Wednesday, January 10, 2007

National

Prospects of Consensus and Reorientation

1950 Treaty

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship concluded between Nepal and India on July 31, 1950 , has been a subject of debate within Nepal . Right from the very beginning, the communist parties have termed it as unequal and demanded its abrogation. Earlier, the CPN (UML) too demanded its abrogation. But in 1994 elections it has slightly revised its position and preferred a mutual review of the treaty. Accordingly, soon after it formed a minority government, Prime Minister Man Mohan Adhikari proposed its review. During his visit to India in April 1995, Prime Ministers of the two countries discussed different aspects of bilateral relations including the review of 1950 Treaty. Since then the review issue has become an agenda in the bilateral talks between the two countries. The issue was referred to the level of foreign secretaries of the two countries for initial talks. Later in September 1997, during his visit to India Foreign Minister Kamal Thapa submitted a proposal for a new treaty to replace the old one. Kamal Thapa later, claimed that the proposal had a consensus of the leaders of the major political parties of Nepal , including Prime Minister K.P. Bhattarai and the leader of main opposition in the Parliament, Madhav Kumar Nepal . However, it is not yet known what in the proposed draft contains.

Nepal ’s reservations on the 1950 Treaty are based on several grounds ranging from security perception to the free movement of people across the border. Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 are considered to have adversely affected Nepal ’s interest. Article 2 provides that the two governments undertake the responsibility of informing each other of any serious friction or misunderstanding with any neighboring state likely to cause breach in the relations between the two governments. Article 5 is related to Nepal ’s import of arms and ammunition from or through India . Article 6 and 7 are related to the reciprocal treatment of each other’s nationals in their respective territories in such matter as residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce, movement, etc. Moreover, the letter exchanged with the Treaty, which is also considered as a part of it further contains the provisions limiting Nepal ’s options in the above mentioned areas. These provisions have several implications for Nepal in its security, economic and migration related areas.

Over the years, ever since the signing of the Treaty, there are many instances when the two countries have ignored the Treaty provisions at their convenience. During this period India had been engaged in wars with Pakistan and China more than once. Nepal ’s contention has been that Nepal received no information or communication from the Indian side. Similarly, Nepal ’s domestic legislation has put restriction on the ownership of land property by foreign nationals including the Indians. However, pressure was exerted against Nepal when it introduced the system of work permit for foreign nationals including the Indians and imported arms from China through the Kodari route in the 1980s. Despite Indian resentment over the policy measures adopted by Nepal , the Indian pressure came through some other issues i.e. the issues of trade and transit. As a result, Nepal had to face almost a year-long ‘Indian blockade’. However, after the restoration of democracy in 1990, the two countries have been able to normalize the relationship. Nepal has withdrawn the provision for work permit.

If we look at the foreign policy agenda of our major political parties a broad consensus seems to exist that the 1950 Treaty needs to be adequately revised fulfilling Nepal ’s aspirations, while taking India into confidence. However, how the draft proposal submitted by Nepal to India in 997 is going to satisfy Nepal ’s aspiration and interest is still a matter of speculation.

Open Border

Nepal and India have a long tradition of open border. Although no existing agreements maintain that the border between the two countries should remain open, both countries have not introduced any provision for such travel permit as passport and visa for the people of either country moving across the border. Based on 1950 Treaty and letter exchange, no country is in a position to unilaterally introduce such travel provision restricting the free movement of their people across the border. An open border has several implications for the two countries. It is argued that open border has increased criminal activities and there are also complaints of its unauthorized use by undesirable elements against both India and Nepal . India had time and again complained that the inter Service Intelligence (ISI) activities of Pakistan through the Nepali side of the border despite Nepal ’s denial that Nepali territory being used against India . Besides, a study conducted by a Task Force in 1983 point out that there has been unproportional flow of migration of the Indian nationals to Nepal with serious implications for Nepal ’s population demography as well as its economy. Based on the recommendation of the Task Force Nepal initiated measures for work permit. The issue of work permit is at present the foreign policy agenda of only minor political parties. But the overall regulation of border has been discussed by major political parties.

Regulation of Nepal-India border is very much a sensitive issue in Nepal , particularly among the people of Tarai. In the context of wide ranging socio-cultural ties of the people of Tarai across the border, it is but natural for them to become very much concerned and sensitive whenever the issue of border regulation is raised. Therefore, the two governments must convince their respective people that regulation would not affect their normal life and would rather protect them from misuse of the border by unwanted and unauthorized elements.

The 1590 Km long Nepal-India border was fixed by the Sugauli Treaty of 1816, return of Naya Muluk to Nepal by British India in 1858 and subsequent surveys and maps developed during the British rule in India . In most parts of this border, people are settled, and they have cultivated land for agriculture purpose on both sides. Although border pillars and posts are fixed and the two governments have agreed to maintain no man’s land known as dus gaja, controversy has arisen from time to time regarding the exact location of these pillars. Because in many places these pillars have either disappeared or been damaged. There are reports that the local people have made encroachments of the border in many areas. Besides, the position of two countries also differ on the status of Mahakali river as a border river. The sankalpa prastab adopted by the Nepali Parliament before it ratified the Mahakali Treaty had sought to redefine it as “basically a boundary river” as against the phrase “a boundary river on major stretches” contained in the text of the Treaty.

Various political parties in Nepal have revised this issue and demanded scientific demarcation of boundary based on historical facts and evidence. Although under the present practice officials of the border districts, both in Nepal and India, are authorized to have joint meeting, inspect the status of border pillars from time to time and report to their respective governments, this alone may not be sufficient to resolve this problem. It is now imperative that the two countries take a stock of the entire border issues and arrive at a long-term solution respecting each other’s interests.

Indian Presence in Kalapani

Along with the conclusion of Mahakali Treaty, the issue of Indian presence in Kalapani has emerged as a matter of serious concern for Nepal . It has been disclosed that the Indian police has been stationed in Kalapani since 1962, and political parties as well as the government claim it as a part of Nepali territory. It is yet to be precisely known that how the Indian police post came to be stationed in Nepali territory and who gave such an authority. The fact related to it is not yet disclosed. Moreover, a controversy has arisen regarding the source of Mahakali River . Those who have done study on Mahakali river and Nepal-India border along the river claim that Mahakali originates from Limpiyadhura which means about 370 sq. Km. area is now in question. In fact, this is a matter of serious concern for Nepal . Major political parties and the government have maintained that the issue should be resolved through diplomatic channels on the basis of historical facts and evidence. But the question is when and how Nepal takes this matter up with India .

Mahakali Treaty

The Treaty concluded by Nepal and India concerning the integrated Development of the Mahakali River ’ in 1996 has become a hotly debated issue in Nepali political circle. In the context of constitutional and political implications of such a Treaty, the government had held extensive consultation with all the major political parties represented in the Parliament before it was finally initialed. A consensus was arrived at among the political parties, namely, the NC, the UML, the RPP and the NSP. All of them applauded the conclusion of the Treaty as a great achievement and landmark. However, it was the subject to ratification by the joint sitting of Nepali Parliament with a two third majority before its execution. However, controversy’ arose when it was presented before the Parliament for ratification. A study team constituted by the UML to study various aspects of the Treaty arrived at a conclusion that the Treaty had several flaws detrimental to Nepal ’s interest. It recommended the rectification of them before the Parliament would ratify the Treaty. The UML wrote to HMG asking for its written commitment as well as that of the Indian Government on these points. Besides, there was serious division in the UML with regard to the ratification of the Treaty. However, the impasse was cleared when the Parliament passed a samkalpa prastab (stricture) containing some conditions before it approved the Treaty with a majority of more than two-third votes. The Treaty ultimately caused a split in the UML. Except for the major political parties, namely, the NC, the UML and the RPP, all other political parties have made it an issue of street agitation.

The position taken by Nepal ’s political parties and the sanmkalpa prastab adopted by the Parliament seemed to have added confusion. There is an impression that the Treaty has been ratified by the Parliament. But the opinion in the Indian side appeared to be different. They held the view that the sankalpa prastab is not part of the treaty. Therefore, India is not concerned with it. It is a matter of concern for the government of Nepal . If it constitutes the concern of the Treaty, it would imply “renegotiation” and “non-ratification”. The controversy related to Mahakali Treaty within Nepal has made the matter seriously complicated.

Sharing of water resources between Nepal and India has always been a matter of serious controversy. The Mahakali Treaty considered to have been governed by the principle of equality and mutual interests were expected to create a conducive atmosphere between the two countries. It was agreed that the two countries would prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR) within six months. But it is yet to be completed. A joint parliamentary committee consisting of MPs representing various political parties in the parliament was constituted to monitor the progress of work and ensure Nepal ’s interest. After the dissolution of the Lower House leading to the elections of the Parliament, a new committee is yet .to be formed.

Concluding Remarks

In the context of fast-moving changes in international or regional scene, there is a need to give reorientation in Nepal ’s foreign policy. Revitalization of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have become imperative to update the foreign policy making process in the changed domestic political context. Because, during the Panchayat period, major foreign policy decision were made in Royal Palace and the Ministry was confined to common routine work. Today we claim that foreign policy process has shifted to Singh Durbar and Shital Niwas from the Palace Secretariat. But the question remains that what changes have taken in our understanding of foreign policy making irrespective of the party in power. In the given constitutional set up we talk of political parties as the principal actors determining the national policy. But our confidence and behavior remains to be changed accordingly.

The foregoing discussion on various aspects of Nepal ’s foreign policy suggests that despite so many commonalities in our perception of Nepal ’s foreign policy, there are still many areas and issues where we need to develop consensus. Particularly, our perception and opinion are widely divided over various aspects of Nepal-India relations. It is natural for us to become more sensitive as well as assertive in preserving Nepal ’s national interest. But at the same time there is a need to avoid politicization of foreign policy issues whether they are related to ‘ India or any other country. Unfortunately political actors in Nepal have a long tradition of using foreign policy issues and national sentiments for their immediate domestic political gains. In fact, it had cast shadow over genuine foreign policy issues to be seriously pursued by the nation. It is now high time to de-link domestic political agenda with those related to foreign policy. There is a good prospect of broad consensus among the political parties in Nepal for pursuing long-term foreign policy goals and objectives provided they agree to insulate it from domestic political agenda. The government too, which is responsible for the execution of foreign policy, should be confident in the pursuit of foreign policy and should not be confused while dealing with it.

Excerpts from the author’s paper presented at a seminar jointly sponsored by IFA and FES on August 20-21, 19999-ed.