India-Nepal Relations
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
India to allow Nepal use of three rivers for inland waterways to push regional connectivity
India has agreed in principle to allow landlocked Nepal to use three inland waterways, thus expanding its transit options to the sea. Nepal will be able to operate its own vessels on the Ganga, which runs parallel to the southern border of the Himalayan state.
A draft letter was finalised during the bilateral trade talks held in Delhi last week, said government officials. India consented to grant access to the Kolkata-Kalughat, Raxaul; Kolkata-Sahebgunj, Biratnagar and Kolkata-Varanasi-Raxaul routes, they said.
Officials of the two countries held the third round of talks on Thursday and Friday last week to review the bilateral trade treaty.
In April 2018, India and Nepal had issued a joint statement, during Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit here, on establishing new connectivity through inland waterways.
The visit had come after the two countries formed a joint technical team, in the preceding month, to study the possibility of operating waterway transportation over various routes. The technical team identified the three routes via Haldia port as the most viable for inland waterway transportation between the two sides, said people aware of the matter.
India has developed a waterway on the Ganga connecting Varanasi and the seaport of Haldia, Kolkata. Access to the Indian waterways will facilitate efficient movement of cargo imported from third countries to Nepal.
India currently grants duty-free access to Nepalese products with at least 30 percent value addition. India has agreed in principle on giving flexibility in tariffs in the goods imported from Nepal, said the officials cited earlier.
Nepal has been urging India to lift the quantitative restriction on the import of acrylic yarn, copper utensils, vegetable ghee and zinc oxide which has been in place since 2002.
Nepal and India have also finalised the draft of a mutual recognition agreement in the trade of agricultural goods. Under the agreement the two countries will recognise the quality certificates issued by each other.
India to allow Nepal use of three rivers for inland waterways to push regional connectivity
India has agreed in principle to allow landlocked Nepal to use three inland waterways, thus expanding its transit options to the sea. Nepal will be able to operate its own vessels on the Ganga, which runs parallel to the southern border of the Himalayan state.
A draft letter was finalised during the bilateral trade talks held in Delhi last week, said government officials. India consented to grant access to the Kolkata-Kalughat, Raxaul; Kolkata-Sahebgunj, Biratnagar and Kolkata-Varanasi-Raxaul routes, they said.
Officials of the two countries held the third round of talks on Thursday and Friday last week to review the bilateral trade treaty.
In April 2018, India and Nepal had issued a joint statement, during Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit here, on establishing new connectivity through inland waterways.
The visit had come after the two countries formed a joint technical team, in the preceding month, to study the possibility of operating waterway transportation over various routes. The technical team identified the three routes via Haldia port as the most viable for inland waterway transportation between the two sides, said people aware of the matter.
India has developed a waterway on the Ganga connecting Varanasi and the seaport of Haldia, Kolkata. Access to the Indian waterways will facilitate efficient movement of cargo imported from third countries to Nepal.
India currently grants duty-free access to Nepalese products with at least 30 percent value addition. India has agreed in principle on giving flexibility in tariffs in the goods imported from Nepal, said the officials cited earlier.
Nepal has been urging India to lift the quantitative restriction on the import of acrylic yarn, copper utensils, vegetable ghee and zinc oxide which has been in place since 2002.
Nepal and India have also finalised the draft of a mutual recognition agreement in the trade of agricultural goods. Under the agreement the two countries will recognise the quality certificates issued by each other.
India to allow Nepal use of three rivers for inland waterways to push regional connectivity
Nepal's new policy to bar NGOs from running programmes opposed to India, China
PTI | Updated: Jan 12, 2020, 17:42 IST
Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. (File photo)
KATHMANDU: Nepal is drafting a new policy to "discourage" international NGOs from undertaking programmes with potential to hamper the country's relations with its giant neighbours, India and China, officials said on Sunday.
While cross-border terrorism and criminal activities continue to be the major causes of concern for India, China has in the past complained about the Tibetans' movement via Nepal.
Based on Nepal's foreign policy of keeping balanced relations, the projects that are opposed by either country will not be implemented, according to the draft of the strategy policy which is being prepared by the Social Welfare Council, The Kathmandu Post reported.
"Nepal is a land-locked country and has two large countries with large populations in the north and south," according to the draft.
The policy will discourage organisations from running programmes that can hamper Nepal's relations with the neighbouring countries, it said.
Council officials said the policy is still in the draft stage and some of its provisions are expected to be addressed by a new law on the registration of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
Durga Prasad Bhattarai, an information officer at the council, said the proposed policy is aimed at addressing the concerns of the neighbouring countries regarding the activities of NGOs, particularly in the bordering regions.
"The objective of the proposed policy is to reassert that Nepal government is concerned about the strategic mobilisation of international non-governmental organisations, particularly in the bordering regions, in the name of building madrasas and monasteries," Bhattarai was quoted by the Post.
According to the council, madrasas in the regions bordering India are receiving funds from countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Rajendra Kumar Poudel, member secretary at the council, admitted that India has raised concerns, through the home ministry about the large presence of madrasas in the bordering region.
"So we have stepped up the scrutiny of the source of funds and nature of programmes to be run in the madrasas while providing approval for foreign funding. We are in favour of addressing India's concerns, but we have not taken any opinion from the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu," said Poudel.
Poudel, however, added it would be wrong to paint all the madrasas with the same brush.
"Some madrasas in Morang and Sunsari are doing well in imparting education and many others are also attracting students from across the border who live in a 5km-10km periphery of the border.
"We are equally sensitive about the mobilisation non-governmental organisations in the areas bordering China, so as not to have any negative effect on our relations with the northern neighbour," he added.
According to the Post report, India in the past has said that any kind of proliferation of extremism in the madrasas may hamper Nepal's internal security dynamics, and have repeatedly alerted Kathmandu to be cautious.
Nepal's new policy to bar NGOs from running programmes opposed to India, China | India News - Times of India
PTI | Updated: Jan 12, 2020, 17:42 IST
Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. (File photo)
KATHMANDU: Nepal is drafting a new policy to "discourage" international NGOs from undertaking programmes with potential to hamper the country's relations with its giant neighbours, India and China, officials said on Sunday.
While cross-border terrorism and criminal activities continue to be the major causes of concern for India, China has in the past complained about the Tibetans' movement via Nepal.
Based on Nepal's foreign policy of keeping balanced relations, the projects that are opposed by either country will not be implemented, according to the draft of the strategy policy which is being prepared by the Social Welfare Council, The Kathmandu Post reported.
"Nepal is a land-locked country and has two large countries with large populations in the north and south," according to the draft.
The policy will discourage organisations from running programmes that can hamper Nepal's relations with the neighbouring countries, it said.
Council officials said the policy is still in the draft stage and some of its provisions are expected to be addressed by a new law on the registration of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
Durga Prasad Bhattarai, an information officer at the council, said the proposed policy is aimed at addressing the concerns of the neighbouring countries regarding the activities of NGOs, particularly in the bordering regions.
"The objective of the proposed policy is to reassert that Nepal government is concerned about the strategic mobilisation of international non-governmental organisations, particularly in the bordering regions, in the name of building madrasas and monasteries," Bhattarai was quoted by the Post.
According to the council, madrasas in the regions bordering India are receiving funds from countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Rajendra Kumar Poudel, member secretary at the council, admitted that India has raised concerns, through the home ministry about the large presence of madrasas in the bordering region.
"So we have stepped up the scrutiny of the source of funds and nature of programmes to be run in the madrasas while providing approval for foreign funding. We are in favour of addressing India's concerns, but we have not taken any opinion from the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu," said Poudel.
Poudel, however, added it would be wrong to paint all the madrasas with the same brush.
"Some madrasas in Morang and Sunsari are doing well in imparting education and many others are also attracting students from across the border who live in a 5km-10km periphery of the border.
"We are equally sensitive about the mobilisation non-governmental organisations in the areas bordering China, so as not to have any negative effect on our relations with the northern neighbour," he added.
According to the Post report, India in the past has said that any kind of proliferation of extremism in the madrasas may hamper Nepal's internal security dynamics, and have repeatedly alerted Kathmandu to be cautious.
Nepal's new policy to bar NGOs from running programmes opposed to India, China | India News - Times of India
Nepal makes yoga compulsory in school to promote healthy lifestyle
Read Latest News, News Today, Breaking News, India News and Current News on Politics, Bollywood and Sports. - Republic World
Read Latest News, News Today, Breaking News, India News and Current News on Politics, Bollywood and Sports. - Republic World
Unintended consequences of trade war with Malaysia ? Or was it on purpose ? Maybe GoI is trying to get Nepal to cut imports from Malaysia and instead import from Indonesia.
Nepal seeks early lifting of ban on export of refined palm oil to India
PTI, Jan 25 2020, 02:35am IST
Nepal had exported refined palm oil worth over Rs 11 billion to India in the first five months of this fiscal, making it the country's largest export item, Aryal told a group of Indian journalists here at the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies.(Photo: Reuters)
Kathmandu: With India stopping importing refined palm oil from Nepal, the Himalayan nation's top export item, the government has formally asked New Delhi to revoke the ban, Nepal's Commerce and Supplies Secretary Baikuntha Aryal said on Friday.
Though the restriction was aimed at Malaysia, which criticised India's decisions on Kashmir and the new citizenship law, it has also hit Nepal.
Nepal had exported refined palm oil worth over Rs 11 billion to India in the first five months of this fiscal, making it the country's largest export item, Aryal told a group of Indian journalists here at the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies.
He said the Nepalese export of refined palm oil was "not disturbing" the Indian market.
Nepali traders have been exporting only in consumer packs of refined palm oil to India and Nepal is not a bulk exporter of the commodity.
"We're not bulk exporters," he said, noting that Nepal exports palm oil in small packages ranging from one kg to 15 kg, which are widely used by Indian households.
As a result of the Indian ban, a lot of the refined palm oil was piling up at border and at the factories in Nepal.
Aryal hoped that India would soon revoke the ban on the import of refined palm oil from Nepal and his ministry was in touch with its Indian counterpart to resolve the issue.
Though Nepal never had competitive or comparative advantage in exporting palm oil to India, rising export of the product in recent months had been playing a crucial role in raising the country's export base and narrow down the trade deficit, The Himalyan Times reported recently.
Nepali traders import crude palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia, process and package it here, before sending it to India. Traders were lured towards this business as India had imposed a duty of 40 per cent on import of palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia, the two largest producers of palm oil in the world.
Nepal's palm oil, on the other hand, was subject to a duty of just six per cent in India under the bilateral trade treaty, the report said.
Meanwhile, India's Petroleum Secretary K K Kutty held talks with Aryal here on Friday on bilateral cooperation in the oil and gas sector.
The meeting was the first since a Joint Working Group was established and both sides held the maiden meeting to enhance cooperation in the oil and gas sectors.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Nepal counterpart K P Sharma Oli jointly inaugurated the Motihari-Amlekhgunj petroleum product pipeline, the first of its kind in South Asia in September 2019. Though it was aimed at pumping 300 kl/hour, Nepal was getting half of this currently, Aryal said.
The Motihari-Amlekhgunj petroleum pipeline is envisaged to put in place a mechanism for assured, continuous and cost-effective supply of petroleum products to Nepal.
Presently, fuel products are being transported from India to Nepal by tankers and trucks, which are costly and time consuming.
Nepal seeks early lifting of ban on export of refined palm oil to India
Nepal seeks early lifting of ban on export of refined palm oil to India
PTI, Jan 25 2020, 02:35am IST
Nepal had exported refined palm oil worth over Rs 11 billion to India in the first five months of this fiscal, making it the country's largest export item, Aryal told a group of Indian journalists here at the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies.(Photo: Reuters)
Kathmandu: With India stopping importing refined palm oil from Nepal, the Himalayan nation's top export item, the government has formally asked New Delhi to revoke the ban, Nepal's Commerce and Supplies Secretary Baikuntha Aryal said on Friday.
Though the restriction was aimed at Malaysia, which criticised India's decisions on Kashmir and the new citizenship law, it has also hit Nepal.
Nepal had exported refined palm oil worth over Rs 11 billion to India in the first five months of this fiscal, making it the country's largest export item, Aryal told a group of Indian journalists here at the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies.
He said the Nepalese export of refined palm oil was "not disturbing" the Indian market.
Nepali traders have been exporting only in consumer packs of refined palm oil to India and Nepal is not a bulk exporter of the commodity.
"We're not bulk exporters," he said, noting that Nepal exports palm oil in small packages ranging from one kg to 15 kg, which are widely used by Indian households.
As a result of the Indian ban, a lot of the refined palm oil was piling up at border and at the factories in Nepal.
Aryal hoped that India would soon revoke the ban on the import of refined palm oil from Nepal and his ministry was in touch with its Indian counterpart to resolve the issue.
Though Nepal never had competitive or comparative advantage in exporting palm oil to India, rising export of the product in recent months had been playing a crucial role in raising the country's export base and narrow down the trade deficit, The Himalyan Times reported recently.
Nepali traders import crude palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia, process and package it here, before sending it to India. Traders were lured towards this business as India had imposed a duty of 40 per cent on import of palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia, the two largest producers of palm oil in the world.
Nepal's palm oil, on the other hand, was subject to a duty of just six per cent in India under the bilateral trade treaty, the report said.
Meanwhile, India's Petroleum Secretary K K Kutty held talks with Aryal here on Friday on bilateral cooperation in the oil and gas sector.
The meeting was the first since a Joint Working Group was established and both sides held the maiden meeting to enhance cooperation in the oil and gas sectors.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Nepal counterpart K P Sharma Oli jointly inaugurated the Motihari-Amlekhgunj petroleum product pipeline, the first of its kind in South Asia in September 2019. Though it was aimed at pumping 300 kl/hour, Nepal was getting half of this currently, Aryal said.
The Motihari-Amlekhgunj petroleum pipeline is envisaged to put in place a mechanism for assured, continuous and cost-effective supply of petroleum products to Nepal.
Presently, fuel products are being transported from India to Nepal by tankers and trucks, which are costly and time consuming.
Nepal seeks early lifting of ban on export of refined palm oil to India
India opening a road via Lipulekh, a territory that Nepal claims, is a diplomatic failure
By Anil Giri
Published at : May 8, 2020; 22:10
Kathmandu
Despite the furore in Kathmandu over the inclusion of Kalapani on a new Indian map, the government has done little to reclaim lands that Nepal claims as its own.
India on Friday said it has inaugurated a link road from Dharchula to Lipulekh. Photo via Indian Defense Ministry's Twitter.
Back in November, India’s inclusion of Kalapani within its territory on a new political map had created an uproar in Nepal and left Kathmandu scrambling for a response. Six months later, with no real progress from the Nepali side, New Delhi, on Friday, announced the opening of a road link in Uttarakhand’s Pithoragarh via the Lipulekh pass, another disputed area.
At a time when boundary disputes with India vis-a-vis Kalapani and Susta remain, the opening of a road through Lipulekh is an outcome of Kathmandu’s spectacular failure on the diplomatic front, say foreign policy analysts.
Lipulekh is a strip of land on the northwestern edge of Nepal, lodged between Nepal, India and Tibet. While some call it a tri-junction between these three countries, Nepal has been claiming the southern part of the pass and has refused to recognise it as a tri-junction.
During the visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqang to India in May 2015, India and China had agreed to open and expand the border points at Nathu La, Lipulekh and Shipki La.
When India and China agreed to expand a trade route through Lipulekh pass near Kalapani, Kathmandu was caught unawares, and now India has built a road link via the disputed territory, once again surprising Nepali officials.
“We came to know that India and China were in intense talks to open three border points to link Mansarover since 2013,” said Toyanath Baral, former director-general of the Survey Department. “It would have been good if we had put pressure on India and China since then. In 2015, India and China managed to reach an agreement. Now it is too late as India has already built a road.”
According to Baral, who was involved in the last round of boundary talks with India held in 2007, Nepal only protested after the 2015 agreement was signed between India and China.
India’s Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated the newly built road on Friday.
“With this move, the Indian security post at Indo-China border in Vyans valley of Pithoragarh district is now connected with the rest of the country via a 75.54-km long road from Ghatibagar in Dharchula to Lipulekh near the border with China,” the Hindustan Times reported.
Two senior Nepal government officials said that they were not aware of the new development except for a briefing from the Nepali Embassy in New Delhi about the inauguration of the road section.
The Delhi mission communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday, saying it is following developments, according to a diplomatic source.
“It looks like India has upgraded the section of road by blacktopping it,” said the diplomat. “We are waiting for a complete report from New Delhi. Based on that, the Foreign Ministry will take a position.”
The diplomat said that the timing of the inauguration of the road may look odd, given the pandemic, but it won’t change Nepal’s stated position on Lipulekh, Kalapani or Limpuyadhura.
“I only learned about the latest development from a media report,” said Nawaraj Dhakal, spokesperson for the Survey Department. “We don’t know more than what has been reported.”
According to Foreign Ministry officials, Foreign Secretary Shanker Das Bairagi spoke with Indian Ambassador Vinay Mohan Kwatra on Friday regarding the road, expressing Nepal’s displeasure and its principal position on the boundary dispute.
Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali confirmed to the Post that Nepal had taken up the matter with India, but said that he would only issue an official statement after receiving a detailed report from the Nepali Embassy in New Delhi.
After India placed Kalapani, which Nepal claims as its territory, within its territory on a new government map in November, the Nepal government had formed two committees, headed by the joint secretaries of the India and China desks at the Foreign Ministry, to conduct field visits and prepare a status report on the border. The committee surveying the border with India has completed its visit but the committee that was supposed to study the China border had yet to start its work when the Covid-19 pandemic hit.
From Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to Foreign Minister Gyawali, along with other ministers as well as top leaders of the ruling party, had all vowed to reclaim the disputed tract of land after the Kalapani issue emerged. But not a single round of talks has taken place in the last six months.
In February last year, long before the Kalapani issue reemerged, Foreign Minister Gyawali had told a House committee that India and China “cannot discuss Lipulekh in Nepal’s absence.” Gyawali told the Parliamentary International Relations Committee that the Nepal government does not accept Lipulekh as a tri-junction between Nepal, India and China.
He had also said that the Nepal government would not sign the 182 strip maps proposed by India, unless the issues surrounding Kalapani and Susta were resolved.
In 2007, India had come up with 182 strip maps between Nepal and India which excluded Susta and Kalapani.
Back in 2017, when India and China had a standoff over Doklam, experts in Nepal had advised that Nepal raise its border issues with both countries to avoid any friction between the neighbouring countries.
But Nepal failed to take any initiative, and India in November last year reinforced its claim by issuing a political map that placed Kalapani, Lipulekh pass and Limpiyadhura inside its territory.
Nepal protested through diplomatic channels and offered to hold talks with India at the Foreign Secretary level to settle the row. But there has been no progress yet.
“This is the failure of successive governments,” said Dinesh Bhattarai, who served as foreign relations advisor to former prime minister Sushil Koirala during whose tenure India and China signed the deal to expand the trade route via Lipulekh.
According to Bhattarai, the Koirala government had immediately taken up the issue with both India and China.
“Since then we have had dozens of visits from either side, but we never raised the issue of land encroachment,” Bhattarai told the Post. “Our land is being encroached upon, but this government, which never tires of talking about nationalism, has no idea.”
kathmandupost.com
By Anil Giri
Published at : May 8, 2020; 22:10
Kathmandu
Despite the furore in Kathmandu over the inclusion of Kalapani on a new Indian map, the government has done little to reclaim lands that Nepal claims as its own.
India on Friday said it has inaugurated a link road from Dharchula to Lipulekh. Photo via Indian Defense Ministry's Twitter.
Back in November, India’s inclusion of Kalapani within its territory on a new political map had created an uproar in Nepal and left Kathmandu scrambling for a response. Six months later, with no real progress from the Nepali side, New Delhi, on Friday, announced the opening of a road link in Uttarakhand’s Pithoragarh via the Lipulekh pass, another disputed area.
At a time when boundary disputes with India vis-a-vis Kalapani and Susta remain, the opening of a road through Lipulekh is an outcome of Kathmandu’s spectacular failure on the diplomatic front, say foreign policy analysts.
Lipulekh is a strip of land on the northwestern edge of Nepal, lodged between Nepal, India and Tibet. While some call it a tri-junction between these three countries, Nepal has been claiming the southern part of the pass and has refused to recognise it as a tri-junction.
During the visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqang to India in May 2015, India and China had agreed to open and expand the border points at Nathu La, Lipulekh and Shipki La.
When India and China agreed to expand a trade route through Lipulekh pass near Kalapani, Kathmandu was caught unawares, and now India has built a road link via the disputed territory, once again surprising Nepali officials.
“We came to know that India and China were in intense talks to open three border points to link Mansarover since 2013,” said Toyanath Baral, former director-general of the Survey Department. “It would have been good if we had put pressure on India and China since then. In 2015, India and China managed to reach an agreement. Now it is too late as India has already built a road.”
According to Baral, who was involved in the last round of boundary talks with India held in 2007, Nepal only protested after the 2015 agreement was signed between India and China.
India’s Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated the newly built road on Friday.
“With this move, the Indian security post at Indo-China border in Vyans valley of Pithoragarh district is now connected with the rest of the country via a 75.54-km long road from Ghatibagar in Dharchula to Lipulekh near the border with China,” the Hindustan Times reported.
Two senior Nepal government officials said that they were not aware of the new development except for a briefing from the Nepali Embassy in New Delhi about the inauguration of the road section.
The Delhi mission communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday, saying it is following developments, according to a diplomatic source.
“It looks like India has upgraded the section of road by blacktopping it,” said the diplomat. “We are waiting for a complete report from New Delhi. Based on that, the Foreign Ministry will take a position.”
The diplomat said that the timing of the inauguration of the road may look odd, given the pandemic, but it won’t change Nepal’s stated position on Lipulekh, Kalapani or Limpuyadhura.
“I only learned about the latest development from a media report,” said Nawaraj Dhakal, spokesperson for the Survey Department. “We don’t know more than what has been reported.”
According to Foreign Ministry officials, Foreign Secretary Shanker Das Bairagi spoke with Indian Ambassador Vinay Mohan Kwatra on Friday regarding the road, expressing Nepal’s displeasure and its principal position on the boundary dispute.
Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali confirmed to the Post that Nepal had taken up the matter with India, but said that he would only issue an official statement after receiving a detailed report from the Nepali Embassy in New Delhi.
After India placed Kalapani, which Nepal claims as its territory, within its territory on a new government map in November, the Nepal government had formed two committees, headed by the joint secretaries of the India and China desks at the Foreign Ministry, to conduct field visits and prepare a status report on the border. The committee surveying the border with India has completed its visit but the committee that was supposed to study the China border had yet to start its work when the Covid-19 pandemic hit.
From Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to Foreign Minister Gyawali, along with other ministers as well as top leaders of the ruling party, had all vowed to reclaim the disputed tract of land after the Kalapani issue emerged. But not a single round of talks has taken place in the last six months.
In February last year, long before the Kalapani issue reemerged, Foreign Minister Gyawali had told a House committee that India and China “cannot discuss Lipulekh in Nepal’s absence.” Gyawali told the Parliamentary International Relations Committee that the Nepal government does not accept Lipulekh as a tri-junction between Nepal, India and China.
He had also said that the Nepal government would not sign the 182 strip maps proposed by India, unless the issues surrounding Kalapani and Susta were resolved.
In 2007, India had come up with 182 strip maps between Nepal and India which excluded Susta and Kalapani.
Back in 2017, when India and China had a standoff over Doklam, experts in Nepal had advised that Nepal raise its border issues with both countries to avoid any friction between the neighbouring countries.
But Nepal failed to take any initiative, and India in November last year reinforced its claim by issuing a political map that placed Kalapani, Lipulekh pass and Limpiyadhura inside its territory.
Nepal protested through diplomatic channels and offered to hold talks with India at the Foreign Secretary level to settle the row. But there has been no progress yet.
“This is the failure of successive governments,” said Dinesh Bhattarai, who served as foreign relations advisor to former prime minister Sushil Koirala during whose tenure India and China signed the deal to expand the trade route via Lipulekh.
According to Bhattarai, the Koirala government had immediately taken up the issue with both India and China.
“Since then we have had dozens of visits from either side, but we never raised the issue of land encroachment,” Bhattarai told the Post. “Our land is being encroached upon, but this government, which never tires of talking about nationalism, has no idea.”
India opening a road via Lipulekh, a territory that Nepal claims, is a diplomatic failure
Despite the furore in Kathmandu over the inclusion of Kalapani on a new Indian map, the government has done little to reclaim lands that Nepal claims as its own.
Boundary issues with India require a lasting solution that addresses all disputes, say analysts
As seeking international arbitration or deploying armed forces could only further complicate matters, better solution is a diplomatic approach, they say.
By Anil Giri
Published at : May 11, 2020
Updated at : May 11, 2020 08:00
Kathmandu
Inauguration by New Delhi of this road in Nepal’s western frontier has sparked a fresh row.
Six months after the Kalapani uproar, Nepal is in the midst of yet another boundary row with the southern neighbour—this time over India building a road via Lipulekh, a territory that Nepal claims as its own.
As boundary disputes like these are a consistent feature of Nepal’s relationship with India, it is time for the authorities to seek a more lasting and permanent solution, say foreign policy analysts.
Nepal’s boundary disputes with India are localised in four primary areas—Kalapani, Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Susta—but there are other sporadic issues due to the open border, a lack of demarcation, and close linkages between the citizens of both countries in the border areas.
Even the current dispute over Lipulekh is not new, given that Nepal was aware of the fact that India had been building a road via Lipulekh pass for the past 12 years, if Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s statements before the Parliamentary International Relations Committee on Sunday are anything to go by.
“We are not saying that the boundary dispute should be resolved now or tomorrow,” said Prakash Sharan Mahat, a former foreign minister. “Our only concern is that successive governments have not taken up this matter seriously. If every government had raised the issue with India on a priority basis, it would’ve been resolved much earlier.”
Analysts say that Nepal has three real options when dealing with India over the border—seeking international arbitration, deploying the military to secure areas, or pursuing a diplomatic approach.
At Sunday’s meeting of the Parliamentary State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, a number of parliamentarians asked the government to pursue international arbitration in the boundary dispute with India, but the proposal was rejected by both Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali and ruling party chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal.
“The time has not come to go in that direction,” Dahal said at the meeting.
Gyawali echoed Dahal, saying that internationalisation would only invite more challenges when dealing with a friendly neighbour.
Although parliamentarians in the past have proposed increasing the presence of Nepali armed forces at the border as a response to Indian encroachment, political leaders have rejected that idea too, saying that will only aggravate the situation.
In November, several parliamentary committees had instructed the government to deploy security forces to Kalapani. In February, Defence Minister Ishwar Pokhrel even conducted an aerial inspection around Kalapani to assess the possibility of deploying security forces. No security personnel were ever deployed.
Given that these two options are not viable, the only alternative left is to pursue the issue diplomatically, which is what successive governments should have been doing, say former foreign ministry officials.
“In the last 12 years, very few governments have raised the boundary issue politically and diplomatically with India, so India thought that it was not in Nepal’s priority, which led them to move ahead with their own plans,” said Mahat, the former foreign minister.
India and Nepal had formed two permanent bodies at the Foreign Secretary and Surveyor General levels to settle the longstanding boundary disputes. Apart from these official bodies, Nepali chief district officers and Indian district magistrates are authorised to handle minor frictions along the open border.
The foreign secretary-level body, formed in 2014 by the Nepal-India Joint Commission at the Foreign Minister level, is mandated to resolve boundary disputes in Susta and Kalapani. The Surveyor General level mechanism, also formed by the same commission, is mandated to construct and repair boundary pillars, clearance of ‘no man’s land’, and prepare a list of issues related to the cross-holding of properties and other technical matters.
Since being formed, the secretary-level body has not met a single time, which can largely be attributed to a governmental failure to accord priority to the meeting, say analysts.
A diplomatic approach is necessary, but all disputes cannot be dealt with in a similar manner, say analysts and officials.
The Lipulekh dispute currently involves encroachment in order to build a link road to Mansarovar in Tibet, necessitating the presence of China in discussions, said Dahal.
“The present dispute in Lipulekh is a trilateral issue,” Dahal said on Sunday at the parliamentary committee. “Since India and China agreed to develop this route, there must be an agreement between Nepal, India and China.”
The Kalapani issue is more difficult as it involves the presence of the Indian military. According to Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa, who also spoke at Sunday’s parliamentary committee meeting, the political leadership sometime after 1962 allowed India to station its security forces in Kalapani and now their numbers are in the thousands, making it very difficult to remove them.
The disputes over Limpiyadhura and Susta concern the actual demarcation of the boundary. While Nepal claims all land east of the Mahakali river, as per the Sugauli Treaty, India claims that the source of the Mahakali river lies east of Limpiyadhura and does not fall within Nepal’s territory.
In Susta, which lies in the southern district of Nawalparasi, the Nepal-India boundary was agreed upon to be the Narayani (Gandak) river. But the river has changed course, leading to disputes over how much land now belongs to Nepal and India.
The Lipulekh issue has promoted both sides to issue statements and rebuttals, but according to Foreign Ministry officials, Nepal will not be seeking a piecemeal approach this time around.
In its statement on Saturday objecting to India’s opening of the rolad link via Lipulekh, the Foreign Ministry, referring to India’s inclusion of Kalapani within its borders, said the government of Nepal twice proposed dates for a meeting of the foreign secretaries of the two countries, as mandated by their leaders.
“It is still awaiting a response from India,” the ministry stated.
Hours later, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement, saying it had “seen the press release dated May 9, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal pertaining to the inauguration of a road in India”.
“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,” said India.
It was for the first time, since the Kalapani issue emerged, India has acknowledged the calls for talks.
“Both sides are also in the process of scheduling Foreign Secretary level talks which will be held once the dates are finalised between the two sides after the two societies and governments have successfully dealt with the challenge of Covid-19 emergency,” said India’s Ministry of External Affairs.
An official at the Foreign Ministry also said that Nepal will seek a long-term solution to the dispute once the Covid-19 crisis is over.
“But that will take more time, possibly years,” the official told the Post wishing not to be named given the sensitivity of the matter.
But that is easier said than done, say foreign policy analysts, given the trust deficit between Nepal and both its neighbours.
“The Nepal government has failed to protect its lands and this new episode shows we are running on a trust deficit with both India and China,” said former foreign minister Ramesh Nath Pandey. “Without restoring confidence with both our neighbours, this particular border row is not going to be resolved. The only approach here is to initiate a credible diplomatic effort.”
kathmandupost.com
As seeking international arbitration or deploying armed forces could only further complicate matters, better solution is a diplomatic approach, they say.
By Anil Giri
Published at : May 11, 2020
Updated at : May 11, 2020 08:00
Kathmandu
Inauguration by New Delhi of this road in Nepal’s western frontier has sparked a fresh row.
Six months after the Kalapani uproar, Nepal is in the midst of yet another boundary row with the southern neighbour—this time over India building a road via Lipulekh, a territory that Nepal claims as its own.
As boundary disputes like these are a consistent feature of Nepal’s relationship with India, it is time for the authorities to seek a more lasting and permanent solution, say foreign policy analysts.
Nepal’s boundary disputes with India are localised in four primary areas—Kalapani, Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Susta—but there are other sporadic issues due to the open border, a lack of demarcation, and close linkages between the citizens of both countries in the border areas.
Even the current dispute over Lipulekh is not new, given that Nepal was aware of the fact that India had been building a road via Lipulekh pass for the past 12 years, if Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s statements before the Parliamentary International Relations Committee on Sunday are anything to go by.
“We are not saying that the boundary dispute should be resolved now or tomorrow,” said Prakash Sharan Mahat, a former foreign minister. “Our only concern is that successive governments have not taken up this matter seriously. If every government had raised the issue with India on a priority basis, it would’ve been resolved much earlier.”
Analysts say that Nepal has three real options when dealing with India over the border—seeking international arbitration, deploying the military to secure areas, or pursuing a diplomatic approach.
At Sunday’s meeting of the Parliamentary State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, a number of parliamentarians asked the government to pursue international arbitration in the boundary dispute with India, but the proposal was rejected by both Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali and ruling party chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal.
“The time has not come to go in that direction,” Dahal said at the meeting.
Gyawali echoed Dahal, saying that internationalisation would only invite more challenges when dealing with a friendly neighbour.
Although parliamentarians in the past have proposed increasing the presence of Nepali armed forces at the border as a response to Indian encroachment, political leaders have rejected that idea too, saying that will only aggravate the situation.
In November, several parliamentary committees had instructed the government to deploy security forces to Kalapani. In February, Defence Minister Ishwar Pokhrel even conducted an aerial inspection around Kalapani to assess the possibility of deploying security forces. No security personnel were ever deployed.
Given that these two options are not viable, the only alternative left is to pursue the issue diplomatically, which is what successive governments should have been doing, say former foreign ministry officials.
“In the last 12 years, very few governments have raised the boundary issue politically and diplomatically with India, so India thought that it was not in Nepal’s priority, which led them to move ahead with their own plans,” said Mahat, the former foreign minister.
India and Nepal had formed two permanent bodies at the Foreign Secretary and Surveyor General levels to settle the longstanding boundary disputes. Apart from these official bodies, Nepali chief district officers and Indian district magistrates are authorised to handle minor frictions along the open border.
The foreign secretary-level body, formed in 2014 by the Nepal-India Joint Commission at the Foreign Minister level, is mandated to resolve boundary disputes in Susta and Kalapani. The Surveyor General level mechanism, also formed by the same commission, is mandated to construct and repair boundary pillars, clearance of ‘no man’s land’, and prepare a list of issues related to the cross-holding of properties and other technical matters.
Since being formed, the secretary-level body has not met a single time, which can largely be attributed to a governmental failure to accord priority to the meeting, say analysts.
A diplomatic approach is necessary, but all disputes cannot be dealt with in a similar manner, say analysts and officials.
The Lipulekh dispute currently involves encroachment in order to build a link road to Mansarovar in Tibet, necessitating the presence of China in discussions, said Dahal.
“The present dispute in Lipulekh is a trilateral issue,” Dahal said on Sunday at the parliamentary committee. “Since India and China agreed to develop this route, there must be an agreement between Nepal, India and China.”
The Kalapani issue is more difficult as it involves the presence of the Indian military. According to Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa, who also spoke at Sunday’s parliamentary committee meeting, the political leadership sometime after 1962 allowed India to station its security forces in Kalapani and now their numbers are in the thousands, making it very difficult to remove them.
The disputes over Limpiyadhura and Susta concern the actual demarcation of the boundary. While Nepal claims all land east of the Mahakali river, as per the Sugauli Treaty, India claims that the source of the Mahakali river lies east of Limpiyadhura and does not fall within Nepal’s territory.
In Susta, which lies in the southern district of Nawalparasi, the Nepal-India boundary was agreed upon to be the Narayani (Gandak) river. But the river has changed course, leading to disputes over how much land now belongs to Nepal and India.
The Lipulekh issue has promoted both sides to issue statements and rebuttals, but according to Foreign Ministry officials, Nepal will not be seeking a piecemeal approach this time around.
In its statement on Saturday objecting to India’s opening of the rolad link via Lipulekh, the Foreign Ministry, referring to India’s inclusion of Kalapani within its borders, said the government of Nepal twice proposed dates for a meeting of the foreign secretaries of the two countries, as mandated by their leaders.
“It is still awaiting a response from India,” the ministry stated.
Hours later, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement, saying it had “seen the press release dated May 9, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal pertaining to the inauguration of a road in India”.
“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,” said India.
It was for the first time, since the Kalapani issue emerged, India has acknowledged the calls for talks.
“Both sides are also in the process of scheduling Foreign Secretary level talks which will be held once the dates are finalised between the two sides after the two societies and governments have successfully dealt with the challenge of Covid-19 emergency,” said India’s Ministry of External Affairs.
An official at the Foreign Ministry also said that Nepal will seek a long-term solution to the dispute once the Covid-19 crisis is over.
“But that will take more time, possibly years,” the official told the Post wishing not to be named given the sensitivity of the matter.
But that is easier said than done, say foreign policy analysts, given the trust deficit between Nepal and both its neighbours.
“The Nepal government has failed to protect its lands and this new episode shows we are running on a trust deficit with both India and China,” said former foreign minister Ramesh Nath Pandey. “Without restoring confidence with both our neighbours, this particular border row is not going to be resolved. The only approach here is to initiate a credible diplomatic effort.”
Boundary issues with India require a lasting solution that addresses all disputes, say analysts
As seeking international arbitration or deploying armed forces could only further complicate matters, better solution is a diplomatic approach, they say.