Page 1 of 22
574
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 2
Publication Date: February 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.82.9729.
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
8(2) 573-594.
Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means
Professor Bishnu Pathak
A Board Member of TRANSCEND University and a former Senior Commissioner at the Commission
of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), Nepal. Dr. Pathak has been a Noble
Peace prize nominee each year from 2013 for his noble finding of Peace-Conflict Lifecycle, similar
to the ecosystem. He holds a Ph.D. in Conflict Transformation and Human Rights. He can be
reached at ciedpnp@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Nepo is a prefix appellation of Nepal. This study is a review that
connects with disputed Kalapani area. And it interacts with the
concerned actors/institutions motivating for change professed through
fundamental transformation by dialogical means. Its objectives are
three-fold: (i) to examine the Nepo-India territorial dispute; (ii) to
analyse the voices of all Tracks; and (iii) to find-out ways of dispute
transformation through Dialogue Track. The lessons-learned centric
approach inspired the author to undertake this study. The paper is
prepared based on archival research with author’s over 100
international publications tracking snow-ball techniques. Dialogue
shares possible transformative ways for negotiation. Any dispute
leaves the most significant impact – victimizes the people at the local
levels (Dialogue Track 3) the most. Grassroots people are honestly
guided by ‘social service is the best philanthropic work of life’ and
voluntarily participate in resolving the local dispute. Dialogue Track 2
is an unarmed peacekeeping or watchdog body which belongs to the
leaders of professionals at the provincial levels. It connects between
Track 1 and Track 3 dimensions. Dialogue Track 1 is the ambitious,
complex and supreme authoritative body to hold official dialogue and
transform the dispute signing negotiation. The dialogue transforms
3ds (difference, denial and divergence) of dispute in the new form ‘just’
by peaceful means. India adopts 4ds (delay, deny, dilute and deceive)
strategies for dialogue in the lack of required testimonies. World’s
largest democratic country India isolates itself in this region as it has
territorial disputes with all the adjoining neighbours in the absence of
sincere dialogue. Therefore, it is high time India sorted out the fault
lines in its democracy.
Keywords: Kalapani, Dialogue, Nepo-India, China, Territorial Dispute,
Transformation and Peaceful Means.
INTRODUCTION
Nepo, carrying linguistic and ethnological meanings, is a prefix appellation of Nepal. Nepo
embraces unique Nepalese customs, rich cultural features and distinctive traditional heritages.
Likewise, Nepo customs emerge from the Hindu-Buddhist civilizations and societies. Nepo
Page 2 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 575
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
cultures encompass diversities belonging to 125 distinct ethnic, tribal and social groups. As such,
Nepo is an adaptation of diverse religions and beliefs. Thus, Nepo originates secular religions,
diverse races, varied regions (Tarai-Madhes, Hills and Mountains) and different castes-ethnicities.
All these castes-ethnicities are unique in themselves because of distinct cultural rites, rituals,
songs, music, dances and cuisines. And some of them in Nepo have explicit identity connection
with the inhabitants of the territorial values.
A territorial dispute occurs when official Government representative of one country release
explicit statement(s) claiming sovereignty and integrity over a specific portion of territory that is
claimed or administered by another country (Mitchell, May 26, 2016). It is an explicit contention
between two or more nation-states over a specific piece of the terrestrial territory. The Issue
Correlates of War (ICOW) Project identifies over 800 territorial disputes occurred internationally
since 1816 (www.paulhensel.org/icowterr.html). Such disputes lead several types of diplomatic
arguments including boundary, river, maritime, identity, economic and cultural, among others.
Countries of adjoining borders are more likely to fight armed conflicts or wars with each other
having disagreements over specific pieces of land territory than non-contiguous States. This study
focuses more on the contiguous border dispute of Kalapani area, initiated by India on November 2,
2019 (Giri, November 4, 2019) administrating a new cartographic map. The political interference
by India created anti-India sentiments in Nepal (Nayak, 2012) which further augmented Nepo- India territorial dispute. Territorial dispute changes the personal (feeling or perception),
relational (person-person, group-person, group-group), structural (regional, international,
political and legal) and socio-cultural (values and identities) multi-dimensional behaviour.
A number of published books provide overviews of territorial disputes that caused armed conflict
or war in the past few decades. J. Day covers a total of 80 contemporary borders and territorial
disputes in the world (November 16, 1987). Kalevi J Holsti (1991) presented data of wars for
several centuries. Similarly, John B. Allcock discusses the work of border and territorial disputes
(November 1, 1992). Likewise, Paul K. Huth (1996) develops a theory having the management of
territorial disputes. Paul R. Hensel reviews the literature of border, territorial disputes and wars
(2000). Harvey Starr argues the geographical as well as spatial features of border disputes
(2005). John A. Vasquez reviews the quantitative causes of war focusing more on territorial
disputes (2009). Mitchell and Hensel (2010) overview the world politics and disputes along with
datasets. In addition, Monica Duffy Toft (2014) summarizes the literatures on territorial disputes,
civil wars and interstate conflicts.
Territorial disputes often raise for natural resources, for instance fertile farmland, rivers, minerals
and fuel resources among others as well as religion, culture and identities. It has not been new
phenomenon in the world; it has been a long, but ever-changing dimension. There are over 150
disputes underway across the globe. Territorial disputes occur from sovereign States to
dependent territories or Pyrenean countries, developing to developed world. Some disputes are
long simmering like Jammu-Kashmir (Conant, March 28, 2014), but boiling points are Crimea
(Conant, March 6, 2014) and Taiwan Strait (Bush, 2006). A few are on the distant horizon like
Antarctica and some other boiling points are: Ladakha, Golan Heights and West Bank, East China
Sea and Kalapani.
Page 3 of 22
576
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
Transformation is an act, process and example of transforming or being transformed
(www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transformation). Perceiving transformation as a radical
change, Gass (2012) said that “Transformation is profound, fundamental change, altering the
very nature of something.” As such, transformation is a change, but not all changes are
transformation. It changes the form (appearance), context (system/structure), nature, degree,
behaviour, understanding (perception) and attitude. Transformation is a complete change in the
appearance or character of something or someone
(dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/transformation). Transformation is the creation and
change of a whole new form, function or structure that has never existed before and could not be
predicted from the past. Therefore, transformation is a change in mind-set (Daszko & Sheinberg,
April 2017). Transformational changes depend upon individuals to organizations, families to
communities, districts to regions and intra-States to Inter-States dimensions.
Veteran peace academician Johan Galtung’s theory of peaceful conflict transformation is one of
the most significant achievements of traditional peacemaking in this universe (Pathak et al,
January 18, 2016). Johan Galtung has developed TRANSCEND method for transformation of
conflict or violence by peaceful means (Galtung, 2000) through confidence building, reciprocity
relations and identification of gap (Pathak, August 29, 2016). India’s territorial disputes
transformation to Nepal is not an easy task as it started before the signing of the Sugauli Treaty in
March 1816.
On May 8, 2020, Indian Defense Minister, Rajnath Singh, inaugurated an 80 km (50 miles) newly
constructed Lipulekh Pass (Ethirajan, June 10, 2020) link road to Mt. Kailash Mansarovar (the
most sacred Mountain for the religions of Buddhist and Hindu, situated in Tibet) Route Yatra to
reduce travel time for the Indian Hindu pilgrims. The connectivity of the road was aimed at
strengthening India’s defense supply lines and facilitating smooth passage for pilgrims to Kailash
Mansarovar (Muni, May 22, 2020). The territorial disputes intensified between the two great
neighbours as Nepal claimed Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura belonged to of its own
territory lying in Darchula district (Giri, May 8, 2020 & Thapa, May 13, 2020). As a result, Nepal
published a new politico-administrative map including Kalapani area and unanimously amended
it even in the Constitution of Nepal.
The Nepo-India dispute was triggered on November 2, 2019 when a new Official Politico- Administrative map was issued by India’s Home Ministry changing the status of Jammu and
Kashmir into a Union Territory. Similarly, Kalapani area was also included into the map; it created
ruckus in Nepal (Dixit & Dhakal, May 19, 2020). The inclusion of Nepal’s Kalapani, Lipulekh Pass
and Limpiyadhura areas into the map resulted in the wave of protests in all tiers - central,
provincial and local levels – against India. Nepal asked for Foreign Secretary-level talks sending
three notes on November 20, 22 and December 30, 2019 but Kathmandu got no response from
India (Mehta, June 26, 2020). When offending map issue was simmering, Nepal became furious
when Defense Minister Rajnath Singh virtually inaugurated a link-road connecting to the border
with China, at the Lipulekh Pass (Xavier, June 11, 2020).
On May 15, 2015, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and His counterpart Li Keqiang of China
agreed to expand border trade through the Lipulekh Pass in Beijing. The 28th point of the Joint
Page 4 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 577
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
Communiqué states, “The two sides agreed to hold negotiation on augmenting the list of traded
commodities and expand the border trade at the Lipulekh Pass” (Shrestha, June 22, 2015).
As Nepal claims Lipulekh to be a part of its territory, a far Western part of Nepal, both India and
China needed to attain Nepal’s consent to expand the border trade. On May 15, 2015, the
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Sitaram Yechury denounced the Joint Communiqué of
China and India stating that both countries should have consulted Nepal prior to deciding on the
trade to Tibet and connectivity plan to Mansarovar (The Kathmandu Post, June 11, 2015).
A vast majority of conscious people of both the nations press the Government of India to initiate
indirect-direct (through mediators or facilitators) dialogue and informal-formal dialogue teams,
but the possibility of Nepo-India talk seems bleak owing to India’s lack of historical facts and
testimonies.
Whatsoever, India stated that the Foreign Secretaries level dialogue would be held after the
COVID-2019 crisis (Sinha & Thakur, June 9, 2020). Therefore, the Indian counterpart seemed
reluctant to discuss with Nepal during the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, PM Modi conducted
virtual diplomatic talks with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Bhattacharya, June 17,
2020) and Australian counterpart Scott Morrison (PTI, June 4, 2020) recently. On June 6, 2020,
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar (former bureaucrat, but pro-American) also
held virtual phone calls to the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi for disengagement and de- escalation of wars between them (BBC, June 25, 2020).
After having depicted the general scenario, it should now be clear that the general objective of
the paper is to observe the patterns of possible dialogues in all levels. The Specific Objectives are
to briefly examine the existing situations of Nepo-India territorial disputes; to listen to the
voices of commoners, civil society, intellectuals and leaders of both countries and analyse them;
and to find-out ways of disputes transformation by peaceful means focusing to Dialogue
Triangle. The author's reflections are gained either through literature review or exchanging and
sharing approach rather than theoretical conception.
Therefore, this state-of-the-art paper is pursued based on the archival research with lessons- learned centric conception following the network tracking method or snowball techniques. The
pioneer paper may help to enhance Nepo-India relations in Track 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3 Dialogue
Triangle to create pressure for the formation of Official Dialogue Team towards resolving the
territorial disputes permanently through negotiation for the sake of harmony, justice and dignity.
TERRITORIAL DISPUTES TRANSFORMATION BY DIALOGUE MEANS
Two of the world’s closest and contiguous neighbours, Nepal and India are locked in a diplomatic,
socio-cultural, cartographic, economic and to an extent, political dimensions. It is claimed that
there are 78 places of border encroachments done by India on Nepal’s territories whereas 17
places of India by Nepal. Among them, one of the disputes generally occurs over the ownership of
335 sq km of land called Kalapani area near Nepal’s western tri-junction border with India and
China (Muni, May 22, 2020). It has not yet outlined the origination of the Mahakali River, but the
Treaty of Sugauli mentions, “Kali is the western border of Nepal with India” (Roychowdhury, June
13, 2020).
Page 5 of 22
578
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
The issue of Kalapani was focused primarily regarding the establishment of the Indian military
posts. Nepal remained virtually unnoticed the Kalapani area and military posts from 1960 to 1997.
In September 1998, the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist), Nepali Congress and
Rastriya Prajatantra Party coalition Government reached an agreement on the main issues of
bilateral negotiations with India. The agreement had been:
“(1) all border disputes, including Kalapani, will be resolved through talks with India;
(2) these talks will also include a discussion of the 1950 Nepal-India security treaty,
which most Nepalis would prefer to have modified or even cancelled (political leaders
in the Tarai are the main exceptions); (3) NC-UML Government is preparing a report
on the Mahakali Treaty that deals with the development and distribution of
hydropower and water resources in the major river systems in their border areas. A
broad range of talks began in late 1998. A new Nepal-India transit treaty, which
incorporates most of the points Nepal had raised with New Delhi, is expected in early
1999” (Rose, 1999).
Deputy Prime Minister Bamdev Gautam raised a question of Indian control over Kalapani while
the then Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral had been in a three-day state visit to Nepal from June
5 to 7, 1997 (Dhungel & Pun, 2009). Accepting the Nepo-India contentious issue over Kalapani,
former PM Gujaral stated that existing disputes of border territory between Nepal and Indian
would be resolved through a Joint Working Group of the Indo-Nepal Joint Technical Committee
(Prakash, May 22, 2020 & Parashar, May 19, 2020). He further stated that if the Committee report
concluded that the Kalapani area belongs to Nepal, India will withdraw from there immediately.
Considering the problems of southern territory and portion of eastern and western segments, the
Government of Nepal sent diplomatic note to India to formulate a Nepo-India Joint Border
Inspection Mechanism which would keep the boundary clear and intact. After a decade long
consultation and dialogue and a series of joint meetings, Nepo-India Joint Technical Level
Boundary Committee (JTBC) was finally established in November 1981. On September 11, 1999,
while Jaswant Singh, Indian External Affairs Minister was visiting Kathmandu, a Joint
Communiqué was issued mentioning the problem of Kalapani area. They instructed the JTBC to
analyse the historical facts and testimonies in an efficient manner for the demarcation of the
western sectors including the area of Kalapani and directed to complete their works on time. The
JTBC used boundary maps based on the Sugauli Treaty that were accepted by both the countries.
The JTBC worked for 26 years and completed 98 percent of the boundary works before it was
dissolved in January 2008 (Baral, December 2019). The remaining 2 percent of the border works
(merely 37 km) included barren snow-covered rocks including Kalapani (17 km) and lowlands
Susta (20 km) owing to differences of opinions and other basic materials.
The JTBC prepared 182 sheets of strip maps of their border excluding the disputed areas of Susta
and Kalapani (Giri, May 11, 2020). The JTBC could not materialize the works on time because of
India’s divergence opinions on border demarcations and disputes on certain segments. Even
though, the dispute with China on Sagarmatha was settled through dialogue and ended while the
visiting Prime Minister Chou En-Lai made a statement in Kathmandu on April 28, 1960 stating
that “Sagarmatha belongs to Nepal” (Shrestha, January 17, 2010).
Page 6 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 579
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
In the course of dispute transformation by dialogue means, this study further illustrates into the
Dialogue Triangle. Dialogue, written or spoken between or among two or more people, exchanges
personal or institutional views. Dialogue is thinking, speaking and acting together. Dialogue is a
part of democratic culture. The fundamental basis of democratic culture is to uplift the small,
fragile, weak and poor ones. Democratic culture defines the desire and ability of individuals to
participate actively, individually and together on public affairs
(http://fundfordemocraticculture.org/democratic-culture/).
It is a kind of collective decision construction for dynamic and practical contribution. Democratic
culture is not to intimidate the country accelerating the voices of the army or an armed troop. The
guru mantra of democracy is that any crisis must be resolved and transformed through dialogue.
For this specific purpose, it is necessary to know the truth, facts, figures and evidence that are
close to the problems or conflicting issues. Apart from that, the formal arguments of the pros and
cons should be collected, observed, listened and analysed carefully and collectively.
The present Nepo-India standoff can be resolved to create a conducive environment for Dialogue.
Nepo-India needs to settle or transform the territorial dispute by means of semi-structured and
Page 7 of 22
580
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
structured dialogue and dialogical dialogue through preactive and proactive leadership. Dialogue
is not just about presenting evidence and testimonies between the teams of both nations; it is an
occasion to identify the problems and challenges facing by each other nation and exchange and
share the possible transformative ways forward of dialogue and negotiation (agreement). The
Dialogue provides an additional opportunity for policymakers, think tanks, academics and
business leaders to engage in fresh policy matter and innovative solutions (Dahiya & Singh, 2015).
The desire of any Government is to bring or restore peace, tranquility and harmony on the course
to protect each other nation’s interest and desire of citizens. Just peace and harmony lie at the
apex of the triangle on the Pyramid. A pyramid is a triangular base-structure of outer surfaces, and
sloping sides connect in a point at the top (see above Triangle). The Dialogue process follows the
bottom-up approach starting from Dialogue Tracks 3 (people to people and people at grassroots)
to Track 2 (regional or provincial leaders) and then Track 1 (top-most elites or central leaders).
Dialogue Track 3
The Dialogue Track 3 adopts people-to-people (individuals, families and other groups) talks at
grassroots or grassroots-level. A great number of people live in villages, communities and spend
their normal lives. Some of these people know what is happening in the country. However, they
are well aware of what is happening in the neighbours, what problems they are facing on. All the
people living on the cross-border or each other’s nations are well aware of the current Nepo-India
bitterness. However, many of them do not know why this happened. Although they are the citizens
of two different countries, they have Roji, Roti and Beti (employment, bread and daughter)
relations. There is no wall as a boundary at the Nepo-India border; no visa is required for such
transnational citizens. Anyone can easily enter one another country areas whenever and wherever
they want throughout about 2,000 km long porous border. Cross-border people support,
participate and celebrate each other functions in every sorrow, festival and happiness. It is very
hard to find such close socio-cultural family ties in other neighbouring countries in the world. It is
a certainty that the great majority of the people and their pressure having the Kalapani and other
Nepo-India territorial disputes shall make a significant contribution to transform the present-day
crisis and minimize the un-trust between the Governments of two nations.
Thus, the Dialogue Track 3 focuses for the peacebuilding (see Box I) preactive and proactive
initiatives through community dialogue, peace education and exchanging and sharing the feelings
of cross-border at local levels. Such initiatives shall need to support by the Community Based
Organizations (CBOs), local NGOs and other local offices. Grassroots people and community are
the foundation of the nation as well as political parties. More than that, transnational people at
local levels easily identify and accept the gap between rhetoric and reality and understand the
dispute through the innocent and honest manners. The non-ambitious nature of local people helps
to transform any problems by peaceful means. Such people are ready to deliver social justice at all
the times and want to make a good history even after death through their benevolent
performances in a life-time. It means, there is no zest and zeal fulfilment of their own interest,
rather happily and actively and selflessly participate in peacebuilding works in grassroots as much
as they can.
Transnational people easily participate in grassroots due to their strong family and socio-cultural
bonds. Such bonds tie unconditional empathy and altruism. Sometimes, they need some technical
Page 8 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 581
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
knowledge on advocacy, networking and campaign having territorial dispute transformation by
the help of CBOs and NGOs. In local levels, reconciliation is a primary tool of togetherness, justice
by non-violent means and transforms the structural and cultural differences or conflicts through
dialogue.
Box-I
Peacemaking, Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding
Peacemaking: Peacemaking is the process of bringing peace and justice reconciling
opponents. It, in general, assists the top-level body in policy-making (Track 1) body. The
policy-making body either forms informal (third-party involvement) or formal State-level
dialogue team. Dialogue team is an official process of brokering peace talks and negotiation.
The policy-making body has an authority involving a third-party as facilitators or mediators.
Peacemaking process builds the pressure to all concerned institutions and actors as
necessary. It aims to conclude dispute or violence by peaceful means. It formally contributes
to ending disputes bringing the hostile groups or disputants to a negotiated table. The
negotiation ultimately concludes the violence or dispute through signing an agreement for
the sake to restore peace and harmony ensuring truth, justice, reparation, non-recurrence
and vetting. Peacemaking reconciles the violence or dispute with a full intention of resolving
or transforming it without further arguments happens or delays. Reconciliation is a part of
restorative and transformative justices and follows non-restrictive, politico-legal, diplomatic
and judicial measures. Peacemaking may also need Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding
functions to accomplish its tasks.
Peacekeeping: Rather Peacekeeping is monitoring and enforcing truce or agreement by
force for not to destroy one another conflicting party; Peacekeeping (Track 2), herewith, is an
intermediary unarmed unofficial active caring process between nations. It lies between the
Peacebuilding (Track 3) and Peacemaking (Track 1) to restore peace, justice and harmony.
Peacekeeping assists to promote conducive environment enhancing mutual relationship,
exchanging and sharing experiences between the disputants. It assists in reducing the
civilian, political as well as territorial dispute introducing the informal activities for
normalizing the existed and being argued situations. It presses the disputant nations to bring
at the negotiating tables identifying the possible common agendas and collecting evidence
and testimonies. It informally observes the entire dialogue processes and suggests them
accordingly. It also requires a few supports of Peacemaking and Peacebuilding activities.
Peacebuilding: Peacebuilding is a transformation of injustice introducing nonviolent activity.
It is a new and broader phenomenon of a continuous process to restore the culture of justice,
maintaining peace and tranquillity. The initiative of peacebuilding is one kind of civil society
and elected bodies activities for truth-seeking or telling. Peacebuilding needs humanitarian
aid or assistance to fulfil the basic needs at the Track 3 grassroots people in the immediate
reinsertion situation. It initiates before any kind of violence or dispute happens or before
intense violence or dispute breaks out. It avoids any further physical, material and emotional
losses. Peacebuilding ingenuity prevents to intensify any further future disputes. It generally
applies the activity to address the causes of the violence or dispute at grassroots. It generates
support groups across the nation. It prevents recurrence of violence or dispute protecting
and promoting human rights, enhancing human security, fostering livelihood and
development. It endorses long-term stability and justice (Fisher et al., 2000) at the base of the
triangle pyramid. Peacebuilding is a continuous process. It works at the pre-dispute phase
and during the disputed triggering period. Peacemaking and Peacekeeping are parts of the
Peacebuilding process.
Source: Professor Bishnu Pathak, August 2020.
Page 9 of 22
582
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
Reconciliation heals the trauma, before, during and after the dispute or violence. It often involves
organizing informal-formal and indirect-direct meetings, gatherings, conferences that generate
media exposure to the disputed issues as well as politico-legal understanding in the communities
or societal levels.
This Track 3 applies the pressure at Track 2.5 to transform the Nepo-India dispute by dialogue
means. The Track 2.5 belongs to the people who are just above the grassroots and can have the
access on holding meetings and discussions with the Dialogue Track 2 personnel, a few occasions
at Track 1.5 and Track 1 too. The Track 2.5 people are generally elected representatives at the
local levels (i.e., villages and municipalities), officials, civil society leaders, human rights activists,
media personnel, institutions, trained mediators, teachers, social mobilizers and so on.
Dialogue Track 2
Dialogue Track 2 intends to bridge a gap between Track 1 and Track 3 for a negotiated settlement,
which is known as a part of unarmed peacekeeping (see Box I). Track 2 complements official Track
1 negotiation (Nan, 2005; Agha et al, 2003). The Dialogue Track 2 is known as informal, unofficial
problem-solving or transformation activities aiming to build relationships among the concerned
groups of individuals or institutions encouraging new thinking that can facilitate the official
dialogue process at both horizontal and vertical tiers. Track 2 interacts between members of
adversary groups or nations that aim to develop strategies, to influence public opinion, organize
human and material resources in ways that might help resolve their conflict (Montville, 1991).
It influences the attitude, behaviour and context of the Nepo-India disputants. This Track 2 is not a
substitute for Track 1 Dialogue. It includes influential academic, religious and NGO as well as civil
society leaders and actors who can meet, interact and discuss more freely on the disputed issue
than high-profile leaders and officials. They often stay outside official mediation and negotiation
but facilitate for brainstorming the entire proceedings. They attempt to provide a conducive
environment that is low-key, non-judgmental, non-coercive and safe processes in which
participants feel free to share reactive (past-issues), perceptions, fears and needs. It explores ideas
for transformation, free from the constraints of government positions (Chigas, August 2003).
The territorial dispute is needed to discuss widely in all possible actors or institutions for the
action as well as the process of talking about the dispute in order to reach a decision for the
fruitful result of both sides. The Nepo-India territorial dispute is the complex problems which are
needed to resolve by peaceful means through rigorous discussion, exchanging and sharing,
keeping or collecting-analysing the evidence and facts-figures among the concerned ones and
recommend it to Track I accordingly. The territorial dispute is just a manifestation of the Nepo- India incompetence, negligence, ignorance and refuses the tendency of both nations to transform
the crisis on time. If something spiritual or theoretical becomes real is known as a manifestation
(www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/manifestation). It means the manifestation is a public
demonstration of emotion and sentiment in which something theoretical is made real.
Track 2 is a backchannel dialogue. The backchannel dialogue influences non-decision makers of
both countries, which shall be designed to build trust and enhance communication for
compromise and commitment. It assists to indirect-direct and informal-formal dialogues that take
place in secrecy, removed from public inquiry. It uses to occur frequently in the practice of
Page 10 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 583
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
international relations which entirely leads the unofficial process (John, Undated). There are a lot
of histories (for instance, in the Middle East, French-Russian agreements on Palestine) in the
world that have transformed the biggest problems adopting backchannel dialogue.
In some cases, unofficial Dialogues to the academia, provincial and socio-cultural leaders,
ministers, member of parliaments, NGOs personnel and experts and civil society leaders among
others may not know enough having the cause of disputes and possible ways of transformation.
Exchanging and sharing of international experiences may also need on the course to empower
above mentioned dignitaries. On such Nepo-India dispute, bilateral and multilateral donors’
financial assistance as well as find out the right experts shall highly be welcomed. Besides,
diplomatic Missions may create an encouraging environment of Nepo-India Dialogue through the
moral international support and pressure the concerned officials, including Track 1 to minimize
the territorial dispute between these two nations. All-round assistance shall be indispensable to
transform the Nepo-India disputes by dialogue means.
The international community and diplomatic Mission may also assist in gathering relevant
evidence and testimonies providing resources for study, analyse the facts, find out the appropriate
dispute resolution measures and recommend their suggestions accordingly. Wide-range of
dissemination of findings shall also be needed to distribute to the needy officials in all Tracks in
particular and people in general.
Track 1.5 belongs to the person such as a member of provincial cabinets, elected representatives
and senior level of bureaucrats-technocrats. These officials of both nations shall play pivotal roles
to develop the pressure at the Track 1 and beyond providing appropriate measures of negotiation
tools along with recommending expert’s names for mediation and facilitation. Track 1.5 shall be
the backbone of dispute resolution pressuring Tracks 1 and 0.5.
Thus, Track 2 shall produce large numbers of un-armed peacekeepers through the empowerment,
advocacy, campaign and networking processes. There is minimal possibility of the use of arms and
ammunition in current territorial disputes between Nepal and India. The conscious civilians of
each other nations desire to avoid any damage of physical and materials or infrastructures and
loss emotion of life. Besides neighbourhoods, the international community has been observing this
Nepo-India dispute situation with great attention silently.
Dialogue Track 1
Dialogue Track 1 has the political power to influence the negotiations and its outcomes (Sanders,
1991). Track 1 is a complement of Track 2 (Montville, 1991). Mapendere defines that Track 1 and
1.5 Dialogues interact between official representatives (2000) of disputing Nepo-India
Governments which shall be mediated or facilitated by a third party. Mapendere says, “The aim of
such interaction is to influence attitudinal changes between the parties with the objective of
changing the political power structures that caused the conflict” (2000). Track 1 is essentially a
process whereby communications from one Government goes directly to the decision-making
apparatus of another (Nan, June 2003). It is a formal peace process. The method and activity of the
Track 1 transmit to the Track 3 through the Track 2. Thus, Track 2 has been a backbone of
connection between other two Tracks 1 and 3.
Page 11 of 22
584
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
For dispute resolution or transformation, confidence-building measures are needed to develop at
the first-tier leaders of the Governments of each other nations. Such measures prevent hostility,
avoid the fear of escalation, development of interpersonal communication and build mutual
respect and trust between the nations. Confidence building measures and coexistence are today’s
urgency of territorial dispute transformation by dialogue means of both countries. Snow-ball
techniques and indirect-direct sharing can enhance confidence-building measures.
Track 1 leads the frontchannel communication officially opening the dialogue between two
disputants. For this territorial dispute, the frontchannel dialogue formally adopts the channels of
diplomacy with the aim of negotiation. This channel needs to be handled by Ministries of Foreign
Affairs of both nations. The Ministries initiate Talks at various levels: joint secretaries to
secretaries and then Ministers. The State to State official Talks seeks to explore various ways
forward such as re-topographic mapping and collections of each other concerning evidence for
concessions, options and solutions on the course to articulate the transformation process by
peaceful means.
Mediation is an interactive process where a neutral third party contributes to communicating
disputants in transforming conflict by dialogue means. It is a voluntary process whereby a third
party assists disputants to prevent, resolve or transform conflict by helping them to develop
mutually acceptable agreements (United Nations, September 2012). It is one of the effective tools
of preventing, managing and transforming disputes. It is a voluntary conflict transformation
process (Merrills, 2005). It would be good for Nepo-India if both could be able to identify and use
a learned, experienced and capable person as a mediator for the resolution of territorial dispute.
The mediator needs to have specialized communicative skills, negotiation techniques and strictly
maintain neutrality. Sometimes, mediation also encourages using facilitation tools.
Facilitation is the art of supporting a team to initiate the dialogue or event to effectively resolve
problems, make decisions, learn together and achieve its objectives (www.unicef.org/knowledge- exchange/files/Meeting_facilitation_production.pdf). Facilitation is a mental effort that makes the
process of dialogue easy. Transformation through dialogue, active or effective participation,
mutual understanding and shared responsibility are key initiatives of facilitation. The facilitator
needs to have a high skill, good knowledge, structure and process on on-going each other nation’s
dispute properly (bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurFacilitation101.pdf) cooperating the
members of the Nepo-India dialogue team. Neutrality is very much crucial while anyone involving
in the Nepo-India facilitation initiative.
If a mediator cannot be appointed because of mutual interest differences between two countries,
assistance can also be sought even from the facilitator to assist negotiated settlement to the
territorial dispute. The facilitator may help to reduce the gap of integrative bargaining seeking a
common point.
In Dialogue Track 0.5, the Head of Government of Nepo-India is the highest representative body of
a sovereign and independence nation. It is the supreme authoritative body to hold negotiation
peacefully transforming territorial dispute or conflict. It shall also authorize the power to its
representative(s) for dialogue or for the negotiation. Besides, the Head of Government is a symbol
of the unity and integrity of the nation inland and beyond.
Page 12 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 585
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
Track 0.5 or 1 is the highest policy-making body. It initiates formal dialogue as a matter of
national, bilateral, regional and international significance. Thus, a negotiated settlement is a
central dimension of national policy-making processes which clearly sets agendas, determines the
issues which are needed to be addressed by policymakers, reconnoitring various options, finding
resolutions and ensuring needed support and assistance from Nepo-India disputants in order to
safeguard the voices of both nations. Such negotiated settlement shall be sustainable for truth- seeking or telling, peace, tranquillity, justice and harmony endeavours. The veteran founder of
peace and conflict studies Johan Galtung says, “By peace we mean the capacity of transform
conflicts with empathy and without violence”.
Box-II
6Rs of Transformative Justice
Reinsertion: Reinsertion is a short-term form of transitional assistance for emergency
relief. It ensures transitional assistance to the victims of flooding, landslides, conflict and
dispute among others. Reinsertion uses as the action of integrating the victims again into
the society or community providing them their immediate fundamental requirements:
food, clothes, shelter, short-term education, medical services, training, employment and so
on (Pathak, 2019). After peace accord signed in November 2006, the Government of Nepal
provided such transitional assistance to the combatants of the Maoist Army.
Resettlement: Resettlement is an act of human compassion to find shelter in another
place or nation. In general, dispute or conflict or inundation caused displacement to the
family or persons, which are being provided basic needs and other required assistance in
new location. Such settlement may be provided to the victims of displacement or
migration at the border disputed areas.
Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation is a universal action of reestablishment that has been
damaged to its former condition owing to dispute or conflict or natural calamities.
Rehabilitation includes several steps: (i) social rehabilitation, is an act or process to
rehabilitate IDP’s (Internally Displaced People’s) in their native place, free from fear and
discrimination; (ii) psycho-social rehabilitation ensures social, educational, vocational and
other forms of assistance and support; (iii) psychiatric rehabilitation restores community
functioning of those individuals who suffered from psychiatric disabilities; and (iv)
cognitive rehabilitation is a therapy to reconnect with memories that cause failure of
personal relationships, anxiety and trauma among others owing to dispute-induced armed
conflict or natural disaster (Pathak, April-June 2013).
Reconciliation: Johan Galtung says that reconciliation is a process that aims at putting an
end to a dispute or conflict between or among the parties (2000 and 1996). He introduced
12 approaches including recovery and restitution, apology and forgiveness, judicial
procedures and punishment, karma, transitional justice and joint sorrow. Reconciliation is
a complex term (Bloomfield, October 2006). Reconciliation assists to end to hostile or
disputed acts and provides compensation, healing and relief to the victims in particular or
perpetrators in general. It usually requires intervention by a third party.
Reintegration: Reintegration is a process of integrating civilian or armed forces back into
the relatives, communities and society. It is a long-term action or long-term process, which
needs to be applied in local, regional and national levels with a concrete policy and
program simultaneously.
Reparation. Reparation is the concept of basic human rights or principal of law.
Reparation refers to make accountable to the wrongdoing party (perpetrators) to
compensate the harm caused to the injured party (victims). It means, it is a repairing of
wrongful acts (crimes or serious violations of human rights) to the victims in the name of
Page 13 of 22
586
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
justice by the wrongdoers. Reparation provides payment to both at the individual and
societal level (REDRESS, 2003). It delivers as per the needs and wishes of the victims,
which includes: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of
non-repetition (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8, July 2, 1993). Reparation claims by the victims
directly or the immediate family or dependents of victims.
Source: Professor Bishnu Pathak, August 2020
The last option of Track 0.5 or 1 is to ensure restorative as well as transformative justices for the
normalcy of each other country’s situation. The transformative justice (see Box II) repairs the
damage caused by the territorial disputes happened in each other nation satisfying through
reinsertion, resettlement, rehabilitation, reconciliation, reintegration and reparation (Pathak, July
2020). Transformative justice is a new phenomenon in transitional justice initiatives. It
emphasizes to restore harmonious relations among people, communities and societies in all
Tracks 1, 2 and 3 of both nations.
As much as the suggestions of the citizens come up, the numbers of the desires and aspirations
reduce, gradually shrink and further narrowed at the top Track 0.5 or 1 of the Pyramid, but their
opinions should be incorporated during the process of negotiation for the sake of enduring peace.
The Track 0.5 comprises Prime Minister including concerned Ministries of each other’s nation for
signature which applies the Peacemaking (see Box I) endeavour. Besides, the Track 0.5 needs to
ensure equal and mutual respect and benefit for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non- interference in each other nation’s international and internal affairs, non-aggression and peaceful
co-existence for the sake of just truth, peace and harmony. Thus, dispute transformation follows
person to person, group to person or person to group and group to group feelings or perceptions
that respects international political and legal structures and socio-cultural values and identities
among disputants.
Owing to the serious disputes between Kathmandu-New Delhi in Track 1, treacherous tensions
between the people living on the cross-border of Track 3 have been increasing in recent months.
Nepal is a small in terms of geography, economy and global power. But, disputed statement made
by PM Oli as ‘The Government of India tried to remove me from the Government of Nepal’ in
general and ‘Nepal is the birthplace of Ram’ in particular, the Indians have started to harass the
Nepalese people in all Dialogue Tracks, mainly at Track 3.
Indian citizens attacked the Armed Police Force (APF) station at Fattepur, Shibgunj Gaupalika
border pillar no. 151 in Jhapa district, Eastern Nepal at midnight on July 19, 2020 (Rajbanshi, July
20, 2020). The Indians, who came with home-made weapons, attacked the armed police force and
the APF fired four rounds in the air for their self-defense where two policemen were injured.
Alcohol is banned in India. Before Lockdown, Indians used to come to Nepal to drink alcohol. The
attack took place after the armed forces tried to stop them (Ghimire, July 20, 2020).
The Indians forcibly stopped constructing a Chautara (a public resting place) for a month at
Rupandehi district that was constructing by the Marchbari Rural Municipality. The Indian Border
Security Force also stopped farming there (Dhungana, July 20, 2020). Similarly, the Nepo-India
border area of Thori, Parsa district remained tense for two consecutive days (July 18 to 19, 2020)
while Indians pulled out and thrown away border pillar no. 35 (no. 436 as per new survey) near
Page 14 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 587
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
Sita Cave in Thori, but the pillar was erected at the same night
(nepalmonitor.org/reports/view/30189) through consensus of both nations at Track 3.
On June 12, 2020, one Indian national and four others sustained injuries through the shooting of
the Armed Police Force while they snatched the weapons from Police personnel and attempted to
enter Nepali territory at Narayanpur Nepo-India border in southern-eastern Tarai-Madhes in
Sarlahi district (Chhetri, June 13, 2020). A Border Outpost Inspector injured in two clashes while
the APF tried to stop Indians entering into Nepal by force in Siraha districts.
Indian security personnel suddenly came into Nepal with heavy weapons in 17 vehicles and
obstructed the under-construction of the Hulaki Marga (Postal Road) saying that it would fall in
Dashgaja in the border area of Belauri Municipality-8, Kanchanpur district, Far Western Nepal on
July 7, 2020. However, the construction work has been started after the protests of the Nepalese
locals (Khabarhub, July 7, 2020) at Track 3.
On July 16, 2020, clashes have broken out between police and Indian smugglers in the border area
of Sunsari, district, Eastern Nepal for two consecutive days. The smugglers have started attacking
the security personnel after the police and the armed police tightened the security at the Nepo- India border. There were shootings from both sides. Pintu Yadav and Rajesh Yadav of Dewanganj- 2, Bihar were injured in the incident (Rai, July 17, 2020).
The Indian side has inundated a large portion of Nepali lands in Tarai-Madhes by constructing
dams in 24 places stopping the natural flow of water in this rainy season (Basnet, July 19, 2020 &
Sarkar, July 18, 2020) at the Track 3. The dam has inundated most of the Tarai-Madhes lands in
Provinces 2 and 5. Many families have been displaced every year due to untimely opening of gates.
Dozens of lives of Nepalese citizens have been lost. Besides, millions of rupees worth of
agricultural crops has been destroyed each year.
Six decades (1959-1963) ago when the Koshi River dam was constructed, approximately 45,000
Nepali people were displaced. In March 1956, three agendas were agreed: find land for affected
families and the Government of India shall provide the financial assistance to build their houses as
compensation; manage schools, roads and drinking water there; and provide one person
employment opportunity to each family (Pathak, September 12, 2008). Sad to say, the displaced
families did get nothing. As a result, the displaced have not received justice from India till date
(Oza, 2014). Nor did the democratic Nepalese Government make any effort to ensure justice to
them. Government of Nepal feared that if the voices of the displaced were raised, India would be
angry with the Government of Nepal and they would be ousted from the Government. History has
been a witness that Nepali people have always been humiliated by the activities of the
Government of India at the entire Track 3.
Owing to Government’s expansionist and the narrow-mindedness policies, India has long been
adopting territorial disputes with all existing neighbours such as China, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Nepal. It happens because of the
Government of India tries to keep all neighbours under its umbrella rather than accepting
sovereign equality, territorial integrity, non-intervention and aggression and mutual respect
(Pathak, 2015).
Page 15 of 22
588
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
However, the basis of liberal democracy does not just govern the State or Nation winning the
General Elections but admits the acceptance of small nations and respect of other’s sovereignty,
independence, integrity, autonomy and security following the principle of Panchsheel. India must
understand that in a crisis, the (bad)-neighbour is more needed than the distant deity. Abandoning
the unity of SAARC neighbours and sticking with ASEAN is sure to be a realization of a serious
mistake one day for India. Everything can be changed, except for the neighbours. India suffers
from a risk-averting foreign policy (Bhurtel, July 1, 2020).
It is to be remarkable that India needs to encourage holding dialogue with all existing
neighbouring countries, including Nepal, practising liberal democratic supremacy. For this, the
formal-indirect and formal-direct dialogue techniques shall be used for the Track 1 policy-making
body and informal-indirect and informal-direct tools to be used at Track 2. Track 3 is the platform
for the production of critical masses at grassroots to exert pressure at Track 2. For formal and
direct dialogues, all Tracks 3, 2 and 1 are equally important. Thus, the beauty of democratic
culture is to resolve the crises through the dialogue sitting on the table. Thus, Dialogue needs to
hold focussing on preactive (future prediction) and proactive (future creation) measures.
CRITICAL CONCLUSION
In the mustard-seed fields, even if two huge bulls graze together, fight, and even if one defeats the
other, the loss will be borne by the farmer. This virtual parable exactly matches with the Lipulekh
Pass. After all, Nepal shall be victimized further even if India and China develop harmonious
relation or do fight each other to prove their own might is right. The giant Sino-India wants to
have mutual relations and benefits through trading, neglecting the voices and suffering on the
territorial dispute of Nepal. Both desire to play politics to feeble neighbour Nepal.
India-Chinese non-acceptance of their politics is visible due to two different ideologies: disorderly
under-governed India and orderly over-governed China. India admits bourgeois-cum competitive
multi-party democracy, whereas China firmly stands on non-competitive proletarian (called)
people’s democracy. The proletariat politics controls China’s economy, whereas the economically
rich people control India’s politics. In the case of China, freedom is restricted, but starvation- famine is no heard in India. There is freedom in India, but (in few past records) in an empty
stomach. Many poor people have lost their lives in the lack of food and famine in India. For
example, India has the highest number of beggars in the world. On the other side, the Chinese
Army is completely under the control of the Government and the Party. But, sometimes, the Army
seems to above the elected Government of India. Both countries have growing security interests
adopting control theory in Nepalii (Pathak, September 2013).
Instead of, large sections of Nepalese elected bodies are under the influence of dalals (brokers),
bichouliya (middlemen), commission agents, informers and NGOs and few of the powerful leaders
have a close link with criminals or criminal background people in the name of their personal- family safety, not trusting with Nepal Government’s security. In Nepal, whichever Government is
formed under the leadership of anyone or party, the dalals and foreign spy agents encircle the
Council of Ministries including influencing core advisers of the Prime Minister and relatives and
often than control their duties and responsibilities. Such forces are succeeded to detach with the
will and aspirations of people at Tracks 3 and 2 and have been able to wipe-out the communist- and-socialist ideologies from Nepal. Now, only nominal communist exits in Nepal in terms of
Page 16 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 589
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
adoption of ideology, (political) system, policy, strategy and tactics and practices pursuing in the
leadership. Besides, the ruling Communist Party leader Janadarna Sharma has said, “Political
sector is the centre of corruption”. He said that if you look at the power centres, you will know
how much corruption there is (Onlinekhabar.com, July 26, 2020).
Besides, cronyism is highly flourished in Nepal. Even educated have been able to stay in power
through sycophancy, but they have failed to serve the people too, for instance, the incumbent
Finance Minister Dr. Yuba Raj Khatiwada. The level of Khatiwada could not go above those of
cadres and technocrats. His wisdom does not seem to have used at all except to please the
leader(s) and grasp the opportunities time and again following nepotism and favouritism as well
as brokering needed financial assistance to his commander. Against Khatiwada’s incompetence,
prejudice eyes and discrimination, a case has been registered in the Supreme Court. The
preliminary hearing of the Court puts the case on priority.
How gentle, honest and docile Nepalese people are. Nepalese people seek prosperous and
developed Nepal from such self or broker-centred and many occasions failed leaders. Nepal never
achieved ‘politics is to serve to the people’, but politics has been a ‘profession’ in multi-party
democracy. In Republican Nepal, politics became the Pewa (private property) of the influential
leader of the Party.
In recent years, India-China competes to increase its influence in the Government of Nepal and the
party. The Government of Nepal never completes full five-year tenure as per the mandate of
people through General Elections in seven decades (1950-2020) period owing to vested
controlling interest of Indian in particular and China in general. There are parties in Nepal but
exist without democratic behaviour, conduct and culture.
On the other side, there are a large number of Nepalis who believe that Madan Kumar Bhandari
(who formulated an ideology of the People’s Multi-party Democracy) was conspiratorially
assassinated in May 1993 (Amnesty International, February 14, 2000) to ratify the Integrated
Mahakali Treaty owing to his strong nationalist image. Bhandari was against the Indian
encroachment in Kalapani-Limpiyadhura-Lipulekh (Lumsali, 1997). The Secretary-General of the
CPN (UML) Bhandari had led the movement against the Tanakpur Treaty signed (Bhattarai & Jain,
July 4, 2015) by the then PM Girija Prasad Koirala with the Indian counterpart P. V. Narasimha Rao
in December 1991 (Gyawali & Dixit, March 5, 1999).
The Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) on Nepo-India relations was established in January 2016 to
review various features of the bilateral relations, including the revision on Nepo-India Friendship
Treaty 1950. On June 30, 2018, the EPG had prepared a single report by consensus and announced
that their task is over (Giri, July 1, 2018). Bhagat Singh Koshiyari, the India coordinator (senior BJP
leader) said, “We have finalized a common document in the consensus of both sides. This report is
now the property of Nepal and Indian Governments” (The Hindustan Times, July 2, 2018).
However, Indian PM Modi reluctant just to receive the report despite of repeated pressures by his
own colleague Koshiyari and others. Sadly to say, not accepting the EPG report (for such a long
period) prepared unanimously by the self-chosen personnel is no less than to rinse the mouth on
the same plate PM Modi ate on. What greater proof is needed that Modi has a flaw in his mind
towards Nepal and poor Nepali people.
Page 17 of 22
590
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
Similarly, EPG member Mahendra Lama said, “India shouldn’t push Nepal towards China”
(Maheshwari, June 23, 2020). Mahatma Gandhi, while offering Gandhi as a surname to Indira
chanted a Guru Mantra and said, "If you want to do politics, do the works in which the soul does
not feel remorse when you sit in solitude and look at the past performances.” Being an honest
author, I can say that PM Modi's retired life will be of regrettable because of his past troublesome
mistakes against the poor and suffering neighbours. There has been an allegation that before the
submission of EPG Report to PM Modi, a copy of it was delivered to China by Dr. Rajan Bhattarai,
Foreign Advisor to the Prime Minister of Nepal (https://gundrukkhabar.com/backup/18058/).
Every conscious people of both nations know that India has been denying sitting for dialogue due
to the lack of facts, evidence and testimonies. India has become the fourth largest country in terms
of soldiers, arms-ammunition and nuclear power-holding country in the world. Not only the
world’s second-largest population but India is also recognized as the largest democratic country
as well. Moreover, India’s intellectuals and experts spread across the universe and its scientists
working as pivotal decision-makers in the world-famous institutions. One-thing is to understand
that those decision-makers and intellectuals-scientists either out of touch or are reluctant to
advise the Government of India that they can no longer fight-and-win the war with large-and- strong military forces alone in this modern today’s world. The present war won’t be fought only
with large number-and-trained as well as high-skilled armies, GPS guided missiles, fighter jets and
warships, among others. However, science has proved that the pandemic virus dominated warfare
at present, and in the future is likely. It is to be learned why the world’s most powerful and rich
nations are defeated by COVID-19. The virus created warfare shall be without borders, treaty,
constitution, agreement, law and rule. If the United States America had cut military spending only
by 10 per cent for COVID-19, there would not have been such an epidemic now, and there would
have less havoc and panic among its people.
None of such powerful-developed nations uses their war skills and weapons against the virus.
Such viruses will be created either by nature itself or men-made; no matter how small the country
is. There is no guarantee that scientists are born in big countries alone, not in small ones. The
universe has accepted the fact that today is the age of science. Therefore, the ultimate solutions of
any great disputes and armed conflicts are to be transformed by adopting informal (indirect-direct
by mediator or facilitator) and formal (indirect-direct by authorized team) discussion, debate and
dialogue. Thus, none of the countries is in a position to run away from dialogue, and that is the
principal instrument of the dispute transformation by dialogue means in democratic society.
The prolonged political or diplomatic derailment is neither the wish of Nepal nor India. Third- party (country) shall be profited from such dialogue dilemma. Both countries should keep in mind
of their cohesion of mutual interest, benefit, stake and concern. Mutual sharing and understanding
of sukha-dukha, empathy, altruism, resilience and accommodative diplomacy are today's’ urgency
to open the knot of dialogue. Nepal is weak country; however, India should remember the
contributions of about 40,000 Gorkha soldiers have fought in favour of India’s wars and obtained
gallantry rewards, sacrificing their lives for its national unity, independence, integrity and
sovereignty.
Besides, China never mediates or facilitates between Nepo-India territorial disputes. What China
needs to understand that if Nepalese people continuously hurt in this way, the activities of free
Page 18 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 591
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
Tibet movement will definitely intensify from the land of Nepal. It would be a great mistake for
tomorrow's China that the Nepal Government would not stop anti-Tibetan activities alone.
Therefore, China has a compulsion to move ahead, respecting the paramount interest of Nepalese
people. China’s active role for mediation or facilitation for dialogue on the territorial disputes can
win the hearts-and-minds of the Nepalese people. China needs to regain consciousness on time
and ignore the present-day standstill. The politics of earning money will make the country
prosperous but will fail in national-and-world politics and security. China needs to wipe-out what
our Nepalese ancestors used to say, ‘Chinese are cold-hearted people’.
India is not alone in the Kalapani territorial dispute; China has the same role as India has. For a
long time, India wanted to take consent of China on Kalapani issue. And, India succeeded to isolate
Nepal. Man commits the mistake. Correcting the mistake through acceptance is the greatness of
human beings. Correction is the basic principle of the Panchsheel that transforms any crisis by
dialogue means. Thus, China needs to bring India on a dialogue table encouraging India.
Thus, the existing Nepo-India territorial stalemate is to be transformed soon by peaceful means,
through dialogue for negotiation. Dialogue reduces the dispute by peaceful means (Galtung, 1996).
The combined pressure of all belonging in Tracks 2 and 3 can kick dialogue between the Nepo- India Governments. Dialogue creates hope against fear and dilemma. Dialogue chooses
testimonies against confusion. However, it is necessary consider all Track personnel to hold
negotiation on time. Negotiation restores peace and tranquillity. Negotiation respects the collected
evidence and testimonies on the course to settle the differences. Negotiation avoids disputes and
conflicts permanently and re-establishes relationships among the populace of both countries in all
Tracks, including all stakeholders for peace, justice, harmony and coexistence.
References
1. Agha, Hussein, Shai Feldman, Ahmad Khalidi & Zeev Schiff. (2003). Track II Diplomacy: Lessons from the
Middle East. Cambridge: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
2. Allcock, John B. (1992, November 1). Border and Territorial Disputes. Gale/Cengage Learning.
3. Amnesty International. (2000, February 14). Human Rights and Security. London. AI Index: ASA 31/01/2000.
4. Baral, Toya Nath. (December, 2019). “Border Disputes and Its Impact on Bilateral Relation: A Case of Nepal- India International Border Management”. Journal of APF Command and Staff College. Kathmandu.
5. Basnet, Jiwan. (2020, July 19). Sarkarko Niskarsha: 24 Esthanma Bharatiyabandhle Nepali Vubhag Duwanma,
Bartakalagi Chiththi Pathaudai (Government’s Conclusion: India Constructed Dams in 24 Places Inundated
Nepali Territory, Sending Letter for Talks). Kathmandu: Nayapatrika.
6. BBC. (2020, June 25). Galwan Valley: Satellite images 'show China structures' on India border. London.
7. Bhattacharya, Anirudh. (2020, June 17). “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calls PM Modi, discusses
Covid-19 pandemic and situation at LAC”. The Hindustan Times. Kathmandu.
8. Bhattarai, Binod & Rimjhim Jain. (2015, July 4). Tanakpur treaty to come up for ratification. Retrieved July 6,
2020, from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/tanakpur-treaty-to-come-up-for-ratification-30583.
9. Bhurtel, Bhim. (2020, July 1). Jaishankar’s pro-US strategy pushing India into trouble. Asian Times.
10. Chhetri, Tanka. (2020, June 13). “One Indian killed, four others injured after they clashed with APF personnel
along Nepal-India border in Sarlahi”. myRepublica. Kathmandu: Nepal Republic Media.
Page 19 of 22
592
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
11. Chigas, Diana. (2003, August). Track 2 (Citizens) Diplomacy. Retrieved July 12, 2020, from
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/track2_diplomacy.
12. Conant, Eve. (2014, March 28). 6 of the World’s Most Worrisome Disputed Territories. National Geographic
Partners.
13. Conant, Eve. (2014, March 6). Is Past Russian Meddling in Former Soviet Bloc an Omen for Crimea? National
Geographic Partners.
14. Dahiya, Rumel & Udai Bhanu Singh. (2015). Delhi Dialogue VI: Realizing the ASEAN-India Vision for Partnership
and Prosperity. New Delhi: Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis.
15. Daszko, Marcia and Sheila Sheinberg. (2017, April). Survival is Optional: Only Leaders With New Knowledge
Can Lead the Transformation. Retrieved June 28, 2020, from static1.squarespace.com.
16. David, Bloomfield. (2006, October). On Good Terms: Clarifying Reconciliation. Berghof Research Center for
Constructive Conflict Management, Berghof Report No. 14.
17. Day, A.J. (1987, November 16). Border and Territorial Disputes of the World. Keesing's Reference Publications.
18. Democratic Culture. Retrieved August 5, 2020, from http://fundfordemocraticculture.org/democratic- culture/.
19. Dhungana, Madhab. (2020, July 20). Bharatiya Surakshyakarmile Khetigarna Diyenan (Indian security
personnel did not allow farming). Kantipur. Kathmandu: Kantipur Media Group.
20. Dhungel, Dwarika N. & Pun, Shanta B. (2009). The India-Nepal Water Relationship Challenges. Kathmandu:
Institute for Integrated Development Studies.
21. Dhungel, Dwarika N. & Pun, Shanta B. (2014, August). “Nepal India Relations: Territorial Border Issue with
Specific Reference to Mahakali River”. Foreign Policy Research Center. Volume 3. New Delhi.
22. Dixit, Kanak Mani & Tika P Dhakal. (2020, May 19). Territoriality amidst Covid-19: A primer to the Lipu Lek conflict
between India and Nepal. Retrieved June 29, 2020, from https://scroll.in/article/962226/territoriality-amidst- covid-19-a-primer-to-the-lipu-lek-conflict-between-india-and-nepal.
23. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8. (1993, July 2). Study concerning the right to restitution, compensation and
rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. New York: Commission
on Human Rights.
24. Ethirajan, Anbarasan. (2020, June 10). India and China: How Nepal's new map is stirring old rivalries. London:
BBC News.
25. Facilitation 101: Roles of Effective Facilitators. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from
bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurFacilitation101.pdf.
26. Fisher, Simon, Jawed Ludin, Steve Williams, Dekha Ibrahim, Richard Smith and Sue Williams. (2000). Working
with Conflict: Skills and Strategies for Action. Zed Books.
27. Galtung, Johan. (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute.
28. Galtung, Johan. (2000). Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means. UN Disaster Management Training
Programme.
29. Gass, Robert. (2012). What is Transformation: And How it Advances Social Change. Social Transformation
Project.
30. Ghimire, Chiranjibi. (2020, July 20). “Kathmandu-Delhi Manmutab: Simaka Janatabicha Jokhimpurna Tanab
(Kathmandu-Delhi feud: Dangerous tensions between people on the border”. Nayapatrika. Kathmandu: New
Publication.
31. Giri, Anil. (2018, July 1). “EPG completes its task with single joint report”. The Kathmandu Post. Kathmandu:
Kantipur Media Group.
Page 20 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 593
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
32. Giri, Anil. (2020, May 11). “A government team consisting of Army has been quietly measuring Nepal’s border
with India”. The Kathmandu Post. Kathmandu.
33. Giri, Anil. (2020, May 8). “India opening a road via Lipulekh, a territory that Nepal claims, is a diplomatic
failure”. The Kathmandu Post. Kathmandu: The Kantipur Media Group.
34. Giri, Giri. (2019, November 4). “India’s new political map places disputed territory of Kalapani inside its own
borders”. The Kathmandu Post. Kathmandu: Kantipur Media Group.
35. Gundrukkhabar.com. (2020, August 25). Pradhanmantrika Sallahakar Dr. Bhattaraile Chiniya Dutabasbata
Paisa Liyeko Khulasa (Revealed that money was taken from the Chinese Embassy by the adviser Dr. Bhattarai
to the Prime Minister). Retrieved July 25, 2020 from https://gundrukkhabar.com/backup/18058/.
36. Gyawali, Dipak & Dixit, A. (1999, March 5). “Mahakali Impasse and Indo-Nepal Water Conflict”. Economic and
Political Weekly. Volume, 34. Number 9.
37. Holsti, Kalevi J. (1991). Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648–1989. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
38. Huth, Paul K. (1996). Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
39. John, Anthony Wanis St. (Undated). An Assessment of Back Channel Diplomacy: Negotiations Between the
Palestinians and Israelis. Retrieved July 14, 2020, from
https://www.american.edu/sis/faculty/upload/wanis-back-channel-working-paper.pdf.
40. Khabarhub. (2020, July 7). Indian security forces obstruct Hulaki Road construction in Kanchanpur.
Kathmandu: Pavilion Media.
41. Khabarhub. (2020, May 9). Student leaders protesting in front of Indian Embassy were arrested. Kathmandu:
Khabarhub.com.
42. Locals protest after boundary pillar near Sita cave found removed in Thori. (2020, July 18). Retrieved July 18,
2020 from https://nepalmonitor.org/reports/view/30189.
43. Lumsali, Rishi Raj. (1997). Mahakali Nadibat Prapta Uplabdhiko Rakshya Gardai Thap Upalabdhikolagi
Sangharsa Garau (Fight for more achievements protecting the achievements made from Mahakali River).
Kathmandu.
44. Maheshwari, Dhairya. (2020, June 23). “India shouldn’t push Nepal towards China: EPG member Mahendra
Lama”. The Kochi Post. New Delhi.
45. Manifestation. Retrieved July 14, 2020, from www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/manifestation.
46. Mapendere, J. (2000, Summer). Consequential Conflict Transformation Model, and the Complementarity of
Track One, Track One and a Half, and Track Two Diplomacy. The Carter Center.
47. Meeting Facilitation. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from www.unicef.org/knowledge- exchange/files/Meeting_facilitation_production.pdf.
48. Mehta, Ashok K. (2020, June 26). Why the border issue with Nepal flared up. Chandigarh: The Tribune.
49. Merrills, J.G. (2005). International Dispute Settlement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin and Paul R. Hensel. (2010). “Issues and Conflict.” In War: An Introduction to
Theories and Research on Collective Violence. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
51. Montville, J. (1991). “Track Two Diplomacy: The Arrow and the Olive Branch: A case for Track Two
Diplomacy”. The Psychodynamics of International Relations. Volume 2.
52. Muni, SD. (2020, May 22). Lipulekh: The past, present and future of the Nepal-India stand-off| Analysis. New
Delhi: The Hindustan Times.
53. Nan, A. S. (2005). Track one-and-a-Half Diplomacy: Contributions to Georgia-South Ossetian Peacemaking.
Lanham: Lexington Books.
Page 21 of 22
594
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.8, Issue 2, Febraury-2021
54. Nan, Susan Allen. (2003, June). Track I Diplomacy: Beyond Intractability. University of Colorado.
55. Nayak, Nihar. (2012). Nepal: Issues and Concerns in Indian-Nepal Relations. New Delhi: Institute for Defense
Studies and Analysis.
56. Onlinekhabar.com. (2020, July 26). Power Kendranai Bhrastcharko Kendra Ho: Sharma (Power Centers are
the Center of Corruption: Sharma). Kathmandu.
57. Oza, Janika. (2014, Spring). Resisting For the River: Local Struggle Against the Proposed Saptakoshi River Dam.
Wesleyan University.
58. Parashar, Sachin. (May 19, 2020). “Boundary issue on bilateral agenda for two decades: Nepal”. The Times of
India. New Delhi.
59. Pathak, Bishnu. (2008, September 12). The Koshi Deluge: A History of Disaster for Nepal. Situation Update 77.
Kathmandu: Peace and Conflict Studies Center.
60. Pathak, Bishnu. (2013, September). Origin and Development of Human Security. International Journal of Social
and Behavioural Sciences. Volume 1, No. 9.
61. Pathak, Bishnu. (2015). “Impacts of India’s Transit Warfare against Nepal”. World Journal of Social Science
Research. Vol. 2, No. 2.
62. Pathak, Bishnu. (2016, August 29). Johan Galtung’s Conflict Transformation Theory for Peaceful World: Top and
Ceiling of Traditional Peacemaking. TRANSCEND Media Service.
63. Pathak, Bishnu. (2019). “Transformative Harmony and Inharmony in Nepal’s Lost Transition”. Transformative
Harmony. Delhi: Studera Press.
64. Pathak, Bishnu. (2020, July). Critiques on the Tribunals and The Hague Court. Advances in Social Science
Research Journal. Volume 7, No. 7.
65. Pathak, Mina, Bimip Pathak & Bimish Pathak. (2016, January 18). Bishnu Pathak’s Nine Freedoms Doctrine to
Truth, Justice and Dignity. TRANSCEND Media Service.
66. Prakash, Anirudh. (2020, May 22). “I.K Gujral’s misplaced altruism has lead to Kalapani dispute”. The Hills
Times. Guwahati.
67. PTI. (2020, June 4). India, Australia vow to jointly fight COVID-19; boost research collaboration for pandemic response.
The Hindu: New Delhi.
68. Rai, Rohit. (2020, July 17). “Smugglers clash with police in Sunsari, two injured”. myRepublica. Kathmandu:
Nepal Republic Media.
69. REDRESS. (2003). A Source Book for Victims of Torture and Other Violations of Torture and Other Violations of
Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. London: The REDRESS Trust.
70. Rose, Leo E. (1999). Nepal and Bhutan 1988: Two Himalayan Kingdoms. The Regents of the University of
California.
71. Sanders, H.H. (1991). “Officials and citizens in international relations”. The Psychodynamics of International
Relations. Volume 2.
72. Sarkar, Shankhyaneel. (2020, July 18). “Nepal Minister directs officials to start preparing for flood talks with
India”. Hindustantimes. New Delhi.
73. Shrestha, Buddhi Narayan. (2010, January 17). Border Issues of Nepal: With Special Reference to India.
Retrieved June 19, 2020, from borderissuesofnepal.wordpress.com/.
74. Shrestha, Buddhi Narayan. (2015, June 22). “Yam indeed”. The Kathmandu Post. Kathmandu: Kantipur Media
Group.
75. Sinha, Yashwant & Atul K. Thakur. (2020, June 9). “Resume dialogue with Nepal now”. The Hindu. New Delhi.
76. Starr, Harvey. (2005). “Territory, Proximity, and Spatiality: The Geography of International
Conflict.” International Studies Review 7.
Page 22 of 22
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.82.9729. 595
Pathak, B. (2021). Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2) 573-594.
77. Thapa, Gaurab S. (2020, May 13). “Nepal confronts India in Lipulekh border dispute”. Asian Times.
78. The Hindustan Times. (2018, July 2). Nepal-India eminent persons’ group calls for updating bilateral treaties.
New Delhi. Retrieved July 25, 2020, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/nepal-india- eminent-persons-group-calls-for-updating-bilateral-treaties/story-Xb2qujv9f1lPDXrerwkN5J.html.
79. The ICOW Territorial Claims Data Set. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from
http://www.paulhensel.org/icowterr.html.
80. The Kathmandu Post. (2015, June 11). Indian Communist leader Yechury denounces India-China statement.
Kathmandu: Kantipur Media Group.
81. Toft, Monica Duffy. (2014). “Territory and War.” Journal of Peace Research 51.
82. Transformation. Retrieved June 28, 2020, from https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/transformation.
83. United Nations (2012, September). Guidance for Effective Mediation. New York.
84. Vasquez, John A. (2009). The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85. Xavier, Constantino. (2020, June 11). Interpreting the India-Nepal border dispute. Retrieved June 7, 2020, from
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/06/11/interpreting-the-india-nepal-border-dispute/.