Border Imbroglio: India’s sensitivity, Nepal’s sovereignty, and China’s strategy

As the border imbroglio between New Delhi and Kathmandu takes the center stage, former diplomats, Intel officers, and regional experts call for careful handling of the situation while keeping an eye on the disruptive actor from the east, twiddling its thumbs for instigating fractious diplomacy

New Delhi:  The relations between the Himalayan neighbors – India and Nepal who share an open border have not always been amicable. However, the oscillating relation hit the extreme end in November 2019 after New Delhi issued a new ‘political map’, which split the state of Jammu and Kashmir into federal territories. 

While New Delhi’s handling of the status of Kashmir has riled its traditional enemy, Pakistan, the map also irked Kathmandu by including a different swath of the disputed territory of Kalapani – an area where the borders of China, Nepal, and India intersect. 

The situation worsened over Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurating a newly built Indian road in Pithoragarh district  of Uttarakhand, up to Lipulekh pass on the China border on 8 May. This triggered uproar in Nepal against the road construction and the demand for a new political map of Kathmandu’s border.

As the border imbroglio between New Delhi and Kathmandu takes the center stage, former diplomats, intelligence officers, and regional experts speaking at a webinar ‘India-Nepal Relations: Kalapani, Lipulekh, Domestic Politics’ organized by the Central University of Jammu (CUJ) on 25 May counseled careful handling of the situation.

Addressing the bilateral politico-diplomatic scenario, the speakers also underlined the need to keep an eye on China – the disruptive actor, lurking in the vicinity twiddling its thumbs for instigating fractious diplomacy.

Defending his nation from the rhetoric of a proxy state operating on behest of Beijing, Dr. Uddhab Pyakurel from the Kathmandu University voiced that India took China’s consent as it encroached inside Nepal.

While refuting the remark made by Indian Army Chief General MM Naravane, suggesting Nepal lodging the protesting on ‘someone else’s behest’, the Nepalese scholar said, “His (Army Chief) remarks triggered a reaction from Nepal. It prompted Nepal to push it (border dispute) forward. There is no Chinese hand in this at all. There is a deal between India and China on this territory as well as on the Tibetan lands as they want to expand trade routes via Lipulekh.”

Dr. Pyakurel, while accepting that the dispute between the two neighbors is being used to fan anti-India flames of nationalism in Nepal, he held New Delhi accountable for subsiding the issue.

“Nepal will use it domestically, but India should have been smarter in resolving the issue,” Dr. Pyakurel rationalized, as he questioned the unilateral decision taken by New Delhi to construct the border road, even with both governments recognizing the territory as an unresolved and controversial subject since 1960.

Interests and Objectives

Articulately canvassing the extensive history of the border dispute, Professor Sangeeta Thapliyal said that Nepal started making noise as its role and interests as a ‘trans-Himalayan link’ started getting a dent.

“With China and Nepal opening up their own trade passages, Nepal realized that it was fast losing interest in the region. Nepalese leadership started targeting this sensitive issue to gain mileage,” Thapliyal said while directing that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was weaponizing the dispute to regain his lost importance and position in the domestic political arena of Kathmandu and his party.

Thapliyal, who works on strategic issues concerning South Asia with a special reference to Nepal highlighted three objectives of Kathmandu for locking horns with New Delhi. Leverage in domestic politics by stirring anti-India sentiments, economic benefits and business lost especially in areas like Nepalgunj, and to uphold the Chinese objective in the region.

“The Chinese Embassy got involved in this political squabble as they have their own interest. The relationship works within a framework of Nepal talking about its sovereignty and India about its strategic interests. Both have to respect each other’s interests,” she said exhorting the Indian leadership to use the border dispute to reevaluate ties with Nepal.

Chinese Footprint on Himalayan Nation

Former Additional Secretary and seasoned China analyst Jayadeva Ranade accentuated on Beijing’s presence in Nepal and its catalyzing all domestic issues in his brief talk in the webinar.

He presented various accounts of understanding and working between Nepal and China which would counter India’s influence in the region. From covert operations to monitor activities on the Tibetan border between Nepalese security agencies and the Chinese Defense Attaché, to the establishment of over 35 Beijing-Kathmandu centers, and formation of an NGO with over $3 billion funds at disposal to develop the Lumbini region – the former RAW officer methodically traced the Chinese footprints in the Himalayan nation.

“Their (China) presence is a concern for India. The dispute is minor and India has a sterling record of resolving such issues. However, PM Oli is in debt to China, thus the revival of the issue, publication of the map is been carried out while India is grappling with the pandemic,” Ranade said while citing the limited and restricted nature of the Sino-Nepal relations.

Ranade added that Beijing has planned a web of surface and sub-terrain constructions in Nepal as part of its territorial expansion plan under the Belt and Road Initiative. He said that Lhasa-Kathmandu railway entails construction of 35 tunnels through the Himalayas which is very expensive. Nepal is not worth such expense as it is a very small market so the obvious intent is to access the India market, India’s northeast and Bhutan.

Miscalculated Negligence

Meanwhile, claiming that bilateral talks have not made any inroads, former diplomat Rakesh Sood held New Delhi accountable for failing to engage with Kathmandu. Sood, who was the Indian ambassador to Nepal between 2008 and 2011, said “The dialogue should have happened four to five months back, had they been sensitive towards the issue.”

Sood found support in the voice of veteran diplomat Suresh Goel who pointed out diplomatic negligence and political miscalculation on part of India for the strained relationship. “Our talks with Nepal need to be beyond historical aspects. Nepal has aspirations to grow, thus we need to take up talks on such lines,” Goel said.