border disputes in the

Susta and Kalapani areas

so that the department could proceed with its work accordingly.

"Let's draw a line on a map which we could refer to as a guideline for our work. We will take our stance during

bilateral meetings as per that same line," said Baral,

speaking to the parliamentarians at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee for International Relations on Wednesday. "The state should direct us about our national stance."

There is no dispute in principle with India regarding the borders, he added. "Differences appear when technicians start their work in the field," he added.

According to Baral, differences occurred as the

rivers, which are considered borderlines between the two countries, diverged from their courses several times in the past.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Sahana Pradhan reiterated her stance that the issue should be resolved through a consensus among the seven major ruling and other political parties. She added that border disputes with India should be part of the agenda at the meetings of political parties. She also stated that Indians have been able to dominate the Nepalis due to the absence of Nepali security and administrative officials at the sites whereas the Indian government has deployed armed security forces in large numbers.

Former director generals of the Survey Department Budhi Narayan Shrestha and Punya Prasad Oli and an expert, Rajendra Marhattha, stressed the need for initiatives from the prime minister's level to

settle the issue. They were of the opinion that unless the

PM himself takes it seriously and talks to the highest level of leadership in India, the disputes would not be amicably resolved.

However, Foreign Secretary Gyan Chandra Acharya

argued that solving directly at the PM's level would not be practical unless there is

a certain level of understanding at technical and diplomatic levels.

Experts and parliamentarians criticized the government for failing to make its administrative presence felt at the local level and give necessary support to the people.

Shrestha, who was awarded the coveted Madan Prize 2057 for his book Boundary of Nepal, spoke to Kamal Raj Sigdel of The Kathmandu Post on the current Indo-Nepal border dispute. He says India has encroached on almost 60,000 hectares of Nepali territory over the last 72 years.

Excerpts:

Shrestha: There are a number of reasons that trigger rows over the border – no clear demarcation pillars, lack of historical documents, unclear points/articles in the border treaties, frontiers based on changeable river courses, one country considering itself superior to the other and the like.

Nepal has been having arguments over the border with India for a long time. On March 4, 1816, Nepal and the East India Company signed the Treaty of Sugauli. That was expected to resolve the border disputes, but it did not. For instance, right after the signing of the treaty, the East India Company claimed Antu Danda of Ilam and handed it over to Sikkim. However, Nepal managed to get it back in 1838.

The border problems remained after India became independent in 1947. In fact, they intensified as India's population increased rapidly and Indian settlers began clearing Nepal's forests in the tarai and settling down there.

And now in 2007, when loktantra has been established in Nepal, the disputes still exist.

Q: Mainly, which parts of Nepal have been encroached on?

Shrestha: There is a 1,808-kilometer-long border between Nepal and India, and 26 districts of Nepal adjoin Indian territory. In my estimation, there are 54 places in 21 districts involving 60,000 hectares of land where we have border disputes, conflicts, encroachment claims and counterclaims ranging from the smallest one of 2 hectares in Sandakpur to the largest one of 37,000 hectares in Kalapani. Some of the others are Susta (14,000 hectares), Mechi (1,600 hectares) and Parasan (450 hectares).

Q: Does the government recognize the fact that there are 54 border disputes that you just mentioned?

Shrestha: A meeting of the 31st Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee held in Delhi is supposed to have completed 98 percent of the task of strip-mapping the border. So, according to the government, all the disputes, except Susta and Kalapani, have been resolved. But making maps is not everything. The maps may be correct, but when we trace the border in the field, we find instances of encroachment. What is the use of the maps if the Nepalis cannot use their land?

Q: How was Kalapani encroached upon? And what is the dispute about?

Shrestha: In 1962, there was a fierce war between India and China which India lost. After the fighting stopped, the Chinese Army retreated to its original border. The Indian Army looked around and found Kalapani to be a strategically advantageous point. There is a 20,276-foot-high hill which they thought could be useful as a stronghold from where to fend off the Chinese Army.

At a meeting of the technical committee, Nepal had proposed to resolve the Kalapani dispute using the maps of 1850 and 1856 as the basis. But India wanted to use the map of 1879. Since the Indian map was irrelevant to Nepal, it rejected the proposal. What is interesting is that Kalapani is shown to be on Nepali territory on the maps submitted by Nepal and on Indian territory on Indian maps. In the map taken as the base document by Nepal, the Kalee River is shown as the frontier. The facts have been distorted on Indian maps, and the river has been renamed as the Kuti Yangti River. As India has changed the name of the river, the dispute remains unresolved.

Q: What is the Susta border dispute about?

Shrestha: In the Susta area, India has encroached on about 14,000 hectares of land over a period of 72 years. The intrusion happened in stages, the latest being on November 22, 2007.

Q: What do you think are the reasons behind the arguments over the border with India?

Shrestha: The main reason is that 595 kilometers of the 1,808-kilometer-long Nepal-India border is defined by rivers—such as the Mechi in the east, Mahakali in the west, and the Narayani in the Susta area, which demarcates a 24-kilometer stretch of the international frontier. The rivers keep changing course and that gives rise to arguments. 

Q: Are there any special reasons behind the encroachment in Susta? What do the Indians have to say?

Shrestha: There are five major reasons behind the Susta border dispute – natural, technical, social, political and governmental. The natural reason is flooding. The Narayani River changed its course after the floods of 1845, 1954, 1980 and 1989, and the Indians argued that the reclaimed land was theirs. Another natural cause is that Susta is surrounded on three sides—north, south and east—by Indian territory, and on the west you have the Narayani River. So, Susta is cut off from Nepal which makes it easier for the Indians to move in and occupy it. 

The technical reason is that no Junge pillar has been erected along the 24-km riverian border, perhaps because the river was considered to be a natural boundary at that time.

The social reason is that the population gradually increased on the Indian side adjoining Susta, and the Indian Special Services Bureau helped them to encroach on Nepali territory. Besides, when the Gandak Barrage at Bhaisalotan was completed, nearly 250 laborers that came to work on the construction project did not return but settled in the Susta area. They outnumbered the Nepalis and they encroached on more land.

The political cause is that the BJP in Bihar encouraged local Biharis to intrude into Nepali territory under the condition that they vote for the party in return.

They also have the backing of the Indian government as is proven by the fact that the SSB has been supporting the locals in their landgrab. The SSB has been torturing Nepalis frequently. But the presence of the Government of Nepal has not been felt.

Q: Are the government's efforts to resolve the disputes adequate? 

Shrestha: Nepal has not acted as it should have. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had released a statement saying that, except for Kalapani and Susta, all the border issues had been resolved. But there are other places where encroachment has happened.

Of late, however, the government is gradually becoming more aware. Parliament is also taking this issue seriously. Parliamentarian Kunta Sharma returned from a visit to the Susta area and claimed that Nepali lands had been occupied. The parliamentary foreign relations committee is also keeping a close watch. Various MPs have been raising the subject in Parliament.

Even the Prime Minister has expressed his commitment to look into it seriously. So the matter has now reached the highest level. I think that if the PM were to pursue it seriously, it can be resolved. The problem is that our leaders fear raising the border issue with India because they think that it will make their chairs shake.

Foreign Minister Sahana Pradhan talked to her Indian counterpart Pranav Mukherjee on December 7. Mukherjee said that the status quo should be maintained. But what does that mean? That is not the solution. Now that the issue has reached the Foreign Minster's level, it should be taken to the PM's level too.

The PM should look into it because the border is a serious national issue. If one square kilometer of our land is lost, the Nepali nationals living on it will be turned into aliens. Those responsible for losing Nepali territory should be punished for being traitors. Our head of state should not be afraid of talking to his Indian counterpart for the integrity of our national boundary. He should work fearlessly.

Q: Some border experts speak of a Greater Nepal that includes the territory Nepal gave up with the Sugauli Treaty. Is it possible?

Shrestha: There is a concept of “Greater Nepal” which extends from Tista in the east to Kangra in the west. If Nepal were to become prosperous and powerful like China, Nepal's future generations could get back the lost territory, which is one-third of the area of Greater Nepal.

As China got back Hong Kong from the British, so can Nepal get back its lost territory that was lost with the Sugauli Treaty. Such historical facts should be passed on to our future generations. What is important is that we should not forget our history and the historical facts.

The land we lost to the East India Company should not belong to India. It is ours. The 1950 Treaty, too, says that “the Treaty cancels all previous treaties, agreements and engagements entered into on behalf of India between the British Government and the Government of Nepal”.

This means that Nepal should regain its lost territory because the 1950 Treaty has nullified the Sugauli Treaty. But the reality is that the 1950 Treaty has not been implemented fully.

Kunta Sharma, a CPN-UML lawmaker, is team leader of the High-Level Parliamentary Committee formed to study the reported land encroachment by India in the Susta area. Her team recently returned from a field visit to Susta and is soon presenting a report of its findings to Parliament. She talked about her observances in a recent interview with Kamal Raj Sigdel of The Kathmandu Post.

Excerpts:

Q: Your parliamentary team has just returned from Susta. What did you see there?

Sharma: As reported in the media, our lands have been encroached on. The local people have been rendered homeless. We observed the occupied Nepali lands from a distance as the Indian SSB was standing guard there. The local people pointed to us the area that was occupied in the latest incidence of encroachment on November 22, 2007. It was really pathetic. They wailed before us demanding that their lands be restored. I felt ashamed of myself and my government. I was deeply hurt.

Q: You might have spent some time with the locals of Susta. What did they say?

Sharma: They are both sad and angry that they have been made stateless. They said, “Either declare that Susta is a part of India and deny that we are Nepalis, or show the guts to stop the Indians. If we are Nepalis, Nepal should secure our property and lives. How does a Nepali feel when his farm is ravaged and confiscated in broad daylight? Where does our government exist? Who are we? Are we nomads? Aren't we Nepalis?”

Q: Why has such a serious issue been ignored for so long?

Sharma: In 1972, King Mahendra had established a settlement in the Susta area. At that time too, the government had attempted to carry out a survey of the region; but Indian security forces chased away the Nepali survey officials. In 1977, a big flood changed the course of the Narayani River, and the displaced people were brought to Triveni under the condition that they would return. But the people never went back as there was no bridge to cross the river. There was no basic infrastructure such as schools and health posts. And the Indians started encroaching on the land in 1985.

In 2005, the two countries reached an agreement to maintain the “status quo”. But the Indians kept violating the accord. It is hard to believe that seven of the nine wards of Susta VDC have been lost to India.

Q: If you are aware of all these things, why can't you pressure the government? What are the MPs doing to save Susta?

Sharma: We've been quite serious on this issue. A parliamentary panel, under my leadership, recently visited the Susta area. We'll prepare a report. We'll call the government and direct it to solve the issues as soon as possible. We've asked the concerned departments to search for the old maps and locate the areas that have been encroached on. The local people say they know where the border was originally; they can tell everything. We will finalize our report within two-three days and present it.

Q: Based on your recent visit, what do you personally think should be done to solve the problem?

Sharma: The prime ministers of the two countries should solve it through talks. They should bring border experts and mark out the original boundary. We've heard that there is one map of the time of the Sugauli Treaty in Britain. We must get that. We should gather all the documents and finalize the matter.

We should not provoke innocent people of the two countries to fight and disturb the tranquility by leaving the border dispute pending. We're not an Indian colony. We're a sovereign and independent country. The government should understand this and talk to India.

The government says that scientific mapping of 98 percent of the border has been completed. But why should we leave out the remaining 2 percent then?

Q: You're soon going to present your report of the visit. What are you going to recommend to the prime minister and the government?

Sharma: We'll submit our report to Parliament. And our committee will call the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister before Parliament. We will tell them to resolve the disputes as soon as possible. We'll ask them why it is being delayed. What's the problem that's stopping them from taking action?

A statement issued by the foreign ministry stated that the ministry “completely refutes” news published today on Naya Patrika vernacular daily which has quoted foreign minister Sahana Pradhan as telling at the parliamentary agriculture and cooperatives committee on Tuesday:  “Don’t say encroachment otherwise India would be angry”.

The statement further adds that the same news has quoted the foreign ministry spokesman “while he was not invited at the (parliamentary) committee meeting.”

Similarly, the foreign ministry has also refuted news published in today’s edition of the Rajdhani daily that quoted the foreign minister as saying that the situation (at Susta) is such as that police and army need to be mobilised.

“As this not true, the foreign ministry expresses its serious objection to it,” the statement added.

The foreign ministry statement also ask the media to “remember” that the parliamentary foreign affairs committee suggestion that words “border problem” should be used instead of “encroachment” during last Monday’s meeting.

The foreign ministry “appeals to all concerned to write articles cautiously on the sensitive issues” since publishing news in an exaggerated manner with invented quotes would “create confusions and adversely affect cordial relations existing between the two nations.”