 |
|
| Kathmandu, Tuesday February 18, 2003 Falgun 06, 2059. |
|
Updating a treaty
Nepal and India are
meeting to update the 1953 treaty on extradition. The joint Secretary level meeting may
pave the way for its formalisation at the appropriate level, if every thing goes right.
However, in a vexed issue like this, no settlement can be reached unless both sides
appreciate each other’s sensibilities and demonstrate enough accommodative spirit.
The meeting is taking
place long after the two sides exchanged drafts. Even the draft exchange followed a series
of discussions—formal and informal—between the officials of the Home,
Intelligence, Defence and Foreign Affairs during the past few years . Yet, the time taken
for the joint-secretary level meeting to discuss the extradition treaty exclusively shows
matters involved need to be delved into seriously.
Open border, modern
crime method, including the use of cyber technology, ‘terrorism’, look alike
features on both sides, criminal-police-political nexus and not-so-effective information
system have a sort of bestowed impunity on the criminals who can easily cross the border
and sneak away from the catch of law. The present extradition treaty that was signed half
a century ago exists only on paper, as both the countries have wilfully bypassed and
violated the provisions. Both sides have stated unofficially that the judicial process
involved was too cumbersome and time-consuming. It was because of this understanding that
both countries have been handing over the ‘criminals’ wanted by the other side
through security agencies without observing the judicial procedure required under the
extradition process.
A spate of hand-overs
of the Nepalese Maoists by India recently to the authorities in Nepal is a reciprocal act
for what Nepal did in the past when suspected Sikh, Tamil and Kashmiri militants were
found in the Nepalese territory. Both countries have set-up special courts or their
equivalent to try major crimes, including militancy and ‘terrorism’ and a
lengthy judicial process wherever extradition is required, would therefore, defeat the
purpose behind setting up such courts. At the same time, abuse of territories by the
security agencies in the name of hot-pursuit could be avoided, if the treaty is followed
by both sides.
It was in this context
that both sides have realised in principle that there is a strong case for updating the
1953 treaty. The joint secretaries of Foreign Affairs Ministry on both sides are being
joined by officials from the interior security, defence and intelligence. But the treaty
should be equal in letter and spirit as well as in the scope of implementation.
Nepal’s insistence that there should be no provision for extradition of third
countries’ nationals should be taken in that spirit, and India should honour
Nepal’s sentiment. Such an insistence would undermine the sensibilities and
cooperation which Nepal has always extended towards India when the issues are not hyped
beyond realities by the government and media across the border. |
