In the past, India would not venture to create unease for Nepal as it was a solitary Hindu country in the world due to likely criticism by its Hindu majority population
The pilgrimage route to Kailash Mansarovar is once again in the news with the agreement reached between Indian national security advisor Ajit Doval and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi towards opening the pilgrimage route to Kailash. This route was closed due to COVID 19, which continued even after its end due to the bloody fight between Chinese and Indian soldiers in the Galwan Valley stand-off.
Indo-Nepal relations took a nose-dive after an agreement was reached during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to China on May 14, 2015 to conduct bilateral trade across the Lipulek pass along the newly-constructed road, which falls in Nepali territory, without consulting Nepal. Nepal had protested by sending a diplomatic note to both the neighbours in this regard.
China responded by saying that the agreement could be corrected if Nepal produced a credible document justifying its territory. One of the hard evidences is the statement made by the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Jeng Suyong, made in 1999 in which it was said that Kalapani belonged to Nepal at the time when the border issue was solved between Nepal and China in 1961-62.
India in turn kept its customary deafening silence. Nepal was then compelled to publish a spurred map of Nepal showing the Limpiyadhura and Lipulek in its territory with the consensus of all the parties and the parliamentarians except for a solitary Sarita Giri of Janata Samajbadi Party, who had disagreed to this proposal. She was later fired from the party on the ground of party indiscipline.
The Doval and Yi communique does not mention about the route. The Nepali tourism sector is hoping that the route will continue to be the existing one. In fact, they have gone agog as this route with its entry in Nepalgunj passes through Simikot, Hilsa and Mansarovar as it brought 60,000 tourists annually to Nepal until its closure due to COVID 19. The opening of the route may bring close to half a million tourists in waiting, which will give a new lease of life to the otherwise flagging tourism sector.
It might as well be that the route could be the one which passes through the Lipulek pass following the Pithoragarh Road, which India had constructed, to which Nepal has expressed its resentment through a diplomatic note. After all, an Indian officer has hinted at this possibility. If it is so, it shows that India and China have ignored the Nepali protest made in 2015.
India has shown its political highhandedness by constructing the road in the disputed territory. China is also not far behind as it had agreed to use the road for the promotion of bilateral trade despite knowing that the route passes through a disputed territory.
Such examples of harassing a neighbour by the two neighbouring countries are not uncommon if we look at the history. One of them can be cited of Nepal itself in the Malla times, when Kantipur, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur indulged in such a conspiracy, one after another, especially with the closure of the roadway. Consequently, in 1658, the kings of Bhaktapur and Lalitpur, Jagat Prakash Malla and Sri Nivas Malla mounted an attack against Kantipur when Pratap Malla was the king, and the road to Bhaktapur was opened. Three years later, Sri Nivas Malla of Lalitpur switched sides, and Pratap Malla seized Chaurpuri of Bhaktapur.
Nepal has been following the principle of equidistance when it comes to dealing with India and China even though it has at times been alleged to use the India and China card as and when required. Political theoreticians opine that a small country sandwiched between two big countries at times has to resort to bandwagoning in politics, according to which it joins one of the neighbouring camps, mostly the powerful one, instead of remaining neutral.
But such an arrangement also does not end the problem of a smaller nation. An example can be taken of Bhutan, which is under the Indian security umbrella. Even then, Bhutan has at times been complaining of overly big brother attitude shown by India. Accordingly, India created harassment in 2013 by stopping subsidy on petroleum products with the price of oil skyrocketing and causing inconvenience in Bhutan.
Nepal cannot take this decision as it has maintained a neutral stand since a long time. Again, the social, cultural and religious proximity with India to the extent of the existence of a porous border between these countries does not allow Nepal to tilt to China. Nor can it hobnob with India to the inconvenience of China especially because of its increased clout when compared with India. It can be gauged from the fact that India is ranked number five in the list of the world's largest economies when China is number two, and some even opine that it is already number one in terms of purchasing power parity.
In the past, India would not venture to create unease for Nepal as it was a solitary Hindu country in the world due to likely criticism by its Hindu majority population. Even China had to think twice before mounting any inconvenience to Nepal as it would attract the attention of a Hindu majority India.
Such a chance has now dried up with the promulgation of the federal and secular constitution. In such a circumstance, diplomacy is the only way out which has been an Achilles heel for Nepal. At one time, Nepali Congress politician Sujata Koirala had come with the idea of giving the land on lease. The other alternative could be the development of a three-country hub like Basel of Switzerland. It is advertised as a place which can give a glimpse of three countries at a time. This area could be developed into a place from where India, China and Nepal could be enjoyed at one glance.