Felicitation Program by Greater Nepal Weekly

Greater Nepal Weekly Second Anniversary


Felicitation Program


I was fortunate to be the Chief Guest of a program entitled ‘Greater Nepal Weekly Second Anniversary and Felicitation Program’ on 1st July 2014, organized by the Greater Nepal National Weekly in the Siddhartha Cottage, Tinkune, Kathmandu. The program was inaugurated by myself and Surendra Dhakal, Editor/Publisher of the Greater Nepal National Weekly by lighting the candles.


I presented a Letter of Felicitation in a plaque to Rabi Lamichhane, Guinness Book of World Record Holder on behalf of the Greater Nepal National Weekly.



In the mean time, I also presented a book to Lamichhane entitled ‘International Boundary Making’ as I am one of the co-authors, published by the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), Copenhagen, Denmark.

Lamichhane had conducted a program on 10-11 April 2013 in the News24 Television for 62 hours and 12 minutes continuously (Longest Marathon Television Talk show) making interviews to more than 84 distinguished personalities from different walks of life, that broke the world record. Fortunately, I was one of the interviewees. Lamichhane had taken my interview for 45 minutes.
During my interview, I had spoken that to make publicize on the birth place of Lord Gautam Buddha, we have to write in the arrival / departure lounge of our Tribuhvan International Airport, embarkation / disembarkation cards, Hotel reception counter, meeting hall of the ministries (especially, prime minister’s diplomatic meeting room, ministry of foreign affairs and finance and various offices and commissions), at the end of the visiting card of the dignitaries that ‘Buddha was Born in Nepal.’
I had made my visiting card after three days of that interview mentioning at at the end of the card that ‘Buddha was born in Nepal.’ after two months, I had used that card when I had visited Colombo and Kandy of Sri Lanka. during the meeting, I had also given this card to Mr. Gamini Bandara, Director of International Affairs, Temple of Tooth Relic at Dalada Maligawa, Kandy on 23 April 2013. I also presented this card to Excellency Ambassador of Nepal to Sri Lanka Mr. Sushil Chandra Amatya, when he had invited our group for dinner in his residence on 21 April 2013. Mr. Amatya had told me that he will include these wordings, while he makes new visiting card.

Visiting Card
I am happy to felicitate Rabi Lamichhane, as the chief guest of the program, for his noble work to protect the integrity and nationality of Nepal making publicity all over the world that ‘Buddha was Born in Nepal.’

I expressed that Lamichhane is committed to preserve the national identity and territorial integrity.We have to join our hands to him in the matter of national feeling. It was commendable that he conducted so long interviews that he broke the world record. It has enhanced the prestige of our nation.

I explained the terminology of nation, nationality and nationalism. Nationalism is a feeling or antimation to be honest and dedicated to the nation and to glorify the national pride. Nationalism is not a substance to be sold and to buy in the market. For the self-respect, nationalism is the soul or heart of a living person. If the soul is sold, it will be the end of country’s nationalism.



A man dies, if his heart is failed. In the same way, if the nationalism is failed, the country will be vanished. With these notions, one must have faith upon his country whether it is least developed or developing or under developed or developed; and must deserve for the betterment of the nation in all respect.


Similarly, Mr. Anil Joshi, Chairman of News24 Television was felicitated by Borne Bahadur Kari, Chairman of Nepal Press Council and special guest of the program. Surendra Dhakal, Editor/Publisher of Greater Nepal National Weekly and Ujir Magar, general Secretary of Federation of Nepalese Journalist and guest of the program jointly presented the felicitation plaque to Nirmal Raj Paudel, Chairman of Welcome Event Management on behalf of Greater Nepal National Weekly.
On the occasion, Rabi Lamichhane expressed thanks to Greater Nepal Weekly for the appreciation of his work presenting letter of appreciation.



In the program, Borna Bahadur Karki, Ujir Magar, Surendra Dhakal. Krishna Raj Dulal, Manager of the Weekly had made a welcome speech. Tejendra Prasai, Executive Editor of the Weekly highlighted on the activities of the Weekly. At the end of the program, Momo and tea was served for the guests and invitees.


International Boundary Making

Int. Bdry. Makaing

International Boundary Making

Professional Standards and Practice


Haim Srebro

Copyright c The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), December 2013.
All rights reserved.
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
Kalvebod Brygge 31–33
DK-1780 Copenhagen V
Tel. + 45 38 86 10 81
E-mail: FIG@FIG.net

Published in English
Copenhagen, Denmark
ISBN 978-87-92853-08-0

Published by
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
Editor: Haim Srebro
Authors: Miklos Pinther, William A. Robertson, Maxim Shoshany, Buddhi N. Shrestha,
Haim Srebro

Front cover and introdcution photos: Haim Srebro
Design: International Federation of Surveyors, FIG
Printer: 2013 Hakapaino, Helsinki, Finland

International Federation of Surveyors is the premier international organization representing the interests of surveyors worldwide. It is a federation of the national member associations and covers the whole range of professional fields within the global surveying community. It provides an international forum for discussion and development aiming to promote professional practice and standards.

FIG was founded in 1878 in Paris and was first known as the Fédération Internationale des Géomètres (FIG). This has become anglicized to the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). It is a United Nations and World Bank Group recognized non-government organization (NGO), representing a membership from 120 plus countries throughout the world, and its aim is to ensure that the disciplines of surveying and all who practice them meet the needs of the markets and communities that they serve.



SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………8

BOUNDARY-MAKING MODEL…………………………………………………………………………………………..15
Part I Prologue………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
Chapter 1: The Process of International Boundary Making………………………………………17
Chapter 2: The Order of Precedence of Boundary Definitions…………………………………39
Chapter 3: A Model of Boundary Delimitation in a Peace Agreement……………………51

PRACTICAL CASES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….67
Part II Prologue…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………68
Chapter 4: The Israel–Jordan International Boundary……………………………………………….69
Chapter 5: Demarcation of the Iraq–Kuwait Boundary……………………………………………..94
Chapter 6: Contributions and Challenges for Surveyors
in the Establishment of International Boundaries – Cases in Africa……………………..118
Chapter 7: Demarcation of the International Boundaries of Nepal………………………149



Robert Frost in “Mending Wall” poetically said, “good fences make good neighbours”. In
the same vein, our Profession believes good boundaries make good fences that make good neighbours. This must particularly be so with international boundaries, as good boundaries unite rather than divide. The consequence of good international boundaries should promote and contribute towards peace and shared prosperity.

This publication addresses surveying methodology and experiences in the delimitation and demarcation of international boundaries. The process of international boundary making is generally categorised into four recognised phases. They are: the preparations for an agreement, boundary delimitation, boundary demarcation and, boundary maintenance and administration. Surveying for the delimitation and demarcation of international boundaries is highly specialised.

The team of contributing authors, Miklos Pinther, Bill Robertson, Maxim Shoshany, Buddhi Shrestha and Haim Srebro, who are also professionals and practitioners, must be congratulated for their diligent efforts leading to this publication. It is an accomplishment for this team of authors, from diverse background yet eminent in their experience and expertise, under the able leadership of Haim Srebro, Editor for the publication. The support from the team’s families, employers, and FIG member organisations are equally appreciated. FIG thanks the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors for co-sponsoring the printing of this publication.

FIG extends gratitude to the United Nations Cartographic Section for their contribution to this publication, in particular the peer review carried out by Ms. Ayako Kagawa, Mr. Ghassan Mkhaimer and Mr. Kyoung-Soo Eom.

It is the hope that this publication will enhance information, knowledge and practices for the delimitation of international boundaries towards the promotion of peace throughout the world.

CheeHai Teo
International Federation of Surveyors
December 2013


The following experts and institutions are acknowledged for their valuable contributions to this FIG Publication:

Editor and Contributing Author

Dr. Haim Srebro is a senior consultant on mapping and boundaries and author of books on these subjects. Former Director General of the Survey of Israel (2003–2012). He participated as a leading figure in the delimitation of the international land and maritime boundaries of Israel. Since 1994 he is chair of the Israel–Jordan Joint Team of Experts regarding the international boundary. He is vice chair of FIG Commission 1. He was FIGWW2009 Congress Director. E-mail: haim.srebro@gmail.com.

Other Contributing Authors (in alphabetical order)

Miklos Pinther, retired. Former Head, Cartographic Department, The American Geographical Society (1969–1977). Former Chief Cartographer, United Nations (1985–2001). He was the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Iraq–Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission at the time of this demarcation. E-mail: pinther@optonline.net.

Dr. William Alexander (Bill) Robertson ONZM has been involved in the demarcation of five international boundaries in Africa and Asia. He has also acted as an independent consultant on various World Bank Land Administration projects and for the United Nations. Previously he served as Director General and Surveyor General of the New Zealand Department of Surveying and Land Information. Bill is a Past President of the New Zealand Planning Institute and a Past President of the Commonwealth Association of Planners. E-mail: billrobertson@xtra.co.nz

Prof. Maxim Shoshany is a Professor of remote sensing at the Department of Transportation and Geo-Information, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion, Israeli Institute of Technology. He was in the past head of the Geography Department at Bar Ilan University. E-mail: maximsh@tx.technion.ac.il

Buddhi Narayan Shrestha     is the former Director General, Survey Department of Nepal. Currently he is working as the Managing Director of Bhumichitra Mapping Co. He is the Board Member of ‘Institute of Foreign Affairs’ nominated by Nepal Government. He has authored seven books on border demarcation and management of Nepal. He was involved in Nepal–India and Nepal–China Joint boundary Committees. He is the President of Nepal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. E-mail: bordernepal@gmail.com.

                                  SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Very special thanks to the Cartographic Section, Division for Geospatial, Information & Telecommunications Technologies (DGITT), Department of Field Support, United Nations and in particular, Mr. Kyoung-Soo Eom, (Chief Cartographic Section), Ms. Ayako Kagawa (Chief Geo Support Unit) and Mr. Ghassan Mkhaimer (Technical Project Manager, Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Maintenance Project or IKBMP) for the support, the knowledgeable and invaluable review of the entire publication;

Special thanks to the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors for its support and contribution
towards the publication including co-sponsoring the cost of printing of the publication;
Special thanks to the FIG Council and FIG Commission 1: Professional Standards and Practice for their support and encouragement;

Special thanks to Dr. Bill Robertson for his thorough review of the publication on behalf
of FIG;

Special thanks also to the Survey of Israel, an Affiliate Member of FIG and its Director
General, Ronen Regev for its support;

Thanks to the Association of Licensed Surveyors in Israel, a Member Association of FIG
and the Technion Israeli Institute of Technology, an Academic Member of FIG for its support; and

Last but not least, to the FIG Office and its staff for administering the process from
conceptualisation to completion of the print version and in particular, coordinating the
layout, printing and despatch.



It is a privilege to write this forword for this important FIG publication on international boundary making. The New Zealand Institute of Surveyors and I are proud to be part of the publication under the editorship of Haim Srebro, a highly experienced international boundary consultant. With this pedigree it presents an authoritative and knowledgeable outline of the surveyor’s role and challenges in international boundary making. It serves its purpose well in promoting the sharing of information, methodological knowledge and experience required in the delimitation and demarcation of international boundaries.

As such it fills an important gap in publications on the subject of international boundary
determination. Over the last century there have been numerous determinations of international boundaries and many books and papers on this. However, these are invariably concerned with the legal and political dimensions of international boundaries. Thus, this collection of surveying methodology and experience is particularly timely in emphasising the role of surveying and describing the range of processes and procedures involved. It records a full surveying and demarcation methodology that has existed previously only in the scattered records of various international boundary projects.

The contents confirm surveying for international boundaries is of a high level specialist
nature and that the surveyors’ role demands a wide portfolio of surveying expertise. These range through documentary research, geodetic surveying, digital imagery and mapping, reconnaissance, ground marking and positioning etc. The references to the surveyor working within strict legal and political parameters are most valuable and highlight the serious constraints imposed on surveying activity and conduct in the international legal and political arena. The proposed methodology for establishing a boundary making process between two states provides a very useful survey guidance model avoiding the need to continually reinvent from surveying first principles. The process of international boundary making is categorised in the four generally recognized phases. These are the preparations for a boundary agreement, boundary delimitation, boundary demarcation, and boundary maintenance and administration. All phases require significant surveyors’ input. The compilation of chapters from five well experienced authors on seven different international boundaries provides a wealth of surveying experience. It contains a depth of learning through the application of survey practice in a wide variety of historic, physical and political circumstances. References to International Court of Justice and Permanent Court of Arbitration and other cases provide authoritative sources for detailed follow up by readers and practitioners.

This publication is timely and it provides comprehensive documentation and guidance
on a specialist topic of surveying that has been lacking up until now. It is a very good
reference publication for all involved or interested in international boundaries and fills
a gap both in surveying and international boundary literature. FIG is to be congratulated
on producing this publication at this time as a valuable service to the international
surveying community.

Dr Bill Robertson ONZM FNZIS
New Zealand Institute of Surveyors
December 2013

Thori Border as it is seen

Thori Border as it is seen

The local people of Thori (Parsa District) asked the Chief District Officer (CDO) Kailash Kumar Bajimaya on 4 February 2014- “Where is our borer ? Please show us the border limit of our national boundary, we shall guard that border. Today you have come to visit this spot and you will go back tomorrow. But we are the people to fight and protect the border.” It was questioned as an expression while the CDO, Chief Survey Officer, Security Officer and other officials had visited Thori.
Thori is located 70 kilometer west of district headquarter Birganj. There have been confrontations time and again on this point of the border. Recently, 200 Indian Special Security Bureau (SSB) personnel infiltrated the Nepali territory with arms and weapons and obstructed the construction of Bit Office Building of Maiti Nepal (saviour and watch dog of trafficking girls and women). But Nepali local people protested the Indian SSB and there was nearly a situation of confrontation. Ultimately, Nepali people chased the Indian SSB beyond the border.
The local people says- five villages including Bhikhana Thori of India have been depending upon the water, flowing from Nepal, for their drinking water and irrigation purposes. Nepal had provided them the water regularly. But now the Indian SSB personnel have intruded Nepali frontier up to the Parewa Bhitta area to capture the territory up to the very source of the the water. This is mysterious and deplorable.
Some years ago, construction of a bridge on Thute Khola stream by Nepal government on the Nepali frontier was obstructed by Indian SSB claiming that land to them . Due to tolerance and kind heartened Nepal government, the construction work was stopped and still stranded. The local people including Ekraj Neupane says- India intends to amalgamate our Nepali territory of Thori into their Indian Bhikhana Thori frontier.
This incident shows that the local people have made an expression and they have shown their willingness as a symbol- ‘if the government is not able to protect the national boundary of Nepal, the local people will do it. The most important thing is to show them the national boundary line of Nepal.

ठोरी सीमामा जे देखियो

बुद्धिनारायण श्रेष्ठ

वीरगन्जबाट प्रमुख जिल्ला अधिकारीको टोली करिब तीन/चार महिनाअघि ७० किलोमिटर पश्चिममा रहेको ठोरी पुग्दा त्यहाँका स्थानीयवासीले ‘कृपया हाम्रो सीमा कहाँसम्म हो देखाइदिनोस्, हामी सीमाको पहरेदारी गर्छौं’ भनी प्रजिअसमक्ष भनेको कुरा यसै दैनिकमा प्रकाशित भएको थियो । समाचार पढेपछि पंक्तिकारलाई जिज्ञासा उत्पन्न भएको थियो- सीमा प्रशासन अधिकृत, प्रमुख नापी अधिकृत, सशस्त्र प्रहरी इन्चार्ज तथा सुरक्षा निकायका व्यक्तिसहित सर्जमिनमा आएका प्रमुख जिल्ला अधिकारीले नेपाल-भारतबीच रहेको ठोरीको सीमारेखा जनतालाई देखाउन किन सकेनन् ? समाचारमा अर्को सन्देश पनि थियो । सम्बन्धित पदाधिकारीले ठोरीको सीमा अंकित गर्न र सरकारी स्तरबाट त्यहाँको सीमा संरक्षण गर्न सक्दैनन् भने स्थानीय जनताले नै राष्ट्रको सीमा जगेर्ना गर्ने मनोकांक्षा बोकेका हुँदारहेछन् भन्ने खबर देखायो । खबर आएलगत्ते म ठोरीका स्थानीय स्वयम्सेवी चल्तापुर्जा एक व्यक्तिसँग सम्पर्क राखी विगत हप्ता म ठोरीतर्फ लागेंँ ।
रणभूमिमा जाने सिपाहीले खरखजाना बोकेजस्तै मैले पनि आफ्नो व्यक्तिगत संकलनमा रहेका सन् १९२२ तथा १९२८ मा तत्कालीन बि्रटिस इन्डियाले बनाएको टोफोग्राफिकल नक्सा, नेपालले फिनल्यान्ड सरकारको सहयोगमा बनाएको सन् १९९७ को स्थलरूप नक्सा, नापी विभागले सन् १९८५ मा प्रकाशित गरेको पर्सा जिल्ला नक्सासमेत सामग्रीका साथ ठोरी पुगें । त्यहाँ ठोरी उपभोक्ता समिति अध्यक्ष, राजनीतिक अगुवाहरू, पूर्वप्रहरी, स्थानीय वासिन्दाहरू, स्वयम्सेवी, ज्येष्ठ नागरिकहरू, स्थानीय सञ्चारकर्मी, नेपाल प्रहरी, सशस्त्र प्रहरी इन्चार्ज आदि जम्मा भएका रहेछन् । मैले त्यहाँ सन् १९२८ को नक्सामा कोरिएको सीमारेखालाई ‘म्याप टु ग्राउन्ड’ सत्यापन गर्दै जमिनमा देखाएँ ।

Thori Map

स्मरणीय छ, यो नक्साको पुछारमा ‘नेपालसँगको सिमाना र नम्बरसहितको सीमास्तम्भ सन् १८८२-८३ को नेपाल बाउन्ड्री सर्भे नक्साबाट लिइएको छ’ भनी उल्लेख गरिएको छ । अतः यसै नक्साको आधारमा मैले छेउछाउको ढिस्को, खोला, बलौटे भाग, जंगल आदि जमिनको भाग नक्सामा देखाउँदै स्थानीयवासीलाई बुझाउने प्रयत्न गरेँ । यसका लागि ठोरी सीमा विवादित क्षेत्रको एक कुनाबाट अर्कोतर्फ समूहसँगै नक्सा र जमिन भिडाउँदै घन्टौं पैदल हिँडियो । सीमा खम्बामा कुँदिएको नम्बरलाई नक्सामा अंकित गरेको त्यही नम्बरको संकेत नम्बरसँग भिडाइयो । भिडाउने क्रममा नक्सामा अंकित ८४ तथा ८५ नम्बरका जंगेखम्बा जमिनका फेला परेनन् । अनि जमिनमा रहेका जंगेखम्बा नं. ८२ तथा ८३ का सहायताले त्यसैको सिधा सरलरेखामा पर्ने तर जमिनमा नभेटिएका ८४ नम्बरको खम्बाको अवस्थिति जमिनमा चिन्ह लगाइयो ।



यस चिन्हबाट कोण र दूरीको आधारमा खम्बा नं. ८५ को जमिनमा हुनुपर्ने स्थिति पनि अनुमान गरियो । त्यसपछि यस खम्बाबाट पश्चिमतर्फको ठुटे खोला र चिताहा खोला पार गरी सवा किलोमिटर सिधा दूरीको जंगल र पहाडको घाँचमा रहेको सीमास्तभ नं. ३५ पुग्दा खम्बा सहिसलामत रहेको पाइयो । यसबाट जंगेखम्बा नं. ८४ तथा ८५ जमिनमा नहुनाको कारणले नेपालको भूमि मिचिनमा बल पुगेको सबैले महसुस गरे ।


समस्याको कारक तत्त्व

जमिनमा नभेटिएका जंगेस्तम्भ नं. ८४ देखि करिब आधा किलोमिटर उत्तर नेपालको परेवा भित्ताबाट निस्केको पानीको मुहान नै सीमा विवादको मूल कारकतत्त्व रहेछ । त्यस मुहानबाट निस्केको पानी तीनवटा कुलोमा विभाजन गरिएको छ । एउटा कुलोको पानी नेपालतर्फ पठाइएको छ भने बाँकी दुई कुलोको पानी भारततर्फ लगिएको छ ।


भारतीय बस्तीमा खानेपानीको अभाव भएकोले सम्वत् २०४५ तिर स्थानीय तहमा सहमति गरी आधा मात्रामा पानीको उपयोग गर्न भारतलाई दिइएको थियो । भारतीयहरूले यो पानी सिंचाइ प्रयोजनका लागिसमेत उपयोग गर्न लागे । भारततर्फको सीमावर्ती बस्ती भटुझिला, भवानीपुरदेखि पहरिया, पुरनियासम्मका १४ गाउँमा जनसंख्या तथा घरधुरी वृद्धि हुँदै गएकोले पानीको आवश्यकता बढ्दै गयो । यसैले पानीको दुई तिहाइ भाग भारततर्फ लगियो । अहिले भारतीय सशस्त्र सेनाबलले पानीको मुहान भएको परेवा भित्तासम्मकै नेपालको भू-भाग भारततर्फ पर्छ भनी दाबा गर्दै आएका छन् । सुरुमा खानेपानीको माग गरेका सीमापारिका मित्रले अहिले पानीको मुहानै कब्जा गरी आफ्नो सीमातर्फ पार्ने क्रियाकलाप गर्दै आएका छन् । भारतीय बस्तीमा पानीको माग पूर्ति गर्न नेपाली भू-भागबाट निस्केको पानीको मुहान क्षेत्र नै भारततर्फ पार्ने उनीहरूको मनसाय रहेको बुझिन्छ ।

सीमारेखाको लगभग एक किलोमिटर उत्तरमा नेपाल प्रहरी र सशस्त्र प्रहरीको चौकी रहेको छ । चौकी नजिक ठोरी बजार र छोटी भन्सार कार्यालय पनि पर्छ । नेपाली चेलीबेटी ठोरी नाकाबाट अवैध तरिकाले भारततर्फ लैजाने गरिएकोले यहाँ माइती नेपालको बिट राखिएको छ । सीमारेखाबाट २ सय मिटर नेपालतर्फको भूमिमा बस बिसौनी नजिकै माइती नेपालले चेकपोष्ट भवन निर्माण सुरु गर्दा करिब २ सय भारतीय सशस्त्र सेनाबल -एसएसबी) जवान २०७० माघ १७ गते हतियारसहित पसी निर्माण अवरोध गरेपछि त्यस क्षेत्र तनावग्रस्त बनेको थियो ।

Maiti Nepal

भारतीयहरूले बस बिसौनी हटाउन खोजेका थिए । स्थानीय नेपाली समुदायले प्रतिकार गरी एसएसबीलाई लखेटेका थिए । आखिर भारतीय जवानहरूले नेपालको भूमिमा आएर किन गडबड मच्चाए भनी बुझ्दा एसएसबीको भनाइ रहेछ- ‘यस क्षेत्र भारततर्फबाट दाबा गरिएकोले विवादग्रस्त इलाका भएको हुँदा विवाद समाधान नभई कुनै निर्माण गर्न पाइँदैन ।’

स्थानीय तहले मानेको सीमारेखाबाट २ सय मिटर नेपालतर्फको भूमिमा विवाद झिक्नुको पछाडि परेवा भित्ताको पानीको मुहान जोडिएको रहेछ । नेपालतर्फको बस बिसौनी र माइती नेपालको भवन बन्नलागेको भूमि भारततर्फ परेमा त्यस सीमारेखाले पानीको मुहान भएको क्षेत्र स्वतः भारतीय क्षेत्रभित्र पार्न सकिने रहेछ । यसरी नेपालको ठोरीको भू-भागलाई भारतको भिखना ठोरीमा गाभ्न सकिए भारतीय सीमावर्ती क्षेत्रमा पानीको अभाव सधैंका लागि पूर्ति गर्न सकिने योजना रहेको बुझिन्छ ।

अंग्रेजले भारतमा शासन गरेको समयदेखि नै भिखना ठोरी भारतका लागि एक महत्त्वपूर्ण सीमाविन्दु रहेको पाइन्छ । नेपालको वनजंगलबाट लकडी, टिम्बर, जडिबुटी र पशुको काँचो छाला भारततर्फ लैजान सीमाबाट आधा किलोमिटर दक्षिणसम्म रेलवे लाइन विस्तार गरी भिखना ठोरी स्टेसन निर्माण गरिएको थियो । यहाँबाट लगिएको टिम्बरले रेलवे लाइनको पटरीको खाँचो परिपूर्ति गरेको थियो । ठोरीको जंगल सखाप हुनथालेपछि अब यस रेलले नेपालको ढुंगा, रोडा, बालुवा ओसारिरहेको छ, जुनचाहिँ भारतीय सीमावर्ती क्षेत्रमा निर्माण हुँदै गरेको पूर्व-पश्चिम राजमार्गको निम्ति आवश्यकीय वस्तु हो । केही दशक अघिसम्म नेपालका लागि पनि भिखना ठोरी नाका उपयोगी थियो । गोरखा, धादिङ, तनहुँ, चितवनका वासिन्दालाई भारततर्फ जान र मालसामान ल्याउन सुविधा थियो । अझै पनि माडी उपत्यकाका नेपाली वासिन्दा ठोरी नाका भएर भारत जाने-आउने गरिरहेकै छन् ।

ठोरीको ठुटे खोलामा वर्षायाममा बाढी आउँदा आवत-जावतमा सुविधा पुगोस् भनी नेपालले आफ्नो इलाकामा पुल बनाउन खोज्दा भारतीय एसएसबी जवानहरू नेपाली भूमिमा पसेर रोक लगाएका थिए । पुल निर्माणका लागि नेपाली ठेकेदार कम्पनीले २०६७ माघमा कायम गरेको विन्दुहरू उखेलेर फालिदिएका थिए । यसैगरी विद्युत प्रसारण लाइनका निम्ति सिमेन्टको खम्बा गाड्दै ल्याउँदा पानीको मुहान भएको परेवाभित्ता दक्षिणमा गाड्न नदिई लडाइएको पोल अझै त्यहाँ देख्न सकिन्छ ।



माथिका घटनाक्रम आफ्नै ठाउँमा छन् । तर नेपाल र भारतबीच बाँकी रहेको सीमारेखाको अस्पष्टता, जंगेखम्बा जमिनमा नभेटिएका ठोरीजस्ता सीमा क्षेत्रको समस्या आपसी सामञ्जस्यता, सौहार्दता र भाइचाराका नाताले समाधान गरिनुपर्छ ।


स्मरणीय छ, नेपाल-भारत सीमांकन पुराना नक्सा दस्तावेजका आधारमा गरिनेछ भनी नेपाल-भारत संयुक्त प्राविधिकस्तरीय सीमा समितिको कार्यप्रणालीमा उल्लेख गरिएको छ । त्यसैले ठोरी क्षेत्रको सीमा विवाद बि्रटिसकालीन सर्भे अफ इन्डियाले सन् १९२८ मा प्रकाशित गरेको नक्सामा देखाइएको जंगेखम्बा नं. ८४ तथा ८५ जमिनमा निर्माण गरी सधैंका लागि विवादको छिनोफानो गरिनुपर्छ ।



Nepal’s Policy on Crimea

Nepal’s Policy on Crimea

Reading Book-PP




Buddhi Narayan Shrestha

Crimea as a federal state kept up pressure to be separated from Ukraine and to unify with Russia on 9 March 2014. Crimea became the flashpoint in the battle for Ukraine, where three months of protests sparked. During that period Ukraine Prime Minister said- ‘This is our land. Our fathers, grand fathers and forefathers have spilled their blood for this land. And we won’t budge a single centimeter from Ukrainian land.’ He further said, this is the threatening of the unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine. In spite of the Prime Minister’s expression, the regional parliament in Crimea set a referendum for 16 March on leaving Ukraine to join Russia. Some of the Crimean local inhabitants who were working in Ukraine’s national railway network expressed ‘In Russia I can earn over three times what I do in Ukraine.’

The referendum was to decide whether to split off from Ukraine and become part of Russia or stay with Ukraine but with greater autonomy. The referendum was held and result was in favour of seceding from Ukraine. 97 percent of voters opted to join Russia. After the referendum Russian President and Crimean leaders signed on treaty on 18 March 2014 on making Crimea part of Russia. Now Russian flag was waved in Crimea.

In the mean time Ukraine’s Parliament appealed to the Untied Nations to discuss the occupation by Russian forces of its Crimean Peninsula that violated the fundamental principles of international law. To materialize the Ukraine’s request, there was a voting in the UN General Assembly on 26 March, whether the Ukraine appeal to the UN should be entertained.

UN General Assembly affirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and deemed the referendum that led to Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula illegal. The vote on the Ukraine-sponsored resolution in the 193-member world body was 100 countries in favour, 11 opposed and 58 abstentions, and 24 countries did not vote.

So the high number of ‘Yes’ votes representing more than half the 193 UN member states, was a sign on international anger at Moscow’s slow motion military invasion of Crimea. Before the vote, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister told the Assembly that his country’s territorial integrity and unity had been ‘ruthlessly trampled’ by Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council entrusted to maintain international peace and security, and in direct violation of the UN Charter. He told reporters after the vote, ‘It is the message that the world is united and Russia is isolated.’

But Russia’s UN Ambassador called it ‘A moral victory for the Russian diplomacy, because an increasing number of countries are beginning to understand the complexity of the situation and motives behind the actions on Crimea and the Russian Federation.’ He urged a ‘No vote’ saying a historic injustice in Crimea has been corrected and its people had expressed their right to self-determination in wanting to join Russia. Himalayan Times Daily, 29 March 2014: 6

Whatever may be the result of the voting in the UN General Assembly, Crimea has been annexed to Russia and Crimean territory is amalgamated within the territory of Russian Federation. It has shown that United Nations also is a meek and powerless organization that it could not implement the decision of the voting of the General Assembly on the issue of territorial integrity of a UN member nation.

In connection to the annexation of Crimea to Russia, United States President Barack Obama said: Vladimir Putin with being a menace to an international system built up over decades following the Russian leader’s sudden appropriation of part of Ukraine. Putin’s decision to redraw his region’s borders had caused ‘a moment of testing’, Obama said in a 40-minute speech on his first visit in office to Brussels. ‘Bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way,’ he said. ‘We must never take for granted the progress that has been won here in Europe and advanced around the world, because the contest of ideas continues. And that’s what’s at stake in Ukraine today. Russia’s leadership is challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident, that in the 21st century the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law matters, that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future.’ Obama painted Putin as a menace to a law-based international system that had taken decades to establish after the Second World War. The Guardian.com, Wednesday 26 March 2014

On the other hand the Russian President Vladimir Putin said ‘In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia, making it sound like it had always been a matter of time before Moscow made its move to recover the territory. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice.’ The Guardian, 23 March 2014 Putin further said Crimean people are free for their self-decision. Western countries have instigated Ukraine on the matter of Crimea, and they are intended to push the international politics to the cold war.

This shows that the speed of Mr. Putin’s annexation of Crimea, redrawing an international border that has been recognized as part of an independent Ukraine for 23 years, has been breathtaking.

After one month, Crimean flare did spread over Donetsk, a city of eastern Ukraine. Donetsk also proclaimed, on 7 April 2014, the creation of a sovereign ‘People’s Republic’ independent of Kiev rule. The self-proclaimed leaders of Donetsk vowed to hold a regional sovereignty referendum no later than 11 May 2014. Himalayan Times Daily, 8 April 2014:7

In the context of federalism, Nepal can take a lesson from Sudan as well. Sudan was splitted on Sudan and South Sudan. There was a voting whether South Sudan should break away from Sudan and declare independence. 98.83 percent of the South Sudanese population voted for independence from Sudan. As a result South Sudan was created on 9 July 2011, as the 193rd Member State of the United Nations. But there was a dispute on the border between Sudan and South Sudan during March-April 2012. Fighting broke out on the sharing or ownership of border oil fields. However, demilitarized buffer zone was created and resumed South Sudanese oil production for export. The region of Abyei still remains disputed and a separate referendum is due to be held in Abyei on whether they join North Sudan or South Sudan.

Nepal must not forget the case of Crimea regarding the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and independence of a country like Nepal. In the same way while framing the Articles on boundaries, Nepal must remember that Czechoslovakia was divided into Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. Yugoslavia was splitted into six divisions in 1991 and Kosovo was created as a new country in 2008. Similarly, it is a sensitive matter for Nepal that Sikkim was annexed to India in 1975 through the medium of referendum and Tibet was amalgamated to China in 1959 on the basis of military forces.

Constitution drafting and framing up its Articles are very important matters for the national integrity and sovereignty. Boundary of a nation is a sensitive element in the perspective of territorial integrity. If there might have been some loop holes in the article and sub-articles of the constitution, the country would be divided or splitted into various divisions. Ultimately, all these divisions may be weaker in terms of national defense and sovereign power.

Whatever it may be, the CA members and high ranking authorities and personalities must keep in mind the case of Ukraine and its federal State Crimea, located on the Black Sea of Europe, while drafting and framing new constitution. Nepal must learn from Crimean case. If they do not pay attention on the incident of Crimea, Nepal shall meet the misfortune as Ukraine has experienced woefulness that its Federal State Crimea did split up from mainland Ukraine.

UkraineMy article has been published in Nepali language on Crimea as follows:

क्रिमियाबारे नेपाल नीति

युरोपको कृष्णसागरमा रहेको प्रान्तीय राज्य क्रिमिया प्रायद्वीप युक्रेनकै सीमाभित्र रहिरहने या रूसको सीमारेखाभित्र गाभिने भन्ने दुई विकल्पका साथ जनमत संग्रह भएको थियो । जनमत संग्रहद्वारा दुई तिहाइभन्दा बढी मतले रूसको सीमाभित्र गाभिने इच्छा व्यक्त गर्‍यो । परिणामतः १८ मार्च २०१४ देखि क्रिमियाको सीमाभित्र रूसी झण्डा फहराइयो । यसबाट रूसको भौगोलिक सीमा विस्तार भयो, त्यस राष्ट्रको क्षेत्रफल बढ्यो । अर्कोतिर युक्रेन राष्ट्रको २६ हजार १ सय वर्गकिलोमिटर भू-भाग घट्यो र २० लाख जनसंख्या कम हुनपुग्यो । क्रिमियाको आगो सल्किएर युक्रेनकै अर्को राज्य दोनेत्सकले हालै स्वतन्त्र भएको घोषणा गर्नुका साथै त्यहाँ जनमत संग्रह गरिने भएको छ । तथापि जनमत संग्रह सफल हुन्छ या हुँदैन भन्ने कुरो गर्भभित्रै रहेको छ ।

यसबाट विश्वका शक्तिराष्ट्रबीच विश्व राजनीतिमा तरंग पैदा भयो । विश्व इतिहासमा क्रिमियाको मामिलाले भौगोलिक अखण्डता, जनताको सार्वभौमिकता, राष्ट्रिय सुरक्षा संवेदनशीलतामाथि समेत प्रश्न खडा गर्‍यो । युक्रेनको स्वशाषित राज्य क्रिमियाले जनमत संग्रह घोषणा गरी रूसको सीमाभित्र विलय हुने निर्णय गरेपछि विश्वका विभिन्न देशहरू अमेरिका तथा युरोपेली र रूस गरी दुई खेमामा विभाजन हुनपुगेका थिए । यसैबीच जनमत संग्रह रूसको दबाबमा भएको भन्दै युक्रेनले जनमत संग्रहको नतिजालाई मान्यता नदिन संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघसमक्ष अनुरोध गर्‍यो । यसै सिलसिलामा क्रिमियामा सम्पन्न जनमत संग्रहलाई वैधानिकता दिने वा नदिने भन्ने विषयमा संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघको साधारण सभामा २६ मार्चमा मतदान भयो । जनमत संग्रहलाई मान्यता दिन नहुने पक्षमा अमेरिका, बेलायत, इयु देशहरूको १ सय मत पर्‍यो भने मान्यता दिने पक्षमा बेलारुस, बोलिभिया, उत्तर कोरिया आदि देशको ११ मतका साथै नेपाल, चीन, भारत, इजरायल, इरान आदि ५८ देश तटस्थ बसे । यस आलेखमा उल्लेख गर्न खोजिएको कुराचाहिँ नेपाल किन तटस्थ बस्यो ? तटस्थ बस्न हुने थियो या थिएन ? तटस्थताका सम्बन्धमा नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ ले के संकेत गरेकोे छ ? भन्ने सम्बन्धमा हो ।

कुनै पनि विश्व मामिलामा तटस्थ बस्नुको मतलब नेपाली जनमानसमा प्रचलित उक्तिले ‘मौनम् सम्मति लक्षणम्’को अर्थभाव दर्शाउँछ । क्रिमियामा भएको जनमत संग्रहलाई मान्यता नदिन युक्रेनले गरेको अनुरोधको प्रसंगमा संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघले मतदानको व्यवस्था गरेको हुँदा यस मामिलामा तटस्थ बस्नुको मतलब युक्रेनको अनुरोध अस्वीकार गर्नु हो । युक्रेनको अनुरोध अस्वीकार गरी तटस्थ बस्नुको मनसाय क्रिमियाप्रति ‘साइलेन्ट भोट’ हालेको मान्न सकिन्छ । यद्यपि भारत तथा चीन पनि तटस्थ रह्यो । भारतले सिक्किमको र चीनले तिब्बतको प्रसंगलाई लिएर क्रिमिया मामिलामा तटस्थ बस्न बाध्य भएको विश्लेषण गर्न सकिन्छ । तर नेपालले के प्रसंगलाई लिएर तटस्थको नीति अपनायो ? यसको जवाफमा दुई कुरा हुनसक्छ । पहिलो, छिमेकी भारत र चीनले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय रङ्गमञ्चमा जेजस्तो नीति लियो, नेपालले त्यही नीति लिने गर्छ । दोस्रो, विश्वका देशहरू टुट्ने, फुट्ने र जुट्ने प्रसंगमा अभिव्यक्त गर्ने नेपालको आफ्नो ठोस नीति नै छैन । जेजस्तो आइपर्छ, हचुवाको भरमा मतदानको संकटकाल घडी पार गर्छ । यस्तो संकटको घडीमा नेपाल कहिले सफल भएको छ भने अन्य कतिपय अवस्थामा विश्व रङ्गमञ्चमा नेपाल नराम्ररी पछारिएको छ । जे होस्, क्रिमियाको मामिलामा नेपालले कूटनीतिक विसन्चोपना देखाएको छ । कमजोर नीति भएका अथवा नीति नै नभएका देशहरूले देखाउने मानसिकता यही नै हो ।

नेपाल सर्वाभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न स्वतन्त्र राष्ट्र हो र नेपाल ‘टेरिटोरियल इन्टेगि्रटी’मा विश्वास राख्छ । यस पक्षमा नेपाल अडिग रहेको हो भने विश्वसमक्ष आफ्नो मौलिक नीति प्रदर्शन गर्न युक्रेनको मामिलामा नेपालले उसलाई मतदान गर्नुपर्ने हो । तर ‘निगेटिभ या पोजिटिभ भोटिङ’ नगरी क्रिमिया प्रायद्वीप मामिलामा तटस्थ रहन नहुने थियो ।

क्रिमिया समस्या सम्बन्धमा काठमाडौंस्थित अमेरिकी तथा रूसी पक्षधर कूटनीतिक संस्थाले नेपाललाई आ-आफ्नो पक्षमा आउन दबाब दियो । नेपालको क्रिमियाप्रतिको धारणाबारे परराष्ट्रमन्त्रीले सञ्चारकर्मीलाई जानकारी दिँदै भनेका थिए- ‘हामी युक्रेनेली जनताको सार्वभौम अधिकार र राष्ट्रिय अखण्डताको सम्मान गर्छौं । क्रिमियाली जनताले जनमत संग्रहबाट दिएको जनादेशको पनि सम्मान गर्छौं । तर एउटा मुलुकबाट फुटेर अर्कोमा जाने निर्णयको समर्थन गर्दैनौं । हाम्रो नीति अहस्तक्षेपकारी हो ।’ यस भनाइबाट पनि नेपालको कूटनीतिक विसन्चोपना दर्शन आउँछ । अर्को कुरा, परराष्ट्रमन्त्रीको यो भनाइ सर्वदलीय धारणा हो-होइन ? क्रिमिया समस्याबारे सबै दलका नेतासँग विचार-विमर्श गरी तय भएको राष्ट्रिय धारणा हो या होइन ? यो महत्त्वपूर्ण पक्ष हो । एउटा मन्त्रालयको सचिवको पदस्थापना गर्न सर्वदलीय धारणा राखेर अल्भिmने केन्द्रीय प्रशासनले क्रिमियाबारे नेपालको राष्ट्रिय नीति निर्धारण गर्न के कस्तो प्रक्रिया अपनायो ? यसैकारण सरकारले गरेको निर्णय विपक्षी दलले नमानेको हुँदा कार्यान्वयनमा आउन नसकेका धेरै उदाहरण छन् ।

अब लागौं नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ ले क्रिमियाजस्तो मामिलामा तटस्थताका सम्बन्धमा के भन्न खोजेको छ ? संविधानको धारा ४ मा ‘नेपाल एक स्वतन्त्र, अविभाज्य, सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न राज्य हो, नेपालको क्षेत्र यो संविधान प्रारम्भ हुँदाका बखतको रहनेछ’ भन्ने उल्लेख भएको छ । यसैगरी धारा १५ (१) मा नेपाल राष्ट्रको अखण्डतामा खलल पर्नेगरी कानुन बनाउन रोक लगाइएको छ । धारा २५ (१) मा नेपालाई खण्डीकरण गर्न खोज्ने जोसुकैलाई पनि नजरबन्दमा राख्न सकिने र देशको अखण्डतालाई कायम राखी अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय जगतमा राष्ट्रिय सम्मानको अभिवृद्धि गर्नुपर्ने कुरा उल्लेख गरिएको छ । साथै धारा १४३ (१) मा नेपाल राज्यको सार्वभौमसत्ता, अखण्डतामा युद्ध, बाह्य आक्रमण, सशस्त्र विद्रोहका कारणले गम्भीर संकट उत्पन्न भएमा नेपाल सरकार मन्त्रिपरिषदले संकटकालीन अवस्थाको घोषणा गर्न सक्नेछ भन्ने प्रावधान राखिएको छ । संविधान अनुसार नेपालको सीमारेखाले घेरेको क्षेत्रफलमा कहिल्यै पनि कमी हुनदिन नहुने प्रावधान रहेकाले संघीय राज्य क्रिमिया युक्रेन राष्ट्रबाट छुट्टएिर जाँदा युक्रेनको ६ लाख ३ हजार ४ सय ७० वर्गकिलोमिटर क्षेत्रफलमा कमी आउने भएकोले नेपालको संविधानको मर्म र भावनाअनुरुप संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघमा मतदान हुँदा युक्रेनको क्षेत्रफल कमी नहुने पक्षमा नेपालले मतदान गर्नुपर्ने थियो । तर नेपालले मतदानमा भागै लिएन ।

यस्ता गम्भीर प्रकृतिको विश्व मामिलामा नेपालले भविष्यमा नीति निर्धारण गर्दा सन् २०११ मा सुडानबाट टुक्रिएर दक्षिण सुडान जन्मेको, १९९३ मा चेकोस्लाभाकिया चेक र स्लाभियामा टुक्रिएको, युगोस्लाभिया १९९१ मा ६ टुक्रामा विभाजन भएको, सिक्किम जनमत संग्रहको माध्यमद्वारा सन् १९७५ मा भारतमा विलय भएको, तिब्बत १९५९ मा चीनमा गाभिएको, २००८ मा कोसोभो नयाँ राष्ट्रका रूपमा जन्मिएको आदि घटना हृदयङ्गम गर्नुपर्छ । युक्रेनकै अर्को प्रदेश दोनेत्स्क किभबाट स्वतन्त्र भएको घोषणा २०१४ अपि्रल ७ मा भएको छ । अब मे ११ भन्दाअघि नै क्षेत्रीय सार्वभौमिकताका लागि त्यहाँ जनमत संग्रह गरिने घोषणा पनि भइसकेको छ । दोनेत्स्क मामिलामा संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघमा मतदान गर्नुपर्ने खण्ड आए नेपालले आफ्नो देशको संविधानको मानसिकताअनुरुप राष्ट्रिय नीति निर्धारण गर्दै त्यसै मुताबिकको कूटनीति अख्तियार गर्नुपर्छ ।


Tanakpur Barrage

Tanakpur Barrage and its structure

constructed by India

consists of 222 hectares of Nepali territory

Interview by Everest Times (Published from London)

Year-6, Issue-27 : March 18, 2014

Everest Times


Cartoon Gallery on border issues

     Cartoon Gallery on the border issues

I have borrowed the cartoons from various newspapers and magazines. I have added the headings and caption on the top and down sides of the cartoon. I have mentioned the source of the cartoons.

101The embrace of both the head of governments is warm. But it seems that the relation is rather cold on the border issue. During the sideline meeting in Colombo SAARC Conference on 26 July 1998, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala talked to the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. After returning to Kathmandu, PM Koirala narrated to the Nepali media persons ‘I talked to the Indian PM that there are proofs of historical maps and document which tells ‘Kalapani belongs to Nepal.’ I cannot say that it was the positive achievement, but I guess Vajpayee understood well what I wanted to tell him.’ So the issue of Kalapani tends to reach at the prime ministerial level, but the issue comes down to the lowest level of administration without any decision.
◊ ◊ ◊


India is a good neighbour of Nepal, but it seems that intention is rather bad. Kalapani-Limpiyadhura of Darchula district has been encroached by India, just after the end of Indo-China border war of 1962. The Nepali territory is being occupied imprudently by India, who cares whatever the rest of the world says. The lean and thin prime minister of Nepal seems to be unoffending with the shameless counter-part.
◊ ◊ ◊

103People are sensitive on the Kalapani border issue. They go to the political leader asking for the solution of the problem. Nepali political leader is lethargic and his advisor is not well qualified. The advisor is presenting advice to the leader ‘Tell the people that India must go back from Kalapani, as we have proofs. Why do you get afraid ? Later on, we shall not produce documentary proof, when we talk with India.’
◊ ◊ ◊

104Susta of Nawalparasi district has been encroached by India since more than fifty years. But India is never realizing that Nepali territory has been encroached. Nepali people are astonished with the behaviour of the Indian authorities.
◊ ◊ ◊

105One political leader regards him superior to other leaders. They are fighting themselves each others. But India is encroaching Nepali territory, as a mouse excavates the soil and makes holes in so many places.
◊ ◊ ◊

106There is a good relation between Nepal and India. But India shows the utmost insanity. India is chasing the Nepali farmers of Susta as similar as the demented bull chases the down running deer.
◊ ◊ ◊


. Nepal land border is going to be turned into water boundary. Nepali frontier is getting inundated due to the construction of barrages, embankments and structures by India; just close to the borderline and No-man’s Land. The Masonry Junge Boundary Pillar is going to be submerged. We should not get the pillar tumbled down. If the Junge Pillar is intact, our descendants will protect our boundary.
◊ ◊ ◊


In connection to the writing of new constitution, Madhes based political parties are demanding one single Federal State for the whole of Tarai plain on the issue of State Restructuring and delineating various States in relation to Federalism. They are making slogan that if there is no ‘One Madhes’ there will be ‘No Nepal.’ General people are thinking, if one Madhes is formed, there is a possibility to form also ‘One Bhot Pradesh.’
◊ ◊ ◊


Our leaders are passive on the issue of Susta Encroachment by India. They think if they raise the voice of Susta issue with their counterparts, they will be tumble down from their post. So they don’t want to hear on the Susta issue.
◊ ◊ ◊

110New constitution writing elapsed four years without finalizing some of the issues raised in the Constitution Assembly Meetings. The issue of ‘One Madhesh One Federal State’ was one of them. The political parties could not reach into conclusion on this matter. And the Constitution Assembly was dissolved pre-maturely some hours before the completion of its time period.
◊ ◊ ◊






Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 288 other followers