 |
| |
VOL. 27, NO. 33, May 02, 2008 (Baishakh 20 2065 B.S.) |
|
Right Issue, Wrong Time
Although debating on Nepal-India Friendship Treaty of 1950 is a right issue, it is being raised at a wrong time. At a time when no political party has secured majority to form the majority government in the Constituent Assembly elections and when they require two-third majority to change a treaty, why is CPN-Maoist - which needs other parties' support to form the government - is raising such a controversial and sensitive issue at this critical juncture is a matter of surprise. After all, whose interest does the amendment of 1950 treaty serves has not been explained
By Keshab Poudel
 |
PM Koirala with Indina PM Dr. Singh: Matters of friendship |
"We will scrap the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty between India and Nepal as it is an unequal treaty that is discriminatory against Nepal," thundered CPN-Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda. "Our government wants to sign a new treaty with India on equal basis."
According to constitutional provision, revision or renegotiation of such treaty requires two third majority in the parliament and the Maoists just have just a little over 30 percent or 220 members in 601 CA. Even before the formation of the government, Maoists have raised the issue of 1950 Treaty as a big issue surprising many.
Nepal's priority, at present, should be to form a consensus government, write the new constitution and hold the election for the next elected government within two and a half years, say political analysts. The 1950 Treaty is of less priority now since it has not affected Nepal's status.
At a time when Nepal is in a very difficult and vulnerable position, it is definite that other powerful party will take advantage in renegotiation. For any political party, they will have to form a coalition government including all heterogeneous ideas and amid such a divided house, there is no possibility for Nepal to compel its big neighbor to accept its term.
Instead of searching points of unity, Maoists are beginning their process from the point of disunity. The constitution is yet to be framed. For the Maoists, it is better to avoid such controversial issues at this juncture.
Maoist leader Prachanda might have good intention but the timing he chose is very wrong. If any agreement is signed at this juncture, it will be counterproductive to Nepal's interests. "Nepal may lose more than what Nepal lost in 1950," argued a foreign relations expert.
 |
Party workers: Understanding electoral verdict |
In whatever way the treaty was defined, after B.P. Koirala refuted Nehru's interpretation of the treaty in 1960, Nepal joined several international declarations and the treaty has not created any problem. At a time when Indians are trying to involve Nepal into their broader security apparatus, raising such issue in a situation when there is weak and unstable government may benefit other.
"Why do we need to raise the issue of 1950 treaty now? It has done nothing harmful to Nepal and Nepalis," said former minister and leader of RPP-Nepal Rabindra Nath Sharma. "We will lose many benefits and privileges guaranteed by the treaty if we amend it now."
The timing is wrong as Nepal's political situation is fragile and future government which is going to rely on other partners will be weak with no strength to bargain with India during the negotiation.
India's Response
 |
Shyam Saran: Quick response |
India, which had always maintained support for status quo, has given spontaneous response to the call by Maoist leader Prachanda even before looking at his new government and its strength. Indian media, scholars and South Block officials' response were mysterious.
Asked about Maoist chief Prachanda's call for abrogation of the India-Nepal Treaty of 1950, Indian Prime Minister's special envoy on Indo-US nuclear deal and former Ambassador to Nepal Shyam Saran said, "renegotiation of the pact was "not an issue" as it was agreed to with the Nepalese government in 2001."
"We have no reservations if this item is put back on the bilateral agenda. One round of talks between foreign secretaries of the two countries had been held after the 2001 proposal," Saran told India Tonight program on CNBC. "India will not have any reservation if the new government, possibly led by the Maoists, presented agenda to annul the treaty to sign a fresh one."
According to Maoist leader Prachanda, they want to sign new treaty and scrap the 58-year-old Indo-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty reflecting new realties besides reviewing all other bilateral agreements.
"Our past policy towards the 1950 treaty remains unchanged, we want to scrap that treaty and replace it with a new one in the changed context," said Maoist chairman Prachanda. "We also want to review all other treaties signed between Nepal and India."
Another former Indian ambassador to Nepal K. V. Rajan, who pleaded in the past that there is no clause for amendment of the treaty, too, backed Saran's points. "India is ready for renegotiations with new Nepalese government on the issue of 1950 Treaty," said Rajan.
Former national security advisor Brajesh Mishra too supported the move to abrogate the treaty. “This is right time to take initiative when India can get
Not only diplomats Saran and Rajan, even some Indian scholars have backed Prachanda's idea to review 1950 Nepal-India Treaty.
Speaking at a talk program on 'Effect of Constituent Assembly Election Results in Nepal' organized by the India-Nepal Jana Ekta Manch on Friday, leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist and Leninist) and the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF) requested everyone not to consider Nepal's Maoists as anti-Indian elements.
Underlying the need to review the treaty in the new political context, special correspondent and analyst of the Economic and Political Weekly, Gautam Naulakha, said, "As there are several discrepancies in the existing treaty, it must be reviewed."
Talking about the Indian government's stance that it intends to review rather than scrap the treaty," said Naulakha. "We will exert pressure on the Indian government and compel it to nullify the old treaty."
Reinterpretation of Treaty
Actually, any treaty signed between two countries is subject to interpretation. B.P. Koirala was the first Nepali prime minister who gave interpretation of 1950 treaty regarding security. "Nepal is a fully sovereign independent nation. It decides its external and home policy according to its own judgment and its own linking without ever referring outside authorities. Our Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India affirms this," said Koirala about Nepal's status vis-à-vis Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1950.
 |
Prachanda: Timing it wrong |
Koirala issued his statement on November 29, 1959 to correct Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's statement on Indian parliament on November 27, 1959. Nehru, in his statement regarding Sino-Indian border troubles, had said, "Any aggression on Bhutan or Nepal will be considered by us aggression on India."
Prime minister Koirala said, "I do not know the international status of Bhutan and its relations with India. But, Nepal is an independent sovereign nation and there can never be any doubt with regard to this fact."
After B.P Koirala's statement, on December 3, 1959, Indian prime minister Nehru corrected his earlier statement given in the parliament. "Certainly, I think what the prime minister of Nepal, Mr. B. P.Koirala has said is completely correct."
By correcting Nehru, B.P. Koirala affirmed his stand on sovereign right of Nepal to forge alliance with any country. Nepalese experts, too, argue that there is no need to raise the debate over five-decade-old treaty, which was signed in different context.
Experts argue that the status of treaty can change in due course of time and context.
"In a due course of time, some treaty arrangements remain disused and become irrelevant. So, is the case with the 1950 Treaty. Nepal is not the same as during the last days of autocratic Rana regime. Its international contacts have tremendously enlarged compared to that time. Nepal was not a member of United Nations in 1950 nor there was anything like non-aligned nations groupings. The SAARC declaration has nullified several misunderstood terms by implications. Nepal of 2008 cannot be retraced back to the previous Nehruvian special relationship concept," said a political analyst.
Others, too, have similar views. "Many changes have taken place in both Nepal and India since the conclusion of 1950 treaty and both sides have intermitted, derogated from several of its provisions," writes professor Surya Subedi in his article India-Nepal Security Relations and the 1950 Treaty.
Treaty agreement cannot make any difference regarding the power. As a small country, Nepal cannot debar any big power if it wants to be a hegemony.
 |
New Indian evnoy
Sood: Hectic schedule |
"If a big power is determined to act in hegemonic way, no treaty obligation debars such power from doing what it wants," said the political analyst. "Nepal has its own geo-political safeguard which cannot be compromised with one against the other neighbour. So far as the concept of security umbrella is there, any step towards that will provoke the other neighbour to react."
Chinese scholar Wang Xing in his book Nepal's National Defensive Strategy and Nepal-China Relations writes, "Nepal going under Indian security umbrella continues to threat China's security. The strong presence of Tibetan separatists in India and Nepal-India open border are two such matters which cannot permit Nepal to go under any country's security umbrella. Thus, independent Nepal is very necessary element for China's security. "
Although there is no general debate in Nepal and no other major political parties have in their manifesto suggested to scrap or renegotiate the treaty, Maoists' hurry in calling for its abrogation will serve nobody's interest, at least not on this side of the border.
This is for the first time there has been such a prompt response from top policy makers in New Delhi to amend it. Before formation of the government under the leadership of Maoists, it has come into prominence in New Delhi newspapers.
As no other political party has raised the issue of need to amend the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty, how Maoists are daring to do it. Maoists have neither secured majority nor they have enough seats to amend the treaty like that of far-reaching implications.
Constitutional Provision
According to Article 156 of the interim constitution, (1) the ratification of, accession to acceptance of or approval of treaties or agreements to which the state of Nepal or the government of Nepal is to become a party shall be as determined by the law.
(2) the laws to be made pursuant to clause (1) shall, inter alia, require that the ratification of, accession to, acceptance of or approval of treaty or agreements on the following subjects to be done by a two-thirds majority of the total number of members of the Legislature-Parliament existing:-
Peace and friendship;
Security and strategic alliance;
The boundaries of Nepal; and
Natural resources and the distribution of their uses.
Provided that if any treaty or agreement referred in the sub-clauses (a) and (d), is of ordinary nature which does not affect the nation extensively, seriously or in the long-term, the ratification of, accession to, acceptance of or approval of such treaty or agreement may be done at a meeting or the Legislature-Parliament by a simple majority of the members present.
(3) After the commencement of the Constitution, unless a treaty or agreement is ratified, acceded to, accepted or approved in accordance with this Article, it shall not be binding on the Government of Nepal or the State of Nepal.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1) and (2), no treaty or agreement shall be concluded that may be detrimental to the territorial integrity of Nepal.
