A serious political and diplomatic wave has been created after the unexpected and much-discussed agreement between neighboring India and China to use Lipulek, the northwestern land of Nepal, as a trade channel. Such an agreement reached on August 19 during the visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to India has seriously affected the geographical integrity, sovereignty, independence and national security of Nepal.

In a statement published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last Wednesday, the day after the much-controversial agreement, Nepal responded in a diplomatic style by publicizing the view that Limpiyadhura, Lipulek and Kalapani east of the Mahakali River are an integral part of Nepal. But not even a few hours after Nepal's statement was published, the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued another statement and challenged Nepal's opinion in a meaningful diplomatic manner. The unnatural scenario that suddenly developed on the second day after Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri returned after inviting him to visit India, there is a possibility that the much-awaited visit of Prime Minister KP Oli will also be overshadowed by the border dispute.

Due to the geopolitical, strategic and commercial importance of Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani, both India and China have been continuously trying to control the area or expand their strategic influence. Taking unfair advantage of the unstable government and weak diplomacy, both India and China have been making geopolitical bargains with each other in order to threaten the sovereignty of Nepal.

The reality of how two big and powerful countries are encroaching on the sovereignty of their neighbors when their strategic and commercial interests are aligned has been exposed through this episode. Nepal's political parties have been raging from Kalapani to Nalapani and from Limpiyadhura to Lipulek according to the political climate for power interests, political ambitions and public consumption. He has also been making exaggerated serial speeches of nationalism to cultivate

votes. But what policy, strategy and diplomacy will the mathematically powerful Congress-UML government follow to resolve such a complex and sensitive border dispute? has been the subject of serious debate. 

What do historical documents, maps and evidence say?

The Sugauli Treaty between the then East India Company and Nepal on March 4, 1816 is the official document that determines the border between Nepal and India. After losing the war with the East India Company, Nepal has accepted the geographical boundaries through the treaty even though it lost a large territory. Limpiyadhura, Lipulek and Kalapani have been proved to be Nepalese lands by the Sugauli Treaty, the map of Nepal, the documents exchanged between Nepal and the East India Company, and international law.

Article 5 of the treaty states that the Kali river is a boundary river, a fact which India has also accepted. The map issued by the Survey of India in 1819, the map including Kumaon and Garhwal issued in 1827, the map of Western Province issued in 1830 and the updated map of Kumaon State issued in 1894 also show that Limpiyadhura is the source of the Kali river. A permanent settlement of the border dispute will be achieved after the agreement on the source of Kali river. The fact that Limpiyadhura is the source of the river Kali has been confirmed.

If talks and 'negotiation' are done based on the historical records, documents, maps, evidence and facts with Nepal, India will also be forced to accept the reality. But negotiators and government officials have been arguing that Nepal's claim is weak due to lack of sufficient records, documents, and evidence. But the map of Nepal, the Sugauli Treaty, correspondence and documents with the East India Company are not the official evidence? Nepal does not lack records, documents and evidence, but lacks the confidence and diplomatic skills to solve problems through diplomatic dialogue at the highest political and government levels. 

India's traditional vision?

The view of Nepal and India's Nepal policy have been debated for a long time. Nepal's perennial debate and controversy is that India views Nepal diplomatically, geopolitically, strategically, religiously, economically, and commercially. However, there has been an integral multifaceted and close relationship between Nepal and India since history. But when analyzing on the basis of India's policy, diplomacy and attitude from British-India until now, it seems that geopolitical, strategic and commercial dimensions have dominated till now.

It seems that strategic and military affairs are becoming dominant in Nepal's policy due to the fact that India is constantly raising security concerns, defense cooperation and the use of military and intelligence agencies in its relations with Nepal. After the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War and the People's Republic of China in 1949, the Himalayan Frontier Policy authorized by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru seems to be continuing even now. After Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister in 2014, the religious and cultural dimension also seems to have increased. 

Nepal's India policy and India's Nepal policy seem to be guided by opposite directions. Nepal wants to develop its relationship with India as a development partner based on the principle of universal equality. But India seems to be geopoliticizing Cold War-era geopolitical and strategic vision further. Likewise, it seems that the BJP government, which supports cultural nationalism, wants to make the religious-cultural dimension the main pillar of Nepal-India relations. Therefore, keeping in view such trends, attitudes and frequency, it is inevitable that Nepal should follow appropriate policy, diplomacy and strategy.

The height of the Nepal-India border dispute

However, this is not the first time that such an agreement has been reached between India and China. In 2015, when Indian Prime Minister Modi visited China, he agreed to use Lipulekh as a trade channel between India and China. The then government led by Sushil Koirala had sent a diplomatic note to both the countries expressing serious objection, while Prime Minister Koirala had expressed his disagreement with Indian Prime Minister Modi by telephone. Due to this, Koirala's visit to India, which had already been scheduled, was canceled after the relationship soured. China responded to the note in a diplomatic manner, albeit for formality. But India has not yet responded. 

On the other hand, on November 16, 2076, the controversy reached its climax after India annexed Nepali territory including Limpiyadhura, Lipulek and Kalapani and issued a new map. After Nepali land was annexed to India and the disputed map was issued, Nepal sent a diplomatic note expressing its objection and requested India to resolve the issue through high-level diplomatic dialogue. But India is showing serious diplomatic neglect by not even replying to the said note.

After India ignored the proposal and initiative to solve the problem through high-level diplomatic dialogue, Nepal also issued a new map including Limpiyadhura, Lipulek and Kalapani on 7th June 2077. Since then, there has been a war of words, accusations and disputes between Nepal and India. Nepal released a new map. However, the international community has not done as much diplomatic initiative as it should have done to gain the recognition of the new map. What could be a bigger misfortune for Nepal and Nepalis?

Due to the ongoing diplomatic bitterness between Oli and Modi, despite having sideline meetings in New York and Bangkok and exchanging formal-informal messages through facilitators, an atmosphere of trust has not been created. If there is no sudden development, there is little chance of achieving immediate diplomatic success through 'conventional' diplomacy and Nepal's initiative alone. Therefore, creating an environment for dialogue through 'unconventional' and 'smart' diplomacy is the need of the hour.

How was the Nepali border broken and how did the Indian military stay in Nepali land? It is natural to ask that question. But the historical fact is that King Mahendra, who is portrayed as a 'nationalist' and a 'guardian of nationalism', gave permission to India to set up a military barracks in Kalapani on Nepali land in 1962.

Panchayat-era diplomat Bhesh Bahadur Thapa has revealed this reality in his book 'Rashtra-Pararashtra: Ekatntra to Republikam'. King Mahendra, who overthrew the democratic system on 1st December 2017 and imposed autocratic panchayat system, compromised with the sovereignty and geographical integrity of Nepal in order to gain India's support for his autocratic and authoritarian power. That is, King Mahendra exchanged autocratic monarchy with sovereignty. That is why Nepal's border dispute with India has escalated.

China's dual character 

Northern neighbor China has agreed on cross-border trade with India from Lipulekh, contrary to the border protocol with Nepal. China has accepted Lipulek, Kalapani region as part of Nepal in the renewed boundary protocol in 1988. This is the document that still exists regarding the border between Nepal and China. It is to be remembered that a border treaty was signed between Nepal and China in 1961 and a border protocol was signed in 1962.

Not only that, in the new map released by China in 2023, Limpiyadhura, Lipulek and Kalapani were marked as Indian territories. But China has agreed with India without even informing Nepal against the border protocol signed by itself. Why such a contradictory role? Is this the view of China towards Nepal? Is this the approach to geographical integrity, sovereignty and independence of neighboring small countries?

However, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has given a diplomatic explanation from Pakistan, claiming that the agreement between India and China is not against third countries and third countries will not be affected. Analyzing that the friendship between India and Russia has strengthened due to the customs duties imposed on India, US President Donald Trump has expressed a meaningful opinion that the tension with China is also decreasing. Last Tuesday, Wang Yi reached Pakistan via Afghanistan after meeting Prime Minister Modi. It seems that both India and China are re-intentioned to develop Lipulek as a trade port due to the geopolitical reasons that the dispute with the United States regarding the increase in trade and customs duties is intensifying. Therefore, the reality has been reconfirmed that the approach of both neighbors towards Nepal is only for geopolitical, strategic and commercial interests. 

Learning from BP 

There was a border dispute with China during the then Prime Minister BP Koirala's tenure (from 13 May 2016 to 1 December 2017). Both countries have been claiming the world's highest peak, known as Everest in Nepal and Chomalongma in China. But BP has done long political, diplomatic and technical homework since he became the prime minister with a view to resolving the border dispute with China. During his state visit to China in 1960, BP had repeated long dialogues and intensive discussions with Prime Minister Chou En Lai for the purpose of resolving the border dispute. But although the dialogue was positive, they did not reach a concrete conclusion.

BP adopted the strategic diplomacy of communicating with the powerful leader Mao, understanding the psychology and political reality that Chou En Lai could not decide alone on a complex issue like the border. As per BP's wishes, a summit meeting was held between BP and Mao at midnight on March 18, 1960. In the historic meeting, there was a detailed discussion on the border dispute as well as the multifaceted aspects of Nepal-China relations.

After BP confirmed that Mt Everest is Nepali land by submitting historical documents, records and evidence along with the map of Nepal, Mao finally agreed. Thus the border dispute was settled forever and the border agreement was signed on March 21 during BP's visit to China. In fact, Mao and Chou En Lai's flexibility and BP's superior diplomatic skills played a major role in resolving the Everest border dispute. Therefore, the BP-Mao dialogue and BP's visit to China are considered milestones in terms of resolving the Everest border dispute.

The document of the historic dialogue between BP and Mao has been published in the book "Mao Zedong on Diplomacy" published by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1994 (from pages 302 to 307). The book is an integrated document of Mao's 160 speeches, opinionated articles, interviews, high-level dialogues with heads of state and government from 1937 to 1974. It has been confirmed that the dialogue was not only from the point of view of resolving the Everest dispute, but also from the point of view of long-term Nepal-China relations. Therefore, it is the need of today for Oli to learn from BP's high diplomatic skills during his upcoming visit to China and India to create a positive environment for solving the current border dispute. 

now the role in Nepal & NBSP;

first, if the government is committed to resolve the border disputes and honest, the general public has to send the common views of the government to resolve disputes and be honest. According to the news published published published, published published, published published by News, published in Kantipur, has already sent diplomatic notes.

if sent, the government has not given public public information, why? But now that not only 'thord penalty note' is not just about the Indian Prime Minister Modi and Chinese Prime Minister Li Chi Shiyang, "Chinese Parson Diponic note '. BP has sent a fash peasons' to resolve the borders dispute with India and the purpose of India. Similarly, in 1960, the Chinese Army was killed by Chinese Army Bomb Prasad Bokcota and a serious objections after attacking the general public, the Prime Minister Chau N. Note 'Fast Pson Ni.

, the government should prepare an official and integrated documentation of international relations and limits and limitations of international laws. The group should establish a report prepared by profound study and documentation based on maps, records and documents as a documentation of common and national consensus. & Nbsp;

Third, the government should use all diplomatic strengths and energy to both India and China on the basis of the documentation. Prime Minister Oli and the Foreign Minister Ruja Deuba should play a leading role in resolving disputes through disagree and Chinese aging. While visiting President Modi, the President's Commission Connection in 15-16 to attend India's Summit organization and dialogue, it is necessary to play such a role while dialogue. In the realization of the Siddhartha Gautam, Oli and Modi receive divorcies to improve bilateral relations? & Nbsp;