On 29 September, India refuted China’s claim of accepting 1959 Line of Actual Control. 

The Chinese Foreign Minister said that 1959 LAC was clearly accepted when China had announced it in the 1950s. They claimed that the international community including India had agreed to the alignment. However, India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated that India has never agreed to the 1959 Line of Actual Control. Also, China had full knowledge of our position in the matter.

The 1959 LAC goes back to 1914 Shimla convention where the McMahon line was introduced that divided Tibet from India. In 1959, Premier Zhou, head of the Chinese government wrote to Nehru stating that the McMahon line was imposed by the British and it not legal. It was also included that both the countries shall withdraw their forces 20km from the eastern side of the McMahon Line and also from where both the sides exercise control.

When in 1950, China had no objections when the Prime Minister of India stated that ‘the McMahon line is our boundary’ including “the frontier from Ladakh to Nepal’.

In 1954, India was alarmed when they realised that the map used by the Chinese demarcated New Delhi in their boundary. The Chinese then began following the boundary line that was formed before the McMahon Line was introduced.

The Indian spokesperson, Srivastava said that China had acknowledged the other agreements including the 2005 Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for settlement of the India-China Boundary. He also claimed that the Chinese believe that there is only one LAC which contradicts their earlier commitments. 

In the recent agreement between the external affairs of India and the Chinese, it was confirmed that the Chinese would stand by all the agreements. As the result, India apprehends that the Chinese will sincerely agree to all the pacts and would not make a new interpretation of the LAC. The Ministry of External Affairs accused the Chinese of the lack of attention and ability to simplify the situation of the borders for about two decades.

The former Commander Lieutenant General of the Northern Army said that India has never accepted 1959 LAC. It was never brought into the light to be acknowledged. Rajnath Singh, Defence Minister of India clarified that India has always respected its borders and China’s pursuit of LAC was to unilaterally affect the state of affairs.

The Chinese spokesperson, Weidong said that further clarifications with regard to 1959 LAC would worsen the situation for both the nations. The debates were initiated, as an attempt to uphold peace. 

Both the nuclear-armed countries have been engaged in a standoff since May. They have witnessed continuous clashes and conflicts, have faced fatalities in decades. Both the nations are indulged in finding a diplomatic solution, which can prevent the unforeseen war.

The post INDIA REFUTES CHINA’S CLAIM OF 1959 ALIGNMENT appeared first on Maverick Times.

By: Archita Srivastava

For the first time since the deterioration of ties over the Kalapani boundary dispute, India and Nepal were likely to meet previous week, via videoconferencing to review projects funded by the Indian government, but row border issues raised again.

The endless counts of peaks and valleys, the first thaw was expected to freeze previous week via a meeting, still awaited. Amid pandemic, the nation is well aware of its nearest neighbor’s deeds. Ceaselessly, Nepal has been trying to intervene to the borders on the other hand hurting sentiments by claiming out ‘Real Ayodhya in Nepal.’  The Himalayan nation has always been a silent watcher but was well aware that the border issue could blow up anytime. Among other states Nepal stretch covers the northern states, Uttar Pradesh sharing a 599.3 km long open border with it touching seven districts – Pilibhit, Lakhimpur Kheri, Bahraich, Sravasti, Balrampur, Sidhharthnagar and Maharajganj.

So was this always the same, or the bilateral politics and instigation of external forces that contributed to the severity of the India-Nepal crisis. In order to look ahead and to restore, amend and revive the bilateral relationship, we must first consider why and how this dispute has erupted. It will be tempting to start with a new slate, but future visions will remain hollow until both sides learn from past mistakes.

The treaty, who claims what?

India has been in effective possession of this territory for at least sixty years, although Nepal claims it conducted a census there in the early 1950s and refers to the 1815 Sugauli Treaty as legitimising its claims. But India’s new road, up to the Lipulekh pass, is not an unprecedented change in the status quo. India has controlled this territory and built other infrastructure here before, besides conducting its administration and deploying military forces up to the border pass with China.

The region is of strategic importance, and the new road is now one of the quickest links between Delhi and the Tibetan plateau. In a 2015 statement, China also recognised India’s sovereignty by agreeing to expand trade through the Lipulekh pass. Finally, this is also an important route for thousands of Hindus who trek across the border with China every year to visit the sacred Mount Kailash. Given recurrent military tensions with China, the future potential of trade, and the religious symbolism of the region, India will certainly continue to exercise civilian and military control.

The diputed ‘No-Man’s Land’        

On 8^th May, India’s Defense Minister virtually inaugurated a new 80-kilometre-long road in the Himalayas, linking to the border with China, at the Lipulek Pass. The Nepalese Government immediately objected that the road crosses the territory it claims and accused India of changing the status quo without diplomatic consultations.

Among the many escalations that have taken place since then, Nepal has deployed police forces to the area, did open-fire injuring one after three men were shot dead by the Nepalese police near the Indian-Nepal border in Bihar’s Kishanganj, summoned the Indian ambassador to Kathmandu, and launched a constitutional amendment to formalize and expand its territorial claims over approximately 400 sq km.

 It was when, Nepalese citizens allegedly hurled stones at the Sashatra Seema Bal (SSB) team on a routine patrol in “no man’s land,” also build up around 20 wood and concrete pillars to set up a fence on the no-man’s land which is 10 meters on Indian side on India-Nepal border near Tanakpur in Champawat district.

The structures came up earlier after which the Indian forces intervened.  The Nepalese people were claiming the land is theirs contrary to the Indian claims that the area is in ‘No Man’s Land’.

Pithoragarh and Champawat are the two districts of Uttarakhand that share a border with Darchula and Kairali districts of Nepal. However, authorities from Nepal had assured their Indian counterparts that the pillars will be removed soon

The intervention of the Nepalese doesn’t seemed to be ending this soon, as notified by near reports, when they tried installing 360 degree CCTV in the No-man’s land, India objecting to the act, also carried forward by installing 200 new border outposts (BOPs) across the border on its side.

India has conveyed its openness to a dialogue but does not seem to share Nepal’s sense of urgency: its initial statement agreed to a dialogue that might take place this very week.

Ban on TV channels

In the initial week of July, Nepal’s cable operators imposed a ban on all private news channels from India. This move comes in the midst of major online channel criticism over their coverage of Nepal, which people continue to portray in a bad light as Nepalese leadership.

International television distributors Multi-System Operators (MSOs) gave a final call to block all news channels except for India’s largest news network, Doordarshan.

The decision came into effect after Nepal’s Information and Broadcasting Minister Yubaraj Khatiwada during a press interaction said, “Nepal may seek political and legal remedies and also mobilize diplomatic channels against reports of Indian media attacking Nepal’s sovereignty and dignity.”

Outrage against Indian media reports was witnessed in Nepal after some news channels reported that Nepalese leaders, including Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, and the Chinese ambassador to Nepal, Ambassador Hou Yanqi, were subjected to character assassination.

However, no official order was issued by the Nepalese government in this regard.

Definitely, this move prompted sharp reactions from New Delhi and resulted in Kathmandu initiated a diplomatic dialogue to resolve differences between the otherwise amicable neighbors.

Discussions between the two countries

Post the intervention and fencing in the borders that is claimed to be Indian territory, India asked Nepal to prohibit its citizens from “illegally” entering the Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Gunji Indian territories.

In a letter to the Nepali administration, an Indian official earlier this month said that Nepalese people in groups wanting to “illegally” enter into these Indian regions would create problems for both the countries.

However, local people informed that they have not been stopped while crossing to the aforementioned areas.

In its reply, the Nepalese authorities said that the movement of its citizens in Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Gunji areas is “natural” as the regions belong to the country.

The Nepalese Political Map– Nepal redrew the country’s political map through a constitutional amendment, adding the strategically important Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura regions that India maintains belong to it. This further initiated the border tensions between the two.

India had termed as “untenable” the “artificial enlargement” of the territorial claims by Nepal.

The Government of Nepal intended to send its recently updated map to India, Google and the international community by mid-August, the Minister said.

The China Factor

Although, it is unreasonable to blame China for creating the border crisis, the counter-factual is clear: even if we hypothetically imagined China away, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Nepali nationalists would always have reacted negatively to the Indian road announcement. For many years, Delhi was well aware that the issue was prone to politicisation in Nepal.

Yet, it does not mean that Beijing has not supported or further instigated Kathmandu to take on a more assertive position, especially against the backdrop of the China-India military standoff in Ladakh. It is highly debatable about the China factor, and it is thus simplistic, if not outright harmful to call Prime Minister Oli’s government “pro-China” or reflexively “anti-India” because of his party’s communist credentials.

There is indeed no comparison between India’s relationship with Nepal and Nepal’s relations with China. It’s a difference of “nyano and chiiisho” (warmth and frigid cold) and “bistrit and sukshma” (widespread and tiny), as many Nepalese see it. Nepal and India are bound by spirituality, common culture, geography and a sense of belongingness.

But by buying into the propaganda of Nepal’s tilt towards China and China influencing Nepal’s politics, India is only exhibiting its own insecurities and undermining history, trade and culture.

If we sum up the Indo-Nepal relations have flourished in the past at four different levels, namely at the levels of the people, civil society, business and the Government. This was buttressed by an open border, which made Indo-Nepal relations unique from rest of the border disputes. The ministers of the nations are to meet soon and discuss the border issues. The recent informal meeting ended up by agreeing to ‘maintain status quo’ at the ‘No Man’s Land’ along the border in Champawat district of Uttarakhand.

Image Credits- Scroll.in

The post The border stretch, not a land of ‘Peace’: Indo-Nepal appeared first on Maverick Times.

The government at center and state have fought several elections, promising the construction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya. The magnitude of concern showed for the birth-place of Lord Rama is inversely proportional to that of the birth-place of Lord Buddha. Sidharth Nagar is the birth-place of Lord Buddha and it is struggling for attention from the government.

About Sidharth Nagar

Sidharth Nagar is a district in Uttar Pradesh. It is near the India-Nepal border. It is known for the ruins of Shakya Janapada is one of the most backward districts in India. This is the center of trafficking scams as the district shares its border with Nepal. Siddharth Nagar is also near to the city of “The CM” – Gorakhpur. It has a high rural population with agriculture being the source of bread for the families.

Siddharth Nagar is completely opposite to what the Siddhartha or Lord Buddha desired. Its citizens are living in trenches of poverty. The civic amenities are almost dysfunctional in the city. Black-outs are quite frequent in the city despite claims of electrification by our Prime Minister. Recently, two AK-47 rifles went missing from near the India-Nepal border. Siddharth Nagar is always in the headlines due to wrong reasons only.

Siddharth Nagar – Deflating Government’s claims

Despite the presence of BJP governments in the center and state, the development didn’t reach Siddharth Nagar. It deflates all the claims of Modi and Yogi governments. The frequent blackouts deflate the scheme of 100% electrification claim of the government. The uncontrolled trafficking of weapons and people gives a glimpse of law and order in the district. Siddharth Nagar also failed miserably in civic amenities. According to a story done by Amar Ujala, there are streets which sink in darkness post dust due to unavailability of street lights. Public toilets are only on paper with open defecation a dark reality. Swatchh Bharat Abhiyan hasn’t reached Siddharth Nagar yet. In spite of these flaws, the government is focussing on cattle safety as it is evident in the instructions given by the Deputy of District Magistrate.

Buddhists are not in high numbers and cannot be categorized as a vote-bank. Due to this, the government is treating the birth-place of their Lord Buddha in such a way. No promise ever made for the development of Siddharth Nagar. It could become one of the major tourist attraction due to its historical significance. Due to negligence that potential seems a lost cause.  The citizens of Siddharth Nagar have lost all hopes with the government and now they just want them to provide basic amenities. Even for that too, cows have become the priority.

The post The story of neglected birthplace of Gautam Buddha, Siddharth Nagar appeared first on Maverick Times.