Much to the shock for India, Nepal’s lower house of Parliament on Saturday cleared a constitutional amendment bill to reflect its new map in the national emblem, a move that is seen to virtually make the boundary row a permanent irritant in relations between Kathmandu and New Delhi. The bill was supported by all the 258 lawmakers present and voting.
Speaker of Nepal’s House of Representative Agni Prasad Sapkota said that the new map was approved by 258 out of the total 275 members of Parliament, exceeding the required two-thirds majority and there were no votes against. It is a strong resolution and could turn out to be a thorn in a flesh for the Indian diplomatic bandwagon.
The passage of the bill, which consolidates Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s stature within and without the ruling Communist Party of Nepal, came on a day hundreds of protesters hit the streets of capital Kathmandu over his government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. India’s response to Saturday’s development was blunt and pointedly shut the door on any possibility of talks.
“We have noted that the House of Representatives of Nepal has passed a constitution amendment bill for changing the map of Nepal to include parts of Indian territory. We have already made our position clear on this matter,” External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said.
The Oli government, which had gone ahead to issue the new map last month, has repeatedly claimed that Nepal would “get back the land occupied by India” through dialogue. Nepal has already asked India to convene a foreign secretary-level meeting to discuss the boundary row. Even three visits of Prime Minister Modi in the past six years, has in all probability, not been able to resolve this issue.
Nepal has published a new political map that includes a small stretch of the “disputed land”, toughening its stance on a decades-long row over the territory with India. The map shows a sliver of land on the northwest tip of Nepal as the Nepali territory. It has published its revised map in May this year soon after India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on May 8 virtually inaugurated an 80 kilometer road connecting its northern Uttarakhand state with Lipulekh on the border with Tibet that passes “through the land Nepal”. The Nepali government had protested soon after the inauguration of the road, contending that the road crosses territory that it claims and accusing India of changing the status quo without diplomatic consultations.
Nepal which is considered as a buffer state between India and China is now flexing its muscles against India when country not only faces challenges from the Covid-19, economic slowdown but also border disputes with China. Tension has escalated in the northern part of India and the Union government, taking all precautions, is sceptic of making any political statement and defying opposition demand to come out clear on this issue.
Historically, India has been in effective possession of this territory for the past sixty years, although Nepal claims it conducted a census there in the early 1950s and refers to the 1815 Sugauli Treaty as legitimising its claims. However, India’s new road, up to the Lipulekh pass, is not a drastic change in the status quo. India has controlled this territory and built other infrastructure here before, besides conducting its administration and deploying military forces up to the border pass with China.
The disputed region is of strategic importance, and the newly built road is now one of the shortest route between Delhi and the Tibetan plateau. In a 2015 statement, China had also recognised India’s sovereignty by agreeing to expand trade through the Lipulekh pass. This is also an important route for Hindu pilgrims who trek across the border with China every year to visit the sacred Mount Kailash.
The recent built up border tension with China and high-level talks in the military level, is likely to dampen the activity at this proposed trade route. International experts in the diplomatic circles believe that Nepal can only do this with a tacit support from neighbouring China. This has stirred the hornet’s nest and it is now almost certain that trade can only begin when there is political stability which looks rather distant.