Birendra P Mishra, Kathmandu. Presently, Nepal and India are fighting two battles at a time. The first is to combat the Covid-19 pandemic internally. The second is their cartographic standoff the area of about 335sq.km in northern western borders of Nepal. However, India has the third front in the Galwan valley in Ladakh in the form of a face-off with China since May, 2020. Significantly, the number of covid-19 cases is increasing daily in both countries. In the mean time, Nepal seems to have strengthened its claim over the disputed area by amending its constitution to incorporate the area in its political map, which was shown on the Indian map released in November 2019.
Historically, the disputed area of land was under Nepalese occupation since Nepal conquered Kumayun. The Gorkha king Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of modern Nepal, annexed small kingdoms and moved towards east with an eye to Kathmnadu, where as his successors extended the border of Nepal up to river Satlej in the west after capturing Kumayun in 1791 and Gadhwal in 1804. However, under the Treaty of Sugauli in 1816, it had to withdraw from its western border and had to limit is boundaries with river Kali as its western frontier.
Interestingly, though Kali river remained the western border of Nepal as per the treaty of Sugauli, it seems that the British did not handover actual possession of land to Nepal and kept its ownership on some portions of the land east of Kali as these areas were under the province of Kumayun. The story carried by the vernacular daily Naya Patrika published in Kathmandu on 24 May 2020 refers to the letter dated 4 February 1817 written by the acting Chief Secretary of the Government of British East India Company to the British ambassador in Kathmandu. The letter states, “ …a claim prepared by the Chautrea ( Bum Shah) to that portion of the Pergunnah of Beasse (Byas), which lies East of the Kali and which is at present in the occupation of the British Government, as an appendage of the province of Kumaoon.” Accepting the Nepalese claim he also wrote to the acting Commissioner of Kumaaoon to surrender the land to Nepal. In the latter dated 22 March 1817 he writes, “ … the occupation of the Villages and lands of Pergunnah Byaus on that side of the river, having taken place under erroneous view of the questions, they must now be transferred to Nipaulese, however desirous, the British Government may be to retain under its own away( sic) the Zamindars and Inhabitants of those villages.” The office copies of these two letters are preserved in the British Museum Library, London. ( Naya Patrika, 24 May, 2020.). Referring Buddhi Narayan Shresth, the former DG of Survey department, Naya Patika writes that the maps(1827) showing Limpiyadhura as the originating point of Kali river are available in different museum libraries in America and China. It quotes DG Shrestha further that however in 1879 British India published another map that depicted Kuti, Navi, and Gunji in Indian territories.
The references cited above indicate that Bias area was under Kumayun province of India before the treaty of Sugauli was signed. The British officials were obliged to handover to Nepal under the provision of the treaty with no map attached. But the last line of the letter dated 22 March 1817 appears to be vague as it suggests that Zamindars and Inhabitants to be retained under the British rule, if it so desires. Interestingly, the two maps, published in 1827 and 1879 issued by British India seem to have created the complications. Does the first map suggest that though the treaty provided for the portion of land east of Kali River to Nepal, no physical possession of the land was provided to Nepal? Perhaps, the British drew the map of 1879 on the basis of the possession of the land. Significantly, the publications of the maps further complicate the dispute, as these were published by the British India and now Nepal has to deal with Independent India. Legally, Nepal’s argument is based on the Treaty of Sugauli and the map published based on it, where as India argues on the basis of the map published in 1879 much later. Curiously, there is a gap of193 years from the first map and now. Similarly, there is the gap of 141 years between the map of 1879 and now. Nepal has been collecting land revenue from that area and had conducted census in 1963. (2018 B.S.) If Nepal has more relevant papers covering the gaps, it would definitely strengthen its stand on the dialogue table. Otherwise, the entire endeavour may be fruitless.
Recently, the Indian electronic media is providing significant information on the dispute. A former Deputy Commissioner of Almora writes, “ To eastablish the boundary, the Deputy Commissioner of Almora would each year travel to the Lipulekh Pass to open trade… The first Settlement, under the British government of Beckett between 1863-1873, measured each cultivated field, reiterated this, and, The Himalayan Gazetteer points out, was used to input local names into the map prepared by the Survey of India, correcting earlier sketchy maps.”(The Hindu, June 23, 2020.)
Significantly, the area of land under dispute is uninhabitable half of a year, might have been a useful for the trade of British India had with Tibet, suddenly became useful and strategic land for independent India. It is useful for traveling up to Mansarover and strategic after 1962 when it had border conflict with China. The possession of the land has now become a national issue for Nepal and it wants to get back the land from the Indian military possession at the earliest, as it hurts its nationalism.
Nepal has been raising the issue with India from time to time and theses two countries had dialogues also in the past but no agreement could be reached, as Nepal’s stand was based on the Treaty of Sugauli, where as India claimed it on the basis of 1879 map. Though the government is pressurized by different quarters to have serious dialogue with India, the question remains: unless these two sides determine to dilute their stands, could any consensus be reached to sort out the differences? It has become difficult for Nepal now to dilute its claim after amending the constitution. Since India had buckled down to the Nepalese pressures on withdrawing military posts in 1970 from the Chinese boarder and on closing its camp office in Biratnagar in 2018, can it dilute its claim one-sidedly to settle the dispute amicably and retreat ?.
