Bipin Adhikari's introduction is basically as a constitutionalist. He has been a legal advisor to various UN agencies including United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

 He was also a member of the task force for the investigation of important documents including the entire document of the Sugauli Treaty formed by the government in 2077. After working for four months, the committee submitted evidence to the government to claim that Kalapani along with Limpiyadhura belongs to Nepal. The report has not been made public yet. China and India have agreed to open bilateral trade through Lipulekh Pass on August 3. There is intense opposition in Nepal regarding this agreement. Durga Dulal's edited part of the conversation for Kantipur daily in this Serofero :

• What does the Sugauli Treaty say about the Nepal-India border?

This is a technical topic. I am not a surveyor or an engineer. Not even a geographer. So I'm just putting the information on the law. I got an opportunity to work in the 'Task Force' on behalf of the Government of Nepal. It definitely taught some information and facts. The report given by the 'Task Force' has been submitted to the government. It has become the property of the state. It is not appropriate for me to say that it is state property. It is appropriate for the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister to speak about those matters. It has to do with privacy. I don't want to comment on those things. 

But I am also a citizen and a person who likes to study. On that basis, the Sugauli Treaty signed between Nepal and British India on March 4, 1816 is very clear regarding Nepal's borders. In it, there is no doubt about the western border of Nepal. Article 5 of the treaty states that the King of Nepal renounces his claim to all the states west of the Kali River in favor of himself and his heirs and successors.

• What does that mean?

In the campaign of unification of Nepal, Kumaon, Garhwal and other areas in the western region of Kali were integrated into the Gorkha state. According to Article 5 of the treaty, even though Nepal has integrated the territory west of the Kali River, it will no longer have a claim. In other words, the Kali river also belongs to Nepal, and it is said that Nepal (the then Gorkhas) will not claim the territory to the west. That land is said to belong to India. The legal interpretation is that the boundary river is the Kali river but only the territory west of it belongs to India. As this is mentioned in the treaty, all the territories east of the Kali river belong to Nepal.

In the Sugauli Treaty, the Kali river also belongs to Nepal, it is said that Nepal will not claim the territory west of it, the territory west of the river is said to belong to India. Kali river flows from there. Therefore, all the areas east of the head of the Kali river and the upside down 'river course' are Nepalese. That is what the law says. This is what the treaty says. This is a treaty written at a time when the customs and technology of today were nothing. What it has written, this must be till today. According to this, the Kali river that flows from Limpiyadhura is of Nepal. Therefore, the treaty explains that all the areas east of Limpiyadhura belong to Nepal.

When you interpret Article 5 of the treaty according to law, you said that the Kali River and the territory before it belong to Nepal. But why is India creating a dispute on the border?

• Limpiyadhura, where the river Kali originates. The main flow area of ​​Kali River, Lipulek Bhanjyang, Kalapani etc. should be considered as Nepal. Now the Indian government is using it as its territory, it is wrong. India is using it as a military presence and trading zone. It is also natural for the Nepal government to take this as an encroachment of Nepal's land. Sugauli Treaty was signed in 1816. Although it was in 1815, the signature was only later. It's been almost 210 years today.

The survey was initially conducted by the Government of British India. The report and maps of that survey take Limpiyadhura as the source of Kali River. There is no dispute about the origin of Kali river in those maps and surveys. The head of Limpiyadhura is believed to be the source of the river Kali. Gradually, British India's knowledge of the geography of the region increased, and it began to be interpreted politically without reaching the region. This seems to create ambiguity. But no matter how much ambiguity there is, that area was continuously under the administration of Nepal, administered by Nepalese and the understanding of the people there was that our country is Nepal (Gorkha).

The strategic and strategic importance of this region started after the war between India and China. India was very worried about this land at that time. In this situation, Nepal had a weak government. Ambitious people were in power in Nepal too. India was also anxious as well as ambitious about the issue of war. Due to the weak government, India was able to easily convince Nepal to take these areas. Nepal also let India use it. The government of Nepal could not say no at that time.

The military presence of Indians in the region was strengthened. On the contrary, the Nepalese did not go back. This is the reason why India was able to do what it wanted in that area. Based on this, India is now claiming that we have been using this channel commercially since 1954. There is no dispute that India is using it commercially. But is it enough to claim that this area belongs to him on this basis? no Depending on the use, depending on the army can be used as mine? The country belongs to someone else, but it does not belong to India just because I have a military presence, I am strong and I have planted a flag.

When there is a dispute about something, it should be resolved. Sorting is according to the process we have. Why is India not ready to come to that process? First of all, you have to accept the historical facts and be prepared to come to the process of sorting them out! When we are sitting in the conversation, we will say 'let's talk about it now'. And how can it be solved by "selectively" trying to solve it only where there is no strategic interest of the Indian government? Don't just look for solutions in the usual places. In areas of strategic importance, solutions should be sought first.

There is a lot of evidence from Nepal about the dispute in Limpiyadhura area, India should be ready to sit and discuss it and accept it first. We have suffered losses in all areas where there are border disputes with India. We have given it to India. The Sugauli Treaty was also cut off. Why is it written in Article 5 that even though the Gorkhalis already belong to the unification of Nepal, future descendants will not claim the area west of the Kali river? We have lost in this too. Looking at it this way, Nepal is a laughingstock. This is what those who saw it said. This is what experts are saying from border area people. 

The maps available at that time were made by British India, not us. We didn't have maps back then and we didn't have people to make them. How can the map made by British India at that time be wrong now? We only did 'guard' at the border. It is mentioned that the border stopped Prithvi Narayan Shah from buying weapons. So the border is never open and never was. If it was open, why did it stop?

may have been open for the movement of people, at that time not only Nepal, but the border conditions with all countries including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh were the same. The walls were built by kings in their palaces. They may have built such a wall to protect their lives. No one in the country had built a wall. Border protection is only done by building a wall?

How much does the report prepared by you strengthen the claim that the territory from Limpiyadhura to Kalapani also belongs to Nepal? 

As I said above, only the government can comment on the committee's report. But based on the evidence I have received and seen and met, the maps made by British India of the Sugauli Treaty are the official maps. All maps made thereafter are one-sided. Because this is what India has adapted. Now the agreement that we are asking to be made, it will be bilateral. I don't know what you read. But when I was in school, Chukche was the only map. Lipulek, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura peaks were mentioned in those maps.

It's not too old either. But why is the beak missing from the textbook? The answer seems straightforward, the map is not made in Nepal. The textbook was not made in Nepal. People were also sold in Nepal. They were sold and the Chuche map was lost. Otherwise, when we read How did the Chuchhe map mentioned in the textbook disappear during your time? People buy and sell. Textbooks can be revised and made new, but the treaty is a 'document' signed between the two parties. This is a signature agreed upon by both parties.

It has been questioned whether Limpiyadhura is the source of Kali river or not. Indians have been saying that Limpiyadhura is not the source of Kali river. It is based on faulty logic and facts. Let's look at it simply, how can the tributary be considered as the source of the Kali River without considering the original source of the river? A hole is never opened. The banks of the river and its original source can still be traced.

What is the difference between Nepal's claim and Indian statement?

• Only technical people and surveyors can say this with certainty with data. I can interpret the treaty based on historical documents and legal basis. To see this more clearly we can take the example of river Saraswati mentioned in Vedic Sanatana Dharma. It was four thousand years ago. River Saraswati dried up at that time. It is now known where and how its edge was spread. When the river Saraswati flowed through this path and its source was found at this place, then it is not possible to find out the origin of the river Kali? Of course you can. Does India not know that? know India itself can trace the Saraswati River after 4000 years and can trace the source or head of Kali River which is still flowing. It is not possible to say that the Kali River has left its place, but it is possible to find out in which direction it was flowing during the Sugauli Treaty. If it can be discovered scientifically, why should another river be made?

India itself can find the Saraswati River after 4 thousand years, if it can be found which is the source or the head of the river Kali which is still flowing

basically the river does not leave its source and go to another place. Koshi, Gandaki or Mahakali have not left the mainstream. A scientific study of the 'river course' of the Kali river from the time of the Sugauli Treaty till now will reveal the reality. There is no information about any natural disaster that will change the shape of the area. The 'Hydrologic' and 'Geophysical' survey there can be done even now. It can be seen using 'remote sensing' technology. 210 years of 'Water River Course' can be seen from it. Many technologies have been developed in this. One can also study what are the 'paleo features' of Kali river. India itself has conducted such studies. He has the ability, in it. This can be used to test the accuracy of the map.

The first maps showed Chuchche up to Limpiyadhura. But there is no reason to make Nepal feel happy that Chuchche map should be changed. However, there is a reason for India. Because there are border disputes between India and China. There are also bilateral clashes from time to time. India understands that its 'location' will be an area of ​​strategic importance if it has to fight with China in the future. 

Bhanjyang is a consumption area for roads. It is quite understandable that India also wants to use it as this route. Lipulek Bhanjyang is also an area of ​​similar importance. This is something that China has accepted while demarcating with China that it belongs to Nepal. Not only that. There is no dispute about this matter. The only thing that has been disputed is that if only China and Nepal jointly declare which is the trilateral point, it would be unfair to India as well. Nepal did this with good intentions. Now India belongs to India as a whole, not because it belongs to me. We are also saying based on our historical sources, this is the territory of Nepal. Because Kali river is not a dream but a flowing river.

Even today, one can see with the naked eye where the water drains of the Kali river are, which is the original 'tributary' of the Kali river. If not, a third party can also be present. But we don't need to talk about third parties right now. Both neighbors are our good and strong friends. Both the countries have good and good relations. Instead, the three countries can get along technically, theoretically and historically. How many historical evidences are there? Nepal also has it, Indians have also collected it.  Claiming a

again is not creating evidence. Geography is the proof. There is no need to see a big deal in this. At that time, Nepal made a treaty with the British East India Company. We made the agreement without the existence of the present political India. All archives are with the UK, a contracting party at the time. We can use their archive. They are not discriminated as Nepal or India. Studying those materials can lead to objective and scientific evaluation. It had to be negotiated. The tradition of negotiating is ending. There are examples of India also resolving border issues through negotiations. If India has resolved border disputes with other neighbors like Nepal, it cannot be said that we will not agree.

Are you trying to say that the border dispute between India and Bangladesh resolved through negotiations can also be applied to Nepal?  is a

• . There was a bigger border dispute between India and Bangladesh than with Nepal. Looking at that, ours is a total of four beds. Theirs was too big. It was a problem created by historical wounds. India-Pakistan partition was a sad event for India. The borders between India and Bangladesh were also unscientific and impractical. The areas defined as borders were so difficult that they were not easily resolved. That's why it took so long. India supported it, Bangladesh also made its point clear. Whatever was the Bangladeshi claim, India gave way. Indian claim was denied by Bangladesh. The

had awkward areas at times. There was India on all sides and Bangladesh in the middle. There was Bangladesh on all sides and India in the middle. They even solved such a difficult problem by 'give and take'. Bangladesh and India settled the land border in 2015. India has played a leading role in this.

In the case of Nepal, it is a dispute over a small territory. India is Mahabharata. He doesn't care about two or four beds. Our geography is different, India needs to understand this. India gave back 111 enclaves to Bangladesh, Bangladesh also gave back 51 enclaves. India did not even claim compensation from Bangladesh. It shows that India 

can be solved if desired. In the case of Nepal also, India should negotiate for a solution according to this model and Nepal also wants this. It was not politicized. Because of the border agreement, it is not a feeling anymore, the agreement has worked. Now is the era of 'AI'. A 'smart border' can be established. There is no pressure like yesterday. It should be decided on a scientific basis through bilateral talks. Some of them seem to be on the Indian side, while others are on the Nepalese side. However, after sitting in the talks, we should start looking for a long-term solution. India and Bangladesh solved it by doing this. We can too.  Who is not ready to solve the

and dispute?  Nepal is always ready to resolve

• disputes. But India does not seem to want it. In order to remain in dispute, India also points to Kalapani as the main source of the river Kali. India has shown that the source of the Kali River is not the Limpiyadhura, but the Chahro, a tributary downstream of about 3600 meters near Kalapani, which is much lower. Even if you show it, you should not show it in such a way that you feel a little shy! It has been claimed that the original part of Limpiyadhura belongs to India, saying that it is the source of Mahakali river. This is completely false. The reason why India did this can be understood to be motivated by the intention to develop Limpiyadhura as a trading post.

It seems that Lipulek Bhanjang, which has greater strategic importance, has the intention of being able to enjoy it as he wants when it is facing India. It is not believable to show a small stream leaving the main stream and ignoring the watershed. Such a claim is weak. The place of origin of Kali is Limpiyadhura. Demarcation cannot be done without maintaining it. It's also about ownership. It should not be transacted. Usage is second. This also includes being a good neighbor.

Last time, India and China agreed to trade through Lipulek crossing. Similar attempts were made in the past. In this way, why do the two neighbors want to agree without informing Nepal? 

• India and China have agreed to make this region a trade channel. But not because of us. This is our land according to historical documents, we have rights over it. We have looked no further than the treaty. Relations between China and India have become complex and commercial. They have also fought wars and expanded trade. Politically, both India and China are not benefited by war with each other. They are trying to get closer because of US policies including tariffs. They have extended their hands to each other for business expansion. This has also increased the importance of this sector. They believe that they should get along with the nearest country rather than the foreign country. Along with their strategic interests, their commercial interests are also connected to this.

It looks like India is going to occupy Nepali land and China is supporting it. The two are our good neighbors but why would they behave like this?

• In the past, China has been saying that it understands the sensitivity of Nepal. But making a free agreement with India to use Nepal's land as a trade channel without Nepal's knowledge became a double standard. Where Nepal's presence is mandatory, there is no compromise. If you are looking for an option for a happy future for each other, you have to accept the alternative, that is jurisdiction. The two countries do not have the right to negotiate on Nepal's jurisdiction.

India had given back 111 enclaves to Bangladesh, Bangladesh had also given back 51 enclaves, this shows that India can resolve the Nepal-Saga border dispute if it wants to.

The claim we are making about Lipulek is not fiction. The Chinese side also knows this. The Chinese side also knows the water source of the big rivers. If the Chinese side says that Nepal and India can resolve this dispute and conclude a trade border agreement again, there may be further steps in the solution. Then we can bring this area into use keeping in mind India's security sensitivities. Nepal's sovereignty can be maintained.

Yesterday, the British may have made an agreement looking at an interest, but today's Britain has nothing to do with Lipulek. He can provide evidence on the Nepal-India border dispute by being neutral in the agreement made at that time. So let's bring all the evidence kept in the British Library, and let India and Nepal sit down and solve it. Let's keep the evidence, not ignore or suppress it. India should not have the intention to do everything in Nepal. Yesterday the Chinese were 'convinced' about relations and territory with Nepal, but now they are trying to be commercial. They are ignoring Nepal because of the business environment in India which has a large population. They cannot remain silent on the side of Nepal. China also has a lot of evidence. There is also a lot of literature on this topic. It can also be seen that it is mentioned.

We have been hearing that this land used to be in Nepal, but now it is in India. But we have not heard that any land that was in India is now in Nepal. It seems that Nepal is being laughed at. We are at the DPR stage of Kerung Kathmandu Railway with the help of China. This is why we have said that we will expand business in South Asia. We have also agreed on the BRI project. In such a situation, China needs to understand our importance and sensitivity.

What is the way forward?

• Nepal is not to be agitated, but to adopt gentle diplomacy. Since we have good relations with both countries, diplomatic talks should be held with both countries on this basis. Claims should be made and given based on historical evidence. For this, both parties should be ready to sit at the table. There is no reason why Nepal should give up its claim. But it is not in India's interest to do so. Nepal is also necessary for that. Even he cannot reach the top through deceitful politics. A region is not maintained by building a temple or by giving a job. Even the banks of the Saraswati River, which dried up four thousand years ago, can be traced, while the Mahakali River is still flowing. It can also be detected by satellite. If from all the evidence Nepal is not visible then Nepal should be ready to leave. But unfortunately there is division within Nepal.

Some intellectuals have said that since Nepal is a small country, we should not find excuses with India. I see journalism is also divided on this. It's not good. In the interests of Nepal, everyone should have the same opinion and have the same policy and speech. I have found our own people commenting on what Nango Pakho means to us. Vivek should speak on this.

Prime Minister is visiting both China and India. During the visit to China, there is a possibility that there will be a tripartite meeting with the Chinese and Indian heads of state. What benefit can be gained from such a meeting in the current dispute? 

• After China and India agreed to create a trade channel, Nepal had to protest. Did it too. Nepal has also sent diplomatic notes to both the countries and has made its position clear. This is the good part. This is information only. It is necessary to train the Nepalese people in this matter. The government should not 'compromise' with anyone on its 'issues'. Wherever there is a dispute, it should be gradually resolved and the relationship should be expanded. This principle belongs to the Chinese. Nepal can also talk based on the evidence they have. It is also a chance for Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who is on a visit to China, to keep the heads of both countries together and say that Lipulek belongs to Nepal and no agreement can be reached by keeping Nepal out. This is something that is included in the constitution of Nepal. 

The king could not raise it yesterday but the democracy did. This is an important issue for us as the Prime Minister represents the country. We should be able to say that we want to end it. It is also a rare opportunity for leaders of both countries to meet together. This is not something to be solved at the joint secretary level or at the soldier level. A task force should work and be finalized by the top political leadership. The Prime Minister should raise the issue that Nepal is not satisfied with the agreement between the two leaders of India and China if they meet together, or if they do not meet alone.