Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli held a dialogue with the Chinese President Xi Jinping's team, keeping the power partner and the Congress vice-chairman Purna Bahadur Khadka in the right seat. In that dialogue, he expressed Nepal's concern, concern and protest regarding the scrapping of the territory claimed by Nepal in the trade expansion agreement between India and China. Prime Minister Oli registered a complaint or objection amid the coincidence of Nepal's Prime Minister's delegation going to China and meeting with the President there, while the agreement reached between the two neighbors regarding the territory that Nepal is pressuring. As a result, Prime Minister Oli's bitter critics have once again become admirers in this case within Nepal. But the way Nepal is trying to use this case as a political issue, it has done the job of reminding various contexts and also creating doubts about the steps that seem to be good.

Naturally, the deadly internal consumption of the 'disaster' is the first

, as soon as the Prime Minister's statement in the meeting with President Xi came out in the media, suddenly the walls of the social media were filled with photographs of the Prime Minister with the Sanskrit verse 'Janni Janmbhumish Swargadapi Gariyasi'. Seeing the behavior of those UML leaders and workers who filled it like this, it seemed that somewhere the 372 hectares of land claimed by Nepal last time has been returned and Nepal's sovereignty has been established. At the same time, another statement was brought out by quoting Foreign Secretary Amrit Bahadur Rai saying that Chinese President Xi responded by saying this, and later he appeared online with the same quote.

The quote said to have been given by C is not mentioned anywhere in the statements or notes issued by the Government of Nepal and the Government of China, so it has itself become another unbelievable propaganda or subject to be suspected . In the organization of such a big festival, it is not something that can be thought of in normal circumstances that Tallin C will respond in the manner quoted by Secretary Rai about his forced entry into the bilateral affairs of Nepal and India. Moreover, it is not only possible that the president of China, who is adept at weighing the effect and impact of what he says and who is also seeking India's support in the race of superpowers, to easily respond to this bilateral case in which India is also a party. After the Nepalese team, Xi's commitment to speedy implementation of the agreements reached with the Indian Prime Minister in another similar meeting with the Indian Prime Minister did not seem credible. If Xi said what he did not say, it is due to the personnel of the diplomatic field, it indicates that China will not be happy in this case. 

Actually, the dispute between Limpiyadhura region from Kalapani through Lipulekh is a dispute between Nepal and India. Nepal's complaint or objection to China is Nepal's pressure and India's counter-pressure and 'disputed' area, how did China deliberately agree to agree and compromise with India for its trade facilitation ? In saying yes . What is clear here is that apart from this question, China's support has not been sought or is about to be sought regarding the border dispute between Nepal and India. It also means that if Nepal, which is between two powerful neighbors, starts looking for the support or participation of another country in a dispute or issue with one of its neighbors, then that issue or dispute will not be resolved, but it will become more complicated . For this, it is enough to reflect on the path shown by Mr. Vishweshwar Prasad Koirala, the founder of the Congress and the first elected Prime Minister of Nepal, who is the charioteer of the Oli government today and remembers that it is eternal. During the time when Koirala was the Prime Minister, when there was a dispute between China and Nepal about Mount Everest, the matter was discussed in Delhi and the then Prime Minister of India, Nehru, responded to it. When Nehru announced that he would counter China's claims on Nepal's territory by taking point number two of the 1950 treaty between Nepal and India, Koirala was not happy that he supported it. Instead, giving an immediate response, this is a bilateral matter between Nepal and China, it will be resolved through bilateral agreement, there is no need for discussion and interest of India or anyone else. Nehru agreed with the spirit and substance of Koirala's response, admitted the misunderstanding and corrected the statement. This was a very mature response and initiative by Koirala, which not only put pressure on China, but also conveyed the message that Koirala is not raising this issue for internal consumption, but really wants to solve it. As a result, during his one-and-a-half-year rule, China was forced to accept Nepal's position on this issue and move towards a peaceful and amicable solution. The Nepal-China border treaty is the result of that initiative.

What is the meaning of Oli-Putin meeting?

Another weakness from the Prime Minister this time is the sideline meeting with Russian President Putin. Participating in the military parade and show of force celebrating 'against the Japanese empire' amid close Japan-Nepal relations was itself an ambiguity in Nepal's foreign policy, while the official public diplomatic immaturity of the photos of the Putin-Oli meeting . Here the question arises, can it be said that the Nepali state and those who praise these steps are now politically with the imperialists? The tricky question has been answered.

Putin may be higher in terms of power on the world stage, but today he is a terrible messiah of neo-imperialism and a villain against world peace. As soon as he got the information that he would be there, nothing would have been damaged or Nepal would not have lost anything if he did not reach out to him. But it was planned to meet him like no one, to show respect and to bring out not only his picture but also the video of the conversation . As a relatively small and weak nation, it  In the context of the attacks, oppression and persecution that Ukraine is facing through Russia, Nepal has not only questioned the solidarity and support that Nepal has expressed in the past saying that 'we are with Ukraine', it has also given place to distrust Nepal's stance and demonstrated commitment in the world affairs. 

Among the two main wars going on in the world today, while Israel and its prime minister are being held guilty of the genocide in the Fifth Asia war, Nepal's nationalism is shaken or disturbed by looking at the situation where tens of millions of casualties have been caused by both sides in the Ukraine-Russia war . Its effect is reflected in the position that Putin, who is also the initiator of the war, is getting in China through the Prime Minister. The Nepali rights society, which demanded answers from Israel about the Nepalis kidnapped and disappeared by Hamas, has no response about Russia, which has illegally recruited many Nepalis into the army, kept them anonymous and ignorant, and refused to provide the data requested by the Nepalese state. Instead, it blames Ukraine for turning a blind eye and not capitulating to the small neighboring country, which is at war in response to initiatives to protect national independence and sovereign rights against the intentions of a powerful neighbor. Surprisingly, our intellectual community who raised questions before the Nepali journalists who visited Israel about the crisis of identity that Ukraine is facing in the neighborhood of a big country like Russia, some people try to hold Ukrainian President Zelensky guilty in this case. Due to Russia's attack on the Crimean Peninsula region of Ukraine in 2014 and Putin's vulture eye on Ukrainian territory due to the Russian troops stationed there, based on the idea of ​​Ukraine joining NATO for the security of the country by using its sovereignty, does Russia have the right to attack and commit genocide in Ukraine? The answer of Nepali nationalism is often seen in the fact that Ukraine should not have provoked Russia. And, the Nepali state questions the independence, sovereignty, national integrity, self-respect of Ukraine and says, Nepal's non-aligned foreign policy has been contrary. Non-alignment does not mean not taking the side of warring nations, not being a rabble against injustice or not giving moral support to the plea or call for justice . In other words, neutrality is not absolute. Nepal's own situation and location defines and determines neutrality at the cost of national interest, policies and decisions should be made keeping in mind the national interest, and one cannot turn a blind eye or forget one's own self even in relation to others who are compatible with one's situation. If so, Nepal cannot and should not do anything other than the continuity of the past in its foreign policy. If asked, it has become a tradition in Nepal to try to escape by making the questioner look like someone's agent without having to reason and argue about any context and justification. Where has Russia come from because of its ideology, but the Communist Party still thinks that Russia does not make mistakes and that it is also a power nation - it is not a feeling, it does not accept the reality that it treats us according to its interests . Therefore, any effort without public diplomacy of Russia is so successful in Nepal that even the fact that Nepal's request to become a member of the United Nations was vetoed by questioning Nepal's independent status has been forgotten.

Overall, as mentioned above, the complaint made by Prime Minister Oli, who led the Nepali team in this visit and meeting with the Chinese counterpart, is not unusual. Nepal's disagreement and dissatisfaction with the India-China agreement has been institutionally recorded. But the demarcation of that territory is a bilateral issue between Nepal and India and its solution should be in bilateral discussions. Which is also accepted by the response to the diplomatic note sent by Nepal in 2017, 'Nepal-India agreement is acceptable to China'. If China and Nepal reiterated their 2017 response that 'the agreement between Nepal and India will be acceptable to them' this time as well, then this would also be positive in itself . On the issue of Kalapani area (from Kalapani to Lipilek via Limpiyadhura) there is an unprecedented national consensus in Nepal and the seriousness of this is well understood by the Indian leadership which has a harmonious and cordial relationship with Nepal. Our next requirement is to make the necessary preparations to make our arguments and facts-evidence meaningful and strong. However, due to time, context and coincidence, there is a danger that UML's one-party effort to internalize the situation in Nepal when the bilateral issue between Nepal-India reached a forum held in a third country may be counterproductive rather than result-oriented. In this case, the past experience says, the UML leadership is used to raising the issue of controversy, stirring up and inciting the masses, escalating the issue, and gradually leaving it in a situation where it cannot be resolved. A natural question may also arise that by exaggerating the issue and promoting it in a sense of victory, does that group mean that Nepal should not raise this issue with India or that India will become more irritated on the pretext that the bilateral issue has been diverted elsewhere by making propaganda and Nepal should not raise this issue immediately? On the one hand, this case will be weakened internally, and on the other hand, there may be a danger of diverting the topic of the dispute, refusing to discuss it, and prolonging the issue by saying that it has unnecessary internationalization of a neighboring bilateral issue that has harmonious relations in other respects . But what both should think about is that this border deadlock between Nepal and India, which have such a close relationship, is neither in Nepal's interest nor India's. Rather than a