India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950)

India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship was entered into in 1950. Nepal wanted this treaty to not only maintain the special ties that it had with British India but also due to Nepal’s security concerns heightened by the Communist revolution in China and its takeover of Tibet.

Provisions of the Treaty

The treaty provides for

  • An open border between the two countries
  • Allows Nepali nationals to work in India without a work permit, to apply for government jobs and the civil services (except for the IFS, IAS, and IPS)
  • To open bank accounts and buy property.
  • Incidentally, India had waived its rights under reciprocity as a sign of goodwill.

Major Issues

  • The politicians in Nepal use the provisions of the “secret” side letters to the Treaty, which required Nepal to consult India on its defence requirements to create anti-India sentiment.
  • There is a misuse of the open border, for example by Pakistan to infiltrate terrorists and pump in significant amounts of fake Indian currency. It is also used for smuggling and illicit trade.
  • Circumstances have changed and there is a need to have open and transparent discussions with democratic Nepal so that the political leaders stop using it as a stick to beat India with.
  • The two countries have recently decided to review, adjust and update the archaic treaty to better reflect the current realities.
  • India’s concerns are not much related to the reciprocity of the Nepal’s gesture to allow Indians same rights in Nepal but is on use of Nepalese territory for terror activities directed at India. The two countries recently agreed to ensure that the open border, a unique feature of Nepal-India bilateral relations, is not misused by unscrupulous elements posing security threats to either side.

Open Border – The Achilles heel

The 1950 treaty had addressed the security concerns of Nepal heightened by the Communist revolution in China and its takeover of Tibet, by providing an open border between the two countries. This open border not only addressed mutual security considerations but also fostered close socio-economic relations by allowing unrestricted flow of people leading to dissemination of ideas, culture, and settlements of people in each other’s territory.

The open border also had a favorable impact on two economies, more in favour of Nepal. Since Nepal is a landlocked country, its closest access to the sea is through India. Thus, most of import of Nepal passes through India. While considering this, India had granted Nepal 15 transit and 22 trading points along the border. Open border has also allowed many Nepalese citizens to find employment in India and Indians to open business ventures in Nepal.

However, the open border has been used by militants, criminals and terrorists. The militants have been infiltrating ever since insurgency started in India. India had allowed former Kashmiri militants to return to Jammu and Kashmir via Nepal under the surrender and rehabilitation policy because of the difficulties involved in accessing the designated routes along the India-Pakistan border. This also raised concerns that the trained militants might also slip through the border in the guise of surrendered militants. Numerous religious centric education institutions have also come up in Terai region in recent times.

All this leads to rethink the rationale behind keeping the India Nepal border open. Thus, Open Border is Achilles heel in India Nepal relations because while it has helped India and Nepal to develop and deepen socio-cultural and economic relations, it also has facilitated terrorist and criminal activities that are adversely impacting national security. Further, a shift from an open border to a closed border would severely damage these ties with disastrous consequences for the citizens and economies of both countries. The need is of an open border with effective management, law enforcement, installing screening and detection devices at the check points, and enhancing intelligence networks.


Leave a Reply