Nepal prime minister KP Oli, on November 17, said the Kalapani area belonged to Nepal and that India, which included the region in its official maps recently, should “immediately withdraw its Army from there”.
This was Oli’s first official response to the controversy, which started after India released its new political maps on November 2, following the restructuring of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. Oli’s statement came after days of protests by both the opposition and the ruling parties in Nepal over the map.
“We will not allow even an inch of our territory to be occupied by any country, India must vacate it,” Oli said at the meeting organised by the Nepal Yuva Sangam, which is the youth wing of the ruling Nepal Communist Party, adding that dialogue with India will follow after “India withdraws its army from our land”.
After the new maps were released, Nepal had, in a statement, said its government is “clear” that the Kalapani area lies within Nepalese territory.
Nepal’s Domestic Politics
Since the dispute erupted in November, it continued to remain on Nepal’s domestic political agenda. Opposition parties and civil society members asked Oli to directly talk to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.
There were continuous street protest by students and the youth wings of ruling and opposition parties, but the scale of the protests had been steadily on the decline. The issue of Kalapani and Susta, however, were not the new issues – both have remained on the agenda when it comes to bilateral visits and negotiations ever since 1990.
The issue has been mentioned in almost all the joint press statements issued after the visit of prime ministers. The issue was removed from the joint statement after the Nepal-India Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) was formed in 2016. But there have been no serious talks between two sides about settling Kalapani and Susta issue.
A single bench of Nepal’s Supremem Court demanded, from the Nepal government, the country’s original map exchanged with India during the signing of the Sugauli Treaty in 1816, in response to the public interest litigation filed by a senior advocate who appealed to the Supreme Court to order the government to start political and diplomatic efforts to protect Nepali territories. The petition claimed that Limpiyadhura, Lipulek and Kalapani areas were shown under India’s territory even though they lay within the Nepalese territory.
India’s Reaction
Reacting on Nepal’s claim that the new map of India ‘incorrectly’ depicted Kalapani area situated in the country’s far-West lies within the Indian boundary, the ministry of external affairs (MEA) said that the boundaries with Nepal remain unchanged in the new map.
“Our map accurately depicts the sovereign territory of India. The new map has in no manner revised our boundary with Nepal,” MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar told media on 7 November.
He, however, added that the boundary delineation exercise with Nepal was 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. At the same time, both countries should guard against vested interests trying to create differences between our two countries.”
India has also said that “The boundary delineation exercise with Nepal is ongoing under the existing mechanism. It is committed to find a solution through dialogue in the spirit of our close and friendly bilateral relations”.
In the second week of November, Uttarakhand chief minister Trivendra Singh Rawat claimed that Kalapani was a part of India. But Nepal government has said Lipulekh lies in Nepal territory.
With India now pushing Nepal to sign on the agreed and initialed strip maps of about 98% of the boundary, Nepal is of the view that it would sign the strip map only after the settlement of the two disputes.
India denied again, on 2 January, that a new map issued after the reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir in any way incorporated territories from Nepal. The clarification by the spokesperson of the MEA came after Nepal’s Supreme Court called for original map exchanged with India during the signing of the Sugauli Treaty in 1816.
Boundary Working Group
Nepal proposed holding a foreign secretary-level meeting to resolve the Kalapani dispute.
Nepal has also stated that India stationed its border security troops in Nepali territory after India-China war in 1962. The Nepal government has prepared some historical documents to prove that it has held an election there in 1959 and that it also collected revenue in 1961. It has also said that it has land certificates. Nepal has been making an effort to collect all historical documents available after Sugauli Treaty of 1861.
On the basis of these documents, Nepal is keen to hold a meeting with the Indian side. The third joint commission meeting held in Kathmandu in 2014 had directed “the foreign secretaries to work on outstanding boundary issues, including Kalapani and Susta, receiving required technical inputs from Boundary Working Group (BWG) as necessary”.
Though BWG is working to settle technical issues in several places, there has not been even a single meeting on Kalapani and Susta after 2014.
The Genesis of the Conflict
In 1816, the East India Company and Nepal signed the Treaty of Sagauli to mark out Nepal’s western border. The treaty defined river Mahakali as the western border of Nepal. River Mahakali has several tributaries, all of which merge at Kalapani. India claims that the river begins in Kalapani as this is where all its tributaries merge. But Nepal claims that it begins from Lipulekh Pass, the origin of most of its tributaries. It has, therefore, laid claim to all areas east of the Lipu Gad – the rivulet that joins the river Kali on its border. According to Nepal, the Kalapani area was included in the Census of Nepal until 58 years ago. According to some quarters, the late Nepalese King Mahendra had “handed over the territory” to India in 1962 in the wake of the India-China war. A report submitted on the subject to the Nepali prime minister further claimed that India had occupied an additional 62 sq km land. India on its part has presented administrative and tax records dating back to 1830s to back its claims. A map of 1879 also shows Kalapani as part of British India.
It is interesting to note that this long-standing issue only gained prominence after India and Nepal signed the Treaty of Mahakali in 1996. Both countries have been trying to resolve the issue of Kalapani and another vast area along the Nepal-Uttar Pradesh border, Susta. In 1981, a Joint Technical Boundary Committee was formed. While it could resolve a large part of the dispute, no final settlement could be reached. The progress in the matter has been very slow. In 2014, both countries held a joint commission meeting led by their foreign ministers. In 2016, an Eminent Persons Group was formed to look into several bilateral issues, including the border dispute and the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950. The border issue was escalated in March 2017 when a Nepali was killed as India’s Border Security Forces opened fire in Kanchanpur district, near the Nepal-India borderThe Kalapani region lies in a junction bordering three countries – India, Nepal and China. Nepal and India both claim this region as part of their respective territories; India as part of Uttarakhand and Nepal as part of Darchula district. Complicating the matter is the Sugauli Treaty – signed between the East India Company and Nepal in 1816 – which marks the Mahakali river as the western border of Nepal.
India – Nepal Ties
In the last few years signs of friction appeared between India and Nepal after Nepal’s new constitution in 2015 sparked unrest by ethnic minorities and led to a trade blockade of 135 days. India raised concerns about the worries of the Terai population. Many politicians in Nepal have yet to come to terms with the economic blockade they alleged India played a role in. Though it was decided that the 1950 treaty would be revisited in keeping with changing times, Delhi said it was yet to receive the eminent persons group report on the same. India’s notching down its interest in SAARC and prioritising other regional alliances such as BIMSTEC and BBIN has also upset Kathmandu.
Demonetisation in 2016 delivered a blow to Nepal, which announced the country had Rs 33.6 million Indian currency in its formal bank channels alone. India has been also displeased with Nepal joining Beijing’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
But India and Nepal have entered into agreements for inland waterways to provide Nepal sea access, on expanding connectivity, and for building electrified rail lines. Vizag port was made Nepal’s transit point for third-country trade.
Comments
Despite the issue being brought up repeatedly, an end to the matter will not happen without serious dialogue between the two countries with a focus on Kalapani and Susta – of which there has been none since the dispute made a resurgence barring the one meeting between Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhle and Nepal’s Ambassador to India Nilambar Acharya in the first week of November.
At a time when Nepal is trying to reduce its economic dependence on India with help from China, a border dispute left unaddressed could further drive Kathmandu into the arms of its northern neighbour.
The flaring up of this issue is bound to add further tension in the India-Nepal relationship. The ties had received an impetus when prime minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014. Nepal was invited as a SAARC member for Modi’s swearing-in ceremony. Modi visited the Himalayan nation soon after announcing his ‘neighbourhood first’ commitment. India was quick to respond to the earthquake that ravaged Nepal in 2015. Nepal also continued to blame India for interfering in its internal matters. The relationship deteriorated considerably after the unofficial blockade of Nepal in 2015.
India still enjoys great leverage with Nepal. India is Nepal’s largest trading partner, and the two countries are culturally intertwined. In the past, India has played a considerable role in maintaining stability and development in Nepal. As China’s clout grows in the region and India’s tensions with Pakistan exacerbate, India needs friends in the neighbourhood. It is therefore imperative that India manages such incidents with diplomatic finesse so that an anti-India feeling does not emerge among the Nepali leaders and general populace.
====================
Why is Kalapani significant?
Kalapani is a trijunction meeting point of India, Tibet and Nepal borders. The region has been manned by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police since 1962. This has led to fear of Chinese involvement also. Nepal has also raised concern over Lipulekh Pass, which has been made a trading tri-junction route between India and China, reportedly without Nepal’s consent, since 2015. The Indian side claims that Lipulekh pass has been referred to as a border trading point since 1954 and that the new positions depict an anti-Indian sentiment to gain greater political mileage.
The high Lipulekh pass helps India track Chinese movements in the region. Nepal has always sought the route be a major node for India-China trade. Kalapani’s significance is centuries-old for its location on the trade and pilgrim route to Tibet. In 2015, Kathmandu was upset that it was bypassed when India and China signed a bilateral agreement to increase trade through Lipulekh.
===============
Lipulekh Pass
