Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ and his delegation reached Hangzhou, China, on 23 September. During his visit, he participated in the inauguration of the 19th Asian Games and subsequently held bilateral talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping on several issues. Over the next few days, the Nepalese Prime Minister met with a number of top Chinese leaders, including his Chinese counterpart, Premier Li Qiang.

The main agenda of Prime Minister Prachanda's visit to China was to convince China to accept the new map of Nepal, to convert the loan taken from China for the construction of Pokhara International Airport into a grant and to reach the conclusion of the implementation plan of the BRI related project.

Surprisingly, no agreement could be reached between the two countries on these subjects. According to the report, Prime Minister Prachanda had intensive talks with his Chinese counterpart on map-related issues. However, they were unable to reach any conclusion.

To understand the politics of the map, we have to draw attention to the constitutional amendment made in August 2019 when the Indian Parliament divided the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two separate union territories by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019. Furthermore, in this regard, the Government of India published a new map in November 2019. According to the Government of India, no changes were made in the new map in any other part except the Jammu and Kashmir region. However, according to the Government of Nepal, the new map of India is flawed, and it shows the Nepalese part Kalapani - Limpiyadhura - Lipulekh as part of India.

Former Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali said that Nepal had tried to establish consensus with India through all possible channels, but India showed no positive approach. Adopting the tit-for-tat policy, Nepal amended the Constitution in June 2020. It released a new map of Nepal in which particular emphasis was given on Kalapani - Limpiyadhura - Lipulekh. However, the Indian government immediately described the Nepali map as a one-sided action and rejected the map. However, this experiment of political mobilization by the KP Sharma Oli government proved to cause long-term sourness in the bilateral relations between Nepal and India. Sequentially, China released a new map in August 2023, and no change was made in the status of Kalapani - Limpiyadhura - Lipulekh in this map, in simple words China has shown these three areas in the map of India and not in the map of Nepal.

The incident confused the Nepali government and experts as, according to reports, Chinese counterparts were specifically informed before Nepal brought out the new map. Despite the passage of time, Nepal has yet to raise the map issue with China officially, let alone the tit-for-tat policy. However, the opposition parties have put immense pressure on the government of Prime Minister Prachanda in this regard.

Former Foreign Minister of Nepal Narayan Khadka said in this regard, “Did the Prime Minister raise the issue of the map with the Chinese leadership, which is directly linked to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country? If he raised it, “It should have been done in the manifesto so that the country can know.”

On the other hand, Nepal supported China in strong words and said that Nepal does not favour Taiwan's independence. This time, Nepal used the 'One China Principle' instead of the 'One China Policy'. According to the joint statement, the Government of Nepal recognises that the government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government representing China. Taiwan is an "inalienable part of China's territory. Tibet has also been mentioned in the joint statement. A large displaced population of Tibet lives in Nepal, which is around 20 thousand today, and Tibet shares its long border with Nepal. Therefore, at any cost, China does not want any third power to fuel the Tibet independence movement in Nepal.

This 13-point joint communiqué was presented by the Chinese counterpart, Premier League, and Prime Minister Dahal on Wednesday. In the first six parts of the statement, the two parties have complimented one another, referred to their prior interactions, and promised to further their understanding by understanding one another's worries. However, beyond the seventh point, there are some significant commitments. These include reopening border crossing points, improved cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Trans-Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity Network, among other things. The two nations have decided to continue working on the completion of the China-Nepal Electric Energy Cooperation Plan and collaborate in the fields of hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and hydrogen. The Kathmandu Ring Road project will be completed by cooperation between the two parties in developing and expanding hydropower and transmission lines.

In 2017, Nepal joined China's One Belt One Road Initiative. This incident was seen as a significant diplomatic victory for China at that time because India and other Western countries had pressured Nepal not to join this initiative. However, in these six years under the One Belt One Road Initiative, apart from signing the MoU, both the countries have not achieved anything else. Even the China-Nepal One Belt One Road Implementation Plan has not been agreed upon.

It is essential to mention here that despite immense pressure from China, Nepal has shown a red signal to China regarding the Global Security Initiative. Nepal has again shown its diplomatic understanding here.

At present, when the world is moving towards the New Cold War, Nepal does not want to put others in an uncomfortable situation by getting too close to any side. Nepal should maintain the autonomy of its strategic position. Map politics and BRI-related progress between China and Nepal are enough to change the existing equations in South Asia. Indeed, if China accepts the Nepali map, it will again be a direct attack on India's sovereignty and integrity. Although India, Nepal, and China are all working with each other at the diplomatic level and through back doors to resolve the map-related issues, the expectation of favourable results shortly would be nothing less than an exaggeration.

(The paper is the author’s individual scholastic articulation. The author certifies that the article/paper is original in content, unpublished and it has not been submitted for publication/web upload elsewhere, and that the facts and figures quoted are duly referenced, as needed, and are believed to be correct). (The paper does not necessarily represent the organisational stance... More >>