Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means

FEATURED RESEARCH PAPER, 15 Mar 2021

Bishnu Pathak - TRANSCEND Media Service

Abstract

March 2021 – 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:

1. 1. to examine the Nepo-India territorial dispute;
   2. to analyse the voices of all Tracks; and
   3. 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.

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 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 NepoIndia 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.

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 PoliticoAdministrative 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 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 deescalation 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).

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:

• “All border disputes, including Kalapani, will be resolved through talks with India;
• 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);
• 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).

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 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 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.

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 NepoIndia 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 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.

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/knowledgeexchange/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.

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”.

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, noninterference 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 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 NepoIndia border. There were shootings from both sides. Pintu Yadav and Rajesh Yadav of Dewanganj2, 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).

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 starvationfamine 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 personalfamily 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 communistand-socialist ideologies from Nepal. Now, only nominal communist exits in Nepal in terms of 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.

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-andstrong 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. Thirdparty (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 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 NepoIndia 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. (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.
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 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.
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. 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. (2020, July 7). Indian security forces obstruct Hulaki Road construction in Kanchanpur. Kathmandu: Pavilion Media.
41. (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. 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 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.
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. 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). “K Gujral’s misplaced altruism has lead to Kalapani dispute”. The Hills Times. Guwahati.
67. (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. (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.
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/.

_______________________________________________

A former Senior Commissioner at the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), Professor Pathak has been a Noble Peace prize nominee 2013-2020 for his noble finding of Peace-Conflict Lifecycle similar to ecosystem. Mr. Pathak holds Ph.D. on Conflict Transformation and Human Rights. He is the President and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Center (PSC Center). He is a Board Member of the TRANSCEND Peace University and also a Board Member of the TRANSCEND International for Nepal. His book on Politics of People’s War and Human Rights in Nepal (2005) is widely circulated volume. He has over 100 international publications comprising Transitional Justices, Human Rights, UN, Human Security, Peace, Civil-Military Relations, Community Policing, and Federalism, including: Generations of Transitional Justice in the World (July 2019), Jurisdictions of The Hague Court (February 2020), Critiques on the Tribunals and The Hague Court (July 2020), Nuremberg Tribunal: A Precedent for Victor’s Justice (September 2020), A Comparative Study of World’s Truth Commissions: From Madness to Hope (2017), World’s Disappearance Commissions: An Inhumanious Quest for Truth (2016), He can be reached at ciedpnp@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 15 Mar 2021.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Nepo-India Territorial Disputes Transformation by Dialogue Means, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Comments are closed.