Kathmandu, Foreign Minister Pradip Kumar Gyawali informed the Standing Committee meeting of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) on Friday that India had rejected Nepal's repeated requests for talks. According to Minister Gyawali, Nepal has repeatedly ignored formal and informal efforts to hold talks on border encroachment.
Since last Kartik, India has been using Nepal's excuse for talks under various pretexts. As soon as the Survey of India released the political maps of the eighth and ninth editions of India, it responded to the 'diplomatic note' sent by Nepal only after the proposed negotiation date was postponed. Officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs say that India did not turn a blind eye to the proposal to hold talks with the Indian ambassador on the issue of road construction by encroaching on Nepali land in the last week of April.
Is the government led by Narendra Modi, which claims to have adopted 'neighbor first' diplomacy, running away from the talks with Nepal? "The main reason is that the leaders can be persuaded no matter how much they protest outside," said Dinesh Bhattarai, a foreign affairs expert. "I don't think the talks with Nepal are important."
Lately, he has been saying that it is not 'Nepal' but 'Nepali leadership' that needs to create an atmosphere for dialogue. Bhattarai's analysis is that this also shows that Indians can persuade their leaders.
Lack of evidence
The Nepali side has been saying that the Kali River, which is the source of Limpiyadhura, is a border river based on dozens of evidences including the Sugauli Treaty. Even the issuance of administrative and political maps of Nepal on the basis of historical facts and evidence may be due to lack of evidence.
When it comes to the Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulek areas, this evidence seems to be arguing that the area is important to India for reasons other than ours. KV Rajan, the ambassador of the Mahakali Treaty to Nepal, said, "There is no need to dispute over the British-era treaty and the map."
Former Ambassador Hiranya Lal Shrestha claims that he does not want to sit in talks with India without proof. He says, "He tried to delay the talks by saying that Nepal would destroy the treaty, the map and other evidence."
According to Shrestha, the Sugauli Treaty is like a red card for Nepal. "We have enough evidence, but that doesn't mean we should be left unprepared," he said.
Impact of Nepali compatibility
All political parties seem to be in agreement on the issue of border crossing. After the dispute arose, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli convened an all-party consensus. Parliament unanimously passed the Constitution Amendment Bill. While the Indian National Congress party has criticized Modi for not informing the opposition about what is happening in Nepal.
India has not given much importance to the talks at this time, seeing that the 'divide and rule' policy will fail when all the parties are united. It is his old custom to do things in his own interest when internal conflicts erupt.
India has said that it will hold talks with Nepal after the epidemic of Novel Corona Virus (Kovid-19), but India has immediately entered into talks with China. The United States and Britain have said they will mediate in the conflict between India and China.
For those so-called influential countries to move forward for mediation is not to side with the two conflicting countries. India's non-alignment with big countries is also an international advantage for Nepal.
After Nepal made public the map to Limpiyadhura, Lipulek was no longer a trilateral point. In this sense, Limpiadhura is a triangular point. China's participation seems necessary to determine that point. At this time, when the three countries are in talks, the Indians also fear that China will support Nepal.
Strategy to provoke Nepalis
Ektheri's analysis is that India has to provoke Nepalis in a planned manner as historical documents and evidence are not in its favor. The presentation of Indian media is an example of that.
A diplomat suspects that the anti-Nepal elements are against Janata Samajwadi Party MP Sarita Giri, who did not vote in favor of amending the constitution. "It looks like a nationalist but inwardly they are waiting for an activity that will benefit India," he said. Without Corona, the Andhra nationalists would have done the same thing. '
Former Ambassador Shrestha says that India has adopted a policy of exhausting, dissolving and diverting people after failing to divide Nepalis. He says, "We should be able to keep up the pressure to negotiate by talking about Gurkha recruitment."
It is clear that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs is dominated by the bureaucracy. The ministry is headed by a former employee. Due to the nature of the bureaucracy that employs the big ones and gives instructions to the small ones, India has not been able to see a sovereign country like Nepal in terms of potential.
Dinesh Bhattarai, an expert on foreign affairs, said that Nepal's foreign policy has reached a 'heard and seen' stage and the government still needs to work hard. He says, "It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to bring back the encroached territory by showing real diplomatic skills."
After the Chinese People's Liberation Army fought its troops from the sidelines, India immediately agreed to sit down for talks. This also shows that India will not sit in talks unless Nepal compels it.
Former Foreign Minister Dr. Bhes Bahadur Thapa says that lack of communication is not in the interest of India either. He emphasized the need to find a way out of the crisis through diplomatic talks. Thapa, a former ambassador to India, said, "Confusion based on silence is not in the interest of both countries."
No comments:
Post a Comment