After India and China started resuming the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage through Nepal's Lipulekh pass, Nepal has sent diplomatic notes to both countries. Although Nepal has sent notes to both these countries repeatedly regarding the issue of this region, the encroachment on Nepali soil has not stopped. Instead, they have been increasing their activities one after another.

It has become clear that both countries have ignored Nepal's sensitivity and repeatedly expressed concerns. Such a situation is not suitable for countries with shared borders and historical relations. Also, countries that are moving towards the goal of becoming a world power cannot move forward by ignoring the interests and concerns of neighboring countries.

Therefore, India and China should understand the diplomatic notes sent by Nepal repeatedly in a sensitive manner. This issue should be resolved based on the evidence available to their side. In the past, there was delay and confusion in sending diplomatic notes, this time the government has taken a positive initiative by sending them immediately. Other steps should also be taken as needed. Only through positive efforts will relations between neighboring countries move forward with trust, cooperation, and collaboration.

After the Indian army settled in Kalapani, the area west of it is now under Indian occupation. But Nepal has many evidences such as the Sugauli Treaty of 1816 and the subsequent supplementary treaty, the map drawn up by British-India until 1860, the list of voters for the parliamentary general elections of 2015, and the land tax paid until the 2030s.

Similarly, the international practice of separating the main river also strengthens Nepal's claim that the source of the Mahakali (Kali River) is Limpiyadhura, and the Sugauli Treaty makes it clear that the territory east of the Mahakali belongs to Nepal. But after the war between China and India in 1962, the defeated India stationed its army in Kalapani. Due to the then political situation and the weak ability to maintain easy access to that geography, the issue of removing the Indian army was not a priority for Nepal. And, it remained under Indian occupation for a long time. However, the area cannot be India's on the basis of long-term occupation.

India and China are aware that Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani are Nepal's territory. Nepal has also conveyed this issue through diplomatic notes several times. This means that Nepal disagrees with the agreements and activities being made by India and China connecting Nepali land.

However, it is unfair for both countries to ignore it. It may be that India and China are guided by strong commercial interests and want to strengthen their relations. They have the freedom to do so, but not by using Nepal's land arbitrarily. The trend of ignoring Nepal's diplomatic notes and making agreements and activities connecting Nepal's land every few years should end. They must listen to Nepal's concerns.

When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited China for the first time in 2015, an agreement was reached to 'trade through Lipulekh'. Similarly, during the visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to India on 2 and 3 Bhadra, an agreement was reached to open border trade between the two countries in talks with his Indian counterpart S. Jaishankar.

In the meantime, India had unilaterally released its map including Nepal's territory. It had dug a road. For this reason, Nepal also amended its constitution and updated the map to include the area up to Limpiyadhura. And, this issue has become not only a geographical sensitivity of Nepal but also a constitutional issue.

On the other hand, China has also been informed that Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani areas belong to Nepal. However, it has also become a partner in Indian strategy. China, which used to show generosity for discussions when making border agreements and treaties with Nepal, is becoming more powerful today, but it is not appropriate to become harsh and not try to see anything beyond its own interests.

Nepal is ready at all times to address the interests of both neighbors. Be it commitment to the One China policy or extra vigilance to ensure that criminal activities do not occur using the southern border, Nepal has prioritized the interests of its neighbors.

But if both countries ignore Nepal's repeated concerns on the same issue and indulge in forceful action, then a relationship based on trust cannot be maintained. Such a relationship cannot be warm and cordial. Such a situation does not benefit all three countries. Again, this is not a debate based on the concept of whether a country is small or big, developed or developing. It is a question of sovereignty. It is also a question of finding a specific basis for relations between neighbors. India and China cannot continue to forcefully ignore Nepal's concerns.

The conclusion is that there can be many disputes between countries. They should be resolved through discussions. Various mechanisms have been prepared to resolve regular disputes. For example, Nepal and India agreed to form a mechanism of foreign secretaries of the two countries in 2014 to resolve the issue of the Kalapani region. But India has not yet been ready to convene a meeting of the mechanism.