The Indo-Nepalese relations saw a series of tense moments in recent weeks. The rise in temperatures that we are witnessing between the two neighbours is not a result of some unanticipated misfortune but a gradual development of misapprehensions. The prime issue of dispute today lies in the claims and counterclaims over the Kalapani Region situated high up in the Himalayas of the Kumaon region.
This area is situated at the tri-junction of the Sino-Indo-Nepalese Border and has the strategically important Lipulekh Pass which has connected India and Tibet for centuries located within it. India officially presides over the jurisdiction of this region, however, India’s claim has been for long challenged by the Nepalese government. This dispute reached a point of climax when recently, the Indian government inaugurated the Darchula-Lipulekh pass link road, cutting across the disputed Kalapani area which is to be used by Indian pilgrims to Kailash Mansarover.
This new link road (motorable) would cut the trip for the pilgrims short to just one or two days instead of the earlier five to six days on foot. It was inaugurated with much pomp and show as an engineering marvel by the Border Roads Organisation, however, it received an equal amount of detestation by the government and people of Nepal.
How Did The Dispute Originate?
To understand the origin of this dispute one has to go back to early 19th century British India, when Nepal, then called The Kingdom Of Gorkha, was led by King Prithvi Narayan Shah. Under the reign of their ambitious king, the Gorkhas expanded their territory all over Sikkim in the east and Kumaon and Garhwal in the west.
This is where they came in conflict with English East India Company which directly or indirectly controlled all the territory in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. Following the Anglo-Nepalese War in 1814, the British were successful in driving out the Gorkhas from Garhwal and Kumaon regions across the River Kali and two years later in 1816, the Treaty of Sugauli was signed between the Kingdom of Nepal and the English East India Company.
According to historian John Whelpton in his work ‘The History of Nepal’, “the treaty delimited the Nepalese territory precisely to its present size and also asked for stationing a permanent British “Resident” in the Nepalese court in Kathmandu”. Most importantly, Article 5 of the treaty states;
“ The Raja of Nepal renounces for himself, his heirs, and successors, all claims to and connexion with the countries lying to the West of the River Kali, and engages never to have any concern with those countries or the inhabitants thereof.”
Therefore, it was the River Kali that was supposed to form the western boundary between the Kingdom of Nepal and British India.
This issued was not much discussed thereafter. Nepal was recognized as an independent country by the British in 1923 and India attained its independence in 1947. India and Nepal signed the Indo-Nepalese Friendship Treaty in 1950 that focused on mutually understood security arrangements. All throughout the while, official Indian maps mentioned the Kalapani region as a part of the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand (then Uttar Pradesh).
When Did The Issue Resurface?
With the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1951 and Indo- China War 1962, India had established many military outposts in the area around the Lipulekh Pass and this was done with the consent of the Nepalese government.
It was not until 1998 that Nepal raised the issue of the Kalapani area being a part of their territory. According to the political scientist, Leo E. Rose, “Nepal virtually ignored the Kalapani issue from 1961 to 1997, but for domestic political reasons it became a convenient India-Nepal controversy in 1998.”
The Nepalese government laid claim to the entire Kalapani area and the strategic Lipulekh pass stating that the source of the River Kali is not near Kalapani but the Limpiyadhura pass located higher up than the Lipulekh pass. This claim would effectively shift the Indo-Nepal border 5.5 km inside the Indian territory. However, the Indian government says that various small streams that originate in the higher-ups, come down and meet at Kalapani where the river takes its name as Kali.
The Indian officials responded by showing the official records of administration from the 1830s stating the area to be a part of the Pithoragarh district (Almora Tehsil) of British India countering which Nepalese authorities showed their own historical and cartographic evidence.
Some Nepalese geographers have claimed that there was no map attached with the Treaty of Sugauli when it was signed in 1816 and that many maps prepared by the British throughout the 1850s till 1880s show the Limpiyadhura pass as the point of origin for the River Kali and not near the Lipulekh pass as the government of India claims.
In the year 2015, India and China signed a bilateral trade agreement in which it was decided to open up trade routes through the Lipulekh Pass. This move invited the displeasure of the Nepalese government who claimed it as their territory and the agreement violated their sovereignty. Recently India inaugurated the Darchula-Lipulekh link road that again passes through this area and with this the world got to witness the climax of this dispute.
The Nepalese government expressed its ‘regret’ over the construction of the new road in a territory that it claims belongs to it. Nepal claimed that this unilateral move by India went against the mutual understanding of solving border issues bilaterally. They even went to the extent of editing and issuing a new official map of their nation which included the disputed area in their territory. The Indian government, on the contrary, claimed the entire territory of Uttarakhand as theirs and that no country can change its borders according to their whims.
In times when Nepal is tilting more and more towards China, India should beware of such incidents and ensure the continuation of the historic friendly ties that have been fostered for decades. Bilateral diplomatic talks seem to be the only way out of such disputes and this must be the path that we should follow to ensure the break-off of Chinese influence in the subcontinent.