BY Babbler

Prime Minister Balendra Shah recently stated that Nepal has also encroached on Indian soil. His remark has triggered widespread controversy both inside and outside Parliament. Parliamentary proceedings have been repeatedly disrupted, with lawmakers demanding that the Prime Minister’s statement be expunged from the official record. The statement has also generated considerable debate among intellectuals and policy experts.

Nepali academics, former ambassadors to India, and other experts have argued that Nepal has not encroached on Indian territory. Instead, they maintain that India is occupying Nepali territory in several disputed areas.

Meanwhile, Baburam Bhattarai, who is often criticized by his opponents as being sympathetic to Indian interests, praised Shah for speaking what he described as a “bitter truth.” Furthermore, anti-Nepal Indian academician professor S.D. Muni, and many Indian media have commended Balen for his “bold” statement. Many Nepalis have since asked Prime Minister Shah and his government to identify the areas where Nepal has allegedly encroached on Indian land. However, neither the government nor the Prime Minister has provided any clarification.

According to a video circulating on social media, a delegation of Gen Z activists met Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal. During the meeting, when members of the delegation urged the minister to take a stronger position on the Kalapani issue, Khanal reportedly remarked that Nepal had also encroached on Indian soil.

Some observers believe that Khanal’s views have been influenced by pro-Indian circles. It is possible that Khanal may have briefed Prime Minister Shah regarding the alleged encroachment by Nepal on Indian territory.

Be that as it may, Prime Minister Shah should exercise greater caution when addressing Parliament. He should avoid making sensitive statements without adequate preparation and consultation with his advisers and experts.

Is Mukul Dhakal Telling the Truth?

Mukul Dhakal, once a close associate of Rabi Lamichhane but a strong critic at present, has publicly claimed that a group of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) leaders—including Rabi Lamichhane, Swarnim Wagle, Shishir Khanal, and himself—met with an Indian diplomat at a hotel in Kathmandu.

According to Dhakal, after returning from the meeting, Wagle suggested that Nepal should be prepared either to become an Indian state like Sikkim or to maintain a status similar to that of Bhutan. He allegedly argued that by pursuing such a course, the RSP could emerge as a strong political force in Nepal.

Dhakal has further claimed that when Rabi Lamichhane was Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, he instructed Dhakal to convey a message to the Indian diplomat stating that he was willing to serve Indian interests if India helped create an environment conducive to his becoming Prime Minister of Nepal.

A video related to these claims is available at:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1979846892644946

If Dhakal’s allegations are true, it would be deeply unfortunate that many people were misled by the RSP. It would also suggest that the so-called new faces in politics are no different from the old political establishment they promised to replace.

QUOTES OF THE WEEK

Regarding the Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament: It has been reported that the Indian side has responded to Nepal’s diplomatic correspondence. It is possible that, in that response, India complained that “Nepal has also encroached on Indian land.” Given the existence of a largely open border stretching hundreds of kilometers, there may be isolated places where Nepalese residents have crossed a few feet into the ten-yard no-man’s-land. However, this can in no way be compared to India’s occupation of hundreds of square kilometers of Nepali territory. Border experts also claim that India has encroached upon Nepal’s territory at more than 70 locations.

In any case, if representatives from New Delhi are willing to come to the negotiating table and resolve the dispute over Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani—a dispute created by India itself—they should be given the opportunity to do so. Kathmandu should help create a conducive atmosphere for dialogue. After all, Nepal must regain effective control over its own territory.

–Dhruba H. Adhikary

—

Despite opposition from certain vested interests, both domestic and foreign, reality shows that the centuries-old and time-tested institution of monarchy remains the backbone of Nepal. A democratic system that incorporates the Crown is not merely an option but a necessity rooted in the country’s history and character. Time has already proven that republicanism has been a curse for the nation.

–Dibakar Pant

—

One guarantee can be made about Balen: he himself will not take bribes. That alone is a major change for Nepal. No matter how many shortcomings he may have, this one virtue outweighs them all.

–Rudra Pandey

—

The monarchy is a symbol of national unity and stability. History clearly shows that the institution played a significant role in everything from the unification of Nepal to the protection of its sovereignty. In particular, the contribution of King Prithvi Narayan Shah in uniting various principalities and creating modern Nepal is unforgettable.

The monarchy was not an institution of any political party but a shared symbol of national unity. At a time when growing political instability, frequent changes of government, and partisan interests are increasing public frustration, I believe that a constitutional monarchy could help maintain national balance, stability, and long-term unity.

–Sahiba

—

The allegation that Prime Ministerial adviser Kumar Ben is responsible for the “call bypass” case is old news. Many people reported it at the time, and it is not an exclusive story today. The only difference is that someone has reminded the public of that past episode. The real exclusive story is the activities he has recently been engaged in while staying in Jawalakhel.

–Prakash Timalsina

—

Even the Rana rulers preserved the monarchy. People should become aware of its importance.

–Bhumi Raj

—

A cricket stadium on the land of Rampur Campus in Chitwan, and another cricket stadium at Tribhuvan University! Why must cricket grounds be built on the land of academic institutions?

–Ratna Sansar Shrestha

—

The Rana tradition was to place their own necks above that of the King. The King is the nation’s deity. He cannot simply be removed or abolished. We must respect our traditions and customs.

–Gaurav Jung Kunwar

—

The greatest risk I see is in the area of national security.

–Bipin Adhikari

A system with a directly elected executive president would be harmful for Nepal.

–Dipak Gyawali

One has to pay 1.5 million rupees for a taxi number plate—and not to a government institution, but to certain individuals and groups.

–Pawan Barsha Shah

—

As an ordinary person, I fail to understand the daily uproar suggesting that the country is facing a great crisis simply because the Prime Minister has not personally spoken in Parliament. As far as I understand, the government operates on the principle of collective responsibility, and any minister can answer questions in Parliament on behalf of the Prime Minister.

–Keshav P. Bhattarai

For MPs attending parliamentary meetings, Rs. 2,000 per person is allocated for transportation and allowances. For 275 members, that amounts to Rs. 550,000 in a single day. Once attendance is registered, members receive the same amount whether they remain in the chamber or leave.

In addition, when the costs of committee meetings, tea and refreshments, paper, microphones, live broadcasting, security, cleaning services, technical testing, and staff mobilization are included, the daily cost of running Parliament is unlikely to be less than Rs. 700,000. But what is the outcome? Sometimes not only the “Zero Hour” but the entire day ends with zero achievements.

Parliament increasingly appears less like a forum for resolving public issues and more like a national “sit down–stand up” competition. One member is persuaded to sit, another stands up. One is appeased, another becomes upset. Half of the Speaker’s time is spent saying, “Honourable Member, please take your seat,” and the other half urging members to proceed with the agenda.

If this continues, Parliament’s greatest achievement after five years may be establishing a national record for the repeated use of the phrase, “Please take your seat.”

There has long been a parliamentary culture of “signing attendance and disappearing.” Now a modern version has emerged: “protesting and walking out.” If members stay inside, they must read bills, participate in debates, and present arguments. If they walk out, they can stand before cameras and declare that “the struggle on behalf of the people continues.”

Meanwhile, the public is left wondering: Is Parliament actually functioning, or is it merely rehearsing?

–Rajib Khatry

—

Excerpted and translated by Sushma Shrestha.