Experts foresee a stalemate in Indo-Nepal relations

Could India have handled the territorial claim made by Nepal better? The area of the origin of the Kali river, which Kathmandu claimed included Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh. The claim came after Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated the Darchula-Lipulekh link road on May 20.

The Nepal Communist Party government of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli introduced the second constitution amendment bill in the Pratinidhi Sabha or the Lower House of Parliament on May 31 and it was passed on June 13, supported by all the parties, including the Nepali Congress.

Former professor of international studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University SD Muni, asked if India still has elbow room to deal with the issue, said “It will be difficult because it has been passed by the Nepalese parliament, and it will not be possible even for a new government to change the Nepalese position.”

Former foreign secretary Shyam Saran, who had also served as Indian ambassador in Kathmandu, feels it would be a stalemate because the Indian forces are stationed there. The Nepalese would not be able to enforce their claim.

Both Mr Muni and Mr Saran say that the Nepalese claim is weak, and the historical and documentary evidence is strongly in favour of India, implying that India has nothing to fear if the matter goes before an international body. Mr Muni feels that India has been tardy in rolling out the evidence that makes a strong case for India.

Having said that, both agree that India does not handle its smaller neighbours well enough, though China's increasing influence in Nepal is a crucial factor. Mr Muni says that India is “arrogant, complacent and indifferent” when dealing with smaller neighbours. Mr Saran is also of the view that India does not have an intimate engagement with the smaller neighbours, which would have enabled it to have its ear to the ground and deal with the issue before it became a crisis. “There is no early warning system”, and disputes “cannot be allowed to become a crisis,” he says.

Mr Muni recalls that India had offered to hold talks but only after the Covid-19 crisis blows over. But Kathmandu would not wait. Mr Saran thinks that there was “a lack of alertness” on Indian side. He also feels that publicising the new map of Jammu and Kashmir could have been avoided as well.

Mr Muni says that with or without Chinese support for Kathmandu, “Nepalese nationalism is very robust” and that India has to be sensitive to Nepalese nationalist sentiment among the people.

He also recognises that a Nepal-China-Pakistan front is emerging as Islamabad has for the first time issued a statement on the issue. The professor points out that the Sino-Nepal border does not abut on Lipulekh, though “Chinese cannot publicly acknowledge this.

Mr Muni observes that India has been “generous” when it came to the issue of dealings on territories with the neighbours over the years, as in the cases of Aksai Chin with China and Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK). He implies that there is need for a tougher stand on issues of territoriality. Mr Saran believes that in the present India-Nepal stand-off, all that India can do is to “agree to disagree”.

He does not foresee a solution in the near future.