Nepal House deletes new map; unsustainable, says India | India News
In a strongly worded statement after Nepal’s lower house unanimously approved the constitutional amendment on Saturday, MEA spokesman Anurag Shrivastava said: “This artificial expansion of claims is not based on historical facts or evidence and is not sustainable. It is also a violation of our current understanding of holding talks on pending border issues. ”
For the second time in five years, the India-Nepal relationship is heading for a train accident. As the KP Sharma Oli government in Kathmandu He directed a constitutional amendment to Annex 3 of the constitution to update the national emblem by incorporating Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani on the map of Nepal, bilateral relations sank to a new low. Saying that India had already clarified its position, India told Nepal that it would refuse to hold border talks with Nepal after the adoption of this amendment.
Nepal’s Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali tweeted this afternoon: “The House of Representatives unanimously adopted the Constitution Amendment Bill, paving the way to accommodate the updated political-administrative map on the national emblem.”
Nepal’s Samajwadi party president Upendra Yadav even called for the Mahakali Treaty to be amended. Nepalese President Agni Sapkota also rejected the only amendment proposal registered by socialist parliamentarian Sarita Giri in the draft amendment to the Constitution. The legislation will now go to the National Assembly for approval, which is expected to happen without a problem.
The Indian government has maintained a studied silence on the matter after the MEA declared last week that India would not accept unilateral changes to the map of Nepal. In fact, this week, the government emphasized “close and civilizational” ties between the two countries.
On Saturday, the head of the Indian Army, General MM Naravane also softened his stance on Nepal, saying: “We have a very strong relationship with Nepal. We have geographic, cultural, historical, religious ties. We have very strong people to connect people. Our relationship with them has always been strong and will continue to be so in the future. ” General Naravane’s comment a couple of weeks ago that Nepal was raising opposition to the Kalapani on “someone else’s orders” was generally considered to have been the trigger for the outbreak of Nepali Prime Minister Oli. In fact, that comment also raised objections among Nepal’s armed forces, which have generally kept a low profile in the growing dispute.
In recent days, sources say there has been some dismay in Nepal regarding India’s continued silence on the matter. India has refused to hold talks with Nepal while the Oli government pushed for the constitutional amendment. “We will not speak with a sword over our heads,” sources said here.
China is a favorite villain of the piece here, but this may be an exaggerated threat.
The unfortunate reality, according to government sources, is that India believes that Nepal’s Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli wants to fundamentally transform ties with India.
Oli has successfully rejected India, twice won elections in the teeth of the Indian opposition, giving him virtually invincible nationalist credentials.
Added to this is that his communist policy blends better with China, allowing him to use his deeper pockets to offset Indian influence, as well as being a bargaining chip with India. The Modi government has made much of Nepal’s Hindus a natural “fit” with India. Neither Oli nor the younger generation in Nepal really see it in this light. This frequently leads to crossover cables between the two countries. Oli has used the boundary problem with India brilliantly, both to save himself politically and to build distance with India.
Nepal waived all claims to territories west of the Kali River under the Sugauli Treaty (Article V) of 1815.
In 1817, Nepal claimed the area and demanded the return of the villages of Tinkar, Chhangru, Nabhi, and Kuthi. Laying east of Kali, the first two were returned to Nepal. But the Governor-General of India rejected their claim on Nabhi and Kuthi while they were west of Kali. The issue of the source of the Kali River was also resolved by the same ruling.
Nepal’s current claims are also inconsistent with its own border deal with China, where current territorial sovereignty is maintained. In fact, India has repeatedly accused Nepal of invading Indian territory in the Narsahi and Susta areas of Bihar “by establishing its own population and through various construction activities.”
In fact, on Wednesday, three weeks after declaring a new administrative and political map, the Nepalese government formed a nine-member team of experts to collect historical facts and evidence related to Nepalese ownership of the Kalapani and Susta areas. This shows, according to Indian sources, that even the Nepalese consider this new statement to be unreliable.