This is an introductory note on what Cooperation Broadening Measures (CBMs) India and Nepal can initiate to upgrade significantly their multifaceted relationships. In order to succeed in this grand endeavour, both India and Nepal have to overcome an important aspect of the prevalent bureaucratic-political culture, which equates a recognition of changing regional/global realities to an appeasement of another country, to offering concessions, or even surrendering, to a foreign country.
It is nothing unexpected that relationships between two countries, especially two neighbouring ones like Nepal and India, appear to be erratic and uneven, occasionally merging into crisis or near-crisis situations. But all these may not, for instance, entitle Ganesh Man Singh, a top ranking leader of the Nepali Congress, to suggest that the relation-ship between India and Nepal is that between a wolf and a lamb. This suggestion cannot possibly claim even momentary truth. On the contrary, the 12 April 1995 Joint Statement of the Prime Ministers of Nepal and India underline a lasting truth: there are no major problems between the two countries.
Still, there are some problems indeed-notably those arising out of the question of obsolescence of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal. It may not be implausible to argue that, on account of the inordinate strength of the people-to-people relations between the two countries (which no Government in New Delhi or Kathmandu is in a position to upset), with or without the 1950 Treaty, Nepal-India relations might have evolved in the same or similar manner. Therefore, one can further argue that an abrogation of the 1950 Treaty may not have much importance. For, the persistence of many-splendoured people-to-people relations can guard against any potentially adverse impact of the abrogation of the Treaty upon inter-Governmental relations.
It may, however, be feasible for India to stop short of abrogation of the 1950 Treaty, and initiate steps to eliminate or rewrite those provisions of the Treaty which Nepalese consider to be violative of their sovereignty, even if the Indian interpretation is different. If Nepal deeply resents, and does not require, the so called security umbrella provided by India under the 1950 Treaty and related documents, India should not have the slightest hesitation to remove it. India must not indulge in legal quibbles about the lack of any clause for amendment in the 1950 Treaty.
Rephrasing a treaty or document is frequently the most important preoccupation even at the highest level of multilateral diplomacy, e.g. at the United Nations. Since Indian and Nepalese diplomats possess an enviable expertise in the English language, phrase mongering-and the consequent rewording of the 1950 Treaty should not pose much of a problem.
Both India and Nepal, again, have acted in such a way as to negate certain provisions of the 1950 Treaty. For instance, in cases of threats to its security from third countries (in 1962, 1965 and 1971), India has not, as required by the 1950 Treaty, held consultations with Nepal. Article Seven of the 1950 Treaty stipulates reciprocity of treatment to Nepalese in India and Indians in Nepal in the matter of residence, and guarantees "ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce and movement and privileges of such nature". But Nepal has deviated from Article Seven of the 1950 Treaty by means of legislation, which bans the sale of property to Indians and all other foreigners. This raises the question of whether India should impose a similar ban on Nepalese trying to acquire property in India. The answer is: No. In this case, India should adopt a negative unilateral CBM. For, India has permitted millions of Bangladeshis to infiltrate into India, settle down and acquire properties. The number of Nepalese interested in the acquisition of properties in India is relatively insignificant. Therefore, India has neither the ethical right nor the economic need to impose restrictions upon the sale of properties to Nepalese in India. This unilateral Indian CBM, though negative, will go a long way towards sustaining people-to-people relations.
The open border between India and Nepal attests to the depth of inter-Governmental trust and the breadth of people-to-people relations. If, currently, there is a felt need to make the border less open for the purpose of minimising migration, smuggling and the spread of killer diseases (c.g. AIDS), nothing should be done to issue a licence to the state bureaucracy for the creation of unnecessary impediments to harmless people-to-people contacts. India may unilaterally opt for travel permits, which can assuage Nepalese anxieties about an open border, and yet rescue healthy people-to-people relations from avoidable administrative hurdles.
ARG
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist