Buddhi Narayan Shrestha does not need much introduction as he is Nepal’s seasoned geographer and border specialist. A former Director General at the Department of Survey, Shrestha knows well where the nation feels the pains of frontier encroachment.
While working as a top bureaucrat, he also had the opportunity to lead separate delegations of the Nepal-India Joint Level Boundary Committee and the Nepal-China Boundary Committee. The self-motivated border researcher has as many as 14 books, including one under review, to his credit.
Border Man of Nepal, International Boundaries of Nepal, Border Management of Nepal, India-Nepal Frontier Dams and Knowledge On Boundaries are some of his prominent publications.
All those books seem to be dealing with the country’s boundary-related concerns in one way or the other. With its growing popularity among readers, the publication titled ‘International Boundaries of Nepal’ has already been translated into eight languages—Russian, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Polish. In addition, one and a half dozen other books have also been published in co-authorship.
A recipient of numerous prestigious national and international awards and medals, he has made dozens of presentations on boundary demarcation and border management issues. He has also proposed solutions to such sensitive problems.
With a great sense of patriotism, the writer has been lobbying for resolving Nepal’s border problems with neighbours, especially India, once and for all. His point of view is quite convincing and valid because it is based on evidence. Being a painstaking and well-read geographer, Shrestha has been contributing to the nation voluntarily by carrying out in-depth research studies on a myriad of border issues to bring the truth to light.
In his relentless attempt to collect pieces of evidence about the nation’s border problems, he has visited a host of renowned libraries such as the Harvard University Library, MIT Library, Johan F. Kennedy Presidential Library, and British Museum Library, among others. He has also spent money from his pocket on travelling and paying permission fees to some of such libraries.
The book under review is the translated version of the author’s book titled ‘Nepal Sambandhit Sima Naksa Sangraha’. However, the writer has updated some of the texts and added a few others to this book. It is very informative as it contains major historical boundary maps showcasing Nepal’s international borders, especially the northwestern part adjacent to India.
This publication incorporates 90 various maps and other necessary shreds of evidence justifying the country’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and freedom. It has additional 44 detailed maps along with a zoom version of the vital sections of the maps such as Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulek.
What is more significant are their meticulous interpretations and explanations. In this publication, the author has made a sequential explanation of what the maps indicate. A detailed analysis of the maps could help resolve the longstanding contested border issues.
Many historical documents and pieces of evidence, including the Sugauli Treaty, show that India has occupied about 372 square kilometres of territory of Nepal in the Lipulek-Limpiyadhura-Kalapani region alone.
The maps and their comprehensive interpretations could be an important resource for the nation to take the much-needed step towards regaining the lost territory. The country did not have such proof in the past. So, the author deserves a lot of appreciation for doing such a nice job for the nation.
The border encroachment issue became more complicated when India published her new political map on November 2, 2019, with the incorporation of Lipulek, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani in it. Naturally, Nepal expressed serious concern over the matter and called for its southern neighbour to hold talks in order to settle the dispute amicably through the diplomatic channel.
But the Indian government did not show its readiness to resolve the issue under one pretext or the other. Instead, on May 8, 2020, India officially opened a link road leading to Kailash Manasarovar in the Tibet Autonomous Region of China through Lipulek.
All the major political parties in Nepal opposed India’s unilateral step. The unsolicited Indian move forced the Nepal government to bring out a revised administrative and political map of the country.
The map incorporates Kalapani, Lipulek and Limpiyadhura in it.
India is not serious about seeking a permanent solution to the border problem with Nepal.
The southern neighbour’s continuous indifference to Nepal’s frequent pleas to initiate dialogue is a clear indication that the former just want to linger on the problem. Its refusal to receive the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG)’s report on the boundary issues also justifies it.
Ironically, many Indian leaders often say that they want to settle frontier problems through mutual talks and understanding. In such a situation, Nepal must keep following up on the border issues with India.
As the book contains a lot of historical maps and documents, diplomats, as well as researchers focusing on Nepal-India relations, could find it very useful. The book could be worthwhile even for readers who are interested in Nepal-India border issues.
Book Launch: Collection of Historical Boundary Maps Related to Nepal
l
Buddhi Narayan Shrestha
Book Launch :
Collection of Historical Boundary Maps Related to Nepal
Authored by: Buddhi Narayan Shrestha
The book entitled ‘Collection of Historical Boundary Maps Related to Nepal’ was launched in a special function at the Hotel Hardik, Bagbazar, Kathmandu. The chief guest was the folklore and cultural poet Tulasi Diwas to launch the book. The other guests were political analyst Prof. Dr. Surendra KC, military heritage expert Nepal Army Retired Brigadier General Dr. Prem Singh Basnyat, senior journalist and editor of Gorkha Express Weekly Rajan Karki and myself as the author of the book.
During my turn, I spoke at first a brief introduction of the guests who were on the dais. First, Tulasi Diwas is the famous poet, literature, folklore cultural expert and author of more than three dozens of books concerning indigenous culture. Some of his books have been translated and published in twenty five languages. He has travelled more than one fourth of the world countries to participate and recite his poems. He is known by famous cultural poets in many countries.
Second, Prof. Dr. Surendra KC is a famous political analyst and vocal orator. He has given more than five thousand interviews in various electronic media, especially television and online media. He is a retired professor of history in the Tribhuvan University. Now, he teaches in various private institutes and in some other education sectors. He does the comment and critical appreciation of many of the Nepali political leaders time and often in the electronic media. He is the author of more than a dozen books, including diplomatic history of Nepal. He is known far and wide in the Nepali community at home and abroad.
Third, Nepal Army Retired Brigadier General Dr. Prem Singh Basnyat is the military heritage expert. He is a researcher on the forts, fortress and war castle of the border areas of Nepal. He has obtained knowledge on the border issues of Nepal and he is the analyst of Anglo-Gurkha War 1814-16. He has a loud solid proof voice, while giving interviews to the media. He has authored eighteen books, including Military History & Heritage of Nepal, Anglo-Nepal War : Military Review as well.
Fourth, Rajan Karki is the senior journalist and editor of Gorkha Express Weekly. He writes on a column regularly in his weekly. He has written seven books and translated six other books from Hindi and English.
After the launching of my book by the dignitaries, I spoke: while we talk on the border issues of Nepal, we have to deal on the 1439 kilometre long Nepal-China boundary and 1880 kilometre long Nepal-India boundary line as well. There is one issue with China at Korlangpariko Tippa in the Lapcha village, located north of Lamabagar of Dolakha district. This is a matter of six hectares of Nepali territory.
While talking the border issue with India, according to my study and research, there are encroachments, disputes, claims and counter-claims at 71 places and spots. Its total area is 606 square kilometre.
Everybody knows that there are disputes of encroachment of the territory of Nepal by India in Greater Limpiyadhura area (372 sq km). The next issue is the Susta area with 145 sq km and the rest 89 sq km in other 69 places and spots.
I narrated: as almost all the Nepali people know, India published a new ‘Political Map of India’ on 2 November 2019 encroaching Nepal’s territory of Lipulek-Kalapani-Limpiyadhura, which consists of Nabhidang, Gunji, Nabi, Kuti settlements of Nepal. Nepal protested it saying that new map of India has encroached the territory of Nepal. Nepal ministry of foreign affairs sent five diplomatic notes inviting India for bilateral talk on this matter. At first, India ignored. While Nepal pressed, India responded that the talk will not be possible during COVID-19 pandemic period. However, after the subsiding of the pandemic, Nepal followed up, but India was not willing to talk with Nepal on the border issue. So, it was under compulsion that Nepal published a new ‘Political & Administrative Map of Nepal (Chuche Naksa or Pointed Map)’ on 20 May 2020 including the whole area that was encroached by India, just after India-China Border War-1962. It became a ‘Conflict of Maps’ between Nepal and India. The same area of Greater Limpiyadhura area has been overlapped on the map published from Nepal and India.
In such a situation, my book, just now formally released, will be helpful to resolve the dispute over Greater Kalapani or Limpiyadhura. The book contains collection of 90 historical boundary maps related to Nepal published from 1800s to nearly to this date. The maps prepared in 1795. 1805, 1819, 1827, 1851, 1856, 1880, 1907, 1947 and some other published in Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese, German, French characters depict that the river Kalee (Mahakali) is originated from Limpiyadhura. I have collected these maps from the Library of Congress- Washington DC, British Museum Library- London, Public Record Office- London, Royal Geographical Society Library- London, National Library of China- Beijing, and Nepal National Library, Keisher Library, Madan Puraskar Library, Tribhuvan University Central Library- Kathmandu etc.
I further said: while talking by the government of Nepal to India government organizations about the Lipulek-Kalapani-Limpiyadhura border issue, this book will be the solid proof and evidence that the area of Greater Limpiyadhura, encroached by India, belongs to Nepal. Nepal government authorities and researchers must study this book to discuss, plead, negotiate and mediate to maintain and preserve the territorial frontier, sovereignty and national integrity of Nepal.
I opined that discussion and dialogue is the first and foremost clue to negotiate the border issues with the neighbouring countries. If it is negotiated and settled the issue with each other, that will be permanent or for ever. On the other aspect, if one country wins in the United Nations or international court of justice, that may not be sustainable for ever. The loosing country will create unnecessary disturbances and annoyances to the winner country time and often, even in a trifle matter. So, Nepal must apply a clever, meaningful and tactful diplomacy to resolve the border grievances that India may not harass Nepal in future taking the same old issue.
During my speech, I mentioned that I have written fourteen books and eighteen other books in co-authorship. I am the Editor-in-Chief, MILAN Magazine published by JICA Alumni Association of Nepal, Kathmandu. I have published more than 600 articles in daily, weekly and monthly newspapers, magazines and journals. I have given more than 450 interviews on electronic and paper media (including BBC London, and Nepali / Hindi Services, China Global Television Network, Nepali Television Washington DC).
During my talk, I highlighted on one of my books entitled ‘International Boundaries of Nepal. The English script book was published by Lambert Academic Publishing, Latvia, Europe in 2019. It has been translated and recently published by the same publisher in eight languages (Russian, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Polish). Foreword of the book is written by Professor Martin Pratt, Former Director of International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU), University of Durham, UK.
Various items such as international boundary principles, stages of boundary making, reasons of boundary aggression, border disputed countries of the world, ways and means to resolve the issues, countries of the world who fought on the border issues, border diplomacy and other theoretical deliberations etc etc have been elaborated in the book. This book has been published by Nirala Publication, New Delhi, India, as the South Asian Edition in 2021.
At the end of my talk, I thanked all the dignitaries who released my book jointly. Similarly, I extended thanks to the audiences who came here to show their love and respect to the national boundaries of Nepal. I also expressed gratitude to the electronic, paper and online media to publish the news of my book launch.
° ° ° °
Prof. Dr. Surendra KC was the next speaker. He said: Buddhi Narayan Shrestha had published his book entitled ‘ Nepalko Simana (Boundary of Nepal) in 2000 AD. We had visited Jhapa Bhadrapur to know the location of Junge Pillars and to study the border encroachment situation of Susta area, together in a group. There is an Indian encroachment in Kalapani area. There are Indian para-military men in our territory. Chandani-Dodhara, sovereign territory of Nepal have been neglected. Our political leaders are selfish and they are not intended to resolve the border issues. The then incumbent foreign minister Panday had said that King Mahendra sold the Kalapani territory with two boxes of gold. What is this mysterious saying ? On the other hand Bhairab Risal, noted senior journalist, has said his team had conducted census of the Kalapani area in 2018 BS.
9-Photo of Surendra KC speaking
K C further spoke: Buddhi Narayan is studying and motivating to resolve the border issues with India. In the present book, border issues have been engraved with the maps, which will help to resolve the issues with India. He has published many other books. Important thing is to read and understand the facts and figures mentioned in the book. He has established the statistics of the boundary of Nepal. The maps included in the present book does not have in the national archives of government of Nepal. But, Buddhi has collected these maps from the American Library of Congress, British Museum Library- London, National Library of China- Beijing etc. He has created awareness and spelled solution of boundary disputes.
He has published Chuche Naksa (Beaked Map) in 2003 in his book. Unfortunately, Chuche Naksa is not included in the new constitution of Nepal-2015. It should have been included in one of the pages of the constitution. However, government has published Chuche Naksa in 2020 AD. Present book written by Buddhi Narayan will be useful also for Nepal government. I congratulate him and wish he will continue his study and research in the days to come as well.
° ° ° °
Nepal Army Retired Brigadier General Dr. Prem Singh Basnyat opined that this book consists of historical facts and figures. The writer of this book border expert Buddhi Narayan Shrestha uses to raise his voice loudly time and often while there are border encroachments by the neighbour of Nepal. At other times also, he is keen to raise the issue. His books must be read by all to know the border issues of Nepal and means to resolve it. In the historical times, military men would demarcate the border of Nepal. In these days, civilians demarcate and manage the national boundaries of Nepal. While the a few soil of the nation is encroached, the heart of the Nepali people will be burnt. So we must feel and act to protect the boundary of our nation. The book, just launched, is useful also for the laymen to researchers to know the territorial integrity of Nepal. The book consists solid proofs of maps like Lipulek-Kalapani-Limpiyadhura belongs to Nepal. If the neighbour is with a bad intention, the other neighbour will be in sorrowful state. So is the case for Nepal by the neighbour India. Our forefathers were ready to sacrifice their lives to protect the soil of the nation. But, now, we are not to that state of spirit. This is sorrowful. In this context, Nepal army should be aware to protect the boundary of Nepal. The boundary issues, if not resolved, that comes ultimately on the shoulder of the army men of the nation.
10-Photo of Prem Singh Basnyat speaking
It seems that Nepal government is not eager to talk to India and China on the issue of the boundary of Nepal. But we, the general people, should create awareness to our government to resolve the border disputes and issues with our neighbouring countries. I emphasize that Nepal army must be active ultimately, to protect our national boundary. Army should consult the concerned experts and researchers to maintain the territorial integrity of Nepal. Buddhi Narayan Shrestha is the voice raiser to make aware to protect the boundary of sovereign nation. I wish all the best to him to continue his voice on the border issues of Nepal.
° ° ° °
The folklore, poet, litterateur and folk-cultural expert Tulasi Diwas said as the chief guest of the book launch programme: I am happy to release this book authored by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha. Buddhi’s book has much important to resolve the border issues with the help of maps and charts. Our country, our home, our land and soil is important for the integrity of all the people of Nepal. I would like to mention that if we loose a bit of our own personal land, there will be quarrel and fight with our neighbour. But, we have lost our possession of a portion of our national territory at Kalapani area, our government is not sensitive to talk to the neighbouring country. Every citizen of the country should protect our territory, in the same manner as we save a small piece of our personal land. If it is necessary to flow our blood for the protection of our national territory, we must be ready for that. I repeat, every Nepali must protect our national boundary, as to protect our personal land. In the history, our forefather had created ‘Greater Nepal.’ Now, it is necessary to become aware ourselves to protect our territory.
Diwas further said: awareness should be created. Buddhi Narayan’s book has created awareness to the general people. Some of the points mentioned in the book, I had not known. It has given me some more knowledge on the boundaries of Nepal. To protect our national territory, we have to read this book, authored by Buddhi. Proof is not sufficient, But on the basis of that proofs, we have to fight for our nation for the territorial integrity of Nepal. Actually, gun is not necessary to protect our nation. But we should be united in one unit for the awareness and extension of consciousness and feeling to save our nation. We must be one-mouth with single thinking for the protection of our boundary. At present, love to the nation is to create the consciousness. So we have to go ahead to create consciousness and awareness. Regarding Buddhi Narayan’s activities, it will be insufficient, if we jointly roar our voices loudly. He has done his work attentively, according to his name Buddhi (wisdom). I wish, he may continue his intellect for the protection of national boundary of Nepal.
° ° ° °
Welcoming all the guests and audiences and media persons, senior journalist and editor of Gorkha Express Weekly Rajan Karki, at first, recited a poem authored by him concerning the national boundary of Nepal and its security. He said: there are encroachments from Mechi of the east to Kalapani on the west by India. He questioned: is it the role of a good neighbour ? It is not good to make dispute and encroach neighbours’ portion of territory. So, we, the Nepalese, should be united in one bundle within our sovereign nation to protect our territory. Sikkim was amalgamated and annexed with India by the role of the then Lhendub Dorjee. Lhendub was virtually dead when alive. He slayed his own country and his body is dead. We should not be as Lhendub in our country.
Karki further spoke: leadership in our country is not capable to lead the nation for the protection of territorial integrity. At present, Nepal is in sorrowful state, Nepal is in danger. This is my thinking. Border security is in grave danger with lapses. There is a danger that our southern neighbour India is powerful to encroach our territory from Mahakali, Lipulek-Kalapani-Limpiyadhura to Mechi to the east. In this context, we must be highly sensitive and aware for the territorial integrity and to save the soil of our motherland Nepal.
भारतले नेपाललाई भैरहवा, नेपालगन्ज र महेन्द्रनगरजस्ता वायुमार्ग उपयोग गर्न दिए इन्धन खपत कम हुने,
उडान अवधि घट्ने, उडान खर्च बच्ने, हवाई ट्राफिक जाम समस्या हल हुने, यात्रुको समय र पैसा बचत हुने थियो ।
सिमाना भन्नाले सामान्यतः पृथ्वीको सतहमा अंकन गरिएको सीमारेखा हो भन्ने ठानिन्छ । तर अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सीमा सिद्धान्त अनुसार, दुई देशबीचको सिमाना जमिनको सतहबाट सीधै माथि १ सय किलोमिटरको आकाशीय दूरीसम्म र जमिनभित्र १ हजार २ सय २० किलोमिटरमुनि पृथ्वीको केन्द्रविन्दु अर्थात् पातालसम्म पुगेको मानिन्छ । नेपाल र भारतबीच पनि वायुयान आवागमन गर्ने आकाशीय सीमामार्ग रहेकाले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय उडान भर्ने हवाईजहाजले जंगे सीमाखम्बाको सीमाविन्दुले सोझै माथि वायुमण्डलमा बनाएको नेपालको आकाशीय सीमारेखाभित्र प्रवेश गर्नुभन्दा पहिले नै हवाईजहाजभित्र जडान गरिएका सञ्चारमाध्यमद्वारा नेपालको नागरिक उड्डयन निकायसँग अनुमति लिइसक्नुपर्छ ।
यसै गरी भारतीय नागरिक उड्डयन निकायले तोकिएको आकाशीय सीमानाकाबाट वायुयानलाई नेपालको वायुसीमाभित्र पस्न निर्देशन दिन्छ । यसबाट आकाशीय सीमामार्गमा नियमन (रेगुलेटेड) सीमा पद्धति रहेको बुझ्नुपर्छ, जबकि नेपाल र भारतको स्थलमार्गमा खुला सीमा व्यवस्था छ ।
वायुयानमार्ग
नेपाल–भारत वायुयान मार्ग रेगुलेटेड व्यवस्था अन्तर्गत चलेको छ । भारतको आकाश भई नेपालको आकाशभित्र वायुयान जहीँतहीँबाट पस्न र निस्कन सक्ने अर्थात् खुला पद्धतिको छैन अनि बन्द पद्धतिको पनि होइन । नेपालको सिमानाभित्र सबै अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय उडान बारा जिल्लाको कलैयादक्षिणको जंगे सीमाखम्बा नम्बर ६५ ले आकाशमा अंकित गर्ने २६ डिग्री ५० मिनेट उत्तरी अक्षांश र ८५ डिग्री ५ मिनेट पूर्वी देशान्तरको नाकाबाट पस्ने गर्छन् । निस्कँदाचाहिँ भैरहवा र महेन्द्रनगरको आकाशमार्ग पनि समात्न सक्छन् ।
नेपालको दोस्रो अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय स्तरको गौतम बुद्ध विमानस्थल जेठ २ देखि सञ्चालनमा आएको छ । पश्चिमका देशतर्फबाट आउने वायुयानहरू इस्तान्बुल, दोहा, काबुल, इस्लामाबाद, राजस्थान, दिल्ली उत्तर, लखनउ हुँदै कलैयादक्षिणबाटै नेपाल भित्रिन्छन् । गौतम बुद्ध विमानस्थलमा अवतरण त्यस्ता वायुयानलाई पूर्वको कलैया हवाईमार्गबाट नेपाल पसी घुमेर त्यहाँ पुग्नुपर्छ । भारतले लखनउबाट सीधै नेपालको गौतम बुद्ध विमानस्थलतर्फको भैरहवा वायुमार्ग उपयोग गर्न दिए हवाई उडान २० मिनेट छोटो हुने थियो । यसै गरी दिल्लीबाट काठमाडौं आउने भारतीय यात्रुवाहक विमानलाई नेपालगन्जको वायुमार्ग भएर पस्न दिइए भारतीय यात्रुहरूलाई खर्च सस्तो पर्ने थियो । यस्ता आकाशमार्ग उपयोग गरिए इन्धन खपत कम हुने, उडान अवधि घट्ने, उडान खर्च बच्ने, आकाशमै विमान होल्ड गर्नुपर्ने बाध्यता हट्ने, हवाई ट्राफिक जाम समस्या हल हुने, यात्रुको समय र पैसा बचत हुने थियो ।
भारतका प्रधानमन्त्री नरेन्द्र मोदी छघण्टे कार्यक्रममा हालै लुम्बिनी आउँदा दिल्लीबाट ठूलो हवाईजहाजमा कुशीनगर उत्रेर त्यहाँबाट हेलिकप्टरमा चढेका थिए । दिल्लीबाट उडेको उनको वायुयान सीधै किन गौतम बुद्ध विमानस्थलमा ल्याइएन, अथवा कलैया हवाईमार्ग भएर उनको वायुयान किन भैरहवातर्फ ल्याइएन भन्ने जिज्ञासा नेपाली जनमानसमा उब्जेको छ ।
नेपालकोअनुरोध
नेपालले भैरहवा, नेपालगन्ज र महेन्द्रनगर भएर अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय विमानलाई नेपालको आकाशभित्र पस्ने अनुमति दिन भारतलाई बारम्बार अनुरोध गरेको थियो । पर्यटनमन्त्री प्रेमबहादुर आलेले २०७८ चैत १० मा आफ्ना भारतीय समकक्षी ज्योतिरादित्य सिन्धियासँग हैदराबादमा भएको विङ्स इन्डिया–२०२२ सम्मेलनमा यस्तो प्रस्ताव राखेका थिए । यसबारे गृहकार्य गरी अनुमति दिने जवाफ आएको थियो । तर अहिलेसम्म भारतले कुनै गृहकार्य नगरेकाले, लाजगाल बचाउन मोदीको वायुयान सीधै लुम्बिनी नल्याइएको हुन सक्ने उड्डयनविद्को भनाइ छ । तर, मोदीको सुरक्षा प्रबन्ध मिलाउन आएका ३० जना भारतीय सुरक्षाकर्मीको डफ्फाचाहिँ हवाईजहाजबाट कलैयाको आकाशमार्ग हुँदै गौतम बुद्ध विमानस्थलमा उत्रेको थियो ।
लुम्बिनीमा प्रधानमन्त्री शेरबहादुर देउवाले भारतीय समकक्षी मोदीसँग गौतम बुद्ध विमानस्थल सुरु भइसकेको स्मरण गराउँदै भैरहवा, नेपालगन्ज, महेन्द्रनगरमा थप हवाई प्रवेश रुट उपलब्ध गराउन आग्रह गरेका थिए । देउवाको प्रस्तावमा मोदीले सम्बन्धित भारतीय अधिकारीले यसबारे गम्भीरतापूर्वक छलफल गर्ने आश्वासन दिएका थिए । देउवाले चैत १९ देखि गरेको भारत भ्रमणका अवसरमा भएको औपचारिक वार्तामा पनि हवाई रुट अनुमतिका लागि आग्रह गरेका थिए । तर अहिलेसम्म छलफल गर्ने आश्वासन दिनेबाहेक कुनै काम भएको छैन । यो वायुमार्ग दिन भारतले किन आनाकानी गरिरहेको छ ? यसमा भारतले किन अप्ठेरो मानेको हो ? सोचनीय छ ।
सामान्यतया, सैन्य किल्ला, आणविक अध्ययन अनुसन्धान केन्द्र, प्राकृतिक तथा सांस्कृतिक महत्त्वजस्ता संवेदनशील स्थानमाथिको आकाशमार्ग अरूलाई उपयोग गर्न नदिइने प्रचलन छ । तर भारतको लखनउबाट भैरहवा र राजस्थान भएर महेन्द्रनगर आउने वायुमार्गमा त्यस्ता सुरक्षाचासोका संवेदनशील स्थान छैनन् । अर्कातर्फ, त्यही आकाशमार्ग भएर नेपालबाट भारततर्फ जाने हवाईजहाजलाई रोकिएको छैन । जान दिने, आउनचाहिँ नदिने भारतीय परिपाटी युक्तिसंगत देखिँदैन । गौतम बुद्ध विमानस्थल चिनियाँ कम्पनीले बनाएकाले भारतले आकाशमार्ग दिन आनाकानी गरेको र मोदीको विमान नल्याइएको भए यसलाई एउटा असल विचार मान्न सकिँदैन ।
कान्तिपुर दैनिकको जेठ ३ को अंकमा उल्लेख भए अनुसार, मोदीले लुम्बिनी तीर्थाटनका क्रममा भनेका थिए, ‘नेपाल–भारत सम्बन्ध हिमालझैं अटल छ । दुवै मुलुक मिलेर आपसी सम्बन्धलाई हिमालको जस्तै उचाइ दिनुपर्छ । अब हाम्रो सम्बन्धलाई विज्ञानसित जोडेर अगाडि बढाउन सकिन्छ, यसका लागि भारत काँधमा काँध मिलाएर सघाउन तयार छ । मायादेवी मन्दिर दर्शनको अवसर मेरा लागि अविश्वसनीय हो, मानवका रूपमा भगवान् बुद्धले जन्म लिएको स्थानमा टेक्न पाएकोमा हर्षित छु ।’ भारतका सरकार प्रमुखको यस्तो अभिव्यक्ति आउँदा–आउँदै पनि नेपालले गौतम बुद्ध विमानस्थलमा उत्रने छोटो आकाशमार्ग पाउन सकेको छैन । किन यस्तो कन्जुस्याइँ गरिएको होला ? यसबाट नेपाल–भारत सम्बन्ध मोदीले भनेजस्तो साँच्चै उचाइमा पुग्नेमा सन्देह उत्पन्न हुन्छ ।
अर्कातर्फ, भारतले ‘अरुण–४ अर्धजलाशययुक्त जलविद्युत् आयोजना’ नेपाल–भारत संयुक्त रूपमा निर्मार्ण गर्ने सम्झौतामा हस्ताक्षर गराइछाड्यो । जबकि भारतीय सहयोगको अरुण–३ जलविद्युत् आयोजना पूरा हुन अझ निकै वर्ष कुर्नुपर्छ । भारतले माग्नेबित्तिकै नेपालले दिने, नेपालले भने पटकपटक अनुनय–विननय गर्दा पनि भारतले आकाशमार्गको अनुमति दिने छाँट छैन । त्यसैले मोदीको ‘भारत काँधमा काँध मिलाएर नेपाललाई सघाउन तयार छ’ भन्ने भनाइ सार्थक होला भनी नेपाली जनताले पत्याएका छैनन् ।
सीमामामिला
प्रधानमन्त्री देउवाको भारत भ्रमण र मोदीको लुम्बिनी भ्रमणका अवसरमा नेपाल र भारतबीच काँचै रहेको सीमा समस्याको उठान हुन्छ कि भनी नेपाली जनताले आशा राखेका थिए । नेपाली सञ्चारमाध्यमहरूले पनि यसको आवश्यकतालाई लिएर समाचार सम्प्रेषण गरेका थिए । तर खास वार्ताको तहमा आउन सकेन ।
भारतका विदेशसचिव विनयमोहन क्वात्राले वैशाख ३० मा पत्रकार सम्मेलनका क्रममा ‘सीमाका विषयमा हल निकाल्न परराष्ट्र सचिवस्तरीय द्विपक्षीय संयन्त्र रहेको र यस विषयलाई थप राजनीतीकरण नगर्न’ आग्रह गरेका थिए । यस्तो आग्रह पहिलेदेखि नै गरिँदै आएको छ ।
२०७७ मंसिर ११ मा भारतका तत्कालीन विदेशसचिव हर्षवर्धन शृंगलाको नेपाल भ्रमणका बेला दुवै देशका परराष्ट्र सचिवस्तरीय बैठकमा ‘नेपालले जारी गरेको राजनीतिक नक्सा कालापानी–सुस्ताको विवादास्पद भूभागबारे सम्बद्ध मन्त्रालय तथा निकायबीच छलफल सुरु गर्ने आपसी समझदारी बनेको थियो । सीमा समस्यालगायत दुई देशबीच जेजति बाँकी विषय छन्, तिनलाई पनि समाधान गर्दै जाने र त्यसका लागि प्रक्रियामा राखेर अघि बढ्ने’ विषयमा पनि छलफल भएको थियो ।
पछिल्लो भारत भ्रमणका बेला प्रधानमन्त्री देउवाले सीमा समस्या द्विपक्षीय संयन्त्रमार्फत समाधान गरौं भन्ने प्रस्ताव राख्दा मोदी यसबारे केही बोलेनन् । तथापि लगत्तै गरिएको पत्रकार सम्मेलनमा भारतका तत्कालीन विदेशसचिव शृंगलाले सीमाका सम्बन्धमा प्रधानमन्त्री देउवाले आफ्नो भनाइ राखेको पुष्टि गर्दै भनेका थिए, ‘यस मामिलामा संक्षिप्त रूपमा छलफल भएको थियो । दुवै पक्षले यसलाई वार्ताका माध्यमले जिम्मेवारीपूर्ण रूपमा सम्बोधन गर्नुपर्छ भनेर आम समझदारी भयो । हाम्रो निकट र मैत्री सम्बन्धको भावनामा सीमा विवाद समाधान गर्नुपर्छ, यस्ता विषयलाई राजनीतीकरण गर्नु हुन्न ।’ विदेशसचिव शृंगलाले अझ थपेका थिए, ‘दुई मुलुकले समस्या समाधानका लागि मित्रवत् बाटो खोज्नेमा शंका छैन । दुई छिमेकी मित्रराष्ट्रहरूबीचको महत्त्वपूर्ण पक्ष भनेको आपसमा छलफल गरेर समस्या समाधान गर्न सक्नु हो । हामीेले यसरी नै बंगलादेशसँग सीमा समस्या समाधान गरेका छौं । नेपालसँग पनि हाम्रा केही सम्बन्ध छन् । यस विषयलाई अघि बढाउन जिम्मेवार छलफल र वार्ताका लागि हामी गम्भीर छौं ।’
समाधान
भारतले सीमा मामिला समाधानबारे आफू जहिल्यै वार्ताका लागि गम्भीर रहेको सन्देश त दिने गरेको छ तर नेपालले वार्ताका लागि पाँच पटक कूटनीतिक नोट पठाए पनि कार्यान्वयनको सकारात्मक जवाफ नदिने परिपाटी अहिलेसम्म यथावत् छ । हवाईमार्ग दिने सम्बन्धमा पनि गम्भीरतापूर्वक छलफल गर्ने आश्वासन दिने, तर त्यस्तो वाचा कहिल्यै पूरा नगर्ने परम्परा चलिरहेकै छ ।
एकातिर नेपाल–भारत सीमा समस्या समाधान गर्ने संयन्त्रले काम सुरु गर्न सकेको छैन भने, अर्कातिर आकाशमार्ग दिन भारत हिचकिचाइरहेको छ । भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री मोदीले ‘दुई देशबीचको आपसी सम्बन्ध हिमालझैं अटल राख्न, हिमालको जस्तै उचाइमा पुर्याउन’ नेपाललाई आवश्यक पर्ने आकाशमार्ग उपयोग गर्न दिनमा ढिलाइ गर्नु हुन्न ।
सीमाविवाद समाधानमा कूटनीतिक कौशल, परिपक्वता र चातुर्यपूर्ण ढंगबाट अघि बढ्नु आवश्यक हुन्छ
प्रधानमन्त्री शेरबहादुर देउवाको तीनदिने औपचारिक भारत भ्रमण सम्पन्न भएको एक महिनाभन्दा बढी भइसकेको छ । भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री नरेन्द्र मोदीसँगको हैदराबाद हाउसमा गरेको कुराकानीका दौरानमा सीमाको विषय उठान गरेको कुराको प्रसंग उल्लेख गर्दै देउवाले भनेका थिए– ‘हामीले सीमा समस्याबारे छलफल गर्यौँ । मैले मोदीजीलाई यो विषय स्थापित द्विपक्षीय संयन्त्रमार्फत समाधान गरौँ भनेको छु ।’ प्रधानमन्त्री देउवाले यस्तो भनेको यतिका दिन बितिसक्दा पनि न त पहिले गठन गरिएको परराष्ट्र सचिवस्तरीय संयन्त्रले काम गर्ने सुरसार देखाएको छ, न त दुई वर्षदेखि रोकिएको नेपाल–भारत सीमासम्बन्धी ‘बोर्डर आर्किङ ग्रुप’को संयुक्त बैठक नै सुचारु हुने भन्ने कुनै संकेत देखिएको छ । यस मानेमा सीमा मामिलाका सम्बन्धमा भ्रमण कत्ति पनि उपलब्धिमूलक भएकोे पाइँदैन ।
यसबाहेक प्रधानमन्त्री देउवाले भारतीय समकक्षी नरेन्द्र मोदीसँगको औपचारिक–अनौपचारिक वार्तामा लिपुलेक–कालापानी–लिम्पियाधुरा देखाइएको नेपालको चुच्चे नक्साबारे कुराकानी गर्नसम्म सकेनन् । भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री मोदीले सात वर्षपहिले नेपाल भ्रमण गर्दाको समयमा कालापानी र सुस्ताको सीमा विवाद समाधानको कार्य गर्न दुवै देशका प्रधानमन्त्रीबीच सहमति भई परराष्ट्र सचिवस्तरीय संयन्त्र गठन भएको थियो । यतिका वर्ष व्यतीत भइसक्दा पनि सुषुप्त अवस्थामा रहेको त्यस संयन्त्रलाई जगाउने प्रस्ताव भ्रमणका क्रममा उप्काउनसम्म सकेनन्, हाम्रा प्रधानमन्त्रीले ।
यसैगरी भैरहवा र महेन्द्रनगरको आकासीय हवाई सीमामार्गबाट अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय हवाईजहाज नेपाल पस्ने अनुमति लिन पनि प्रधानमन्त्री देउवा असफल रहे । भारतीय एसएसबीले दार्चुलाको महाकाली सीमानदीमाथिको तुइन हठात् फुस्काइँदिदा व्यास गाउँपालिका निवासी ३३ वर्षीय जयसिंह धामीले अनाहकमा ज्यान गुमाउनुपरेकोे नेपाली जनताको सन्देश सुनाउन पनि सकेनन् । भारतका विभिन्न सहरमा काम गरिरहेका नेपाली चाडपर्वमा घर फर्किंदा सुनौलीजस्ता नाकामा भारतीय एसएसबीले स्वविवेकीय तरिकाले सीमापार गर्न नदिएको नेपाली जनताको मर्का बुझाउन पनि सकेनन् आफ्ना समकक्षीलाई । यी प्रसंगलाई दृष्टिगत गर्दा प्रधानमन्त्री शेरबहादुर देउवाको भारत भ्रमण उपलब्धिमूलक देखिएन भन्न कर लाग्छ । जयनगर–जनकपुर–कुर्था खण्डको रेलसेवाको भर्चुअल माध्यमद्वारा संयुक्त उद्घाटन गरेको कामलाई उपलब्धिमूलक मान्नुपर्ने हो भने त्यो बेग्लै हो ।
सीमासमाधानकोसंयन्त्र : सीमा समस्याबारे स्थापित द्विपक्षीय संयन्त्रमार्फत समाधान गरौँ भन्ने प्रस्ताव देउवाले राख्दा मोदी सीमाका विषयमा केही बोलेनन् । तथापि लगत्तै गरिएको पत्रकार सम्मेलनमा भारतका तत्कालीन विदेश सचिव हर्षवर्धन शृंगलाले सीमाका सम्बन्धमा प्रधानमन्त्री देउवाले आफ्नो भनाइ राखेको पुष्टि गर्दै भनेका थिए– ‘यस मामिलामा संक्षिप्त रूपमा छलफल भएको थियो, दुवै पक्षले यसलाई वार्ताका माध्यममार्फत जिम्मेवारीपूर्ण रूपमा सम्बोधन गर्नुपर्छ भनेर आमसमझदारी भयो । हाम्रो निकट र मैत्री सम्बन्धको भावनामा सीमा विवाद समाधान गर्नुपर्छ, यस्ता विषयलाई राजनीतीकरण गर्नु हुन्न ।’ शृंगलाले अझ थपेका थिए– ‘दुई मुलुकले समस्या समाधानका लागि मित्रवत् बाटो खोज्नेमा शंका गर्नुपर्ने ठाउँ छैन, दुई छिमेकी मित्रराष्ट्रबीचको महत्वपूर्ण पक्ष भनेको आपसमा छलफल गरेर समस्या समाधान गर्न सक्नु नै हो । हामीले यसरी नै बंगलादेशसँग सीमा समस्या समाधान गरेका छौँ । नेपालसँग पनि हाम्रा केही सम्बन्ध छन् । यस विषयलाई अघि बढाउन जिम्मेवार छलफल र वार्ताका लागि हामी गम्भीर छौँ ।’
भारतीयविदेशसचिवकोमनसाय : सीमा सम्बन्धमा प्रधानमन्त्री मोदीले केही नबोले पनि भारतीय विदेश सचिवको भनाइभित्र लुकेको मनसायको विश्लेषण गर्ने हो भने सीमा समस्या वार्ताको माध्यमबाटै समाधान हुन्छ, तर वार्ता गर्ने पदाधिकारी जिम्मेवारपूर्ण स्तरको रहनुपर्छ । सयौँ वर्षदेखि रहेको भारत–नेपाल सम्बन्धलाई सीमा मामिलाले खलल पुर्याउनु हुँदैन । सीमा विवादको विषयलाई राजनीतिक मुद्दामा परिणत गर्नुहुन्न भन्ने उनको आशय रहेको बुझिन्छ । साथै, उनले कालापानी, सुस्ताजस्ता सीमा मामिला समाधानका सम्बन्धमा मित्रताको बाटो पहिल्याउनुपर्छ । उनको भनाइको आशय हामीले आपसी संवाद गरेर नै सीमा समस्या समाधान गर्न सक्नुपर्छ भन्ने नै हो । साथै, हामीले बंगलादेशसँग सीमा समस्या समाधान गर्यौँ, नेपालसँग पनि त्यसरी नै सीमा समस्या समाधान गर्न सकिन्छ, तर वार्तालाई अघि बढाउन जिम्मेवार अधिकारसम्पन्न संयन्त्रबीच गम्भीर रूपले छलफल हुनुपर्छ भन्नेमा उनको विशेष जोड रहेको बिर्सिन मिल्दैन ।
भारत–बंगलादेशसीमासम्झौता : भारतीय विदेश सचिवले औँल्याएको भारत–बंगलादेश सीमा समस्या कसरी समाधान गरियो भन्ने सम्बन्धमा उल्लेख गर्नुपर्दा भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री नरेन्द्र मोदीले २०७२ जेठ २३ मा गरेको बंगलादेशकोे यात्राका क्रममा भारत र बंगलादेशबीच जमिन सीमा सम्झौता भएको थियो । यस सम्झौताअन्तर्गत दुवै देशबीच सीमा विवादमा रहेको ‘इनक्लेभ (एक–अर्काको विदेशी भूमि परिवेष्टित जमिन)’ सट्टापट्टा गरिएको थियो । भारतीय सीमाक्षेत्रभित्र ३४ हजार जनसंख्या रहेकोे १११ वटा इनक्लेभको ६ हजार नौ सय ५० हेक्टर क्षेत्रफलको भूमि बंगलादेशलाई सुम्पिइएको थियो । बंगलादेशको सीमाभित्र १७ हजार जनसंख्या रहेको ५१ वटा इनक्लेभको दुई हजार आठ सय ८० हेक्टर जमिन सट्टापट्टास्वरूप भारतलाई हस्तान्तरण गरिएको थियो ।
यस सम्झौतालाई मोदीले ‘बर्लिन पर्खाल भत्काइएको’ संज्ञा दिएका थिए भने बंगलादेशी प्रधानमन्त्री सेख हसिना वाजेदले ६८ वर्ष पुरानो सीमावर्ती मानव परोपकारी समस्या शान्तिपूर्ण तरिकाले समाधान भएको बताएकी थिइन् । पश्चिम बंगालकी मुख्यमन्त्री ममता बनर्जीले ऐतिहासिक सम्झौतामा आफू साक्षी हुन पाउँदा गौरवान्वित भएको बताएकी थिइन् ।
यहाँ कोट्याउन खोजिएको कुरोचाहिँ के हो भने भारत–बंगलादेशबीच जमिन सट्टापट्टा अर्थात् लेनदेन गरिएजस्तै भारतले नेपालको अतिक्रमण गरेको लिम्पियाधुरा–कालापानी–लिपुलेक क्षेत्र भारतको भूमिसँग साटासाट गर्ने प्रस्ताव राख्न खोजेको हो कि ! दुई देशबीच सीमा संवाद भइहाल्यो भने त्यस क्रममा यदि भारतले यस्तो प्रस्ताव राख्यो भने नेपालले के भन्ने ? यसमा नेपालको सीमा रणनीति के–कस्तो हुनुपर्छ भन्ने कुरो मननीय र संवेदनशील छ ।
नेपाल–भारतजमिनसट्टापट्टाकादृष्टान्त :नेपाल र ब्रिटिसकालीन भारतबीच जमिन सट्टापट्टा गरिएका उदाहरण छन् । हाल कञ्चनपुरको शारदा ब्यारेज बनाइएको चार हजार १३० एकड भूमि सन् १९२० मा नेपालले भारतलाई दिएको थियो । भारतले त्यसको सट्टा बर्दियाको राजापुर र दाङको कोइलावास क्षेत्रमा गरी चार हजार ९३ एकड जमिन नेपाललाई दिएको थियो । यसअनुसार ३७ एकड जमिन नेपालले फिर्ता पाउन बाँकी नै छ । यस्तै, नेपाल र चीनबीच सन् १९६२ मा १८३६ वर्गकिलोमिटर भूमि नेपालले चीनलाई दिएको थियो भने चीनले दुई हजार १३९ वर्गकिमि क्षेत्रफलको जमिन नेपाललाई दिई ३०३ वर्गकिमि जमिन नेपालले बढी पाएको थियो ।
लिपुलेकदेखि नाभिडाङ, कालापानी (तिल्सी), गुन्जी, नाभी, कुटी, जोलिङकाङ र लिम्पियाधुरासम्म रहेको क्षेत्रको आफ्नो सार्वभौमिकता भएको भारतद्वारा अतिक्रमित भूमिबाट नेपालले उपयोग गरी फाइदा लिन नसकेकाले विगतमा नेपाल–भारत र नेपाल–चीनबीच जमिन सट्टापट्टा गरिएको दृष्टान्तलाई लिएर र भारत–बंगलादेशबीच इनक्लेभका जमिन लेनदेन गरिएका उपमा दृष्टिगत गरेर १६१ आवासीय घरधुरीमा करिब ९०० जनसंख्या रहेको तीन सय ७२ वर्गकिमि कालापानी क्षेत्र नेपालले भारतलाई दिँदै काँकडभिट्टा पूर्वदेखि भारतको सिलिगुडी, विधाननगर, च्याङलाबन्धा हुँदै बंगलादेश दिनाजपुर जिल्लाको पाँचगढ छुने त्यत्तिकै क्षेत्रफल र उपयोगिताको भूभाग नेपालले लिने कार्यविधि भए भारतका प्रधानमन्त्री नरेन्द्र मोदीले बंगलादेशमा उद्गार गरेको भाषाजस्तै भारत र नेपालबीच रहेको कालापानीरूपी मामिलाको ‘अर्को बर्लिन पर्खाल’ भत्किने थियो । यसबाट नेपालको सिमाना बंगलादेशसम्म पुग्ने थियो । नेपालले बंगलादेशको मंगला बन्दरगाह उपयोग गर्न पाई समुद्रपारबाट कम लागतमा सरसामान आयात निर्यात हुन सक्ने थियो । ढुवानी खर्च बचत हुने र नेपालको सिमानाले तेस्रो देश छुने थियो ।
यसबाट नेपाल र भारतबीचको कालापानीसम्बन्धी सीमा संवाद ‘विन–विन सिचुएसन’मा हल हुन पुग्ने थियो । यसमा मतभिन्नता हुन सक्छ । भारतीय भूमि दुई टुक्रा हुने भयो भन्ने दलील पनि आउन सक्छ । यस प्रसंगमा २३ वर्षसम्म एउटै राष्ट्र पाकिस्तान र पूर्वी पाकिस्तान दुई हजार दुई सय किलोमिटर टाढा रहेका थिए भन्ने दृष्टान्त पनि आउँछन् । तर, यसका लागि सर्वसाधारणसम्मको स्तरमा समेत व्यापक छलफल गरी नेपाल एकमतमा पुग्ने राष्ट्रिय दृष्टिकोणको आवश्यकता पर्छ ।
सीमासमाधानकोसिद्धान्त : अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सीमा सिद्धान्तमा दुई देशबीचका सीमा मामिला समाधान गर्ने केही वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था पनि रहेका छन् । प्रथमतः आपसी संवाद, छलफल, कुराकानी, नेगोसियसन नै सबैभन्दा सरल विकल्प हो । दोस्रो, निश्चित समयावधिका लागि ‘लिज’मा दिने लिने । तेस्रो, मध्यस्थताको माध्यम । चौथो, संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघको कार्टोग्राफिक (जियोइन्फरमेटिक्स) डिभिजनमार्फत समावेदन । पाँचौँ तथा अन्तिम, अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय न्यायिक अदालत जाने । भारतीय विदेश सचिवले औँल्याउन खोजेकोचाहिँ नेगोसिएसन नै हुनुपर्छ । तर, नेपालले कहिल्यै पनि बिर्सनुहुँदैन, कालापानी मामिला समाधानबारे नेगोसिएसन गर्दा पुराना नक्सा, ऐतिहासिक दस्ताबेज र कागजातअनुसार काली–महाकाली नदीको मुहान लिम्पियाधुरा हो, यो नेपालको सम्प्रभुताभित्रको भूमि हो भन्दै सधैँको लागि मुद्दाको छिनोफानो गरिनुपर्छ ।
सुस्ता सीमा अतिक्रमणबारे आधिकारिक नक्सा दस्ताबेज नभेटिए दुवै देशले दाबा–विरोध गरेको समुचा क्षेत्रको संयुक्त नक्सांकन तयार गर्नु समस्या समाधानको उपाय हो । एउटै टेबलमा बसी तयारी नक्साउपर आपसी छलफल गरेर सन् १८१६ मा सुगौली सन्धि गरिएका समयमा नारायणी नदी बगेको धार पहिचान गर्दै नदीको दायाँ–बायाँ जंगेखम्बा ठोकी समस्या निराकरण गरिनु प्राविधिक दृष्टिकोणले उपयुक्त हुन सक्छ ।
अन्त्यमा : प्रधानमन्त्री देउवाको भारत भ्रमणका दौरानमा गत दुई वर्षदेखि बन्द भएको नेपाल–भारत सीमा संवादको ढोका खुल्न सकेन । केही मात्रामा ढोका खोलिएको भए लिपुलेक–कालापानी–लिम्पियाधुरा, सुस्तापर्यन्त थाती रहेका सीमा मामिलामा कसरी जाने भन्ने मोडालिटीमा द्विपक्षीय संवाद, छलफल, कुराकानी थालिने थियो । यसबाट भ्रमणलाई सकारात्मक रूपमा हेर्न सकिने थियो । तर, यतिका दिन बितिसक्दा पनि संवादको थालनी हुन नसकेकाले प्रधानमन्त्रीको भारत भ्रमण सकारात्मक भयो भन्ने अवस्था छैन ।
सीमा विवाद समाधानमा निश्चय नै कूटनीतिक कौशल, परिपक्वता, चातुर्य र चाप्लुसीपूर्ण ढंगबाट अघि बढ्नु आवश्यक छ । वार्ताको ढोकाभित्र पसेर निस्किएपछि पछुताउनु नपर्ने तरिका के–कस्तो अवलम्बन गर्नु आवश्यक पर्छ भन्ने पक्ष महत्वपूर्ण रहेको छ । यसका लागि प्रशस्त आन्तरिक छलफल र सशक्त गृहकार्य आवश्यक पर्ने तथ्य नेपालले पटक्कै बिर्सिनुहुँदैन ।
Border expert Buddhi Narayan Shrestha’s book ‘International Boundaries of Nepal’ has been translated and recently published in eight languages. The English script book was published by Lambert Academic Publishing, Latvia, Europe in 2019. Now the book is translated in eight languages (Russian, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Polish) and recently published. Foreword of the book is written by Professor Martin Pratt, Former Director of International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU), University of Durham, UK.
Various items such as international boundary principles, stages of boundary making, reasons of boundary aggression, border disputed countries of the world, ways and means to resolve the issues, countries of the world who fought on the border issues, border diplomacy and other theoretical deliberations have been elaborated in the book.
This book could be read online and it has internationalized the Lipulek-Kalapani-Limpiyadhura border encroachment. Dialogue is the first and foremost ways and means to resolve the Kalapani issue with India. Sagarmatha issue was negotiated with China and its new height was announced jointly. Practical issues such as debate on the border marker # 57 with China, BRI of China and corridor of Nepal have been elaborated.
Activities of the International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU) UK, Association for Borderland Studies of America, Borderland Research Networks of Africa & Asia, and Denmark based International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) have been described. International border diplomacy, America-North Korea two-minute diplomacy, Trump ignored Nepal border on the world map, unquiet border between India and Pakistan, message of the Bangladesh-India border agreement have been described. With all these items, the book is useful for the border researchers and to prescribe as the basic course book on the boundaries for the college and universities. Due to the weight of the book, the European edition has been published in eight languages. This book has been published one months ago by Nirala Series, New Delhi, as the South Asian edition.
Some initial pages of the book have been copied and pasted below :-
International Boundaries of Nepal
By: Buddhi Narayan Shrestha
European Universities Editions
Lambert Academic Publications, Latvia
In Memory
In memory and honour of Dr. Bradford Washburn (1910 – 2007),
(husband of late Barbara Washburn), Founding Director, Museum of Science, Boston- USA,
for the preparation of first digital map of Mt. Everest (Sagarmatha) area of
Nepal-China boundary with my assistance.
————————————–
Foreword
Professor Martin Pratt
Director, Bordermap Consulting
Former Director,
International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU),
University of Durham, UK
Over the last thirty years or so, borders and the borderlands which surround them have attracted interest from a growing number of disciplines. Geographers, lawyers, historians, political scientists, sociologists, economists, anthropologists, philosophers have all been drawn to these fascinating entities, and border studies have become truly interdisciplinary. The development of concepts such as ‘bordering’ and ‘liminal spaces’ has greatly enriched our understanding of what borders mean and how they function.
Borders are more than the lines of no thickness which separate states, but those lines international boundaries remain vital to our understanding of international relations and geopolitics. Boundaries remain central to the notion of the political state even when governments work to minimise their impact on the movement of people, goods and ideas. In many countries boundaries are also important symbols of national identity, and their significance in national as well as international politics should never be underestimated.
International boundaries may be artificial constructs but they are not abstract. They run through real physical and human landscapes, and they affect people’s lives in many ways at a variety of scales. Boundaries are fundamentally geographical in nature, and is hardly surprising that geographers, cartographers and surveyors have long been at the forefront of boundary scholarship. The term ‘boundary-making’ was coined by a military surveyor, Sir Thomas Holdich, and the works of geographers such as Stephen Jones, Whittemore Boggs, Gerald Blake and Victor Prescott are still essential reading today for anyone seeking to understand how boundaries are defined and managed.
Buddhi Shrestha is another geographer who has made a significant contribution to international boundary studies. As a former Director General of the Survey Department of Nepal and leader of his country’s boundary committees with both its neighbours, nobody anywhere knows more about the boundaries of Nepal. It is a gift to boundary scholars everywhere that Buddhi has taken time to share his knowledge and expertise on Nepal’s boundaries and boundary-making in general through this book.
Nepal is sandwiched between the world’s two most populous countries, both of which have become major geopolitical powers. The status of Tibet remains contested. And Nepal’s boundary with China/Tibet is the world’s highest. In such a context The International Boundaries of Nepal was never likely to be dull! But Buddhi’s unique knowledge, passion for his subject and inimitable style combine to make for a highly entertaining, informative and rewarding survey. Even casual readers will find much to enjoy, but for boundary specialists it is a treasure trove that will surely become the key reference work on Nepal’s boundaries.
—————————————-
Acknowledgements
Buddhi Narayan Shrestha
This book is an outcome of the inspiration provided by esteemed readers of my previous books and newspaper articles, fellow friends and well wishers. When I go to deliver talks in some inter-action seminars and also just to simply participate in various programmes, well known friends and well wishers use to ask me: What are you writing these days ? Are you writing another book ? To address their inquisitiveness on me, I have done it.
I have written ten books and more than dozen other books in co-authorship in English and Nepali, published in-country and abroad. My book ‘Border Management of Nepal’ has been well circulated in various parts of the world and co-authored ‘International Boundary Making’ has been published from Copenhagen, Denmark.
This book contains some theoretical aspects with international boundary principles in some chapters and practical experience as well as the case study in other chapters. I have tried mostly in my write-up to mention the dates and refer incidents in connection to the case study and in other items as well. I have presented in this book the border issues of Nepal especially with China and India, and also some other countries like the India boundary issues with Pakistan, China, Bangladesh. I have included Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States and Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) of China and India’s ‘Neighbour First’ policy in the perspective of Nepal.
In light of these items, I hope this book will be useful for College and University students and study makers and researchers on the boundaries. If it is not irrelevant to mention here that some in-country and abroad authors have cited my book in their books. For example, Victor Prescott (Australia), Rongxing Guo (China), Benjamin Hans (Germany), Chitra K Tiwari et al (New York) and Sushil K Naidu (India) have cited my book in their compositions:International Frontiers and Boundaries, Cross-Border Management, Nepal’s Border to India & China, Beijing’s Power-China’s Borders, andIndia-Nepal Border Regional Cooperation & Cross Border Trade respectively.
In-country writers Lok Raj Baral et al, Shastra Dutta Pant, Ratan Bhandari, Chetendra Jang Himali and Gopal Siwakoti et al have mentioned my book in their books entitled: Nepal-India Open Borders, Nepal-India Relation & Border Problem, Limpiyadhura-Lipulek Slap of Encroachment, Mahakali This Side Mahakali That Side and Lipulek Pass Illusion & Reality respectively.
I am grateful to Prof. Martin Pratt for being so gracious as to write the foreword to this book. Prof. Pratt is Director of Bordermap Consulting Ltd. He is an internationally-respected expert in boundary-making, border management and territorial dispute resolution, and has advised governments, NGOs and commercial organizations around the world on a wide range of boundary and sovereignty issues. He has also provided technical support to governments in numerous maritime boundary negotiations and cases before the International Court of Justice and other international judicial bodies. Martin led the International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University, UK, from 2002-2014. He has also served as an advisor to the United Nations Geographic Information Working Group Task Force on International Boundaries and the African Union Border Programme. He has published widely, and his influential map of maritime boundaries and jurisdiction in the Arctic continues to be used in articles and policy papers around the world.
I appreciate Prof. Emeritus Dr. Roger Bilham, Research Scientist in CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder, as we know each other since 1989 and last met in Kathmandu on 11-12 December 2017 during international workshop on the ‘Measurement of the Height of Mt. Everest and Global Navigational Satellite System (GNSS) Application’. At that time, Roger inspired me to write more books in English that will be recognized by various organizations of the globe. I would like to thank him for his encouragement.
I acknowledge European Universities Editions (EUE), International Book Market Service Ltd, Latvia for publishing this book. Initially, Ana-Maria Arnaut from EUE sent me an e-mail near about six months ago that they are interested to publish a printed book from my work ‘Cross-border movement between Nepal and India and Its Challenges’ as read in website as this topic might be interested in an international Francophone audience.’ She sent a follow-up mail after one week. I responded her after two weeks that I am writing the other book entitled ‘International Boundaries of Nepal.’ I sent her my partial write-up and mentioned that if it is alright, please contact me. After three days, she sent me a return mail mentioning that is good. After one week I received another follow-up mail saying as ‘I am pleased to announce that we will publish your book. So I send you your contract attached’. In the mean time I didn’t respond. I received another mail: ‘Do you have questions about our publishing contract we recently sent you? I’m here to accompany you to publish your book.’ At last I made an agreement in this ‘Book Project.’ And the writing of book went ahead. I thank EUE, specially Maria for the interest to publish my work.
However, some other publishing houses used to contact me time and often that they are interested to publish any of my composition. These were Adroit Publishers, New Delhi, Akhil Book Distributors, Delhi, Academic Star Publishing Company-Modern Environmental Science and Engineering, USA and some others. Some Nepalese publishing houses like: Ekta Books, Bhrikuti Academic Publication, Oxford Book Shop, Makalu Publication and Ratna Sagar Publication sounded me that they are eager to publish any of my items. I thank them all for their interest to my composition
Lastly, I am obliged to all my well-wishers who encouraged and energized me for embarking on this book. Finally, this book would not have been possible if my wife Lily had not given me the space and allowed me to sacrifice precious family time in order to read and write.
——————————————
Table of Contents
Chapter-1: Background
International boundary
International boundaries of Nepal
The Birth of Nepal
Boundary of Greater Nepal
Boundary in the constitution of Nepal
Chapter-2: International boundary principles
International boundary making principle
International Boundary Principle to determine the Origin of River
International water boundaries
Stages of international boundary making
Reasons for boundary aggression
Boundary disputed countries of the world
Ways and means of resolving boundary issues
Classification of boundaries
Well-known boundary lines of the world
Countries with border fences/walls
Countries with longest boundary line
Countries with shortest boundary line
No-man’s land
Boundaries on the sky and inner-world
Border warfare countries of the world
Border diplomacy
Chapter-3: Nepal’s border business with China and India
International Boundary Making of Nepal
Principles adopted during Nepal-China boundary demarcation
Principles adopted during Nepal-India boundary demarcation
Boundary treaties of Nepal with neighboring countries
Boundary documents (Protocols) of Nepal
Nepal-China border disputed and resolved areas
Nepal-India border disputed and unresolved pocket areas
Exchange of frontiers between Nepal and China
Exchange of frontiers between Nepal and India
Indian Military Check-posts in Nepal
Nepal-India Joint Boundary Committee
Nepal-China Joint Boundary Committee
Chapter-4: Case study
Negotiation on Chinese claim to Mount Everest
Conflict on border marker 57 between Nepal and China
Divergence on the height of Mount Everest
Dishonouring Masonry Boundary Pillar by India
Kalapani-Limpiyadhura border issue with India
Settling Susta border dispute with India
Legitimacy of Lipulek border Pass
Battle of Maps on the Border
Chapter-5: International boundary organizations
International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU)
Association for Borderland Studies (ABS)
African Borderlands Research Network (ABORNE)
Asian Borderlands Research Network (ABRN)
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
Chapter-6: Published relevant articles of the author
America and North Korea: two-minute border diplomacy
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) affirmed that The Chagos archipelago is part of Mauritius rather than the United Kingdom.
Bahrain opened its airspace to Qatar after an agreement to resolve a dispute between the Arab Nations was signed in January. In January, Venezuela rejected a decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2020, charging that the court lacked jurisdiction to settle a claim that Guyana had brought forth concerning the 1899 Arbitration Award between the two States.
Turkey and Greece resumed the suspended exploratory talks about territorial claims in the Mediterranean Sea.
In February, the Nigeria National Boundary Commission (NBC) announced the agency had resolved 30 interstate boundary disputes across the country.
In March, hearings began at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the case between Kenya and Somalia and the delimitation of their maritime border in the Indian Ocean. Kenya withdrew from the case later in the month, and requested the matter be resolved by the African Union. The hearing concluded without Kenya present.
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan moved towards the resolution of their longstanding border dispute with communications opening the way to the completion of the demarcation of the border between the two countries in the Unkur-Too territory.
The border dispute between Gabon and Equtorial Guinea was taken to the International Court of Justice in March, to determine the specifics of the Special Agreement which had been agreed in 2016 and came into force in 2020.
In April, Indonesia and Vietnam renewed calls to finish ongoing negotiations on the delimitation of the maritime boundary between their exclusive economic zones (EEZ) near the South China Sea to provide clarity and avoid incidents in the waters.
Greece agreed to resume talks on demarcating its maritime border with Libya in the Mediterranean Sea.
India lodged an objection with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) over the claim by Bangladesh, requesting that the Commission not “consider and qualify” Bangladesh’s amended submission.
In May it was reported that border pillars were vanishing along the border between China and Nepal, intensifying the conflict in the Daulkha District of Nepal and China.
Also in May, a farmer in Belgium inadvertently redrew the country’s border with France. The farmer, apparently annoyed by the border stone in his tractor’s path, had moved it inside French territory.
In June, Sudan rejected a proposal from Ethiopia regarding the filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Egypt also made a new appeal to the United Nations Security Council in its long-running dispute alleging that Ethiopia had thwarted efforts to reach a binding legal agreement on issues related to the GERD that would guarantee the interests of all nations impacted by the Dam.
Germany and Denmark celebrated a border centennial in June, with official events marking 101 years since the two nations delineated their 70-kilometer (44 mile)-long border.
In July, the Dominican Republic and The Netherlands signed a maritime delimitation agreement which will define the border between the two parties in the Caribbean Sea where the Netherlands Antilles are located.
The Russian Prime Minister visited the disputed island of Ettorofu Island (Japan)/Iturup Island (Russia) for the first time since Russia made constitutional amendments barring the country from ceding territory to a foreign power. The dispute over the group of islands off Hokkaido has been ongoing since 1945 when the Soviet Union seized the islands after Japan’s surrender in World War 2.
In July, Algeria offered to mediate the continued dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan.
Ghana and Togo resolved a long-standing land boundary dispute at the Pulmakom border in the Pusiga District in July.The Ghana Boundary Commission and Togo Land Commission agreed that as per the 1927 national demarcation documents, the Kolpelig River was the official boundary separating the two countries.
In August, Turkey offered to mediate on the border dispute between Ethiopia and Sudan.
Pacific island leaders agreed in August that their maritime borders should be permanent, even if their countries shrink due to a future rise in sea levels caused by climate change. 18 member countries and territories of the Pacific Islands Forum affirmed that once Pacific islands have established and notified maritime zones to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, they will be fixed irrespective of changes to the shape and size of islands.
In September, the Bangladesh government said that India’s objection to their amended submission to The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) on their maritime boundary, asking them not to consider the amend, was not in line with international law. The CLCS are now expected to make a decision considering the positions of both countries.
Venezuela asked for direct dialogue with Guyana in September, over their ongoing border dispute after Guyana called for the dispute to go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for resolution. Guyana criticised Venezuela for rejecting the International Court of Justice’s role in settling a border dispute over Guyana’s oil-rich Essequibo Region. Venezuela believe the dispute should be settled through bilateral talks or a United Nations Secretary-General mediation process instead of the ICJ.
Chile released a new version of Nautical Chart 8, covering its Southern waters, that was denounced by Argentina as violating the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the two countries.
The latest hearings in the maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia opened in the ICJ in September with two weeks of hearings over competing claims that date back to the 1920s regarding the mineral and fish-rich waters of the Caribbean Sea. Egypt stressed the need for a binding deal on the Renaissance Dam as they fear that the process of filling the dam will affect its share of the river’s water.
In October, the ICJ ruled on the ongoing maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia. The ruling was generally seen to be in favour of Somalia, with a new boundary line drawn by the ICJ closer to the Somalian claim, attributing to Somalia several offshore oil blocks claimed by Kenya.
Venezuela reopened its border with Columbia in October after 2 years of closure, to try and improve trade relations between the two states.
In October Israel announced its intention to renew efforts, stalled since May 2021, to resolve its maritime border dispute with Lebanon.
A hearing at the ICJ was concluded in October around the continued dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua over maritime territory which has been ongoing since an initial ruling by the ICJ in 2012 was not accepted by Colombia. A judgment is expected in 2022.
In November, Ghana and Nigeria met to start discussions on the delimitation of their maritime boundary.
Bangladesh’s Parliament passed a bill in November to establish sovereignty and facilitate search and extraction of marine resources within its maritime boundaries.
China and India agreed to continue working on their boundary dispute after a series of military altercations.
Kenya started the demarcation of their boundary with Uganda.
November saw Malaysia and Singapore underline their commitment to resolving maritime boundary issues between the two countries, including the implementation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgment on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
I am the 14th pioneer of 50 (as per photo), enumerated by the Annapurna Express Weekly :
The Weekly writes :
= In keeping with the spirit of constant innovation, who have revolutionized their fields and helped change Nepal for the better, people want to understand the reasons.
The Weekly believes :
= The experience of these pioneers will inspire other Nepalis in their own quest for excellence and innovation.
= These are our leaders, in the real sense of the term, whom we would all do well to follow.
= They also offer a compelling vision for national development and prosperity, something our planners and policy makers can latch on to. Read and be enlightened.
सीमांकन शुद्धसँग नगरिए ससाना विषयमा पनि पालिकाहरूबीच मनोमालिन्य उत्पन्न हुन्छ । केही वर्षअघि गोरखाका बासिन्दा मनाङमा यार्सागुम्बा टिप्न गएका बेला बेजिल्लाका बासिन्दा आए भनी विवाद हुँदा अनाहकमा तीन व्यक्तिको ज्यान गएको थियो ।
नेपालका सातै प्रदेशमा गरी ७५३ स्थानीय तहका पालिका छन् । तीमध्ये ६ महानगरपालिका, ११ उपमहानगरपालिका, २७६ नगरपालिका (नपा) र ४६० गाउँपालिका (गापा) छन् । गणतन्त्रात्मक नेपालमा यस्ता पालिकाको निर्वाचन दोस्रो पटक २०७९ वैशाख ३० गते हुन लागेको छ ।
एक अध्ययन अनुसार स्थानीय तहका यस्ता पालिकामध्ये दुई जिल्लाका दुई पालिका, एउटै जिल्लाका दुई पालिका र एकै पालिकाका दुई वडाबीच गरी करिब ७० ठाउँमा सीमा विवाद छ । निर्वाचन मिति तोकिइसकिएकाले स्थानीय तहका यस्ता निकायबीच सीमा विवाद हुनु जनस्तरमा पुर्याइने सुशासनका लागि दुर्भाग्यको कुरो हो । के कारणले यस्तो सीमा विवाद उत्पन्न भएको छ र यसको समाधान कसरी हुन सक्छ भन्ने सम्बन्धमा यहाँ चर्चा गर्न लागिएको छ ।
सीमाविवादकोकारण
भौगोलिक वस्तुलाई सिमानाको आधार नलिनु विवादको मुख्य कारक तत्त्व हो । नदीको बीचभागलाई सीमा नमान्नाले, पेट्रोलियम पदार्थ तथा खानीखनिजजन्य वस्तुमा दावा–विरोध पर्नाले, बालुवा, गिट्टी, रोडा, बालुवा, ढुंगा दोहन गर्नाले र आफूलाई मन पराउने मतदाता रहेको भागलाई राजनीतिक नेताहरूले आफ्नो निर्वाचन क्षेत्रमा पार्ने चाहनाले सीमा विवाद भएको पाइएको छ । देशमा संघीय प्रणाली अपनाइएपछि गठित पालिकाहरूको सीमांकन गरी ठूलो माननापमा नक्सांकन (डिजिटल नक्सा) तयार नगरिएकाले पनि विवाद उत्पन्न भएको छ ।
सीमा विवादका प्रतिनिधिमूलक उदाहरणप्यूठान र रोल्पा जिल्लाको सिमानामा पर्ने माडीखोलाको किमिचौर बगरमा दुई जिल्लाबीचको सीमा विवादित छ । चितवनको भरतपुर महानगरपालिका र इच्छाकामना गापाबीचको पालिका सिमाना डेढ वर्षदेखि विवादित छ । जुम्लाको कनकसुन्दरी गापा र मुगुको छायानाथ रारा नपाबीच बनाइएको द्वार (गेट) को स्थानमा जिल्ला सीमा विवाद भएको छ । काभ्रेको नमोबुद्ध नपाका दुई वडाबीच सीमारेखा विवाद हुँदै आएको छ ।
अध्येता यम बमका अनुसार, रामेछापमा खाँडादेवी र लिखुपिके, मनाङमा नार्पाभूमि र नासों, म्याग्दीमा अन्नपूर्ण, डोल्पामा मुङ्केचुला, दार्चुलामा अपी हिमाल, डोटीमा आदर्शर्, कास्कीमा माछापुच्छ्रे र मकवानपुरमा बकैया गापा एवं कपिलवस्तुमा शिवराज र वाणगंगा नपा तथा दाङमा घोराही उपमहानगरपालिका आदिमा सीमा विवाद छ ।
सीमाविवादसमाधानकाउपाय
पालिका निर्वाचन मिति तोकिइसकिएकाले अहिले उत्पन्न विवादबारे केही गर्न मिल्दैन । स्थानीय सरकार सञ्चालन ऐन–२०७४ को दफा ५ मा निर्वाचन हुनुभन्दा कम्तीमा एक वर्षअगावै सीमा विवाद निराकरण गरिसक्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था छ । तर अब अर्को निर्वाचनलाई मुखरित गरी विभिन्न पालिकाको सीमाका रूपमा निश्चित पानीढलो, नदीको दोभान, पहाडका थुम्का–थुम्की तथा फेदी, ताल–तलैया, छाँगा–छहरो, हिमालको टुप्पो, बाँध–पैनी, नहर, राजमार्ग, ऐतिहासिक गढी–किल्लाजस्ता अचल प्राकृतिक वस्तु र भौगोलिक तत्त्वलाई आधार मान्नुपर्छ । नदीको बीचभाग (मेडिएन लाइन) लाई सीमा मान्नुपर्छ । यस्ता तत्त्वलाई आधार मानिए राजनीतिक नेताहरूको फेरबदलमा पनि निर्वाचन क्षेत्र थपघट गरी सीमा सार्ने आँट कसैले गर्न सक्दैन ।
अर्को निर्वाचनमा विवाद हुन नदिन प्रत्येक पालिकाको सीमा क्षेत्रको डिजिटल नक्सांकन गरिनुपर्छ । स्थल रूप नक्सामा धरातलीय तथा भौगोलिक विवरण सूक्ष्म तरिकाले चिह्न लगाउनुपर्छ । पालिकाहरूबीचको सीमारेखामा सहमति भइसकेपछि सीमा उल्लेखन भएका कागजात र सीमांकन भएको नक्सामा दुवैतर्फबाट आधिकारिक हस्ताक्षर हुनुपर्छ । यस्तो नक्सा र तथ्यांक सम्बन्धी कागजातका प्रति दुवै संघीय प्रदेशमा रहनुपर्छ । यसको गुरु प्रतिचाहिँ कालान्तरसम्म सुरक्षित रहने गरी केन्द्र सरकारको अभिलेखालयमा राखिनुपर्छ । सीमा प्रशासनको चरणमा यस्ता नक्सा तथा डकुमेन्टको आवश्यकता पर्छ ।
सीमांकन गरिने नक्सा डिजिटल कार्टोग्राफी प्रविधिबाट तयार गरिनु बढी वैज्ञानिक हुन्छ । यस्तो प्रविधि अपनाइएमा नक्सा आवश्यकतानुसार ठूलो तथा सानो मानमा पेपर प्रिन्ट गरी स्थानीय तहमा पनि उपयोग गर्न सकिन्छ । सीमाको विवरण भौगोलिक सूचना प्रणाली (जीआईएस पद्धति अपनाई विभिन्न ‘लेयर’ मा स्थापना गरिनुपर्छ । उदाहरणार्थ, जमिनको अग्लाइ–होचाइ एउटा लेयरमा र नदी तथा ताल, बस्ती, भू–उपयोग, जंगल, अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सीमास्तम्भको विवरण आदि अन्य लेयरमा रहनुपर्छ । संघीय प्रणाली लागू हुनेबित्तिकै यस्तो प्रक्रिया नअपनाइएका कारण अहिले निर्वाचन हुन लागेका बेला पालिकाहरूबीच सीमा विवादको किचलो परेको छ ।
पालिकासीमाविवादनिराकरणगर्नेनिकाय
स्थानीय सरकार सञ्चालन ऐन–२०७४ को दफा ५ अनुसार, गापा तथा नपामा रहने वडाको सिमाना निर्धारण गर्ने जिम्मा नेपाल सरकार हुन्छ । नेपाल सरकारले यस दफा बमोजिम निर्धारण गरेको वडाको सिमाना आवश्यकता अनुसार हेरफेर गर्न सक्नेछ भन्ने पनि उल्लेख छ ।
वडाको सिमाना हेरफेर गर्न आवश्यक भएमा गाउँसभा वा नगरसभाको तत्काल कायम रहेको सदस्यसङ्ख्याको दुईतिहाइ बहुमतबाट प्रस्ताव पारित गरी प्रदेश सरकारमार्फत नेपाल सरकारमा पठाउनुपर्ने प्रावधान छ । उक्त ऐनको दफा ६,५ मा वडाको सिमाना हेरफेर गर्नुपर्दा गापा र नपाको निर्वाचन हुनुभन्दा कम्तीमा एक वर्षअगावै त्यो काम गरिसक्नुपर्ने किटानी व्यवस्था छ ।
कुनै जिल्लाका आपसमा सिमाना जोडिएका दुई वा सोभन्दा बढी नपा र गापाले चाहेमा सम्बन्धित सभामा तत्काल कायम रहेको सदस्यसङ्ख्याको बहुमतबाट एकआपसमा गाभिने प्रस्ताव पारित गर्न सक्नेछन् प्रावधान दफा ७,१ मा छ । त्यसले गापा तथा नपालाई आपसमा गाभ्ने निर्णय गरेमा सिमानासमेत तोक्नेछ । यसरी नपा वा गापा गाभिने निर्णयको कार्यान्वयन त्यसलगत्तै हुने निर्वाचनदेखि लागू हुनेछ ।
सीमा विवाद निराकरण सम्बन्धमा स्थानीय सरकार सञ्चालन ऐन–२०७४ अनुसार एउटै जिल्लाका पालिकाहरूबीच सीमा विवाद समाधान गर्ने पहिलो निकाय सम्बन्धित जिल्ला समन्यय समिति हो । त्यहाँ समाधान नभए संघीय मामिला मन्त्रालयले छिनोफानो गर्ने व्यवस्था छ ।
अन्त्यमा, सीमांकन शुद्धसँग नगरिए ससाना विषयमा पनि पालिकाहरूबीच मनोमालिन्य उत्पन्न हुन जान्छ र विकासको गति रोकिन सक्छ । केही वर्षअघि गोरखाका बासिन्दा मनाङमा यार्सागुम्बा टिप्न गएका बेला बेजिल्लाका बासिन्दा आए भनी विवाद हुँदा अनाहकमा तीन व्यक्तिको ज्यान गएको थियो । नेपाल सरकारबाट अनुमति लिएर चिनियाँ कम्पनीले प्यूठान–रोल्पा सिमानामा पर्ने माडीखोलाको किमिचौर बगरमा सुनखानीको खोजी कार्य सुरु गर्दा सीमा स्पष्ट नभएर दुई जिल्ला समन्वय समितिबीच वादविवाद उत्पन्न भएको थियो । यस्ता विवाद हुन नदिन स्थानीय निकायबीचको सीमा स्पष्ट हुनुपर्छ ।
पालिकाहरूबीचको साँध–सिमाना स्पष्ट नभए सीमा क्षेत्रमा रहेको स्रोतसाधनको उपभोग र प्रयोगमा किचलो र मनमुटाव उत्पन्न हुन सक्छ । कालान्तरमा पेट्रोलियम पदार्थको भण्डार भेटिए, युरेनियम खानी–खनिज पत्ता लागे अथवा बहुमूल्य धातु खोज गरिँदा दुई या तीन पालिकाबीचको सीमारेखा स्पष्ट नभएको अवस्थामा विवाद पैदा हुन सक्छ । फलतः खानी–खनिज निकाल्न नसकिने अथवा ढिलो हुन सक्ने अवस्था आउन सक्छ । यस्तै, नदी सीमा मानिएका प्रदेशहरूबीच त्यस नदी एक पालिकाको स्वामित्वमा रहने या साझा नदीस्रोतका रूपमा रहने भन्ने कुरा स्पष्ट किटान हुनुपर्छ । बहुपालिका भएर बग्ने सीमानदीबारे पानीको उपयोग र प्रयोगका सम्बन्धलाई लिएर जलविद्युत् उत्पादन गर्ने योजनामा अवरोध उत्पन्न हुन सक्छ ।
पालिकाबीच सीमा विवाद उत्पन्न भए समाधानका निम्ति सरकारले भूगोलविद्, नापनक्साविद्, भू–सूचनाविज्ञ तथा डिजिटल म्यापिङ प्रविधिका प्राविधिज्ञ रहेको विज्ञ समिति गठन गर्नुपर्छ । यस समितिले पालिकाबीचको किचलो परेको क्षेत्रगत भ्रमण गर्दै प्राकृतिक, ऐतिहासिक, सांस्कृतिक वस्तुलाई आधार मानी गापा तथा नपाको सीमारेखा तय गरी सम्बन्धित पदाधिकारीहरू तथा सर्वसाधारणलाई देखाउने बुझाउने गर्नुपर्छ । यस प्रक्रियाबाट सीमांकन गरिए भविष्यमा पालिकाबीचको सीमामा किचलो नउठ्ने हुन्छ ।
Border Nepal Buddhi 