Filed under: Blogroll, border, dispute, encroachment | Tagged: Border War, conflict, dispute, encroachment | Leave a Comment »
There were Nepal-Tibet War (1788-89, 1791-92 and 1855-56), Anglo-Gorkha War (1814-16)
Published 2012
Price US$ 10
ISBN 978-9937-8676-0-3
Publisher : Ratna Sagar Publisher P. Ltd. Kathmandu Nepal
Maps
Tables
Photographs
Border War
|
S. N. |
Date of Border War |
Name of Border War |
Countries involved in Wars |
Persons Killed During War (Approx.) |
|
1 |
1788-1789 1792-1792 1855-1856 |
First Nepal-Tibet War Second Nepal-Tibet War Third Nepal-Tibet War |
Nepal and Tibet (Bhot) Nepal and Tibet (Bhot) Nepal and Tibet (Bhot) |
20 1,575 2,093 |
|
2 |
1814-1816 |
Anglo-Gorkha Border War |
Nepal and British India |
3,568 |
|
3 |
1816-48 |
Mexican-American Border War |
USA and Mexico |
29,000
|
|
4 |
1910-1918 |
Border War |
USA and Mexico |
100 |
|
5 |
1932-1935 |
Chaco War |
Bolivia and Paragua |
100,000 |
|
6 |
1938-1938 |
Battle of Lake Khasan |
Soviet Union and Japan |
1,300 |
|
7 |
1939-1939 |
Slovak-Hungarian War |
Slovakia and Hungary |
66 |
|
8 |
1939-1939 |
Battle of Khalkhin Gol |
Soviet Union and Mangolia-Japan |
16,000 |
|
9 |
1950-1953 |
Korean Border War |
South and North Korea |
2,419,010 |
|
10 |
1962-1962 |
India-China Border War |
India and China |
4,000 |
|
11 |
1965-1965 |
Indo-Pakistani War |
India and Pakistan |
6,800 |
|
12 |
1971-1971 |
Indo-Pakistani War |
India and Pakistan |
4,000 |
|
13 |
1987-1987 |
India-China Skirmish |
India and China |
Unknown |
|
14 |
1999-1999 |
Kargil War |
India and Pakistan |
4,500 |
|
15 |
2001-2001 |
India-Bangladesh Border Conflict |
India and Bangladesh |
20 |
|
16 |
1984-1987 |
Siachen Conflict |
India and Pakistan |
2,400 |
|
17 |
1966-1989 |
South African Border War |
Angola and South Africa |
Unknown |
|
18 |
1969-1969 |
Sino-Soviet Border Conflict |
China and Soviet Union |
Unknown |
|
19 |
1980-1988 |
Iran-Iraq War |
Iran and Iraq |
1,500,000 |
|
20 |
1981-1981 |
Paquisha War |
Ecuador and Peru |
10 |
|
21 |
1982-1982 |
Ethiopian-Somali Border War |
Ethiopia and Somalia |
Unknown |
|
22 |
1985-1985 |
Agacher Strip War |
Mali and Burkina Faso |
179 |
|
23 |
1987-1988 |
Thai-Laotian Border War |
Thailand and Laos |
1,000 |
|
24 |
1989-1991 |
Mauritania-Senegal Border War |
Mauritania and Senegal |
Unknown |
|
25 |
1995-1995 |
Conepa War |
Ecudar and Peru |
450 |
|
26 |
1998-2000 |
Eritrean-Ethiopian War |
Ethiopia and Eritrea |
70,000 |
|
27 |
2000-2008 |
Shebaa Farms Conflict |
Israel and Lebanon |
30 |
|
28 |
2008-2008 |
Djiboutian-Eritrean Border Conflict |
Djibouti and Eritrea |
144 |
|
29 |
2008-Ongoing |
Cambodia-Thai Border Attack |
Combodia and Thailand |
42 |
|
30 |
2012-Ongoing |
Sudan-South Sudan Border Coflict |
Sudan and South Sudan |
292 |
Source: Wekipedia/First of border Wars.
Based on: Triratna Manandhar et.al. (2012),
History of Nepali Army, Kathmandu, Page 30-35 and 183-199.
Diplomacy is the processes of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. The word is originated form Latin diploma, meaning an official document, which in turn derives from the Greek meaning a folded paper/document. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the professional diplomats and experts with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics etc. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational or polite manner. As a matter of fact, diplomacy is related to the foreign policy.
When we think about border diplomacy, we tend to think of administrative boundaries and border management system. Those demarcating lines; often grown out of rivers, mountain ranges, peaks, narrow passes; govern our daily lives, and that’s doubly so if we live in the frontier area, near to a neighboring country or state. We know that some boundaries are on some level unnatural, having homogeneous topography. In the same way there might have some identical human behavior, food habit and similar attire and language of both the frontier people. For example, driving around the Birganj town of Nepal and Raxaul of India makes this abundantly clear. Price of the daily consumable items and commodities may be not so different, as it can be difficult to tell which state you’re in, India or Nepal for the virgin visitors, and the small street of State Line Road does nothing to make it clearer, since there is no conspicuous and eye catching demarcation on both the sides of the crossing point.
Diplomacy is highly related to the foreign policy of a country. In fact, Nepal’s foreign policy uses to be shaky time and often especially when there are incidents between Nepal and India and Nepal and China. Similarly, it fluctuates in connection to the changing relation between China and India. The most important thing is that border diplomacy has not yet chalked down in Nepal’s foreign policy.
If I have to talk about the border diplomacy, it is the art and practice of conducting international boundaries negotiations between nations. It usually refers international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats and experts with regard to issues of peace-making culture through mutual understanding. In addition, border diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common problem in relation to the historical and authentic documents and materials which are acceptable for both sides in a congenial atmosphere. At the same time, border diplomacy is an enterprise which necessitates an untiring supply of talented individuals with facts, figures and past incidents to convey and convince neighbouring boundary and surveying experts, in one or the alternative way.
Nepal’s border diplomacy consists of two facets of the same coin. One is the border demarcation diplomacy and the other face is border management diplomacy.
1. Border Demarcation Diplomacy
1. Border between two nations shall be demarcated in a joint working basis with equal footing. Strip maps and GIS data concerning border business should be prepared and established jointly, since border is common to both nations.
2. Boundary demarcation problems shall be resolved on the basis of friendship, brotherliness, mutual respect, understanding and reciprocity.
3. Border shall be demarcated on basis of old maps, documents, co-ordinates and reference materials.
4. If there are differences in some segments of the borderline, that shall be settled with the formation of joint technical level committee and high level joint commission with equal participation.
5. Track-II diplomacy should be adopted to find out the modality, ways and means to make study and research for the amicable settlement of the problems. Diplomats must prepare a solution paper on the basis of facts, figures and past incidents. They must keep in touch with the counterpart Track-II diplomats of the neighboring country to find out the solution, agreeable to both nations.
6. Content of solution paper shall be discussed broadly on the political level and it should be passed by majority with some amendment and addition. Finally it shall be adopted as the ‘National Border Diplomacy or Policy’ of the nation. This guideline policy matter should be adopted and spoken by all political party leaders, bureaucrats and technocrats with the counterpart personnel.
7. Finally, Head of Government must talk to his counterpart of neighboring country, on the basis of national border diplomacy to negotiate and solve the border demarcation problems.
8. If there is no way out even on the level of Head of Government, the diplomacy tactic shall be taken to seek mediation diplomacy form the third country. Both the nations should be entrusted to the mediating country.
9. If the mediation diplomacy is not successful or entrusted, then the next step shall be to knock the door of the international institutions or organizations, such as United Nations Security Council or International Court of Justice. But it is the virtue of a country to inform officially to the neighboring country, before going to the international organization for petition.
10. The State shall go to the international organizations to seek justice, on the issue of border business, to preserve the national sovereignty and to maintain integrity.
1.1 Nepal-India border demarcation diplomacy
1. It is said that 97 percent of Nepal-India border has been demarcated. 182 strip-maps have been prepared and 8,553 border pillars and markers have been established.
2. There are problems in remaining 3 percent of the border line. It means nearly 38 kilometer of borderline in various spots has not yet demarcated, since there are 1,880 kilometer border between Nepal and India.
3. Within the spotted span of 38 kilometer, there are encroachments, disputes, claims and counter-claims in more than 71 places, having 60,662 hectares in area. The largest chunk of encroachment is the Kalapani-Limpiyadhura in Darchula district and its area is nearly 37,000 hectare. The second disputed/encroached area is Susta, as 14,500 hectare in Nawalparasi district. Besides, there are disputes, claims and counter-claims in other 69 places having 9,162 hectare of land. The smallest piece of encroachment is 240 square meter (Nearly half a Ropani) of land, located at Phatak of Pashupatinagar Village Development Committee in Ilam district.
4. These 2 percent (38 km) of unsettled spots should be handled as per the norms of border demarcation diplomacy, as stated in above mentioned serial number one.
5. High level Joint Commission, consisting of Track-II diplomats and intellectuals, should be formed to settle the outstanding issues.
1.2 Nepal-China border demarcation diplomacy
1. Boundary Protocol should be renewed with an interval of ten years, since the demarcation was completed and first Protocol was signed on 20 January 1963.
2. Border line shall be supervised and monitored jointly and report should be prepared in course of the renewal of previous Protocol.
3. Damaged and missing border pillars and markers shall be repaired and established accordingly.
4. New strip-maps shall be prepared digitally on the basis of previous maps, adopting new technology, such as Global Positioning System (GPS) observations and establishment of Geographical Information System (GIS) data.
5. India-Nepal-China Tri-junction Points (Zero Marker) must be established on both ends of the border line with equal co-operation of both India and China.
2. Border Management Diplomacy
Border management diplomacy shall be adopted on the basis of dynamic equilibrium on both China and India. There is a quotation of the Late King Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great ‘Nepal is a yam between two boulders.’ But the situation has been changed and it has to be re-visualized in the changing context of not only Nepal, but also changing situation of China and India as well. Now it will not be exaggerated to say that ‘Nepal should be a bridge on two boulders.’
2.1 Nepal-China border management diplomacy
1. Nepal and China has a regulated border management system. However, Tibetans sneak illegally to Nepal. So border management should be strengthened from both the sides.
2. border out-post and immigration check-post shall be established close to the border crossing points as far as possible, not to allow anti-China activity from the Nepali soil. Presently, these posts have been located ten to twenty kilometer far from the border line. For example, Lamabagar Police post at Dolakha district has been established 22 kilometer south of the border crossing-point. In fact, it should be established at Lapche Gaun.
3. Policy to increase the number of border observation post (BOP) of Armed Police Force shall be adopted, so that illegal Tibetan infiltration will be checked.
4. Nepali timber, Himalayan herbs like expensive Yarsagamba of Nepal, Red Sandalwood brought from India should be checked, not to export illegally to Tibetan Autonomous Region of China, establishing BOPs close to border crossing-points.
2.2 Nepal-India border management diplomacy
1. At present, there is an open border system. But it has not worked well in the matter of security concern of both the countries. So it should be converted into regulated system in mutual co-operation with the perspective of security issue for both nations. Policy shall be taken to regulate the border in a phase wise basis.
2. To start to be regulated the open border, number of Armed Police Force and BOPs shall be increased in the first phase. BOP should be established close to the border line, but not in No-man’s Land (Dasgaja Area). Presently, some of these posts have been located 2 to 4 kilometer towards Nepal side.
3. In the second phase, identity card (ID Card) system should be introduced for the travelers, who cross the international border. But the frontier inhabitants, who are the residents with 5 kilometer of the border, should be permitted to cross the border many times a day.
4. In the third phase, barbed-wire fencing shall be erected on the border. But there must be 376 exit/entry crossing-points, since the length of the border line is 1,880 kilometer. It’s high time to regulate Nepal-India border to obstruct cross-border terrorism, criminal activities, smuggling of counter-fit Indian currency notes. Regulated system shall be initiated with the joint decision, as the regulated system was implemented in air-route with a joint decision, after the hijacking of Indian aircraft from Nepal.
3. Issue resolving diplomacy
Nepal must be very clear on the border diplomacy and boundary strategies to resolve the long outstanding chronic issues. The border diplomacy relating to Nepal-India boundary may be as followings :
u Nepal must nourish, insist and present to India that Nepal and India are the countries which have equal right and status in the arena of international forum, no matter how big or small the countries are.
u Attempt should be made to make them understand the problems in the higher level of the state.
u It has to convince India and obtain confidence from them.
u Nepal should be enabled to create a congenial atmosphere and environment for India for a ‘face saving device’ in the international arena to realize the border problems, for example the issue of Kalapani, with Nepal.
u Lobbying must be made through the Nepal Embassies and Diplomatic Missions abroad to exert pressure through friendly countries of the world.
u Matured and experienced diplomatic medium should be conducted to convince India.
u Track-II intellectuals should be mobilized to talk to their Indian counter-parts to resolve the outstanding complex border issues.
u Root of the problems must be identified through the consultations with the concerned experts.
u It must be identified the ways and means to solve the problems with alternative measures, which will be agreeable for both the nations.
u After that stage, there must be dialogues and discussions among the political leaders in a manner of cordiality.
u At the end of rigorous inter-actions, political leaders must reach into a consensus point and that will be adopted as the national border diplomacy by all.
u If the border problems with the neighbour are not resolved mutually, problems should be briefed to the friendly countries of the world unofficially as a side line during international meetings.
u Global pressure should be exerted to the southern neighbour of Nepal to solve the issues, through the friendly countries directly or indirectly that could pay attention by India.
u If none of these measures work, Nepal must seek mediation through the third country.
u If the mediation is not accepted by the neighbour, Nepal must be ready to knock the door of the international organizations such as the United Nations (Security Council) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the nation.
4. Border Strategy
In connection to the complex issues like Kalapani border encroachment, what will be the border strategy of Nepal, if India pleads as follows :
u If India pleads that Kalapani belongs to them, what will be the strategy of Nepal ?
u If India says that the then King Mahendra has given the area of Kalapani to India, how Nepal encounters to India ?
u In case India reiterates, China has never said that Kalapani belongs to Nepal; in this situation, what will be the answer from Nepal ?
u If India produces a proposal : Let us make the Kalapani area as a Buffer Zone (No-man’s land). What logic should be presented to India from Nepal ?
u Alternatively, if India proposes: Let us deploy military battalions jointly at Kalapani area. What Nepal should do ? Whether Nepal’s answer will be ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ?
u In the mean time if India wanted to take the Kalapani area in a lease for one hundred years, what will be the strategy of Nepal ?
u Ultimately, if India proposes for the mediation from third country to resolve the Kalapani issue, which country will be acceptable for Nepal and on what ground ?
u Finally, if India warns Nepal : If Nepal pushes the Kalapani issue in the international arena, Nepal must face the worst end result. What will be the strategy of Nepal ?
5. Last item
Study shall be made to know the feeling and intention of the people of both frontiers, on the alternatives of the existing border regime. Policy shall be formulated according to their wish and need. If there are some chaos and irritants on the border, the frontier people will be the first and direct sufferer.
Policy for the integrated development (including physical, economic and social development) project in the frontier area should be formulated and implemented. Border area is a sensitive element of the nation. If there are some muddle and disturbances in border area, inhabitants of both the frontiers will be suffered directly in the very first stroke. Ultimately, it will affect the whole country.
Alignment: A boundary line described in words in a treaty, and/or shown on a map or chart and/or marked on the ground by physical indicators.
Antecedent Boundary: It is a boundary line drawn before most of the features of the cultural landscapes existed.
Arbitration: A form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of border disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the arbitrators).
Artificial Boundary: Boundaries which are not marked by nature and which must therefore be marked physically on the ground by means of stones, markers or monuments placed by human being.
Border: A boundary between one nation (or a political division) and another. It means an area which adjoins the boundary line with a variable depth.
Border Area: It means an area which extends inwards from the boundary line. Normally border area used to be considered as a “sensitive area.”
Border Diplomacy: It is an art or practice of conducting international boundaries between representatives of groups or states, in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements.
Border Line: A line of demarcation situated at a border between two states.
Boundary: Boundary is the line which indicates the outermost territorial limits of state sovereignty. It is a line, marking the territorial jurisdiction of a state or other entity having an international status.
Boundary Administration: This function is concerned with the regulation of activities in relation to the boundary line, so demarcated. The supervisory functions will include passport and customs regulation at points of entry on the land boundary routes and seaport.
Boundary Allocation: Allocation of a boundary is the process, which refers to political decision on the distribution of territory.
Boundary Treaty: It constitutes an objective territorial regime that is valid erga omnes, with an independent validity, even if the treaty itself comes to and end.
Conflict: Clash, competition, or mutual interference of opposing or incompatiable forces or qualities. It is a controversy, encounter, counteract in border issues (the judgement did not end the conflict between the parties).
Contiguous Zone: The water boundary that is a belt of water, the width of which is defined but does not exceed 24 nautical miles from the baseline.
Continental Shelf: The water boundary extended up to 350 nautical miles from the shore baseline.
Controversy: A disagreement or dispute on boundaries, a justicable dispute. A case that requires a definitive determination of the law on the facts alleged for the adjudication of an actual dispute,
Delimitation: Delimitation is to compromise the determination of a boundary line by treaty or otherwise and its definition in written, verbal terms. It denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written source.
Demarcation: Demarcation is to comprise that actual laying down of boundary pillars or other similar physical means. It denotes the means by which the described alignment is marked, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads inscrub, and so on.
Delineation: Delineation of boundaries is, in practice, necessarily an outcome of the determination of territorial sovereignty.
Dispute: A conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights, an assertion of rights on boundaries, claim or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegations on the other. Dispute involves a disagreement between two states on a point of law or fact, which consists of a claim or protest.
Encroach: To enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to trespass or intrude, to gain or intrude unlawfully upon another’s boundaries, to advance beyond desirable or normal limits.
Encroachment: An infringement of another’s rights or intrusion on another’s boundary.
Exclusive Economic Zone: The water boundary extended up to 200 nautical miles from the shore baseline.
Estoppel: It facilitates an international boundary decision based upon the express or tacit consent or good faith of the state concerned.
Fixed Boundary:Fixed Boundary is the boundary along the river where the boundary has remained in the same position as it was during the time of boundary demarcation, irrespective of the present position of the river.
Fluid Boundary: Fluid boundary is the boundary along mid-stream of the river. If it has changed its course suddenly and taken a new course, then the boundary on previous course should be the boundary. And if the river has changed its course by cutting its bed gradually then the present mid-stream of the river should be the boundary.
Frontier: In international law, that portion of the territory of any country which lies close along the border line of another country, and so “fronts” or faces it. It is the farthest limits of man’s advance that have been called the frontier.
International Boundaries: It comprises all boundaries between two nations, whether they traverse land, rivers, lakes, or arms of the sea through territorial waters out to the high sea.
Map: A map is a portrayal of geographical facts, which can provide vital evidence of the intended location of territorial boundaries. It may also be an independent document with the limited function of illustrating a legal text.
Median Line: A boundary line on the sea between two coastal nations. It is the water departing median line, apply the ‘proportionality test’ to check that the proposed boundary is equitable.
Natural Boundary: Lines of boundaries which are marked by nature, such as mountain crests, rivers, and shore lines of lakes and seas, have long been utilized in establishing natural or geographical boundaries.
Nautical Mile: The international nautical mile adopted for the water boundary by the International Hydrographic Organization measures 1,852 meters.
No-man’s Land: An area of unowned, unclaimed or uninhabitated land (a no-man’s land of bottom lands aggregation), a belt of ground between the most advanced elements of the other country (the no-man’s land that is neither wholly good or wholly evil).
Protocol: Protocol deals with the maintenance of the boundary line and the markers that charges both parties with the allocated responsibilities.
Relict Boundary: It is one boundary line that has been abandoned but is still marked by differences in the landscape that developed during its lifetime.
Strip-map: A map charting only the immediate territory to be traversed, which appears a long, narrow strip showing only a narrow band of territory (as 500 meter wide and hundreds of kilometers long strip).
Subsequent Boundary: It is constructed on an existing cultural landscape along the boundary line.
Territory: A geographical area belonging to or under the jurisdiction of political authority: and boundary administrative sub-division of a country.
Territorial Boundary: The lines on the surface of the earth which separate the territory of one State from that of another or from the Open Sea.
Territorial Water: The water boundary that is a belt of water, the width of which is defined but does not exceed 12 nautical miles from the baseline.
Thalweg: The boundary line ‘determined by means of deepest soundings’ along the course of a river on the fastest current. Thalweg is the German terminology. Boundaries in navigable rivers and straits very commonly follow this terminology, or main navigable mid-channel (Thalweg).
Triple-Point: Triple-point is located at that point where three countries meet and three boundaries terminate. At each end of any boundary, unless one end is on the coast, the two countries concerned meet a third country at what is called a triple-point or tri-junction.
Uti possidetis: It is “As you posses, so may you posses” also in the case of boundaries. The term is derived from Roman law, “in which it designated an interdict of the Praetor, by which the disturbance of the existing state of possession of immovables, as between two countries, was forbidden.”
Vista: Where a boundary penetrates a forest, it is a common practice to cut a path along it and it is called “vista.” The width of the vista varies, four to eight meters being the usual range.
Watershed: A watershed (water parting) is a line of boundary on the crest of a mountain range from which the water seperates and runs down opposite slopes.
♣
Filed under: Blogroll | Tagged: ABS, Anglo-Gorkha War, Border Security, Border War, FIG, IBRU, international boundary principle, Masonry (Junge) Pillar, Nepal-Tibet war | Leave a Comment »
A book entitled ‘Sima Sangram (Border War)’ written by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha and published by Ratna Sagar Publication P. Ltd was launched amidst a colourful program on 1 April 2013. The book was released jointly by the Renowned Culture Expert and three times Madan Prize Winner Satya Mohan Joshi, Chairperson of Avenues Television Bhaskar Raj Rajkarnikar and Editor-in-Chief of Kantipur Daily Sudheer Sharma.
During the book release program, the writer of the book Buddhi Narayan Shrestha said that the commentators will speak later the strength and weakness of the book; and what topics have been included and what are the lacking and short comings in the book. However, I would like to say something on the reasons of writing this book.
Many of my friends and well wishers used to enquire me that the northern neighbour of Nepal, that is China also might have encroached the Nepali territory. Why don’t you write it ? Secondly, as everybody knows that India, the southern neighbour has encroached the territory since long. Whether the encroachments have been stopped or resolved or increased in the current period. They were asking me to write and renew the position of our border business activities. So I have written this book with the title as ‘Sima Sangram (Border War)’ to pacify the inquisitiveness of my friends, colleagues and Nepali civic society.
Now let me first tell you on the border business of Nepal with China. After the boundary agreement in 1960 and boundary treaty in 1961, border demarcation was made during 1961-62. During the joint demarcation, there were claims, counter-claims, conflicts and disputes on 32 spots including the Mount Everest, the highest peak in the world. But it was settled amicably with a view of friendliness, brotherhood, equality, mutual respect, spirit of Panchasheel; and Nepal and China have the equal rights in the international arena, no matter the country has small or large territorial area and more or less population. It is commendable that all the controversies and disputes were settled for ever in the technical level. But the issue of Mount Everest was settled in the Prime Minister level. During the visit of Chinese Prime Minister Chou-en-Lai to Nepal, it was settled on 28 April 1960. In a press conference in Singha Darbar Gallery Baithak, the Chinese Prime Minister told that ‘we had some conflict on the issue of Mount Everest. On this issue we studied the hand made paper map and documents provided by the Prime Minister of Nepal Bisheshwor Prasad Koirala in the technical, administrative, political and diplomatic level; and the government of China came into conclusion and made decision that ‘Mount Everest belongs to Nepal.’ So all the demarcation work was completed in less than two years period.
However, some of the Nepali settlements like Chyanga and Lungdep of Kimathanka VDC of Sankhuwasabha district and some grazing lands for example of Humla and Dolakha districts were demarcated on the Chinese side. It may be due to the ignorance or slackness of Nepali team members, not paying attention to the problem. On the other side of the coin, some Chinese territory was demarcated belonging to the Nepali side. But most of these areas were snow covered steep and rocky area. Whatever it may be, it was all settled for all and there is no issue on it.
Currently, there are two issues between Nepal and China. The first is the border marker number 57 of Lapchigaun of Lamabagar area of Dolakha district. There is a claim and counter-claim on six hectares of barren land. The Nepali team says that the border marker was established in the wrong place in the Nepalese frontier. The Chinese team responded that it was monumented during 1961-62 demarcation period. So there is no point to remove the marker and establish on the Chinese frontier.
The other issue is the height of Mount Everest. The Chinese team pleaded that the height of the Everest must be taken as 8844.57 meter and this height should be written on the Nepal-China strip-map. They have argued that China re-measured the height of Everest (Quolongma) and it is taken to the rock height.
The Nepali side responded that there is no point to reduce the height of Everest (Sagarmatha), short by 3.43 meter. Various countries of the world have regarded the height of Everest as 8,848 m. It should be taken the snow height. Nepali side is pleading that if we take the rock height of Everest, then we must take the rock height of other mountains as well; like Lhotse, Manasula, Kanchanjungha etc. Mount Godwin Austin or Mount K-2, the second highest mountain in the world of Pakistan has been measured with snow height. Taken into consideration to all these references, there is no point to reduce the height of Everest. And the issues have been stranded for the last six years between Nepal and China. Whatever it may be, the issue should be resolved talking with each other in a cordial manner.
Regarding the border issues with the southern neighbour, there were encroachments, disputes, conflicts, claims and counter-claims on 53 spots, a decade ago. Now the number of disputed spots have been increased to 71 places. Ten years ago, the total area of conflicts was 60,000 hectares of land in 21 Nepali districts; and now it has reached to 23 districts as 60,662 hectares. In such a way the disputed area, number of spots and number of districts have been increased by 662 hectares, 18 spots and 2 districts respectively within a period of ten years. I have mentioned the sources from various information of the government offices, Constitutional Assembly Committees and independent researchers.
The book has been targeted mainly to the readers who have interest on the national boundary issues. Similarly, this book will be useful for the College and University students who have been engaged on research, study and thesis writing on the boundaries. It is also worth reading for those who are interested on the Himal of Nepal, mountain passes and border crossing-points of Nepal with the neighbouring countries.
Besides, security concern agencies, especially the border security force and other organizations such as Armed Police Force, Nepal Police, Nepal army, local administration and Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs could use this book as basic source of information and knowledge on the boundary of Nepal with India and China. Similarly, the book will be helpful for the Survey Officers who are engaged on the border demarcation business. This book can be utilized by the surveyors during the preparation of Public Service Commission Examination for service entry and competitive post promotion.
Nepali youths have to become aware of the shrinking of Nepali territory, whether it might have been pushed from the Chinese side or Indian side. National boundary is the integrity of the country. If the boundary shrinks or encroachment continues, it may ultimately challenge to the existence of the nation. It is the responsibility of the government, general public and more so the youths to secure the Nepali territory intact.
In the book release function, Culture Expert and three times Madan Prize Winner Satya Mohan Joshi highlighted on national boundary issues and mentioned tendency of the Nepali political leaders. Joshi said, he is very much obliged to the publisher and writer of the book in writing and publishing such a nationalistic book. He further said, there is no understanding of the border issues in the present political leadership. This book of Buddhi Narayan Shrestha is an important document of border consciousness. As the chief guest of the program, Joshi urged the government has to safeguard Nepali territory from the Indian clutches. He appealed that the time has come for our youths to play the role as the protector not to let shrinking Nepali territories.
Culture Expert Satya Mohan Joshi further said, Junga Bahadur Rana was the most far-sighted in view of the protection and preservation of national boundary of Nepal. J B Rana has done a very commendable job retrieving back the lost territory of the districts of Banke, Bardiya, Kailali and Kanchanpur from the British East India Company. It is worth mentioning that he did not accept the new territory of four districts unless it was demarcated by Masonry (Junge) Pillars with ten yard strip No-man’s land on both the sides.
In comparison to Junga Bahadur Rana, the then King Mahendra was not far-sighted on the border issue. While returning from China visit, the King directly went to Tundikhel KhariKo Bot (Parade Ground Khari Tree) and the King said, ‘it is a matter of happiness that half of Sagarmatha (Everest) is ours and the remaining half belongs to China.’ The King had said that the peak of Sagarmatha is ‘half and half.’ In this aspect Satya Mohan Joshi said, the King is not nationalistic. He should bring the peak of Everest to our side.
He recalled that the United Nations Population Division had invited to the then government of Nepal to enumerate the population of Nepal in connection to establish the census data- how much is the world population ? Since the population of even small countries like Nepal would not have been included in the world census, the global population census statistic would not be completed. He mentioned that Thir Bahadur Rayamajhi, Nara Kanta Adhikari, Keshar Bahadur Karmacharya, Hridaya Nath and Satya Mohan Joshi (he himself) were included in the census enumeration team of Nepal. We had participated as Officer Level personnel from Census Department of Nepal. An international training center was established in New Delhi to impart training for the uniformity in all the countries.
At first, population data of eastern Nepal was taken in 1952 and western Nepal was covered in1953. At that time census population was enumerated in a symbolic method. During that period the inhabitants of hilly and mountainous region like Kalapani was counted in a rough estimate. Now Kalapani area has been encroached by the neighbour. Their eyes have been rooted in Kalapani. Our political leaders are sleeping. It is a gesticulation that Nepali territory has been encroached. But we are silent and mum.
At the end of his talk Satya Mohan Joshi said, whatever it may be- this book Sima Sangram (Border War) has brought us border awareness. This writer of the book has worked as a ‘Border Watch Dog.’ If Buddhi Narayan Shrestha stops barking on the border issues, Nepal will sink. Boundary is very important for the sovereignty of nation. National boundary must be protected by us, the Nepali people. We should work as Army men for the protection and preservation of our boundaries.
As a co-launcher of the book, Chairman of the Avenues Television Bhaskar Raj Rajkarnikar made public that various challenges and criticism have to be born while televising and raising the border issues of Nepal through the electronic media. Buddhi Narayan Shrestha’s written achievement as book has inspired us to work and go further ahead in the border related aspect. Rajkarnikar opined that he is pretty sure that the present book ‘Sima Sangram’ will help to let understand the border issues to the Nepali people and to carry on study and analysis by the researchers.
This book will be useful to the electronic media to expose and solve the border issues of Nepal. At the same time the present book has created a wave on the border matter. Everybody must understand that boundary is an integral part of the nation. For this purpose, Avenues Television has utilized the experience and knowledge of Buddhi Narayan Shrestha on the matter of border business and we have provided information to the Nepali people through him.
Sometimes there are complaints from the so called friends, while Avenues Television raises the border problems. They say, why you have raised the question of borders and frontiers ? In response, we use to make a counter question- ‘While we televise the actual situation of our border, why you feel your border uncomfortable ?’
Another co-launcher of the book Sudheer Sharma, Editor-in-Chief of Kantipur Daily expressed that the book is an energetic source of information even for the journalism.
He praised Buddhi Narayan Shrestha for his comprehensive effort to review Nepal’s border issues. Shrestha’s articles and write-ups with the related reference, data, date and actual incidents are clear in language, straight forward in subject matter and easy to read. So we heartily publish his articles in our Kantipur Daily. This is the reason we have given him space in our daily newspaper. With the eyes of journalists, we can regard Buddhi Narayan Shrestha as the ‘Watchman of the national boundary of Nepal.’ His work is incomparable, so we must be grateful to him.
As Sudheer Sharma recalled his memory of ten years ago while going for reporting on the Kalapani border encroachment area he said, border encroachment issue will not get substantive decision until and unless the state leadership is active. We are entangled into the internal boundaries, like the boundary of Federal States; by which the state agency who looks after our international boundary is ‘disabled and defunct.’
As a commentator on the book, Former Ambassador Hiranya Lal Shrestha expressed his comment that the first and foremost work to protect the national boundary of Nepal should belong to Nepali Army man. He opined that the former Maoist rebellions who have been engrossed in the Nepali Army contingent should have been deputed for the security of national boundary. Army should be involved in the Joint Boundary Committee. As it is known that Military Officers usually keep account about border security.
He pointed out with a sharp criticism to the political leaders of Nepal that our leaders are mum even while the national boundary has been encroached and violated by the neighbours. He made a point that Buddhi Narayan Shrestha is the true border ‘Watchman’ without government uniform. He has been monitoring the border for its protection. He is a patriotic intellect to save the border. His present book has the holistic comparative study of the border problems.
We should formulate integrated border development program in the border areas. We should develop border towns and Ex-Army men should be inhabited in the frontier area. Frontiers on both the sides must be peaceful, stable, crimeless and free from terror to march ahead for prosperity. We should be careful against disintegration. We must be vigilant and self respectful for the security of our national border.
Political leaders do not have time to look after the national border. But Buddhi Narayan Shrestha is the vigilant and fore runner on the border matter to create awareness to the civic society. His book ‘Sima Sangram’ is a lively document of border awareness. The speed with which Indian aggression is continuing, a day will soon come the Indian aggression will arrive at Singha Darbar, if the leaders are mum and apathetic.
Open border between Nepal and India has been misused. There are smugglings of goods and materials through the open border. So the border should be regulated and fenced for the betterment of both the countries.
The other commentator Prof. Dr. Surendra KC of Tribhuvan University History Department said, large country like India has encroached the territory of small country like Nepal. If there are open and unrestricted movement, privileges and trans-migration of these days; there will be a remarkable short fall in Nepal’s population.
Expressing his worriness Prof, KC opined that there will be an alarm of Nepal nationalism due to the free and open movement of the people through the international boundary. He further said, 95 percent of the border demarcation between Nepal and India has been completed. The remaining 5 percent on the various spots of the border has alarming questions. Our border on various spots have been encroached. It is a question mark that what is the expectation of the neighbour ?
Prof. KC said, Buddhi Narayan Shrestha is vigilant on border activities. Shrestha is worried about the border encroachments. He keeps information where there are border issues. Wisdom and specialities are the great elements. For this we have to congratulate Buddhi Narayan Shrestha. With him, we have to be updated ourselves on the condition of our frontier and the tendency of border encroachment. Actually, History Department of the Tribhuvan University should take up these matters. But the department is reluctant.
In the beginning of the program, Chairman of the publisher of the book or Ratna Sagar Publication P. Ltd Arjun Kumar KC welcomed all the guests and dignitaries who were present in the book release function, on behalf of book publishing company and his own.
He said, we have published the book ‘Sima Sangram’ written by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha. We are proud of him. He believed us and we published his book. This book has full of national sentiment to create the awareness on the current situation of boundary and border issues of Nepal with the neighbouring countries.
At the end of the program, as the Chairman of the function and Managing Director of Ratna Sagar Publication P. Ltd Mohan KC said, we are the business men and intend to earn some money by publishing the books. This is the general nature of the book publishers as business men. We are aware of the professional ethics and responsibility. But we are committed to the nationalism and national integrity rather than to earn something. So we publish the books which have national feeling and sense of sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
With this perspective, we have published the book ‘Sima Sangram (Border War)’ authored by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha. We are happy for this publication. We don’t mind if we don’t get anything from this publication. But we think it will help to preserve and protect the national boundary of Nepal. This is great for us.
If the intellect persons write on the national issues in any theme, we print and publish it for the sake of nation. We believe that we have to provide national and sovereign feeling as an education for the future generation.
The publisher of the book further said, British authors had written and put down on the paper whatever the subject matters they liked, concerning our nation as well. And we have obtained that as for our reading materials and we have gained some knowledge. Now, we the Nepalese must write ourselves in any of the subject matters about us and our nation, as it may be the history. That should be truthful and based on reality and it will provide a clear picture for the future generation. In this context, we are happy to publish the book authored by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha. We call the other intellectuals and researchers to write books on nationalism for the development of our nation. We are committed to publish that sort of composition.
Master of Ceremony of the program (MC) Thakur Belbase, senior Journalist of Image FM 103.6 Radio said, the book ‘Sima Sangram’ is published by the Ratna Sagar Publication P. Ltd. The price of the book is Rs. 300. But right now it is available at the cost of Rs. 200 only for the respectable guests and audiences of this program.
At the dead end of the program, traditional snacks were served with pop corn, onion Pakora, rosted potato with pickle. The venue and snacks were provided complementary (free of cost) at Bhojan Griha by the owner Bharat Basnet. He is the Chair person of Explorer Group Nepal. The organizer and Buddhi Narayan Shrestha thanked Basnet for his generosity. Everybody knows Basnet that he has a Movement of Nationality and he is the main activist of ‘Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great, who started to unify Nepal.’ Prithvi Narayan Shah formally established Nepal as a Himalayan State and thus Nepal was born on 17 November 1769.
The book launching program was attended by more than 250 invitees and guests, various facets of the society consisting from ordinary people to the former Minister, retired Commissioners, former Ambassadors, University teachers. human right activists, former Army men, Armed Police Force, renowned musicians, senior Journalists, Chair persons of various organizations and institutions. Some of the representative participants were as followings :
Former Minister Marshal Julum Shakya, Former Chief Election Commissioner Bhoj Raj Pokhrel, Former Chief Commissioner of Commission for investigation of Abuse of Authority Surya Nath Upadhyaya, Former Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs Chandi Prasad Shrestha, Former IGP of Armed Police Force Sanat Kumar Basnet, Former Army Major Kuber Shrestha, Former SP Dr. Chuda Bahadur Shrestha, Former Rector of Tribhuvan University Dr. Surya Lal Amatya, Former Ambassadors Dr. Mohan Prasad Lohani, Pushkar Man Sing Rajbhandari, Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal, Former Consulate General Tamla Ukyab, University Professors/Teachers Prof. Dr. Rama Basyal, Prof Dr. Gopal Pokharel, Dr. Raj Kumar Pokhrel, Dr. Ramesh Dhungel, Prof. Dr. Uma Kanta Silwal, Dr. Hari Prasad Shrestha, Human Rights Activist Dr. Ram Dayal Rakesh, Former SOS Director D B Thapa, Former Survey Director General Toya Nath Baral, Former Chairman of Nepal Bar Association Biswo Kanta Mainali, Senior Lawyer Sindhu Natha Pyakurel, Past President of Nepal Mountaineering Association Aang Tshering Sherpa, Energy Activist Ratna Sansar Shrestha, Former Chairman of Nepal Airline Engineer Sugat Ratna Kansakar, Former Director of Nepal Airline P N Vaidya, Former Registrar of Supreme Court Shree Prasad Pandit, Greater Nepal Activist and Film Director Manoj Pandit, Senior Journalist Bhairab Risal, Capital FM 94.3 Radio Director and Journalist Byakul Pathak, Renowned Musician and Folk Song Singer Raamesh Shrestha, Chief Tax officer Bala Ram Sapkota, President of Border Concern Civic Society Chetendra Jung Himali, President of China Study Center Madan Regmi, President of JICA Alumni Association of Nepal Engineer Dilli Ratna Shakya, President of Nepal Council of World Affairs Tika Jung Thapa, ICCN Chairperson Dr. Anjan Shakya, Travelogue Writer Prateek Dhakal and so many other dignitaries and high ranking persons.
(Collected from Kantiur Daily, Kathmandu Post Daily, Gorkhapatra Daily, Annapurna Post Daily, Weeky Telegraph, Video, Avenues Television, News24 Television, Image Channel Television etc.)
Filed under: Blogroll | Tagged: book launch, border issues, Border War, encroachment, Panchasheel, Sagarmatha, solution | Leave a Comment »
Maha Shivaratri (the great night of Shiva) is celebrated every year on the 13th night/14th day of the waning moon of the month of Magh as per the Hindu lunar calendar. The festival is principally celebrated by offering bael leaves, milk and water to lord Shiva, fasting all day and holding nightlong vigils.
Shivaratri meaning ‘the night of Shiva’ is celebrated by the Hindu population on the ‘magh chaturdasi’. While ‘Krishna parksha chaturdasi’ of every month is called Shivaratri, this one is the Mahashivaratri which is believed to be the day when Lord Shiva is happiest.
While there are various mythical stories and different versions of each associated with the day, as the two stories from ‘Garudh Puran’ and ‘Skanda Puran’ led to celebrating Shivaratri.
Hindus all over the nation observed the Mahashivaratri festival on Sunday, 10 March this year with great excitement, religious fervour and devotion. While ascetics and pilgrims visited Shiva temples, thousands flocked especially to the Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu to pay respects. On the occasion of Mahashivaratri, some of the devotees took holy dips in sacred rivers and ponds (though the water was not clean), observed fasting, made bonfire, took Prasad, and recited hymns to Shiva.
Legend has it that people who perform self-abasement on this day or in the run up to the festival receive boons in the practice of yoga and meditation for the cleansing of the soul and bring them one step closer to liberation from maya (the cycle of rebirth). Shiva is considered the first guru in Hinduism, from whom the yogic tradition originates. According to tradition, the planetary positions on this night are such that there is a powerful natural upsurge of energy in the human system. It is said to be beneficial to stay awake and aware throughout the night.
Worshippers of Shiva (shaiva–margis) fast and worship different forms of Lord Shiva by staying up all night. This is where the marijuana smoking comes in as Shiva is believed to be an avid smoker and marijuana smoking on this day is called taking ‘Shivako Prasad’ or ‘Shiva Buti’.
However, possession of cannabis is illegal in the country though ascetics are permitted to possess and consume the narcotic during the festival as it is considered as the ‘Prasad’ of lord Shiva. Shiva is known for accepting negative habits for goodness and worshippers, Sadhus and Babas smoke particularly on this day in reverence to Shiva. Grown up youngsters especially the boys, the festival is also associated with smoking marijuana.
During Mahashivaratri, young boys and girls lure to take pictures with Sadhu Babas for their memory and fun. It’s really a fun and also an occasion to look and see hundreds of Sadhus, female Sadhus and also Nanga Babas at a time in and around the Temple of Pashupatinath and across the river Bagmati. These Sadhus come from various parts of the country and also from India. Most of the Swami Sadhus and Nanga Babas came from India, just after completing the Prayag Kumbha Mela in Allahabad this year.
As kids, Shivaratri meant blocking roads and lanes with strings and ropes, listening to others talk about the crowd at Pashupatinath. Blocking roads during Mahashivaratri, as many might have realized, is a phase. During blocking of the road, children say that Mahadev (Shiva) is feeling cold. So it needs some money to buy and collect the firewood. Children do it for pure fun, more often than not, not knowing the myth behind the tradition.
It used to be cold during Shivaratri night and people, who fasted and awoke all night worshipping Shiva, primarily blocked roads asking for firewood to keep them warm through the night with bonfire (samidha). With time, kids started blocking roads asking for money for fun and some earning.
Collections from various sources
Filed under: Blogroll | Tagged: maha shivaratri, Nanga Baba, Sadhu | Leave a Comment »
There are 8,553 boundary pillars, subsidiary and minor pillars marked on the strip maps along the Nepal-India boundary line. Among them, 5,276 pillars had been established on the ground and 3,277 pillars have been still remained to be constructed. Among the constructed pillars, 499 have been washed away by the rivers. Besides, 202 pillars have been vandalized, missing and pulled out. They are no more above the ground. In addition, 684 pillars need repair and maintenance and 189 are seriously damaged in dilapidated condition.
Boundary pillar number 565, located near to the Bagah village of Purusottam Village Development Committee (VDC) of Kapilbastu District of Nepal and Naugarh of Siddharthanagar India is in dilapidated condition. This pillar is located at one kilometer east of Bagahi Police Station of Nepal. Plaster on the pillar has been broken and the bricks have been about to fall down. This pillar may be out of its existence in a very near future. This is the representative dilapidated pillar along Nepal-India border line. Nobody has cared this type of wrecked pillar.
There are 21 Indian Sashastra Sena Bal (SSB) and 4 Nepal Armed Police on average in one kilometer of distance along the Indo-Nepal border line. It is commendable that boundary pillars are common asset of both the countries. But both the sides have not taken interest to repair the border pillar number of 565 located between Kapilbastu District of Nepal and Siddharthanagar of India.
Chief District officer (CDO) of Nepal and District Magistrate (DM) of India must take interest jointly to repair and maintain this type of dilapidated boundary pillars. Head of the governments must take interest on this matter and instruction should be given to the local authorities on time. If this type of dilapidated pillar is not repaired on time, there may have disputes, claims and counter-claims from both the frontiers, after the non-existence of this pillar. ♣
Filed under: Blogroll | Tagged: APF, border pillar, CDO, DM, maintain, repair, SSB | 2 Comments »
बुद्धिनारायण श्रेष्ठ
एकीकृत माओवादीको हेटौंडामा भएको सातौं महाधिवेशनको दौरानमा अध्यक्ष पुष्पकमल दाहाल ‘प्रचण्ड’ ले प्रस्तुत गरेको ६४ पृष्ठ लामो प्रतिवेदनमा सीमाबारे जनमत संग्रह गर्नुपर्ने प्रस्ताव उल्लेख गरेको तर अन्तिम समयमा प्रतिवेदनबाट हटाइएको बारे मेरा धेरै शुभचिन्तकहरुले यसबारे भनाइ उजागर गर्न मलाई निकै पटक घचघच्याएको हुनाले यहाँ केही कोर्दैछु । वास्तवमा प्रतिवेदनको दफा २१-क) मा देशलाई दूरगामी असर पर्ने दर्ुइ बुँदा उल्लेख गरिएको थियो । ती बुँदामध्ये पहिलो- ‘नेपालको अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सिमानाको सुरक्षा, व्यवस्थ्ाापन र सीमांकनको मुख्य जिम्मेवारी संघीय सरकारको हुनेछ’ भन्ने थियो भने, दोस्रो बुँदा- ‘सीमा सम्बन्धी मामिलामा जनमत संग्रह मार्फत अन्तिम स्वरुप दिइने छ’ भन्ने रहेको थियो । यद्यपि आफ्नै कार्यकर्ताहरूको व्यापक दबाबका कारण जनमत संग्रह गर्ने बुँदा प्रतिवेदनबाट अन्तिम समयमा हटाइयो । यहाँ जिज्ञासा उठ्छ प्रतिवेदनको सुरुमा ती बुँदा किन राखिएका थिए र पछि किन हटाइयो -
ठूला पार्टर्ीीमध्ये एक भएको र सरकार संचालनमा रहेको पार्टर्ीी अध्यक्षले महाधिवेशनमा प्रस्तुत गरेको प्रतिवेदनमा किन राष्ट्रियतामाथि आँच आउने यस्ता बँुदाहरू पारेका होलान् भनी नेपाली जनमानसमा खैलाबैला चलेको थियो । सञ्चारमाध्यमले पनि यसलाई टिपेको थियो । महाधिवेशन प्रतिनिधिहरूले यस बुँदालाई संवेदनशील मानेका थिए ।
प्रचण्डको ६४ पृष्ठ लामो प्रतिवेदनमा समूहगत छलफल गर्न महाधिवेशनमा ६३ वटा समूह बनाइएको थियो । ती समूहमध्ये समूह ११ का बीरबहादुर कुँवर र १० का श्यामकुमार श्रेष्ठले सीमाका बारेमा जनमत संग्रह गर्ने भन्ने कुरालेे खतरा निम्त्याउँछ भनेका थिए भने नेता वर्षान पुनले भूलवस अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सीमा पर्न गएकोले सच्याइने बताएका थिए । यसैगरी पर्टर्ीीपाध्यक्ष नारायणकाजी श्रेष्ठले सीमाबारे अहिल्यै सच्चाइन्छ, सीमा विवादको विषयलाई महाधिवेशनबाटै टुंगो लगाइन्छ भनेका थिए । पार्टर्ीी्रवक्ता अग्नी सापकोटाले सीमा राष्ट्रियताको विषय हो भनेका थिए । छोटकरीमा भन्नुपर्दा जनमत संग्रहबाट सीमा विवाद टुंग्याउनेबारे महाधिवेशनमै व्यापक असन्तुष्टि देखियो । यसै कारणले अन्तिम घडीमा आएर प्रचण्डले आफ्नो प्रतिवेदनबाट जनमत संग्रह गर्ने बुँदा हटाएका थिए । यद्यपि भारतलाई निकटमा राख्न सुरु प्रतिवेदनमा उल्लेख गरिएको थियो भन्ने धेरैको भनाइ रहेको छ ।
यहाँ दोहोर्याउनु परेको छ, प्रचण्डले यस्तो असन्तुष्ट, विवादित र राष्ट्रप्रेमीलाई अपाच्य बुँदा किन सुरु प्रतिवेदनमा सम्लग्न गरका होलान् । यसको जवाफमा कठोर वाक्य प्रयोग गर्नुपर्दा- नेपालको अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सीमा विवादमा जनमत संग्रह गर्ने प्रस्ताव गर्ने व्यक्ति नेपाललाई सिक्किमीकरण गरेर नेपालका लेन्डुप दोर्जीरुपी नेता बन्न खोजेका हुन् कि भन्नुपर्ने अवस्था आएको छ । स्मरणीय छ, लेन्डुपले सिक्किमको संसदबाट ९७ प्रतिशत मतद्वारा १६ मे १९७५ मा पारित गर्राई स्वतन्त्र राष्ट्र सिक्किम विश्वको मानचित्रबाट विलय गराउँदै भारतको २२ औं राज्यका रुपमा भारतको पोल्टामा सुम्पेका थिए । अर्कोतर्फाट भन्ने हो भने, कतै नेपालमा लेन्डुप दोर्जी प्रवृति बढ्न लागेको पो हो कि – भन्ने शंका उत्पन्न हुन्छ । डा. प्रकाशचन्द्र लोहनीको माघ १८ को कान्तिपुरको हरफ सापटी लिंदै ‘सत्ताको लागि पैसा र पैसाको लागि सत्ता अनि यो चक्रलाई निरन्तरता दिन विदेशीको आडमा स्वदेशीलाई कजाउने संस्कृतिलाई लेन्डुप दोर्जी प्रवृत्ति हो’ भन्नु परेको छ ।
नेपाल र भारतबीच सीमा विवादमा जनमत संग्रह गर्ने प्रस्ताव डरलाग्दो राष्ट्रघात तथा राष्ट्र र्समर्पणतर्फउन्मुख भएको होइन भन्न सकिँदैन । यद्यपि एमाओवादी अध्यक्षको राजनीतिक प्रतिवेदनको यी बुँदा हल्का मात्रै होइन मजाकको रुपमा लिन पनि सकिन्छ । बेलामौकामा उनले कुनै मामिला मजाकका लागि बोलेको भनी भन्ने गरेको कुरा नेपाली जनमानसले पचाउनु परिरहेको छ । त्यसैले सीमाबारे जनमत संग्रह गर्ने भन्ने पदावली प्रतिवेदनमा पारिएको भए तापनि असावधानीवस परेकोले त्रुटी भएको भन्दै त्यसलाई हटाइएको थियो । त्यसबेला यसले दूरगामी असर पार्छ भन्ने कुरा हल्का-फुल्का तरिकाले मात्र सोचिएको थियो होला ।
जनमत संग्रह
जनमत संग्रह के कस्तो अवस्थामा कुन मुद्दाका लागि गर्ने गरिन्छ भन्ने सम्बन्धमा केम्ब्रिज डिक्सनेरी अध्ययन गर्दा बुझिने कुरा यस्तो छ- कुनै राजनीतिक प्रश्नमा केही पक्षहरूबीच कुनै खास व्यवस्था गर्ने या नगर्ने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा संवैधानिक विवाद खडा हुँदा आम बालिग जनताबाट प्रत्यक्ष गोप्य मतदानद्वारा जनताको राय -विचार) द्वारा निर्ण्र्ाागराउने उपाय जनमत संग्रह हो । जनमत संग्रहमा साधारणतया गर्ने या नगनर्ेर्ेेो या होइन/ठीक या बेठीक/यो वा त्यो भन्ने प्रश्न राखिन्छ । जनमत संग्रह जनताको भलाइका लागि गरिन्छ ।
प्रचण्डको प्रतिवेदनमा सीमा मामिलामा जनमत संग्रह गरिने भनी उल्लेख गरिएकोमा नेपालको कालापानी, सुस्ता जस्ता भारतद्वारा अतिक्रमित भूमि भारतलाई दिने या नदिने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा नेपाली जनताको अभिमत बुभ\mने भन्ने कुरा देखिन आउँछ । यहाँ बुभ\mनुपर्ने कुरा के छ भने कुनै पनि देशको आफ्नो भूमि -विवादित भए पनि) छिमेकी देशलाई दिने या नदिने भनी जनमत संग्रह गर्ने अभ्यास र परिपाटी कहिँ पनि भएको पाइँदैन । अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सीमा सिद्धान्तमा पनि सीमा विवादमा जनमत संग्रह गरिने प्रावधान रहेको पाइँदैन । यसरी सीमा मामिलामा जनमत संग्रह हुनै नसक्ने प्रावधान नेपालमा किन निम्त्याउन लागिएको थियो – यो कुरा पछि फेरि उठाउन पनि सक्छ । त्यसैले यसमा सबै र्सतर्क रहनु पर्छ । अन्य राजनीतिक पार्टर्ीी चनाखो हुनर्ुपर्छ । कालापानी, सुस्ता जस्ता नेपालको अवच्छिन्न भू-भाग मुसुलन्द बल र अर्बौं रुपियाँको भरमा जनमत संग्रहमा भारतलाई दिने भनी एकछापे लगाउँदै गइयो भने आउँदो दिनमा नेपालको अस्तित्व के होला – यो मननीय कुरा रहेको छ । मुख्यतया कालापानी सुस्ता जस्ता भारतद्वारा अतिक्रमित भूमिबारे नेपालमा संवैधानिक विवाद रहेको छैन र राजनीतिक दलहरूबीच विवाद खडा नभएको हुँदा जनताको राय किन लिन पर्यो – त्यसैले जनमत संग्रह गर्नुपर्ने कुरै उठ्दैन ।
संविधान
नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ को कुनै धारा, उपधारा तथा प्रतिबन्धात्मक वाक्यांसमा पनि सीमा मामिलामा जनमत संग्रह गर्न सकिने छ भन्ने मनसाय कहिँ कतै उल्लेख गरिएको पाइँदैन । संविधानको धारा ४ मा नेपाल राज्यलाई भाग लगाउन नसकिने व्यवस्था गरिएको छ । यसै धाराको १-क) अनुसार यस संविधान प्रारम्भ हुँदाका बखतको नेपालको सीमारेखाले घेरेको क्षेत्रफलमा कहिल्यै पनि कमी हुन दिन नहुने प्रावधान गरिएको छ । यसबाहेक धारा १-ख) अझ सशक्त रहेको छ । यस धारामा संविधान प्रारम्भ भएपछि नेपालको क्षेत्रफलमा थप भू-भाग प्राप्त भएको त्यस्तो क्षेत्र स्वीकार गर्न सकिने मनसाय रहेको छ । यसबाट विशाल नेपालको गुमेको भू-खण्ड फिर्ता भएमा त्यसलाई अंगिकार गर्न कुनै वाधा नभएको धारणा प्रकट भएको छ ।
यस्तैगरी संविधानको धारा १५-१) को प्रतिवन्धात्मक वाक्यांसमा नेपालको अखण्डताप्रतिकूल हुने कार्यमा मुनासिव प्रतिवन्ध लगाउने गरी कानुन बनाउन रोक लगाएको मानिने छैन भन्ने उल्लेख गरिएको छ । साथै धारा १५६-१) मा नेपाल राज्यको सिमाना विषयका सन्धि वा सम्झौताको अनुमोदन, सम्मिलन, स्वीकृति वा र्समर्थन व्यवस्थापिका संसदको दर्ुइ तिहाइ बहुमतले गर्नुपर्ने शर्त राखिएको छ । यसबाहेक नेपाल राज्यको प्रादेशिक अखण्डतामा प्रतिकूल असर पर्ने गरी कुनै सन्धि वा सम्झौता गरिने छैन भनी किटान गरिएको छ । यसैगरी १४३-१) मा नेपाल राज्यको र्सार्वभौमसत्ता, अखण्डता वा वाहृयआक्रमणका कारणले गम्भीर सङ्कट उत्पन्न भएमा सङ्कटकालीन अवस्थाको घोषणा गर्न सकिनेछ भन्ने प्रावधान पनि रहेको छ । यसले नेपालको अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सिमाना एक संवेदनशील तत्व हो भन्ने कुरा बुझाउँछ ।
माथि उल्लिखित धारा, उपधारामा व्यक्त भएका तथ्यता अनुसार नेपाल राष्ट्रको वर्तमान क्षेत्रफलमा कुनै हालतमा पनि कमि हुन नदिन सबै राजनीतिक पार्टर्ीीथा नागरिक समाजको कर्तव्य हुन आउँछ । यस्तो अवस्थामा वर्तमान नेपालको केही टुक्रा जमिनसम्म पनि दिने या छाड्ने भन्नका लागि जनमत संग्रह गर्ने कुरा वर्तमान संविधानविपरित हुन आउँछ । कानुनी राज्यमा मौजुदा संविधानविपरित गर्ने छुट कसैलाई पनि रहेको छैन । यदि त्यस्तो गरिन्छ भने त्यो कार्य राष्ट्रद्रोही ठहरिन्छ । त्यसैले देशको अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सीमा मामिलामा जनमत संग्रह गर्ने भन्ने कुरा हुनै सक्दैन ।
अन्तिम
अब प्रचण्डको प्रतिवेदनको दफा २१-क) को पहिलो बुँदा नेपालको अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सिमानाको सुरक्षा, व्यवस्थ्ाापन र सीमांकनको जिम्मेवारी संघीय सरकारको हुनेछ भन्नेतर्फलागौं । नेपालमा चाँडो या ढिलो संघीय संरचना लागु भएपछि यी कार्य संघीय सरकारको अधिकार क्षेत्रभित्र पार्ने कुरा प्रतिवेदनभित्र लुकेको मनसाय रहेको बुझिन्छ । एक हदसम्म सिमानाको सुरक्षा र रेखदेख गर्ने सम्मका कुरा संघीय निकायलाई दिंदा कुनै आपत्ती पर्दैन । तर सीमांकन र सीमाको व्यवस्थापन गर्ने अधिकार संघीय सरकारलाई दिंदा देशको अखण्डताप्रति खतर्नाक अवस्था उत्पन्न हुन पनि सक्छ । संघीय संरचनाका जड कारणले चार वर्षा पनि संविधान निर्माण गर्ने कार्य पर्ूण्ा हुन सकेन । परिणामतः व्यवस्थ्ाापिका संसदले आफ्नो आयुभन्दा अघि नै मृत्युवरण गर्नु पर्यो । त्यसताका एक मघेस एक प्रदेशको नारा गुन्जिएकै थियो । एक मघेस एक प्रदेश नभए एक नेपाल पनि रहन सक्दैन भन्ने कुनै राजनीतिक पार्टर्ीी अध्यक्षले गरेको भाषण नेपाली जनताले सुनेकै हुन् । यस्तो अवस्थामा मुलुकको अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सीमांकनको काम कुनै संघीय सरकारलाई प्रदान गर्दा माओवादी अध्यक्षले महासम्मेलनमा प्रस्तुत गरेको सुरुको राजनीतिक प्रतिवेदनको दफाद्वारा जनमत संग्रह गर्ने कुरा खुस्काउन खोजे जस्तो नजानिदो तरिकाले सीमांकन खुस्केमा नेपालको हविगत कस्तो होला – स्वतन्त्र राष्ट्र सिक्किम भारतमा विलय भइसकेपछि अब सिक्किमेली जनताले स्वतन्त्र सिक्किम खोजे के उनीहरूले पाउन सक्लान् – यही कुरा मननयोग्य पाठको रुपमा सिक्नर्ुपर्छ । नेपाली जनज्रि्रोमा टाँसिएको अहान रहेको छ ‘अभागी परेर चेत्छ, भाग्यमानी देखेर चेत्छ ।’ नेपालले देखेर चेत्नु पर्छ ।
सीमाको व्यवस्थापन संघीय सरकारलाई दिंदा कुनै संघीय प्रदेशले नेपाल र भारतबीचको खुला सीमा व्यवस्थालाई नियमन नगरी बन्द सीमा व्यवस्था -क्लोज्ड बोर्डर सिस्टम) अपनाएमा दर्ुइ देशबीचको सयौं वर्षेखिको मित्रता के कस्तो हुने हो, सोचनीय कुरा हुन आउँछ । बन्द सीमा व्यवस्था भनेको शत्रुताको अवस्था अवलम्बन गरिन्छ । साँच्चै भावी संघीय प्रदेशको एकाध राज्यले अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सीमा बन्द गरेमा यसको प्रतिकूल असर राष्ट्रभरका अन्य बाँकी राज्यमा पनि पर्न जान्छ । त्यसैले देशको परराष्ट्र तथा रक्षा नीति, मौद्रिक प्रणाली तथा अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सिमानाको अधिकार केन्द्र सरकारमा नै निहित राखिनु पर्छ । सीमा विवाद कूटनीतिक च्यानलबाट प्राविधिक तथाट्रयाक-टू डिप्लोम्याट परिचालन गरेर आपसी सामञ्जस्यतामा सरकार प्रमुखद्वारा समाधान गर्ने गरिन्छ । यसरी समाधान नभए तेस्रो देशको मध्यस्थताबाट समाधान खोज्नर्ुपर्छ । यसबाट पनि हल नभए संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघ तथा अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय अदालतसमक्ष जान सकिने प्रावधान रहेको छ ।
यिनै कारणले गर्दा मुलुकको अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय सीमांकनको अभिभारा संघीय प्रदेशलाई दिन अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय प्रचलन र मान्यता प्रतिकूल हुन जान्छ । समस्टिगत रुपमा भन्नुपर्दा सीमा सम्बन्धी मामिलामा संवैधानिक संकट नपरेकोले र राजनीतिक दलहरूबीच पक्ष-विपक्ष नभएकोले -सुरु प्रतिवेदनमा असावधानीवस परेको भनी हटाइए तापनि आउँदा दिनमा यो कुरालाई फेरि बल्झाई) जनमत संग्रह गर्नु अन्तर्रर्ााट्रय मापदण्ड विपरित हुन्छ ।
♣
Filed under: Blogroll | Tagged: border issues, constitution, international practice, Prachanda, referendum | 1 Comment »
Former DG, Survey Department/ Border expert, Nepal
Top leaders of the United Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN)-Maoist, including Prachanda, Babu Ram, Mohan Kiran, Narayan Kaji, Ram Bahadur Badal and others inspected Nepal-India border areas on 11 January 2010 to solve the border problems and to create awareness for national integrity and sovereignty, keeping good relations with India. They inspected the encroached Nepali land with a crowd and chanted slogans against Indian infringement.
The leaders made speeches in some pocket areas where there were border disputes, disagreements, claims and counter-claims. Maoist Chairman Prachanda said ‘We want relations with India on equal terms. We don’t eye even an inch of Indian Territory nor will we concede and inch of ours. The struggle for national sovereignty will go on till the very last moment, until the encroached land is returned. Maoist Second Vice-Chairman Mohan Baidya Kiran said that an endeavor to protect Nepali territory should not be taken as a war against India. One should not irritate its small neighbor by encroaching on the ground.
In the same way, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, First Vice-Chairman made a remark that all the treaties and agreements that Nepal and India have inked so far should be based on equality and those unequal treaties and agreements need to be abrogated right away. He alleged that the Indian side has encroached upon 1,400 hectares of land in Susta.
We will continue both political and diplomatic efforts to return the encroached land. Similarly, Maoist third Vice-Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha expressed that India has blown upon the sovereignty of Nepal constructing Laxmanpur barrage along the border, against international norms and practices.
These are some of the expressions of the top brass of Maoist political party of Nepal. During these days, this party has led the government and right now Dr. Baburam Bhattarai is the Prime Minister and Narayan Kaji Shrestha is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs. But they have never put the agenda to talk on the border issues with the neighboring country India.
This is the nature of political parties of Nepal that whenever they are in opposition bench in the parliament, they roar and draw attention of the people that Nepal’s southern neighbor has encroached Nepal’s territory. But when they form the government and get into power to rule the country, they use to keep their lips tight. They never spell that Nepal’s border has been encroached. This is a kind of irony of the political parties of Nepal.
We have to bear in mind that boundaries are related to the national integrity and sovereignty of a country. If the border has been encroached, that should be taken as a national issue whether the leaders are in power or out of power. On the other hand, if the border has not been violated, that should never be raised as an issue, whether the leaders are in administrative power or not. One could draw a conclusion that the political leaders have taken the border issue as an agenda of politics and identity for their parties, but not for the national issue. This is the mysterious and opportunistic behavior of the political parties.
Joint mechanism:
The district level authorities including the Chief District Officer (CDO) of Nepal and District Magistrate (DM) of India have a joint mechanism to discuss the problems and come into action to maintain the border intact. They use to lead their team time to time having joint meeting at the border area. They used to inspect border area and no-man’s land physically and record where the pillars are missing and no-man’s land have been encroached. They exchange information on cross-border activities concerning security, crime, infiltration of unwanted elements and discuss on how to solve grievances of the frontier people.
So far as the centre level committee is concerned, Nepal-India Technical Level Joint Boundary Committee worked for 26 years and it was dissolved on 31 December 2007 without solving major border issues. But in connection to resolve the main problems, the matter has been raised time to time during the visit of high ranking dignitaries. During the visit of Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna to Kathmandu on 15 January 2010, Nepal voiced its concern over border issues and encroachment of Nepali territory. In relation to this issue, Nepal and India reached an understanding jointly to resolve border disputes and the controversy over alleged encroachment of Nepali soil through mutual understanding at the political level.
In the same way, visiting Indian External Minister Pranab Mukherjee then told reporters in Kathmandu on 25 November 2008 that ‘We have agreed to resolve the long standing border disputes between the two countries at various places, including Kalapani and Susta through further discussions. Differences and divergence of view within the spectra of disputed areas are to be resolved and officers from both the sides will be asked to meet and resolve this issue soon.’ But the joint mechanism has not been formulated to solve this issue either in the technical or diplomatic or political level.
Cross-border governance:
Cross-border governance is essentially understood in relation to a context of ‘de-bordering.’ The dynamics of de-bordering give way to the alternative logic or fact of ‘re-bordering.’ However, the nature of cross-border relations on the basis of mutual understanding which are open is more useful to think of the border as an ambivalent object which can be at once open to others. The issue may affect the governance of cross-border regions, to the extent to which the functional changes of borders bring into play divergent interests which operate at different scales and in various temporalities. Such an examination also involves questioning the changing reality of borders by paying particular attention to practices of ‘borderisation’ and to their underlying logic.
The spatial re-composition affects social, economic and political relations within the cross-border regions whether in terms of territorial integrity or through the articulation of different geographical scales. Despite the fact, networks of actors play a determining role within the development of a multitude of cross-border institutional arrangements; work will be done within the relational approach which seeks a re-conceptualisation of the region as structured by a variety of flows and relations. In view of this, the question is not whether the territorial approach should be replaced by a relational approach, but rather how they can be combined in a way which goes beyond the inherent limits of uni-dimensional approaches.
The emergence of cross-border regions is favourable to such an enterprise: at the first step, there should not have absence of a well-defined territory. The multiplicity of actors from grass-root level to central level involved in the decision-making process favour a governance approach based on a system of negotiable political arrangements. Next, the presence of a national border cannot be relegated to the level of a simple remnant of a past territorial order as even when open it remains a significant limit in terms of State territoriality. Ultimately, it is because the processes of de-bordering/re-bordering bring into play different specialities of the border that a critical re-examination of our conceptual approaches is required.
Concluding remarks:
There is a less probability of shifting the northern border of Nepal with China, as the Himalayan Range has been demarcated as the boundary between two countries. The border has been supported by the natural environment. However, the demarcation business of 1961-62 must be appreciated. Regarding the mis-location of pillar number 57 on Nepal-China border line, this issue should be resolved by higher authorities through diplomatic channels, since it is already forwarded from the technical level. It may not be any problem because there is a very good relationship, friendship, and mutual understanding between Nepal and China in all spheres of activities. With the perspective of mutual understanding, this type of minor border issue should be resolved in an amicable manner. On the background of friendship, the Fourth Boundary Protocol should be signed as soon as possible, sorting out the debatable items in due course.
So far as the southern border of Nepal with India is concerned, there is no such natural environment as physically demarcated. So it is accessible for cross-holding occupations of agricultural land of same topography and a single settlement bisected on both the frontiers. If there is something else in such environment, issues should be settled in accordance with the historic maps and documents. It should have been adopted cross-disciplinary approach that consists of new and innovative ways to solve the issues. On top of that, there should have homogenous views into the dynamic relationship between state and society.
There must have a central and district level joint technical committee (JTC) to resolve the outstanding issues. The central level committee should discuss and take a joint decision on the major disagreed issues and that should be presented to the respective governments for final approval. District level committee should work jointly to supervise and maintain the border not to let the cross-holding occupation by the local people. Such mechanism will be helpful to resist shifting of the border between Nepal and India.
As a matter of fact, nothing will disrupt the people-to-people relationship between Nepal and India. They have close cultural ties since centuries and centuries. This kind of connectivity should not be strained by one political party’s action. It would be against the interests of people on both sides, if some element tries to sour the relations between them. It must jointly resist such moves from the people level convincing each other. One cannot strengthen its nationality by humiliating another country. So the government and people of both the frontiers must respect each other in a sense of brotherhood, friendship and good neighborliness in the field of border issues as well.
Telegraph Weekly, 13 February 2013
Filed under: Blogroll | 2 Comments »
