Kathmandu: Nepal has sent ‘diplomatic notes’ to India, four times in the same year objecting to the ongoing construction activities on Nepali soil while the two countries are calling the maps issued by Nepal and India invalid on the basis of political and administrative boundaries up to Limpiyadhura.

Although the situation in diplomatic circles is complicated and serious in itself, India has not shown any interest in discussing border issues.

After a meeting between the President of China and the Prime Minister of India in Beijing about seven years ago, India has continued to push for land on the basis of a “trade agreement” reached in the Lipulek region of third country Nepal.

An agreement was reached in Beijing on May 15, 2015 to make the Lipulek port a Sino-Indian bilateral trade point. As soon as the agreement came out, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had sent a ‘protest letter’ to both India and China on the agreement to annex the Nepalese territory of Lipulek.

China responded to the Nepali side’s concerns by saying that “corrections can be made”, but India remained silent. The move was opposed by the foreign ministry in a statement issued on November 6, 2019 after India included the Limpiyadhura-Kalapani region of Nepal in its new map on November 3, 2019. After India’s denial of territorial oppression, the foreign ministry sent a diplomatic note on November 19, reminding them that Limbiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulek, east of the Kali River, belonged to Nepal as per the Sugauli Treaty.

Immediately after the inauguration of the construction of the Dharchula-Mansarovar road by the Minister of Defense of India Rajnath Singh on 8 May 2020, a statement was issued protesting the unilateral activities of the road construction. Ambassador Vinay Mohan Quatra was called abroad and handed over a ‘diplomatic note’ as the road was being constructed through Lipulec, Nepal’s land.

Last Thursday, another ‘diplomatic note’ was sent to India only about the border road being built in the Mahakali region and the damage being done to Nepali territory due to this reason. Dwarikanath Dhungel, a former secretary and a member of the Border Protection Campaign, said, “Even when such diplomatic notes are sent again and again, it is not normal to ignore the seriousness of the issue.” “The Indian government and the state system seem to ignore our leaders,” Dhungel told. “The Nepali side, the government and mainly the political leaders have been playing the border issue with Mahakali as a seasonal instrument. What can they do when they understand this?” ‘The mentality has developed.’