• India
  • Jun 20
  • Rishi Gupta

The Nepal conundrum and China’s role

Nepal has completed the process of redrawing the country's political map through a Constitutional amendment, incorporating three strategically important Indian areas in a move that could severely jolt bilateral relations.

It is important to understand how the India-Nepal bilateral ties came under strain and the alleged role of China in it. 

The link road to Kailash Mansarovar yatra  

On May 8, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated a link road to Mansarovar Yatra. The minister congratulated the Border Road Organisation (BRO) for completing an 80 km stretch from Dharchula to Lipulekh in the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand. 

The road is an engineering marvel by the BRO as the route is extremely mountainous where altitude rises from 6,000 feet to 17,060 feet. Every year, thousands of Hindu pilgrims from India visit Kailash Mansarovar located in Tibet in China. Until now, the travel to Kailash Mansarovar used to take three weeks or more depending on weather conditions through Sikkim or Nepal routes. With the construction of the road, travel time will be less and the trip can be completed in vehicles.

Nepal raises objection

Soon after a series of tweets by the defence minister on the inauguration, social media went abuzz with hashtags #BackOffIndia #GoBackIndia. People in Nepal took social media to criticise India for illegally constructing the road and claimed that the territory belonged to Nepal. 

In less than a day, the ministry of foreign affairs (MoFA) in Nepal issued a statement claiming that “the (road) ‘inauguration’ by India of ‘Link Road’ connecting to Lipulekh (Nepal) passes through Nepali territory. The government of Nepal calls upon the government of India to refrain from carrying out any activity inside the territory of Nepal.” 

Following the press release, foreign minister of Nepal summoned India’s ambassador to Nepal Vinay Mohan Kwatra to handover a diplomatic note to register its protest with the government of India.

The ministry of external affairs in New Delhi denied such allegations and added that “the recently inaugurated road section in Pithoragarh district in the state of Uttarakhand lies entirely within the territory of India.” It further added that “the road follows the pre-existing route used by the pilgrims of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra. Under the present project, the same road has been made pliable for the ease and convenience of pilgrims, locals and traders.” 

While India requested the government of Nepal to resolve the misunderstanding through diplomatic channels, Nepalese Parliament amended its Constitution to pass a new political map showing Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura along with Kalapani as its own territories on June 13, 2020. 

The map has officially been updated in the Coat of Arms (government Logo) to show Nepalese territories. The hastily prepared map was first endorsed by the Cabinet and later received full support in the Parliament. It is for the first time that opposition parties have supported the government. 

The second Constitution amendment Bill, passed by both houses of Nepal’s Parliament, was authenticated by President Bidya Devi Bhandari on June 18.

India has strongly protested against Nepal’s unilateral acts saying, “this artificial enlargement of claims is not based on historical fact or evidence and is not tenable. It is also violative of our current understanding to hold talks on outstanding boundary issues”. 

It is also for the first time that Nepal has held an offensive stance towards India.

India has rejected Nepal’s earlier claims

It is not the first such incident where Nepal has alleged India for land encroachment. In October last, Indian Parliament had abrogated Article 370 which gave special privileges to the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) in the Constitution. As a result, two new Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh came into existence on October 31 and India released a new map to show new political boundaries. 

While no other changes were made in the map, the government of Nepal under the social media pressure objected to the new map. It said, Kalapani (in Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand) “is a Nepali territory and any unilateral move to alter the border demarcation is not acceptable.” 

In May 2015, Nepal had also objected to an agreement signed between India and China to open a trade route through Lipulekh Pass. On all such occasions, India has continuously maintained its position and refuted Nepal’s allegations.

The border dispute

India and Nepal share a long border of over 1850 km with five Indian states – Sikkim, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. While 98 percent of the border was marked settled in 2007, a joint commission has been working on to resolve rest of the border issues including Kalapani and Susta in close coordination with the Boundary Working Group (BWG) on the technical front. 

While BWG is yet to complete its task, Nepal is pressing for foreign secretary level (FSL) talks to discuss the matter. In contrast, India maintains that the meeting will be convened as soon as the technical inputs are received from the BWG. 

It has to be noted that Nepal's western border with India has been defined by the Treaty of Sugauli signed between the British-Indian government and the King of Nepal in 1815. As per the treaty, the Kali river is the natural demarcation of the boundary with India. The land east of the Kali river went to Nepal and west to India. 

However, the dispute arises in defining the main-stream of the Kali river and its origin. India maintains that the Kali river originates from Lipulekh and Nepal claims it is from Limpiyadhura. The land falling between these two streams — Kalapani — is yet another disputed land. 

British India had re-defined the border with Nepal in 1879 and Nepal had accepted it. Indian security forces have been guarding Kalapani after the  Sino-India War in 1962. The then King Mahendra of Nepal in a tacit agreement with India agreed to the deployment of the Indian troops and India has been present ever since. 

While India’s position on the border with Nepal has not changed in the past, Nepal has been raising the issue directly or indirectly. But, it is a first that Nepal has shown Indian territories its own.

China’s role in the issue

Lipulekh forms a tri-junction between India, China and Nepal. From a strategic point, the area is critical to India’s territorial security. After the  Sino-India War in 1962, Indo-Tibetan Border Police has been guarding the Kalapani region. For decades, China has been trying to increase its presence in the region but could not as it has officially recognised Kalapani as Indian territory. On the other hand, Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has attempted to encroach on Indian territory in the Galwan Valley (Ladakh region). 

With conditions turning extreme, “on the night of June 15, 2020 a violent face-off happened as a result of an attempt by the Chinese side to unilaterally change the status quo there.” Twenty Indian Army soldiers were killed when they attempted to prevent the PLA from making unilateral moves. 

With the PLA on one side and Nepal on the other, it cannot be denied that Beijing has strategically used Nepal to create a pressure on India in order to create a two-front challenge. 

Undoubtedly, amidst the existing India-Nepal tensions, Beijing is intending to benefit by extending support to Nepal. Also, Chinese micro-management of Nepal’s internal fairs is a well-known fact. The ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) has been attempting to bring the Chinese style of one-party system in Nepal. It is not only providing China with a strong position in Nepal but also leverage in its diplomatic affairs, especially with India. 

Political gains for NCP

India and Nepal share a close socio-cultural, economic and people to people relationship. The two had disputes in the past, but they have been resolved through diplomatic means. The current outrage by Nepal is politically motivated for two reasons. 

One, it strengthens NCP’s nationalistic image, which has been based on its anti-India manoeuvrings. Since 2015, NCP chief and Prime Minister K.P.  Sharma Oli has used an anti-India stance for his political gains. The present dispute further diverts public attention from K.P. Oli’s failures in fighting the COVID-19. 

Two, under revised India-Nepal diplomatic ties, China will have a wave of public support in Nepal, and it will be able to execute its strategic plans in Nepal including extraditing thousands of the Tibetan refugees living in Nepal.

The road ahead

A border dispute may not be a new phenomenon for India with its neighbours, but a dispute of such nature with Nepal, is entirely new and does not favour India in the long term. Therefore, India might take  diplomatic route as the first and the last resort to find an immediate resolution with Nepal because, if not India, China will surely find a way to cash in on the downfall in the relations. 

Therefore, India needs to focus on ‘Neighbourhood First’ along with Gujral doctrine to build trust among the people of Nepal. India needs to revisit its larger Nepal policy by keeping present needs and modes of cooperation at front. 

(Rishi Gupta is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for South Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The views expressed here are personal.)

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store

Notes