By Shashi Malla
Initial Chinese Reaction
At a regular press briefing, Zhao Lijian, spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, responded to a question:
“The issue of Kalapani is between Nepal and India. We hope the two countries will resolve their differences properly through friendly consultations and refrain from taking any unilateral action that may complicate the situation.”
On the face of it, this is an innocuous and diplomatic statement, calling two naughty boys to settle their simple and trivial differences.
However, the matter is not that simple, and Mr Zhao was too clever by half by trying to dodge the issue. China is by no means an innocent bystander. Apparently, Mr. Zhao was not properly briefed by the desk officers in his ministry. For one, the border dispute is not only about “Kalapani” as mentioned in his statement. It is about the tri-junction and the international borders [China-India, China-Nepal and Nepal-India] all the way from “Limpiyadhura” to “Lipu Lekh”. Therefore, China is very much part of the problem-solving!
Oli Government’s Helpless Attitude
Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli informed parliament on Tuesday that talks were ongoing with China [very unhappy (and uncomfortable) for being dragged into the controversy] to resolve the boundary dispute at Lipu Lekh pass.
He claimed that Nepalese government representatives [MoFA/Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Nepalese Embassy in Beijing] had spoken with Chinese authorities [Chinese embassy in Kathmandu & Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing] who had given assurances that “the India-China agreement [on trade through Lipu Lekh, 2015] was about expanding an old trade route for pilgrimage purposes, and [that] it would not affect the tri-junction and issue of borders.”
Again, if the Oli government accepted such a bland and flawed statement at face value – the understatement of the decade – then god help us!
If this is really the Chinese position, then it is highly unsatisfactory [to put it mildly] and highly detrimental to Nepal’s bona fides.
The Oli government should/must issue an immediate rebuttal.
The border dispute goes beyond mere semantics.
Nepal’s Position
The fact of the matter is that the then government of China made an historical blunder by signing the bilateral trade agreement with India, without consulting Nepal and without researching the antecedents of the common borders. China now has to find ways and means to walk back from this ill-fated bilateral agreement. Without doubt, it is between a rock and a hard place.
On the other hand, Nepal has a rock-solid position based on History, Geography and International Law.
- Nepal’s sovereignty over the said territories goes back to the times of the Khas-Malla empire in Western Nepal which extended upto the Sutlej River/Himachal Pradesh and Guge/Tibet.
- The British East India Company foiled the second attempt to establish a ‘Greater Nepal’, but did firmly confirm Nepal’s western boundary as starting eastwards from the Mahakali River [Sugauli Treaty, 1816].
- Since Nepal has not ceded any territory under International Law, and there are no bilateral, legally binding treaty or agreement in this regard, and since the Mahakali River [the main river, not a fake one, and not a tributary] has not changed course since then [unlike the mythological Saraswati River], India’s forceful and illegal occupation of all sovereign Nepalese territory – east and north-east of the Mahakali – is in complete conflict with international legal norms, and, therefore null and void.
On Wednesday, the government released its new political and administrative map, depicting Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipu Lekh on the north-western corner bordering India and China as part of sovereign Nepalese territory.
This will not change the inherent status quo on the ground, but will probably unleash a ‘cartographical duel’ as we have previously indicated.
Indian Standpoint
India reacted as was to be expected. Anurag Srivastava, spokesperson for the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) rolled out India’s stated position, accusing Nepal of acting unilaterally [conveniently forgetting that India itself has been doing so continuously making Nepal the victim, and also acting together with China to the detriment of Nepal’s vital interests]:
“The Government of Nepal has released a revised official map that includes parts of Indian territory. This unilateral act is not based on historical facts and evidence. It is contrary to the bilateral understanding to resolve the outstanding boundary issues through diplomatic dialogue. Such artificial enlargement of territorial claims will not be accepted.”
Fact & Fiction
Sounds great, but they are just empty words. Instead of hiding behind the official screen, India should come forth with the basic “historical facts and evidence” for a general public debate. Let the general public in both countries judge for themselves, as also the international community, especially in South Asia.
Above all, what is India going to do about the indubitable fact of geography underpinned by history – that the River Kali/Mahakali is the western boundary between British India and Nepal as laid down in the Treaty of Sugauli, 1816.
It is one thing to demand that Nepal “refrain from such unjustified cartographic assertion”, while at the same time indulging in real ‘cartographic aggression’, and forcefully occupying Nepalese territory, thereby violating Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
This border/territorial dispute [thankfully it is not yet a conflict ] is at heart a question of sovereignty. It is complex, multi-layered and multi-faceted. There are many issues at stake. A potential remedy is also available – but only with goodwill on both sides.
India will have to recognize Nepal’s sovereignty over the so-called ‘disputed’ territories claimed by it. Nepal, on its part, recognizing the supreme importance of religion in the social and cultural life of both countries, would be willing to “lease” part of its sovereign territory near Lipu Lekh to facilitate the travel of pilgrims to and from Mount Kailash & Mansarowar in Tibet. This would be an elegant resolution without loss of face for both sides.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment