Buddhi Narayan Shrestha: Border Issues Blueprint of Nepal

Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, a distinguished geographer, is an expert on Nepal's border issues. He formerly served as the Director General of Nepal’s Survey Department and was a key member of the joint boundary committees between Nepal and its neighbors, India and China. Shrestha is renowned for his contributions, including his award-winning book Boundary of Nepal, which earned him the prestigious Madan Puraskar. He is also credited with creating Nepal’s new political map in 2003, featured in his book Border Management of Nepal. In this write-up, Shrestha offers valuable suggestions for resolving Nepal’s border disputes.

Introduction

The territory east of the river Kalee (Mahakali) belongs to Nepal and the west to India. After the border war between India and China during 1962, India lost the war. At that time King Mahendra did not obstruct the Indian force, assuming that India had just lost the war. If the King tells the Indian troops to go back, India may be annoyed and the recently introduced Panchayat regime may be in trouble. So, the Indians possessed the Limpiyadhura to Nabi, Kuti, Gunji, Tulsinurang (Kalapani), Nabhidang and Lipulek area, located east of the river Kalee. Now India is not willing to evacuate these lands. Nepal tried to talk on this issue at the diplomatic level many times, but India is ignoring Nepal’s request. Lipulek-Kalapani-Limpiyadhura is situated in the tri-junction area, where Nepal, India, China meet.    

Sugauli treaty/Mahakali treaty

Article-V of the Sugauli treaty of 4 March 1816 says: “The king of Nepal renounces for himself, his heirs, and successors, all claim to or connection with the countries lying to the West of the River Kali, and engages never to have any concern with those countries or the inhabitants thereof.” Preamble of the Mahakali treaty of 12 Feb 1996 mentions “The Mahakali River is a boundary river on major stretches between the two countries.”

Controversies

Neither the Sugauli treaty nor the Mahakali treaty has defined the source of the river Kalee/Mahakali. There is a controversy whether the Kalee River originated from Limpiyadhura or Lipulek or Kalee temple. Nepal pleads the river originated from Limpiyadhura is the Kalee (Mahakali). But India advocates that the river named ‘Kalee’ must have originated from the temple of Kalee. It is notable that the river originating from Limpiyadhura is the longest, widest, deepest with more volume of water than the other two rivers. The other river originating from Lipulek Pass possesses the middle status in terms of length, breath and volume. The third and last one, originated from the temple of Kalee, is an accumulation of water and it has a status of stream. 

Historical maps

Nepal says “We have the historical maps produced by British Survey of India namely, Map of the Province of Kumaon (1819), Gurhwal Kumaon Map (1827), NIPAL and the Adjoining Countries (1856) and so many other maps on which Kalee has been written clearly to the river originated from Limpiyadhura.” On the other hand, as a counter, India mentions that on the map entitled ‘Nepal, Almora District, United Province (1879),’ the river originating from Limpiyadhura is Kuti Yangti River, not the Kalee river. The Kalee river obviously originated from the Kalee Temple. However, it is not shown on the map.

Chuche Naksa vs Indian maps 

India published a ‘Political Map of India’ on 2 Nov 2019 encroaching 372 square kilometers of Nepali territory of Limpiyadhura-Kalapani-Lipulek. Nepal protested it and sent five diplomatic letters to India to come to a talk. But India did not respond. Under compulsion and as a counter, Nepal published Chuche Naksa on 20 May 2020 depicting Limpiyadhura to Lipulek within its own territory. Parliament had passed it unanimously and the President endorsed it. Now the Limpiyadhura area has been overlapped on the maps of both countries. After this, the international arena might have been confused as to which one is the authenticated map! 

Nepal’s feeble diplomacy

After the publication of Chuche Naksa, Nepal did not send it either to India or China with a formal diplomatic letter. Nepal forgot to present a copy of this map to the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guteress while he had a state visit to Nepal on 29 Oct 2023. Had it been archived in the UN Cartographic (Geomatics) Division, the Chuche Naksa would get international status. These are due to feeble diplomacy of Nepal.

The catch point

Newly appointed Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli said in the House of Representatives on 22 July 2024 that “Border related issues will be resolved through the established diplomatic mechanism. The Government of Nepal is clear and steadfast on the fact that all the territories including Limpiyadhura, Kalapani, Lipulek; east of the Mahakali River belong to Nepal as per the Sugauli Treaty-1816.” It is mentionable that Chuche Naksa was published in 2020 during Oli’s prime-ministerial tenure. Though KP Sharma Oli mentioned the border issues will be resolved through diplomatic channels, the joint Border Working Group (BWG) mechanism has been stranded since the last four years. Foreign Secretary level mechanism has not yet started to work, as both the prime-ministers had jointly directed on 4 Aug 2014 to the Foreign Secretaries of both the countries “To work on the outstanding boundary issues, including Kalapani and Susta receiving required technical inputs from the BWG as necessary.” It is notable that the border issue, ultimately, should be resolved by the prime-ministerial level. There is a precedent that ownership of Sagarmatha was resolved by the Prime Minister B P Koirala and Chinese Prime-Minister Chou-en-Lai in 1962 in favor of Nepal.

International practice

According to the international boundary principle, border issues could be resolved with various steps as necessary. First, through dialogue, discussion, and bilateral negotiation. Second, it could seek mediation/arbitration. Third, it has to apply to the UN Security Council. Fourth and the last, one can go to the International Court of Justice. The best practice is to conduct dialogue and discussions face to face sitting in a single table. This is the best means to resolve the disputed border. Negotiation is often the first step in attempting to resolve a dispute. It is a discussion between two parties that “If you say this, I shall say that. Let us settle to be good and equally good for us. It will be a kind of win-win point for both sides.” Mediation: involves a third party, such as another country or an international organization to facilitate negotiations helping the disputing countries reach an agreement. Arbitration is to agree to submit their dispute to an arbitration expert panel. Next, one or both parties could seek intervention or resolution through the United Nations. The UN can facilitate negotiations, mediate disputes, or even send peacekeeping forces if necessary. The last step is to go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for border resolution.

ICJ verdict

International Court of Justice (ICJ). while deciding a frontier dispute between Botswana and Namibia on the island called ‘Kasikili’ surrounded by the northern and southern channels of Chobe River. Namibia is situated north of the island and north channel, whereas Botsawana is located south of the island and south channel. In determining the main channel, the ICJ adopted a standard of the criteria of depth, width, volume of water flow, navigability and river bed profile configuration. The ICJ team examined physically both of the channels as deepest soundings as per set standard. Then ICJ gave a verdict that the northern channel met the criteria and this is the main channel and the other is the tributary. As a result, Botswana belonged the disputed island as a part of their territory on 13 Dec 1999. This verdict could be applied to determine the main channel of the river Kalee/Mahakali to settle the dispute between Nepal and India.

The way forward 

The most important element to resolve the border issue between two countries is the dialogue, discussion and negotiation. Nepal needs vigorous exercise and homework by the expert team. Nepal must invite India diplomatically to come forward for the discussion. Nepal must create a congenial environment and comfortable situation for India to sit on the discussion table, since India is one of the largest democratic countries in the world. If India hesitates for the dialogue, Nepal must exert diplomatic pressure through the powerful friendly countries including China. Nepal has diplomatic relations with 183 countries across the globe. If the international pressure does not work, Nepal must knock on the door of the ICJ. Nepal has ample proofs, historical maps and documents to satisfy the judgment of the ICJ. Nepal will win the case, as per the precedence of ICJ regarding  Botswana-Namibia 1999 verdict, applying the set criteria on the disputed river channel case.