Two things I would like to say:
(1) The Nepali leadership may revoke the 1950 treaty at any time, and I think it should.
(2) The open border between Nepal and India is here to stay. That is part of the Madhesi lifestyle.
From An Email Discussion Thank you,Premji for your interest and suggestion.I am sure that there will be some very positive outcome as a result of all this debate and discussion.Why not forward your suggestions directly to the concerned? Best regards,
Sincerely,
RBChhetri
From: "Prem Kumar"
To: "Ram B Chherti"
CC:
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:25:44 +0530
Very nice discussion,
can we form a think tank at your end and have some concrete to all of us to do.
as we all are capabale of speaking lot, now can be all be ready to implement it practically,
please guide me through.
sincerely
prem k bhattarai
(Based in New Delhi)
On 11/2/06, Ram B Chherti wrote:
Dear Tilakji and Manoj Bhai,
Thanks for brainstorming on the historical perspective.Frankly speaking it has been an exhilarating experience to go through all this.As a layman and a person with patriotic fervor,I have already made my stance clear .But,I admit, I have yet to learn quite a few things.
Please keep up the good work.
Warmest regards,
Sincerely,
RBChhetri
From: "Tilak Shrestha"
To:
CC:
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 11:55:09 -0600
Nov. 1, 2006
Dear Manoj Pandit Jee,
Namaste and thanks for your prompt response.
Let us keep the discussions relevant to your topic of the 'Greater Nepal.' Allow me to make a few comments on your writing.
Pandit : 1what do you think we have got from 1950 treaty?an open border,although not mentioned inthe treaty but every body assumed and then border is unmanaged.
----------The biggest drawback and we are affected in the indo-nepal relationship is the so called opened but i will say unmanaged border through a lot of unseen problem has been produced.
may be you think the open border between us is a productive,i will suggest you to revise the ideology,i can give you its merit and lot of demerits.
so you are for the migrant nepali workers in india ?it has to be discussed whether it has been very productive for the national output.
Comment: I really do not know much about the 1950 treaty to make any judgment. However, it is not relevant to the concept of the greater Nepal. Yes, we need to know whether border being open (or unmanaged) is good or bad. I do not know the answer to the question. However, I would suggest a study by competent office before declaring any. I can imagine lots of Indian nationals coming in, and same time lots of Nepalese going to India also. I would not jump to the conclusion without some thought and survey on it.
Pandit : 2why do you think it is not the right time to raise the issue about national problem?when will be the time?who decide what time is right--when you don,t have the nation?there is written that every time is right to raise your voice for your Rights.now is the best time to expose all the wrong that happened in the history..Pardon sir there had been lot of unjustice happened to Nepal as nation and to nepalise people.so what long time we wait for the right time.
Comment: I think right time is when Maoist problem is solved and the regular democratic practice is in place. At this time, we even do not have a functioning constitution, let alone a properly elected government. This is my definition of right or wrong time. What is yours?
Yes, I am sure there are many injustices done. All you need to do is spell out exactly what are they? How and in what context such injustices happened? Who are the culprits and victims? What do you propose to do in today's context? Perhaps people of Kumaon and Garhwal may also have grievance against recurrent Gurkha invasion before British occupation. Unless you have spelled out properly and conceptualize a feasible plan, there is no point in wild goose chase.
Pandit : 3,plese sir take this words that a nation is being encrypted by treaties,you might have heard sikkim smash and it is done by the treaty.so very important all the treaties that had been done by the worst ruler in the past has to be revived or cancealed.so the 1950s treaty has to be first reviewed,then if necessary cancealed it which will be better for the future of nepal.
TO YOUR INFORMATION WHAT YOU READ AS THE TREATY PAPER IS NOT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE TREATY,THERE IS A SECRET LETTER WITH IT WHICH HAD PUT NEPAL IN CRISIS AND NEPAL BEING INDIA'S SUBSTATE.
4what do you think sir what controls our political decision,commerce,transportation,water resources,sometimes foreign affairs and political changes in Nepal?so I request you to awake about the consequences and review about the history.
Comment: I do not know what you mean by 'encrypted by treaty.' However, I understand that you are against 1950 treaty. I do not know enough about all the ramifications of it to pass judgment. However, I would suggest a discussion in an open public forum. Also let us not forget that Nepal is a land locked and poor country. In the present condition, it will be very difficult for us to make the border a standard international type. Perhaps Nepal can propose to India a new concept where all the interests are addressed. If India still wants to impose their vision, then we have a legitimate grievance. However, the key is the good home work first.
Yes, it is indeed to my information that a secret letter exist. If you know about the secret letter, then it is not really a secret letter, is it? Since I do not know about it, please do educate me. What is it and how is it detrimental to Nepal ? How does a secret letter make Nepal a vassal to India? By the way, I am sure there are lots and lots of secret letters in world. So far they have not bothered me. I am rather worried about public legal letters. Just for argument, say King Mahendra signed such secret letter to the detriment of Nepal . And by the stretch of imagination King Birendra is also obliged to it. However, how will that deter democratically elected leaders?
I would think the political, economic and other decisions are too complex to be decided by any single person. I do not think even Mahendra or Prithvi Narayan Shah can claim that. I understand you are alluding to India being such entity. Here again, I think best thing to do is to study Indian interests, and spell out where Indian and Nepalese interests compliment and contradict. That way we can have a better deal or negotiation. I am against knee jerk blame India game. It only makes us idiots. Again, first thing to do is good home work. Can you spell out exactly what are Indian interests and how are they detrimental to our interests? Remember, there is always some give and take. Thus, we need to know exactly what are 'gives and takes.' 'Waking up' means understanding all the issues first.
Pandit : 5 as for the suguali treaty/YES/we need to have positive thinking on it,nomatter how many years it will take,the dream will come true but we have to be stronmg enough to raise our voice,make the whole world know it and we go on pursuaing it.
Nomatter what profile it is now,the territory of sugauli treaty is our RIGHTS and you never hesisate to acknowledge your RIGHTS.I have tried to put forward our historic RIGHTS and make people aware of it hoping in coming generation s big achivement will be in diagram of nepal.
why do you think it is a problem?why?This issue is not a problem,it is our RIGHTS:::
people from those states?lets have election first and we will have the result.
It is not India to give the land it is us to demand our land,if we don't do it then nobody is going to give you anything.
Comment: Regarding the pre-Sugaoli land, I think there are three issues involved. First and foremost – what legal basis do we have, which can stand in an international court? Second is the political issue - do people living in those areas think themselves as Nepalese today and wants to join Nepal? Mind you that India is conducting elections in those areas since her independence. What if they think them selves Indian and laugh at your proposal? Are we so economically advanced that we can provide them with better economic opportunity as incentives?
Third is the historical issue - was there a country called Nepal with pre-Sugaoli border long enough to make an entity recognized in history and in people's collective memory? In my opinion, undefined Nepal existed all the way from the ' Mahabharat' time. However, the seed of modern Nepal is planted by Prithvi Narayan Shah when he won Kathmandu valley in 1768. Then it was a matter of expansion and conquest of Nepalese-Gurkha army. Nepal expanded up to the river Kali by 1790. Nepal conquered Kumaoun\Garhwal in 1803. In 1814 Nepal lost these part to British forces and in 1816 Sugaoli treaty it was recognized. Nepal controlled the areas only for a few years and perhaps not long enough to make a nationalist case. If you look it from the historical perspective of Indian Uttaranchal state, a dozen years of Gurkha rule may be only a small foot note. This is the history of the 19th century where conquering land by force was a legitimate politics. It is not relevant today, where politics is about citizens ruling themselves. However, it is a matter of historical research and I do not have enough background on it. By the way, how do you propose to 'demand' land from India? Are you going to international court first, or merely write a letter to India? Or I hope not, attack India with a very sharp Khukri? If you do, please do not expect me to follow. My opinion is to take care of the present 'Mechi – Mahakali' Nepal first. Which we, sadly, are not doing good job; let alone dream of the greater Nepal. We have to be careful what we dream of. What if Palpa (annexed in 1804) wants to be an independent country? And also Baishe, Chaubise? What if China claims suzerainty over Nepal? They may be able to produce some old and forgotten documents. Being realistic and practical is not anti-national. To commit without thinking through is.
Pandit : UNNECESSARY?what is necessary for you sir?may be your necessity is different from us?
Comment: Yes, your and my definitions of 'necessary' are different. However, neither of them qualifies to be the 'necessity' of Nepal . The national interest should be defined either through referendum or through legitimate political parties. I do suggest first to take a sample opinion survey of people living in Kumaon\Garhwal if they think themselves as Nepali, not Indian; and if they want to join Nepal ; and then to take the case to any of the existing parties. If any party thinks it a good cause, then great. My kudos to you.
Pandit: I want all the injustice to my nation being provoked first and solved then.so if you think India is doing everything great for nepal and India is parents for us then lets drop the idea of discussing on 1950s treaty and sugauli treaty.
Comment: How do you 'provoke' injustice? I do not want to provoke any. Yes, I am all for solving each and every problem. However, first you have to define exactly what are the problems? Vague ideas of perceived injustices will not do? You have to spell them out. Then you have to make proposals which address all the legitimate interests and injustices. Not I, but you wrote, " India is doing everything great for Nepal and India is parents for us." By the way, your issue of ' India is father or not' is not relevant to the issue of greater Nepal.
Pandit: 6 Do you know sir whar RAW is doing in Nepal ?why do you think any nationalist though is supported by ISI.?
PLEASE TAKE MY WORD THAT MOST OF NEPALISE HAVE THIS URGE TO RAISE THE VOICE BUT DUE TO A LOT OF SURROUNDING PROBLEM THEY CAN'T AND WHOEVER CAN THEY ARE PERSONS TO BE APPRECIATED NOT PUTTING HALLMARK,
lot of people have sold their soul not to raise the national issue so it is very difficult to stand for nation and i am fighting on it.
Comment: No, I do not know what 'RAW' is doing in Nepal. They do not tell me. Please do educate me. Before you tell me about the RAW activities, please establish the relevance of RAW with the issue of the Greater Nepal. If we are planning to attack Kumaon secretly then perhaps we have to watch out RAW. If RAW can read your web site with a flick of mouse using internet, then how is RAW relevant? No, I did not accuse any body being ISI agent. Wisdom is 'not to accuse without any evidence' and also 'think of all possibilities.' It is a common knowledge that Pakistan is bent on bleeding India with thousand cuts, their stated policy. Cases like Khalistan, SIMI are not Pakistan created, while case like Kashmir is. In all the cases Pakistan is trying to hurt India . Pakistan is not anti-Nepal, but anti-India. To tell the truth, Pakistan is not even anti-India, but anti-Hindu. In the process of hurting India if they can use Nepal, she will. And in the process if Nepal, a kafir country, suffers, then well and good. For example, Pakistan is using Kathmandu as a route to send her agents and counterfeit Indian currency to India. Matter of fact, Nepal is obliged to make 500 IC Rs. illegal. I have also read articles on Kashmir by a 'Bahun lady?', which is merely Pakistan's official version. That is, we have to be careful. Regardless of Pakistan, if you really think we have a case against Sugauli treaty then let a lawyer make at least a prima facie case, which can stand in the International court. Politicizing the issue is the last thing you want to do.
Pandit : Sir this is my answer to your previous mail,i hope you will have all the qns being answered. if not put forward on me. i will write on your second mail next
Comment: I do look forward to.
Manoj pandit
www.greaternepal.com
Tilak sir
my next mail.
1 sir you must see this film,must, must.this film will come to USA for the screening.
Comment: I will, and you will have my comments also. By the way, does your documentary make a legal case on behalf of the greater Nepal ? If your web site is any indication, mere showing old battle grounds where Nepali army fought will not do. They are history, tourist attractions, and points of our pride; but not a valid legal case.
Pandit: 2 sorry for the irrelevence adress but he didn't mention it.and ofcourse it is not a crime to stay out there but to forget the nation and give big thoughts about nation.I have met a lot,lot of people with superficial information .
3 I AM TOTALLY AGAINST OF THE PHRASE IRRELEVANT ISSUE.
4 Whoever wharever lives if his/her idea is confusing then i don't think i can tolerate.
Comment: Yes, place of domicile is irrelevant. Let us stick to ideas. Yes, confusing ideas are not to be tolerated, but cleared.
Pandit: 5yes that i am qning that is domocracy really is to be congress on communist???so please read my mail words to words otherwise if you read with biosed pt of view then you won't understand and no meaning of such practices.
Comment: No, democracy is not about NC or UML. Perhaps you mean after 1990 only NC and UML were in government, or only their views are in national platform. Yes, I agree that is a problem. Democracy means same respect for each citizen's opinion. However, in practice you cannot listen to 25 million views simultaneously. Thus parties provide a method of filtering and concentrate relevant views. Perhaps, you should write to all the parties and in the news media. However, you should also be prepared for criticisms, at least healthy ones. I am trying to do just that.
Pandit: 6 please read my mail again and onething my film is about border encroachment by india on our borders.
Comment: As I wrote before the border encroachment of present day Nepal is a problem. However, it is a different issue all together, and not linked to the issue of greater Nepal . Even in the issue of encroachment, we have to do good home work first. That is we should do proper surveying first. Then take the case to India through proper channel. If it does not work, then we should go to International court. If that does not work, only then we can make it a political case. To accuse India without solid home work is simply making fools of our self.
Pandit: 7 if you think NEPAL IS INDEPENDENT then i am totally disagree we are partially independent,our politics,commerse,foreign relation partially,resources,trade moreover every elements being guided by India and other big shots........
Comment: Please see my earlier response. Any way, it is not relevant to the issue of greater Nepal. However, how do you propose to address the issue? I do propose first make Nepal internally strong. That is peaceful Nepal with good government, and better education and economy. They say, 'Bhai phootey, Ganwar lootey.' That is if you do not have healthy body, then all kind of disease will attack you. One strategy of better Nepal is not to create enemies, rather make more international friends.
Pandit: I don't think we need to discuss on republic/monarchy because it is political stuff which i don't think we are on the discussion,i am on the matter of national issue so lets conclude with the last cuiroisity that will patna be the capital of GREATER NEPAL i will like first to read the suguali treaty and its correspondence treaty,then we can discuss and i really felt your grawning attitude on the issue,i feel sorry for you not to understand the basic element of greater nepal.
Comment: Yes, 'monarchy or republic' is not relevant here. The imaginary scenario of Patna being the capital of the greater Nepal is about nation formation and perception of Nepali nationhood. I do not know any thing about my ' grawning attitude', let alone being practicing it. Please educate me about the basic elements of the 'Greater Nepal.' Please do so first by making a legal case which will stand in an international court.
If you follow the current political news of Nepal, you may see the centrifugal forces active in Nepal. The demand for 'ethnic' states and making Nepal a federal system is about dividing Nepal . When we are having problem even keeping intact the 'Mechi-Mahakali' Nepal, what priority do you think the 'Greater Nepal' should get? On the other hand Europeans are joining in as the 'European Union.' However, their concept of 'EU' is now about forgotten wars or treaties (they have plenty), but about mutual respect and interests. Thus, my opinion is to make the present Nepal better first.
Pandit: hoping you will feel to write in .
manoj pandit
Comment: Yes, I will try.
I also have a vision of 'Greater Nepal', that is strictly cultural, not political. Nepalese people, defined culturally, are living in many countries out side Nepal – India, Malaysia, Burma, Britain, USA, Hong Kong, you name it. Let them be exemplary citizens loyal to the country, above any suspicion of anti-nationalism. Let there be cultural ties wherever they live. Let Indian Hindus come to Janaki and Pashupati temples as pilgrims. Let Japanese, Thais and ShriLankan come to Lumbini. Let Americans and Indonesians come to Nepal as tourists. Let them perceive Nepal and Nepalese as lovable and good. Let our greatness be measured by our goodwill and spirituality. Yes, it needs some deeper thoughts, meditations and proper attitudes. Perhaps you would consider.
Wishing you all the best.
Sincerely, Tilak Shrestha
Oct. 30, 2006
Dear Manoj Pandit Jee,
Namaste. I hope you had a very pleasant Dasain and Tihar.
Thanks for writing on the issue of 'Greater Nepal.' Please do respond to my earlier comments including on your essay posted in your web site. One question: I am not able to see your movie. How do I access it? Through internet, or buy the DVD?
Since I have not seen your movie and also since you have not responded to my comments, let me be brief now. However, may I make a suggestion that 'you should not drag irrelevant issues to the discussion?'
For example:
1. Ram Chhetri jee's residence is not relevant. You should keep the discussion within the facts and ideas put forward, not accuse a person. Is it a crime to live in US? How about in Hitauda?
2. Who said 'Democracy' is being a member of a political party like NC or UML? How is it relevant here? There are lots of books on elementary political science.
3. Who is saying we should not protect our border? That is your statement, not Ram Chhetri Jee's.
4. You fought for 'democratic republic' to make Nepal an independent country. Your effort is appreciated very much. However, your effort is not relevant to the issue of 'greater Nepal.' By the way, did you fight for 'independent Nepal' or 'democratic republic?' Nepal was and is independent. Perhaps, that is why Chhetri jee did not bother to fight. Against whom and how did you fight to make Nepal independent? If you are referring to the movement of 2006, then what was your objective? Is it 'democracy' or 'republic?' Since we already have 'democracy' in 1990, what is the point? If you are referring to the King's take over then it is about restoring democracy, is not? Why 'republic'? Perhaps all Nepalese people do not share your view of Nepal to be a republic. So what do you propose? I propose to have referendum, not fight, to decide on monarchy. The real motivation of 2006 uprising is about people's demand of 'clean and good governance', not 'republic.' Remember, after King took over in Febraury 1, there was hardly any protest. Matter of fact many people applauded thinking King will do some thing about all the corrupt 'ghusya Mantris.' Only after Gyanendra showed his real face by hiring criminals and prostitutes like Tulsi Giri there was movement toward ousting him. That is, our national problem is bad and corrupt government, not 'republic' or 'monarchy.' Thus you really have to put your effort against the ' ghusya mantris.' You have to establish that if Nepal becomes 'republic' then it will produce better government than when it is 'constitutional monarchy.' At this moment, by observing deeds of corrupt recent leaders, I do not see that way.
5. The border issues like 'Kala Pani' and pre-Sugaoli 'Greater Nepal' are not related. As I wrote in my earlier comments, they are different issues all together and must be dealt separately.
6. Of course, Border issue is important but not priority at this moment. We have bigger and critical problems to deal with now.
7. Chhetri Jee's "Pro-Western" view? Can you elaborate? I have not heard of it, least from Chhetri Jee? How about it being merely his personal view? By the way, how do you qualify your view? Eastern or Oriental?
Allow me to have my imagination go wild. India agrees and gives Almora, Tista, Bihar etc. as per our demand of the greater Nepal. All the citizens of the greater Nepal get together and choose democratically ' Patna' to be the capital.
May Sharaswoti Maata bless us all.
Sincerely,
Tilak B. Shrestha, Ph.D.
Oct. 30, 2006
Ram sir
Thank you for putting your idea.
I reallywonder the kind of thought from a nepali heart:how can you say there is no attention needed for the border issue,you live in usa that is great butyou can't ignore the nation boundry.WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?sir.is it onlyright to be congress,communist or other parties fellow?what is that?If you can't save your boundry then you can't save your land and where do you stand?please don't make big comments living in usa,visit those places where land being encroached and people are suffered a lot.
what will you do if your neighbour encroached your personal land in your village,you keep quiet and be a musa.?yes we do have lot of problems because we have confusing minds and we can't decide what we have and what we need,we always lived on others mercy so you want us to live like the gnat as you say//
I fought for the democratic republic in the street for to make our nation independent country,not as we are now a dependent country and you know how our nation is being rulled.
so please think as an independent nation citizen and the border issue is very important issue to be adreessed,even i raised this qn to the seven parties leader in london and they are sorry that they forget it.
so hope to hear yourpro western version.
Manoj pandit
Oct. 29, 2006
Tilak sir
I am Manoj pandit and i have just made a documentary film titled Greater nepal-in quest of boundry and it is the film about the border issue between india and nepal.I respect your view but i really want to suggest you to rethink on your view.
you can read about me on the site on www.greaternepal.com It will be a good debate with you as we can be on contact. I will write after you response my mail.
manoj
Sept. 22, 2006
Dear None Kharel Jee,
Namaste and Dasain ko Shuva kamana.
Thanks for the text of the treaty. I understand that you are against it. Can you point out which parts of the treaty are detrimental to the Nepalese interest?
I think we have to do critical analysis of the treaty:
1. There is always some give and take. Question is what are we giving and what are we gaining. Can you spell out the give and take?
2. Nepal is a small and land locked country - a fact. What strategy do you propose to deal with India given the geo-political situation? For example, can you imagine visa requirement by India to Nepalese migrant workers. It reminds me of the border situation between US and Mexico, and closer to our country between India and Bangladesh.
3. Presently, Nepal is in fluid situation with Maoist problem and weak central government. Why do we have to bring this issue now?
4. Interim or otherwise the constitution is our internal issue and deals with the political structure of the nation. It does not deal with treaties. Why do you think a 'treaty' should be mentioned in the constitution?
5. I have also read a few articles demanding revokation of 'Sugaoli treaty' and claiming land from India. Do you think people living in those land would like to join Nepal now? Will India give the land to Nepal, with or without Sugouli treaty? What is the purpose of creating such unnecessary problem now? Do not we have bigger problem on hand?
6. It does make me suspicious that perhaps ISI of Pakistan is creating problem between Nepal and India for their political design by planting such articles through stooges in Nepal. I do not know, but I will not be surprised. What do you think?
Your response to these issues is most appreciated. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Tilak B. Shrestha, Ph.D.
Birmingham, Alabama
Subject: nepal india treaties
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:22:29 -0400
Please read this. and ask your leades to revoke or correct 1950 treaty with india. This issues should be mentioned in interiam constitutions.
None kharel
http://www.insof.org/treaty/31071950_Treaty_of_Peace_and_Friendship1950.htm 
On The Web
1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship - Wikipedia, the ...Nepal In 1950 China forcibly annexed Tibet ..... Fearing that China might eventually subvert or invade Nepal, India signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the Rana regime in 1950. Although not a formal military alliance, the treaty required both parties to consult and "devise effective countermeasures" in the event of a security threat to either country. ....... To assuage Nepalese fears of Indian domination, the treaty also stipulated that Indian forces could be introduced into the country only at the invitation of the Nepalese government. The two sides simultaneously signed a trade and transit agreement that extended reciprocal rights with regard to bilateral trade and residential arrangements as well as transshipment of Nepalese goods through India. ..... In 1952 the Indian Military Mission arrived in Kathmandu to reorganize Nepal's armed forces and bring the kingdom's defenses more in line with India's security requirements. In implementing changes, Nepal drastically reduced the size of its postwar army and revamped its training and organization along Indian lines. Indian advisers also played key roles in training the civil service and police force. Many Nepalese--military officers and civil servants, in particular--were outraged by India's actions, which they saw as an insult to national self-respect. Indian influence was further strengthened, however, by the cooperation of both countries' militaries on several occasions in the 1950s, when at Nepal's request Indian troops helped quell disturbances near their common boundary. As Sino-Indian tensions mounted in the late 1950s, Indian soldiers and technicians assisted in staffing some of the checkposts on the frontier with Tibet. Despite close military ties, Nepal, however, has never allowed garrisoning of Indian troops or joint military exercises in the country. ...... Some fifteen months of economic dislocations and diplomatic recriminations placed heavy pressure on both sides to halt the slide in relations. Finally, both sides reaffirmed the 1950 treaty, and Kathmandu agreed not to purchase defense items abroad without consulting New Delhi. Birendra requested that China stop delivery of a final shipment of air defense equipment. IndiaJSTOR: India-Nepal Security Relations and the 1950 Treaty: Time ...Nepal - IndiaSouth Asian JournalBilateral Cloak and Dagger on the Periphery | Friends of Tibet ...National The Telegraph - Weekly (Nepal)Asia Times - Nepal attracts US attention, to India's dismay in New Delhi's opinion, Nepal should always resolve its problems through bilateral consultations, as suggested by a controversial treaty concluded more than half a century ago. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship was initialed - on July 31, 1950 - when a revolution was going on in China. And the accord itself was signed by Nepali prime minister Mohun Shamsher Rana, whose autocratic regime was overthrown six months later in a popular pro-democracy movement that dismantled the 104-year-old autocracy. .... hardline bureaucrats in India's capital still prefer to offer interpretations requiring Nepal to understand the "spirit" of the anachronistic treaty ...... an accord that has been billed "unequal" since the day it was signed. This is evident from the different status of the signatories: from Nepal's side it was the prime minister, Mohun Shumsher Rana; from India's side it was just an ambassador, C P N Singh. And it is believed that Mohun Shamsher Rana accepted the treaty in the hope that his signature would produce a quid pro quo in the form of Indian support to his falling regime. ..... That India in 1950 imposed an unequal treaty on Nepal is a widespread perception, and popular reaction to this imposition surface often, and particularly during parliamentary elections. ..... the Indian government inserted clauses to constrict Nepal's future policies on immigration, flood control, utilization of river water, defense systems, trade and transit. ..... Accepting that the 1950 treaty is a major "psychological irritant" for Nepal, Rajan, whose tenure in Kathmandu was from 1995 to 2000, urges India to come forward with positive proposals of its own. ...... "At the international level, India rejected the notions of balance of power and exclusive spheres of influence; within the region it clung to them." ...... "The sooner it [treaty] is replaced, revised or abandoned the better ..." ..... The contentious treaty has often been compared with the accord that the former Soviet Union imposed on neighboring Finland in 1948. ...... article 2 requires both sides to inform each other should any friction or misunderstanding occur with any neighboring state. India went to war with Pakistan and China, but it never officially informed Nepal ..... Nepal has enacted laws that prevent foreigners, including Indian nationals, from buying landed property in this country. ..... Since the accord does not provide any room for changes, amendments or revisions, Nepal could, though, initiate steps for its annulment. The last article (article 10) provides a solution: "This treaty shall remain in force until it is terminated by either party by giving one year's notice." .... Keshav Raj Jha, president of the Nepal Council of World Affairs, is one of them. "Nepal can go for one of the two available options: sign a treaty similar to the one it concluded with China in 1960, or begin conducting bilateral relations without any treaty, like Bangladesh," Jha said. .... the 1960 treaty with China, signed by premiers Chou Enlai and B P Koirala in Beijing ,which was based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit.All Patriots Unite: Revoke the 1950 TreatyThe Hindu : Scrapping the treaty with Nepal? "Treaties'', Napoleon said, "are observed as long as they are in harmony with interests''. Agreements between nations cannot outlast the circumstances and interests that produced them in the first place. ..... Should we hang on to the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship that our Himalayan neighbour dislikes so intensely? ...... There is no greater symbol of the profound Nepali resentment against India than the five-decade old treaty of peace and friendship with New Delhi. ..... Nepal objects to restrictions in the treaty on procurement of arms and military equipment from sources other than India, as well as the requirement for consultations with New Delhi on projects involving non-Indian foreign aid and investment. ..... Many of the security gains New Delhi was supposed to get from the treaty have long been ignored by Kathmandu. .... New Delhi believes that the key provision in the treaty for ``national treatment'' of each other's citizens is now being observed only on the Indian side. ..... India finally agreed in the mid-1990s to consider Nepal's demand for a review of the treaty.
In The News
Prachanda to attend ‘leadership summit’ in New Delhi NepalNews
Indian envoy meets DPM Sherchan; ‘summit talks may happen in 2-3 days’
Prachanda, Martin discuss arms management, peace process
Maoists take ten army vehicles under control for 5 hrs The Maoists released the vehicles after five hours as no weapons were found inside them.Make CA polls modalities ready first: CEC Pokhrel You know there are various commitments made by the state that has to be carried out within a certain period of time. And all of them, including the election to constituent assembly, need political decision. The Election Commission itself is not the authority to develop the parameters of the elections system like what kind of electoral system to be used in the state, what should be the voters' eligibility and what would be the number of constituencies. All these issues need political decision. At this time, I am waiting for a broader framework or guidelines for the elections so that I can start my work. ....... All things in the country depend on how the peace process progresses. ..... From the first day I am appointed to this position, I have been requesting to provide me all the operational guidelines and legislative tools within this Kartik (Mid November) so that the commission would feel comfortable to hold the election within the given time table. I at least need six monthsNC Parliamentary Party meeting underway in Baluwatar, Sitaula taken to task by MPs the MPs have roundly criticized Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula for failing to maintain law and order in the country.
