Open Border, Madhes and Citizenship

v’nf ;Ldf, dw]; / gful/stf 

a’l4gf/fo0f >]i7 

g]kfn / ef/tsf aLr g]kfnu+h–?k}l8of gfsfafx]s cGo If]qdf ut cfwf ztflJbb]lv v’nf ;Ldf Joj:yf /x]sf] 5 . t/ xjfOdfu{df @)%& c;f]h !% b]lv lgoldt cyjf lgolGqt ;Ldf k4lt nfu” ul/Psf] 5 . b’O{ b]zjLrsf] hldg ;Ldfdf clwsf+z If]q t/fO{sf] ;dtn tyf xf]rf] e”–efu kb{5, h;nfO{ dw]; klg elgG5 . o:tf] dw]; If]qsf] cGt/f{li6«o l;dfgfdf v’nf ;Ldf Joj:yf cjnDjg ul/Psf] 5 . ljZjsf ljleGg b]zdf tyf blIf0f Pl;ofnL b]zdf 3l6/x]sf] ljleGg cft+ssf/L ultljlwsf ;Gbe{df g]kfnsf] blIf0fL ;LdfjtL{ If]qdf /x]sf] dw];sf] ;Ldf v’nfg} /flv/xg’kg]{ xf] of j}slNks Joj:yf ug'{kg]{ xf] eGg] ;DjGwdf /fd|/L ;f]Rg] a]nf cfPsf] 5 .  o;} ;Gbe{df ut ;fpg #) df j[if]zrGb| nfnn] sflGtk’/ b}lgsdf …v’nf l;dfgf / dw];Ú lzif{sdf n]v n]Vg’ePsf] 5 . To; n]vdf s]xL dgfl;j, s]xL a9L / s]xL dfqfdf rflxg]eGbf sd pNn]v ul/Psf] 5 . o:tf k’ugk’usf a’‘bfx? :ki6 eP hgdfg; c? a9L ;’;”lrt x’g;Sg] lyof] eGg] o; n]vf]6sf] clek|fo /x]sf] 5 .         klxn] dgfl;js} s’/f u/f}F . pxfFn] dw];sf] a;f]af; %)–!)) jf %)) jif{sf] xf]Og, jt{dfg g]kfnL e”v08sf] ;Gbe{df ;aeGbf k’/fgf] /x]sf] 5 eGg’ePsf] 5, hg’rflxF kf}/fl0fs b[li6sf]0fn] l7s} x’g;S5 . o:t}, v’nf l;dfgf ePsf]n] ef/tLox¿ g]kfn cfPsf 5g\ / cfpFb}5g\ t/ To;sf] s}og u’0ff a9L g]kfnL ef/tdf ;/]sf 5g\, ;b}{5g\ / sfd u5{g\ eGg] pNn]v ul/Psf] 5 . o; ;DaGwdf g]kfn eGbf ef/tsf] hg;+Vof $$ bf]Aa/ a9L / If]qkmndf ef/t @@ u’gf 7″nf] /x]sf] tYof+snfO{ klg b[li6ut ug'{ ;fGble{s x’g cfpF5 . csf]{ s’/f, pxfFn] ef/taf6 g]kfndf ;/]/ gful/s aGg vf]Hg]x¿sf] ;+Vof sd} 5, dw];df kxf8 / dWo kxf8af6 a;fO{ ;g]{x¿ a9\b}5g, dw];sf] hg;+Vof a9\g’sf] sf/0f of] a;fO;/fO xf] eGg’ePsf] 5 . x]f, kxf8af6 dw]; emg]{ lgs} ;+|Vofdf /x]sf 5g\ . logLx¿ g]kfnL g} x’g\ . g]kfnsf] Pp6f If]qaf6 csf]{df a;fO{ ;g]{ u/]sf 5g\ . t/ ef/taf6 g]kfndf ;/]/ g]kfnL gful/s aGg vf]Hg] ;+Vof ef/tdf -vf;u/L ljxf/ k|fGtdf_ hg;+Vof lj:kmf]6gsf sf/0f lbglbg} a9\b} cfPsf] dw];df a:g] jfl;Gbfn] cg’ej ub}{ cfPsf 5g\ . o:tf] ;+Vof hlt;’s} yf]/} eP tfklg cgflws[t tl/sfn] ljb]zLnfO{ g]kfnL gful/stfsf] k|df0fkq lbg’ ePg . rf}yf] s’/f, ljb]zLx¿sf] g]kfn k|j]z lgolGqt / Jojl:yt x’g’k5{ . pko’Qm x’G5 eg] g]kfnsf] rf/}lt/ tf/n] 3]/af/ / cfsfzdfly s8f lgu/fgLsf] Joj:yf u/] x’G5 egL pNn]v ul/Psf] 5 . /fli6«otfsf] lx;fan] of] egfO dgfl;a xf] . g]kfnsf] l;dfgf ljb]zLx¿sf nflu lgoldt, lgolGqt / Jojl:yt ul/g’k5{ . t/ s’g} klg xfntdf aGb -Ans]8_ ul/g’x’Fb}g .         ca nfuf}+ n]vdf a9L ePsf a’Fbftkm{ . n]vsf] clwsf+z efudf dw];sf] hg;+Vof a[l4nfO{ v’nf ;Ldf;Fu ufF;]/ x]l/g’ x’Fb}g, dw]; g]kfns} e”v08 ePsfn] oxfF a;f]af; ug]{ afFsL jfl;GbfnfO{ g]kfnL gful/stf k|df0fkqljlxg kfl/g’ x’Fb}g, hgu0fgf / dtbftf gfdfjnLdf ;d]t z’4tfsf] ;Defjgf sdL 5, lglZrt ul/Psf] ;do ;LdfeGbf k”j{ j;f]jf; ul//x]sf dw]zL jfl;GbfnfO{ gful/stf / dtbfgsf] clwsf/ lbg’k5{ eGg] s’/f n]vdf hf]8 lbOPsf] 5 .        hxfF;Dd gful/stf ljt/0fsf] s’/f 5, g]kfn ;/sf/n] k6s–k6s t/fO{ If]qdf ;d]t gful/stf ljt/0f 6f]nL k7fO{ 3/b}nf]df k|df0fkq k|bfg u/]sf] lyof] . k|df0fkq lng afFsL gful/sn] To;}a]nf k|df0fkq lng’kg]{ xf] . sf/0fa; 5’6k’6 ePsf kl/is[t -h]g’og_ g]kfnL gful/sn] lhNnf k|zf;g sfof{noaf6 h’g;’s} cj:yfdf hlxn] klg cfˆgf] gful/stf k|df0fkq lng ;S5g\ . o:t} hgcfGbf]ngkl5 ag]sf] jt{dfg ;/sf/n] klg afFsL/x]sf g]kfnL gful/snfO{ ;’ud tl/sfn] s;/L k|df0fkq pknAw u/fpg] eGg] ;DaGwdf k|aGw ug{ nfu]sf] 5 . dlGqkl/ifbsf] ebf} @! sf] ljz]if a}7sn] k|ltlgle;ef 3f]if0f cg’?k gful/stf ljw]ossf] d:of}bf kfl/t ub}{ tTsfn ;+;bdf k]; ug]{ lg0f{o u/]sf] 5 .        ljw]osdf @)$^ r}t d;fGt;Dddf hGd]sf jf pSt cjlw jf Tof]eGbf cufl8b]lv d’n’sdf :yfoL a;f]af; ub{} cfPsf ;a}nfO{ gful/stf k|df0fkq k|bfg ug]{ k|fjwfg ug{ nfluPsf]5 . gful/stf k|fKt ug{ ;DalGwt JolStn] hUufsf] nfnk’hf{, g]kfndf hGd]sf] jf :yfoL a;f]af; ub}{ cfPsf] nufot k|df0f k]; ug'{kg]{ Joj:yf ul/Psf] 5 . s’g} klg k|df0f gePsf] JolQmsf xsdf tLg hgf gful/sn] …pm g]kfnL xf]Ú eGg] l;kmfl/; u/]kl5 gful/stfsf] k|df0fkq k|bfg ug{ nfluPsf] 5 . o:t}, Psn dlxnf / ljb]zL k’?ifl;t ljjfx u/]sf dlxnfaf6 hGd]sf ;Gtfgn] ;d]t gful/stf kfpgnfu]sf 5g\ . o;cg’;f/ g]kfnL gful/stfsf] k|df0fkq ljt/0fdf xb};Dd ;/lns/0f ckgfOg nfu]sf] 5 . t/, g]kfn–ef/taLr a]/f]s6f]s cfpg hfg ;Sg] v’nf ;Ldf k|yfn] g]kfnL gful/stfsf] k|df0fkq glbg’kg]{ JolQmnfO{ lb+Ob}g eGg] ;tk|ltzt k|Tofe”lt eg] ug{ ;lsg] cj:yf 5}g . lng afFsL g]kfnL gful/snfO{ ;dodf k|df0fkq lbg g;lsPsf] eGbf 7″nf] uNtL, ljb]zLnfO{ g]kfnL gful/stf lbOg’ x’g hfG5 . csf]{ s’/f dw];df /x]sf slt g]kfnL afl;Gbfn] k|df0fkq lnPsf 5}gg\ < o;sf] pQ/df slxn] $) b]lv %) nfv elgG5 eg] ca dGqL x[bo]z lqkf7Ln] of] ;+Vof a9]/ %)–^) nfv k’lu;s]sf] x’g;Sg] atfPsf 5g\ -sflGtk’/ b}lgs, @)^@ ebf} @@_ . k|Zg cfpF5, g]kfnsf] ;Dk”0f{ hg;+Vofsf] sl/a Ps rf}yfO{ g]kfnL hgtf k|df0fkq kfpg lsg afFsL /x] < olQsf ;+Vofdf k|df0fkqsf] dfu ul/G5 eg] o;nfO{ v’nf ;Ldf k4lt;Fu ufF;]/ x]l/g’kg]{ ;Defjgf klg kg{ cfpg ;S5 .        cGTodf nfnhLsf] n]vdf s]xL a’Fbf sdL ePsf] tkm{ nfuf}+ . pxfFn] g]kfn–ef/taLr v’nf ;Ldf Joj:yf g} sfod /xg’k5{ eGg]tkm{ k|ToIf÷ck|ToIf jsfnt ug'{ePsf] 5 . v’nf ef/tLo l;dfgfsf sf/0f dw];df ef/tLox¿sf] lgjf{w k|j]z eO/x]sf] xfpu’hL km}nfpg] sfd gofF xf]Og egL pxfFn] pNn]v ug'{ ePsf] 5 . jf:tjdf s’g} klg j:t’sf] ;sf/fTds tyf gsf/fTds kIf /x]sf] x’G5 . g]kfn–ef/t v’nf ;Ldf Joj:yfsf] ;sf/fTds kIf k|uf9 ldqtf, eljtJodf ;xof]u, :jf:Yo ;]jfdf ;’ljwf, cfjZosLo j:t’sf] tTsfn cfk”lt{, k|ltikwL{ ahf/, :yflgo >ldssf] tTsfn cfk”lt{ cflb /x]sf 5g\ . t/, cGt/;Ldf ck/fw, JolQm ckx/0f, r]nLa]6L a]rlavg, rf]/L 8s}tL, dfn;fdfg t:s/L, eG;f/ /fhZj r’xfj6, jg ljgfz, ;Ldf cltqmd0f, cft+ssf/L ultljlw, cj}w xftxltof/ tyf nfu” kbfy{ cf];f/–k;f/, cj}w j;fO{–;/fO tyf /fhgLlts ljs[lt cflb gsf/fTds kIf /x]sf 5g\ . olQsf gsf/fTds tTj af]s]sf] v’nf ;Ldf k4ltnfO{ cufl8 a9fpg] of ga9fpg] eGg] ;DaGwdf b’j} b]zsf] lxtdf lgZro klg ;f]Rg] ;do cfPsf] 5 . o; kl/k|]Iodf ut dlxgf ef/tsf] d’DaOdf >[+vnfa4 ljikmf]6g ePsf lbg sf7df8f}+df kfls:tfgL gful/sx¿ lu/ˆtf/ ul/Psf]df v’nf ;Ldf k4lt ufFl;Psf] s’/f klg ef/tLo hfgsf/x¿ atfpF5g\ . of] cfk\mg} 7fp‘df 5 . o:t} u/L g]kfnsf] blIf0fL ;LdfjtL{ If]qdf /x]sf db/;fdf ef/t lj/f]wL tTj /x]sf] 5 / ltgLx¿n] ef/tdf u8a8 drfpF5g\ egL ef/tn] a/fa/ eGb} cfPsf] 5 . o;/L g}, g]kfndf kfls:tfgL cfOP;cfOsf Ph]G6x? n’lsl5lk a;]sf 5g\, g]kfn ;/sf/n] o;df lgu/fgL /fv]sf] 5}g egL ef/tn] a/fa/ eGb}cfPsf] 5 . b’O{ b]zaLrsf] v’nf ;Ldf lgolGqt tyf Jojl:yt ul/P g]kfnn] o:tf] egfO v]Kg’kg]{ lyPg . o:tf] egfOaf6 aRg g]kfn–ef/tsf xjfOofq’nfO{ / g]kfnu+h–?k}l8of gfsfaf6 cfjt–hfjt ug]{ ofq’nfO{ @)^@ sflQs !% b]lv lgolGqt ;Ldf k4lt nfu” ul/O;s]sf] 5 . ca af‘sL gfsfx?df klg b’j} b]zsf] ;xdltdf qmdzM ;Ldf lgodg ub}{ n}hfg’ b’j} b]zsf] lxtdf /x]sf] 5 .         jf:tjdf g]kfn / ef/taLr v’nf ;Ldf k4lt /x]sf] n]vf]6 ;g\ !(%) sf] g]kfn–ef/t d}qL tyf zflGt ;lGwnufot s’g} klg ;lGw, ;Demf}tf tyf b:tfj]hdf kfOb}g . of] t s]jn lqe’jg /fhky lgdf{0fkl5 cfk;L ldqtf, efOrf/f / ;f}xfb{tfn] rng rNtLdf cfPsf] dfq xf] . sf7df8f}Fl:yt ef/tLo /fhb”tfjf;n] æ!(%) sf] g]kfn–ef/t ;lGwdf b’O{ b]zaLrsf] v’nf l;dfgfaf/] s’g} klg bkmfdf pNn]v 5}g,  v’nf l;dfgf k|frLgsfnb]lv cfh;Dd b’j} b]zaLr /xFb} cfPsf] 3lgi7 ldqtfk”0f{ ;DaGwsf] w/f]x/ xf]Æ egL :k];6fOd b}lgs -oxL c;f/ !*_ sf] kf7s ljrf/ snddf o; k+lQmsf/sf] n]vsf ;DaGwdf :ki6f]lQm JoQm u/]sf] lyof] . log} kl/k|]Iodf g]kfnL hgtfsf] zflGt ;’/Iffsf nflu / blIf0f Pl;ofnL d’n’sdf cft+ssf/L ultljlw a9\g glbgsf nflu klg dw];;‘u hf]l8Psf] g]kfn–ef/t ;Ldf lgoldt, Jojl:yt tyf lgolGqt ug{‘ ;dosf] dfu x’g cfPsf] 5 . o:t}, xb};Dd nlrnf] k|ls|of ckgfpg nfluPsf] g]kfnL gful/stf k|df0fkq ljt/0f k|0ffnLdf /fi6«n] k5’tfpg gkg]{ u/L;do5‘b} ;fjwfgL lng ;Sg’k5{ .


Indian Military Check-post in Northern Frontier of Nepal

Indian Military Check-posts in Nepal 

(There were eighteen Indian Military Check-posts in the northern frontier of Nepal) 

After Nepal stepped into the democratic system on 18 February 1951, she began to receive all kinds of assistance from her friendly neighbour, India. Indian experts came to Nepal as advisors to the native political and administrative officials. Similarly, Indian military officers also came here to impart military education and training to their Nepali counterparts. It is reported that India also sent a number of military officers and soldiers to assist the construction of Gauchar Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu. To conduct a talk by providing such assistance, an Indian goodwill delegation of 8 military officers led by Maj. Gen. Paranjape visited Nepal on 9 April 1952. [1]                

It can be seen that India at that time did not think that its borders were strong enough for her security. In particular, India was not convinced of the reliability of its northern border. In fact, India regarded the Himalayas as its northern frontier. The indication of this position of India can be seen in the paragraph of Clause 4 of the letter Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel wrote to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on November 7, 1950. (The full text of the letter is given in Appendix-3.) The relevant paragraph 4 of the letter read: 

“…Our northern or north-eastern approaches consist of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the Tribal Areas in Assam. From the point of view of communications they are weak spots. Continuous defensive lines do not exist. There is almost an unlimited scope for infiltration. Police protection is limited to a very small number of passes. There too, our outposts do not seem to be fully manned.” 

Accordingly, Ballabhbhai’s opinion particularly of Nepal is even more appalling.   

“…3 December 1950: As Nepal’s King Tribhuvan has left Kathmandu and come to New Delhi, now there is no legitimate government in Nepal. Nepal matters to India’s security as crucial as Tibet to China’s and Korea or the Farmosa Island to the United State’s, no matter how far they may remain from the US coast. In Nepal also, like in Hyderabad, Indian nationals have been victims of inhuman treatment of the Rana regime. To stop that atrocity and anarchy, India should send its army in Nepal and take her under its control, eventually to make it yet another member of the Indian Federation, just like Kashmir and Hyderabad.”[2]            

In keeping with this bullying attitude, India established its military check posts on the Nepalese frontier of the Nepal-China borderline. This happened during the premiership of Matrika Prasad Koirala, beginning 9 June 1952, at 18 points of the Nepalese frontier (Appendix-4). In each of the checkpoints, 20 to 40 Indian army personnel equipped with arms and communication equipment were deployed, together with a few Nepali army and civilian officials. The Indian army deployment was completed in two trips to Nepal.

Ever since their deployment, Nepal’s political parties and civil society members kept on voicing their strong opposition to this issue. Once in 1959, a loud protest was launched, but the check posts remained as they were. At long last, the issue was again raised, this time more sharply, during the premiership of Kirti Nidhi Bista, and consequently, on 20 April 1969, the check-posts were removed and the Indian army personnel sent back home. But what is to be remembered here is that the Indian para-military forces stationed at Kalapani in Darchula district of Nepal ever since 1962 during Sino-Indian war are still not withdrawn. As a result, Indian military camps can still be seen in and around the Kalapani-Limpiyadhua area. The talk has been going on between Nepal and India regarding this “encroached and occupied” land of Nepal as well, but to no avail and the problem remains as it is, mainly because of no concrete dialogue and negotiation.  

Once this author had put a question to the former Prime Minister Kirti Nidhi Bista in a talk programme organised by the Committee of Intellectual and Professional Solidarity Against Border Encroachment and the State Atrocities on 4 July 1998 as to why the Indian military camps were not removed yet from the Kalapani area during his premiership, He had then replied:  

“I never knew, even when I was the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, that there were Indian military camps in the Kalapani area. It was during my premiership that Indian checkpoints were removed from Nepal’s northern border, but I did not receive any report as to why the same did not happen with regard to the Indian military camps in Kalapani. In fact, I had no idea whether there existed any such camps in Kalapani. I was never told about it by my administration. This shows how (irresponsible) is our administrative system. We will not let even an inch of our land slip out of our hand. Had I known that Indian army personnel were stationed there without our consent, I would not have kept mum. Today we have come across a big sensitive issue like border problems, and we must fully inform the people about this. The government should not hide any facts. It is clear that Indian military presence in a small country like ours is a sign of their bullying behaviour. India is powerful, but now since the Bajpayee government has come in power, this signals the arrival of a positive climate for Nepal to settle the issue for ever, just like there was a favourable situation in 1969 AD, when the check posts were removed. Nepal’s border should be demarcated and mapped accordingly as per the Sugauli treaty. Steps should be taken in this direction.”[3] 

The reason behind why Nepal’s administration was not formally aware of the existence of the Indian army posts in Kalapani was probably that there happened no correspondence between the two countries before the army was posted. It might be like this that after India lost to China in their border war in 1962, Indian soldiers gradually receded from the frontline, and when saw Kalapani area, they might have considered it as a strategically appropriate and sensitive location, so they decided to stay there. But, forgetting the fact that the place lies well within Nepal’s border, Indian soldiers have still been occupying it. When the two countries agreed to establish Indian check-posts along Nepal’s northern frontier, names of 18 such places were mentioned in the letters exchanged, excluding Kalapani. So when the checkpoints were withdrawn, Kalapani was obviously left out. 

India’s security perception at that time seemed influenced by its susceptibilities towards its neighbours, including Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and its northern neighbour, China. When the Kodari Highway that connects Kathmandu to the Tibetan province of China was underway, Indians started a propaganda that it would now increase the Chinese influence in Nepal. Some Indian newspapers went even further to criticize that the Highway was worth the load of big tanks and heavy vehicles which Nepal hardly needed to operate. It was in this context of Indian skepticism that the late King Mahendra had once said, “Communism is not something that is imported through a motorcar”.


Viewed from Nepal’s security perspective, the current strategy of keeping southern border open and northern border controlled is not in tune with the changing requirements of time. However, a careful and scientific balance needs to be maintained in managing border systems on both sides. For this to happen, Nepal should begin opening the northern border points for the regional balance of economic development as mentioned in Appendix- 2 and Map No. 3. It is to be recalled that a Cabinet decision has been made on 25 April 2002 for opening some previously prohibited tourist destinations as mentioned in Appendix- 5. Whatever it was in the past, Nepal must not tolerate the military activity of the countries of any part of the globe, within the nation.

[1]      Devkota, Grishma Bahadur (1959) Political Mirror of Nepal (in Devanagari) 1959, Vol-1:144.      Op.Cit : 39

[3] Samakaleen Weekly, 9 July 1998

Kalapani Belongs to Nepal

Kalapani Belongs to Nepal

The North-Western Border of Nepal 


Buddhi  Narayan  Shrestha

Managing Director

Bhumichitra Mapping Company- Kathmandu, Nepal 


The Treaty of Sugauli of 4 March 1816 is the basis to delineate and demarcate the western/north-western border of Nepal, eventhough the Boundary Treaty of 1 November 1860 is implied specially to the south-western portion, as the restoration of Banke, Bardiya, Kailali and Kanchanpur districts as new territory (Naya Muluk).  According to the Treaty of Sugauli, river Kali is the western boundary of Nepal with India.  The boundary river, Kali is delimitated by Article 5 of the treaty.  It says “the Rajas of Nepal renounces for himself, his heirs, and successors, all claim to or connection with the countries lying to the west of the river Kali and engages never to have any concern with those countries or the inhabitants thereof.”  So the place, where the river Kali is originated is the north-western corner border limit of Nepal with India and China as tri-junction.

 Status of the River Kali and Kalapani: 

It is not yet demarcated the status and origination of the river Kali.  The river is known as Kali at the upper reaches, Mahakali in the middle portion and Sarjoo or Gogra or western branch of Gogra when it comes down to plain area. 

There is a controversy and much debate in the determination of the point of origination of river Kali, whether it is originated from Limpiyadhura (5,532 meter) or Lipulek (5,098 mtr) or an artificial pond (4,571 mtr).  The second debate is the location of Kalapani, whether it is located in the Nepalese territory or Indian side.  In another words, whether Kalapani belongs to Nepal or India!  There has been an issue of national interest for everyone that raised much hue and cry since October 1996.

The Nepalese people of all walks of life from the students to the University teachers, laymen to the intellectuals, historians to the geographers/mapping experts, former government administrators to former diplomats, village committee chairmen level to political leaders, ex-policemen to even ex-military officers have expressed their views through the news media workshop, symposium, meeting and discussions.

As regards the determination of the origin of river Kali, there are more or less three different thoughts.  The first and major section, who belong to the intellectuals, researchers, elite and informative community have opined referring historical documents, old maps and hydrological facts that the river Kali of the Treaty of Sugauli is originated from Limpiyadhura.  The second section i.e. the government machinery have expressed as the origin of the river Kali from nearby to the Lipulek pass.  The third is the Indian team of the Nepal-India Technical Level Joint Boundary Working Group and the Honourable Ambassador of India to Nepal and they have expressed their views that the river Kali is originated from a small pond, which is located south of Kalapani and further south of the Pankhagad stream.

Now the main crux of the matter is to identify, which one is the river Kali of that period as the spirit of the treaty.  Description of origin of the river is not mentioned in the treaty.  In a sense, it was not necessary to make a description of the river at that time, because of the fact that there was no controversy and confusion on the river and there was only one river which was used to be known as Kali. 

To reach into certain conclusion, one has to make a study of the historical document and old maps, which are inscribed and established on and around the time of the treaty.  And the other is, on the spot findings with hydrological facts.

 Maps As Evidence: 

So far as the maps as evidence is concerned, there are so many maps as proofs that depict the point of origin of Kali river which lies about 16 kilometers northwest of Kalapani at Limpiyadhura.

One of the maps published on 1827 has clearly shown the river originated from Limpiyadhura in the Zanskar Range of the Himalayas, as Kali River.  It is a map of 1″ = 4 miles scale and its authenticity can be proved that it bears the label “Published According to Act of Parliament by James Horst Surgh, Hydrographer to the East India Company 1st Feb. 1827.”  Another map of 1830 and its updated edition of 1846 entitled “Western Provinces of Hindoostan” also show the river flowing from Limpiyadhura as Kali River.  The map (scale 1″ = 20 English Miles) was published in London by Parbury Allen & Co. and is captioned as “constructed from the most recent surveys.” 

Improved Map of India (compiled from all the latest and most authentic materials) published in London, 2 January 1816 by A. Arrowsmith No. 10 Soho Square, Hydrographer to His Majesty, has shown the river from Limpiyadhura to be as Kali or western branch of Gogra or Sarjoo.  This map has covered the area of the then Greater Nepal from Tista to Kangra.  And even a map of 1856 entitled “Nipal and the Countries Adjoining South, West and East” published by Surveyor General’s office also shows Kali river as the one flowing from Limpiyadhura.  The map was compiled in Survey of India, Calcutta and bears the signature of the Deputy Surveyor General as In-charge.  The notable point is that it has mentioned in its Note No. 3 as compiled map “Jung Bahadur’s Nipal Sketch Map in Devanagari characters received from foreign department sent thereto by Resident of Nipal.”

There are other maps as counter-proofs that show the river originated from Limpiyadhura is the river Kali.  Some of these maps are Sketch of Kumao by Captain H.S. Webb, Surveyor 1819; Vorder-Indien Orderdas Indo-Britische Reich 1834, Steilers Hand Atles-Germany; Index Map-XII of India 1835, Baldwin & Cradock;  Anglo Asian Map by J.B. Tassin, 1837 and The Atlas of India, 1846 (maps of the society for the diffusion of useful knowledge), London: Charles Knight and Co.

All these maps from 1816 to 1860 have shown the river flowing from Limpiyadhura as Kali River, and thus it carries the north-western border of Nepal with India.  The name of the other river, originated from Lipulek Pass is not inscribed in these maps.  It may be due to the fact that this is a lower order river as it has low depth, less volume of water, shorter in length and narrow width of the river. 

Secondly, the maps from 1860 to 1880 have, though maintained the geographical position of the Kali River and location of Kalapani in situ but the name of the Kali has been changed to Kuti and then Kuti Yangti River.  An 1881 map published by Survey of India entitled “Nepal, Tibet & United Province has mentioned the river flowing from Limpiyadhura simply as Kuti River and it has left the river flowing from Lipulek unnamed.

Thirdly, maps published after 1880 have changed the name of the river originated from Limpiyadhura as Kuti Yangti and the river flowing from nearby of Lipulek pass has been started to name as Kali River making Nepal loose almost 310 square kilometers of land, west of Lipu River.  So the name of the river Kali was slowly changed into Kuti and finally into Kuti Yangti.

Most spectacularly, a map entitled “Nepal, Almorah, United Province” with 1″ = 1 mile published by Survey of India, 1879 has altered the border to the east and south with the cartographic symbol, keeping intact the geographical location of Kali and Lipu rivers and Kalapani.  The symbol on the map has not followed the river as border line, but the international boundary line is being taken from a small artificially formed rivulet about a considerable distance south of Kalapani and Pankhagad stream.  And the boundary line runs south-east along the watershed to north of Tinkar pass. This map has irregularity and has falsely inscribed as it may be called “cartographic aggression” of the border and Survey of India did it on their own.  In fact, the western border of Nepal with India follows the river but not the hills and watershed.

 Location of Kalapani:   

In such a fashion, Indian side has now claimed the artificially formed pond as the source of Kali River and about one and half kilometer long rivulet (canal) as the mighty Kali River.  The cartographic encroachment of border has made Kalapani on “Indian side” making Nepal loose a further 62 square kilometers of territory.

It is mentionable that Lipulek pass is the easiest path to reach Tibet of China.  And there is a strategic hill with 6,180 mtr high on the south of Kalapani, along the line of false cartographic/ symbolic boundary.  One can have a look on those moves through the Lipulek pass from the Taklakot business center of China to India and Nepal.

Meanwhile, India has been maintaining a contingent of armed forces at Kalapani since 1960.  During the war with China, India has built permanent structures with bunkers and the Indian army has occupied the area of Kalapani, which is located east of the river Kali as the intrusion of the Nepalese territory.

Nepalese officials, especially the Chief District Officers of Darchula have reported to the center time and often mentioning that the Nepalese territory of Kalapani have been encroached by the Indian armymen and they have erected some constructions there.  But it was ignored during the Panchayat era to sustain Panchayat System in Nepal.  At that time, Nepal was not in a position to protest and oppose to India for the sake of Panchayat regime.  After the restoration of democracy in 1990, voice of the Nepalese people started to raise slowly in so many issues and Kalapani/Limpiyadhura was one of them which is so louder after 1996.

 Statements Concerning Kalapani:   

In the mean time, the then Indian Ambassador KV Rajan made two press releases relating to Kalapani on the 3rd and 7th June ’98.  He stated that there is only an Indo-Tibetan Border Police-post in the area which, according to all records available with the government of India, has been on the Indian side of the border since 19th century and acknowledged as such by successive British, Indian and Nepalese Governments.  He also said that there is an old and complicated historical background to the boundary between the two countries dating back to the 19th century.  He further said that the reference to the historical background of the boundary in the Kalapani area, as is available with the Government of India, was made in the context of the unfair insinuation that India is knowingly in occupation of the territory at Kalapani (7 June 1998). 

However, Mr. Rajan made another statement after a few days in Birganj on the 10th of June that he did not say Kalapani is a part of India.  He further said, India would leave the area of Kalapani there and then, if Nepal produces authoritative documents. 

In a talk program at Reporters Club, he said on 2nd of August ’99 that they have inherited certain territories from British India and they have not since then altered the boundaries.  He further said, India has done no wrong on the Kalapani issue and wishes to hold discussions in a friendly atmosphere to resolve the issue in the mutual interest of both the countries.  He also warned that it would be better if both Nepal and India suspended their judgements and individual stance on the issue, since a joint border technical team is still examining historical documents relating to the territorial dispute of the strip of tri-junction in the far-west district of Darchula.

Just after one month of the saying of the Indian Ambassador there was another talk program in the Reporters Club on September 2 and the Chinese Ambassador ZX Yong said that the Boundary Agreement between Nepal and China was performed three and half decades ago, by which Kalapani area lies within the Nepalese territory.  However old documents were ignored during that agreement which would show the border of Nepal up to Limpiyadhura, the origin of Mahakali.  In addition, the Chinese envoy said that tri-junction point is the subject to three countries, whereas Kalapani situated near to the tri-junction point is not the subject of three countries.  He further said the recent border trade agreement between India and China does not involve “disputed territory of Kalapani.” 

Regarding the issue of Kalapani further, IK Gujaral (then Prime Minister of India) during the visit to Kathmandu on 9th June ’97 said that they have issued a direction to hold a meeting of the Joint Boundary Working Group within one month, to solve the issue.  Similarly the Indian President KR Narayan during a civic welcome hosted by the Kathmandu Metropolitan City on 30th May 1998 expressed that Nepal and India are two countries, where there are no doors and wall to obstruct the border.

Answering to a written question in Rajya Sabha on 16th July ’98, the then Indian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Basundhara Raje furnished information that Nepal has claimed 25 square kilometers of land on Kalapani area of India-Nepal border sector.  He further informed that Nepal has claimed that land in connection with the border delineation of the western sector of India-Nepal boundary.

Some more Indian parliamentarians have expressed their views on Kalapani problem.  Sanjaya Nirupam, member of Indian Rajya Sabha has said unofficially in Kathmandu in a program arranged by the Reporters Club that Kalapani issue must be resolved through the talks between two countries and India must not take any decision in contrary to the views of the Nepalese people (2 July ’99).  In the same way, Ananda Pathak, former member of Indian Lok Sabha expressed his personal view while he visited Kathmandu (17 August) that if Nepal is deprived from Kalapani, Indian military force must be removed there and then from that area. 

As a counter to the Indian dignitaries on Kalapani issue, Girija Prasad Koirala as Prime Minister had announced and claimed that Kalapani is within the territory of Nepal as depicted on the maps of 1850 and 1856, published by Survey of India.  He had repeatedly said “we feel that the disputed area of Kalapani is ours, the dispute needs to be resolved by carrying out a comprehensive study of all historical documents and proofs.  If the study and facts show that the territory belongs to Nepal, then India must pull out of Kalapani (9 June’98).”  In addition, the then Prime Minister Koirala has conveyed to the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee that there are historical maps and documents, which depict that Kalapani belong to Nepal (Colombo, 28 July ’98).  Koirala further said “I cannot say, it was the positive achievement but I am sure that Vajpayee understood well what I wanted to tell him concerning the border problem.” 

The border problem was visualized by late His Majesty the King.  In order to keep the border regularized, the Royal Address to the joint session of parliament made a commitment to “maintain the border pillars intact” (1 July ’99).

In connection to Kalapani and north-western border issue, various other authorities of the Nepalese government have expressed their views. Notably, Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai as head of government has said “Kalapani is a part of the Nepalese territory, Kalapani is ours according to the maps of that area (23 July).  He spoke in the parliament that Nepal will not leave even an inch of land on the basis of available maps.

In the same way, the then Foreign Minister Ram Sharan Mahat has answered the questions positively in the parliament relating to Kalapani/Limpiyadhura border problem, raised by various members of parliament.  He has also furnished information to the presspersons that the government is dedicated to remove the Indian army from Kalapani.  He has further said “the government will handle the problem of Kalapani from technical, political, administrative and diplomatic level as well.  The study is being carried out by the experts.  The discussion is going on to finalise the western border, whether it is located at Lipulek or Limpiyadhura, on the basis of all types of maps and documents from the time of the Treaty of Sugauli (26 July ’99). 

Former Prime Ministers also have shown their concern and expressed their views as Kalapani belongs to Nepal.  Sher Bahadur Deowa told in the parliament that Indian armymen will go back from Kalapani after the demarcation of that area (6 March ’97).  Such are the views of Lokendra Bahadur Chand, Surya Bahadur Thapa and Kirti Nidhi Bista. Marich Man Singh has said (1 July ’98) “India had proposed to China during my tenure, to construct a trade route with a view to connect Kalapani to China.  But India was awkward as China spoke clearly that Kalapani belongs to Nepal.”

 Nepal-India Boundary Joint Working Group:   

During the visit of the Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswont Singh to Kathmandu, a joint communiqué (11 September 1999) was issued and the problem of Kalapani was mentioned on it.  They have instructed to the joint working group of Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee to analyse the facts in an efficient manner for the demarcation of the western sector including the area of Kalapani, which is in controversy between he tow sides.  They have also provided instruction to complete the work in a time bound basis.

In spite of all these instructions, dialogue, debate and discussion between two teams of the Joint Working Group, they have not yet reached into decision to finalise the working materials, which could be used to demarcate the western border of Nepal.  During the meeting of joint working group on 17 July ’98 Nepal proposed to take the maps of 1850 and 1856 as the working materials to be used by the joint survey teams.  But Indian side presented logic that these maps are irrelevant and unscientific as well.  Instead, they claimed that the maps prepared during 1879 and 1928/29 must be taken as basic working materials to the field.  In counter, Nepal pleaded that those maps are baseless.  In such a fashion the meeting was ended with no decision.

After the fruitless discussion, the respective working group had forwarded the matter to upper level and it should have been referred even to the ministerial level.  Especially Nepalese working group might have seeking and waiting for the guidance and concrete instruction from upper level.  But with the result of the joint communiqué issued in Kathmandu at the end of the visit of Indian Foreign Minister, the issue has been rather pushed down to the same level, where the problem was originated.  So the problem forwarded by the joint working group is now something like a motionless move and nobody knows, when it will start to move again.

 India Intends to Study Proofs from Nepal: 

As the other side of the coin, during the bilateral talk between two foreign ministers in Kathmandu, Nepalese side expressed the view that necessary arrangements must be carried out to remove the Indo-Tibetan armed police border-post from Kalapani area, whereas Indian side expressed opinion that appropriate solution may be explored after scrutinizing the proof of the historical documents.  This indicates that India intends to study those proofs of Kalapani, which are available with the Nepalese government.

In this context, Prime Minister Bhattarai has already spelled out the maps of 1850 and 1856 as proofs.  Notably, these maps are prepared and published by Survey of India themselves during British period in India.

Secondly, this scribe has collected a considerable number of historical maps within the nation and abroad, especially from the British Library, London (India Office Records & Collections) and Library of Congress, Washington DC (Geography & Map Division).  Some of these maps have been mentioned above as it was published during 1816/  1819/  1827/ 1830/  1835/  1837/  1846/  1850/  1856 etc.  These maps can work as the counter-proofs to those maps, which are already available with the government.  And the concerned ministries and department have procured these maps from this scribe.

 Kali/Kalapani Itself As A Proof: 

It is clearly engraved on above mentioned maps that the river which is originated from Limpiyadhura is the Kali as delimitated by the Treaty of Sugauli, as the western borderline of Nepal.  Based on the historical documents and various maps of the era of the treaty and scientifically enunciated hydrological principle, there is no doubt to reach in conclusion that the north-western border corner of Nepal is located at Limpiyadhura. 

Nextly, Kalapani itself is a concrete and on the spot geographical proof, because Kalapani is located towards east of the river Kali, as the Treaty of Sugauli says that all those areas lying to the east of the river Kali is the territory of Nepal.




Nepal-India border demarcation

Twenty-five years in

Nepal-India border demarcation


By Buddhi  Narayan  Shrestha


India is a close neighbor of Nepal in terms of geographical proximity. The physical configuration of the border between the countries does not present natural barrier. Nepal-India relation has developed from time immemorial in cultural, religious and social aspects. India is very close for Nepal in respect of increasing volume of trade. In the same way Nepal is important to India in many aspects, as Nepal is situated between emerging China and India. India could increase trade volume with China through Nepal, as a transit country.


Various treaties, agreements and memorandums have been carried out between Nepal and India since the British period. Supplementary boundary treaty of 1 November 1860 is one of them. This treaty has delineated the last borderline of present Nepal. After the treaty, border demarcation was made with Junge pillars. However, clear-cut demarcation was incomplete in many places including the riverine segments. To complete the remaining works, Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee (JTLBC) was formed. The terms of reference of the JTLBC is to erect subsidiary markers in bending line, to repair wrecked pillars, to prepare strip-maps and to maintain no-man’s land. Work of joint team is underway to demarcate the 1808 km of borderline.


But unfortunately, it is yet to be completed. The committee is completing 25 years today. There may be a question: whether this duration is too long to complete the work or normal due to the nature of work. To answer this, we have to evaluate the activity of JTLBC, field program of joint teams, diplomatic initiative, feeling of sensitivity of international border and role of the head of government to solve the border issues.


First, there is a provision to organize joint meeting twice a year alternately in Kathmandu and New Delhi, as stated in the terms and reference of JTLBC. As such, fifty meetings should have been taken place during the period of twenty-five years. But the meeting has been held twenty-seven times. The last meeting is held on September 1, 2005 in New Delhi. With this, the progress is counted as only 54 percent. In the mean time, committee leaders have been changed frequently, twelve times in Indian side and eight times from Nepal. Occasional transfer of committee leaders might have hampered the progress of the joint committee.


Second, insufficient joint field survey teams have been deputed in the field. At the same time, there is no proper co-ordination between the teams of two nations. For example, team of one side would wait for weeks and weeks on the spot looking for counterpart team. This has caused backlog to meet the fixed target. Since border business is a joint teamwork of both the nations. Demarcation carried out by one side may not be agreeable to the other side.


Next, lack of appropriate diplomatic initiative is one of the main reasons to spend twenty-five years in demarcating Indo-Nepal border. There are many spots and segments of disputes, conflicts, encroachment, claims and counter-claims. The study has shown that there are 54 spots of conflict and disagreements, having 60 thousand hectares of land on the demarcation line. Kalapani-Limpiyadhura, Susta, Thori, Sandakpur, Maheshpur, Tanakpur, Pashupatinagar, Bhantabari, Parasan are notable spots.


Fourth, Indo-Nepal international border demarcation work has been on shadow due to frequent political changes. Heads of government have been changed 20 times in Nepal in 25 years period.


As a result, border problems could not get priority. Presently, months have been elapsed for the summit talks between the Maoists and SPA. They are engaged in solving political issues. It seems that everybody is hankering over the political and administrative power. Political leaders have given less attention to settle the issue of national border. There may be a curiosity, if there is no definite national boundary of Nepal, for whom the summit talk should be held. If some portion of the frontier is encroached by the neighboring country, Nepali nationals of that frontier will be transferred to be alien. What will be the importance of summit talk and constitutional assembly of Nepal to those alienated people? Not to alienate the Nepali citizen, Nepal has to be aware to complete the demarcation of national borderline correctly, as the historical maps and documents depict.


Fifth, there is a passive role of head of government of both countries. It has pulled on the duration of border demarcation between Nepal and India. They provide general instruction to JTLBC. But they never solve the problems put forward by the joint technical committee. Since the committee has its limitation on technical matters. But the crux of the border problem, especially on encroachment is of political and diplomatic nature. The heads of government level should have settled the problems. But they are not in action to solve the problem.


However, they know the problem well including the Kalapani issue. It may be relevant to mention that IK Gujaral has said in his prime ministerial tenure “As regards Kalapani, the technicians from both sides are engaged in the demarcation of border. If their reports conclude that the area belongs to Nepal, we will immediately withdraw from there” (Gorkahpatra Daily, 24 February 1997).


In the same way, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai as prime minister has said “Kalapani is in Nepali territory and Kalapani is ours according to the maps of that area” (Kantipur Daily, 24 July 1999). From this version, one has to realize that heads of government know well the problems. But they don’t venture to put this matter on the agenda during face to face meeting. Instead, they spell directions to junior officials to study the problem further more.


When we prick the directives provided by the prime ministers, one could recall the joint statement published during the visit of neighboring country. Article 25 of Nepal-India Joint Press Statement released on August 3, 2000 during PM Girija Prasad Koirala’s visit to India states: “The two Prime Ministers direct the committee to complete its field work by 2001-2002 and final preparation of strip-maps by 2003. They also directed the JTLBC to expeditiously complete its examination of the facts relating to the alignment of the boundary in the western section, including the Kalapani area, and in other pockets, where there were differences in perceptions of the two sides.”


Similarly, Article 6 of the joint statement issued on September 12, 2004 during the then PM Sher Bahadur Deuba’s visit to India states: “The Prime Ministers expressed satisfaction at the progress made by the JTLBC and directed the committee to complete the remaining mandated tasks by June 2005.” But this directive also could not get materialized. Instead, the time period has been extended to the end of 2006 by exchanging letters. It is memorable that the previous deadline of JTLBC was fixed as 1991, 1995 and 1997. Here lies the question: Why are the joint instructions of two PMs not materialized? Is it possible to complete the remaining tasks in due time? Let us have a look on the remaining works.


It is commendable that JTLBC has completed 98 percent of the demarcation work with the establishment of border pillars. But 2 percent of the total work has been entangled for long. There are many claims and counter-claims at 54 places within 2 percent on the spotted span of 36 km and Kalapani and Susta are the major issues. Regarding Kalapani issue, India and Nepal differ as to which stream constitutes the source of the River Mahakali, whether it is originated from Limpiyadhura, Lipulek or an artificial pond. As a result, DPR of Mahakali Treaty has not yet formulated, since ten years have been elapsed, the treaty was signed. As regards the Susta case, there is a controversy on the original course of the River Narayani flown during 1816 Sugauli Treaty between the British East India and Nepal.


Here lies the question again: how those differences could be resolved amicably! The answer may be, trained and experienced diplomatic channel should be utilized, which have sufficient knowledge on the subject matter. Secondly, mature politicians should be assigned to talk jointly with fixed agenda. After this, border problems must be handled and resolved in the prime ministers’ level, as channelised by the experienced diplomats and mature politicians’, findings of the ways and means to resolve the problems. Border problems must be negotiated with mutual discussions in respect of friendship, brotherhood and equality with the background of historical maps, related facts and supporting documents.


Role of civic society is to make aware and create pressure to the government authorities highlighting the facts and figures. Executing power lies in the hands of government authorities. So the head of the governments must demonstrate skill for the settlement of disputed portions of the national territory once and for all.


Nepal-India JTLBC has elapsed 25 years, as it has crossed the year of silver jubilee. The civic society will evaluate whether this is a long or short period. However, let us hope the border demarcation between Nepal and India will be completed in a very near future and boundary protocol will be signed in due time. Resolving the border issues, relation between the two countries will be further strengthened in the days to come in a consolidated manner.




Nepal-India Border Regulation

Nepal-India Border

Regulation can prove peace and security for Nepalese nationals 

Buddhi Narayan Shrestha 

Nepal has good relationship with its neighbours. India is bordered as Nepal‘s southern neighbour with convenient topography. We have social and religious ties with each other since long. With the advent of democracy, Indo-Nepal economic co-operation has been expanded considerably. If we look back the history of Nepal-India border, there was a closed border system in ancient period. No one could enter into Nepal without special permission from Rana prime minister. Practice of controlled border system was started slowly after the Sugauli treaty of 1816. However, it can be said that as soon as Nepal restored Naya Muluk ( Banke, Bardiya, Kailali and Kanchanpur ) from British India on November 1, 1860; open border system unknowingly came into practice between two countries. It was the border slackness to make Nepali youth’s easy travel to India to get recruited in the Gorkha regiment of the British army.             The border was more open after India‘s independence in 1947 from the British rule. Furthermore, it was wide open after Nepal‘s democratic movement in 1950, to come and go Indian politicians and bureaucrats and technicians without any restriction. Ultimately, Nepal-India border was empty open after the construction of Tribhuvan highway in 1956, linking Kathmandu to Raxaul, Indian border town. As a result, anyone could cross the border and shuttle back and forth many times a day without any interrogation. However, there was a kind of closed border system during the economic blockade by
India from March 23, 1989 to July 1, 1990. Existing 22 border crossing points and 15 transit points between two countries had been closed unilaterally. Recently, India has shown a symptom to regulate or control the border, deploying special services bureau (SSB). It seems as a discretionary management of border. They have deployed more than ten thousand SSB para-military forces along Indo-Nepal border, after the incidents of September 11 in America and December 13, 2001 in New Delhi and Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Interestingly, India and Nepal have jointly agreed and implemented controlled border system for the air-passengers, after the Indian airplane hijacked from Kathmandu on December 24, 1999It is notable that passport / rahadani were necessary even to go from one part of Nepal to another via Indian territory till four decades ago. At that time, rahadani  would be issued from Rahadani Goswara of Munsikhana and district Badahakim. But rahadani system unknowingly disappeared after the construction of Tribhuvan highway. We can recollect the fact from a sample of passport / permit- 1862 and Passport Regulations- 1952, published in Nepal Gazette- April 22, 1952 that even the Nepalis residing for long or permanently settled down in any foreign country would require prior permit or passport to enter into Nepal. Such permission could be possessed from the embassies or consulates of Nepal in the respective country or from the Alainchikothi in Patna- India, as mentioned in the para four of the regulations. On the other hand, if we make a study on the existing Immigration Act and Regulations, all foreigners should obtain visa / permit to enter Nepal. Article 2(B) of the regulations defines “foreigner means any person, not being the citizen of Nepal at present, as it must be understood.” It indicates to follow the regulated border system also for the Indian nationals. Irrespective of the historical basis of the open border between India and Nepal, Media Services International had conducted an opinion survey in 15 districts of hills and Tarai to find out whether the Nepali people wanted open or regulated border. The report made public on July 3, 2000 by Media Services revealed that among the respondents, 85.5% had expressed the opinion to in favour of regulating the open border between India and Nepal, while 42.9% had expressed their views in support of implementing the passport system and 7% in favour of as it is. The public opinion survey has mentioned that 44.4% people have considered both Nepal and India responsible for the lack of supervision and control of the border, while 40.7% people have taken it to be the weakness of Nepal and 3.8% have thought it the weakness of India. And 11.1% do not have firm idea. Similarly, Kantipur Daily had also conducted an Internet Opinion Survey. According to the results published on February 21, 2000 in response to the question, “Is it necessary to enact any rules that would govern the movement of the citizens of Nepal and India across the Nepal-India border?” 89.5% (1,053 people) respondents voted in favour of the necessity of making rules whereas 10.5% (111 people) viewed, there was no necessity of making any such rules. From the survey too, it has become clear that the Nepalis have wished for the regulated and controlled border system.With all these perspective and fact and figure and current situation in both nations, should open border system continue or does it need to manage an alternative system ?If we have to establish peace and security for the prosperity of Nepalese nationals, there should have some alternative measures in Indo-Nepal border management system. In fact, existing system has somehow created muddle for the people of both nations. Keeping the border open has made it easy for unwanted elements and rebels to run their activities. Once they commit illegal acts such as crime, murder, theft, robbery, abduction in one frontier, they instantly cross the porous border and enter into the other side of the frontier and hide or take safe shelter.It makes uproar on both the frontiers.We have to visualise the problems of both nations in a national perspective. It should concentrate and focus on the issues and problems, not from the Madheshis and Pahadiyas, Limbuwans and Khumbuwans or some other regional and ethnical angle, but from the holistic Nepalese national perspective. In the broader aspect of the issue, government of Nepal and India must come to conclusion jointly to make the border restricted for the terrorists, controlled for smugglers, obstructed for the abductors, checked for the criminals, stopped for narcotic holders; but regulated for the genuine passengers and common people of India and Nepal and managed for exp ort and import of merchandise legally. Most importantly, arrangement of special permission / identity card should certainly be made for the inhabitants living within 5 kilometers of either side of the border.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: