Bhattarais` predecessor and PRESIDENT of the CPN (UML), Jhalanath Khanal, said the agreement would damage Nepal`s sovereignty and economy and threatened to launch unrest against Nepal. Similarly, Bangladesh has assured that its relevant authority will review the BIPPA project upon receipt and that the Authority will take the necessary steps to quickly conclude the agreement between the two nations. While Nepal has already signed the BIPPA with six countries (including India), India has signed such an agreement with 80 countries (as of May 2011), 70 of which have already entered into force and the rest are in the process of being implemented. Nepal signed its first BIPPA with France on May 2, 1983. It was followed by agreements with Germany (20 October 1986), the United Kingdom (2 March 1993), Mauritius (3 August 1999), Finland (3 February 2009) and India. In South Asia, India has a BIPPA with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. With regard to Nepal`s proposal for a tripartite agreement between Nepal, Bangladesh and India to improve railway and waterway transit between the three countries and between the three countries, Bangladesh agreed to review the concept as soon as it was received by Nepal. These arguments are unnecessary, unfounded and totally illogical. If BIPPA is contrary to our national interest, why didn`t we hear a resounding outcry at this level when Nepal signed the BIPPA with other countries? It is important that the self-centered leaders who reject BIPPA explain exactly how Nepal was dominated and that workers` rights were eroded by the signing of such an agreement with five countries before India was done. In our investment-plagued economy, increased investment is certainly a good thing and is in our national interest, because they will create more jobs, income and potentially stimulate growth.
India had insisted that it sign the BIPPA with Nepal, as several major Indian investments had suffered huge losses. This agreement remains in force for ten years. While most of the issues in the Nepal-India agreement are comparable to other internationally signed PMAs, some provisions and the scope of the definitions have caused confusion and ill-informed debate. According to BIPPA, investments «should not be nationalized, expropriated or subject to any other measure with similar effects, except for reasons of public purpose, in accordance with the law, on a non-discriminatory basis and against fair and equitable compensation.» To avoid confusion, it defines, among other things, what indirect expropriation is (from an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of ownership or total seizure) and how it is determined (a case-by-case investigation based on facts, taking into account a number of relevant factors described in the agreement). In addition, Indian investors should be treated and compensated as our own investors or third-party investors in the event of losses due to war, armed conflict, emergencies or riots.