Submit your Article

A country’s borders have a certain sanctity. Boundary disputes are thus tricky, more so in the age of social media, and online news outlets on a constantly chasing eyeballs. These disputes become trickier still when they involve more than two countries, as with the dispute over the Lipulekh Pass, the purported tri-junction point between Nepal, India, and China. Then there is the older bilateral dispute between Nepal and India over Lipulekh’s abutting region of Kalapani.

Nepal has made its position crystal clear with the publication of a new national map that includes all 372 square kilometers of the ‘disputed territories’. To be fair, the Nepali government was forced into it by Indian Army Chief M.M. Naravane’s statement that Nepal had protested over India’s construction of the new road at Lipulekh ‘at China’s behest’. His statement came even as Nepal was requesting formal talks to resolve the dispute. In fact, just like it did with India, Nepal had also sought clarification with China over the issue, asking Beijing why it was mum even as India was ‘unilaterally’ building a road at Lipulekh.

Following the uproar in Nepal, officials in Beijing have replied, according to PM KP Oli that “…the India-China agreement was about expanding an old trade route for pilgrimage purposes, and it won’t affect the position of the tri-juncture and issue of borders.” Separately, Zhao Lijian, spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that Kalapani was a ‘bilateral’ issue between Nepal and India, and China hoped “the two countries will resolve their differences properly through friendly consultations and refrain from taking any unilateral action that may complicate the situation.”

This suggests that Beijing still thinks Lipulekh is a ‘tri-junction’ point and it will look to accommodate Nepal in the current India-China bilateral arrangement. As far as Kalapani goes, it is completely up to Nepal and India to settle it between them. But with the publication of Nepal’s new map, the trilateral point, if there is to be one, has to perforce shift to Limpiadhura, at the origin of Kali River. In this sense, Nepal has upped the ante. 

The good news is that India has not shut the door for dialogue. Nor has Nepal. Ultimately, there is no option but for the two countries to engage at the highest level. There is no reason Nepal cannot address India’s security concerns over Kalapani, perhaps with the deployment of Nepal's own military or paramilitary forces. Or perhaps a joint India-Nepal mechanism is a better way out. Likewise, everyone benefits if the region can be opened for trilateral trade. But that is for later. To start, Nepal and India must agree to unconditional talks at the highest level. Further delays and proxy battles could do irreparable damage to India-Nepal relations.

Nepal is witnessing a surge in cases of sexual violence, divorces, and relationship breakdowns during the prolonged lockdown. The longer the lockdown continues, the tougher it gets for everyone. Yet there seems no respite in sight. New cases of corona are being reported with increasing frequency, right around the country, including in the national capital of Kathmandu. Some areas have been sealed off while curfews have been imposed in some other areas. Even as the fear of isolation and relationship breakdown grows, the dread of getting the virus is far greater.

So how does the state go about implementing the devilishly difficult decision of lifting the lockdown, which has to happen sooner or later? As reliable tests for the virus have been in desperate short supply in the country, how do you assess which areas are safe and which not? At the same time, can people be forced to stay holed up in their homes for months on end without a significant impact on their physical and mental health? And how do you provide for those without savings and who live almost exclusively on daily wages? All these things will have to be considered before lifting the restrictions on people’s movements.

Hard choices will have to be made. It will be dangerous to relax the lockdown much. Evidence from countries like Germany and South Korea suggest that such a relaxation almost instantly leads to a spike in the number of corona cases. So like it or not, most of the restrictions will have to remain intact. In this condition, as essential will be a huge economic package—something along the lines of India, which has set aside a Covid-19 relief fund that is 10 percent of its GDP. There has to be a calibrated income support for those in the bottom rungs of the economic ladder to keep them from falling into hunger and destitution. Again, international evidence suggests cash handouts are the most effective form of support for low-income groups.

There is no need to wait for the next budgetary cycle to announce the relief package. Also, the seeming lack of urgency to get China to export the medical equipment and testing kits that Nepal has already paid for is hard to understand. How can paperwork hold up such vital delivery? We need those medical goods here, instantly. Without mass testing with these imported test kits, the extended lockdown, however hard it has been on everyone, could go to a waste. There is not a moment to lose.

The writing had been on the wall. Over the next month and a half, 150,000 Nepali migrant workers in the Gulf and Malaysia could be repatriated. This first batch of homecoming workers will comprise those who were working abroad illegally and those who have lost their jobs because of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Host countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have offered time-bound amnesty for illegal workers registering to go back to their home countries. Many Nepali workers are taking advantage of this one-time offer of pardon. For instance, over 3,000 of them in Kuwait have registered for repatriation after the Kuwaiti government granted them amnesty and vowed to rehire them if the corona threat dies down. 

Nepal will have a tough time managing these workers. The government says it is working on arranging Covid-19 tests for 150,000 people and on building reliable quarantine facilities for them. But most of these workers are to undergo the unreliable rapid tests. The more reliable PCR test kits are scarce, and it is still unclear where additional test kits will come from. Likewise, the quarantine facilities at the local and provincial levels are without even bare minimum facilities, which is why many folks quarantined there run away. A new spurt of Covid-19 infection is likely if this first batch of returning migrant workers is not managed well. The long-term picture appears bleaker still.

Bar India, there are 1.5 million Nepali migrant workers in the Gulf countries and Malaysia. Many of them will lose their jobs and will be forced to go back to their home countries. Back home, in the economy badly depressed by the corona pandemic, they won’t get many gainful jobs. Even if they get some work, it won’t pay nearly as much as they earned abroad. This sudden income transition will be tough on their families. The government blueprint for creating fresh jobs in agriculture, where people can be immediately employed, is a good start. There is not much time to work out its nitty-gritty. Meanwhile, there could be a minimum income guarantee for all the jobless. As the federal budget for the current fiscal remains mostly unspent, parts of it can be reallocated for things like income guarantee and agriculture modernization. Realistically, with tourism and foreign employment, the two mainstays of Nepali economy, on a downward spiral, things could get progressively harder in the days ahead. But one thing at a time.

Transitional justice in Nepal just got more complicated. This follows the Supreme Court’s dismissal of a government petition asking for a review of the apex court’s earlier decision. There could be no amnesty for those involved in grave rights violations during the decade-long Maoist insurgency, the court had ruled on 26 February 2016. Two major parties back then, the Nepali Congress and the UCPN (Maoist), contended the verdict was against the spirit of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that had peacefully settled the armed conflict. It was up to the two transitional justice bodies to rule on all conflict-era cases, they argued, not the normal criminal justice mechanism.

Now, by throwing out the government petition, the Supreme Court has closed the chapter of general amnesty. This has come as a relief to conflict victims and the human rights community. They feared the political parties, in the excuse of completing the peace process, could otherwise trade away the rights of conflict victims. Yet this latest apex court move threatens to further complicate the transitional justice process. Neither the two major parties, whose leaders were directly or indirectly involved in the conflict, nor the Nepal Army, itself accused of grave rights violations, is now likely to cooperate in the TJ process. The top leaders of these institutions fear being implicated in grave rights violations without a get-out clause of amnesty in transitional justice laws.

The process should never have taken this long. The CPA had provisioned for the formation of the two transitional justice bodies within six months of its promulgation—it would be nearly 11 years before it happened. The major political actors had made the peace process a tool of political bargaining, and were never serious about bringing justice to conflict families that had seen their loved ones either killed in cold blood or ‘disappeared’ during the insurgency. The sad fact of the transitional justice in Nepal is that any perceived progress for the conflict victims is seen as a setback by the political parties and the army, and vice versa. The two sides would be wise to quickly and amicably resolve all conflict-era cases. The internationalization of the process will be to the detriment of the aforementioned state and political actors, who will forever fear the long arm of international law. It will also be a long and torturous road for conflict victims who have already waited so long for justice.