At long last, the government has reportedly formed a technical team under the leadership of the former Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority chief commissioner Suryanath Upadhyay to look into the Lipulekh Pass controversy and submit its recommendation to the government. However, there is a conspicuous absence of any former foreign ministry officials, with experience on border issues, in the team. Be that as it may, this is a timely step. The efforts of the relevant Consituent Assembly (CA) committees, the media and independent experts to keep this issue alive is no less admirable. As a result, an informed public is demanding for a quick and appropriate government intervention. Given the mounting public clamour, it is fair to assume that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) might have already been discreetly in communication with both New Delhi and Beijing.

A sensitive issue

In a globalised world it is often said that the three key foreign policy agendas for all the countries are border, development and ecology.  Border issues are the most vital among the three. A border is not just a territorial demarcation between and among nations that denotes territorial integrity, it is also a powerful symbol of a country’s sovereignty, independence, national pride and identity. As much as the national flag, it symbolises the life and soul of the people of that country.  Many wars in the past were waged just to defend the flag and the border.  Yet lingering border disputes across the world still pose a potential risk for fresh inter-state conflicts. Many say that borders are like  a mound of explosives, on top of which rests country’s sovereignty. The slightest of provocations can cause the mound to ignite.  Clearly, such a sensitive issue does not lend itself to an easy solution. No amount of pressure or persuasive diplomacy will help.  Instead, the situation demands sustained negotiation backed by evidence and   pursued with diplomatic discreetness.

The long unresolved border issue between India and China should serve as an example in the Lipulekh context. The two countries may seem amicably engaged in mutually beneficial development issues, but their border issues remain unresolved and deeply disputed, despite decades of diplomatic efforts. We also must view our border disputes with India, including the present  ‘Lipulekh Pass’ controversy, against these hardnosed diplomatic realities.

Nepal has always claimed the whole area starting from Kalapani to Limpiadhura (about 372 sqkm), which also includes Lipulekh Pass, as its legitimate territory, while India has consistently denied this. As a result, the Kalapani issue remains a disputed one regardless of efforts at various levels between the two governments. Much has been already said and written about why the controversy has arisen once again. But it has to be clear to everyone that it is not at all a politically motivated issue, as some half-baked Indian writers would have liked us to believe. Hence, historical facts, treaties, agreements, maps and other evidences will have a bigger role to play in this issue. Other than that, a small country like Nepal must understand that big countries will always try to fulfill their vested interest. And this also makes it more important for Nepal to take a cautious approach.

Inequitable world The world of ours is full of contradictions, inequalities and, at times, sheer anomalies, and international relations management is not immune to these contradictions. From the unequal and anomalous membership in the UN Security Council, to the selective application of human rights norms and standards, the big, rich and powerful countries have always displayed double standards. One can see how soon countries change positions and stance when it comes to protecting their own national interest. Also, the lack of moral ethics displayed by many INGOs, which have been pampered by rich countries, including UN agencies, during the post-quake relief distribution period in our country also serves to sufficiently highlight the practice of this double standard.  

Look north

In light of these contradictory practices, at this critical juncture, a pragmatic approach to the Lipulekh Pass issue would be the best approach to adopt. The country is in deep distress at the moment. It is slowly limping back on its feet from the devastating consequences of the three powerful quakes and numerous aftershocks. We have to rebuild anew what has already been devastated and destroyed, and for that the help of our immediate neighbours is necessary.

Being pragmatic in this regard would mean, among others, not to rush but to exercise patience, prudence and diplomatic discreetness. Perhaps this is also the time to look to China, so as to make a serious inquiry about how and why this ‘palpable change of behaviour’ came about in our northern neighbour with regards to this issue. Losing China’s trust could be our biggest diplomatic defeat. Losing the ‘all-weather’ friendship we share with China might have several far-reaching implications, both strategic and tactical, for the country. Among others, it could further embolden India to harden its position on the issues of Kalapani and Lipulekh.

With historical facts, available information and various past understandings at its disposal, the MoFA must try to persuade and convince China that the Lipulekh Pass stands as a disputed area between Nepal and India and, therefore, that China should refrain from enforcing its recent bilateral agreement with India on this regard. This is indeed a tall task, but this is what diplomats are meant to do. Meanwhile, care must be taken to not allow this issue to snowball further so that it does not hamper our growing economic engagement and interaction with the two neighbours.

Thapa is a former chief of protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs