Nepal – the country of Mt. Everest and Buddha

Nepal – the country of Mt. Everest and Buddha

ISSUES OF THE GREATER NEPAL: HISTORICAL REFERENCE AND LEGAL QUESTIONS

Posted by completenepal on June 12, 2010


By Shastra Dutta Pant, PhD

1. Political Situation of the Eastern Society
The eastern administration system was decentralized with Rajauta, Raja, Maharaja, and Badamaharaja ruling villages and states respectively as per the norms of Dharma Rajya. State was not concerned to planning and development, which was a common feature of entire south Asian region. There were more than 565 principalities in the present India alone. Nepal too did have over six dozen Rajya and Rajauta, called Bayeese and Chaubise.
Because of the loose union of eastern system, Europeans started colonizing those principalities, taking advantage of the weak political situation. Considering the importance of eastern philosophy, culture and Dharma, King Prithivi Narayan Shah tried to unify Nepal. In those days, Nepal was divided into small kingdoms and kingships.
2.    Objective of the unification:
Prithvi Narayan Shah was a farsighted king and so he decided to galvanize small states into a strong nation with a view to saving Nepal from being one of the colonies of Britain. He did have full support of all right thinking intellectuals and patriots of the time.
3.   Unification campaign
Prithvi Narayan Shah unified the major principalities into one country, especially important for business with Tibet after the victory over Nuwakot in 1744, Sindhupalchowk, Kabhrepalanchowk, and some kingdoms located to the eastern part of it in 1748 A.D. Immediately after the unification of Makawanpur and Simrongad, he unified Bara, Parsa, Rautahat ,and Sindhuli Gadhi in 1762. Then, relationship of Gorkha kingdom was established with Government of East India Company. The capital from Gorkha to Kathmandu was shifted in 1868 A.D. After the unification of the Kathmandu Valley, Prithivi Narayan died at the age of fifty three in 1775 AD, while he was planning to annex Chandandi and Vijayapur.
Prithivi Narayan Shah was a visionary person. During the reign of Pratap Shah, the son of Prithvi Narayan Shah, three states like Dang, Kapilbastu and Chitwan were merged into Nepal. Similarly, Lamjung, Tanahu, Palpa, Parbat, Upper Nuwakot, Garahu, Stahu, Bhirkot, and Kaski were conquered in 1785. Then, Makawnpur, Parsa, Bara, Rautahut, Sarlahi, Mahotttari, Dhanusa, Siraha, Saptari, Sunsari, Morang, Jhapa, Sindhuli, and Udayapur were annexed.  In 1769 AD, Jajarkot agreed to absorb its kingdom into Gorkha. Pratap Shah died at the age of twenty five in 1777 A.D. after the absorption of the Chitwan Valley of Tahahun. Five years after his demise, Koshi, Lamjung, and Tanahun, including Chaubise kingdoms were galvanized into Nepal in 1789 A.D after the absorption of all the Baise Kingdoms (Twenty two principalities), located in the western part of the Kali Gandaki. Then, Salyan, Palpa and Mustang were annexed.  The Army of Gorkha got victory over Kumau in 1790 A.D. Pradhumna Shah became the ruler of the nation on condition of  paying Rs. 5000 yearly tribute.
The southern border of Nepal extended up to Allahabad  after the absorption of Palpa Kingdom, including the Terai sector of Butwal taken by the king of Palpa from the king of Awadh on lease in 1801. In 1806 A.D., the army of Gorkha absorbed all the small kingdoms like Sirmudh, Hindur and Besahar lying across the Gadhwal and the Satalaj River. In this way, Nepal had intention of acquiring the nearest port of Karahchi and the hilly regions such as Nainital, Almodha, Gadhwal and Deharadun across the Satlaj River.
The dominance of Nepal and the East India Company prevailed in the northern and southern parts of India respectively. Meanwhile, the Company Government intended to sign new treaty to resolve new issues as the earlier policies became useless.  On the contrary, Nepal rejected to sign the new treaty. Consequently, war broke out between Nepal and the Company Government for about two years (1814-16). The dream of Nepali kings to found a country as long as the Himalaya Ranges by absorbing the territories lying across Tista and Kangada remained unfulfilled.  Resultantly, even the Kasmir Valley could not be kept under control.
Greater Nepal
During the forty-six year’s unification campaign from 1768 to 1814, 2100 km length of Nepal from Tista in the east to across the Satlaj River in the west was established. John Pemwal called the then greater Nepal as a belt of territory, which was the most beautiful, the most inaccessible and traditionally the most fragmented in Asia.
The total area of Nepal was 204, 917 sq. km. The Sugauli Treaty reduced Nepal into 147; 141 sq. km. Nepal’s territory still left to India is 63,776 sq. km. India has to return this territory, the proof of which is discussed hereafter. Moreover, Nepal had to abandon its plan of making a single Himalayan Range by absorbing Brahmaputra and the Jammu Kasmir Valley across Tista and Satalaj respectively.
British-India gave back some territories, located in the mid and western Terai as per the terms and condition. In this way, the Shah Kings with their great effort enlarged small Gorkha kingdom from 250 sq. km. to 500 times greater Nepal during their seventy years’ arduous effort.
As per the term and conditions of the Sugauli Treaty, some areas located in the east-west and southern parts were on lease temporarily. Later, Nepal would get back gradually. The area kept on lease had occupied more than 64,000 sq. km. .  The treaty had fixed the Tista and the Mahakali River as border in the east and west respectively. The Company Government had only activated its administrative activities in between Mechi and Tista, thinking that Nepal would again advance towards the east. In fact, greater Nepal, the real Nepal, of which land has been kept haughtily by India as done by Iraq to the case of Kuwait calling it its 19th state. One needs to analyze the history of Nepal and India and the treaties and understandings held between the two countries to understand how the above- mentioned land absorbed by India belongs to Nepal.
Indo-Nepal War
British-India declared war in 1814 A.D. to annex Nepal into its territory. The British troop deployed in Morang, Bara & Parsha had to embrace defeat. Then the British troops attacked Jiatgargh fort in Butwal but it was defeated by Nepalis troops. Therefore, they could not dare to attack Palpa. In 1814, British General Gillespie was forced to flee from Nalapani. However, later Nepali troop led by Balbhadra had to return from Nalapani due to internal political crisis of Nepal that resulted in the treaty of Sugauli.
The Sugauli Treaty
1. In 1814, British India Government, known as Company Government, all of a sudden invaded Nepal. The British got victory over the plain area, whereas Nepal over the hilly area. Two years after intense war, two countries signed Sugauli Treaty in a place called Sugauli on December 2, 1915. The detail account of the treaty is mentioned on Annex -3.
Although war ended after the sign of Sungawli Treaty, Nepal had to lose its large territory. Nepal unwillingly agreed to temporarily give the lost territory to the Company Government and to sign the treaty provided that it would not wage war with the view to expanding further territory.
British hoodwinked Nepal in terms of giving back its lost territory until it quitted India in 1947. Similarly, the present Indian Government – successor of British India – has turned its deaf ear to this issue. The British left India without resolving the issues of the territory of Gowa, Daman, Dyuk, Jammu, and Kashmir, Laddakh, Hyderabad and other Nepali territory. Later, India forcibly absorbed remaining territory. India had made an attempt to forcibly absorb Jammu-Kashmir and controversial territory with China.
But India could not annex two powerful countries China and Pakistan. The British had clearly delineated the boundaries of Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh, Sikkim and Pakistan except Nepal.  Still, the half of the total Nepalese territory lies in India. We call the greater Nepal including our lost territory lying in India. The area of greater Nepal had expanded up to the Ganges plain in the south and the Tista River in the east The origin of the Satlaj River – the far eastern one out of five rivers closer to Lahore, Amritsar- was the western border of Nepal.
2. The Sugauli Treaty was brought into practice after Nepal had made ratification on the letter of exchange on March 4, 1816. (See annex-3.1.  ) Nepal had to get back its lost territory from India as per the term and conditions of the Sugauli Treaty and the treaties signed after 1950. British-India absorbed Nepalis territories like Darjeeling, Kumau, Gadwal, Kangada, and some northern parts of the Ganga River after the practice of Sugunli Treaty. Therefore, Nepal has legal right over its lost territories. Hence, the first duty of every Nepali is to found unified Nepal by integrating its lost territories. No one will be nationalist if he/she twists the sense of this issue. Until and unless Nepal becomes strong, there will be neither the guarantee of security nor the well being of Nepalis.
3. As per the term and conditions of the Section 3 of the Sugauli Treaty, British-India absorbed following territories into present India. (a) Entire Terai region between the Kali and the Rapti River, (b) all the Terai region except Butwal between the Rapti and Gandaki River, (c) The Terai belt between Gandak and Kusaha and (d) the Terai belt between Mechi and Tista.  Before and after the Sugauli Treaity, other similar types of treaties were signed. Consequently, East India Company had returned lost territory of Nepal  as per the term and condition of the Section 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Sugauli Treaty. The return territories were Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, Taulihawa, Rupandehi, Nawalpur, Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Sarlahi, Dhanusa, Mahottari, Siraha, Saptari, Sunsari, Morang, and Jhapa.
Nepal has not got back all the lost territories as per the condition of the treaty. The above-mentioned districts are only the some parts of the territories to be returned. If we get back all the lost territories, Gorakhpur, one of the northern cities of India, will fall in Nepal. Moreover, Nepal’s eastern border will reach by the border of Bangladesh. On these grounds, Nepal legally has to get back its territories, which recently fall in different states of India. The legal basis to get lost territories back to Nepal is the correspondence, agreement and treaty ratified between Nepal and the then East India Company, British-India Government, and British Government. Some evidences on behalf of Nepal are discussed below.
Problem for Return Nepal’s Lost Territory
The map of greater Nepal is safely kept at national museum, Chhauni in Kathmandu. According to this map, half of the total territory of Nepal lies in India. India has forcibly kept this territory under its grip. Kuwait could become independent from Saddam Hussein because of the support of the western countries like USA. But no nation raises voice against the injustice of India over Nepal. Sunguali Treaty and the letter of exchange between Nepal and India should be interpreted in light of India’s bullying attitude and its colonial mindset. It is equally necessary to analyze 1950’s treaty to understand problems resulted from the open border.
New Issues of Unified Greater Nepal
During the reign of King Prithivi Narayan and Bahadur Shah, the petty rulers used to rule principalities like district governor. The principalities were unified and then greater Nepal was founded. The total area of greater Nepal was three times bigger than present Nepal. Nepal and East India Company signed Sugauli Treaty after the two years’ war in 1914-1916. As per the term and conditions of the treaty, Nepal lost its larger territory. However, India must have returned Nepal’s lost territory as per the terms and conditions of different agreements held after the Sugauli Treaty. The territory lying between Mahakali and Satlaj River and west of Satlaj i.e. Kangada, where Sansar Chand used to rule, belongs to Nepal.  Similarly, Sikkim and Asam were also the parts of unified Nepal. The unification campaign initiated by Prithvi Narayan Shah was neither attack on independent states, nor the war for loot and bloodshed. Therefore, Nepal’s unification campaign can not be compared with western colonization. The principalities were the earlier eastern territories of Nepal. Because of loose union, the principalities were in statelessness state. Later, The principalities such as Kathmandu, Patan, Bhaktapur, Kitipur, Pyuthan, Parbat, Galkot, Kaski, Palpa, Tanahun, Lamjung, Gorkha, Isma, Dhurkot, Arghakhanchi (Argha, Dhurkot, Khanchi and Gulmi), Gaharaun, Painyu, Tanahu, Bhirkot, Tanahu, Bhirkot, Nayakot, Dhor, Jajarkot, Musiket, Rising, Ghiring, Tarki, Achcham, Rukum, Salyan, Rolpa, Dang, Bajhang, Dullu, Dailekh, Bajura, Jumla, Mustang, Kumau, Gadwal, Bijayapur, Chaudandi, Wallo Kirant, Pallo Kirant, Majh Kirant, Makwanpur, Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, and Sarlahi were unified and made one nation. These days, some people not understanding the real history of Nepal give the slogans of communalism in the name of various separatist organizations like Khambuwan, Limbhuwan, Khaswan, Newakhala, Mithila Mukti Morcha, Karnali Mukti Morcha, and Mankakhala. These regional organizations have got support from India too. It is essential for Nepalis people to avoid such headstrong and get involved in the restoration of greater Nepal.
Evidences for the left Nepali Territory to be returned to Nepal Nepal has abundant historical evidences to claim greater Nepal. For instance, in 1959, Mr. Nehru, the former Prime Minister of India, paid his visit  to Nepal and agreed to amend  trade treaty of 1950. He also agreed to remove Indian check post from Nepal. Nehru quotes, “Dehradun, Kumau and Nainital, Simla are the territories of Nepal which were once captured by the British.” Author E.C. Kojl in “Brief Dictionary of Darjeeling” writes, “All these territories belonged to Nepal.
1. Peace and amity treaty was held between India and Nepal on July 31, 1950 (See annex 1 for Detail). The Section 8 of the treaty ramified into ten sections has cancelled all the treaty letters, letter of agreement prior to the Sugauli Treaty. The Section 8 of the treaty says, “So far as the claims made here are concerned that the treaty letter dismisses all the previous letter of treaty, letter of agreement and letter of promise signed between the Government of Nepal and British Government on behalf of India.” India became independent from Britain in 1947. Present Government of India is the successor of British India. The Indian Government, a sovereign government, has full right whether to accept fully or partially the act, rule, agreement, and treaty, signed by colonial British-India. By exercising the same right, India has dismissed the Sugauli Treaty by signing peace and amity treaty with Nepal on July 31, 1950. The dismissal of this treaty suggests that the territory prior to the Sugauli Treaty customarily belongs to Nepal. Still, India has to give the lost territory back to Nepal willingly. If India denies, Nepal must make a claim in International Court of Justice.
2. Tri-lateral re-agreement among Britain, India and Nepal for the continuation of Gorkha Regiment was held eight month after the independence of India on August 9, 1947 when Bir Shamsher was the ruler of Nepal. Immediately after the independence of India, the agreement made by the Company Government with Nepal had been customarily functionless. The main reason of tri-lateral treaty again was to continue the Gorkha Regiment in India. These evidences substantiate that the territory prior to Sugauli Treaty belongs to Nepal.
Similarly, the map of Nepal prior to the Suganli Treaty kept in national museum, Tahachal, the British Library of Britain British Museum, the Library of University of London Senate House, Shahi Geographic Society Library and Public Record Office also shows that India must return lost territories to Nepal.
3. The Section 6 of Sugnuli Treaty states “The king of Nepal never suffers the king of Sikkim or never violates the peace.” This section makes it clear that Nepal wanted to absorb the Nepali settlement in Sikkim. If Company Government had not created obstacle, the eastern border of Nepal would have been fixed upto Arunachal of India. The British Army had the experience of war in the plain area, whereas the Nepalis in hilly area. The British signed the Sugauli Treaty evasively to prevent Nepal from galvanizing Sikkim, Assam and other states. Also, the aim of the inclusion of Section -6 in the Sugauli Treaty means not to allow Nepal to move a head of the eastern part of the Tista River. The section 6 shows that the eastern border of Nepal is the Tista River before or after the agreement on the Sugauli Treaty. The Section 6 was included in the treaty to preserve Sikkim from the encroachment of Nepal. If the territory between Mechi and the Tista had lied in present India, it would not have been necessary to mention the Section 6. Now, India has fixed Mechi River the border of Nepal.
4. The constitution formed after the independence of India has not mentioned that the Mechi-Tista falls in Indian Territory. Indian in accordance with the Article 1 (3) (C) of its constitution has not included this area including Darjeeling. India can’t absorb that left territory into it because of the term and conditions of its constitution and the Article 4(2)(B) of the constitution of Nepal. Subash Ghising, the chairman of Gorkha Hill Council registered writ petition (C) 704 (1994) in Supreme Court of India in 1994, claiming that Mechi-Tista territory is not incorporated in the Indian constitution. He made correspondence to the prime minister, home minister and other state ministers to include Mechi-Tista sector in Indian constitution.
4.1 Writ was registered in the Supreme Court of Nepal to establish the right over the lost territories – Testa, Kangada and the Ganges Plain – after the dismissal of letter of agreements including the Sugauli treaty held between Nepal and East India Company in accordance with the Section 8 of 1950 peace and amity treaty. Because of the grave nature of the issue, Bar Association made decision of forming an ‘Amicus Query’. It is yet to decide. Rest will be discussed later.
4.2 The other sates to be absorbed by India can be united in India in accordance with Article 1 (3) c of the constitution of India. But Darjeeling is not the state earned by India.It is like Kuwait of India.
The front warns that if it is delayed, on the one hand Nepal will forward its claim, on the other the unity and national integrity of India will fall in pitfall as northern – eastern states including Sikkim and Assam being affected. This warning has attacked the silence.
4.3. The Titaliya Treaty between East India Company and Sikkim, the letters of treaty between British-India and Nepal regarding the return of the western Terai have justified that Darjeeling is inseparable area of Nepal. Similarly, the treaty held between East India Company and Bhutan on April 4, 1779 and the latest treaty of August 8, 1849 also justify that the territory from Mechi to Tisti lies in Nepal.
The above-mentioned documents also substantiate that the lost territories of Nepal were on lease as to the case of Britain which had taken Hongkong on lease with China.
4.4 As per the terms and conditions of the treaty held between the Government of Britain and Sikkim on March 28, 1861, between Nepal – Britain on December 21, 1923 and the articles 8 of Indo-Nepal’s 1950’s treaty, the inhabitants of Darjeeling (Gorkha Land) accepted that Darjeeling belonged to Nepal. They instead of asking for separate state accepted that Darjeeling was the inseparable part of Nepal.
4.5 India after its independence but before July 31, 1950 has not made any agreement so as to justify the Sugauli Treaty. 1950’s treaty dismissed all the agreements held with British India prior to its practice. These evidences substantiate that the territory prior to the Sugauli Treaty belongs to present Nepal. The then Home Minister of India informed all the related state governments about this issue on March 11, 1992. A democratic country should not violate the norms of international law and the constitution openly.
5.1. Forty four years after the Sugauli Treaty, Nepal and British India Government singed a treaty with three sections on Nov. 1, 1860. The Section 2 of the treaty says, “The British Government declares that the whole low lands lying between Grokhpur district and the Rapti River, and the whole low lands lying between the Kali and the Rapti river belonging to the Rajahs of Nepal prior to the Sugauli treaty and later to the British Government will be returned to be the sovereignty of the Royal of Nepal”. As per the term and condition of the Section 2 of the Sugauli Treaty, India should have gradually returned the lost territory to Nepal.
5.2 India had made decision to return the territories to Nepal on November 1, 1860. In order to identify the total area of the territory, Nepal has to search for the map and border pillars prior to the Sugauli Treaty. India must agree to construct No Man’s Land and pillar at the same place.
6. Why is the absorption issue of the territories mentioned on the sub-section A to D of the Section (4) of the Sugauli Treaty with British India repeated on the Section (5) of the same treaty? In Section (5), it is mentioned that the Rajah of Nepal has agreed even in future not to take any interest or concern with territory or the inhabitants residing west to the Kali River for his successor. It shows that territories lying the west to the Kali River should have been returned to Nepal after they quitted India.
7. British-India forced Nepal to sign the Sugauli Treaty, fearing that hill area war trained Nepali troops would expand their kingdom from the Brahmaputra River in the east to Paminr in the west. The objective of the Sugauli Treaty was to discourage Nepalis to make war so that they could not expand their kingdom the east of Testa and the west of Satlaj.
8. The Section (8) of 1950 amity and peace treaty nullified the Sugauli Treaty. Therefore, Nepal has right over Darjeeling and other lost territories prior to the Sugauli Treaty whether there had been the Section 8 of 1950’s treaty or the treaty itself.
9. The Sugauli Treaty was not ratified even after the ratification of the treaty with Sikkim. It proves that without the ratification of the understandings and treaties held with the British are naturally invalid. India’s not giving validity to every treaty without ratification but the Sugawli Treaty is itself paradoxical.
10. The phrase ‘in perpetuity’ was mentioned in the Hongkong Treaty signed between Britain and China In fact, the phrase ‘in perpetuity’ suggests the practice of the treaty until the signatory head of the state dies. In the case of a nation, the term in perpetuity gives the sense of the expiry of the treaty between two agreed countries after one hundred years. The term ‘in perpetuity’ is also included in the Sugauli Treaty held between Nepal and British India. Surprisingly, the Sugauli Treaty has not been expired even almost two hundred year after.  If the British had continued to rule India, the Sugauli Treaty would have been dismissed. Consequently, Nepal would have got back all its lost territories. However, taking the advantage of destitution, and size of Nepal, India to date has not given back those territories.
11. In perpetuity refers to a kind of land on rent. The term ‘rent’ means the monthly taken amount. If something is taken for five to ten years, it is called lease. But if it is for a century, it will be called in perpetuity.
12. Company Government had promised to pay yearly two lakh rupees in return for the land taken on lease in accordance with the Section (4) of the Sugauli Treaty held in 1818. The Company Government continued to pay till 1860. The tribute amount was cut off after Nepal got back its some lands lying in the Terai belt. Later, India Government did not pay back the remaining amount. So, India should have given back the remaining lands to Nepal since then.
13. In 1972 Rana Bahadur Shah, Nepal and Jonathan Dancan, the representative of the Company Government signed a trade treaty with seven sections. The Section (5) of the treaty says, “If any border dispute arises between two counties, the boundary will be delineated on the basis of just and right principle”. But India has not followed the spirit of the Section (5) in practice.
14. After the treaty of 1792, a new treaty containing 13 articles was signed in 1801 A.D. The section 7 of the treaty says– “From now Nepal need not provide the company government the elephant which it has been providing annually”. Then Nepal ceased to provide elephant. The British Government again showed dishonesty by not providing Nepal with the 2 lakh rupees tributes as mentioned in the Sugauli Treaty. The present India has to pay Nepal the total sum of Rs.2 lakhs as a yearly tribute, including its interest from 1860 to date. And also India has to pay the compensation of the territory, which it has grabbed from 1947 to the present day.
15. According to the section 9 of the same treaty, India in perpetuity gave the possession of its Praganna district (Vijayapur district) to Swami Rana Bahadur Shah, the then king of Nepal, who was passing ascetic life in Kashi (Vanarashi to keep 200 Nepali armies and to maintain his daily expenses. India took back the territory after the demise of the king, but it did not give back Nepali territory, taken under the same provision, that is, in perpetuity. If India does not want to return Nepal’s territory, Nepal must get right to possess Vijayapur district again. If India wants to establish its democratic image continuously, it must abandon its colonial tendency.
16. The trilateral treaty (Nepal – India – Britain) of August 9, 1947 about Grokha Batallion also cancelled and renewed all the earlier treaties held between Nepal and India. But India does not want to ratify the treaties to incessantly keep Nepalis territory in its grip.
17. Britain and Nepal signed a very important treaty with 10 sections on October 30, 1950 A.D. It is written on the preface of the treaty that both countries have been maintaining peaceful, friendly and amiable relationship since 1815 but the Kathmandu Treaty of December 21, 1823 is not applicable because of the recent establishment of the two independent states India and Pakistan. Both Nepal and Britain signed new treaty and agreed on the following section.
The section 8 of the Treaty says,” By the date of the agreement of this treaty, the treaty signed between the United Kingdom and the Government of Nepal before and in Kathmandu on December 21, 1923 will be cancelled”. The chief motive to sign this treaty is to give back the Nepali territory annexed into India.
19. During the rule of British, Darjeeling was not the part of India. The British had temporarily taken the administration of Darjeeling in their hand with a view to preventing Nepal from taking control of eastern sides of Darjeeling. The efforts of 1907, 1917, 1929, 1934, 1941 and 1943 to make Darjeeling a separate administrative sector  can be taken as its example. On the basis of this fact, the 1947’s Darjeeling Committee of the then Unified Indian Communist Party (ICP) had provided the Indian Constitutional Assembly with the decision of constituting independent ‘Gorkhasthan Nation’ by integrating Darjeeling, and Sikkim in Nepal. This document elucidates the article 1 and 8 of the above-mentioned 1950 Peace Treaty. In 1817, the above-mentioned Titaliya Treaty transferred this territory to Sikkim. In 1835, British again took control of Darjeeling alone. In 1861, when the British cancelled all the prior treaties with Sikkim, the Titaliya Treaty was also cancelled.
The case of the restoration of greater Nepal is similar to the proposed union of Korea, of Soviet Republics, and of China. Therefore, the proposal of the restoration of greater Nepal is neither new nor unusual nor against international law, treaty and agreement.
Why did not Nepal Make a Formal Claim?
Why did not Nepal claim its territory immediately?  Why not soon after the 1950 treaty?
1. Why did the Ranas agree to sign the Sugauli Treaty though they were nationalists? Why did they ignore the rule of British-India and independent India over Darjeeling zone though it was Nepal’s territory? Why didn’t they go to ask for their territory before the British quitted India on January 26, 1947? All of these questions are subject to intense meditation, analysis and investigation.
More than poor economic condition, internal duel, clash and enmity were the main reasons for not continuing the ward with the British started in 1815. “When own brothers fight each other, the third party seeks benefit,” this Nepali saying would be sufficient to leave this matter. Ranas signed the Sugauli Treaty bluntly. The person who had gone Sugauli with the right to sign the treaty had also realized that this Treaty was very reprehensible. Therefore, he and his off springs were ashamed to return to Nepal for 200 years.
Besides, Nepalis people organized movement against Rana rule in the 1940s. Ranas themselves indulged in to internal familial conflict, and then they split themselves too. Some Ranas were involved in underground organizations against the Rana rule itself. 2. The Ranas did not intend to return lost territories, fearing that the number of educated people would be increased and thus their rule would run at risk.  Ranas didn’t want to establish educational institutions in Nepal, thinking that the educated people would put the demand of their fundamental rights. Therefore, the Ranas remained reluctant and did nothing to regain the Nepali territory. Consequently they lost their 104 years reputation as nationalists.
3. The people, who brought political change in Nepal in 1950, gave priority to the power and post. They never thought about nation and national integrity. Same tendency can be seen even today.  For instance, during Panchayati Regime, foreign border posts were removed, the feeling of nationality was boosted, but no effort was made to regain the lost territories. After 1989, foreign encroachment reached its climax. No political parties showed their interest to prevent Nepal from the foreign interference. All the political parties maintained double standard. They were worried about how go to power by making India happy. All the political leaders were concerned to their vested interests. After 1990, they practiced to maintain Royal standards, to eat Royal food and to speak Royal language.
4. The political leaders, who reached power after 1950, termed the Ranas the vassals and sycophant of the British. But they were involved in anti-nationalistic activities and undemocratic practices.
5. The political leaders of Nepal have not made any attempt to restore greater Nepal. Instead, they are split into different factions.
6. No educated persons, representatives, political leaders and their parties, and social organizations of Nepal ever raised voice for the restoration of greater Nepal. Nepali Congress and Sadvawana party even tried to suppress the voice of nationalists. Many intellectuals viewed that all the national parties did not want to make India unhappy, fearing that India might not help reach them in power. Nepalis people also have the same perception towards the political leaders. Leaders’ treatment to India is more than the hospitality given to a fellow nation.  . However, the former Prime Minister Kirtinidhi Bista and the late former Prime Ministers Tanka Prasad Achary, Marich Man Singh, and Narendra Prasad Rijal never surrendered to India. For instance, Mr. Marich Man Singh made Nepal dependent on 91 daily uses items out of 128. Nationalist intellectuals like Shree Balkrishna Neupane, Shree Ramji Bista, Shree Shyam Prasad Dhungel, and Shree Puskar Lal Upadhya had filed a writ on Ashad 31, 2054 in the Supreme Court asking to direct the government for maintaining legitimacy over the lost territory of Nepal. The Supreme Court giving verdict says, “This issue should be mentioned in the treaty because it is a serious matter, for the help of the court amicus curiae should be formed, selecting some advocates from Nepal Bar Association” . This verdict of the Supreme Court clarifies the internal belief that the politicians should create public opinion. Everybody, who extended this matter up to this limit, and Suvas Ghising of Darjeeling Mukti Morcha who took this issue to the Supreme Court of India, deserve our gratitude. When Suvas Ghising tried to come to Nepal with this issue, some nationalists prevented him from coming to Nepal, fearing that India could deploy military force in Nepal by inciting Ghising. For these various reasons, Nepal did not put a formal claim over its lost territory. Now, it is time for Nepal to claim its lost territories because the world community is also in its favor.

Source: THV

6 Responses to “ISSUES OF THE GREATER NEPAL: HISTORICAL REFERENCE AND LEGAL QUESTIONS”

  1. Dirgha Raj Prasai said

    India Should Return the Nepalese Missed Land-
    from Sugauli treaty-1816
    By DIRGHA RAJ PRASAI

    We, the Nepalese people cordially request the Indian government to return the missed Land of Nepal from Sugauli Treaty-1816 with British. But,why Indian Government minimizing the demand of Nepalese people? The Sugauli Treaty insolently imposed by the East India Company and demanded the Nepali territory from Tista in the East to Kangada in the West. ‘It would be appropriate and justifiable to consider the East India Company’s ulterior motive beforehand in invading Nepal at various eastern, southern and western lands. They had pre-planned objectives in spreading the colonial domination throughout the Indian subcontinent. To this end they covertly prepared themselves and launched war against Nepal. They succeeded to some extent in dominating the Gorkhali fighting patriots at great cost.

    Under the cloak of intimidation, threat and coercion, the Treaty of Sugauli was concluded. It would be justifiable and helpful to discuss the mode and method of British offensive aggression prior to assess the validity, legality and occupation of the Nepalese territories by the British under threat, coercion and intimidation on the pretext of the so-called dictated Treaty of Sugauli. The sovereign craving of the people in restoring the illegally occupied territories to Nepal by the Colonial Power must be supplemented. Taking all these customary and treaty provisions of the International law norms, NEPAL has a right to get back the ceded territories. Colonial Power, the British left India setting up new sovereign states that claimed sovereign statehood. Pakistan was one of them. The sovereign people of Nepal have every right to claim the lost territory of former Nepal. The outcome could be accepted as decided by the norms of State Practice and that of International Law.

    Nepal and India have concluded Treaty of Peace and Friendship on the 31 July, 1950. Article 8 of this Treaty provides: ‘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 invaded and occupied the territories of Nepal to extend the Indian colonial Empire. In relation to the British India occupation of the Nepalese territories, this quoted Article also has nullified the retention and occupation of the Nepalese territories by the Republic of India.’-Former Nepalese army Gen. Dipta Prakash Shah, ‘Nepal: Sugauli Treaty-1816 & Breach of Recognized State Obligatio’-, The Telegraph Nepal, weekly-2008-11-11 19.

    Map of Greater Nepal before 1816

    From the beginning, we Nepalese people have been worrying and demanding the lost Land of Nepal. Just after the establishment of democracy in Nepal-1950, national poet Madhav Ghimire wrote a national poem stating the greater territory of the country and our pride. ‘We had reached east to Tista-West to fort of Kangada, to which imperialistic power where we surrendered?’ Let it be noted that Yogi Naraharinath (great historical researcher) had said, “Sugauli Treaty-1816 is fake.” He had filed a write petition at the Supreme Court (SC) demanding that the territory Nepal’s lost-land should be returned. The SC had dismissed the petition without any discussion. I have been writing in many newspapers that India should return the territory from Tista to Kangada with dignity. For national awareness, I have named my daughter as Tista who is now scientist in Ronast and my son Kangada is geologist who is working in hydro-power.

    Before 1950, the nation was in the shackles of the dictatorial Rana- regime. After 1950, when the nation enjoyed an open political environment, foreigners–particularly India, openly entered Nepal to carry out their conspiratorial activities. That’s why the Democracy could not gain stability. In name of helping Nepal in establishing democracy she endorsed an unequal treaty in July, 1950. They urged the then rulers, Ranas, were promising them of the continued support for their regime. Four months later, she planned King Tribhuvan’s escape to New Delhi and kept Nepal under the influence of India through another document- the Delhi Agreement. Some of the points in the agreement were endorsed without the knowledge of the King.

    In accordance to the agreement Nepali Army personnel were stationed at the gate of the Royal Palace and India’s Panjabi army personnel were stationed inside the palace for the security of the King. Indian national Govindanarayan Singh was assigned as the Chief Secretary to the King. Another Indian national Murdeshwor was appointed the Chief Secretary of the council of ministers. Another Indian Angkor was appointed as Nepal’s legal Advisor and Indian General Sharadanandan Singh was kept at Nepal Army’s headquarters. In name of reforming the army the number of soldiers was reduced to 8000 from 18000. In the name of security of Nepal, Indian army check-post was established inside Nepal which was located in the northern border. Nationalist forces moved against Indian intervention. But the intervention continued unabated.

    In 1960, the King Mahendra had to take over due to danger looming over the country’s nationality. During 1961 China-India War, the Indian army established its camp at Kalapani in Mahakali, Western Nepal. To spoil the image of the King Mahendra, some biased people say that it’s King who allowed the Indian army to stay at Kalapani. No Survey had been carried out until 1964. The situation was such that we could only rely on maps developed by foreigners. The Nepalese people have been openly opposing the Indian intervention and talking about this issue, not only Mechi to Mahakali but to return also Tista to Kangada. We should, all Nepalese, delicately, support this campaign. We are confident that the Indian government and leaders will return the lost-land of Greater Nepal as good democratic-neighbour.

    Now, Maoist chairman Prachanda also has started openly speaking against the injustice of the Sugauli Treaty. But how will this issue be resolved? Nothing will happen by pouring bitterness from our mouth only. Nationality should be from within our hearts. When the Maoist party was in power, they did not speak against foreign intervention and the wide-spread corruption. When they were in power, their activities, attitude and talks were not of one nature. People say that, the leadership is identified when one is in power. The Maoists were also the same, when they were in power, it a matter of grief. They didn’t show any respect towards the nation, national identity and conventional beliefs.

    In the 10th Bhadra issue of Rajdhani, Prof Dipak Gajurel has written –”The Sugauli treaty that was signed in 1816 between Nepal and British India has been dismissed since 59 years ago. The dismissal of Sugauli treaty means Nepalese territory is automatically as that before the war of 1841-1816 between Nepal and British India. Current territory of Nepal in between Mechi and Mahakali has been given by Article 2 of Sugauli treaty. After the dismissal of Sugauli Treaty by a Treaty of 1950, our territory automatically remains as Tista in east, Satlaj in west and nearly Ganga River in south. However the territory is still in the control of India. Nepal has been gained it. Since 1950 treaty is still functional, Nepal should gain back the territories of east to Mechi, west to Mahakali and that of south which are in control of India.”

    Nepali scholar and a Political analyst Bijayamani Dixit says- ‘Jawaharlal Nehru, the PM of India had said that Nepal has made us proud by remaining a sovereign independent nation in Asia against British Empire reign (where sun never sets.)’ Similarly Mr Dixtit says- ‘British in India had promised to return entire Nepalese territory to the then PM of Nepal, Jung Bahadur Rana, which was taken by East India Company after Sugauly treaty. In the mean time they returned four big districts in western region termed as “Naya Muluk” and promised again to return all of the Nepal occupied territory before British rule. During the signing of Peace and Friendship Treaty in 1923, Chandra Sumsheer had asked the then British Governor General of India to return the promised land, the British response was that it will be a great headache for British as large population was moved to that area rather take the income generated from those territories – Tista to Kangada and Sonpur, Gorakhpur (south). Later that amount was raised to five million. British India used to pay the sum (Rs 50 Lakhs) even after the independence of India. After the so called 1950 revolution in Nepal the payment as well as the issue of ownership of Nepalese occupied territories has stopped.’-(May 31-2010, Janabhawana Nepali weekly)’

    In the same regard, several nationalists including Prof Fanindra Nepal demanded the return back of lost parts (Tista to Kangada) of Nepal protesting in front of Indian Embassy in the occasion of Republic Day of India in 2009. These aggressive rebel voices were not raised without any reason. Since 20 years, Phadindra Nepal is fighting to return our lost-land. The efforts of Phanindra Nepal are also praiseworthy.India let not tease Nepal. My comment also was published in the Indian Express 2009 Dec 2, ‘The controversial Sugauli Treaty signed between the British East India Co and Nepal in 1816 that compelled Nepal to concede almost a third of its territory to the British colonial rulers of India. Respectfully, I hope, cordially Indian government should return the Nepalese LAND.’ India should not see Nepal with attacking sight Nepal must not surrender to India in the sake of cooperation. Senior journalist Debprakash Tripathi writes in Ghatana and Bichar 19th Aug. 2009 (3rd Bhadra 2066– How long Nepalese people be passionate just by democracy (Loktantra) written over the paper? The representatives of a nation called Nepal wherever they go seek for help. Seeking help for nothing is becoming national belief and due to this our international reputation wouldn’t be improved.

    Pradip Nepal, UML’s Party leader writes in Gorkhapatra 19th Aug. 2009 (3rd Srawan 2066 – “Darjiling area of east was taken in lease for temporary use by British Indian administrators. They used to pay Tax (Morgase) to Nepal. After 1947, Darjiling became a part of Indian Territory due Rana and later administrators of Nepal, though it was never the part of India in history. Indian ambassadors make addresses saying the co-operations of billions of rupees to Nepal. But since 1950, they hide the fact that India earns thousands of billions rupees from forcefully controlled parts of Nepal. If India wants to be good neighbor then it must raise itself from this greediness.” And it is our request India should ready to manage and control the open border between Nepal and India, from Tista to Kangada by fencing or construction of wall along the border with consent of both the countries and maintain the 7-10 border points. But,the Indian side is not willing listen the voices of nationalists of Nepal.

    Although it is late, Prachanda, the Maoist leader has opened the reality of Indian intervention (after Jun.20- 2010) ‘India should return the Nepali land, after India became free, that which had lost after the Sugauli Treaty-1816 with the British ruler in India and all other unequal treaties. The Sugauli Treaty is no more in existence after the British rulers quit India, the treaty with them doesn’t exist.’ As every corners of Nepal are unmanaged, it will be easier to control over Nepal by India. How can the nation surrounded by traitors and foreigners be protected? So, we should return the missed land of greater Nepal.

    We can mention an instance of Indian’s intention. Former Premier Kirtinidhi Bist writes (Rajdhani, 25th Aug.2009 “Nepal is now like a pilot-less aero plane. Indian ambassador is behaving like Viceroys in British India. Now it is necessary to understand Nepal’s situation or condition by China and India. The nation’s identity should be maintained on the basis of cultures and traditions so that the nation would remain strongly united. Nepal needs a politician and a mature diplomat, also the country needs a national commitment to welfare of people and sovereign existence of the nation. We must have courage to counter larger and stronger countries, not teasing them.”

    The so-called republic, secularism and ethnic federalism are not the issues of Nepal. These agendas are foreigner’s conspiracy for collapse Nepal. In such condition, there is no alternate to make stronger the Nepalese people and Army. Nepalese Army that was constituted from time of Pirthivi Narayan Shah (1755) can not remain for the sake of Nepal. Even Supreme Court wouldn’t be doll of traitor leaders and foreigners. Those who are trying to politicize court and national army are no doubt culprits. They should be punished and get out. Nepalese people of Kingdom of Nepal and scattered globally wish that the nation must exist forever with the combined effort of the King, political parties and people. Nepalese democracy in which the King has been displaced has also been observed. Nepal can not survive without the King. The country must get a conclusion by the King and people in the welfare of people and nation. Parliamentary democracy is our ultimate goal. This can be achieved with necessary amendments in Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal; 2047.The present constituent assembly can not formulate the new constitution. Even if it will be formed, nation won’t be saved. Now let’s be strong and committed from every corner for the country’s existence against the foreigners intervene and Nepalese traitors.
    Email:dirgharajprasai@gmail.com

    • Prof. Achintya Biswas said

      Dear Sir,
      So far the history is concern I have enriched from your article. Can you comment about the ethnicity of so called Gorkha? I have not found amy valied document about them. Are they a part of Nepali? Or are they a separte ethnic group other than Nepali? Please state.
      Thanks,
      Prof. Dr. Achintya Biswas

      • Dear Sir,
        Gorkha is one of the districts of Nepal. There are 75 districts in Nepal. In fact who lives in Gorkha are called Gorkhali, but in other countries Gurkhas is kind of synonyms to Nepali.

  2. Hello there, I found your web site via Google while looking for a related topic,

    your site came up, it looks great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

  3. Hello, of course this article is really fastidious and I have learned lot of things from it about
    blogging. thanks.

  4. padam kumar sunuwar said

    Do you know our country is open and do you know where is our border?have you seen anywere else such like our countries border?Do quistion your self reason why?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: