[Kalapani is a 35 sq km area in the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand and forms a tri-junction boundary of India, Nepal and Tibet. It is also the pilgrimage route from India to Kailash Mansarovar in China as well as a trade route leading into Tibet through the Lipulekh Pass. Due to its geostrategic importance, the area is guarded by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). Indian security forces have guarded the tri-junction since the 1962 War with China.]
For India, the changing strategic dynamics in
the region are a reminder to expedite the process of resolving
misunderstandings and the border imbroglio with Nepal as the voices against New
Delhi grow strong.
With the abrogation of Article 370, which
gave special privileges to the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K)
and following the issuance of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act
2019, two new Union Territories of
J&K and Ladakh came into existence on October 31. Soon after the release of
India’s new political map depicting them, Kathmandu began to witness protests
led by student organisations and Opposition political parties. While the
Government did not release any official statement initially, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (MFA) in Nepal tweeted on November 6, “The Nepal Government is
clear that Kalapani is a Nepali territory and any unilateral move to alter the
border demarcation is not acceptable.” In response, the Ministry of External
Affairs (MEA) of India in an official release stated that “The new map has in
no manner revised our boundary with Nepal. The boundary delineation exercise
with Nepal is ongoing under the existing mechanism. We reiterate our commitment
to finding a solution through dialogue in the spirit of our close and friendly
bilateral relations.”
Meanwhile, the issue has snowballed in Nepal.
Other than the media attempting to project it as an Indian encroachment, online
campaigns on Twitter and Facebook with hashtags #GoBackIndia #BackOffIndia are
trending, which was also a common phenomenon during the 2015 blockade. The
alleged dispute between the two neighbours is being resolved through the
dedicated bilateral diplomatic channels. However, in the changing regional
dynamics, the issue is being given political hue. The MEA has not shied away
from accepting that certain areas along the India-Nepal border require close
bilateral scrutiny to reach a consensus and that to resolve the existing
differences, diplomatic channels need to expedite their process. In its
official document on Border Disputes with Neighbours, India has stated that
“India and Nepal share an open border. Strip maps pertaining to 98 per cent of
the boundary have been agreed to and signed in 2007. The matter regarding the
formal signing of boundary strip maps is being pursued with the Government of
Nepal.”
Kalapani is a 35 sq km area in the
Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand and forms a tri-junction boundary of India,
Nepal and Tibet. It is also the pilgrimage route from India to Kailash
Mansarovar in China as well as a trade route leading into Tibet through the
Lipulekh Pass. Due to its geostrategic importance, the area is guarded by the
Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). Indian security forces have guarded the
tri-junction since the 1962 War with China. The arrangement to deploy security
forces in the Kalapani and Lipulekh region was made in consultation with the
then King Mahendra of Nepal. It was a neighbourly act by India to inform Nepal
about the deployments, as both countries had their concerns regarding future
advances by China in the region, and India was in a position to accommodate
Nepal’s security objectives.
However, soon after the Mahakali Treaty was
ratified in 1996 between India and Nepal concerning integrated development of
the Mahakali River to harness its hydroelectricity potential, the area became
the centre of controversy. The treaty had clearly identified the Mahakali River
as “a boundary river on major stretches between the two countries.” Also, as
per Article 05 of the Treaty of Sugauli between the British Indian Government
and Nepal, the latter had renounced all claims to areas “lying west of the
river Kali.” A prominent Technical Committee formed in 1981 to resolve border issues has already clarified 76 border
points out of 78 and more than 180 strip maps based on Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) have been established. In fact, most of the differences were identified
and resolved in 2007. With the new Government coming to power in New Delhi in
2014, talks on Indo-Nepal border issues
resumed. It was after 23 years that a joint commission meeting was held in
Kathmandu in 2014 and border disputes
figured prominently in it.
During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit
to China in 2015, the two countries had agreed to open a trading post in
Lipulekh. In their joint statement, Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping had
stated that Lipulekh should facilitate bilateral trade between the two nations.
However, Nepal had opposed the statement
saying any matters concerning Lipulekh shall be in consultation with it. Again
in February this year, Nepal’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Pradeep Gyawali said
that India and China could not discuss or form a consensus regarding trade or
transit through Lipulekh in the absence of Kathmandu — which contradicts the
existing understanding between it and India. Historically, Nepal had recognised
Lipulekh and Kalapani as Indian territories in the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli.
Amid the ongoing political outrage in Nepal,
India’s official position on the issue requires a close investigation for two
reasons. One, in its response to Nepal’s note on the new map, India has
indicated that the issues are already being discussed through a high-level
diplomatic mechanism to resolve the differences and strengthen the existing
“special relationship.” “At the same time, both countries should guard against
vested interests trying to create differences between our two countries,” it
added. While the statement does not specify “vested interests”, it points
towards China that has lately invested in Nepal and received a welcoming space
from “certain” political forces. The current opposition, led by the Nepali
Congress Party, had recognised India’s position in the Kalapani and Lipulekh
region during its tenure in the Government. Surprisingly, now it has become the
flag-bearer of those organising protests against India’s new map. This throws
doubts on the intentions of these protestors because, in the previous maps, the
Survey of India had shown the same boundary lines as in the present map.
The other reason concerns the modus operandi
of the fringe political parties in Nepal. While the ruling Communist Party of
Nepal has maintained its position that the issue needs to be resolved under the
existing diplomatic mechanism, the pressure to place the matter before
international agencies by protestors indicates growing anti-India sentiments
attempting to change the course of the “special relationship” to “conditional
relationship.”
Noteworthy, in the new map, the disputed
areas between India and Pakistan are shown as Indian territories to which
Islamabad has objected. But it is as per the position held by New Delhi for
long. A wave of sympathy towards Islamabad was visible after leaders of Nepal’s
Samajbadi Party allegedly held a secret meeting with Pakistani officials last
month in Kathmandu. Hence, the ongoing protest should be seen in the broader
regional context attempting to malign India’s image. On November 9, an
all-party meeting was convened under the chairmanship of the Nepalese Prime
Minister KP Oli to discuss the present border issues. The meeting was convened
after protestors had allegedly burnt effigies of the Indian Government and the
new map in front of the Indian Embassy in Nepal. Hence, there are attempts to
pressurise the Government to act accordingly. The element of pressure was
clearly visible in the initial statement issued by Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The statement released after the meeting has also been drawn on the
lines of nationalism, sovereignty and national integrity. As Kathmandu stresses
on using diplomatic channels wisely, protestors in Nepal seem to be
dissatisfied with the process. Considering these developments, the two Governments
need to work in close consultation to avoid misunderstandings. The growing
political pressure in Nepal is undoubtedly inimical to India. It has caused
trouble in the past and more mishaps will have a long-term impact on bilateral
ties.
For India, the changing strategic dynamics in
the region are a reminder to expedite the process of resolving
misunderstandings and the border dispute with Nepal, as the protestors in
Kathmandu seem to be in no mood to settle for “special relations.”
(The writer is doctoral candidate, Centre for
South Asian Studies, JNU)
