India-Nepal border issue GS: 2 "EMPOWER IAS"

In news:

• Recently, Nepal has released a new political map that claims Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh of Uttarakhand as part of Nepal’s territory. The area of Susta (West Champaran district, Bihar) can also be noted in the new map.

 

Nepal's new map:

• As the parliament in Nepal gets ready to approve a new map that will include parts of Indian territory in Uttarakhand, Delhi is bracing for yet another knock to a bilateral relationship.
• Many in the Indian strategic community believe that the train wreck was avoidable.
• But others view the collision between Delhi and Kathmandu as both inevitable and imminent.
• Even if the territorial issue had been finessed, something else would have triggered the breakdown.

 

Bigger fissures in relation:

• A closer look suggests that the territorial dispute is merely a symptom of the structural changes.
• These structural changes are unfolding in the external and internal context of the bilateral relationship.
• The question, then, is not what Delhi could have done to prevent the current crisis.
• It should be about looking ahead to build more sustainable ties with Kathmandu.

 

Border Dispute Between India and Nepal

• Currently, India and Nepal have border disputes over Kalapani - Limpiyadhura - Lipulekh trijunction between India-Nepal and China and Susta area (West Champaran district, Bihar).

 

• Kalapani Region:

• Kalapani is a valley that is administered by India as a part of the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand. It is situated on the Kailash Mansarovar route.
• Kalapani is advantageously located at a height of over 20,000 ft and serves as an observation post for that area
• The Kali River  in the Kalapani region demarcates the border between India and Nepal.
• The Treaty of Sugauli signed by the Kingdom of Nepal and British India (after Anglo-Nepalese War) in 1816 located the Kali River as Nepal's western boundary with Indi
• The discrepancy in locating the source of the Kali river led to boundary disputes between India and Nepal, with each country producing maps supporting their own claims.

 

• Susta Region:

• The change of course by the Gandak river is the main reason for disputes in the Susta area.
• Susta is located on the bank of the Gandak river.
• It is called Narayani river in Nepal.
• It joins Ganga near Patna, Bihar.

 

 

 

• Nepal’s Stand:
  • Kali river originates from a stream at Limpiyadhura, north-west of Lipu Lekh. Thus Kalapani, and Limpiyadhura, and Lipu Lekh, fall to the east of the river and are part of Nepal’s Dharchula district.
  • Lipulekh was deleted from the country’s map by the kings to get favours from India.
  • The territory of Kalapani was offered to India by King Mahendra after the 1962 India-China war who wanted to help India’s security concerns due to perceived lingering Chinese threats.
  • Kalapani was not a part of Nepal-India dispute. It was Nepal’s territory that the king had allowed India to use temporarily
  • The new map is in fact a document that was in circulation in Nepal till the 1950s.
•  
• India’s Stand:
  • Kali river originates in springs well below the Lipu-lekh pass, and the Sugauli Treaty does not demarcate the area north of these streams.
  • The administrative and revenue records of the nineteenth century also show that Kalapani was on the Indian side, and counted as part of Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand.

 

• Efforts to Solve Border Dispute:
  • In the 1980s, the two sides set up the Joint Technical Level Boundary Working Group to delineate the boundary
  • The group demarcated everything except Kalapani and Susta area.
  • Officially, Nepal brought the issue of Kalapani before India in 1998. Both sides agreed to demarcate the outstanding areas (including Kalpani) by 2002 at the prime ministerial level talk held in 2000. But that has not happened yet.

 

• Issues Involved:
• • Nepal's deliberate effort to make the Lipu-Lekh Pass a disputed tri-junction (between India-China and Nepal) in which Nepal has an equal share.
  • India perceives Nepal to be tilting towards China under the leadership of Prime Minister K P Oli and his Nepal Communist Party.
  • Despite the open border between both countries and the people to people contact, the levels of distrust in Nepal about India have only increased.

 

Need for the fundamental reset in relations between India and Nepal

• The immediate provocation for the contention is the long-standing territorial issue surrounding Kalapani.
• It is a patch of land near the India-Nepal border, close to the Lipulekh Pass on the India-China border.
• However, the underlying reasons are far more complex.
• Yet, Nepali Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s exploitation of the matter, by raising the banner of Nepali nationalism and painting India as a hegemon, is part of a frequent pattern.
• Which indicates that relations between the two countries need a fundamental reset.

 

 

Why the Treaty of Peace and Friendship(1950)  lost its appeal?

• The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship gave the illusion of continuity in Nepal’s protectorate relationship with the Raj and its successor, independent India.
• That illusion was continuously chipped away amid the rise of mass politics in Nepal, growing Nepali nationalism, and Kathmandu’s acquisition of an international personality.
• The 1950 Treaty, which proclaims an “everlasting friendship” between the two nations, has become the symbol of Indian hegemony in Nepal.
• In a paradox, its security value for India has long been hollowed out.
• It is a political millstone around India’s neck that Delhi is unwilling to shed for the fear of losing the “special relationship”.
• Delhi has been trapped into a perennial political play among Kathmandu’s different factions and responding to Nepal’s China card.

 

Weaking of  "Special relationship": Essence of Nepal's foreign policy

• Once the Chinese Communist Party consolidated its power in Tibet and offered assurances to Nepal, Kathmandu’s balancing impulses were back in play.
• At the risk of oversimplification, Nepal’s foreign policy since the 1950s has, in essence, been about weakening the “special relationship” with India and building more cooperation with China.
• Kathmandu has used different labels to package its desire for greater room for manoeuvre between its two giant neighbours — non-alignment, diversification, “zone of peace”, equidistance, and a Himalayan bridge between India and China.
• The stronger China has become, the wider have Kathmandu’s options with India become.

 

Need for rewriting the fundamental of India-Nepal relations

Following issue explains why there is need for rewriting the fundamental of India-Nepal relations

1. Nepali nationalism is being equated to anti-Indianism

• Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often spoken of the “neighbourhood first” policy.
• But the relationship took a nosedive in 2015 when India first got blamed for interfering in the Constitution-drafting in Nepal.
• And then for an “unofficial blockade” that generated widespread resentment against the country.
• It reinforced the notion that Nepali nationalism and anti-Indianism were two sides of the same coin.

 

2.China Factor

• In Nepali thinking, the China card has provided them the leverage to practise their version of non-alignment.
• In the past, China maintained a link with the Palace and its concerns were primarily related to keeping tabs on the Tibetan refugee community.
• With the abolition of the monarchy, China has shifted attention to the political parties as also to institutions like the Army and Armed Police Force.
• Also, today’s China is pursuing a more assertive foreign policy and considers Nepal an important element in its growing South Asian footprint.

 

3. India has ignored the changing political narrative for long

• The reality is that India has ignored the changing political narrative in Nepal for far too long.
• India remained content that its interests were safeguarded by quiet diplomacy even when Nepali leaders publicly adopted anti-Indian postures.
• Long ignored by India, it has spawned distortions in Nepali history textbooks and led to long-term negative consequences.
• For too long India has invoked a “special relationship”, based on shared culture, language and religion, to anchor its ties with Nepal.
• Today, this term carries a negative connotation — that of a paternalistic India that is often insensitive and, worse still, a bully.
• The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship which was sought by the Nepali authorities in 1949  is viewed as a sign of an unequal relationship, and an Indian imposition.
• The purpose of the treaty was to continue the special links Nepal had with British India and it  provides for an open border and right to work for Nepali nationals
• Yet, Nepali authorities have studiously avoided taking it up bilaterally even though Nepali leaders thunder against it in their domestic rhetoric.

 

Way ahead

• India should also try to convey to Nepal’s leadership about the congenial and friendly environment that 6 to 8 million Nepali citizens living in India enjoy.
• Therefore, Any thoughtless erosion of this centuries old togetherness may prove difficult for both countries.
• The existing bilateral treaties between India and Nepal have not taken the shifting of Himalayan rivers into consideration. A primary reason for this is the lack of an approach where ecological concerns and needs of rivers are often discussed.
• Therefore, India and Nepal should try to resolve the boundary dispute by taking into account all shared environmental characteristics.