ISSUES OF THE GREATER NEPAL: HISTORICAL REFERENCE AND LEGAL QUESTIONS
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on June 13, 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.
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.
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.