Nepal Treaty

The treaty is the successor to a series of agreements negotiated between the British Raj and the Kingdom of Nepal.

Written by C. Raja Mohan | Published:August 6, 2014 12:10 am
The treaty is the successor to a series of agreements negotiated between the British Raj and the Kingdom of Nepal through the 19th and early 20th centuries. The treaty is the successor to a series of agreements negotiated between the British Raj and the Kingdom of Nepal through the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Nepal Treaty

The intimacy and intensity of the relationship between the people of Nepal and India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi suggested in his speech to the Constituent Assembly in Kathmandu, can’t be measured by “pieces of paper” signed by the governments of the two countries. The PM’s reference to “pieces of paper” was not a rhetorical device. It referred to the 1950 “India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship” between the two governments, which is supposed to codify the special relationship between the two countries. The treaty is the successor to a series of agreements negotiated between the British Raj and the Kingdom of Nepal through the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Nepali elite sees the treaty as unequal and the symbol of Indian “hegemony” over Nepal. New Delhi, on the other hand, points to the unique benefits that Nepalese people enjoy in India, including national treatment, an open border and vast employment opportunities. Delhi also points to the fact that all provisions that favour India in the treaty have long gone into disuse; and that the treaty’s inequalities are all in favour of Nepal.

Recognising, however, that the treaty had become a lightning rod for anti-India sentiment in Nepal, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government agreed, nearly a decade and a half ago, to jointly review its provisions with Kathmandu. Delhi has since complained that Nepal’s leaders publicly raise the demand for a treaty review, but do not come up with any specific suggestions on how. Put simply, the treaty has become a device for Nepal’s leaders to posture against India, without ever taking the responsibility to suggest its revision.

Modi’s Promise

The PM appears to have taken the treaty bull by the horns. He reportedly told Nepal’s prime minister, Sushil Koirala, “You can do exactly what you want with this treaty. You can remove it, you can change it. Come up with a proposal and I will accept it.” Reports also suggest that Modi was eager to have a new treaty in place before the end of his five-year tenure as PM in 2019. In his address to Nepali leaders at the banquet given by Koirala, Modi urged them not to make the treaty a political issue and invited them to bring forward ideas to recast it.

The joint statement issued at the end of Modi’s visit said, “the two prime ministers agreed to review, adjust and update the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950”. The two sides also agreed that “the revised treaty should better reflect the current realities and aim to further consolidate and expand the multifaceted and deep-rooted relationships in a forward-looking manner”. That the ball is in Nepal’s court was confirmed by the joint statement, which said that Kathmandu has “agreed to provide at the earliest” specific proposals on revising the treaty.

Pacts and Roses

Former French President Charles de Gaulle had famously said that “treaties, you see, are like roses… they last while they last”. Covenants and other formal agreements between nations are the product of a specific historical circumstance. When the context, domestic and external, that produced the pact changes significantly over a period of time, there will be little incentive to abide by its terms.

Whether Kathmandu wants it or not, it is in Delhi’s interest to revise the treaty with Nepal. Delhi certainly needs a new compact with Kathmandu that has strong political support in Nepal and provides a sensible basis for mutually beneficial engagement in the new 21st century. The 1950 treaty was concluded at the request of Nepal, whose rulers were frightened by communist China’s advance into Tibet. India, as the successor to the Raj and its legacy of protecting small states in the subcontinent and beyond, stepped in to support Kathmandu. Nepal has long stopped seeing China as a threat and many aspects of the bilateral security cooperation have lapsed.

Nepal is now a democracy and its leaders are acutely conscious of national sovereignty.

As it waits for specific proposals from Kathmandu, Delhi on its own must imagine and debate the contours of a new strategic partnership agreement with Nepal that is rooted in the principle of sovereign equality and deepens security and economic cooperation between the two countries on a pragmatic basis.

The writer is a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, Delhi and a contributing editor for ‘The Indian Express’

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. G
    G.Sharma
    Aug 6, 2014 at 7:12 am
    Why not s the treaty altogether?? Nepal & India are two sovereign nations & can live like USA & Canada. In order to address India's concerns,the borders must not be open but citizens should be allowed to visit each other with valid Pports. Indian Army should also avoid recruiting Nepalis if Nepal wants it. Most modern armies are less dependent on individual bravery but more on technology, training & equipment. Its not a sword & dagger fight anymore.A 10yr period should be allowed for Nepali citizens living in India & Indians living in Nepal to move out peacefully.
    (0)(0)
    Reply
    1. H
      Harsh
      Aug 6, 2014 at 6:22 am
      The matter is not important about what is treaty and for what it is. The most important things is to avoid future mess in this matter, it is necessary to rectify and corrected the reason for which we have to undergone under treaty with not only Nepal but Kashmir also. When it was very clear that Nepal and Kashmir will have to survive on the day to day help of India then why both the kings allowed to have separate ideny and uphold their wish of not to merge with India. On the contrary, we have taken military action against those who have refused to merge with India. Then why such privilege was offered to king of Nepal and Kashmir that result in to billions and billions of per year rupees loss and also heavy human loss also. After all for what?.
      (0)(0)
      Reply
      1. K
        KSRao
        Aug 6, 2014 at 6:41 am
        How about India building a rail route up to China border so that travel becomes easy for all and transportation of goods also becomes convenient?
        (0)(0)
        Reply
        1. A
          ashok
          Aug 6, 2014 at 8:07 am
          Let India and Nepal be friends, let there be peace between them, and let the Treaty lapse ...
          (0)(0)
          Reply
          1. M
            Mahendra Patel
            Aug 6, 2014 at 11:23 am
            I fully agree with the wrters main theme
            (0)(0)
            Reply
            1. N
              niraj
              Aug 7, 2014 at 8:57 pm
              get some education first before commenting...Nepal is not gifted to someone by India..it is an independent nation...regarding why not military action against Nepal then it is so that Nepalese army has helped India to get independence in the first place....if you date back before the India's independence then West Bengal and many other places were in Nepal which India took it with the force in the name of treaty. India is still get millions and billions of aid from other countries, does that mean India should be handed over to them? common get ur fact straight first...
              (0)(0)
              Reply
              1. Load More Comments
              Express Adda