The India-Nepal border is unique as neither country has allowed a political boundary to interrupt the age-old traffic of people.
This is now being threatened by territorial nationalism on the Nepali side and an emerging security state on the Indian side.
What is the recent controversy?
Residual revolutionaries of the Left competed with the supposedly pro-India Nepali Congress.
Demonstrations were held on the streets of Kathmandu condemning India for releasing redrawn maps.
The Maps showed Kalapani at the India-Nepal-China tri-junction to the north and Susta to the south as Indian territory.
There is a perception that the publication of the new map was a departure from the past.
It is seen to have constituted harmful cartographic aggression.
Is this a valid concern?
These latest maps have actually nothing to do with Nepal.
They were published to reflect the recent bifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) into the two new Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
There was no change in the depiction of India-Nepal boundary.
However, notably, Nepal has, in the past, claimed territory in the Kalapani area and Susta as its own.
The Kalapani controversy has arisen due to a difference of perception as to the real and primary source of the Mahakali river.
The Treaty of Sugauli concluded in 1816 locates the river as the western boundary with India.
But, different British maps showed the source tributary at different places.
This is not unusual given the then state of cartographic science and less-refined surveying techniques.
There are similar problems regarding the alignment of the McMahon Line on the eastern sector of the India-China border.
With regard to Susta, the problem has arisen as a result of the shifting of the course of the river.
This is again a frequent occurrence in rivers shared by neighbouring countries.
The two sides agreed that these differences should be resolved though friendly negotiations.
The foreign secretaries were mandated to undertake this exercise.
But, these talks are yet to take place.
Why is the protest disputed?
If this is an issue with the potential to arouse such strong public sentiment on the Nepali side, then the inaction over the foreign secretaries talks is questionable.
The Nepali side is seemingly uninterested in following up the issue through serious negotiations.
This is what happened with Nepali demands for the revision of the India-Nepal Friendship Treaty.
The Indian side agreed in 2001 to hold talks at the foreign secretary level to come up with a revised treaty.
Nepal expects this to be more “equal” with reciprocal obligations and entitlements.
However, only one such round of talks has taken place.
What could be done?
The two countries have managed to settle about 98% of the common border.
More than 8,500 boundary pillars have been installed reflecting the agreed alignment.
There are possibly two ways to deal with the current challenge:
to accept a shifting border as the river itself shifts (or)
to agree on a boundary which remains fixed despite changes in the course of the river
The latter is usually the more rational choice.
But, such matters require friendly consultations aimed at mutually acceptable outcomes.
