Archive for the ‘Article’ Category
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 12, 2012
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
The 32 nations with materials that can fuel atom bombs are typically mum on security, which looks to the public like a closed world of barbed wire and armed guards. Behind the scenes, atomic insiders have long told horror stories of risky practices and security flaws that might let the crucial ingredients for nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands.
Now, for the first time publicly, experts have surveyed the precautions each country has in place and ranked the nations from best to worst. The study is full of surprises and potential embarrassments: for instance, Australia takes first place in nuclear security and Japan comes in at No. 23, behind nations like Kazakhstan and South Africa. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article | Tagged: Atom bombs, Deepti Choubey, Nuclear Arms, Nuclear threat | 1 Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 9, 2012
Nuclear power was developed in the name of establishing peace and now this is threatening the whole human race. Current existing amounts of nuclear power are enough to destroy not a single earth but dozens of equivalent earths. What will happen if the nuclear power will get into terrorists’ hand? This is today’s one of the biggest concerns for world leaders: http://ramkshrestha.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/overcoming-new-decade-challenges/:
Many historians argue that the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a turning point in mankind’s history, events that marked the beginning of humanity’s ability to instantly self-annihilate. After the United States had its first successful nuclear test in 1945, the nuclear club was soon expanded to include tests by the Soviet Union (1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), China (1964), India (1974), Pakistan (1998), and North Korea (2006).
As of today, there are nine countries generally recognized to own nuclear weapons, with Iran actively seeking to join this group. In order of the estimated size of the nuclear arsenal, from largest to smallest, are: Russia, the United States, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea. Notably, the five members of the Security Council (Russia, the United States, France, China and the United Kingdom) were the first developers of nuclear weapons and currently have the five largest nuclear stockpiles in the world.
While these nine countries are generally recognized as owning nuclear weapons, that doesn’t mean that they are the only countries that possess nuclear weapons. Countries that are not officially recognized as being part of the nuclear club, such as Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands, deploy and store American nuclear weapons as part of NATO agreements. Other non-nuclear countries such as South Korea, Canada and Greece previously had similar arrangements with the United States.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Posted in Article | Tagged: Countries With Nuclear Weapons, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Arsenals, Nuclear Countries, Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Nonproliferation, Nuclear weapons, Slidepollajax, World News | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 6, 2012
By Robert Lanza
Everyone knows that something is screwy with the way we visualize the cosmos. Theories of its origins screech to a halt when they reach the very event of interest — the moment of creation, the “Big Bang.”
The current scientific model proposes that the universe is like a watch that somehow wound itself and that will unwind in a semi-predictable way. Life arose by an unknown process, and then proceeded to change form under Darwinian mechanisms that operate under these same physical rules. Life contains consciousness, but the latter is poorly understood and is, in any case, solely a matter for biologists.
But there’s a problem. Consciousness isn’t just an issue for biologists; it’s a problem for physics. Nothing in physics explains how molecules in your brain create consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the miracle of love, the taste of a delicious meal — these are all mysteries to science. It can’t explain how consciousness arose from matter; our understanding of this basic phenomenon of our existence is nil. Not coincidentally, consciousness comes up again in a completely different realm of science. Quantum theory, while working well mathematically, makes no logical sense. As new experiments show, particles seem to behave as if they respond to a conscious observer. Because that can’t be right, physicists have deemed quantum theory inexplicable. The simplest explanation — that particles actually do interact with consciousness at some level — is too far outside the model to be seriously considered.
But even putting aside the issues of consciousness, the current model leaves much to be desired when it comes to explaining the universe. The cosmos sprang out of nothingness 13.7 billion years ago, in a titanic event humorously labeled the Big Bang. We don’t understand where it came from and we continually tinker with the details, including adding an inflationary period with physics we don’t yet understand. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article | Tagged: Before Big Bang, Before Universe, Big Bang, Big Bang Theory, Consciousness, Cosmos, Creation, Healthy Living News, Quantum mechanics, Quantum Physics, Space, Time, Universe | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on May 13, 2011
By बुद्धिनारायण श्रेष्ठ
नेपाल र भारतबीच विद्यमान खुला सिमानाका केही सकारात्मक पक्ष छन् भने कयौं गुणा बढी नकारात्मक कुरा रहेका छन् । खुला सीमाका यस्तानकारात्मक पक्ष सुरक्षा मामिलासँग गाँसिएका छन् । आतंककारी, अपराधी र विध्वंसकारी तत्त्व बिनारोकतोक खुला सीमा वारपार गरिरहेका छन् । अवैध कारोबारीले बिनाहिच्किचाहट चलखेल बढाइरहेका छन् । यस्ता तत्त्वले दुवै देशको सुरक्षामा प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पारिरहेको पाइन्छ । यो दुवै देशको चासोको विषय रहिआएको छ ।
भारतीय विदेशमन्त्री एसएम कृष्णा र विदेशसचिव निरूपमा रावको हालैको नेपाल भ्रमणका दौरानमा नेपालमा बढ्दो असुरक्षा, सुपुर्दगी सन्धि, नक्कली भारतीय मुद्रा नेपालबाट भारततर्फ छिराउने गरेको, नेपालमा स्थापित भारतीय कम्पनीको असुरक्षा, भारतीय कूटनीतिज्ञको असुरक्षा, नेपाल-भारत सीमांकन, ९८ प्रतिशत सीमा नक्सामा हस्ताक्षरसमेतका विविध बुँदा भारतीय पक्षबाट नेपालसमक्ष राखिएको थियो । मन्त्री कृष्णाले प्रधानमन्त्री झलनाथ खनालसँगको भेटवार्तामा पनि यी कुरा उठाए । भारतसँगको सम्बन्ध सुधारका लागि सुरक्षा स्थिति सुदृढ गर्ने लगायतका विषयमा प्रधानमन्त्री खनालले भारतलाई आश्वस्त पारेको समाचार सम्प्रेषण गरिएका थिए । सुरक्षाकै कारण नेपालमा रहेका भारतीय ठूला लगानी भाग्ने स्थिति आउन नहुनेमा पनि दुवै पक्ष सहमत रहेका थिए ।
यी सबै कुराको सूत्रधार नेपाल र भारतबीच रहेको खुला तथा अनियन्त्रित सिमाना नै हो । सुरक्षाको चासो सीमासँग गाँसिएको छ । विध्वंसकारीले सीमाको एकातिरको सुरक्षामा खलल पार्छन् अनि अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय खुला सीमाबाट लुसुक्क अर्कोतिर पसेर चुपचाप बस्छन् । सुरक्षा र खुला सीमाको पाटो निकै लामो छ । सुपुर्दगी सन्धि पनि सीमासँग जेलिएको छ । भारत र नेपालका नागरिकबाहेक तेस्रो देशका बासिन्दा भारतमा अपराध गर्छन् र छद्मभेषमा भारतीय नागरिकका रूपमा अनियन्त्रित सीमा पार गरी नेपाल पस्छन् । कालान्तरमा नेपालमा समातिन्छन् । यस्ता तेस्रो देशका अपराधीलाई नेपालले भारतसमक्ष सुपुर्दगी गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने भारतको चाहना छ जसलाई नेपालले सहमति दिन सकिरहेको छैन । सीमामा परिचयपत्र देखाएर मात्र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सीमा वारपार गर्न पाउने व्यवस्था भए यस्ता अपराधी सीमामै पक्राउ पर्न सक्थे ।
यसैगरी भारतीय नक्कली नोट तेस्रो देशबाट नेपाल भित्र्याई नेपालबाट तेस्रो देशकै नागरिकले भारतीय भूमिमा पुर्याउने काममा पनि खुला सीमाकै बाटो समात्ने गरेको सञ्चारमाध्यममा बराबर आउने गरेको छ । नक्कली नोट भारतीय सीमावर्ती क्षेत्रमा छ्यापछ्याप्ती भेट्टाइनाले यसबाट भारतीय मौदि्रक अर्थतन्त्रमा प्रतिकूल असर पर्न लाग्यो भनी भारत चिन्तित मुद्रामा रहेको छ । भारत र नेपालबीचको सीमा नियमन भइदिएको भए यस्ता अवैध कारोबार रोकथाम हुने थियो । Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article | 1 Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on April 15, 2011
ANGLO-NEPAL WAR (Gorkha &; British East India Company war)
By the end of the 18th century, the British East India Company was firmly established in India. The East India Company
had occupied almost all the princely States of India. They were looking for an opportunity to enter Nepal. The British were welcomed to Nepal during the Malla rulers. But Prithvi Narayan Shah did not allow them to stay in Nepal and a troop of British soldiers under the command of General Kinloch was badly defeated by the army of Prithvi Narayan Shah at Sindhuli in 1765 A.D. So, the British were aware of the strength and courage of the Gorkha soldiers. During the regency period of Bahadur Shah, East India Company put forward a proposal that the British might be allowed to trade
in the boarder areas between Nepal and Tibet. But Bahadur Shah rejected that proposal. In 1792 A.D., a commercial treaty was concluded between Nepal and British India, but that was not enforced. Later, when Rana Bahadur Shah was in Banaras, Damodar Pande concluded a commercial treaty in 1801 A.D. That treaty did not favour British interest. East India Company always tried to maintain friendly relations with Nepal.
The East India Company wanted to trade in Tibet. The only way to Tibet was through Nepal and Nepal would never allow the British to go to Tibet through her territory. Moreover, giving permission to the British to go to Tibet through Nepal meant loosing her own market, i.e., Tibet. In such a situation, the East India Company thought to threaten Nepal with war.
Another reason for British aggression to Nepal was that they wanted to reside in cool and healthy hill stations like Dehradun, Kumaon, Shimla and Darjeeling. These places were under Nepal at that time. But the immediate cause of the war was annexation of Shiva Raj and Butwal to Nepal in 1806 A.D. For some time there were meetings and talks to settle the disputes over Shiva Raj and Butwal. Ultimately, in 1814 A.D. the East India Company declared war against Nepal. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article, Dcuments | Tagged: Amar Singh Thapa, Anglo Nepal War, Bahadur Shah, Balabhadra Kunwar, Balabhadra Singh, Banaras, BATTLE OF DEUTHAL, BATTLE OF GADWAN, BATTLE OF JAITHAK, BATTLE OF JEETGARH, BATTLE OF KHALANGA, BATTLE OF PARSA, Bettiah, Bhakti Thapa, Bir Balabhadra, British East India Company war, Captain Knox, Chandra Sekhar Upadhayay, Commercial treaty in 1801 A.D., Damodar Pande, darjeeling, Dehradum, dehradun, East India Company, Gajraj Misra, Garhwal, General Kinloch, General Martindale, General Maubi, General Morley, General Octorlony, Girbana Juddha Bir Bikram Shah, Gorakhpur, Jaspau Thapa, Jeetgarh, Kazi Amar Singh Thapa, Khukuri, Kumaon, Lord Hasting, Lord Hastings, Ludhiana, Major-General Gillespie, Major-General John Sullivan Wood, Major-General Morley, Major-General Wood, Malla rulers, Nahan, Nala Pani, P. Bradshaw, prithvi narayan shah, Rana Bahadur Shah, Ranajor Singh Thapa, Shimla, Shiva Raj, Sikkim, Sohranpur, Srinagar, Teesta, Tibet, Treaty of Sugauli, Ujir Singh | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on March 7, 2011
Logic and reality could not meet always.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Posted in Article, Global | Tagged: Faith And Science, Francis Crick, Nonsense Of a High Order, Origin Of Dna, Origin Of Species, Proof Of God, Rabbi Moshe Averick, Religion And Science, Religion News, Religion Science, Richard Dawkins | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on June 13, 2010
By Shastra Dutta Pant, PhD
1. Political Situation of the Eastern Society
The eastern administration system was decentralized with Rajauta, Raja, Maharaja, and Badamaharaja ruling villages and states respectively as per the norms of Dharma Rajya. State was not concerned to planning and development, which was a common feature of entire south Asian region. There were more than 565 principalities in the present India alone. Nepal too did have over six dozen Rajya and Rajauta, called Bayeese and Chaubise.
Because of the loose union of eastern system, Europeans started colonizing those principalities, taking advantage of the weak political situation. Considering the importance of eastern philosophy, culture and Dharma, King Prithivi Narayan Shah tried to unify Nepal. In those days, Nepal was divided into small kingdoms and kingships. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article, Article | 32 Comments »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on February 1, 2010
By Buddhi Narayan Shrestha
The border treaty signed between the then government of East India Company and Nepal on March 4, 1816 is known as the Sugauli Treaty. The result of the treaty was that Nepal lost almost one-third of its territory on the east, south and west. Students of history know it well why and how the treaty took place. But it would be beneficial for others as well to know the historical background of the country. Late King Prithvi Narayan Shah unified the small fiefdoms / principalities and created a big and powerful Nepal. His descendents continued with the unification and expansion of the country. The East India Company government could not bear Nepal spreading out and becoming stronger. So, they resorted to trickery and deceit in the battles of Nalapani, Jaithak and Makawanpur to defeat the Gorkhalis and forced Nepal to counter-sign in the Sugauli Treaty.
2. Unequal Treaty:
Sugauli Treaty is known as an unequal treaty. Because any treaty is meant to give both the sides more or less equal or equitable benefits even if one side get a little more benefit and the other a little less. But Nepal suffered only losses because of the treaty while the British India gained a huge territorial advantage. The British got the facilities of corridor in the east and in the west, also it got all the facilities and benefits. No provision of facility and concession was made for Nepal. The territory of Nepal that had been unified and expanded to Teesta in the east, Kangara Fort in the West and nearly to the confluence of Ganga and Jamuna in the south, was curbed on all the three sides. So far as the international treaty is concerned, any treaty should be done on the basis of equality, mutual goodwill and understanding, but the British forced Nepal into the treaty under compulsion and duress. Therefore, experts on international treaty view that Nepal may not be forced to recognize the Sugauli treaty as a sound treaty. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article | 46 Comments »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 22, 2010
From India News Online
Article shared Abdul Kalam Ezani
The anti-India sentiment triggered by Bollywood film Chandni Chowk to China which was banned in Nepal [because it claimed Buddha was born in India and not Nepal] has stoked fresh demands for the recovery of the land acceded to India by Nepal nearly two centuries ago. As India celebrated its 60th Republic Day on Jan. 26, students staged a noisy protest outside the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu asking for the restoration of Greater Nepal. Led by a Nepali literature professor, Phanindra Nepal, the United Nepal National Front is asking India and Britain to separate certain areas from four Indian States and return them to Nepal since they were part of Nepal’s territory in the 19th century. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 11, 2010
भारतसँग जोडिएका २६ जिल्लामध्ये २१ जिल्लाका ५४ भन्दाबढी ठाउँमा नेपाली भू-भाग मिचिएको छ । भारतसँग जोडिएका चार जिल्लाहरु महोत्तरी, धनुषा, डडेलधुरा र बैतडी मात्र अहिलेसम्म अतिक्रमणबाट चोखा रहेका छन् । भारतबाट एकतर्फी रुपमा लगभग ६० हजार हेक्टरभन्दा बढी पछिल्लो दाङ र बाराबाहेक भूभाग मिचिएको अनुमान गरिएको छ । यसमध्ये कालापानी-लिम्पियाधुरा क्षेत्रको मात्रै ३६ हजार नवलपरासीको सुस्तामा १४ हजार र अन्य जिल्लाहरुमा ९ हजार हेक्टर जमिन अतिक्रमण भएको छ । त्यतिमात्र कहाँ हो र मेची-महाकालीसम्म भारतसँग सीमा जोडिएका १८ जिल्लामा ४ सय ७४ सीमास्तम्भ भारतीय पक्षबाट गायब भएका छन् । सशस्त्र प्रहरीबलको तथ्याङ्कअनुसार ३ हजार ५ सय २९ सीमास्तम्भमध्ये २ हजार ३ सय ५८ मात्र सामान्य अवस्थामा छन् । एकीकृत नेकपा माओवादीका नेता तथा संविधानसभा राष्ट्रिय हित संरक्षण समितिका अध्यक्ष अमिक शेरचन भर्खरै भारतीय सशस्त्र सीमा सुरक्षा बलले दाङमा गरेको ज्यादतीको अवलोकन गरेर फर्किए । परराष्ट्रमन्त्री सुजाता कोइरालाले दाङमा सीमा अतिक्रमण नभएको दावी गरेकी थिइन् । त्यसलाई खण्डन गर्दै शेरचन भन्छन्- “दाङको कुनै पनि सीमास्तम्भहरु यथास्थानमा छैनन् । जङ्गे पिलरहरु छैनन् । अनौठाखालका पिलरहरु सिमानामा भेटिए ।” यस विषयमा वरिष्ठ सीमाविद् बुद्धिनारायण श्रेष्ठ पनि सहमत छन् । सन् १९८१मा नेपाल-भारत संयुक्त सीमा समिति गठन भएर त्यसले २००७ डिसेम्बरमा आपुनो काम सकेको बताउँदै उनी भन्छन्- “तर त्यसमा पनि विवाद कायमै छ । सो समितिले ९८ प्रतिशत सीमाङ्कन गरेका दावी गर्दै १८२ थान नक्सा बनाएको दाबी गरेको छ तर त्यो सरकारी स्तरमै गोप्य राखिएको छ । ” गत मंसिरमा नेपाल भ्रमणमा आएका भारतीय विदेशमन्त्री प्रणव मुखर्जीले समेत सीमा विवाद रहेको स्वीकार गरेका थिए । अर्का सीमाविद् फणिन्द्र नेपाल अङ्ग्रेजले भारतलाई उपनिवेशबाट मुक्त गर्दा नेपालको भूमि पनि मुक्त गरेको बताउँछन् । उनी भन्छन् “नेपाल सरकारले यस मुद्दालाई सार्क आसियान र संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघमा पेश गर्न सक्नुपर्छ । Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article, लेख/ रचना /निबन्ध | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 8, 2010
By Dr. Shastra Pant
1.Both India and Nepal are independent and sovereign countries. The unique relationship between these two countries is based not only on a diplomatic and political level but also on the level of common people.
The geographical proximity holds a unique significance as Nepal lies on the southern slope of the Himalayas and all the rivers from Nepal flow towards India. Thus, it is customary to have more transactions in industry and trade sectors because of geographical structure.
2.India is Nepal’s closer neighboring friend. Nepal is one of the most beautiful nations located on the southern sunny lap of the Himalayas, stretching from east to west. It is sandwiched between the Tibetan autonomous region of the People’s Republic China in the north and the Republic of India in the south, east and west. Nepal is only the Hindu kingdom in the world having equal respect to all religions, traditions and cultures. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article | 1 Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 8, 2010
BY PHANINDRA NEPAL– The medieval Nepal was quite big in size but due to various reasons it went on being fragmented. The reintegration campaign started during 1744 and under the leadership of king Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1774, the campaign had reached as far as Darjeeling in the East. Even after the death of Prithvi Narayan Shah on 10th January 1775, the reintegration campaign continued. While forgoing ahead towards east, the border of Nepal was extended up to Sikkim by 1779. The border in the western front also went on extending. In 1790, the campaign crossed the Mahakali River and reached Gadwal in 1804 and by 1805, the Nepali Army reached Kangada across the Sutlej River. The Nepali Army succeeded, even if it had to make three years of continued efforts, in taking the Kangada Fort under its sway. In the last battle for Kangada in 1809, the Nepali Army was defeated and forced to return across back Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 7, 2010
By Sudeshna Sarkar
Kathmandu, June 19 (IANS) A major treaty signed between the governments of India and Nepal is not to be found in either the national archives or the royal palace here, giving rise to fears that other priceless documents of historical importance might have also vanished from the country, a newspaper said Wednesday. The infamous Sugauli Treaty signed in 1815 with the British East India Company, which was then ruling India, and is seen here as a major blow to Nepal, can’t be traced. It is neither in the National Archives of Nepal, the foreign affairs ministry or the royal palace, which was handed over to the government by deposed king Gyanendra June 11, the Himalayan Times said. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article, Article | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on January 6, 2010
Vidya Bir Singh Kansakar, Ph.D.
Professor and Head
Central Department of Geography
Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu
Note: This document is updated version of the papers presented in a series of seminars organized by the Institute of Foreign Affairs and FES in Nepalgunj, Birgunj, Biratnagar and Kathmandu. 2001 .
The Evolution of Nepal’s International Boundary with China and India
Like most of the countries of the world, the existence of Nepal had been recognised even before the international boundaries had been fully and finally established. Mention of Nepal is found in the ancient history of both China and India. Nepal-China boundary is as old as the history of the two countries, but in contrast to the very ancient cultural, social, political and economic relations, Nepal-India boundary has a comparatively recent origin and its present boundary demarcation and delimitation took place after the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-16. In contrast to Nepal’s boundary with India on three sides: west, south and east, the boundary between Nepal and China lies in the north only. However, the demarcation of Nepal-China boundary had been a problem in the past, because more than 90 percent of the frontiers run through high altitudes with rocks and snow, glaciers and ice fields which are entirely uninhabited. Both countries have respected and continue to respect the existing traditional and customary boundary line and have lived in amity. No remarkable or noticeable territorial dispute has existed between Nepal and China. The few territorial disputes that existed were over rival claims for the settlements of Kimathanka in the Sankhuwasabha and Taplejung districts, the area adjoining the border of Rasuwa, and Nara Nangla of Humla district with the origin of dispute dating back to 1815, 1818 and 1834 respectively (Nepali, 1964:1).:These disputes were resolved by the Nepal-China Joint Boundary Commission on October 5, 1961.
The ruggedness of Nepal-China boundary is clearly revealed by its length which is 1415 kilometres, while Nepal-India boundary which runs along three sides of Nepal is only 1850 kilometers, 465 kilometers longer than Nepal-China boundary. The 1415 kilometre length of Nepal-China boundary is based on measurement in the maps ( for details on Nepal-China Boundary see Annex). If the actual measurement is made on the ground along the slopes and ridges of the mountains, the length of the boundary will be more than that indicated by the measurement in the maps. So far as Nepal-India boundary is concerned, the mountainous portions of the boundary lie in Sikkim State and Darjeeling district of West Bengal State in the east, while rest of the boundary runs along the plains in the south and along the Mahakali River in the west.
The Delineation and Demarcation of Nepal-India Boundary
Prior to the domination of India by the British East India Company, both Nepal and India were divided into petty kingdoms and principalities. As such, very little information is available regarding the extent of border as well as border disputes between Nepal and India. The British East India Company had already started the colonisation, expansion and consolidation of Indian states and principalities through invasion, and was planning to invade Nepal after the death of King Prithvinarayan Shah. The plea for invading Nepal was their false claim over the control of Butawal, which in reality belonged to Nepal. The Anglo-Nepal War of 1814 and the subsequent treaty of peace signed between Nepal and the East India Company on December 8, 1816 resulted in the delimitation and delineation of Nepal-India border. The Mahakali River formed the western boundary, while the Mechi formed the boundary in the east along with ridges in the Darjeeling hills and Sikkim. Accordingly, Nepal had to forsake the areas lying to the west of the Mahakali River and the areas lying to the east of the Mechi River including the return of the territory of the Rajah of Sikkim occupied by Nepal. The East India Company delineated and demarcated the southern boundary on its own. But no demarcation was made for the Tarai region lying between the Mahakali River and the Arrah Nala, which was ceded to the British India in 1816. Moreover, the entire western Tarai was almost covered with dense forests, and, at the same time, there was no physical basis to discern the northern limit of Tarai. Nepal and India had a dispute over this ill-defined and ill-demarcated boundary. Prime Minister Jung Bahadur spent the last two decades of his rule in solving these problems. In his lifetime, he settled all the problems affecting the boundary between Nepal and India, because he was apprehensive that in the future such problems might lead to friction between the two states (Husain, 1970:108). A straight line between the two pillars was drawn for the demarcation of the border in the forest areas, while demarcation in the cultivated land was made on the basis of village boundaries on the principle of mutual give and take. Major disputes and problems arose in the case of river boundary due to erratic changes in the river courses in the Tarai region. In recognition of assistance of Nepalese army in quelling the 1857 mutiny in Lucknow, and because of the fact that the western Tarai, which was ceded to India under the Treaty of 1816, was retrocede to Nepal, the Boundary Commissions of the two Governments met in North Oudh at Bhagura Tal in February 1860 to survey and demarcate the boundary. After the completion of the survey and demarcation, the King of Nepal and the British Resident signed a formal treaty on November 1, 1860. Even after that, the dispute over the river boundary between Mondia Ghat to Bunbasa along the Mahakali (Sharada) river arose immediately after the treaty and was resolved in December 1864. Nepal made the claim over the Dudhawa Range up to the foot of the hills, while the British insisted on the Range watershed forming the boundary and the area along the Southern slopes of the watershed belonging to India. The Agreement endorsing the claim of Nepal was ratified on June 7, 1875 (Tyagi, 1974:88-98). For the Nepalese territory of 2800 acres ceded to India for the construction of the Sharada Barrage in the early 1900s, a total of 4000 acres in Taratal area to the south of Bardia district was given to Nepal. Later, the survey and review of the territory ceded to India by Nepal revealed that an excess of 31 acres had gone to India. India had agreed to compensate for that area, but it has not yet materialised. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Article, Article | 5 Comments »