Nepal and
India are very close neighbours having unique ties governed by religious,
cultural and economic inter dependence as well as open border stretched to
1,751 KMs. The issue of open border is as old as the historical relation of
these two countries. Although no formal agreements before 1950 maintained that
the border between the two countries should remain open, both countries never
introduced any provision of travel permits for the people of either country
moving across the border.
The open
border is always operating at the pleasure of Indian interest. India has time
and again used the open border issue to threaten Nepal whenever it feels that
Nepal is not responding to its interest. There are incidents of major transit
points closed for long duration by India without consulting Nepal as a
punishment for dealing with other countries without India’s prior knowledge and
consent. However, after the birth of Maoist insurgency in Nepal, and especially
in the past few years, India is also feeling the heat of negative implication
of the left-wing and anti-Indian coordination in both countries that is linked
to its internal security concern. So, it is the time for not only Nepal, but
also India to rethink its strategic policy about the open border in the changing
context of regional security as well as cross border undesirable activities.
Being a small
country, Nepal is suffering more from India in the negative consequences of the
unregulated movement of population across the open border. In reality, Nepal has
become very poor victim of the negative implication of the open border between
the two countries. It is impossible for the security forces of Nepal to guard
every inch of the 1,751 KMs long border to control illegal activities. There
are severe social, political as well as economic implications of the
unregulated transaction of illegal activities across the border. Such incidents
can’t be regulated unless India shows a strong commitment to help Nepal. There
is a need of India’s direct involvement in regulating such incidents.
Based on the
1950 treaty and letters of exchange, no country is in a position to
unilaterally introduce such travel provisions restricting free movement of
people across the border. The issue of regulation was never discussed seriously
in the past as neither of the governments felt necessary for the Treaty of
Peace and Friendship 1950. Political leaders were enjoying the benefit of
uninterrupted movement of Nepalese citizen to India for employment and other
opportunities whereas India was also enjoying the easy flow of Indian goods and
labourers into Nepalese markets. However, the open border and subsequent free
movement of people across the border has brought various social, economic and
political problems in recent times.
The Maoists also demanded through their Forty Point
Demands presented to the then Deuba Government in February 1996, before the
peoples war. The demand For the provision of the control of entire Nepal India
open border, ban of cars with Indian number plates to ply through the Nepalese
roads, closure of the Gorkha Recruitment Centre, making the provision of work
permits for the foreigners in Nepal and end of the precedence of foreign
technicians over Nepalese technicians at the local jobs and ban of Hindi video
cinema, films, videocassettes, magazines, and all other vulgar materials coming
from the Indian markets through the unregulated open border (CPN-M 2001) are
now feeling more valuable and necessory.
India is
always interested to Nepal’s rich water resources with estimated capacity of
83,000 MWs of power generation, is well known in South Asia. Water is one of
the major natural resources that could be utilised for the nation’s economic
development. In theory, water and water-generated energy commodities could be
exported to the huge Indian market in the south. However, there is no single
water resource as a joint undertaking that can be claimed as a success story in
the past 50 years of water resources development project in Nepal (Chintan
2001). India’s bargaining on water resources sharing with Nepal and its desire
for fishing in the troubled water of Nepalese politics is also influenced by
its ever increasing demand of water for its large population.
It is obvious
that India has never considered Nepal as an equal partner in sharing the huge
surplus water resources in Nepal that can be of immense help in fulfilling the
unmet demand among huge and starving Indian population. Other experts view that
India has an attitude of exploiting the rich resource base of Nepal without
returning equal benefit to Nepal. The water dispute between these two countries
started as early as 1950s when the Koshi and Gandaki Hydropower projects were
started. The treaties on water resources between Nepal and India have always
been coloured with political opposition. The treaties caused serious uproar
among the Nepalese political circle.
Prime Minister B P Koirala was blamed for selling those rivers to India
and the issue would be raised in every election in democratic Nepal even after
four decades.
Then another most controversial Integrated Treaty on
the Development of the Mahakali River (ITDMR) held in 1996 during the time of
Nepali Congress Government, which brought economic, social and political
consequences in all sectors of society in Nepal. This treaty became major issue
of political battle among the ruling and opposition parties in the streets as
well as in the parliament. The opposition communist parties organised nationwide
protest blaming Nepali Congress once again selling Mahakali River to India.
Those opposing the Mahakali agreement with India
argued that the agreement should be ratified by the parliament riding on the
article 126 of the 1990 Constitution which stipulates that any agreement
on sharing of country’s natural resources needs
ratification of the parliament by two-third majority. If such agreement causes
long term impact to the nation, it has to be ratified by a two-third majority
of joint seating of both the houses of parliament (Constitution of Nepal 1990).
The government claimed that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was an
understanding between the countries and did not require ratification. The
opposition parties and civil society groups dragged the government to the
Supreme Court. The apex court ruled that the MoU on Mahakali River was, indeed,
an agreement and not merely an understanding.
The four
decade long experience of sharing water resources with India shows that Nepal
has been a great looser even in terms of narrow economic benefit through
irrigation, flood control, electricity, not to mention the disastrous social
and environmental cost (Chintan 2001). The discussion on water resources
sharing issues has been dominated by political emotions rather than practical
research and study (Ajay Dixit 2004). Every water resources development
projects involving India raises the eyebrow of Nepalese opposition political
parties (including CPN-M) and is viewed as an attempt to surrender.
There is a strong
argument on India’s opportunist intention of exploiting Nepal’s political
crisis situation and weak/illegitimate/unaccountable government to sign major
water resource treaties to its benefit. Various natural resources and foreign
experts have raised their voices in these issues time and again with citing the
timing of the signing of those treaties.
Source-Bivas.wordpress.com
This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon