Spread the love

During the recent visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister to India, an agreement was signed to operate a new trade route via Lipulekh—a territory that historically belongs to Nepal but is presently occupied by India. Shockingly, Nepal’s Embassy in New Delhi was unaware of this development, reflecting serious lapses in Nepal’s diplomatic vigilance.

This is not the first instance. In 2015, during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to China, a similar agreement was reached between India and China regarding Lipulekh. Nepal protested at the time, but no follow-up measures were taken. Later in 2019, India published a new political map incorporating Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura. In response, Nepal amended its constitution through an all-party consensus and issued a revised map that included the disputed areas. However, India refused to recognize Nepal’s claim and, instead, constructed a motorable road up to Lipulekh Pass. Since then, successive governments in Nepal have failed to pursue the matter seriously.

What should have been done is clear: a special taskforce should have been formed under either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister to handle the border dispute. This body should have continuously briefed friendly nations, the United Nations, and both neighboring powers. Nepal should also have activated bilateral mechanisms with India to press for a settlement. Such consistent diplomatic pressure could have compelled India to reconsider its bullying approach toward smaller nations.

Unfortunately, Nepal’s political leaders have displayed a culture of surrenderism, constantly trying to appease Indian leaders. This has only boosted a mentality of subservience. Nepal’s leadership must abandon this attitude and instead cultivate stronger relations with other friendly nations. Equally important, Nepal must treat China on par with India. Disregarding Chinese initiatives, such as the Belt and Road, only undermines Nepal’s diplomatic leverage.

The outdated belief that “India is everything for Nepal” must end. A balanced foreign policy based on equidistance is the only safeguard. History already offers painful lessons—four economic blockades, open-border manipulation, and India’s refusal to accept the EPG report, among other issues. Unless Nepal asserts itself with unity, balance, and self-reliance, its sovereignty will remain at risk.