INDIA MUST RETURN NEPAL'S LOST LANDS AFTER THE SUGAULI TREATY OF 1816
Posted by The Himalayan Voice:
[We have below posted an article from a writer who seems to be vigorously campaigning for the reinstatement of monarchy in Nepal and re-promulgating the Constitution of 1990 also. It sounds not that possible to reinstate a monarchy in the country again. This article is in sharp contrast to our belief of federalism, plurality, ethnic harmony and prosperity of all in the country. As The Himalayan Voice is an independent forum for all, it therefore welcomes everyone to contribute their views and thoughts on the national issues. We ask you to contribute your write-ups which you believe you should publish for a wider readership . Thank you.]
By DIRGHA RAJ PRASAI
The Treaty of Sugauli was signed under intimidation, threat and coercion. The East India Company had an imposing presence at that time. It would therefore be helpful to discuss the mode and method of East India Company's aggression prior to assessing the validity of our demand. Taking the treaty provisions, International laws and norms into account, Nepal has the full right to get back the ceded territories. The sovereign people of Nepal have every right to claim the lost territory.
Following the overthrow of Rana regime, Nepal and India concluded a Treaty of Peace and Friendship on the 31 July, 1950. The Article 8 of this treaty outlines - 'so far as matters dealt with herein are concerned, this Treaty cancels all previous treaties, agreements, and engagements entered into on behalf of India between the British Government and the Government of Nepal'.
It is evident that the British India invaded and occupied Nepalese territories to extend the British-India Colonial Empire. Later the British-India was chased away by the Mahatama Gandhi led Indian nationalists' movement. As Gandhi took back his country from the aliens' hands, we the Nepalese people are also demanding the lost Lands of our country from the hands of the Indians.
Terming the Sugauli Treaty of 1816 as a fake document, Yogi Naraharinath, a noted Nepalese historian, had filed a writ petition at the Nepal's Supreme Court demanding the lost territory be returned at the earliest. Sadly, the Nepalese Supreme Court dismissed the case without any discussion at all.
I have been writing in many newspapers that India should return the territory from Tistha to Kangada as soon as possible. Just after the establishment of democracy in Nepal in 1950, Madhav Ghimire, a Nepali national poet, wrote a poem on the territory of the country - 'We reached east to Tistha - west to the fort of Kangada, but to the imperialistic power where we also surrendered'.
Yes, we really did. The former Prime Minister of Nepal Kirtinidhi Bista writes in a vernacular daily - "Nepal is now like a pilot-less airbus cruising in some speed to no certain direction. The Indian ambassador is acting like those British India Viceroys. Now both China and India should understand Nepal's situation, how delicate it has become which can eventually affect their interests also. The nation's identity should be maintained on the basis of cultures and traditions so that it would remain strongly united. Nepal needs a politician and a mature diplomat. Also the country needs commitment for the welfare of people and sovereign existence of the nation. We must have courage to face-off larger and stronger countries but no teasing them at any cost." In the list of patriots raising Nepalese national flag for the lost lands comes: Phanindra Nepal, Bijaya Mani Dixit, Dipak Gajurel, Pradip Nepal and more others also.
Before 1950, the nation was in the shackles of the dictatorial Rana Regime. With the overthrow of Ranas, the nation enjoyed an open political environment for some time. The aliens, particularly the Indian, openly entered Nepal to work on their vested interest which eventually led Nepalese Democracy to falter within. In the name of helping Nepal establish democracy India forced Nepal sign into an unequal treaty again. Prior to the overthrow, India had planned King Tribhuvan's escape to New Delhi. When the king reached New Delhi, India made him sign in a document – better known as the Delhi Document – which put Nepal under more undesired Indian influence. It is widely believed that some of the points in the agreement were inserted without any knowledge of the King.
In accordance with the Delhi Agreement, Nepali Army personnel were stationed at the gate of the Royal Palace and Indian Panjabi army personnel were stationed inside the palace for the security of the King. An Indian national Govinda Narayan Singh was appointed as the Chief Secretary to the King and another Indian national - Murdeshwor was asked to work as the Chief Secretary of the council of ministers. Mr Angkor, an Indian lawyer, was appointed as Nepal's legal Advisor. And General Sharadanandan Singh, who was also an India, was assigned to reform the Nepal Army. He recommended downsizing Nepal Army in number, to 8,000 from 18,000. The Indian government also established an army check-point in the northern border of Nepal saying, that was essential for security of Nepal, which prompted widespread condemnation and outrage among the nationalist force in the country.
Here is another picture of then Nepal for every Nepalese to closely look at and understand as well. In 1960, King Mahendra had to takeover as danger was looming over the country's existence. During the 1961 China-India War, the Indian army had established its camp at Kalapani in Mahakali Zone, Western Nepal also. To tarnish King Mahendra's image, some Nepalese blamed the king himself allowing the Indian Army to stay at Kalapani. No geographical survey had been carried out until 1964 and, so far, the situation was such that we had only to rely on maps developed by foreigners namely – the Indians themselves. Since the Indian conspiracy came into light, Nepalese people have been openly opposing the foreign intervention and talking loud and clear about this issue, not only from Mechi to Mahakali but for return of the lost land from Tistha to Kangada also. We all Nepalese are out in this campaign and we are hopeful that the Indian government will return the lost-land soon.
Now, the Maoist Prachanda has also started openly speaking against the injustice done towards Nepal after the Sugauli Treaty. But how and when will this issue get resolved, we really have no idea. It is true, nothing will happen by spitting bitter words towards each other. The essence of nationalism should overflow from within our hearts. When the Maoist party was in power, it had to keep quiet. The Maoists had to appease the Delhi Durbar on whose prosthesis it had come to the power. So, it did not venture speaking against foreign intervention. When they were in power, their activities, attitude and talks were none of the nature. But in stark opposite reality, they seemed reluctant in showing any respect towards the nation, national identity and conventional beliefs also.
Although it has already been sometime late, the Maoist leader has opened his mouth against the Indian intervention saying, "India should return the lost land. The Sugauli Treaty is no more in existence after the British rulers quit India, the treaty with them doesn't exist". As long as every corner of the country remains unmanaged, it will be easier for India to whatever it liked to do crushing the national pride of Nepal. And in plain and simple, it is impossible to manage our borders as long as the nation falls in the grips of traitors and some crook foreigners. So the only left option for the concerned citizens of the Nepal is that they should take to the street for the return of the lost lands.
And finally, the much heard so-called republic, secularism, plurality and ethnic federalism are not the issues of Nepal. These are the agendas from outer hands. In such situation, there is no alternative left other than making Nepalese people united together. Also the Supreme Court of the country shouldn't be a doll at the hands of traitors and foreigners alike. Those who are trying to politicize the highest court and national army are no doubt culprits. Some Nepalese scattered globally wish the nation existed forever with the united efforts of the King, political parties and people altogether. Some people want the dethroned King come back again. They believe Nepal can not survive without a King. So, a parliamentary democracy should be an ultimate goal for Nepal. This can be achieved with necessary amendments in Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal of 1990. The present Constituent Assembly can not promulgate a new constitution. Even if it did, the country won't be saved. Now let's be stronger and committed for the cause of country's existence and prosperity of its people.
Comment(s) on the Post:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Badri Nepal wrote:
I am not very much in favour of bringing the monarchy back to the Durbar again. It is just inappropriate and impossible also. The country is not prepared to receive him back again.
I have here just three examples:
The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was ousted by Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini led Muslim traditionalist movement in 1979. He fled to United States on January 16, 1979 and had to die in exile in Egypt.
The Romanian case is also the same. On March 28, 1974 Nicolae Ceausescu became President for Life – almost like Nepal's kings. No use going in detail how he ruled and how he had been able to put Elena Ceausescu, his wife, in the 2nd most powerful slot in the country. On December 25, 1989 Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were executed by firing squad.
The Afghani last King Mohammed Zahir Shah was dethroned in 1973. After the fall of the Taliban, NATO seems to have inspired Loya Jirga to bring him back in 2002. The Loya Jirga named him 'Father of the Nation'. But he did not want to bring back the monarchy.
The monarchy, should it be reinstalled in Nepal with no power at all, will again venture another 'February 1, 2005'. Also Gyanendra, the last king of Nepal is not as much popular as his slain brother Birendra. There is no question Nepalese would want him become the 'Father of the Nation' as well.
Badri Nepal
Kathmandu, Nepal
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Birat Simha wrote:
Dear John,
Very well put. Your last paragraph (after a good translation to Nepali)
"In Nepal, the very word "republic" is being associated every day with corruption, incompetence, antidemocratic cronyism, unrestrained Maobadi atrocities, the general breakdown of law & order, the cessation of the basic services of government, and the overall failure of the state itself. In this unedifying scenario, is it really the least bit surprising that people are beginning to question the wisdom of the "republic/secular/ federal" trinity, and to speak seriously of the return of the Crown?"
Should be emblazoned in a banner and displayed conspicuously in every district and village of Nepal.
Cheers,
Birat
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:24 AM, John Kelleher wrote:
I might agree that it's possibly gratuitous, at this late date, to talk of the return of a "Greater Nepal," but I would not agree that it is the least bit irrelevant or inappropriate to seriously discuss the re-installation of some form of limited, constitutional monarchy.
No-one wants a return to Panchayat, and no-one would expect HM the King to head his own cabinet once more, as he did from 2005-2006. Yet elsewhere in a developing parliamentary democracy, the fusion between the traditional hereditary Head of State and the gradually-coalescing representative organs of parliament has helped to stabilize the often-disorderly democratic development of a nation.
It is this fusion between the principle of hereditary default and the principle of democratic accountability which can guarantee the long-term stability and tenability of a developing democracy. By the same token, it is the poorly-planned, improperly-executed, and unilateral separation of the two principles which has reduced Nepal's ganatantric experiment to near-complete inoperability.
In Nepal, the very word "republic" is being associated every day with corruption, incompetence, antidemocratic cronyism, unrestrained Maobadi atrocities, the general breakdown of law & order, the cessation of the basic services of government, and the overall failure of the state itself. In this unedifying scenario, is it really the least bit surprising that people are beginning to question the wisdom of the "republic/secular/federal" trinity, and to speak seriously of the return of the Crown?
John Kelleher
No comments:
Post a Comment