INTERACTION PROGRAM ON "DOKLAM STANDOFF AND NEPAL"

21 Aug, 2017

Details of Presentation

WELCOME REMARKS BY THE CHAIRMAN, NISS

Good Morning! Distinguished Intellectuals, distinguished media experts, lady and gentlemen.

It is a great honor for me to welcome all of you here in the Interaction Programme, on ―Doklam

Standoff and Nepal‖.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all the esteemed guests for accepting our

invitation and granting your valuable time today. I think, it is also an opportune time to renew

our relationship and join together to discuss on issues of common interest.

And, today‘s forum is a meeting point for us in a very informal way, and we are organizing this

event without any formal procedure. It will be an open discussion till the lunch break.

Today we have about 24 distinguished participants, who are all experts in their field and

professionals joining this interaction programme, and so we divide our time in the manner that in

the first two hours or so, we will get into the Doklam scenario, and discuss about the ongoing

tension there between China and India. Each participant will get 5-10 minutes to express this

view on the subject. In second part we will have open discussion regarding question and answer

by the participants and the recommendation, if any. We wish all participants avail full

opportunity to discuss on the issue and bring their recommendations in an open debate and we

hope to be able to conclude certain agendas from the interaction.

Prof. Dr. Upendra Gautam, Economist, Secretary General, China Study Centre (CSC)

1. Concept note on the issue prepared by NISS is a hard and meticulous work.

2. Section 1. of the concept note mentions Doklam (Dong Lang area) in the….."tri-junction of

Bhutan, China and Sikkim sector of India…" For the Chinese, Doklam area borders Sikkim

on the west and the Kingdom of Bhutan on the south.

3. China considers' Dong Lang area is located on the Chinese side of the border. Indian troops

entered this area. For them, "this makes it fundamentally different from past frictions between

the border troops of the both sides in areas with undelimited boundary." For them, it is away

from the tri-junction point.

4. I agree with the NISS assessment that lack of diplomatic ties between Bhutan and China has

escalated the crisis in the eastern Himalayas.

5. This (point 4) is the cardinal point we need to recognize. Deprived of diplomatic ties with

China, Bhutan is neither able to duly formalize its agreements and understandings with China

on its border with China nor can legitimately enter into an economic development cooperation

with it.

6. a) Unlike the eastern and western sectors of their borders, China and India have all along not

shown any difference between them in the middle sector of the border. Reportedly, Nepal and

its area like Lipulekh, Sikkim and Bhutan, Nepal's neighbors in the eastern Himalaya, fall in

the middle sector.

b) China's very strong sensitivity onto the Doklam case where the ROI troop has been intruding

onto the Bhutan-China border seems to be their perception of this problem-free middle sector.

c) All the past years, several noted Chinese scholars and think tanks had been propagating their

evaluation that after all, what the Republic of India follows is an independent foreign policy.

The Doklam intrusion has come at a time when Indian opposition of BRI/OBOR and its

seeking a sort of anti-China alliance has been going on hand in hand.

7. Out of the Doklam case, Nepal can have some very good lessons:

i) An all out efforts on maintaining well delineated, regulated and managed international borders

ii) Disowning any treaties/agreements that adversely impact on Nepal's decision making

8. As Doklam represents a case of interference into a relationship of peaceful bilateral co-

existence, Nepal can proactively pursue a policy of positive neutrality whereby

i) Nepal Army can play its globally proven role of peace-keeper in Bhutan-China border for a

specified period of time

ii) Within the specified time a) the Indian army personnel are withdrawn from Doklam, b)

Bhutan and China establish diplomatic relations, and c) China and India recognize Bhutan's

territorial integrity and independent decision making.

Other comments:

-Very much appreciate NISS for this round-table discussion with clear operational objective.

One of the rationales of establishing China Study Center-Nepal in 1999 was that Nepal's

international relations were conducted much ceremoniously.

-The reference reading: As we have several things coming out of Chinese and Indian foreign

ministry spokespersons, their statements may have been more recognized than the media.

Krishna Prasad Sigdyal, Senior Journalist / Entrepreneur

When Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wanted to go to China for his diplomatic

mission he was interested to go via Nepal, but it did not happen for some reason. He was more

willing to understand China‘s neighbors too. As of now, US, Japan and South Korea relationship

in Asia Pacific is noteworthy and later by India‗s cling in it is understandable but keeping China

in distant does not provide clarity on "Modi‘s Policy of Neighborhood". Interestingly, being a

part of the region Nepal can play a role in bringing China and India together in such issues. In

fact neutrality sometimes attributes to "immovable" attitude. Our neutrality posture in 1962 was

also one reason that India succeeded to impose blockades on us later.

Keshav Kumar Jha, Former Ambassador

I personally thank NISS for arranging the significant event with great relevance.

I appreciated the research oriented presentation from previous speakers, and I think I need not

mention more, except I do agree that Nepal should play a role in the Stand Off situation between

China and India. The war mongering is undesired. United Nations and many nations are worried

for this. China till now is a peaceful country.

Prof Dr Mohan Prasad Lohani, Former Ambassador and now Adviser, China Study

Center, Nepal

China Study Center and NISS had jointly organized a Seminar on OBOR a few months back. As

far as the genesis of the Doklam standoff is concerned, it is well articulated in the concept paper.

I think if Doklam is a Bhutanese territory, Bhutan should be the first to complain against the road

expansion work being carried out by China. There was China-India standoff after India sent its

troops to counter Chinese presence on the plateau. India still seems to stick to its old perception

that Bhutan is in the sphere of its influence. We understand the security implication of the

ongoing tension between the two Asian giants but we hope that it may not escalate further

affecting regional peace, stability, security and development.. We should carefully study the

political relation that has been strained between Nepal‘s immediate neighbors due to the Doklam

standoff. Very recently, Nepal‘s Deputy Prime Minister Mr Krishna Bahadur Mahara has

clarified the country‘s official position and stated,‘ Nepal will not be involved in the China India

differences arising from the Doklam dispute.‘ Chinese DPM Wang Yang who visited Nepal

recently praised Nepal‘s "Balanced Policy" .In view of Nepal‘s geo-strategic location demanding

best of relations with our neighbors, it is not in our national interest to tilt towards either side.PM

Modi of India while addressing a gathering on the occasion of his country‘s 70th

Independence

Anniversary made no mention of the standoff during his hour long address. The inference that

we may draw from this is that India too is interested in a conciliatory approach. Finally, since

‗neighborhood policy‘ is the bottom line for both China and India, Nepal would do well to

request both to resolve their differences through dialogue or peaceful negotiations.

Dr Indra Adhikari, Deputy Director, Institute of Foreign Affairs

I found this programme a very relevant programme indeed. We should not only be focused to

Doklam, as there are many angles to be seen for cooperation, collaboration, and even conflict

and confrontation. We can see China and India are in different opinions in many other issues, for

example India is trying hard to be the member in Nuclear Trade Treaty, UN Permanent

Membership etc. China is creating obstacle to India to achieve it. Similarly, five different

countries including Brunei are part of conflict with China regarding Islands of South China Sea

and India as of United Kingdom has proposed to assist Brunei by sending military personnel. It

was also against China while it was interested to be in SARRC as an observer, and is now

reluctant to welcome China's One Belt One Road initiatives.

In reference to Doklam, Bhutan‘s perspective should be at centre while discussing here. Bhutan

had expected with China to maintain the status quo as of before 2007 in the case of disputed

areas of their border including Doklam and interested to move towards new relationship with it.

Contrary to it, Bhutan was trying to be full-fledged sovereign country to establish relationship

with China and rest of the countries of the world with political changes in the country. In these

contextual issue, as the newly concluded framework with India which had been controlling its

foreign policy since 1949 till 2007, China and India have mobilized their troops against each

other at Doklam and both countries have shown a firm precondition of ―you should withdraw

first" as far as the withdrawal of respective troops from the disputed border is concerned. As

power, they have similar characteristics: both the countries did not participate Nepal while they

signed agreement on Kalapani as a Tripartite Juncture. While referring Doklam, we doubt

whether it is one of the India‘s plans to prevent Bhutan from developing relationship with China

which as India perceives that later is wooing all its neighboring countries in South Asia to circle

it through OBOR. As I think, centre is here. We should maintain strict neutrality but it is relative

by term. For example, China as it always perceives Nepal's proximity with India its threat and

has recently praised Nepal's stand of neutrality, and Indian intellectuals perceive Nepal‘s

neutrality policy as of China's interest. So, ―we should try our best to gain trust and establish

faith with both the neighbors on our policy of non-alignment."

Biswas Baral, Senior Jounalist, Republica

Indian PM Modi has visited countless unimportant countries like Turkmenistan and Tajikistan

even while he left his own neighborhood in an absolute mess. Modi's foreign policy is primarily

based on his domestic priorities, more so than in the case of any past Indian prime minister. He

primarily wants to shore up his Hindu vote base through his anti-Pakistan and anti-China foreign

policy. He has sparked conflict over Doklam in light of the Indian parliamentary elections in

2019.

Chinese President Xi Jin Ping is also in no position to back down and appear weak ahead of the

important reshuffle of the Chinese Communist Party later this year. So there will be no quick

resolution of this debate.

The lesson for Nepal is that it should consistently raise the issue of Lipulekh at the highest level,

both with India and China. If it does not do so, then it should not be surprised if India and China

completely bypass its concerns when they decide on Lipulekh in the future. In big-power rivalry,

the concerns of small countries like Nepal and Bhutan are easily sidestepped.

But, basically, Nepal's current position of strict neutrality over Doklam is the right one. Nepal

cannot afford to be seen tilting towards either India or China.

Dr Bhasker Raj Koirala, Director NIISS

There are two issues. One, Chinese DPM's visit and India‘s one of the members of National

Security Advisor‘s visit to Nepal. As we discuss about our neutral position regarding Doklam

some Chinese friends say "how can Nepal‘s Foreign minister talk about dialogue and

discussion." China‘s bottom line is to pull out of Indian troops. And, India‘s position is not

owned by them. Very recently, I was interviewed in a Chinese Television and I spoke about role

of Bhutan through official papers. There is no evidence that Bhutan has asked for Indian

intervention. I think how a country (Bhutan) that believes in Gross Happiness Index would invite

Indian troops at the border inviting tensions. It is very difficult to navigate the situation. We read

Chinese missiles are moved to Tibet Autonomous Region and India too has also moved its

troops, the Chinese press say it is getting serious and will not tolerate this nonsense. Given the

fact that India is not going to change its position and this conflict is not only for Doklam,

probably for redrawing a strategic map , of Nehru‘s perception of Himalayas as buffer. There is

real possibility of war. If there is war moving Indian Army logistics from Nepalese territory in

the eastern part of Nepal and what if China also wants Nepal‘s favor allowing moving logistics

through our territory. What could Nepal do? Will Nepal be able to control this? If there is a war,

I foresee, I see the regime change in Nepal that can press India and China back, and Nepal

remains totally neutral.

Dinkar Nepal, Columnist in Geopolitics, Nepal Times

I think there are three questions.

(a) Will there be war?

(b) What Nepal should do?

(c) What if Nepal has standoff like this?

Standoff is the conflict in reality of world. There are confrontations, interdependence and

collaboration. Geopolitical reality exists and with personality issue. Chinese President Xi Jing

Ping is trying to become most powerful leader and Modi (PM of India ) trying to surpass Nehru.

And, it is a complex reality. If we talk about Bhutan, it is clear for their government and the

elites are with India and aggressively they will not confront China. Bhutan has a very neutral

view on Tri Junction. Bhutan already has more than 50 Sq Km disputed territory in its more than

400m Km border with China. There is consensus among Bhutanese leaders that they should

make a peaceful settlement with China. Royalties wants to be close with India. There is no

change in India‘s strategic perspective. As stated in ―On China‖ by Kissinger, he remarks

Chinese are in the opinion of determining themselves as a superior country of the world and they

will not care about past and future. China is more focused on its long term strategic stance of

(may be 10, 20, 50,100,200 years) power projections ( to be as a ruler) and its behavior is related

to its strategic goal. India‘s reaction is anxiety driven. Then what about Nepal? Are we clear

about own strategic goals? Our interest should be stability (political and economic) immediate at

least for 25 years, that triggers economic growth so that we reach at a respectable stand. We do

not have expansionist ambition. We want respectable position in the world.

Paranoid Safety: How we are looking at our foreign policy ? In crucial time we fixed to balance

our foreign policy. Since Bhimsen Thapa we were not educated how we carry out our foreign

relation matter with the Chinese Emperor. Our policy was reactive foreign policy and using cards

against the other. Even today we are using EU, US, China, India to counter one from the other.

We have to move ahead with a proactive foreign policy to identify ―our strategic goal.‖

My personal opinion: What roles Nepal can play? It may not take up leadership role in the

peacekeeping of this particular issue. In strategic issues, institutions can take up intellectual

leadership. It can establish credibility in 10/15years time; Strategic Leadership must be the basic

starting point. There won‘t be war because war after reaching a level everything would have

been destroyed. It is not a type of surgical operation. We are much dependent to India and China.

And, we say 'no' to the Indian Army Convoy that wants to cross through Bhairahawa, Sunauli,

Birgunj.

Retired AIG Rabiraj Thapa, Chief of the Academic Coordinator, Command and Staff

College, Armed Police Force

On the standoff China is clear and I think India is also clear. I see Modi as a replica of Sardar

Ballav Bhai Patel. Chinese President Xi is like Mao. Likewise the present circumstance, political

leaders and individual political charismas is being much more visible and dominating. The

problem for Nepal is that it is in a dilemma of the trepidation. Nepalese are seemingly in hurry.

We have not been able to progress even after having full democracy. And we must think that if

such scenario comes to us what our role would be to solve the problem. We take note of

ungoverned space (terrorists utilize such ground undetected), we speculate about Japan and

China‘s reactions, but fail to give attention to other national issues as well. For example:

increased activities of Churches and the numbers of Christians and the funding in Nepal could

have unanticipated consequences in a long run. Similarly, we remain unknown about the

intelligence of RAW and have not estimated the same from Chinese side. We need to be vigil in

proxy war setting, organized crime activities, clandestine shelters, and many more.

Dwarika Nath Dhungel , Former Secretary of GoN

I am wondering, why Government of Nepal (GoN) could not bring this in a discussion. Or,

Nepal thought that it was not a right time to do so. Our Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) and

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Krishna Bahadur Mahara declared in haste that Nepal would

remain neutral between India and China on Doklam issue.

It may be recalled that Nepal declared the pursuance of neutral policy with regard to the standoff

between China and India on Doklam just before the visit of Indian Foreign Minister and Chinese

Deputy Prime Minister to Kathmandu. It could be coincidental as well. But, it seems that the

GoN wanted to avoid facing both the countries and not to antagonize them. As a result, as it did

also come out during our interaction, neither India nor China is happy with Nepal's policy. And,

one is thinking that on the pursuance of the other, it pursued the neutral policy. People comment

our DPM spoke without knowing the details or doing sufficient homework. In this regard, I had

read an excellent analysis of the said standoff by a Nepali in one of the online news recently. I

also do feel that Nepal made a hasty decision. Before being specific about official position,

Nepal should have a clear thought or be focused on its interest in short term, medium term and

long term basis. From this perspective, I see Singha Durbar is getting worse in terms of policy

decisions. Hence, I am blurred what Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) would be doing in

foreign policy matters, especially in taking decisions.

Some, as I hear, are citing the provisions of 1950 treaty in relation to the current standoff

between India and China. Meaning, that Nepal should stand with India and provide support to

her to face China. I would disagree with this view, and rather argue that Nepal may be weak

from the point of view of present-day political condition but from other point of view as far as

the knowledge and awareness is concerned, Nepal is not in 1950. So we would highly object the

reference of this treaty, a treaty which has already become obsolete, and cannot be referred in

relation to India‘s standoff with China on Doklam.

I have the experience of working with a number of former Prime Ministers; have seen how the

country prepares their visits to foreign countries. I have also worked in preparing the Joint

Communiqués. Normally, during the visits they fail to bring the agreements of the past or the

past understandings in discussions with the counter parts. Whatever is desired by the present PM

or government, gets preference in the bilateral talk. In this context, regarding the forthcoming

visit of PM Sher Bahadur Deuba to India, I doubt, a PM who is mandated for 8/9 months can

take up a stance on burning national issues. And therefore, in any such visits, say it India or

elsewhere, the officials express surprise to see the inconsistency even in the minimum deals.

We have nuclear power nations as neighbours. Nepalese people should see that current standoff

does not flare up into a serious conflict. If that happens, Nepal will have the impact of its fall out

effects. We wish it should not conflagrate, and therefore request both India and China for

restraint. I have had the opportunity to visit a place quite near to the Nathula pass, which leads to

Chumbi Valley and was adjacent to the present standoff area and not far from Chicken neck area

in North Bengal, a perceived strategic point for India. This seems to be the main reason for the

entry of the Indian Army into Doklam, thereby causing the current standoff with China. In

reference to a local newspaper, the Annapurna Post, the Indian tanks seemingly did cross the

international boundary. It can be measured as a serious thing to consider and is also provoking, if

true. The current issue of Doklam is a matter between China and Bhutan. The question arises

how India has come to the scene? In this regard, two questions could be raised. One; did Bhutan

make a request to India to intervene the road construction activity undertaken by China in

Doklam ? Two; was it was a unilateral decision of India to intervene in Doklam due to its

nearness to Chicken neck?

It may be recalled that through Chicken neck Nepal had secured the transit facility to Bangladesh

and its port through Radhikapur during the Prime ministership of Lokendra Bahadur Chand with

Dr Prakash Chandra Lohani as the Foreign Minister. As one of the official delegation members, I

had observed how they succeeded to secure the facility with their diplomatic skill during the visit

of then Prime Minister of India, Mr Inder Kumar Gujaral to Nepal, but sadly Nepal seems to

have failed in making best use of it.

Due to the current standoff between India and China at Doklam, the issue of Tri junction in

Chumbi valley has come into the fore. Likewise, the Kalapani area (a ground at the lower edge

of Lipu which is illegally occupied by India in Nepal‘s north western border area in Darchula

district), and Lipu Lekh also a junction point between Nepal and China in that district remains

under Indian illegal occupation. Consequent to which, the question arises what will happen if

both China and India mobilize their forces in the area if any border tensions arise in future. In

this context, Nepal should clearly tell these neighbours that Kalapani and LipuLekh belong to

Nepal. Also, Nepal should ask India to vacate the illegally occupied Kalapani area and

LipuLekh.

Reaffirming the 1816 Sugauli Treaty, the Mahakali river is the western boundary of Nepal with

India. Its source is yet to be agreed upon by both Nepal and India. So Nepal should propose India

to settle the source of Mahakali river on the basis of Sugauli treaty.

China is a rising power an aspirant of world power and India is racing. Nepal, thus, has to pursue

such a policy, which would enable to capitalize the development that are taking place in

neighbouring countries and maximize benefits. From this point of view the supreme quote of

Bada Maharaj Prithivi Narayan Shah is quite relevant even today in relation to our foreign policy

framing, when there was a need to propound a sound foreign policy by taking into account

country's geo-strategic position. Unfortunately, the leaders have started a system of using party

ideologue in shaping national policies, including the foreign policy. For example, when the

Nepali Congress is in power, they look for their own followers in designing the national policies.

Same is the case with other political parties as well, when they are in power. As a result,

whenever a party comes into power, it forms a task force to frame a foreign policy with the

members of its own party followers. But the report of the task force gets lost and a new task

force is again formed with every changes of government. As a result country's foreign policy is

getting weaker and weaker. And it is decided on ad-hoc basis rather than taking the short term,

medium and long term national interests into considerations. What should have happened is that

sitting government use a team of well-informed resource persons of the country regardless of

their political inclination. Since that is not happening, independent institutes, like one as NISS or

any other should come forward, should form a team with a small number of people drawn from

among the knowledgeable group, and assign this team the responsibility of working on a foreign

policy by taking into account different factors, such as geostrategic position of the country,

global and regional issues and past experience of the country etc. The substance of such project

work should be widely distributed to the stakeholders for securing the feedback and once it is

finalized, the product should be made public. Then pressure can be put to the Government to

adopt the report prepared or for the formulation of a robust foreign policy. This is how we can

contribute to the development of a sound foreign policy

Brig Gen (Retd) Dr Umesh K Bhattarai, Former Research Fellow IDSA

Our weak point is Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950. Eminent Persons Group ( EPG ) has

conducted four meetings. I participated in Dehradun Security Conference in 2016. We openly

put our opinions to review 1950 treaty. India does not want the changes. This matter can be

related to Bhutan‘s issue as well. India, even today, carries the legacy of British rule. India shows

apprehension on China‘s OBOR. Although Silk Road is old , so OBOR comes , but there is a

plan to defunct SAARC. I refer the saying of a writer from Mauritius, Safiq Usman, who sayed

"Geopolitics changes with economic and political changes." Nepal is not as it was in 60s. We

want to have our trade diversification Enough pressure was exerted to former PM Prachanda to

sign OBOR. What Usman says ―This is not science and arts, but is a practice. If we cannot walk

along we may pay a price.‖

The Treaty of 1950 which could not be reviewed till 70 years is a real dilemma. (Though,

provision is we can make this null and void in a year‘s notice) Foreign policy is a part of defense

policy. Gujral 's Doctrine is based on reciprocity. Prof C Rajamohan believes in reciprocity.

India says 1950 is our document and they will observe it through their lens. The Chinese treaty

of 1792 is also one to be examined, as we are supposed to send missionary in every 5 years. And

it has specified that China would assist Nepal. Later, China clarified that they will assist only

within their territory. We should also see the Brunei‘s case, the Tri partite treaty and so on.

Brig Gen ( Retd ) Dr Prem Singh Basnyat, Historian

What we should do in case of war ? We must ask about Doklam issue in the rural villages. We

speak with superficial insincere behavior. Nepal has remained an intact country since 2700 years.

It is different than India, China as well. We are in between China and India. China never

interferes in internal matter of a country. In the treaties there were conspiracy and betrayal in the

past. We should be neutral. We must well safeguard the relationship of a hornet and fish or an

owl. Our leadership ( in three Forces ) is happy with the annual budget only. We have not fought

our battles against corruption and poverty of Nepalese people. It is a serious matter that former

PM Prachanda signed a communiqué saying that we will have similar views on many

international issues, that can question our neutrality. I suggest making defense policy and

national security policy after having an endorsement of a national policy and constitution. We

should be alert that our leaders try to maintain one to one personal relationship with embassies

that is really harmful. And, I am sure they will go against major powers as directed by anyone.

Gopal Khanal, Former Foreign Policy Advisor to PM Oli

While on debate on Doklam ,we should see the Chinese position paper and the treaty of 1890 as

well. If we think it is a defined territory then can we consider it as tri junction? The 1890

Convention does not define this. We have seen the paper in nepal foreign affairs.com. In the

Chinese territory how Bhutan trespassed can be a point to discuss but not India. Bhutan has

requested (He admits letter was seen). The news of road expansion came out on 6 June.

Complaint has been registered after a week. Few books say that in 1962 it was China‘s unilateral

move for an attack and reflect that Indians are angry on it. Chinese are in view that new issue can

be done with mutual agreement. The allegation of Chinese giving shelter to a terrorist

organization (Indian FM Sushma Swaraj quoted) and the demand of comprehensive dialogue are

on media. So in Doklam India has a different view and US also may have similar or some other

views. Whatever is the language used , but I see it is about the containment of China. Scholars

have questioned why India cannot be in NSG (nuclear supplier group). India and US have done

an agreement in 2008. They think China has prevented from awarding a membership in NSG.

India has problem in Arunachal and Kashmir.

What is Nepal‘s capacity? The statement of DPM is adequate at this moment. Bhutan‘s foreign

minister said that peaceful solution was needed for Doklam issue while he was in Nepal, few

weeks ago. Can Nepal speak about the issue? We have already done a 25 Pt communiqué with

India and may have some questions on it. Can we side to India. Nepal as playing a neutral role

also can bring issue of Lipu Lek ( pass ) . We should give importance to sovereignty and

maintain neutrality.

Sudheer Sharma, Editor In Chief, Kantipur Daily

In the Joint Statement they have said to have similar view on many international issues. We also

viewed that the GON had done mistake by signing the document but later knew that the previous

governments also had done so. In Doklam, we should not only see the issue of Doklam, it should

be seen on holistically, and new changes are coming in geopolitics recently. Geopolitics has

returned. We should carefully evaluate the relation between China and India. Bhutan had tried to

have interference free foreign policy (independent). However, Bhutan succeeded to redefine the

relation with India in 2007. Bhutan tried to expand the special relationship. India does not want

to have any effect on its national interest. They are skeptical on Chinese Railway if crosses

through Bhutan from Yadung will be a threat. Or would this give access to China for entering

South Asia. China recognized Sikkim‘s annexation after 10/12 years. China and India have

signed document on Lipu Lek at least two times. China has taken a strategy of pleasing India as

well. They say this to Nepal as always to consider India‘s suggestion. This is an US design too.

But now after the emergence of India in International politics China has started to take up a

pressure tactics than a pleasing tactics. There are several examples of these eg Masood Azhar to

be declared as terrorist, NSG, cases of Maldives, Bangladesh, Burma etc.

China wants India not to go in US camp. If you see from Yadung , and I had seen from Indian

perspective there is no effect for India as such. China has some difficulty as foreign troops are in

their territory (that too of a third country ). So China does not feel happy with this long standoff.

So we should not be surprised if limited war will break at the Doklam area. What is our plan? It

is neutrality. And What is the result? If we take any side, ( as India feared before if this point was

raised during BIMSTEC meeting in Kathmandu where Indian FM also was present ). Nepal

already gave her position of neutrality before her arrival and for this Indian FM was not happy.

So both China and India are trying to take Nepal along into confidence. It is not only neutrality,

but we view Bhutan also look forward to have such independent policy. So we can have a step

up concept.

Maj Gen (Retd) Nara Bdr Kandel, Security Expert

We can have common opinion in this forum. The Nepalese media does not adequately cover the

issue. If there is war between two countries the third country may try to take the benefit

(indicating Pakistan ).We should take out the issue of Kalapani. Our public and politicians are

not fully aware of that. India showed a cold shoulder to OBOR and it has some reasons. There

would be difficulty in maintaining logistics in winter if war breaks. India and China are major

contributor of BRICS. There is tremendous increase of commerce between these two countries.

In both countries many IT experts do work. It will also affect the FDI. So in a war like situation

or war, the aspiration of Both India and China will be pushed back to several years. And western

world will be the winner with India and China as the loser. Doklam issue will be an eye opener.

There are however no early and late battle indications of war. As we closed the security Check

Posts in Nepalese Year 2012 B. S. Bhutan also should be awake to do so and remain with an

independent foreign policy and defense. At this moment Peacekeeping will not be asked for, as it

required procedure and no need. Nepal is not in a position to influence these big neighbors either.

We should remain neutral. And make future strategy.

Brig Gen (Retd ) Dr Rana Dhoj Limbu, Security Expert

This is a right program, and in right time. It is very relevant to understand the military

perspective of South Asian Security Environment. The key players are India, Pakistan in the

region and in the outer periphery are US, China, EU and Japan. Now coming to the issue

between China and India, as we know China is a rising power economically and militarily. And

due to this the center of gravity of world is shifting towards this region. India and China have

their own projects to be distinct in this aspect.

Basically the interest of world power is emerging designed to contain China, an emerging power.

And India is being used for that. Himalayas is the perimeter (southern border) of China. Doklam

actually does not threaten China which in fact is not within a range of conventional weapon

range but India is. In the security the envelopment and counter envelopments are generally seen.

And, only little rather limited information we do get regarding China. But we are looking at the

media reports from India. Few Indian Security experts say it is designed by China. In the history

of South Asia, there were wars between countries but it is a peculiar case where a third party is

also involved. In the making of Bangladesh (from East Pakistan) China did not come for their

assistance. We should not remain intactness thinking there will be no war. There could happen

anything that Nepal never had anticipated. There can be war in whole of 3500 Km, if so it will

seriously affect the environment. Even diverting the rivers could be designed by using nuclear

weapon. There can be impact in Silliguri Corridor. If we take sides of any country then we will

be finished. Therefore the greatest lesson for us is to ―There is always conflict if borders are not

clearly demarcated and secured. If war breaks the powerful country takes the benefit. I think the

problem of Lipu Lek should be raised , with many facts that needs to be brought out.

Dr Surya Dhungel, Legal Advisor to Former President of Nepal

The expert of political science must visualize larger picture of strategic interest. We should look

in the context of development of China and India, China as a rising power globally and India

racing behind it. We may look into the 1950 treaty as well to understand the geopolitical setting

of the region. There was an article of Dr Yubraj Sangraula in Annapoorna Post and one from Dr

Bipin Adhikari which needs to be referred. Do we think it is right to accept what Mr Prachanda

had signed during his time? These things do come in goodwill visit but how much is needed to

be placed in paper. For anything of national issues there are hardly any involvement of Scholars

and experts. We need to be alert. These things are to be studied by academic institution

objectively as NISS does. We should not undertake this abruptly in an adhoc basis.

Keshav Pd Bhattarai, Columnist of Strategic Analysis, Writer

Many think there will be war. Past experience says China and India had war in Nov 1962. The

conflict is normal to be between a rising power and the established power and analyst's view that

war was possible. Indian PM when visited Nepal first time was hauled but the same figure comes

to Nepal after 3 Months time came as the Indian PM. Ajit Dowal convinced Atal Bihari

Bajpayee ( former Indian PM ) to change policy between China and India, There are several

books written about Modi. China is also in complex time as the election is in Nov, and election

of Xi Jing Ping is a matter of concern. MK Bhadra Kumar ( an Indian by himself ) has said that

the disputed territory of Doklam is a part of China. Scholars view that India should change the

policy for its strategic aim. In the first and second World wars the conflict had started in very

minute cases. And if war is to happen, it will be related to smaller states, like Bhutan, Bangadesh

or even Nepal. The level of misunderstanding has rose in leaders‘ mind and Nepal should see its

position in it. Firstly, we need to be neutral. We are a nation state, and if we see that there is

some one-sided unfair then we ask ourselves that can we afford to be neutral or anything else. To

validate our position and existence in the world Nepal should speak the truth of conviction.

Although we observe Non Aligned Principle we should also not hesitate to give a merit based

opinion. If such cases really happens to Nepal, then who will be there to speak on our behalf.

The country begs money from both, so the government may not find it comfortable and think

that it should speak. But what about the people? The wisdom of a country will fade away if we

do not speak our observations.

Devi Ram Sharma, Former Chief, National Investigation Department

I take anxiety on the nation and the people. In Doklam issue, both our neighbors are witnessing

its importance with a clear eye. These are steps to bring fear to smaller nations with such issues

(Doklam Standoff). I think it could be a composite form of the hidden interests and differences

between two countries. China is saying the issue is between Bhutan and them. India says their

obligation to protect Bhutan as per the 1949 Treaty. The spillover effect will be damaging to

neighbors. How Nepal should be free of it? Of course we maintain our neutrality, and also

holistically understand that it is not a single issue to be seen, many emerging issues including the

South China Sea is also worrisome to neighbors. In many issues of the pacific and the region

India has shown mixing with US and has made similar opinion. However, Nepal‘s government is

weak in international and regional political part but it does not mean that our efforts should be

less for alerting the government for securing and safeguarding our national interest and also be

able to speak the truth in it.

DhrubaHari Adhikary, Senior Journalist

1. Beijing says – and Delhi agrees — that the area under dispute is close to Bhutan, not

adjacent to Indian Territory. So presence there of Indian troops has to be seen only as a 'help' to

Bhutan for defending its territory.

Question arises: has Bhutan asked for such help in the first place? That does not appear to be the

case.

Here I recall the press conference Indian conference Indian Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao

addressed at the end of his visit to Nepal, on 21st October 1992. I, as Reuters correspondent,

asked him a question relating to Bhutan – on the basis of the provision in Article 2 of the 1949

treaty between Kingdom of Bhutan and independent India. Article 2 said "Bhutan agrees to be

guided by the advice of the Government of India in regard to its external relations."

My question was: "Now that being the case, how and when does India propose to offer guideline

or advice to Bhutan, particularly in the light of deteriorating Bhutan-Nepal relations?

Rao's short answer was: This is very simple. We undertake to give guidance when it is asked

for."

[Transcription of that press conference can be found in the book edited Avatar Singh Bhasin :

Nepal's Relations with India and China : Documents 1947 – 1992]

PM Rao's reply meant that would refrain from offering unsolicited advice or guidance to Bhutan.

A new treaty in 2007 replaced the previous treaty – and contains no such provisions. This means

Bhutan can take decisions on its own in regard to its external relations.

NOW---

On what basis are some Indian experts, including Shivashanker Menon, claiming that India

continues to have "certain obligations to Bhutan"?

2. Since the current controversy focuses over territory not far from Sikkim, India's anxiety

and concerns for its security is understandable. (China recognized it as an Indian state in 2003.)

And India too needs to understand that there are other countries in its neighborhood which are

required to look after their borders.

While Nepal requires refrain from being dragged into the present bilateral issues between china

and India, it can't afford to remain complacent or indifferent to these unusual movements of

troops across its borders, either side.

Short-sighted politicians---both in power and those in the Opposition---may prefer complacency;

but Nepal Arm and other security - related agencies must be watchful.

There is no substitute for timely initiatives and appropriate measures.

3. Diplomacy definitely is the tool employed to avert conflicts on many levels. Nepal's

precarious geographical position makes diplomatic approach even more sensitive and delicate.

And, as seasoned diplomat late professor Yadunath Khanal said in one his books, politicians with

loose thinking and loose tongue cannot be trusted to handle delicate art of diplomacy. We have

also seen politicians casually using --- and often endorsing---the expression like "special

relations." But this is wrong—plain and simple.

Yes, Indian authorities, in 1960s, repeatedly alluded to this term when Nepal requested to

withdraw their military mission as well as personnel from our northern check-posts.

But India eventually withdrew, and era of "special relations' ---even if these existed up until that

time---came to its logical end. Experienced Nepali diplomats have read history and relevant

records, and they are carefully avoid using words and expressions which can be interpreted in a

way that can be ultimately detrimental to country's interests

Thanking Note by the Chairman, NISS

It is my privilege and honor to thank you for your participation and highly value your thought on

the subject. Your candid thoughts and recommendations were, indeed, very crucial in

understanding the magnitude of the crisis and its solution.

I sincerely want to thank you all who made it happen. Your cooperation in this regard is highly

appreciated. If anybody still thinks he has something to say we are always available for

interaction.

This morning we discussed the very important issue Doklam Standoff and Nepal. Doklam issue

is between Bhutan and China, the third party's (India) involvement has complicated the matter.

WE view that diplomatic relation between Bhutan and China should be established to solve the

bilateral issues. Same situation can arise in Kashmir and Nepal's far western region's tri junction

at Lipulekh. As far as the current situation is concerned, I personally think, Nepal has only

limited experience and lack physical facilities to mediate or facilitate between our two neighbors.

Last but not the least, without you there is no discussions, so once again thank you all for your

interest and attendance. Hopefully we will be able to do such event again in future regarding

major national, regional and international issues.

I announce the end of the interaction programme and request you to join for lunch.

Thank you!

21, Aug 2017

Note: Brig Gen Suresh Sharma ( Retd ) had highlighted about the program in the beginning.