Nepal: Trapped In The Web Of Domination By The Indian Ruling Class(1)
Ever since the abolition of monarchy in Nepal there has been a persistent and recurring state of stalemate regarding the formation of a constituent assembly and a republican constitution in the country. The stalemate is yet to be fully resolved. Taking advantage of the impasse and utter confusion existing in Nepal, the Indian ruling class, in addition to the internal political and social powers of Nepal, has been a key player in meddling with the internal affairs of the country. Prior to the overthrow of monarchy, the Indian government along with other imperialist countries had extended support to the autocratic King of Nepal by providing military help to the notorious Nepalese army which functioned as a major pillar for protecting the feudal regime. The support of the Indian government to crush the mass movement against the monarchy continued till the movement reached its pinnacle. Even after the fall of monarchy the Indian rulers openly advocated and pursued different pressure tactics to reinstate the erstwhile army chief Rukmangad Katwal(1). Katwal was dismissed following the dispute between the President and the then Prime Minister and leader of the Maoist Communist Party ? Prachanda, regarding the unification of the Nepalese army with the People's Liberation Army. After Prachanda resigned as the Prime Minister of Nepal and after the third failed attempt to re-elect a new Prime Minister in August 2010, the Indian Prime Minister?s special ambassador Shyam Saran, disregarding all governmental protocols, without any official invitation, intervened in Nepal by holding meetings with several anti-Maoist organizations, particularly with the Indian ruling class influenced Madheshi groups and openly advised and warned them not to support the Maoists(2). Despite the fact that the Maoist party enjoyed the majority in the constituent assembly, the Indian ambassador issued veiled threats so that the Maoist party is prevented from assuming power. Nepal was thus treated by the Indian rulers just like an integral province under its regime, where they can freely indulge in the dirty game of dissolving or reinstating a government as they do with the provincial governments, disregarding the independence and sovereignty of the country. Such covert and overt examples and incidents of Indian ruling class? significant role in the present situation of Nepal are in abundance. In fact, if we take recourse to history we will see that the role of the Indian state?s intervention and bossism in Nepal?s internal affairs is by no means a recent development. This has continued ever since the Indian ruling class gained political power from the erstwhile British rulers.
The communist revolutionaries of India, have been quite clamorous about role of Prachanda and the Nepalese party. Not unexpectedly, because the path adopted by the Maoists of Nepal has attracted substantial attention and raised many questions not only within the communist revolutionary camp of India but also internationally. Therefore we too need to delve into this issue.But the communist revolutionaries of India should also face the question ? don?t they have any role to play for the enormously difficult and adverse situation that engulfed the revolutionary struggle of Nepal? In the context of this role it is imperative for them to understand the degree as well as the character of dominance of the Indian rulers in the Indian subcontinent and what is the driving force that allows the Indian ruling class to continue with its conspiracy and subjugation? As a part of this effort this article attempts to focus on the longstanding dominance of India over Nepal.
DOMINATION OF THE INDIAN RULING CLASS OVER NEPAL AS A CONTINUATION OF THE BRITISH COLONIAL RULE
A relatively recent incident clearly demonstrates that the dominance of the Indian ruling class over Nepal has a long history and should not be considered as a recent development. In the current phase of events in Nepal, the first foreign tour undertaken by the Maoist leader of the first Constituent Assembly government, Prachanda, was to China. This event generated quite a grumble, for it was the first time that someone on assuming the office of Prime Minister of Nepal broke the age-old tradition of paying the first visit to India and instead visited India?s rival country ? China. India?s long tradition of dominance pre-assumed that anyone who becomes the Prime Minister of Nepal should first pay his/her tribute to the local lord(3). It may be worth recalling that in February 1973, the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who after earning a new feather in her cap for the success of the Bangladesh war, during her trip to Nepal reminded the Prime Minister of Nepal about the Indo-Nepal treaty of peace and friendship and said ?we are supposed to make each other aware about the important events,? and in accordance with that inquired about the outcome of the visit of the Nepalese Prime Minister to China. After some initial hesitation the Nepalese Prime Minister succumbed but the behaviour of the Indian Prime Minister created an uproar of criticism in Nepal(4).
In fact the subordination of Nepal by the Indian rulers has a long history. It started during the British rule. In 1816 the British East India Company forced the ruler of Nepal to sign the Sugauli Treaty. According to this treaty one third of Nepal?s total geographical land was occupied by the British rulers of India(5). That included a part of the present Uttaranchal, Himachal of India and a part on the banks of river Teesta in the east, Sikkim, etc. Later in 1857, during the Sepoy Mutiny the King of Nepal extended help to the British rulers by supplying armed forces to crush the mutineers and in return a portion of land in between Mahakali and Rapti rivers was returned to Nepal. Besides, the British rulers assumed the responsibility of external and foreign affairs of Nepal and posted a British officer at Kathmandu. It was further decided by the treaty that the King of Nepal will not be henceforth allowed to employ any American or European in any official post without the permission of the British. Since the border of India and Nepal was not well defined, the Indo-Nepal border conflict was fall out of this treaty and the erstwhile British rulers followed by the Indian rulers went on reaping their harvest from the dispute.
In December 1923, the second Sugauli Treaty was signed which was declared as a treaty of perpetual peace and friendship between Britain and Nepal and upgraded the British resident to an envoy(6). Behind the apparent talks about mutual peace, friendship and sovereignty, the treaty further ensured more organised dominance and control of the British rulers of India over several significant matters of Nepal. Actually this treaty enabled the British rulers to guarantee their control over Nepal?s foreign policy and defence. In the name of closer ties between Nepal and India compared to any third nation it was assured that British dominance remained all powerful. The treaty also enabled greater control of the British on the plea of giving special advantage for import of arms and other commodities to Nepal through the ports of India. After the transfer of power, the burgeoning Indian ruling class, following the British tradition, further strengthened their domination over Nepal.
A BUNCH OF UNEQUAL TREATIES
In this perspective, starting from 1950, some very significant treaties and governmental pacts/agreements were subsequently enforced which had and still has immense and long-lasting effects on both these states.
Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950
This treaty carved the way for making Nepal dependent on the Indian rulers. (See Endnote 1 for details of the articles of the treaty)(7).
- Provisions to take advantage of the important geo-political location of Nepal in the Indian subcontinent and arrangements to keep the foreign policy of the country under the influence of Indian rulers have been ensured in article 2.
- Though in article 5 it is mentioned that that Nepal will have the freedom to import arms and defence equipments through the Indian territory, at the same time it is declared that the implementation of this process will be determined on the basis of bilateral consultation between the two governments. Quite naturally, when two unequal neighbouring countries consult, it is obvious that the incomparably more powerful of the two ? India will be calling the shots.
- According to article 6 Nepal?s door has been opened to both governmental and private players of India who would enjoy special regional, industrial, and economic concessions including the freedom to get contracts in Nepal.
- The above article is strengthened in the article 7. In this section freedom has been granted to citizens of both the countries to reside, own property, and participate in trade and commerce in a reciprocal basis. Indian capitalists and businessmen have taken full advantage of this while the weak and underdeveloped Nepal has miserably, but understandably failed. Hence, the capitalists of India have been successful in exploiting the labour of the poor Nepalese people.
- In addition to the above, a Letter of Exchange between the two governments regarding implementation of the treaty is also appended to the treaty, wherein the articles of the treaty have been further illustrated so as to make the treaty more favourable for Indian rulers. For instance it is written in the Letter of Exchange:
?Neither government shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor. To deal with any such threat, the two governments shall consult with each other and devise effective counter-measures.? So, advancing from article 2, the question of taking measures against foreign aggressor was introduced through the letter. It was further written ?Any arms, ammunition or warlike material and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal that the Government of Nepal may import through the territory of India shall be so imported with the assistance and agreement of the government of India. The government of India will take steps for the smooth and expeditious transport of such arms and ammunition through India(4)(13).?
Treaty of Trade and Commerce, 1950
In addition to the peace treaty this treaty was signed between the two countries in 1950 (see Endnote 2 for details)(8).
The highlights of this treaty:
1) Being surrounded by land from all sides Nepal was given unrestricted right of commercial transit of all goods and manufactures through the territory and ports of India.
2) Though India did not impose any tax for transit of commodities for Nepal from outside through the Indian territory or for transit of commodities from one part of Nepal to another through India, but the allowed path of transit was restricted and defined. The incident of 1989-90 where the path of transit of commodities to Nepal was blocked by the Indian state shows that this clause has been utilized by the Indian rulers as a weapon against Nepal.
3) On the other hand a section of the Indian businessmen have blissfully violated the regulation on transit path and made huge profits by illegal trading. This has compelled the two nations, India and Nepal, to make frequent treaties to control unauthorised trade.
4) By making commodities available which are essential to the economy of the other, according to article 6 of the treaty, India has unequivocally benefitted from the supply of raw materials for their comparably developed production system and is still enjoying the advantage.
5) The clause to promote contacts between the trade interests of the two countries and provide reasonable facility for the import and export of commodities has also been used till date to the advantage of the Indian capitalist businessmen.
Arms Assistance Accord, 1965
The facts that are available about this secret accord are:
- 3 (a) Indian government took the responsibility of supplying arms and ammunitions to Nepal.
- 3 (b) Nepal government agreed to modify their stocked arms.
- 3 (c) Nepal will not be allowed to supply arms to any third party.
- 3 (d) The ranked officials of Nepalese army would be trained in the defence training organizations of India.
- 4 If for some reasons India does not agree to supply arms to Nepal, the United States or Britain will help Nepal in their defence sector(9).
The influence and domination of the Indian ruling class over military and defence of Nepal that started with the peace treaty of 1950 was therefore further strengthened by this treaty of 1965.
Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation Programme, 1964
Under the stated programme to provide technical and financial support to 158 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America etc the Indian government essentially paved the way for proliferation and benefit of the Indian capitalists. Nepal too became more dependent on Indian rulers as a consequence of this programme. This programme enables civil and military training, providing assistance and advice for different projects and posting Indian experts in these countries(10).
Indo-Nepal Joint Statement of June 1990
In 1988, King Birendra of Nepal bought arms from China. This incident propelled the Indian rulers to exert severe pressure on the Nepalese ruler. As the Indo-Nepal trade and commerce related treaty?s tenure was over, fresh dispute developed regarding the new treaty. The then Congress government of Rajiv Gandhi imposed a ban on virtually all routes for transit of commodities to Nepal. Instead of two different treaties, the Indian government insisted and pressurised Nepalese government to make a single treaty covering both trade and commodity transfer by which they wanted to gain further benefits from Nepal. In an attempt to increase the pressure on the rulers of Nepal, India extended full support to the movement for re-establishment of democracy under the leadership of Nepali Congress. In the wake of this pressure tactics, the two nations published a joint statement in June 1990 whose highlights are:
- The existing strained and tensed relations between the two countries would be revoked to re-establish the bilateral situation that existed prior to April 1987
- One will respectfully recognise the defence related issues of the other; none of the two countries will give consent to any activity that may harm the security; discussion on defence related issues will continue.
- Bilateral cooperation was declared for using the rivers on equal terms and reciprocity for industrial, human resource development and for protection of the environment(11).
By declaring this joint statement the Indian rulers:
1) in essence exhibited their power and re-affirmed their supremacy and influence;
2) in addition to the dependence on defence and arms export related issues, India once again ensured the economic dependence of Nepal on India;
3) by declaring equal opportunity in utilization of the rivers flowing from Nepal to India, the Indian rulers advanced a step further by asserting their virtually one-sided control over using the water resources and hydroelectric power generated from these rivers.
Tanakpur Barrage Agreement, 1991(12)
India?s Share | Nepal?s Share | |
Land exchange | 577 m from Nepal for construction of dam | N/A |
Water distribution (during summer) Water distribution (during monsoon) | No definite limit No definite limit | 4.25 m3/s |
Electricity from hydro power | No definite limit (4484 kilo-Watt hour share ensured) | 1 kilo-watt hour per year |
The agreement in accordance with this treaty which allowed construction of barrage by India in the territory of Nepal and at the same time virtually handed over the rights to all the valuable resources available from the river to the Indian rulers generated tremendous protests in Nepal. The Indian rulers had in fact unilaterally started the construction of the barrage by encroaching into Nepal?s territory sometimes in the 1980s. The pressure tactics adopted in 1990, therefore granted India a legal status to go ahead with this project which has so far been an illegal construction. However, the treaty was not finally accepted in the Nepalese parliament.
Treaty on Integrated Development of Mahakali River
In February, 1996, the integrated Mahakali treaty was signed. The highlights of the treaty are:
- Nepal will have the right to access of designated amount of water from the Sarada barrage in the summer and monsoon seasons.
- India will enjoy the right to definite amount of water from the barrage in the tributary of Mahakali that will be flowing down from the barrage.
- Whatever is the increase in generation of hydroelectric power from the Tanakpur generation station, Nepal will have the right to half of that additional quantity but at the same time will have to bear the cost of this extra amount.
- A portion Nepal?s share of electricity will be sold to India at a cost that will be determined by the two sides.
- India will supply water to some designated irrigated areas of Nepal. The Mahakali river commission will function on the principle so that there is mutual advantage, equality and none is deprived.
- The controversial topics of 1920 Sarada Barrage Treaty, 1991 Tanakpur Agreement were included in this treaty and accorded formal acceptance.
- The agreement will be valid for 75 years and re-evaluated every 10 years(12)(14).
This treaty too generated enormous dissent in Nepal, the reasons for which is not directly evident from the major articles of the treaty. Apparently the 12 articles of this treaty seem to establish equal opportunity for Nepal for harnessing, hydroelectric power, irrigable water, equitable distribution of water resources. But in reality, attempts were made to incorporate the controversial and biased aspects of the Sarada Treaty and the Tanakpur Agreement in this treaty, which therefore faced huge opposition in the Nepalese parliament. However, subsequently it was accepted in a joint session of the parliament. Therefore, the encroachment and use of Nepalese territory for India?s interest, unilateral and forceful construction of Indian barrage in Nepal, and Indian domination in general gained legal sanction through the implementation of this treaty.
Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection act (BIPPA) October, 2011
This act is a measure taken to protect the capital invested by the Indian capitalist in Nepal from nationalisation. There had been a demand from the Indian capitalists for enactment of such measures for some years. The highlights of the treaty are:
- Apart from taking a decision based on the universal necessity law, no capital invested by any Indian company can be nationalised or confiscated, or in case it is done in an unbiased basis, then the owner should be provided appropriate compensation.
- If any damage is inflicted due to war, armed conflict, rebellious upsurges or riots, then the Indian companies will receive the same treatment and receive the same compensation as any Nepalese organisation(15).
Many have thus formed a new version for the acronym of this act (BIPPA), i.e. Baburam?s India Promotion and Protection Act.
Now let us examine the effect of the continuous implementation of such treaties, agreements and acts, governmental understandings on Nepal and how it has enabled the Indian rulers to maintain their dominance and influence.
INDO-NEPAL AGREEMENT ? THE CONSEQUENCE OF UNDERSTANDING
1 Military Affairs
The Indian ruling class has been exercising its control over Nepal?s military preparation and defence sector through the 1950?s Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship and the associated Letter of Exchange and through the 1965?s Nepal-India Agreement on Arms Assistance. The 1950 treaty was enforced citing the necessity of India and Nepal?s defence issue with respect to China. In 1952 the Indian military mission was established in Nepal with an aim to reorganise Nepal?s army and to design Nepal?s defence in response to the need of Indian defence sector. In 1954 India posted a security intelligence base in northern Nepal near the China Nepal border. However, the rulers of Nepal did not always accept India?s unilateral decision of employing a direct Indian army base. In 1969 Nepal asked the Indian military mission to leave. The events that followed in the subcontinent in the 70?s decade ? Bangladesh?s war of independence, India?s accession of Sikkim that demonstrated the muscle power of the Indian rulers, further deteriorated the relations between the two nations. Finally in 1988 in the backdrop of importing arms from China, the conflict became very acute(16).
Despite all these, the Nepalese rulers were never able to completely free themselves from the Indian influence. The tradition of training high ranked Nepalese officials in India existed ever since India gained political independence. The chiefs of the Indian and Nepalese armies enjoy honorary chief status in each other's country.
The third point is that India has always allocated financial assistance for regularly supplying military weapons to Nepal. Frequent allegations have been made about the inferior quality of arms and ammunitions that have been supplied to Nepal and other neighbouring countries by India which means that India has used these nations as its arms market.
In addition there are several instances where India has provided military assistance and carried out concealed surveillance in number of Nepal?s internal affairs. The role of Indian intelligence agency RAW in this matter is extremely crucial. RAW, on behalf of the Indian ruling class is instrumental in secretly intervening in the internal conflicts of different nations of the subcontinent and also supplies arms and provides military training whenever required. The Bangladesh war of independence and all-out support to the movement for re-establishment of democracy in Nepal in 1950 provide couple of glaring examples. More recently, in understanding with imperialist United States and Britain, support has been extended to the Nepalese King or the constitutional parties like Nepalese Congress and UML against the armed movement of the Maoists(16)(17). On 2nd of March 2005 the principal deputy assistant secretary of United State?s South Asian Bureau, Donald Camp, defended the legitimacy for providing the Nepalese King with military help by making a statement before the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, wherein he remarked ? ?Nepal confronts the real possibility that a brutal Maoist insurgency might seize power.... The United States shares with other friends of Nepal ? particularly India and the United Kingdom ? the firm belief that the Maoist insurgency must be resisted and addressed.? In this phase five countries supplied arms to the King of Nepal ? Belgium, Israel, America, Great Britain and India(18).
2 Water resources and other natural resources:
Most of the rivers of the northern Gangetic plain flow through Nepal before entering India. These rivers are extremely viable for easy and low cost generation of hydroelectric power and for irrigation water. The rivers of this region are therefore identified as world?s second most potential source of water resources. Potentially about 83,000 megawatt of electrical energy can be generated from hydroelectric projects from these rivers and only a mere 0.5 percent of this potential has so far been utilized.
The Indian rulers have thus adopted different means to corner Nepal and establish their control over this natural source of water resource. In this connection one should note the prior discussion on Joint Statement of June 1990, Tanakpur Barrage agreement and Integrated Mahakali River Treaty. The construction of Tanakpur river barrage was started unilaterally by India in the territory of Nepal in the 1980s without even making Nepal aware of the project. Later it was attempted to give a legal status to this by formulating the Tanakpur Barrage Agreement. But in the wake of vociferous protests in the Nepalese parliament the treaty was rejected. However, in an effort to recover the failed attempt the Integrated Mahakali River Treaty was brought forth few years later(11)(19).
On February 1996 when the Nepalese Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba signed the Mahakali treaty, the United Peoples? Front, which was formed by the Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, presented a charter of demands in front of the government that included scrapping several treaties that were forcefully imposed on Nepal by India and also set a deadline for meeting the demands. However, the Deuba government ignored these demands and went ahead and signed the Mahakali treaty. On the very next day, which was the twelfth day after the charter of demand was placed, the Maoist party of Nepal declared the commencement of peoples? war(20).
In a similar manner, Nepal was deceived by India before by the erstwhile British rulers and later by the rulers of independent India through the 1920 Sarada Barrage Treaty, 1954 Koshi Treaty and 1959 Gandak Treaty by means of which India could take some steps towards flood control and irrigation, however insufficient and inferior, for the northern bordering states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
It may be noted here that very similar incidents and the consequent dispute also exists with Bangladesh regarding the construction and water distribution of the Farakka barrage. More recently India has brought similar allegations against China related to the construction of a dam on river Brahmaputra within China.
The Indian rulers adopted different means to meddle and exercise their domination over Nepal. The clauses (articles) of the treaties were drafted and included in a fashion so as to virtually prohibit Nepal from taking any independent advantage from these rivers. For instance, no new dams were allowed to be constructed at some definite distances upstream from the already constructed dams. This effectively meant that Nepal could not build dams on rivers flowing in its own territory. Though a limit was imposed on the Indian government to maintain a certain upper level of water, in reality India never bothered to abide by this limit. As a result the amount of water allocated for Nepal was never made available to them. Additionally, Nepal is also bound to sell India whatever electricity it would get after proportional distribution.
Another example of desperate grabbing of natural resources by the Indian rulers has come to the limelight in the recent times. Sand and stones are exported to India from the Chure mountain ranges of Nepal. Consequently the Chure mountains are completely ripped and stand devastated due to unrestrained mining for sand and stone. The different layers of the earth crust underlying the entire mountain range has been so badly affected due to uncontrolled excavations that it has almost lost its water absorption capacity. As a result the possibility of floods and landslides in the adjoining and adjacent areas has increased manifold times. Citing this reason of environmental destruction the Nepal government imposed a ban on the export of sand and stones to India. But the capitalists? greed for profit is undeterred by any such environmental threats. They started raising a hue and cry stating that this ban on export would badly affect the economy of Nepal. Finally, on 23rd February 2010 the trade and commerce ministry of Nepal was forced to withdraw the ban. Another reason behind this decision was that the government?s income from taxes got reduced by Rs. 250 crore due to the ban.
In addition to the above, several rare herbal medicines and plants which are acquired from the forests of Nepal are also exported to India. Instead of independently processing and developing the rich raw materials in industries so that they can sell the products and increase their income, Nepal is compelled to hand over these raw materials to the capitalists of other countries. Thus continues the extensive looting of the natural resources of Nepal.
(to be continued)
ENDNOTE 1
The Articles of the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950
Article I: There shall be everlasting peace and friendship between the Government of India and the Government of Nepal. The two Governments agree mutually to acknowledge and respect the complete sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of each other.
Article II: The two Governments hereby undertake to inform each other of any serious friction or misunderstanding with any neighbouring state likely to cause any breach in the friendly relations subsisting between the two Governments.
Article III: In order to establish and maintain the relations referred to in Article I the two Governments agree to continue diplomatic relations with each other by means of representatives with such staff as is necessary for the due performance of their functions. The representatives and such of their staff as may be agreed upon shall enjoy such diplomatic privileges and immunities as are customarily granted by international law on a reciprocal basis: Provided that in no case shall these be less than those granted to persons of a similar status of any other State having diplomatic relations with either Government.
Article IV: The two Governments agree to appoint Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and other consular agents, who shall reside in towns, ports and other places in each other's territory as may be agreed to. Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and consular agents shall be provided with exequaturs or other valid authorisation of their appointment. Such exequatur or authorisation is liable to be withdrawn by the country which issued it, if considered necessary. The reasons for the withdrawal shall be indicated wherever possible. The persons mentioned above shall enjoy on a reciprocal basis all the rights, privileges, exemptions and immunities that are accorded to persons of corresponding status of any other State.
Article V: The Government of Nepal shall be free to import, from or through the territory of India, arms, ammunition or warlike material and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal. The procedure for giving effect to this arrangement shall be worked out by the two Governments acting in consultation.
Article VI: Each Government undertakes, in token of the neighbourly friendship between India and Nepal, to give to the nationals of the other, in its territory, national treatment with regard to participation in industrial and economic development of such territory and to the grant of concessions and contracts relating to such development.
Article VII: The Governments of India and Nepal agree to grant, on a reciprocal basis, to the nationals of one country in the territories of the other the same privileges in the matter of residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce, movement and other privileges of a similar nature.
Article VIII: So far as matters dealt with herein are concerned, this Treaty cancels all previous treaties, agreements and arrangements entered into on behalf of India between the British Government and the Government of Nepal.
Article IX: This treaty shall come into force from the date of signature by both Governments.
Article X: This Treaty shall remain in force until it is terminated by either party by giving one year's notice.
ENDNOTE 2
Articles of the Treaty of Trade and Commerce, 1950
The important aspects are covered in the first 6 articles
Article I: The Government of India recognise in favour of the Government of Nepal full and unrestricted right of commercial transit of all goods and manufactures through the territory and ports of India as provided in Articles 2, 3 and 4 below.
Article II: Subject to such arrangements as may be agreed upon between the two Governments, the Government of India agree to allow all goods imported at any Indian port and intended for re-export to Nepal to be transmitted to such place or places in Nepal as may be approved by the two Governments, without breaking bulk en route and without payment of any duty at any Indian port.
Article III: Subject to such arrangements as may be agreed upon between the two Governments the right of passage without payment of excise or import duties shall similarly extend also to goods of Nepalese origin in transit through Indian territory from one approved place to another within the territories of the Kingdom of Nepal.
Article IV: Subject to such arrangements as may be agreed upon between the two Governments, the Government of Nepal shall enjoy full and unrestricted right of commercial transit, from approved place or places in Nepalese territory, through the territories and ports of India, of all goods and manufactures of Nepalese origin for export outside India.
Article V: The Government of Nepal agree to levy at rates not lower than those leviable, for the time being, in India customs duties on imports from and exports to countries outside India. The Government of Nepal also agree to levy on goods produced or manufactured in Nepal, which are exported to India, export duty at rates sufficient to prevent their sale in India at prices more favourable than those of goods produced or manufactured in India which are subject to central excise duty.
Article VI: The Government of India and the Government of Nepal agree to assist each other, by making available, to the maximum extent possible, commodities which are essential to the economy of the other.
Ref:
1Nepal peace process heading south-G.Navlakha-EPW Dec 5,2009
2 www.telegraphnepal.com/headline/2010-07-06 -- Indian emissary talks diff. to diff. Nepal political parties;
3. ibnlive.in.com ?Aug 19, 2008;Row over Prachanda?s visit to China- www.freerepublic.com --Aug 24, 2008;
4. Nepal-India treaties ?issue 20 ,18 May 2008
5. Articles of Sugauli-Wikipedia
6. Nepal Britain friendship treaty, 21 Dec 1923?www.greaternepal.org;
7. No. 1302 India & Nepal treaty of peace and friendship-United Nations-Treaty Series 1951;
8. India Bilateral Treaties & Agreements (vol 1)-www.nepaldemocracy.org;
9. Contesting mutual security: India Nepal Relations-Sangeeta Thapliyal-observer research foundation;
11. Reconsidering Nepal-India bilateral relations?Dhruba Kumar?CNAS Journal vol21 no1 Jan 1994;
12. The Mahakali treaty: coopn. Between India & Nepal?Darshan Sachde CE397 3-10-2010;
13. Nepal-India open border: prospects, problems & challenges?Vidya Bir Singh Kansakar?Democracy Nepal;
14. The traitor Mahakali treaty of 1996-www.humanrights.de;
15. Agreement between the govt. of Nepal & the govt. of India for the promotion & protection of investments, 21 oct 2011 pdf; Republica, oct 26, 2011 posted by C Sapkota;
16. India & Nepal: security & economic dimensions?Padmaja Murthy, associate fellow IDSA;
17. RAW: An instrument of Indian imperialism, Isha Khan, countercurrents.org;
18. U S urges Nepal?s king to open democratic dialogue?2nd march, 2005?http://usinfo.state.gov ;
19. Tanakpur barrage thirteen year saga of the Nepal canal sill level?S B Pun-Hydro Nepal ?journal of water, energy & environment,2009 vol 5 pg 2-7;
20. Nepal India Relations: open secret diplomacy?Bishnu Pathak, C S Center.
Comments:
No Comments for View