TGW
Nepal’s Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal appearing before the Special Hearing of the Public Account Committee (PAC) on Monday declared that the government had awarded the printing rights of Machine Readable Passports (MRP) to India due to the excessive political and diplomatic pressure.
“Under pressing circumstances, government had decided to award the printing rights to India because that the MRP should have been issued by April 1, 2010”, he stated.
It was earlier reported by the Nagarik Daily, February 24, 2010 that Foreign Minister Sujata Koriala had forwarded the proposal to purchase some 40 Lakh (Four million) Machine Readable Passports (MRP) from Indian company summarily ignoring the Global bidding process. She was excessively pressurized by the Indian Government to make the decision, the report had also revealed.
“At the last minute when we were in sheer trouble, we found friend in the Indian establishment and thus we decided to award the printing rights to India”, the Prime Minister replied to queries posed by the PAC members.
“Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna (during his last trip here) and Ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood had been requesting Nepal to purchase the MRPs from India”, The Nagarik vernacular daily dated February 24, 2010 had reported.
“We could not take any decision against India because of the political pressure and our sound diplomatic relations with India that exists”, the Prime Minister told the PAC.
“The government was being pressurized by various political parties to quickly take a decision”, he also said.
“We had to cancel the global tender due to some reason”, the PM said but did not reveal as to what were the reasons to cancel it?
“The Indian ambassador in a formal letter sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated December 4, 2009, while referring to Nepal-India close ties and expressing security concerns due to the open border had expressed India’s “inner” intent to support Nepal in arranging the MRPs on time”, writes Nagarik adding, “In the letter, the ambassador also assured that the MRPs would be made available to Nepal at a cheaper price.”
However, Nagarik wrote further that the price quoted by Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India, company owned by the Indian Government, is much higher than those quoted by the French and Indonesian companies.
PM Nepal was also of the opinion that since a company owned by Indian government is going to print the MRPs, vital information would not be leaked.
On March 23, 2010, Nepal and India formally exchanged confirmation letters regarding the MRP deal and it is expected that India will supply MRPs within 10 weeks.
The Global Civil Aviation authority, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) had officially informed the government that it cannot extend the April 1, 2010 deadline for introducing the high-tech machine readable passports (MRP).
On the other hand, the members of PAC expressed deep dissatisfaction over the subdued response of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal.
Prakash Chandra Lohani, leader of Rastriya Shakti Janshakti Party and a member of the committee was of the opinion that the government had ridiculed Public Procurement Policies and the decision to award printing rights to India has not been transparent.
He also said that the government’s decision to cancel the global tender was fraudulent and mysterious. He also alleged the prime minister for lying before the committee.
Deep Kumar Upadhyaya of the Nepali Congress Party said that it was due to the unlawful act of the ministry of foreign affairs the country stands insulted and humiliated. How the prime minister can claim that there was political and diplomatic pressure to take the decision in India’s favor when we are not getting the MRPs for free, Upadhyaya questioned.
Sujata-India nexus this…
This also speaks as to how much pressure at times the Indian establishment exerts on Nepal.
But yet, Sujata by awarding this MRP contract to the Indian regime has proved that the family of the Koiralas' will ever remain subservient to the Indian Union.
Her fresh proximity with India may elevate her ranks in the Nepali Congress party, let's presume it to be so for the time being.
Old familial habits die hard.
MP, BP and later GP all served the Indian Union to the best of their abilities (and in the process cheated their own country men at different intervals of time) when they were alive and kicking and now SUJI-Jost is in queue to provide an extension to the "Koirala tradition".
By extension, it does mean that the incumbent Mr. Nepal's government will have some more days in office thanks the MRP deal.
The favor "shamelessly" awarded to the Indian company is a slap on the face of those Nepalese who claim to be nationalists as Chakra Prasad Bastola recently claimed.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
RAW against RAW
A former Nepalese Ambassador to India, Chakra Prasad Bastola has accussed India and US as the main conspirators of the 2001 palace massacre, in which king Birendra and most of the royal family were killed, Nepali daily reported.
Buzz up!"I feel (the Narayanhiti Palace massacre) was a joint plot by India and the US," Bastola was quoted as saying by the Nepali language Nagarik daily.
"As nothing can happen in Nepal without Indian involvement and nothing happens without the knowledge of the US, the superpower, (I think) both were involved in the incident," Bastola said.
Bastola alleged that both India and US have manipulated Birendra's brother Gyanendra, who came to power after Birendra's assassination.
He said that the massacre was planned to eliminate the patriotic and democratic forces in Nepal.
Bastola claimed that the foreign governments had targetted the then Prime Minister G P Koirala, who was one of the guests for the dinner that fateful day.
However, the dinner invitation was later cancelled on the behest of Birendra as he said that the dinner was a family affair.
Investigation by the official commission named the then crown prince Dipendra, who was allegedly under the influence of a cocktail of drugs and alcohol, as the main accussed into the incident.
However, the report failed to find acceptance with a majority of the Nepalese, who held Gyanendra, the sole beneficiary of the massacre, reponsible.
The public outcry against Gyanendra led to the abolition of the 240-year-old monarchy shortly after the UCPN-Maoist came as the largest party in the constitutional assembly polls in 2008.
(NOTICE: Dear redaers, we are creating a site forfight against anytype of Anti-Nepal activities. and link this blog to the new site. See you soon)
Buzz up!"I feel (the Narayanhiti Palace massacre) was a joint plot by India and the US," Bastola was quoted as saying by the Nepali language Nagarik daily.
"As nothing can happen in Nepal without Indian involvement and nothing happens without the knowledge of the US, the superpower, (I think) both were involved in the incident," Bastola said.
Bastola alleged that both India and US have manipulated Birendra's brother Gyanendra, who came to power after Birendra's assassination.
He said that the massacre was planned to eliminate the patriotic and democratic forces in Nepal.
Bastola claimed that the foreign governments had targetted the then Prime Minister G P Koirala, who was one of the guests for the dinner that fateful day.
However, the dinner invitation was later cancelled on the behest of Birendra as he said that the dinner was a family affair.
Investigation by the official commission named the then crown prince Dipendra, who was allegedly under the influence of a cocktail of drugs and alcohol, as the main accussed into the incident.
However, the report failed to find acceptance with a majority of the Nepalese, who held Gyanendra, the sole beneficiary of the massacre, reponsible.
The public outcry against Gyanendra led to the abolition of the 240-year-old monarchy shortly after the UCPN-Maoist came as the largest party in the constitutional assembly polls in 2008.
(NOTICE: Dear redaers, we are creating a site forfight against anytype of Anti-Nepal activities. and link this blog to the new site. See you soon)
Friday, March 5, 2010
RAW, APCA and Indian Embassy after Shah murder
Terrorists Indian srriked again as they killed a media boss Jamim Shah in broad day light at Lazimpat of Kathmandu.
The sharp shooters who followed him from hotel Yak and Yeti shot him dead at a traffic jam at Lazimpat. They came from The indian embassy and ran back to indian embassy, according to the eye-witnesses.
Shjah has ben labelled as Dawood's man by RAW and Indian establishment and Indian embassy and the APCA House were following his movements. The police didnot act for an hour at the order from Madam Khadka, who is taking the capital city's security responsibility.
The police came to action after they got green signal from the Indian embassy and APCA Hpuse that the shooters were sent back safely.
The relation between the IGP chand and APCA House is very cordial as the RAW operatives posing as journalists fropm Indians in the himalayan newspapers published by APCA and its nepali annapurna post are freqyently with the Chans and police officer seen in the restaurents in Kathmandu valley.
The newspaer has people working for the RAW and Indian embassy, who report every news to first to delhi RAw and Indian embassy.
Some of them who have recently left the Shah's channel Nepal are instrumental in the passing of the shah's informations to the RAW and the editor himself informed the Indian embassy on how to carry the news and twist it.
Prakash rimal and Rajan Pokhrel report to the RAW in delhi and Ajay Khanal and Arjun Bhandari report to Indian embassy. They have been distorting the news and try to btainwash the reader. That's why APCA should be closed for the sake of Nepal's sovereignty. Otherwise some other editors and publishers of other newspapers and kantipur will be the next target of RAW as they slowly start propaganda against them and label them also as anti-Indian.
May be some of the RAW people from himalayan and annapurnal post will join the Kantipur and start collecting the information of the publishers and the editors and report to the RAW. So, they can kill these people.
They will be after our kantipur and its english newspaper, TKp and no wonder if the publisher and editor of these newspapers, who write pro-Nepal news will be soon dubbed anti-indian and will be targetted like Jamim Shah.
Sood is the most key person in the killings of pro-nepal media people as he sees every nepali nationalists as anti-Indian. He wanted to turn Nepal into Afghanistan but he falied and he is trying to murder some of the pro-nepal meadia people to threaten all. But he will never succeed as every Nepali knows Indian embasy is the manufacturer of the Indian terrorists to create problems in Nepal. India is a terrorist country and its state-sponser terrorism has done a lots of damage to Nepal till date. But how long could Indian terrorists damage Nepal as the international community is also watching Indian terrorist act in Nepal.
Though to show that it is working,
Police have suspended four policemen deployed at the police beat in Lazimpat at the time of Jamim Shah’s murder blaming them of the security lapses. But Madan Khada, who is onpayroll from the Indian embassy, RAW and APCA is spared.
Chief of Metropolitan Police Range, Kathmandu SP Ganesh KC organising a press conference at his office in Hanumandhoka claimed that other police officers are also involved.
The APCA House immediately after the murder of Shah's murder started security checking fearing counter attack. The Idian who were working posing as journalists in APCA were also sent back to Delhi.
The sharp shooters who followed him from hotel Yak and Yeti shot him dead at a traffic jam at Lazimpat. They came from The indian embassy and ran back to indian embassy, according to the eye-witnesses.
Shjah has ben labelled as Dawood's man by RAW and Indian establishment and Indian embassy and the APCA House were following his movements. The police didnot act for an hour at the order from Madam Khadka, who is taking the capital city's security responsibility.
The police came to action after they got green signal from the Indian embassy and APCA Hpuse that the shooters were sent back safely.
The relation between the IGP chand and APCA House is very cordial as the RAW operatives posing as journalists fropm Indians in the himalayan newspapers published by APCA and its nepali annapurna post are freqyently with the Chans and police officer seen in the restaurents in Kathmandu valley.
The newspaer has people working for the RAW and Indian embassy, who report every news to first to delhi RAw and Indian embassy.
Some of them who have recently left the Shah's channel Nepal are instrumental in the passing of the shah's informations to the RAW and the editor himself informed the Indian embassy on how to carry the news and twist it.
Prakash rimal and Rajan Pokhrel report to the RAW in delhi and Ajay Khanal and Arjun Bhandari report to Indian embassy. They have been distorting the news and try to btainwash the reader. That's why APCA should be closed for the sake of Nepal's sovereignty. Otherwise some other editors and publishers of other newspapers and kantipur will be the next target of RAW as they slowly start propaganda against them and label them also as anti-Indian.
May be some of the RAW people from himalayan and annapurnal post will join the Kantipur and start collecting the information of the publishers and the editors and report to the RAW. So, they can kill these people.
They will be after our kantipur and its english newspaper, TKp and no wonder if the publisher and editor of these newspapers, who write pro-Nepal news will be soon dubbed anti-indian and will be targetted like Jamim Shah.
Sood is the most key person in the killings of pro-nepal media people as he sees every nepali nationalists as anti-Indian. He wanted to turn Nepal into Afghanistan but he falied and he is trying to murder some of the pro-nepal meadia people to threaten all. But he will never succeed as every Nepali knows Indian embasy is the manufacturer of the Indian terrorists to create problems in Nepal. India is a terrorist country and its state-sponser terrorism has done a lots of damage to Nepal till date. But how long could Indian terrorists damage Nepal as the international community is also watching Indian terrorist act in Nepal.
Though to show that it is working,
Police have suspended four policemen deployed at the police beat in Lazimpat at the time of Jamim Shah’s murder blaming them of the security lapses. But Madan Khada, who is onpayroll from the Indian embassy, RAW and APCA is spared.
Chief of Metropolitan Police Range, Kathmandu SP Ganesh KC organising a press conference at his office in Hanumandhoka claimed that other police officers are also involved.
The APCA House immediately after the murder of Shah's murder started security checking fearing counter attack. The Idian who were working posing as journalists in APCA were also sent back to Delhi.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Indian RAW strikes again on Nepali soil
Terrorists Indian srriked again as they killed a media boss Jamim Shah in broad day light at Lazimpat of Kathmandu.
The sharp shooters who followed him from hotel Yak and Yeti shot him dead at a traffic jam at Lazimpat. They came from The indian embassy and ran back to indian embassy, according to the eye-witnesses.
Immediately after the murder the Indian channels are active and broadcasting the news of murder as brave incident of criminals which was as expected as they Indians arte terrotists and criminals.
The sharp shooters who followed him from hotel Yak and Yeti shot him dead at a traffic jam at Lazimpat. They came from The indian embassy and ran back to indian embassy, according to the eye-witnesses.
Immediately after the murder the Indian channels are active and broadcasting the news of murder as brave incident of criminals which was as expected as they Indians arte terrotists and criminals.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Summary of the Book “India Doctrine” written by Barrister MBI Munshi
In India Doctrine, the writer Mr. Munshi has tried to lay emphasis on the point that India from the very beginning has been pursuing a policy of establishing hegemony in the region.
Mr. Munshi through evidences, arguments and her practices has tried to prove that the intentions of India are nothing short of this. To materialize India’s objective the EU and the USA have also joined hands with her. The USA has concluded a treaty for cooperation in the nuclear field with India although it (USA) propagates non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This nuclear agreement she did to contain the Chinese influence in the South Asian region. This is a direct threat to peace in the region. Besides the propaganda onslaught against Bangladesh and other countries here through some persons and media is on. The visit of Shaikh Hasina to India in 2003 and again in 2005, were of considerable significance. The 2007 election was also important for them since it was the desire of India that Awami League should come into power. The insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts was creation of India. In brief India has been instrumental in destabilizing situation in Bangladesh as well as in other countries of the South Asian region like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka etc.
The book says India was partitioned in 1947 but India followed the undeclared policy of re-unification or Akhand Bharat since then. The skirmishes along the borders, the unabated killing of innocent civilians of Bangladesh, insurgencies in Nepal, Pakistan (Baluchistan) Sri Lanka are pointer towards this.
India does not believe in two nation theory since they consider that there are other common cultural, ethnic grounds for forming a nation. India viewed emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state which negates the division on the basis of religion.
Nehru’s ideology centred round non-partition of India or the Akhand Bharat as detailed in his book, “The discovery of India” (1947). And this policy has been followed subsequently even after partition in 1947. Nehru/ruled from 1947 to 1964 and his successors were no different from him. The situation of Sikkim in 1973-75 was similar to that of Nepal’s in 2006. In both cases the rulers were over thrown. The former became a constituent part of India while the latter (Nepal) began to be ruled by the persons of choice of India.
As regard Pakistan, Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.
The book says that, keeping the above in view it could be said that India’s role in 1971 war to help Bangladesh was according to her own policy consideration of Akhand Bharat. The later events like looting and taking away of military equipments after Pakistanis were defeated, unequal distribution of Farraka water, killing of Bangladeshis at the borders, inciting insurgencies within Bangladesh territories, indirect interference in shaping Bangladesh foreign policy, creating problem for garment industries etc. loudly speak of the Indian intentions.
The book says that, Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Advisor and Secretary of State thought that India’s help for the then East Pakistanis in their struggle for liberation was purely motivated by self-interest guided by the dream of claiming of all territories ruled by the former British colonial power. J. N. Dixit, the vet-ran diplomat in his book, “Liberation and beyond”, gives the impression that it was Pakistan which wanted to break India and created condition in the former East Pakistan to make a cause to attack India. This is an absurd proposition for it was India which impeded the return of refugees when a political settlement was in the offing in the later part of 1971. Further, after 9/11, there were sufficient reasons to believe that India instigated insurgences through JMB out-fit as the confessional statement of its deceased leader proved. This was done to tarnish the image of Bangladesh as a terrorist state.
After liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, India started propaganda offensive both within and out side India against Bangladesh. Noted left leaning writers are on their pay rolls in Bangladesh. This is done to materialize their goal of Akhand Bharat. Hence it is felt necessary that against their propaganda offensive, RAW’s clandestine activities, counter offensive both through media measures and active intelligence surveillance are must.
The book says that the six points became a great plea for going into a tougher movement. Had that been accepted, it was presumed that Pakistan would not have broken and nor independent Bangladesh emerged in 1971. After 1971, India became more active to make the newly emerged state its part. For this she appointed Chittarangan Sutar as Shaikh Saheb’s representative in India. Sutar had direct access to Indian Prime Minister and other high officials there. His plans however failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb in August 1975.
India entered into a 7 point agreement with the then Bangladesh government in exile (located in Calcutta) which contained provisions like no standing army for Bangladesh, Joint forces for Bangladesh with the command lying with the Indian Army Chief, identical foreign policy etc. The defeat of Pakistani army and its surrender to the Indian General, (Sans Bangladesh Army Chief) and the terms having never been shown to Bangladesh, apparently spoke that virtually Bangladesh belonged to India since India won the war with Pakistan and took its soldiers captive. The Mujib Bahini, the Rakhi Bahini etc. were created to seek their assistance in consolidating the Indian Government’s authority in Bangladesh and also to use them when the appropriate time had come as thought by India. Their authority was further strengthened by the 25 years treaty of friendship which also fortified the 7 point agreement made by the government in exile. As said before the plan of subordinating Bangladesh failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb. India could have walked over but restrained itself for fear of international condemnation etc. It however continued its effort to destabilize it and others by harboring insurgencies through RAW and other agencies in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka Nepal and Pakistan. The insurgencies in Chittagong Hill Tracts are worth mentioning.
The book has been further enriched by the valuable contributions from the eminent writers of both home and abroad. Professor Khodeja Begum in her article laid emphasis on the India’s concept of Akhand Bharat or united India quoting authentic references like the 7 point agreement made between Indian government and Bangladesh government in exile. She also quoted the Ananda Bazar Patrika’s observation following 1991 election. The Patrika said that the people in Bangladesh should raise their voice for merger with India. Brig Gen (Retd) Shakhawat laid emphasis on geopolitical condition of Bangladesh and suggested for careful move for making relationship with USA, China and more importantly India.
Other Nepalese and Sri Lanka writers have also blamed India for inciting insurgencies and instability in the neighboring countries. Maoists in Nepal and LTTE in Sri Lanka are the beneficiaries of the Indian government.
Mr. Munshi through evidences, arguments and her practices has tried to prove that the intentions of India are nothing short of this. To materialize India’s objective the EU and the USA have also joined hands with her. The USA has concluded a treaty for cooperation in the nuclear field with India although it (USA) propagates non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This nuclear agreement she did to contain the Chinese influence in the South Asian region. This is a direct threat to peace in the region. Besides the propaganda onslaught against Bangladesh and other countries here through some persons and media is on. The visit of Shaikh Hasina to India in 2003 and again in 2005, were of considerable significance. The 2007 election was also important for them since it was the desire of India that Awami League should come into power. The insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts was creation of India. In brief India has been instrumental in destabilizing situation in Bangladesh as well as in other countries of the South Asian region like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka etc.
The book says India was partitioned in 1947 but India followed the undeclared policy of re-unification or Akhand Bharat since then. The skirmishes along the borders, the unabated killing of innocent civilians of Bangladesh, insurgencies in Nepal, Pakistan (Baluchistan) Sri Lanka are pointer towards this.
India does not believe in two nation theory since they consider that there are other common cultural, ethnic grounds for forming a nation. India viewed emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state which negates the division on the basis of religion.
Nehru’s ideology centred round non-partition of India or the Akhand Bharat as detailed in his book, “The discovery of India” (1947). And this policy has been followed subsequently even after partition in 1947. Nehru/ruled from 1947 to 1964 and his successors were no different from him. The situation of Sikkim in 1973-75 was similar to that of Nepal’s in 2006. In both cases the rulers were over thrown. The former became a constituent part of India while the latter (Nepal) began to be ruled by the persons of choice of India.
As regard Pakistan, Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.
The book says that, keeping the above in view it could be said that India’s role in 1971 war to help Bangladesh was according to her own policy consideration of Akhand Bharat. The later events like looting and taking away of military equipments after Pakistanis were defeated, unequal distribution of Farraka water, killing of Bangladeshis at the borders, inciting insurgencies within Bangladesh territories, indirect interference in shaping Bangladesh foreign policy, creating problem for garment industries etc. loudly speak of the Indian intentions.
The book says that, Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Advisor and Secretary of State thought that India’s help for the then East Pakistanis in their struggle for liberation was purely motivated by self-interest guided by the dream of claiming of all territories ruled by the former British colonial power. J. N. Dixit, the vet-ran diplomat in his book, “Liberation and beyond”, gives the impression that it was Pakistan which wanted to break India and created condition in the former East Pakistan to make a cause to attack India. This is an absurd proposition for it was India which impeded the return of refugees when a political settlement was in the offing in the later part of 1971. Further, after 9/11, there were sufficient reasons to believe that India instigated insurgences through JMB out-fit as the confessional statement of its deceased leader proved. This was done to tarnish the image of Bangladesh as a terrorist state.
After liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, India started propaganda offensive both within and out side India against Bangladesh. Noted left leaning writers are on their pay rolls in Bangladesh. This is done to materialize their goal of Akhand Bharat. Hence it is felt necessary that against their propaganda offensive, RAW’s clandestine activities, counter offensive both through media measures and active intelligence surveillance are must.
The book says that the six points became a great plea for going into a tougher movement. Had that been accepted, it was presumed that Pakistan would not have broken and nor independent Bangladesh emerged in 1971. After 1971, India became more active to make the newly emerged state its part. For this she appointed Chittarangan Sutar as Shaikh Saheb’s representative in India. Sutar had direct access to Indian Prime Minister and other high officials there. His plans however failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb in August 1975.
India entered into a 7 point agreement with the then Bangladesh government in exile (located in Calcutta) which contained provisions like no standing army for Bangladesh, Joint forces for Bangladesh with the command lying with the Indian Army Chief, identical foreign policy etc. The defeat of Pakistani army and its surrender to the Indian General, (Sans Bangladesh Army Chief) and the terms having never been shown to Bangladesh, apparently spoke that virtually Bangladesh belonged to India since India won the war with Pakistan and took its soldiers captive. The Mujib Bahini, the Rakhi Bahini etc. were created to seek their assistance in consolidating the Indian Government’s authority in Bangladesh and also to use them when the appropriate time had come as thought by India. Their authority was further strengthened by the 25 years treaty of friendship which also fortified the 7 point agreement made by the government in exile. As said before the plan of subordinating Bangladesh failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb. India could have walked over but restrained itself for fear of international condemnation etc. It however continued its effort to destabilize it and others by harboring insurgencies through RAW and other agencies in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka Nepal and Pakistan. The insurgencies in Chittagong Hill Tracts are worth mentioning.
The book has been further enriched by the valuable contributions from the eminent writers of both home and abroad. Professor Khodeja Begum in her article laid emphasis on the India’s concept of Akhand Bharat or united India quoting authentic references like the 7 point agreement made between Indian government and Bangladesh government in exile. She also quoted the Ananda Bazar Patrika’s observation following 1991 election. The Patrika said that the people in Bangladesh should raise their voice for merger with India. Brig Gen (Retd) Shakhawat laid emphasis on geopolitical condition of Bangladesh and suggested for careful move for making relationship with USA, China and more importantly India.
Other Nepalese and Sri Lanka writers have also blamed India for inciting insurgencies and instability in the neighboring countries. Maoists in Nepal and LTTE in Sri Lanka are the beneficiaries of the Indian government.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
'India Must Show Genuine Respect to Nepal'
Indian movie star Hrithik Roshan sparked riots in Nepal last month after he allegedly expressed dislike for the country and its people in an interview. He later denied making the remarks, but five people had already died in the violence, several Indian businesses in Kathmandu were destroyed, and relations between the two countries took a turn for the worse. India's former foreign secretary, Salman Haidar, who has been involved in important negotiations with Nepal in the past, spoke recently to TIME contributor Maseeh Rahman about the peculiar nature of relations between the two South Asian nations. Edited excerpts:
TIME: Did the intensity of the violence in Nepal surprise you?
Haidar: It came out of a clear blue sky, so it was bound to be a surprise. But it does illustrate the touchiness of Nepalese opinion over any sense of big brotherly treatment from India, any expression of disdain or a lack of regard and respect. It shows how easily a situation can heat up even when the evidence [of Indian disregard] is so shaky.
TIME: How does one try and understand such a reaction from the Nepalese?
Haidar: Our neighbors see us more clearly than we see them. This is natural, since India is a very large country, and our neighbors are much smaller. A great deal of Nepal's day-to-day activity, economic or otherwise, is tied up with India. Given the disproportionate sizes of the two countries, they have to keep a constant focus on what's going on in India. Nepal is very close to us -- it is closer culturally than any other neighbor. But it is also a very proud country with its own tradition of independence, which is older than India's. They feel that India is not sufficiently mindful of their feelings and their interests.
TIME: India has supported Nepal's pro-democracy movement in the past. But despite the historic links, there are strong anti-Indian lobbyists within Nepalese political parties.
Haidar: It's a curious matter, but democratization of politics in Nepal has increased the possibility of misunderstanding. There are a number of political parties in Nepal, and quite a few groups within these parties, all of which have ample scope to air their views and mobilize public opinion in their favor.
TIME: India and Nepal have a special relationship. With millions of Nepalese working in India, and Indians active in business in Nepal, shouldn't ordinary Nepalese feel less suspicion and hostility toward India?
Haidar: For exactly this reason the suspicion has increased. The inequality of size and capacity gets emphasized because of these realities [of dependence], and increases the Nepalese sense of vulnerability. You use the word "special." I recall more than 30 years ago an Indian delegation that had gone to Nepal, and came back empty-handed because of this word "special." The Indian delegation felt some reference to a "special" relationship had to be included in the final communique. For Nepal, this was unacceptable. Sovereign equals have normal relations. A special relationship implies a certain inequality. That's not acceptable as a concept for Nepal.
TIME: But wouldn't Nepal lose a lot if the two countries had a "normal relationship?"
Haidar: Their perception is that certain realities are irreversible. For example, there are so many Nepalese living in India that you cannot suddenly clamp down on them and say you can't live here anymore. [Nepalese are free to live and work in India without visas or permits, and around four million do so.]
TIME: For decades India and Nepal have been in negotiations over the use of their common boundary river, the Mahakali. You were involved in the 1996 Mahakali River agreement, but it still has not been implemented. What's happening?
Haidar: Natural resources by their very nature are a very sensitive matter politically. We agreed to help develop the area, and we envisage there will be more such agreements allowing both countries to jointly exploit the tremendous hydroelectric and water resources that Nepal has.
TIME: Yet Nepal's parliament has still not ratified the agreement.
Haidar: The issue was deliberately politicized by a group within the UML [United Marxists-Leninists] party that felt uneasy with this kind of linkage between India and Nepal. The UML supported the Mahakali agreement when it was in the ruling coalition, but by the time the agreement came up for ratification before parliament, the party was in opposition. And under the influence of a group within the party, the UML took a contrary view. This demonstrates how in a democracy, groups that are very much a part of the political system are capable of having a disproportionate impact on events. It's not very different from what you see in India, where quite often, small pressure groups can have a huge impact. The agreement is not dead though and may well get implemented.
TIME: Historically, New Delhi has been wary of China's influence in Kathmandu. How far does that account for problems in India-Nepal relations?
Haidar: After the India-China border war in 1962, there was extreme sensitivity on India's part and great reluctance to see Nepal as just another neighbor with whom normal relations could develop. We felt that for India's security, a special relationship needed to be affirmed. This provided an opening for China, and Beijing made a determined attempt to wean Nepal away from a dependence on India for its economic growth and political structures. But as relations between India and China have taken on a different character, the sense of Nepal being able to play one against the other has faded. Today, I don't think that Beijing is a decisive factor in India-Nepal relations.
TIME: There's a lot of talk about Pakistan, especially its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, fishing in Nepal's troubled waters.
Haidar: Let's not lose perspective. On the whole relations between India and Nepal are very good. Communication between the two governments is excellent. But problems are bound to crop up due to the imbalance [between the two countries]. Organizations like the ISI can fish in the troubled parts of Nepal's waters -- there will be groups that are susceptible to ISI influence, but these are not groups that dominate or control Nepalese policy. They can and do make trouble for India, and we know that some politicians are very close to the ISI and are ready to do their bidding. But let that not be seen as evidence of the ISI dominating Nepalese policy.
TIME: So it would be simplistic to say that the latest anti-India riots were organized, as some commentators insist, by either the Bombay underworld or the ISI?
Haidar: The match could have been lit by anyone, but what is more significant is that the tinder is there. There is uneasiness among various Nepalese over how India can dominate them, and violate their sentiments and their rights.
TIME: So what can India do to try and improve this "big brother" image it has in Nepal?
Haidar: India has to tread with care and show some genuine respect. It has to understand that Nepal is a sovereign country that will not move at India's bidding, even in matters where India will be touchy. Nepal may not want to get absorbed into an Indian pattern of economic growth, and may want to pursue a different path. A greater respect on India's side for Nepalese sentiment and independence, for autonomous processes of growth and development, would be helpful. But even if India adopts a sensitive policy, the risk of an accident remains due to the imbalance in size and capacity of the two neighbors.
TIME: Around 100,000 people of Nepali origin who were thrown out of Bhutan continue to live in refugee camps in Nepal without much hope of going home. Can't India do more to help Nepal overcome this problem?
Haidar: Nepal and Bhutan are friendly neighbors, and if we get involved, we'd be blamed by both. President Clinton expressed hope recently that this issue would be settled. And there have been some high-level American visitors [to South Asia] also trying to find a solution. There's an expectation now that the stalled process of identifying those refugees eligible for repatriation back to Bhutan will be resumed. This is a matter in which India's good offices should be made available to both sides, but so far New Delhi has chosen not to intervene.
TIME: Did the intensity of the violence in Nepal surprise you?
Haidar: It came out of a clear blue sky, so it was bound to be a surprise. But it does illustrate the touchiness of Nepalese opinion over any sense of big brotherly treatment from India, any expression of disdain or a lack of regard and respect. It shows how easily a situation can heat up even when the evidence [of Indian disregard] is so shaky.
TIME: How does one try and understand such a reaction from the Nepalese?
Haidar: Our neighbors see us more clearly than we see them. This is natural, since India is a very large country, and our neighbors are much smaller. A great deal of Nepal's day-to-day activity, economic or otherwise, is tied up with India. Given the disproportionate sizes of the two countries, they have to keep a constant focus on what's going on in India. Nepal is very close to us -- it is closer culturally than any other neighbor. But it is also a very proud country with its own tradition of independence, which is older than India's. They feel that India is not sufficiently mindful of their feelings and their interests.
TIME: India has supported Nepal's pro-democracy movement in the past. But despite the historic links, there are strong anti-Indian lobbyists within Nepalese political parties.
Haidar: It's a curious matter, but democratization of politics in Nepal has increased the possibility of misunderstanding. There are a number of political parties in Nepal, and quite a few groups within these parties, all of which have ample scope to air their views and mobilize public opinion in their favor.
TIME: India and Nepal have a special relationship. With millions of Nepalese working in India, and Indians active in business in Nepal, shouldn't ordinary Nepalese feel less suspicion and hostility toward India?
Haidar: For exactly this reason the suspicion has increased. The inequality of size and capacity gets emphasized because of these realities [of dependence], and increases the Nepalese sense of vulnerability. You use the word "special." I recall more than 30 years ago an Indian delegation that had gone to Nepal, and came back empty-handed because of this word "special." The Indian delegation felt some reference to a "special" relationship had to be included in the final communique. For Nepal, this was unacceptable. Sovereign equals have normal relations. A special relationship implies a certain inequality. That's not acceptable as a concept for Nepal.
TIME: But wouldn't Nepal lose a lot if the two countries had a "normal relationship?"
Haidar: Their perception is that certain realities are irreversible. For example, there are so many Nepalese living in India that you cannot suddenly clamp down on them and say you can't live here anymore. [Nepalese are free to live and work in India without visas or permits, and around four million do so.]
TIME: For decades India and Nepal have been in negotiations over the use of their common boundary river, the Mahakali. You were involved in the 1996 Mahakali River agreement, but it still has not been implemented. What's happening?
Haidar: Natural resources by their very nature are a very sensitive matter politically. We agreed to help develop the area, and we envisage there will be more such agreements allowing both countries to jointly exploit the tremendous hydroelectric and water resources that Nepal has.
TIME: Yet Nepal's parliament has still not ratified the agreement.
Haidar: The issue was deliberately politicized by a group within the UML [United Marxists-Leninists] party that felt uneasy with this kind of linkage between India and Nepal. The UML supported the Mahakali agreement when it was in the ruling coalition, but by the time the agreement came up for ratification before parliament, the party was in opposition. And under the influence of a group within the party, the UML took a contrary view. This demonstrates how in a democracy, groups that are very much a part of the political system are capable of having a disproportionate impact on events. It's not very different from what you see in India, where quite often, small pressure groups can have a huge impact. The agreement is not dead though and may well get implemented.
TIME: Historically, New Delhi has been wary of China's influence in Kathmandu. How far does that account for problems in India-Nepal relations?
Haidar: After the India-China border war in 1962, there was extreme sensitivity on India's part and great reluctance to see Nepal as just another neighbor with whom normal relations could develop. We felt that for India's security, a special relationship needed to be affirmed. This provided an opening for China, and Beijing made a determined attempt to wean Nepal away from a dependence on India for its economic growth and political structures. But as relations between India and China have taken on a different character, the sense of Nepal being able to play one against the other has faded. Today, I don't think that Beijing is a decisive factor in India-Nepal relations.
TIME: There's a lot of talk about Pakistan, especially its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, fishing in Nepal's troubled waters.
Haidar: Let's not lose perspective. On the whole relations between India and Nepal are very good. Communication between the two governments is excellent. But problems are bound to crop up due to the imbalance [between the two countries]. Organizations like the ISI can fish in the troubled parts of Nepal's waters -- there will be groups that are susceptible to ISI influence, but these are not groups that dominate or control Nepalese policy. They can and do make trouble for India, and we know that some politicians are very close to the ISI and are ready to do their bidding. But let that not be seen as evidence of the ISI dominating Nepalese policy.
TIME: So it would be simplistic to say that the latest anti-India riots were organized, as some commentators insist, by either the Bombay underworld or the ISI?
Haidar: The match could have been lit by anyone, but what is more significant is that the tinder is there. There is uneasiness among various Nepalese over how India can dominate them, and violate their sentiments and their rights.
TIME: So what can India do to try and improve this "big brother" image it has in Nepal?
Haidar: India has to tread with care and show some genuine respect. It has to understand that Nepal is a sovereign country that will not move at India's bidding, even in matters where India will be touchy. Nepal may not want to get absorbed into an Indian pattern of economic growth, and may want to pursue a different path. A greater respect on India's side for Nepalese sentiment and independence, for autonomous processes of growth and development, would be helpful. But even if India adopts a sensitive policy, the risk of an accident remains due to the imbalance in size and capacity of the two neighbors.
TIME: Around 100,000 people of Nepali origin who were thrown out of Bhutan continue to live in refugee camps in Nepal without much hope of going home. Can't India do more to help Nepal overcome this problem?
Haidar: Nepal and Bhutan are friendly neighbors, and if we get involved, we'd be blamed by both. President Clinton expressed hope recently that this issue would be settled. And there have been some high-level American visitors [to South Asia] also trying to find a solution. There's an expectation now that the stalled process of identifying those refugees eligible for repatriation back to Bhutan will be resumed. This is a matter in which India's good offices should be made available to both sides, but so far New Delhi has chosen not to intervene.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Srruggle against Indian hegemony
Thousands of Maoist protesters in Nepal enforced the second day of their nationwide general strike on Monday, shouting anti-government slogans and paralyzing much of the country as businesses remained shuttered and vehicle traffic was almost nonexistent in the capital, Katmandu.
The quieter protests Monday contrasted with the violent clashes that erupted a day earlier between the police and demonstrators in Katmandu. On Sunday, the police arrested at least 70 people as officers used batons and tear gas to break up protesters, who were blocking roads and preventing Nepal’s prime minister from reaching his residence after returning from the international climate change talks in Copenhagen.
“The situation is quite normal compared to yesterday,” said Jaya Mukunda Khanal, spokesman for the Nepal Home Ministry. “People are in the streets. There is no transportation, but people can walk around.”
The general strike is the latest development in Nepal’s mounting political crisis. Three years after Maoist rebels agreed to end their decade-old armed revolt and participate in politics, the peace process is under a severe strain. In the streets of Katmandu on Monday, thousands of Maoists blocked intersections near ministerial buildings, shouting slogans and demanding the resignation of the current government.
Last year, the Maoists won enough seats in national elections to lead a coalition government and elect their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, as prime minister. But Prachanda resigned in May to protest a constitutional dispute with the president over the Nepalese military. Since then, the Maoists have staged demonstrations and even declared certain areas, including Katmandu, as symbolic “autonomous zones” beyond governmental authority.
The clash on Sunday occurred around 2:30 p.m. Bigyan Sharma, deputy inspector general of the Nepal police, said officers approached protesters, who were blocking a main road leading from the airport into the city. He said officers wanted to clear the road to allow the prime minister, Madhav Kumar Nepal, to reach his residence after returning from the talks in Copenhagen.
Officer Sharma said the protesters refused to move and then hurled stones at officers, badly injuring a police commander, who was taken to the hospital. Officer Sharma said the police then turned water cannons on the demonstrators while other officers used batons and tear gas. Ultimately, the authorities transported the prime minister by an alternate route, Officer Sharma said.
“The police were not too aggressive,” said Mr. Khanal, the home ministry spokesman. “The police had to clear the road.”
But Dinanath Sharma, a spokesman for the Maoists, disputed that account and accused the police of overzealousness. He said officers attacked peaceful protesters and that two Maoist parliamentarians were badly injured. “Our protest program is peaceful,” Mr. Sharma said. “It was not from our side. The police forcefully tried to suppress us.”
On Monday, a relative calm settled over Katmandu, witnesses said. Demonstrators were holding sit-down protests in groups of 100 or 200, according to the police, calling for the “people’s supremacy.”
The strike is schedule to end Tuesday. The police estimated that 4,000 protesters were on the streets of the capital, while other demonstrations were underway in other cities in Nepal.
The quieter protests Monday contrasted with the violent clashes that erupted a day earlier between the police and demonstrators in Katmandu. On Sunday, the police arrested at least 70 people as officers used batons and tear gas to break up protesters, who were blocking roads and preventing Nepal’s prime minister from reaching his residence after returning from the international climate change talks in Copenhagen.
“The situation is quite normal compared to yesterday,” said Jaya Mukunda Khanal, spokesman for the Nepal Home Ministry. “People are in the streets. There is no transportation, but people can walk around.”
The general strike is the latest development in Nepal’s mounting political crisis. Three years after Maoist rebels agreed to end their decade-old armed revolt and participate in politics, the peace process is under a severe strain. In the streets of Katmandu on Monday, thousands of Maoists blocked intersections near ministerial buildings, shouting slogans and demanding the resignation of the current government.
Last year, the Maoists won enough seats in national elections to lead a coalition government and elect their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, as prime minister. But Prachanda resigned in May to protest a constitutional dispute with the president over the Nepalese military. Since then, the Maoists have staged demonstrations and even declared certain areas, including Katmandu, as symbolic “autonomous zones” beyond governmental authority.
The clash on Sunday occurred around 2:30 p.m. Bigyan Sharma, deputy inspector general of the Nepal police, said officers approached protesters, who were blocking a main road leading from the airport into the city. He said officers wanted to clear the road to allow the prime minister, Madhav Kumar Nepal, to reach his residence after returning from the talks in Copenhagen.
Officer Sharma said the protesters refused to move and then hurled stones at officers, badly injuring a police commander, who was taken to the hospital. Officer Sharma said the police then turned water cannons on the demonstrators while other officers used batons and tear gas. Ultimately, the authorities transported the prime minister by an alternate route, Officer Sharma said.
“The police were not too aggressive,” said Mr. Khanal, the home ministry spokesman. “The police had to clear the road.”
But Dinanath Sharma, a spokesman for the Maoists, disputed that account and accused the police of overzealousness. He said officers attacked peaceful protesters and that two Maoist parliamentarians were badly injured. “Our protest program is peaceful,” Mr. Sharma said. “It was not from our side. The police forcefully tried to suppress us.”
On Monday, a relative calm settled over Katmandu, witnesses said. Demonstrators were holding sit-down protests in groups of 100 or 200, according to the police, calling for the “people’s supremacy.”
The strike is schedule to end Tuesday. The police estimated that 4,000 protesters were on the streets of the capital, while other demonstrations were underway in other cities in Nepal.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Sample Focus Piece from International Boundary Monitor
A Sample Focus Piece from International Boundary Monitor (15 May 1998),
by International Boundary Consultants
India's Boundary Disputes with China, Nepal, and Pakistan
The recent detonation of a series of nuclear devices by India and Pakistan has increased tension in South Asia and threatens to inflame long-standing boundary disputes that India has with China, Nepal, and Pakistan. The disputes with China and Pakistan have already triggered several wars. The new Hindu-nationalist government in New Delhi has reversed movement toward détente with Beijing and Islamabad. The areas in contention with China and Pakistan are among the largest land-boundary disputes in the world. The Indo-Nepali dispute over Kalapani is more recent and involves a small area.
India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh)
In the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China seized a Switzerland-sized area, Aksai Chin (Aksayqin), and overran Arunachal Pradesh (an Indian state the size of Austria). There are also other, smaller pockets of disputed area.[1] The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which approximates the McMahon Line that is found in a 1914 agreement initialed by British, Tibetan, and Chinese representatives.[2] Chinese and Indian forces clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh in 1986-87. Relations began to thaw in 1988.
On 7 September 1993, China and India signed an accord to reduce tensions along their border and to respect the LAC. During November 1996, China and India agreed to delimit the LAC and institute confidence-building measures (CBMs) along the frontier. The agreement pledged nonaggression, prior notification of large troop movements, a 10-km no-fly zone for combat aircraft, and exchange of maps to resolve disagreements about the precise location of the LAC. In August 1997 the sides ratified the CBM agreement. There seems to have been little substantive progress, except for a series of high-level visits.[3] The most recent, on 27 April, was the first visit by a PRC Chief of Staff to India. However, two weeks before the visit the new Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandes, accused the PRC of repeated violations of Indian territory, including the construction of a helipad on "Indian" territory in the disputed zone, and of aiding Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. On 3 May he publicly labeled China as India's number one threat and alleged that the PRC was stockpiling nuclear weapons in Tibet, expanding naval activity off the Burmese coast, and conducting surveillance against India from Burma's Coco Islands.[4] After the visit of General Fu Quanyou and PRC protests, Fernandes said that his characterization of China as India's principal threat was a personal view, but he went on to pledge that the number of Indian troops along the frontier with China would not be reduced. Such a statement calls into question part of the agreed CBMs. (To view a map of this area click here.)
China and India have yet to address their fundamental and very large land boundary disputes. Moreover, their bilateral relations are complicated by the issues of Tibet (Xizang), Sikkim, and Kashmir. India plays host to the Dalai Lama and a large number of Tibetan refugees. They present an implicit threat to Chinese control of Tibet, which it invaded in 1950. On its maps, the PRC continues to portray Sikkim, which was absorbed by India in 1974, as an independent country. In addition to the Aksai Chin, China and India dispute another section of Kashmir (the area west of Aksai Chin).
India-Pakistan-China (Kashmir)
When India and Pakistan became independent of Great Britain in 1947, the various princely states, including that of Jammu and Kashmir, could accede to either country. An armed revolt of Muslim peasantry against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir prompted the Maharaja to accede to India in order to gain military aid. Pakistan objected and the countries went to war. The matter was taken up by the UN Security Council in 1948, which adopted a resolution calling for the restoration of order, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces and reduction of Indian forces, and a UN plebiscite. India and Pakistan objected to various of these provisions. They went to war over Kashmir again in 1965. In 1971 India intervened in Pakistan's civil war that led to the independence of Bangladesh. India and Pakistan came close to war over Kashmir in 1990. (To view a map of this area click here.)
UN observers monitor part of the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire line. The current line was established by the 1972 Simla accord and approximately follows the 1949 Cease-fire Line. The coordinates of the Simla line have not been published, and the line was never delimited in the forbidding Siachin Glacier, near the Chinese frontier, where India and Pakistan frequently trade artillery rounds. Firing incidents and allegations of infiltration are chronic along the entire cease-fire line.
The Indian-controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir became a state in 1974. The parts of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, have anomalous status as administered territories. In 1963 China and Pakistan delimited a boundary that India claims illegally gave part of Kashmir to China. In 1987 a Sino-Pakistani protocol formalized demarcation of their boundary. The termination of this boundary at the Karakoram Pass on the Chinese line of control suggests that Pakistan recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin, which is part of the former Princely State of Kashmir.
India and Pakistan have held sporadic talks. In June 1997, they agreed to eight issues for discussion, including the issue of Kashmir and their maritime boundary. Pakistan wants to set-up a separate task force on Kashmir; India has resisted the idea. Talks have made little progress due to changes in the respective governments. The recent efforts by US Ambassador Richardson to resolve the dispute seem to have been blown out of the water by Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests.
India-Nepal (Kalapani)
The dispute between India and Nepal involves about 75 sq km of area in Kalapani, where China, India, and Nepal meet. Indian forces occupied the area in 1962 after China and India fought their border war.[5] Three villages are located in the disputed zone: Kuti [Kuthi, 30°19'N, 80°46'E], Gunji, and Knabe. India and Nepal disagree about how to interpret the 1816 Sugauli treaty between the British East India Company and Nepal, which delimited the boundary along the Maha Kali River (Sarda River in India). The dispute intensified in 1997 as the Nepali parliament considered a treaty on hydro-electric development of the river. India and Nepal differ as to which stream constitutes the source of the river. Nepal regards the Limpiyadhura as the source; India claims the Lipu Lekh. Nepal has reportedly tabled an 1856 map from the British India Office to support its position. The countries have held several meetings about the dispute and discussed jointly surveying to resolve the issue.[6] Although the Indo-Nepali dispute appears to be minor, it was aggravated in 1962 by tensions between China and India. Because the disputed area lies near the Sino-Indian frontier, it gains strategic value.
Like most boundary dispute, those of India with its neighbors are symptomatic of wider bilateral relations. Boundaries are manifestations of national identity. They can be trip-wires of war. Recent developments in South Asia suggest that peaceful resolution of these disputes is receding from reach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The author wishes to thank the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues, US Department of State for providing information used in the preparation of the accompanying maps. However, the views expressed are those of the author and do not represent United States policy.
2. Although the US government has a general policy of staying neutral in foreign boundary disputes, the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict prompted the US President and Secretary of State publicly to affirm India's claim line in Arunachal Pradesh.
3. The Pioneer (Delhi, 7 May 1998), p. 8.
4. AFP (Hong Kong) 3 May 1998; Jansatta (Delhi, 5 May 1998), p. 6; Associated Press (Beijing) 5 May 1998.
5. Kyodo (Tokyo) 9 September 1997.
6. The Kathmandu Post, 16 July 1997, 2 July 1997, 31 May 1996; The Hindustan Times (Delhi), 9 June 1997, p. 13; Xinhua 11 April 1997.
by International Boundary Consultants
India's Boundary Disputes with China, Nepal, and Pakistan
The recent detonation of a series of nuclear devices by India and Pakistan has increased tension in South Asia and threatens to inflame long-standing boundary disputes that India has with China, Nepal, and Pakistan. The disputes with China and Pakistan have already triggered several wars. The new Hindu-nationalist government in New Delhi has reversed movement toward détente with Beijing and Islamabad. The areas in contention with China and Pakistan are among the largest land-boundary disputes in the world. The Indo-Nepali dispute over Kalapani is more recent and involves a small area.
India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh)
In the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China seized a Switzerland-sized area, Aksai Chin (Aksayqin), and overran Arunachal Pradesh (an Indian state the size of Austria). There are also other, smaller pockets of disputed area.[1] The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which approximates the McMahon Line that is found in a 1914 agreement initialed by British, Tibetan, and Chinese representatives.[2] Chinese and Indian forces clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh in 1986-87. Relations began to thaw in 1988.
On 7 September 1993, China and India signed an accord to reduce tensions along their border and to respect the LAC. During November 1996, China and India agreed to delimit the LAC and institute confidence-building measures (CBMs) along the frontier. The agreement pledged nonaggression, prior notification of large troop movements, a 10-km no-fly zone for combat aircraft, and exchange of maps to resolve disagreements about the precise location of the LAC. In August 1997 the sides ratified the CBM agreement. There seems to have been little substantive progress, except for a series of high-level visits.[3] The most recent, on 27 April, was the first visit by a PRC Chief of Staff to India. However, two weeks before the visit the new Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandes, accused the PRC of repeated violations of Indian territory, including the construction of a helipad on "Indian" territory in the disputed zone, and of aiding Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. On 3 May he publicly labeled China as India's number one threat and alleged that the PRC was stockpiling nuclear weapons in Tibet, expanding naval activity off the Burmese coast, and conducting surveillance against India from Burma's Coco Islands.[4] After the visit of General Fu Quanyou and PRC protests, Fernandes said that his characterization of China as India's principal threat was a personal view, but he went on to pledge that the number of Indian troops along the frontier with China would not be reduced. Such a statement calls into question part of the agreed CBMs. (To view a map of this area click here.)
China and India have yet to address their fundamental and very large land boundary disputes. Moreover, their bilateral relations are complicated by the issues of Tibet (Xizang), Sikkim, and Kashmir. India plays host to the Dalai Lama and a large number of Tibetan refugees. They present an implicit threat to Chinese control of Tibet, which it invaded in 1950. On its maps, the PRC continues to portray Sikkim, which was absorbed by India in 1974, as an independent country. In addition to the Aksai Chin, China and India dispute another section of Kashmir (the area west of Aksai Chin).
India-Pakistan-China (Kashmir)
When India and Pakistan became independent of Great Britain in 1947, the various princely states, including that of Jammu and Kashmir, could accede to either country. An armed revolt of Muslim peasantry against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir prompted the Maharaja to accede to India in order to gain military aid. Pakistan objected and the countries went to war. The matter was taken up by the UN Security Council in 1948, which adopted a resolution calling for the restoration of order, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces and reduction of Indian forces, and a UN plebiscite. India and Pakistan objected to various of these provisions. They went to war over Kashmir again in 1965. In 1971 India intervened in Pakistan's civil war that led to the independence of Bangladesh. India and Pakistan came close to war over Kashmir in 1990. (To view a map of this area click here.)
UN observers monitor part of the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire line. The current line was established by the 1972 Simla accord and approximately follows the 1949 Cease-fire Line. The coordinates of the Simla line have not been published, and the line was never delimited in the forbidding Siachin Glacier, near the Chinese frontier, where India and Pakistan frequently trade artillery rounds. Firing incidents and allegations of infiltration are chronic along the entire cease-fire line.
The Indian-controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir became a state in 1974. The parts of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, have anomalous status as administered territories. In 1963 China and Pakistan delimited a boundary that India claims illegally gave part of Kashmir to China. In 1987 a Sino-Pakistani protocol formalized demarcation of their boundary. The termination of this boundary at the Karakoram Pass on the Chinese line of control suggests that Pakistan recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin, which is part of the former Princely State of Kashmir.
India and Pakistan have held sporadic talks. In June 1997, they agreed to eight issues for discussion, including the issue of Kashmir and their maritime boundary. Pakistan wants to set-up a separate task force on Kashmir; India has resisted the idea. Talks have made little progress due to changes in the respective governments. The recent efforts by US Ambassador Richardson to resolve the dispute seem to have been blown out of the water by Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests.
India-Nepal (Kalapani)
The dispute between India and Nepal involves about 75 sq km of area in Kalapani, where China, India, and Nepal meet. Indian forces occupied the area in 1962 after China and India fought their border war.[5] Three villages are located in the disputed zone: Kuti [Kuthi, 30°19'N, 80°46'E], Gunji, and Knabe. India and Nepal disagree about how to interpret the 1816 Sugauli treaty between the British East India Company and Nepal, which delimited the boundary along the Maha Kali River (Sarda River in India). The dispute intensified in 1997 as the Nepali parliament considered a treaty on hydro-electric development of the river. India and Nepal differ as to which stream constitutes the source of the river. Nepal regards the Limpiyadhura as the source; India claims the Lipu Lekh. Nepal has reportedly tabled an 1856 map from the British India Office to support its position. The countries have held several meetings about the dispute and discussed jointly surveying to resolve the issue.[6] Although the Indo-Nepali dispute appears to be minor, it was aggravated in 1962 by tensions between China and India. Because the disputed area lies near the Sino-Indian frontier, it gains strategic value.
Like most boundary dispute, those of India with its neighbors are symptomatic of wider bilateral relations. Boundaries are manifestations of national identity. They can be trip-wires of war. Recent developments in South Asia suggest that peaceful resolution of these disputes is receding from reach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The author wishes to thank the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues, US Department of State for providing information used in the preparation of the accompanying maps. However, the views expressed are those of the author and do not represent United States policy.
2. Although the US government has a general policy of staying neutral in foreign boundary disputes, the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict prompted the US President and Secretary of State publicly to affirm India's claim line in Arunachal Pradesh.
3. The Pioneer (Delhi, 7 May 1998), p. 8.
4. AFP (Hong Kong) 3 May 1998; Jansatta (Delhi, 5 May 1998), p. 6; Associated Press (Beijing) 5 May 1998.
5. Kyodo (Tokyo) 9 September 1997.
6. The Kathmandu Post, 16 July 1997, 2 July 1997, 31 May 1996; The Hindustan Times (Delhi), 9 June 1997, p. 13; Xinhua 11 April 1997.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
