion in
1990-1991 to $27.1 billion in 2006-2007.
According
to policy experts, factors responsible for the growth in remittances include
the diminishing role of unofficial channels, shifting emigration patterns to
high-skilled technology jobs, greater competition in the money transfer market
and the strength of the Indian economy.
The
top 10 destination countries for Indians include the UAE, Saudi Arabia, US,
Bangladesh, Nepal, UK, Sri Lanka, Canada, Kuwait and Oman. Experts point out
that softer immigration laws in the US and the search for better economic
opportunities fuelled a surge in the overseas migration of Indians. Unlike
previous phases of migration, emigration sent better educated Indians in the
last decade especially to the US, UK and Canada.
A
recent JP Morgan study said that deposits by non-resident Indians (NRIs)
amounted to around $32 billion or 23% of foreign exchange reserves. Portfolio
and real estate investment has been largely concentrated in the IT space. While
the report noted that the diaspora could act as a "powerful
catalyst", even helping India realise and perhaps exceed its aspiration of
10% annual growth, the onus for better capitalisation lies on the Indian
government.
It
is no wonder that the government is keen to recognize and pander to the
interests of the growing diaspora. Overseas Indian affairs minister Vyalar Ravi
has set up a 'welfare fund' for overseas workers. The ministry plans to use
this fund for compulsory health insurance of overseas workers and their
families.
TNN June 20, 2008,
TNN June 20, 2008,
