Nepali Cartographic Aggression and India Options

As India battles the Wuhan flu, China has opened a new front in Ladakh and Sikkim. The troops from both the countries are engaged in a tense stand-off in Eastern Ladakh after clashes in Sikkim. Further there are reports of Chinese helicopters crossing Indian border in Himachal Pradesh. The stand-off between the two countries is the most serious since the Dolam stand-off nearly three years ago. Meanwhile, China has opened a new front, an indirect one. They have instigated Nepal to rake an old boundary issue. The Nepalese government currently ruled by the Communists are in more ways than one functioning as puppets of China. In what is the most serious stand-off since the blockade of 1989, the government of Nepal have redrawn their maps including parts of India as their territory.

 

This cartographic aggression perhaps has roots in Chinese instigations behind the scenes but the immediate provocation is linked to Manasarovar Yatra. The Yatra to the holy lake of Manasasarovar and Mt. Kailash in Tibet (under Chinese control) takes place either through Lipulekh pass or through Nepal. The former while traversing in the Indian territory entailed a long trek which meant very few Indians were permitted through the said route. Most of the Indian pilgrims traveling outside the government quota went through Nepal thus possibly high revenue from tourism. Now, the Indian government has constructed a road to Lipulekh pass eliminating the trek thus allowing larger number of pilgrims to travel through the same.

 

Lipulekh pass and the Kalapani area around that have long been claimed by Nepal as their own. Under the treaty of Sagauli of British, the boundary between British India and Nepal would run along the Kali Ganga River. The dispute was in the origin of the river which led to different interpretations. Nepal for all its claims had not shown the same in their maps. In fact, it was only in 1997 during the visit of the then PM IK Gujral, that the boundary dispute was first raked up. In what was a major error, Indian government under its Gujral doctrine, accepted the borders were disputed and set up a commission to examine the same. The current dispute and the cartographic assertion are linked to this recognition of the dispute 23 years ago.

 

Nepal has probably crossed the Rubicon. It is unlikely that the cartographic changes can be reversed by any government in the future. Yet Nepal can hardly have its way given its topography without any external provocation or assistance. If say, India were to attack Nepal, it would hardly be in a position to defend even for a few days, despite Gorkha legacy of bravery and valour, unless China intervenes on its behalf. To China, Nepal would be a further progression to squeeze India. The Chinese conquest of Nepal, direct or indirect would push the border to Birgunj and perhaps on more a flatter terrain. To China the buffer zone of Nepal or Bhutan would likely be in the form of vassals supposedly as independent countries than any genuine independent Nepal or Bhutan. Their moves in Nepal would directly threaten the Chicken’s Neck, the road to the North East. In fact, Dolam was essentially an exercise in the same. While the possibility is low, China cannot be ruled out to encourage Nepal to send troops or at least attempt to do in the territories being claimed by Nepal. The worse would be Chinese troops disguised as Nepali forces seeking to venture into that area. This might make the border very hot and divert India’s attention from the rest of the borders. The last thing India perhaps wants is a strong Chinese presence or a proxy Chinese rule in Nepal or Bhutan (which might be the next Chinese target).

 

In the context, it would be interesting to examine the options India commands or can pursue. The diplomatic statement has been firm yet in some ways not domineering. This was expected given India is highly unlikely to raise the tensions at least at this time of the global crisis. Nepal has further provoked by seemingly holding India responsible for the Chinese virus spread in Nepal. The Chinese penetration in the Nepali politics has been pretty old but got a boost in the recent years following the rise of Naxal groups in the region. The Indian politicians especially on the left and socialist spectrum too have encourage Naxals to seize power on the pretext of overthrowing monarchy, eliminating the status of Hindu nation among others. The missionary forces especially after the earthquake of 2015 have intensified their activities in Nepal.

 

The options before India while seemingly diverse are yet limited. In all probability, India will play the time tested game of overthrowing KP Oli and installing a new Prime Minister, something which it has done many times in the past. Yet, it should not stop at a continued exercise of musical chairs of Prime Ministers of Nepal. It must draw Nepal firmly into an Indian axis by hook or by crook. Nepal must be made to surrender its independence of foreign policy. If India has to be a player in the Great Power Game, it must not hesitate to intervene to protect India’s interests. There is of course a lot of talk on the people to people relationships and interdependencies. This should be linked to their support for the Indian endeavours. In Sikkim, the obduracy of the ruler made India encourage political groups to capture power even through the streets if required and then merge with India. India perhaps can build on these options which are likely to favour in the Madheshi belt but would not find support in the Pahadi belt.

US in its policies on Latin America have often overthrown rulers either through invasion or through coups to protect its interests. It is only a Castro or a Chavez who managed to survive. The Soviets post Cold War began to spread its tentacles in Eastern Europe. Though the East European countries were deemed independent, yet they were merely proxies of Soviet rule be it in East Germany, Poland or Hungary. The ‘revolt’ of Tito made the Soviets even more cautious and ruled by force if necessitated in these countries. Therefore, with respect to Nepal, India too must not be averse to these hard options.

 

At this critical juncture, when China is somewhat susceptible and thus as a counter-offensive will try and put India on the mat at multiple fronts, India cannot take it lightly or defensively. While it may be reasonable in diplomacy, it must be resolute on the ground. If China is dreaming of taking its boundaries to Birgunj, India must be pre-empt and take the boundaries instead to Sagarmatha. What Nepal is pursuing is a Broken Windows theory. If India underreacts, Nepal and thus China would be emboldened and might engaged in higher stake games. They in all probability scale up the provocations in increments. Moreover, it gives China enough room for creeping colonialism, something it seems to pursue everywhere among its clientele. India simply cannot allow Broken Windows approach.

 

Nepal at this juncture is too important to remain independent. Whether India creates its own equivalent of Vichy’s France or Anschluss or Soviet model of Eastern Europe or American model of Latin America, it doesn’t matter. What matters is bringing Nepal and perhaps proactively Bhutan to the Indian fold without giving them an option of independent foreign or defence policy. Their independence at this current juncture would have to Hobson’s choice for them and not for India. India has to take the war to China’s doorsteps.