▲ 5 r/NepalSocial
First in my bloodline to witness this
ANIME AND KPOP MENTIONED IN THE PARLIAMENT
u/AugustusArete — 8 days ago
u/AugustusArete
▲ 5 r/NepalSocial
The flairs are back but
Why are RANT and Politics STILL pink? Can we have black for politics and red for rant pls mods I'm asking nicely and said pls
u/AugustusArete — 14 days ago
▲ 69 r/NepalSocial
Hello everyone. I've seen a sudden spike of posts regarding Limpiya and Nepal's other north-western disputed territories in this sub over the last few days. I know most of them are from it cell bots because the intellectuals among indians have nothing to say about it. I have been following this issue since 2015 so I suppose I have the threshold of knowledge required to speak regarding this matter. This will be a comprehensive one. Historical facts, cartographic evidence, and data are sourced from the National Archive, and various books by geology and hydrology experts.
The dispute finds its roots on 11 December 1816, with Sugauli Treaty Article 5 stating, "The Rajah of Nipal 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 inhabitants thereof." This effectively demarcated the British India and Nepal territory at the Kali river. Let's call this exhibit A.
In 1817, Brahma Shah (commonly called Bam Shah), had written to John Adam, the then new acting Governor-General of the British East India Company about a passage track that would belong to Nepal in accordance to the treaty. The order by the Governor General to Edward Garner, the then acting Commissioner of Kumaon was, "With respect to Bum Shah’s claim to the track on the eastern side of the Kali, the governer general in council is of opinion that according to the letter of the treaty, the government of Nipal is entitled to the restoration of it, not withstanding its hithertho having been regarded as annexed to the British province of Kumaoon. I am accordingly directed to intimate to you that the acting commissioner for Kumaoon will be instructed to surrender it to the officers of the Nipalese Government."
Image 1 is the series of maps of the disputed region published by the East India Company during this time. Image 2 is the international demarcation line drawn by the British in 1840. Image 3 is of the years following where the disputed regions still lie well within Nepal. Let's call this exhibit B.
As we near india coming into effect as a sovereign political entity, we have a map drawn by Ganesh Bahadur KC in 1942, where the north western border of Nepal is left non-demarcated. The reason for it is not known. This is Image 4. Image 5 shows the official map of Nepal with yet no international demarcation on the north western border in 1985. The reason for this is given, "the non-identification of the Kali river", because there were multiple large and small rivers in the area. Let's call this exhibit C.
So to identify the Kali river, Image 6 provides details of the identification of the river from 1819 to 2020. Image 7 shows how the international boundary in the disputed region has been renamed time and again, in india's official map from 2017 to 2020. The map also shows the Byas ridge as the border between Nepal and india, and not the Kali river (called Sharada in india).
The Byas ridge is further to the east of the Kali river and the Byas Rural Municipality is officially a local level administrative entity of Nepal. So with these maps, india is admitting to border encroachment. Image 8 is the identification of the Kali river based on hydrological and morphological evidence. The main parameters for this being river flow, river length, drainage area, and stream order. Let's call it exhibit D.
Here is an excerpt of the Meeting of Joint Working Group on the India-Nepal Boundary, Fifth meeting, 17 July 1998: "Rigorous topographical survey were undertaken in this area during 1921-27 at the express desire of the then Prime Minister of Nepal, under the control of Nepalese Government Supervisors, Lt. Colonel Ganesh Bahadur Chhetri and captain Ganga Bahadur Karki. Maps prepared in 1928/29 were shown to and cleared by, the Nepalese Government, which only pointed out certain inaccuracies regarding place-names. The boundary alignment depicted in 1928/29 reconfirmed the alignment shown in the map of 1879."
The PM of Nepal refers to Chandra Sumsher Junga Bahadur Rana, the 1928 map refers to the latest edition of the maps from exhibit B.
"The boundary alignment depicted on survey of India maps since 1879 was acceptable to the Nepalese side is also indicated in the Nepal-China Boundary treaty of 1961 and the Nepal-China Boundary Protocol of 1963. The position of the starting point/ western extremity of the Nepal-China boundary given in the two documents coincided with the trijunction point between Nepal, India and China as depicted on survey of India maps." So in 1998, india affirmed the 1840 map is legitimate. Let's call this exhibit E.
However, there had been an indian police post in Kalapani (not Limpiya) since 1955, later removed in the early 2000s. The indian government has not issued an official reason as to the establishment of a police post in Nepal's territory. At the Disputed Territories Discussion at IIDS on 7 September 1998, the then Secretary to late King Birendra Shah, Dr. Chiran Sumsher Thapa said the following while recounting his visit of the region: "One of the Nepali military officer when he saw the presence of the Indian security personnel in the area and enquired how they were there - the answer to him was our camp is a temporary one and we will leave the place soon."
Now lets get into the claims.
India claims the region based on the following: Sugauli Treaty doesn't have a map attached with it, the 1879 map is not clear enough to determine international demarcation, the region is acquired by legacy by independent india (india has never claimed Uti Possidetis btw), Lipulekh is the tri-junction so it cannot be determined to be anyone's land, india has been using this trade route since 1954, india has electoral data of this region in the 1820s (British East India).
Nepal claims the region based on the Sugauli Treaty and the agreements following the treaty regarding this issue.
India's claims are easy to debunk. The treaty doesn't have a map attached with it but it does have Bam Shah's letter and John Adam's reply attached to it, which affirms Nepal's territory to be east of the Kali river. The 1879 map is in fact clear enough because the 1820s map is clear enough. Acquisition of land by a former colony from a colonizer can occur through Uti Possidetis (as you possess, so shall you continue to possess) or cession through a treaty.
There have been no treaties between British East India company and the newly formed Nehru government at the time regarding the disputed region. Tri-junctions can be a part of one nation even if it is used to denote the border between 3 nations. Not just india, China and people of far west Nepal have also been using the trade route. India's electoral data is that of the British East India company, a different political entity. Unless india wants to conform to still being under colonial rule.
So how did india end up setting camp there? While Nepal was busy with its democracy movements, india was the source of income and resources for the people of the region. Over time, the people beyond the Lipu bridge and some even east of the Lipu bridge acquired Indian citizenship. Now this is a very valid claim, a nation must protect its citizens and india has set up camp there to "protect Indian citizens". However, the people's citizenship change does not change the land. There are many Indians living in Kathmandu but that does not mean india can establish an army camp in Kathmandu.
The other is ease of access from india. From the Nepal side, going beyond Tinker, Darchula is a feat on its own due to difficult topography but the region is easily accessible through india by land. This has hindered the presence of APF Border Security in the region, which india has taken advantage of quite cheekily. Their claim of Nepal being unable to guard the region leading to Chinese control is also only half-true, as Nepal Army can fly in and set up camp if both our neighbors would step aside.
Nepal being non-partisan to both nations would also be a peaceful keeper of the region since Nepal does not and can not want war with either and the place is a strategic vantage point, extremely useful in times of war. A UNPKO of sorts. "Whats wrong with flying in now?" If you're in a conflict-sensitive region and you hear a third party rattling in the distance, coming in hot on a bunch of helis, your first thought would be to shoot them down.
Nepal's claims based on the treaty and the agreements afterward also have international legal precedent, mentioned below:
- Botswana vs Namibia: Determination of the Main channel
- Burkina Faso/Mali and Preah Vihear: Surveys and Maps
- Costa Rica vs Nicaragua: Isla Portillos
But Nepal has a bit of a problem. The Sugauli Treaty was mentioned in Nepal's admission to the United Nations as "not hindering to Nepal's sovereignty", hence it may not enjoy full international acknowledgement. Furthermore, international law is not enforceable so unless india agrees to it, Nepal cannot even take it to court regarding this matter. The only way forward is for Nepal to gain a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council and get this issue resolved through the Security Council as UNSC decisions are enforceable.
You now have the exhibits, you become the judge.
As for my two cents (the above are facts, not opinions), exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit D, and exhibit E confirm the disputed territories to be in posession of Nepal. I think india has been quite opportune in using the access and the people of the region, along with Nepal's incapability to enforce border protection before 1990s to lay claims on the region. But it has neither a legal basis nor factual evidence to do so. This is why it does not want to go into border negotiations with Nepal or complain about Nepal's claims in the international stage.
India has also been renaming the disputed areas in its official political map time and again to deter claims by other nations. Even Lipulekh is now called Lips Lake by indians in the region. And obviously, whatsapp university has done wonders to the bjp mindset, maybe they're telling them that the "akhand bharat" fictional map is the political map of india rn. Some Indians seem to believe that Nepal used to be a part of india too. Modi would do well to subsidize factual education for the sake of his people.
Now for our timbers shivered Nepali bretheren who think india will drop a nuke if we so much as to mention this issue to them, we are not living in 1969, 1988, or 2015. India has much more to lose today if it enacts a trade embargo. It takes 2 weeks at most, to reach anywhere in Nepal from Korala, Nepal's main trade route with China (there are 2 others).
Don't fool yourself thinking people do not have a week's worth of food rations available around them or in their house because we hold 3 months' worth of food rations in our dry ports. If India enacts an embargo on Nepal again, it might as well say goodbye to its "vishwaguru" ambitions because China would swoop in to fill the vacuum immediately.
And for the IT cell bots that are in the comments, write a letter to your government and ask it to take the Nepal government to the ICJ, or the PCA and claim Uti Possidetis, since you think the British generously left the region in your name. Now I don't know which one is more difficult for you; your government listening to what you have to say, or your government claiming and abiding by a legal principle.
Please be respectful and factual in the comments.
TL;DR: Cartographical and historical documents show Nepal's disputed north-western territories belong to Nepal.
Edit: The PM mentioned in the 1998 meeting was Chandra Sumsher JBR, not JBR as in Junga Bahadur Rana himself.
u/AugustusArete — 16 days ago