Submit your Article

Whenever India-China or India-Pakistan border tensions flare up, one of the first concerns in Nepali minds is the fate of the frontline Gurkha soldiers. Accompanying this concern is a query about whether time has come for Nepal to rethink the recruitment of Nepali nationals into the Indian Army.

Same kinds of queries are now being raised as India and China face-off in Ladakh. If it comes to that, is it right for Nepali nationals to fight China, its immediate and vital neighbor, on behalf of a third country? Forget China. Is it even morally right to allow your citizens to serve as mercenaries?

With tensions against China mounting, the Gurkha soldiers of the Indian Army who are on leave in Nepal are now being summoned back to duty. In this light, the splinter Maoist group led by Netra Bikram Chand, in a June 20 statement, ‘reminded’ India to desist from using Nepali soldiers against China. 

Despite such concerns, Nepal is in no position to ask India not to use the Gurkhas against China, nor is it the current priority of any of Nepal’s major political parties. “We have to accept the reality that they are part of the Indian defense system. We can do nothing about it,” says political analyst Krishna Khanal. Though it is an emotional issue for Nepalis, he argues, the Indian defense force can deploy them as they wish.

Over the past 60 or 70 years, Nepal’s communist parties used this issue as a political instrument whenever they were out of power, Khanal adds. For instance, stopping recruitment into the Indian army was one of the 40 demands put forth by the mother Maoist party in 1996, right before they launched their insurgency.

During the insurgency, the Maoist party continued to raise this issue. But after joining peaceful politics in 2006, the party abandoned this agenda. Now Gurkha recruitment does not find a mention in the political documents of Nepal Communist Party, the ruling party formed after the merger of the mother Maoists and erstwhile CPN-UML. The Chand faction, plus some other fringe communist outfits, however, has continued to give voice to it.

“In the past, the CPN-UML, like other communist parties, also raised the issue of recruitment into Indian Army for political benefit. But it dropped the agenda when it came to power,” says Ashok Mehta, a retired general of the Indian Army who closely follows Nepal.

History’s burden

There is a long history of recruitment of Nepali nationals into the Indian and British armies. The British started enlisting Nepalis in their colonial army from 1815 when it set up the Gurkha regiments. After India’s independence, six Gurkha regiments were retained in the Indian Army while the British Army got four. Now, there are seven Gurkha regiments in the Indian Army, with 40 battalions and a total of 40,000 soldiers.

Nepal has never brought up the issue of revisiting Gurkha recruitment with India. But Nepal did send a note to Britain in February this year, seeking a review of the tripartite agreement signed in 1947 between Nepal, India and Britain that split the Gurkha regiments between India and Britain. In an initial reaction, Britain refused to make any changes in the agreement. Before that, Prime Minister KP Oli had raised the issue during his bilateral talk with then British Prime Minister Theresa May in 2019.

In 2016, Nepal and India formed the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) to study the entire gamut of bilateral relations and to suggest modifications. The EPG prepared a report covering all bilateral issues but not Gurkha soldiers. “We did not discuss Gurkha recruitment as it was beyond our jurisdiction. But the two countries can always discuss this,” says Surya Nath Upadhyay, a member of the Nepal half of the EPG. He says it is a sensitive issue and needs to be dealt with finesse.

Till date, Nepalis continue to be recruited into the Indian Army. Lured by attractive salary, pensions, and other social security benefits, they join the Indian Army and take oath to protect India’s national interests. According to Mehta, Nepali youths in Indian Army get four times the salary and pensions they would get in Nepal Army.

As of now, there are 126,000 Indian Gurkha pensioners in Nepal, and there is an Indian Ex-servicemen Welfare Organization in Nepal working for retired army personnel.

“We are in no condition—politically, economically or socially—to stop the recruitment into Indian Army,” says political analyst Khanal. In economic mess created by Covid-19, that prospect appears unlikelier still.

Fighting for India

Gurkha units have a history of fighting India’s key wars including in 1947-48, 1965, and 1971, all of them in Jammu & Kashmir and all against Pakistan. They also took part in the Indo-China war of 1962, and in later skirmishes between the two countries. There are many anecdotal evidences for this.

Writes ex-Indian Army Brigadier CS Thapa in Indian defense magazine Salute, “In 1962 the Chinese used loudspeakers daily against the company of Major Dhan Singh Thapa, PVC [Param Vir Chakra] asking the soldiers to withdraw as they were from Nepal.”

Then, in September-October 1967, the Nepali Gurkha soldiers were deployed against the Chinese at Nathu La pass between India and China. “A Gurkha unit,” according to Indian General V.K. Singh’s accounts, “gave the Chinese side a ‘bloody nose’… on that occasion, occupying a position after a brutal khukri assault.”

During the Doklam crisis in 2017, there were media reports that Gurkha soldiers were deployed at the forefront against China. But Mehta clarifies that Gurkha soldiers were deployed in Doklam only on second or third lines.

“If there are further tensions, China may raise this issue with Nepal stating that Nepali youths are fighting against China on India’s behalf. But so far as I know, China has lodged no such objection till date,” Mehta adds. Officials at Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also expressed their ignorance of any formal Chinese objection to the use of Gurkha soldiers against them.

Despite growing domestic pressures on the two governments to settle outstanding border issues through diplomatic means, Nepal-India talks are unlikely anytime soon.

In Nepal, both ruling and opposition party leaders have been urging Prime Minister KP Oli to use his diplomatic skills to bring back Nepali territories through negotiations with India. Similarly, there is growing domestic pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to talk with Nepal without delay. Ex-diplomats and opposition leaders in New Delhi are also criticizing Modi for ignoring Nepal’s talks offers. In a June 15 statement, senior Indian National Congress leader Karan Singh said: “Although the dispute in question is a long-standing one, it was, if I recall correctly, raised by Nepal in November last year. Surprisingly, we did not seem to take the matter seriously.”

According to the popular Indian portal aajtak.com, the Indian PM-led Cabinet Committee on Security, the highest body in India to decide on matters of national security, had recently concluded that it was meaningless to hold talks on Kalapani after Nepal’s constitution amendment. According to the same report, the meeting concluded that India would not accept the Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report, and that the ‘special ties’ with Nepal would be revised.  

“The chances of specific talks on the border are indeed slim,” says an ex-Indian ambassador to Nepal. “But there may yet be phone conversations between prime ministers or foreign ministers to give a message that bilateral ties are on track.”

As the two sides know resolution of the border dispute will take time, both Oli and Modi seem to be in a mood to ‘normalize’ bilateral relation via phone conversations. The goal is to ensure that the border issue will not have spillover effects in other areas of bilateral ties, according to a senior leader in the ruling Nepal Communist Party.

Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh had said on June 15 that it was still possible to settle border issues with Nepal, with which India shares ‘special ties,’ in a clear indication that India’s political leadership wants to keep talking to Kathmandu—if not on the border.

One story, two versions

India’s Ministry of External Affairs recently briefed its media that India had proposed foreign secretary-level talks just before the constitution amendment process started. “Our offer of talks as well as our response to their offer was positive. In fact, we offered foreign secretary-level phone call and also visits of the two foreign secretaries as recently as just before the tabling of the bill,” Indian government officials told the Indian media on June 15. Indian officials said the onus was on Kathmandu to create conducive atmosphere.

The Nepali side, however, says it has gotten no formal request for talks from India. According to sources in New Delhi, India had communicated through various informal channels that foreign secretary-level talks could be organized if Nepal postponed the constitution drafting process, but there was no official request for talks. The Nepali side understood this as no more than a ploy to stop constitutional amendment.

After the amendment, Nepal’s priority has been to initiate dialogue with India. Speaking to reporters after constitution amendment, PM Oli said talks with India would start soon.

“Dialogue is always our priority. We have been proposing foreign secretary-level talks since November last year but India has not responded,” says Rajan Bhattarai, PM Oli’s foreign affairs advisor.

After India came up with its new political map in November, Nepal twice sent diplomatic notes to India, offering foreign-secretary level talks. India did not respond positively. Foreign-Secretary level talks are the only mutually agreed mechanism to deal with border disputes.

India’s position on dialogue is inconsistent. India first said talks could be held once the Covid-19 crisis is over. It urged Nepali politicians to create a positive atmosphere. But in the latest statement issued on June 13, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said: “This artificial enlargement of claims is not based on historical fact or evidence and is not tenable. It is also violative of our current understanding to hold talks on outstanding boundary issues.”

Phony promises

During the April 10 phone conversation between PM Oli and PM Modi, the former had briefly broached the border issue, stating that the two countries needed to sit for dialogue without further ado. The next phone conversation between Oli and Modi was scheduled for May 18, the date Nepal’s cabinet endorsed the new political map including Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura. “The scheduled phone conversation was canceled by the Indian side at the eleventh hour,” says a source close to PM Oli.

Nepali Ambassador in New Delhi Nilambar Acharya has been in constant touch with officials of India’s Ministry of External Affairs. He is also in personal contact with some ministers of Modi cabinet but he too has been unable to persuade them for border talks.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali has categorically said that the cartographic change inscribed in the Nepali charter is permanent. In its future dialogue with India, Nepal is preparing to present evidences and historic facts that show Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura belong to Nepal. The country’s bottom-line is the withdrawal of Indian troops from Kalapani.

In the coming days, PM Oli will be under pressure to convince India to withdraw Indian forces from Kalapani. All political parties, including main opposition Nepali Congress, have put the onus of border talks on PM Oli.

After Ladakh

At the same time, the military standoff between India and China over their disputed border in Ladakh is escalating. India says 20 of its army personnel died in a hand-to-hand clash with PLA personnel on the night of June 15. This has further negated the possibility of Nepal-India dialogue to settle Kalapani.

“Nepal may now find it difficult to raise its case strongly, especially as a section in India had already been blaming Nepal for raising border issues at the behest of China,” says Pramod Jaiswal, Research Director of Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement, a Kathmandu-based think tank. “India could adopt a rigid stand while negotiating at the moment, as Kalapani is of strategic importance to it during the conflict with China.”

Jaiswal says Nepal would be wise to remain silent on border issues for a while. “It can raise them again when things calm down,” he advises.

Why are the urban Nepali youths taking to the streets amid the Covid-19 crisis?

Those in power espy conspiracies behind the ongoing youth protests that kicked off on June 9. On that day, around 500-600 people, most of them youths, had gathered near the prime minister’s official residence in Baluwatar to vent their ire at the government’s mishandling of the Covid-19 crisis and reports of rampant corruption in the name of pandemic control.

They were gathered there peacefully, and were maintaining social distance while doing so. Yet the police used force to disperse them as they were in violation of the lockdown rule stipulating that no more than 25 people may gather at one place. The pictures of peaceful protestors being hosed down by water canons and being carted off in police vans had the predictable effect of instigating further protests.

“It can be taken as a new civil society movement of intellectual youths who are not associated with any political party,” says political analyst Shyam Shrestha. “They are helping expose government inefficiencies in the handling of the Covid-19 crisis.” For him, the protests hint of a sizeable youth population that is away from day-to-day politics but is closely following what’s happening in the country. The slogan ‘Enough is enough’ reflects, in his view, the increasing intolerance of the youths with government incompetence and corruption in this time of national crisis. “The youth agendas are logical and valid,” Shrestha adds.

Among the protestors’ demands: transparency in the government expenses on Covid-19 control including on the purchase of medical supplies, improving the state of quarantine facilities, and increasing the frequency of PCR testing. Notably, they not only criticize the government but also appreciate its efforts to bring back the lost territories of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura.

Shame on Congress

The young protestors have hit the streets at a time the Nepali Congress (NC) has been panned for its ineffective role as the main opposition. The party has been limited to issuing press statements instead of doing anything substantial to make the government answerable. “These agenda should have been raised by the NC as an opposition party,” adds Shrestha. He says the new movement “is a slap on the face of Congress leaders and signals the emergence of a new opposition.” According to him, the government has failed to handle the pandemic despite no dearth of resources.

Pradeep Poudel, a youth NC leader, sees the current movement as a sign that even the supposedly apolitical youths are fully aware of the country’s situation. “In the past, youth wings of opposition parties used to take to the streets to protest government wrongdoing. This time another force has taken up the mantle,” he says. The agenda raised by these youths are genuine, he reckons. “The government cannot dismiss their impartial demands.”  

Outside Kathmandu, there have been protests in Pokhara, Biratnagar, Birgunj, Hetauda, and Biratnagar. Small-scale protests have also been held in various district headquarters. Refuting claims of its involvement, the Bibeksheel Party has clarified that its members have been involved only on an individual basis. During the protests, some Bibeksheel Party leaders were seen on the streets.

The protests had started at the initiative of a Facebook group named ‘COVID-19, Nepal: Enough is Enough’, which quickly grew from a couple of hundred to around 200,000 members in a matter of a week. “We do not have any political motive. When the government addresses our demands, we will stop protesting and return to our normal lives,” says Bibash Pokharel, a protestor. “It was the government mishandling of Covid-19 that prompted us to come to the streets.”

No stopping us

The youths are outraged by the inefficiency seen in managing the pandemic, and have charged the government of wasting five months without doing anything substantive. “The government has been unable to ensure good quarantine facilities, and the management of the people returning from abroad has been an absolute mess,” he adds. Pokharel and his fellow protestors reckon the prime minister’s remarks in the parliament downplaying Covid-19 risks worsened the situation.

There are concerns such as mass gatherings could lead to an alarming growth in the number of Covid-19 cases, and the government has urged protestors not to organize them. It provisioned for a fine of up to Rs 600 or up to six months in jail for those found violating lockdown rules. Leaders and cadres of the ruling Nepal Communist Party claim the protests are aimed at toppling the government.

Paurakh Karki, another youth protestor, responds that they have no interest in politics. “We just want to do away with pervasive corruption.” he clarifies. “It is not government change but social change that we seek.”

The youth activists we talked to said that the protests would continue so long as they didn’t see tangible improvements in the state’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The proposed $500 million grant under the American Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact is close to its day of reckoning. As per the agreement, the compact will have to come into force after June 30. But the Nepali parliament is yet to endorse it owing to the differences in the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).

For a long time, Prime Minister KP Oli has been trying to convince senior party leaders Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Jhala Nath Khanal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, and Bhim Rawal on the need for its parliamentary approval. He hasn’t succeeded.

Finance Minister Yubaraj Khatiwada faced considerable heat from within his own party after he incorporated the MCC grant in the new budget before its parliamentary endorsement. Responding to lawmakers’ criticisms, Khatiwada said: “If we cancel the compact, it will affect our bilateral relation with America, as well as the larger climate of international assistance to Nepal.”

With divisions in the NCP running deep, the ruling party formed an intra-party panel to study the compact and make recommendations. The panel recommended that the MCC compact be adopted only after making changes. The prime minister is not in a position to flatly reject the recommendation of a panel set up by his own party’s central committee.

If Dahal, Khanal and Nepal do not support it, the chances of the compact’s endorsement are slim. “The MCC compact cannot move ahead without an agreement in the party. The PM should act as per party directives and decisions,” senior leader Khanal, who was also a member of the panel, had told media persons on June 9.

PM Oli fears that if the compact is forcefully tabled in parliament, the move could backfire, as many party lawmakers have threatened to vote against it. Likewise, in the nine-member NCP Secretariat, KP Oli is in a minatory, and a hard line on the compact could further alienate him. Oli had called a Secretariat meeting on June 9 to build consensus on the compact but it had to be cancelled at the last minute. Now, Oli is talking to top party leaders on individual basis to forge a consensus.

Dreaded September

Inside the party, Dahal’s role on the MCC is crucial. Of late, he has not spoken much on the MCC debate but he is of the view that the compact should not be passed without extensive discussions in the party. Speaker of lower federal House Agni Sapkota, who is close to Dahal, is also in favor of consensus in the party before it is tabled in the parliament. A leader close to Oli says the prime minister made a mistake by agreeing to form an intra-party panel on the compact.

Meanwhile, the June 30 deadline is fast approaching. There could be further discussions, but it is beyond the jurisdictions of MCC Nepal office to say what will happen after that. If the current deadline is missed, the two sides could set another deadline. But if the issue drags on beyond September-October, when the fiscal year of the US government ends, there could be a problem. If the compact is not endorsed before that, the American government could divert the money elsewhere.

The Millennium Challenge Account Nepal (MCA-Nepal), however, is still hopeful the current parliamentary session will endorse it. “There is still some time before the June 30 deadline so it would be too early to speak on what will happen if the deadline is missed,” says Khadga Bahadur Bisht, Executive Director of MCA-Nepal. Bisht hopes the compact will be a top government priority following parliamentary endorsement of the budget and the new Nepali map.

According to those in the know, the main concern right now is not the deadline but parliamentary endorsement. Prime Minister Oli has been assuring the Americans that the work will be done in the current parliament session. “If there is a guarantee that the current session will endorse the compact, we can discuss deadline extension. Similarly, some points of the agreement can be clarified in line with the suggestions of ruling party lawmakers,” says another MCA-Nepal source requesting anonymity.

According to the source, the Covid-19 pandemic could be used as an excuse to extend the June 30 deadline. But for this, “there has to be a prior agreement between the two sides”.

Say it’s different

The ruling party leaders who oppose the compact fear it is a part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Similarly, they say some provisions in the pact place it above the Nepali law. Projects under the compact do not follow Nepal’s public procurement act, they allege.

Some senior American officials have said that the MCC is a part of the IPS, which in turn created suspicion that America was trying to drag Nepal into a ‘military alliance’. But there have also been statements refuting the MCC’s links to the strategy. A few weeks ago, Alice G. Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, had said that the MCC, established in 2004, has no relation to President Donald Trump’s vision of an open and free Indo-Pacific.

The American Embassy in Kathmandu refused to comment on the looming deadline. In an email communication, the embassy says, “We understand that the Government of Nepal is discussing ratification of the MCC Compact.  To respect the processes of the government of Nepal, we have no comment at this time. The US looks forward to the Government of Nepal ratifying the compact as signed, so that critical electricity and road infrastructure assets can be built for the benefit of the people of Nepal.

Along with a powerful NCP faction, 10 other fringe communist parties are also warning the government not to endorse the MCC compact for the same reason. They think endorsement would compromise Nepali sovereignty and violate Nepal’s non-alignment policy.

There are also media reports of the Chinese advising the Oli government against endorsing the compact, as it could drive a wedge in the ruling party and further weaken Oli. In public, China has maintained that it is completely up to the sovereign government of Nepal to decide.

The Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal (JSPN) and some Nepali Congress (NC) lawmakers have pushed separate constitution amendment bills with the intent of addressing the pending concerns of the Madhesi people. The chances of either of these bills getting parliamentary approval are slim. Even the leaders who registered the bills are not optimistic.

As the government is not in a mood to address such private bills in the current budget session, they may not even be tabled in the full house. Right now the parliament is busy discussing the fiscal budget and the bill related to redrawing Nepal’s map.

The JSPN and NC leaders who registered the bills say the objective is to keep the Madhesi demands alive. Both JSPN and NC see Madhes as their base area and are looking to increase their appeal among common Madhesis.

JSPN leaders say their bill is aimed at creating momentum for a possible movement in the Madhes after the lockdown. According to Keshav Jha of JSPN, the new movement will incorporate all marginalized communities who have been deprived of their rights in the constitution. “We will launch a nationwide campaign for constitutional amendment through an alliance called the Rastriya Mukti Aandolan,” he says.

In order to lay the ground for another Madhes movement, two Madhes-based parties—the RJPN and Samajbadi Party Nepal—had recently joined forces to form the JSPN. Both the parent parties had already withdrawn their support to the government, blaming it of neglecting their demands. They had waited for over two years with the hope that PM Oli would amend the constitution as per their demands—to no avail.  

Many views

Without the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) on board, it will be impossible to secure the two-thirds votes needed for constitutional amendment. Though the NCP co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal is said to be positive about the demands of Madhes-based forces, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is not. There are differences between Oli and Dahal over both Madhesi and Janajati demands. Oli believes there is no need to amend the constitution before the next elections, while Dahal is of the view that the ruling party would do well to accommodate the sentiments of the identity-based forces.

PM Oli has repeatedly said, without elaborating, that the national charter would be amended only ‘on the basis of necessity and relevance’. As the constitution has not completed even its first five-year election cycle, Oli and those close to him think, it is too early to make substantial changes. Oli instead wants to engineer a split in Madhes-based forces to strengthen his own party’s position in Madhes.

Meanwhile, both the NC and Madhes-based parties agree in principle that the constitution should be amended, but they are somewhat divided on the contents of amendment.

The amendment bill tabled by the JSPN has several provisions related to language, citizenship, proportional representation of women in state mechanism, and forming a powerful body to investigate the properties of those who hold high positions. Madhesi leaders reckon the current anti-corruption body, the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), is incapable of investigating high-ranking government officials and politicians.

The NC has a position similar to Madhes-based parties on some issues. The bill registered by its lawmakers seeks to ease the process of providing citizenship to foreign women married to Nepali men, guarantee proportional representation of women in state bodies, and increase women’s representation in provincial assemblies. To address the demand of Madhes-based parties on re-demarcation of the borders of federal states, the NC wants a powerful federal commission.

The Madhes-based parties too have asked for a commission to re-think federal border demarcations. Their other demands include easing the process of citizenship for foreign women marrying Nepali men, proportional representation of women from all communities in state mechanisms, more rights to provincial government to make laws and mobilize local bodies, and granting executive rights to the deputy speaker in the speaker’s absence. All these, the Madhes-based parties say, should be done via a powerful federal commission.

Madhes-based leaders say the amendment bills are largely symbolic. “We are not hopeful about a favorable amendment,” says NC lawmaker Amresh Kumar Singh, one of the NC lawmakers to register the amendment bill on his party’s behalf. “Our goal is to expose PM Oli and NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba. They join hands on issues of vested interest. And yet when it comes to amending the constitution to address Madhesi people’s demands, they drag their feet.”

No Indian hand

In the past, India had openly backed Madhesi parties’ demand for constitutional amendment and had even enforced a blockade on Nepal to press for it. But the blockade backfired, and India has since maintained silence on Madhesi issues.

There are speculations that India lobbied with the Madhesi leaders to register their own amendment bills in order to thwart, or at least delay, the charter amendment that would recognize the 372 sq km of Limpidhura, Lipulekh and Mahakali as Nepali territory.

But a senior Madhesi leader requesting anonymity says India has nothing to do with the amendment bills concerning Madhes. “When the Oli government came up with a bill relating to Nepal’s new map, we decided to push our bill simultaneously,” he says.

India considers constitution amendment a bargaining chip with Kathmandu, he adds, and is not supportive of Madhesi demands.

Political analyst Vijaya Kant Karna too does not espy Indian hand behind the twin bills “The current Madhesi leadership still believes their demands can be resolved peacefully,” he says. “They want a win-win solution by convincing PM Oli. The feeling is that if PM is committed to stability and prosperity, he should take Madhes-based leaders into confidence.”

A United Nations Development Program (UNDP) survey of 700 businesses and 400 individuals, and consultations with over 30 private sector organizations and government agencies, came to a sobering finding: “The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted supply chains, shut or threatened the survival of small and informal enterprises, and made people highly vulnerable to falling back into poverty through widespread loss of income and jobs.”

This situation can be tackled only with swift and extreme measures. The consensus is that the government decision to continuously extend the lockdown without seemingly exploring other alternatives is dead wrong. (Even though the lockdown seems to have eased up a bit of late, the country is far from being fully open to business.) 

Sociologist Mrigendra Kumar Karki fears complete and partial lockdowns, which are likely to continue in the foreseeable future, will further widen the gap between haves and have-nots, as it is the poor who will suffer disproportionately. “There must be comprehensive short- and long-term studies on the multifarious impact of the lockdowns, and policy measures swiftly enacted to mitigate the effects,” he says.

Karki also points to the political implications of the extended lockdown. He argues people are gradually losing their trust in the government. “There is a feeling that the government won’t be able to help them if they get infected. People at the community level are themselves preparing to deal with the virus,” Karki says. He fears the mistrust between the state and its people will widen in the coming days.

In the Initial days, the lockdown disproportionately impacted daily-wage earners. The government tried to address the problem by providing them food-grains through local governments. Now, the lockdown is starting to weigh heavy even on those in organized sectors who rely on monthly salary for their livelihoods. Many private organizations have either not paid their staff, or delayed the payment. To take just one example, of around 500,000 people employed in tourism, many have already lost their jobs while others are on unpaid leave.

The extended lockdown is harming all sectors. “With almost 85 percent of the working population in Nepal informally employed, such work avenues provide no significant assurance to the informal economy. It instead has possibly worsened poverty, put food security at risk, increased social tension, and threatened mental health amongst informal workers,” says the aforementioned UNDP survey titled Rapid Assessment of Socio-Economic Impact of Covid-19.

Long, dark tunnel

Dr Kapil Dev Upadhyaya, a consultant psychiatrist at Center for Mental Health and Counselling (CMC-Nepal), says people are getting increasingly frustrated at the prospect of having to stay cooped up in their homes indefinitely.

“It is not only about the lockdown. People seem worried they may not be treated if they catch the virus. They have little faith in our shambolic healthcare and quarantine systems,” he adds. As a result, Upadhyaya foresees many more “mental and physical health problems” down the line.

The number of suicide cases has increased. According to the data provided by Nepal Police, 1105 people committed suicide between March 24 and May 30, a daily average of 16.25 compared to the average of 14-15 before the lockdown.  

As the economic hardship starts to bite, the fear of looting, burglary and other forms of social crimes has increased, too. Such incidents are more likely in rural areas with low presence of security forces.

There is also an urgent need to provide jobs to the unemployed. In 1996, when the Maoists began their armed insurgency, they had recruited large numbers of unemployed people from rural areas. “Today, a failure to create jobs for the youth could once more threaten Nepal’s political stability,” says asks Hemant Malla, a retired Deputy Inspector General of Police. Notably, the Maoist splinter group led by Netra Bikram Chand has already launched an armed insurgency.

As the number of infected people is increasing by the day, chances of immediately and completely lifting the lockdown are slim. Other countries are gradually opening up their economy. In our case, there has been a continuous lockdown starting March 24—and the government is struggling to justify it. Unless there is a radical shift in the thinking of state authorities, things will only go from bad to worse.

The government of Nepal has finally tabled a bill in the federal lower house with the intent of amending Schedule-3 of the constitution in order to include the new territorial map in the national emblem. After the passage of the bill, the new map covering Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limiyadhura areas will become an integral part of the country’s constitution.

As per parliament procedures, lawmakers will have seven days to come up with amendment proposals. After that, the parliament will discuss possible amendments in the bill. There will then be theoretical discussions, followed by clause-wise discussions, before the bill is put up for a final vote.

If the parliamentary parties want to delay the amendment process, there are ways to buy time. For instance, the speaker can form a special cross-party committee to discuss the matter. But says a source at the Parliament Secretariat, “This time, as nearly all the parties have agreed to amend the constitution at the earliest, there could be no need for such committees.”

Except for the Rastriya Samajbadi Party, Nepal (RSPN), other parties are expected to vote in the bill’s favor. The RSPN has said that their long-standing demands related to the constitution should also be simultaneously addressed, and it has tabled a separate constitution amendment bill to that effect. The Nepali Congress (NC), the main opposition that had earlier sought some time for intra-party discussion, has already decided to vote in the bill’s favor. As things stand, the bill will garner two-thirds vote in the parliament even if the RSPN votes against it. 

Cramped for room

Political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta says that once the bill is approved by the parliament, the new map will not only be official but also constitutional. “The said territory then becomes an integral part of Nepal, which, as per the constitutional provisions, will have to be protected by the Nepal Army in case of outside aggression. But we also have to acknowledge that Kalapani has for long been a subject of Nepal-India discussions, and the said territory is still under Indian possession.”

The likely amendment will reduce Nepal’s room for flexibility on the border issue. Major political parties are united on the issue. Given the enormous public support for the bill, it will be hard for any of them to back away. Knowing that a majority support may not be easy to get in the future, both the government and opposition parties are intent on pressing ahead. In public, they affirm that they will convince India to withdraw its troops from Kalapani, as Nepal has ample evidence to establish its claim over the territory. 

“India should behave responsibly. It never paid attention to Nepal's repeated requests for talks. For Nepal, there really was no other option,” says Bhatta, adding that the border dispute could further strain Nepal-India relations.

Meanwhile, constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari seconds Bhatta’s view that the amendment will make negotiations with India tougher. “The lower-level negotiators will not be in a position to compromise when the areas under discussion are constitutionally recognized,” he says. 

Mixed signals

India is sending mixed signals over its willingness for talks. On May 9, India stated that “both sides are also in the process of scheduling foreign secretary-level talks which will be held once… the two societies and governments have successfully dealt with the challenge of Covid-19 emergency.” But then on May 20, India urged the Nepali leadership to “create a positive atmosphere” for border dialogue.

Following this, on May 28, India stated its openness to engaging with all its neighbors on the basis of mutual sensitivity and respect, and in an environment of trust and confidence. 

According to sources, India urged Nepal government to forestall the amendment, as it would narrow down the possibility of talks. For now, the Nepali side wants talks at the prime ministerial level. But right now foreign secretary-level dialogue is the only agreed mechanism to look after the disputed territory.

There is no discussion yet on alternatives for resolving the border dispute. According to government sources, Nepal is not going to stick to its stand of asking India to withdraw its troops from Kalapani as “the land belongs to Nepal”. The Nepali side reckons there is enough evidence to support Nepal’s position.

Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali is publicly urging India to withdraw its troops from Kalapani. Officially, the Indian government has not spoken on solutions. Following the protests in Nepal over the 2015 India-China bilateral statement on trading through Lipulekh in Kalapani, the Indian side had informally floated a proposal of land swaps before Nepali leaders to resolve Kalapani. But the Nepali leaders rejected the offer. 

In his article published on May 26 in The Wire, Ashok K. Mehta, a retired Major General of the Indian Army, said: “Only a political resolution of the dispute is the way forward. Although still not at that stage, both countries can consider the concept of joint sovereignty.” 

Multiple hurdles

Experts in Nepal say it won’t be easy to wrest back lost territories. To start with, as it is impossible for Nepal to lay a claim to the territories militarily, it has no option but to coax India to the negotiating table. But with the mood in New Delhi hardening, that may not happen anytime soon.

Yet all hope is not lost. Talking to an Indian television channel on March 31, India’s Minister for Defense Rajnath Singh said the chances of Nepal and India, who are like “family members and relatives”, finding an amicable solution were still high. So far India’s stand in future discussions, if and when they happen, remains unclear.

After the publication of its new political map including Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura, the government of Nepal has ramped up efforts to start formal talks with India. Nepali Ambassador to India Nilambar Acharya has been instructed to reach out to Indian officials to create an environment for such talks.

Nepal is of the view that a high-level virtual meeting could start even amid the Covid-19 pandemic in order to give a message that dialogue has begun. Such a process, for instance, could be initiated via a phone conversation between the two foreign ministers.

There is also pressure on the Indian government to sit for dialogue. Right now the foreign secretary-level dialogue is the only available bilateral mechanism to take up boundary disputes. Nepal had proposed two dates for foreign secretary-level talks after India came up with a new political map in November. India ignored these requests.

The chances of dialogue between the two countries in the near future appear slim. Retired Indian diplomats who spoke to APEX said there could be no dialogue in the current tense situation.

India has also put forth conditions for talks. The May 20 press statement of India’s Ministry of External Affairs says, “We hope that the Nepalese leadership will create a positive atmosphere for diplomatic dialogue to resolve the outstanding boundary issues.” India, however, has not clarified how such “positive atmosphere” may be created. In a previous statement, India had said that it was ready for talks after the end of the Covid-19 crisis.

Unlike the past

Sooner or later, the two sides will have to sit for talks. Unlike in the past, the Nepali society and political parties are united on the border dispute. “During the time of the Mahakali Treaty in 1996, Nepali polity and society were divided. They were also divided at the time of constitution drafting in 2015. The situation is entirely different now,” says geopolitical analyst Tika Dhakal. This, in his view, has given the Nepali government greater confidence to negotiate. “There should be negotiations at all possible levels. It is time to activate all bilateral mechanisms, including the meeting of foreign secretaries,” he advises. A series of discussions at the bureaucratic level, he adds, can lay the ground for higher-level talks.

Dialogue can take place at various levels. The two foreign secretaries can immediately meet. The Nepal Army (NA) may also have a role given its ‘special relationship’ with the Indian Army. During the 2015-16 blockade, the Nepal Army had played the crucial role of getting its Indian counterpart to successfully lobby with the Indian government to lift the blockade.

Former Brigadier General of Nepal Army Umesh Bhattarai differs. “In 2015, the Indian Army was not involved in the blockade but in Kalapani it is directly involved. So army-level talks is not a viable option this time,” he says. Bhattarai is of the view that the Nepal Army should rather show its presence in the Kalapani area.

Where’s the will?

“We have sufficient proof that these territories belong to Nepal. So why not try to convince the Indian side on the negotiation table?” Bhattarai asks. After the incorporation of the new map in the constitution, it will have the ownership of all parliamentary parties and they will be bound to have a common stand on Kalapani. Sufficient proof and a common stand, Bhattarai reckons, will help Nepal’s cause at the negotiating table.

On the other hand, India is hardening its position. In the past, India had recognized Kalapani as a disputed territory. But after the publication of its new political map in November last year, India claims this is now an entirely Indian territory.

Nepal on the other hand is confident that it will be able to convince India of why the new map had to be published. Reportedly, Prime Minister KP Oli is not in a mood to further provoke India and wants immediate dialogue to defuse the tension.

Boundary disputes are an old problem between the two countries. Experts say this is the perfect time to resolve it, as both the prime ministers have strong mandates. There is strong support in Nepal for Oli government’s efforts to resolve the border issue, and Modi, likewise, is in a position to make hard decisions. But then do they have the political will to settle Kalapani?