Nepal-India Border Issues : Alternative Solution

Buddhi Narayan Shrestha

         नेपाल–भारत सीमा समस्या : समाधानका विकल्प

बुद्धिनारायण श्रेष्ठ

https://nayapatrikadaily.com/news-details/85983/2022-05-12

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 ।

सीमा समाधानको संयन्त्र : 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 ।’

भारतीय विदेशसचिवको मनसाय : 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–बंगलादेश सीमा सम्झौता : 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–भारत जमिन सट्टापट्टाका दृष्टान्त : 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 ।

सीमा समाधानको सिद्धान्त : 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 ।

#बुद्धिनारायण श्रेष्ठ

Buddhi N Shrestha’s Book in Eight Languages

Buddhi Narayan Shrestha

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

1. International boundary
2. International boundaries of Nepal
3. The Birth of Nepal
4. Boundary of Greater Nepal
5. 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
• Trump ignored Nepal border on the world map
• Canada-America vis-a-vis Nepal-India border management
• BRI of China and Corridor of Nepal
• Unquiet Border between Pakistan and India
• Message of India-Bangladesh border agreement
• Let us not hurl stones from No-man’s Land
• Merging Nepal and India with each other
• What is Sugauli Treaty ?
• Nepal on lease but not on sale !
• Kalapani dispute has been internationalized
• Block out the bombers

Chapter-7: Last Chapter

• Who said what on Kalapani border encroachment ?
• Facts & Figures on the Boundary of Nepal
• Glossary on boundaries
• Short introduction to the author
• Appendices
• Cartoons on border issues
• Bibliography
• General index

                                

Borders in the news 2021

Buddhi Narayan Shrestha

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.

Source: Borderlines, IBRU, Issue-20, Spring-2022