Talk:Kalapani territory/Archive 1

@Kautilya3, Please don't make this article biased again. If you think its true then add reliable sources or references. If no then don't make this article biased. Rawal Bishal (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to respond to what I said in the edit summary first: You cannot remove the fact that it is under Indian administration, which is a statement of fact, not an opinion. What is your response? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, We cant be adding the disputed things on our opinion. If GMT +5:30 is correct then there should be a verifiable reference.Rawal Bishal (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If it is under Indian administration, it is following the Indian time zone.

I am afraid you are not understanding the basic terms such as "

disputed", "claim" and "administration". I suggest you look at loads of other pages that exist on disputed territories and see how they are handled. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 17:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

British Indian gazettes

भारतीय राजपत्र भन्छ : लिम्पियाधुरा नेपालकै हो -

This edit request to Kalapani territory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A British Indian Gazette by JMS Adams shows that the Kali river is originated at Kumthi Yangti river. This proves that govt of India has gone in violation of their predecessor's (British) gazettes and setup their claim to Kalapani which is a route to Kailash Mansarovar.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.28.86.145 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Spintendo  02:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Kalapani territory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

User:Spintendo Please add just add brother just add, not replace anything from article.

"The 1911 British Indian gazette Almora (A Gazetter) Volume XXXV by JMS Adams shows that the Kali river is originated at Kunthi Yangti river. The people of Vyas region were instructed to pay taxes in Nepal. "^[1]

 Not done: Please clarify what it is, about the gazette's showing of the river as originating at Kumthi Yangti, that proves the government of India has gone in violation of their predecessor's (British) gazettes and setup their claim to Kalapani.  Spintendo  03:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This news article is talking about the Almora District Gazetteer published in 1911. We already discussed it above in the section Formation of Mahakali River or Kali River, which you are welcome to read. The Gazetteer also says:

The drainage area of the Kalapani lies wholly within British territory, but a short way below the springs the Kali forms the boundary with Nepal.^[2]

The British-decided border (as documented in 1911) puts the "drainage area of the Kalapani" (i.e., Kalapani territory to the south of the river as well as the corresponding territory to the north of the river) inside India. The Kali river boundary starts "below the springs". So the Kalpani village was also included in India. I am displaying here a US Army map from 1955 that shows this boundary. The decisions were made in 1817 and 1856, long before India's independence. Nepal was also under British suzerainty until 1923.

Please note that newspapers are not considered

reliable sources for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 13:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

But not satisfied with this advantage, the Nepalese claimed the villages of Kunti and Nabhi as also lying to the east of the Kali, averring that the Kunti Yankti or western branch of the head-waters should be considered the main stream as carrying the larger volume of water. Captain Webb and others showed that the lesser stream flowing from the sacred fountain of Kalapani had always been recognised as the main branch of the Kali and had in fact given its name to the river during its course through the hills. The Government therefore decided to retain both Nabhi and Kunti, which have ever since remained attached to British Byans.[3]

Simply put, what this is saying is that the British gave away the Tinkar valley, which had previously belonged to Kumaon. Nepalis asked for the Kuthi valley also. The British refused. The "Byans parganah" was thus divided between the two countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, I marked the Kyodo News source as unreliable source because it is quite wishy-washy, filed by an isolated reporter from Kathmandu. Specifically, it claims that "Nepal insists the source of the Mahakali River is to the west of Kalapani", without making clear who in "Nepal" has so insisted. The Nepal-claimed border is along the Kalapani river, as shown in the infobox. It is certainly not to the "west of Kapalani". You can verify it by going to the OpenStreetMap or Google Maps. (For some reason the Wikipedia-imported OpenStreetMap doesn't show claim lines.) No other international newspapers have reported this claim.

The second part of the sentence "while India says it is to the east" is also wrong. India says it is at Kalapani.

There are numerous other sources that clarify things. You will need to await my thorough rewrite. At the moment, I just tagged the most problematic content of the old text. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

This source is also used in the article

talk

) 05:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Historical records of the survey of India Vol-III (1815-1830) shows a map of Kumon on page no. 78 describes the boundary between India and Nepal. According to this map and survey (It was the first survey) the Kalapani territory belongs to Nepal. Historical records of the survey of India Vol-III (1815-1830)  👤Raju💌 18:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any country borders shown on page 78.

But I also don't see why you are bothering with old surveys. The map on top of this page shows the border running along the Kalapani river, which implies that the "Kalapani territory" (the 38 sq km area up to the eastern watershed) was controlled by Nepal. I believe this was the case up to 1947.

The border was apparently moved up to the watershed by 1961, when the China-Nepal border pillar no. 1 was placed at that location. The 1965 CIA map also shows the same border. These things could not have happened without Nepal agreeing to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed! During Matrika Prasad Koirala (prime ministership in 1952) Nepal allowed India to station its troops in Kathmandu and on Nepal’s northern border, including Kalapani. India later withdrew from all other posts and stationed its troops on its side of the border of Kalapani. But later, India moved into Nepali territory, making Kalapani a disputed area between Nepal and India.[2][3]  👤Raju💌 01:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No, borders don't change merely because you allow some one to station troops. Nepal must have agreed to the border adjustment. Otherwise, it cannot show up on international maps. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have scratched out my earlier "belief" that the border was unchanged between 1893 and 1947. In the light of the Almora District Gazetteer (1911), it is clear that the drainage basin of the Kalapani river was included in the British territory well before India's independence. Independent India has been using the same border. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Some more comments on the map on page 78. The map is titled A Sketch of Kumaon and dated 1819. (The name of the surveyor is Captain W.J. Webb.) There is no border marked. The "KALEE" river is labelling a river obtained by the union of three or four streams, which are all unlabelled. Their valleys are labelled as "Jwahir", "Darma" and "Byans" (using modern spellings). The Kuthi village is marked as "Keentes" or "Keentas" "Koontee". The adjoining mountain range forming the Tibet border is also marked "Keentas Mts." "Koontas Mts." A "Kalapanee Fountain" is marked, above it a "Mandarun Camp" (not entirely legible) "Mandarim Camp". Behind the Kalapanee Fountain is a "Beeans Rikhi P." (Byanks Rikhi peak). Lower to the south, there is a mountain or village called "Kuwalekh" and a village "Tinkar". Even though surveyors don't make boundary decisions, it seems like the surveyor's intent is that all these places should be regarded as "Kumaon". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I show you some old maps that proves that the source of Kali river earlier marked near Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh. Some earlier maps shows the west Kalee or Kuti is the main source of Kali river which downstream from Limpiyadhura. Some other maps shows Lipulekh as the main source of Kali river.  • Check this map of 1850. It shows Limpiyadhura as the main source of Kali River and it also shows Garbia (Garbyang) as part of Nepal. [4]

 • This map of 1861 also clearly shows Limpiyadhura as the main source of Kali river. [5]

 • A map of 1834 showing Kalapani in Nepal. [6]

 • These two maps of 1846 and 1850 shows Lipulekh as the main source of Kali river. [7] [8]

 • This map of 1916 also shows Lipulekh as the main source of Kali river but a small curve can be seen on the map near Lipulekh which looks controversial. (Tinkar pass also can be seen on the map which doesn't looks source of Kali river.) [9]

 • This map shows sources of Kali river. Here we can see the primary source of the Kali river downstream from Limpiyadhura. [10]

 • Also check this article for more information [11]  👤Raju💌 06:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not enough to say "this map" and "that map". Only official maps are worth anything. Moreover, map makers don't make borders. The governments do so. Survey of India maps can be presumed to show the officially agreed borders, even though sometimes mistakes could have been made. The history of the official maps is covered in this article by a couple of Nepalese scholars:

• Manandhar, Mangal Siddhi; Koirala, Hriday Lal (June 2001), "Nepal-India Boundary Issue: River Kali as International Boundary", Tribhuvan University Journal, 23 (1)

Until I know better, I am taking this to be authentic information. This shows that, around 1865, the British India claimed the area that roughly corresponds to the present day "Kalapani territory" and the Kalapani village too was included in it. The Almora Gazetteer (1911) has called it "British territory". Some time between then and now, the border was altered in Nepal's favour. The Kalapani village currently belongs to Nepal, which wasn't the case then. This is a significant point because the Kalapani village is the only inhabitable place in the entire area. Above it there are only camping grounds. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Scratched out dubious information based on OpenStreetMap. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Leave this matter. Finish here!  👤Raju💌 23:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please include this map in Geographic and tradition section and write in caption: Survey map of Kumaun and British Garhwal (E.C. Ryal 1879) Source of Kali river and Kuti yangti, meeting place of rivers and form of Mahakali river.--- 👤Raju💌 12:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Raju Babu, welcome back to the page. Happy New Year to you!

I don't have any objection to including this map, but I am wondering if it is really necessary on a page that is already heavy with maps. It is from 1879 and so shows the political situation of that time. Surely, Webb's map from early 1800s shows the tradition better?

Note also that the borders shown on this map are the present day borders. In a way, it confirms all that has been said in the article. I would also note that this map is covered in the Dhungel and Pun paper, at the end of section 2.3. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No, present day border is shown near Tinkar pass (a ridge line). You don't think that the whole article of "Kalapani territory" is written as of an Indian view? The writer has written only things that supports only Indian view. He has searched references and links that only supports his view. Why don't you write this article with true view? I have references that says Kuti yangti was source of Mahakali river just after Sugauli treaty (1814-1816) and there are many maps available that shows Nepal's western border starts near Limpiyadhura and Kuti yangti was the border line. (that time Kuti yangti was named Kali or Western Kali, Kuti yangti is local name which mean Kali river. Kuti=Kali, Yangti=river) but after some years Britishers introduces new maps and they shows Kali river which starts from Lipulekh is the border between British and Nepali territory. After Independence of India, Deshi India shows a ridge line which starts near tinkar pass is border between Deshi India and Nepal.

Nepal was technically a poor country. Nepal had no printer press, no surveyors and no drawing makers. It always used maps drawn by Britishers. Britishers cleverly occupied 400 km2 land between Limpiyadhura to Lipulekh, then Nepal drawn own map and Nepal always used Lipulekh as a western border but after Independence of India, India occupied 35 KM2 land and made the ridge line which is near Tinkar pass is the border between Nepal and India. Nepal couldn't convenience the world with own maps, so US or other country just owned the borderline what India want to shows but they accepts that there are dispute between India and Nepal over 435 KM of land.

I have nothing to tell if you don't show true view of this article because this article is not going to solve the dispute. Solution of the dispute is the matter between two governments, but the the true facts should be kept in this article. --- 👤Raju💌 06:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither you nor I can possibly know anything called "true view". But coming back to this map, it shows the border running through Mount Api marked as "20276" and joining the Kali/Kalapani river a little south of the Kalapani village. Do you see it? If you ask me to put this map on the page, that is what my caption would say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you see any river there downstreaming near 20276? It is clearly said in Sugauli Treaty that a river is a border line between British and Nepal territory. What are you trying to show me is a Danda (contour line of top elevation of the hills). Don't you see Kali river line is going towards 13757?--- 👤Raju💌 07:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The article says:

Some time around 1865, the British shifted the border near Kalapani to the watershed of the Kalapani river instead of the river itself, thereby claiming the area now called the Kalapani territory.

This map confirms the statement. The dashed line shown on the map is the border, not a contour line. I can enlarge the map for you if you wish. (The border was no more along the river, as stated above.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If these are border lines then what is the meaning of the lines drawn western part of the rivers? Check 10934, 16157, 20455, 20264, 14960, 14961 --- 👤Raju💌 04:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

They are internal boundaries of the various political units (let us call them "subdistricts"). This is a map of the "Kumaun and British Garhwal" province. The district and subdistrict names are shown in all capitals: TALLADARMA, MALLADARMA, CHAUDANS and BYANS etc. Note in particular that the "S" of "BYANS" falls in the Kalapani territory.

The internal boundaries are shows as dashed lines. The external boundary is being shown with dot-dashed line. It starts at the top right of our map as the border with Tibet, runs the corner near Om Parvat, runs through Mount Api and reaches the Kalapani river valley a little south of the Kalapani village and then "disappears". When it disappears the border is taken to run along the "midstream" of the river. At the bottom right of the map, it leaves the midstream again for a short distance before the map ends. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If .._._._._._._ is an international borderline then why is there an International line near Talla Darma, Malla Darma and why is showing N E of Nepal on index on page No. 36? --- 👤Raju💌 14:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily "international", but exterior boundary. There might have been non-British-ruled territories there, or perhaps, it is the boundary of the main district being depicted in this map, with name "DARMA" in big white capital letters (similar to "NEPAL"). The index at the bottom is clearly inaccurate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that this map has been interpreted by Nepalese scholars in practically the same way as I did above:

The map "District Almora" published by the Survey of India [during 1865-1869] for the first time shifted the boundary further east beyond even the Lipu Khola (Map-5). The new boundary moving away from Lipu Khola follows the southern divide of Pankhagadh Khola and then moves north along the ridge. The map published in 1879 by Surveyor General of India followed the boundary exactly as in the "District Almora" map. Shifting of the boundary encroaching more Nepali territory seems to be motivated by strategic reasons. To have control on both sides of the river gives British India total control of north-south movement in the area and the inclusion of the highest point in the region with an elevation of 20,276 feet provide unhindered view of the Tibetan Plateau.^[1]

I also bold faced the word "river", which has been contested in recent days. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi

protected state

. In my view, neither Nepal nor Bhutan was ever a British protectorate, unlike the "Indian princely states", which were always considered protectorates.

Bhutan was a protected state and continued to be so until 1947. Nepal was given "independence" in 1923 (as per Whelpton as well as various sources such as this), but we probably won't find agreement in sources on whether it was a protectorate or protected state prior to it. (That kind of terminology wasn't solidified at that time.) But according to the modern definition, it would have been a protected state, not a protectorate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Look

Qing Dynasty) until 1814 but when Nepal fought a war with Britishers in 1814, China did not come to defend Nepal so after 1814 Nepal was no more a protectorate state of China and Tibet remained a protectorate state of China. There are no articles in Sugauli treaty or in treaty signed in 1860 says "Nepal is a protected state of British" or "Nepal's external affair is retained with Britain". Just mentioned in Sugali Treaty that: Raja of Nepal will never engages war with countries laying west of Kali river and Sikkim because these territories were now subject of British subjugate. Article VIII of Sugauli treaty: In order to secure and improve the relations of amity and peace hereby established between the two States, it is agreed that accredited Ministers from each shall reside at the Court of the other.--- 👤Raju💌

05:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Since we are both agree that it was not a protectorate, there is no need to mention that any more.

As for "protected state", I can offer this source:

For diplomatic and pragmatic reasons, the British Government downplayed and occasionally overplayed the protected status of these states and chieftaincies. It thus referred to the native states of India sometimes as protected states and sometimes as protectorates. Nepal during 1816–1923, Afghanistan during 1880–1919, and Bhutan during 1910–47 were British-protected states in all but name, but the British Government never publicly clarified or proclaimed their status as such, preferring to describe them as independent states in special treaty relations with Britain.[2]

The British terminology and official positions were deliberately ambiguous. In many cases throughout the "informal British empire", the nature of the relationship became clear only after it ended. The precise nature of that relationship may be of interest in History of Nepal, but not in this article. All that matters here is that, prior to 1923, the British were in a position to impose their preferred terms on Nepal. One of those turned out to be the Kalapani territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Very sharp and clever minded you are. Very similar to

Kautilya. Anyhow you just want to prove yourself. You told me dash lines on above map File:1879 Kumaun and British Garhwal No. 37 by GTS.jpg is an international border lines. Lol! Go and study lines and symbols on topographic map, those topographic dash lines are trails (walkway or overpass on hills)^[3] and then come to talk me. अब तो मुझे लगता है तुमसे argument करना ही व्यर्थ है। (Talking to you is pointless)--- 👤Raju💌

19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what I am supposed to say to that. Please be assured that I am guided by

reliable sources as far as possible and relatively little of what I say is my own interpretation. I also added another RS-comment on the 1879 map above. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 21:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I notice that a gallery of maps has been recently added, whose captions I have copy-edited. Some points to note:

• The 1934 map is not an official map. It is by some "
  Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge
  ".
• The 1908 map is a historical map, not a current map.
• I have corrected the POV wording "border shifted" of 1851 map. There is no evidence of "shifting". The article body explains the best information available.
• I have removed the statement of Nepali position as "continuing". No evidence has been provided to show that Nepalese claimed Kalapani prior to the rise of the Maoists.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get into direct editing as I don't have access to all the sources, or time to look into all of them. But some of it stood out to me, on a cursory reading. Please reconsider the following:

1. "ending their 25-year occupation, which is remembered for its brutality and repression." It was annexed by Nepal, not simply occupied; that's what kingdoms did in those days. The last clause may be best removed altogether, since it may be true but is quite irrelevant with regard to the subject, and is likely to only be a source of controversy.
2. "Even though the Article is widely interpreted today to mean that the Kali River forms the boundary of Nepal, it was not so at that time." This reads like OR and is unnecessary. If that's how it is widely interpreted, that's what we should reflect. If anything, anything that suggests that is not true could be FRINGE POV if that's true.
3. "However Nepal was under British suzerainty at that time as a British-protected state." The quote in the source clearly says Nepal was not a suzerainty and was in fact referred to as independent state in special treaty relations with Britain.
4. " the western Tarai regions including Janakpur and Kapilavastu" Neither Janakpur, nor Kapilvastu are in the "Naya muluk", Janakpur is in Eastern Terai, Kapilvastu is in Central Terai.
5. "The boundaries that exist now are not the same as those of the Sugauli treaty." This is obviously trying to counter a popular talking point of the Nepalese side of the argument. It is however quite irrelevant, and veers into editorialising/advocacy.
6. "This region, known as Madhes, is yet to be properly integrated in Nepal." That's not what Madhes is, and it's got nothing to do with the Madhesi issue, and it is also undue/irrelevant wrto. the subject.
7. "In 1923, Nepal was released from British suzerainty and received recognition as an independent state." The source (above) says it was never a suzerainty. Something clearly changed with this treaty but it was not the formal status of the country.
8. "The Mahakali Treaty, signed in February 1996 between India and Nepal, pertains to sharing water of a river by the same name. Now the Treaty is in force and is in the process of implementation." This in no way adds to the understanding of the topic, nor does it indicate it's own relevance.
9. "The Maoist Party, which was leading an armed insurgency in 1998, laid more expansive claims than the Nepalese government. Several Nepalese intellectuals drove these claims. According to them, the "Kali River" is in fact the Kuthi Yankti river that arises below the Limpiyadhura range. So they claim the entire area of Kumaon up to the Kuthi Valley, some 400 km² in total." Is this based on the source, or a commentary on the source? It looks like a mix of faulty generalisation, editorialising and OR.

Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much Usedtobecool. All good comments. I will think about them and get back to you if I have further comments. On the last point however, I am pretty sure that I have seen it in sources even if my citation wasn't great. The Nepalese PM has mentioned Limpiyadhura in his latest statement. Whether it is an "official" demand or not is not yet clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess this counts as "official". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The mention of "Maoist Party" was apparently made by you, but I think it is wrong. It was CPN-UML. I suppose they weren't fighting the insurgency? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I only made the sentence self-consistent. The party that was leading a maoist revolution in 1998 was the Maoist party. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologise to those of you who have seen this already. I posted it at Talk:Tinkar by mistake

This paper has been on my to-read list for a while:

• Manzardo, Andrew E.; Dahal, Dilli Ram; Rai, Navin Kumar (1976), "The Byanshi: An ethnographic note on a trading group in far western Nepal" (PDF), INAS Journal: 84–118

I read it today, having suddenly noticed that it is way back from 1976, before all these disputes emerged. I am not sure if this journal is still running or not, but it is apparently published by the Institute of Nepalese and Asian Studies at the Tribhuvan University.

The paper says nothing about Kalapani. Regarding Lipulekh, it says:

Previously there were two passes to Tibet, the Lipu pass (Lipu la) and the Tinkar pass (Tinkar la), but now only the Tinkar pass is accessible, since the Indians have closed Lipu pass to trans-Himalayan traffic.

No mention of Nepal as owning or claiming Lipulekh. The map on page 90 shows the border exactly as India draws it, putting the Kalapani village in the Indian territory.

I was a bit surprised by this. I thought that maybe the Nepalese didn't know where the border was and mistakenly thought the Kalapani village was within Nepal. But this map proves that the border was well-known, at least to the educated Nepalese. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed a bunch of stuff about Kuthi Yankti as being "real Kali". It has nothing to do with the subject of this article.

I also find problem with this material in that it is mostly privately-generated. There is practically nothing about what the Nepalese government claims or demands. For an official border dispute, we need information about the government positions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I made small changing and added Kuti Yangti as claimed by Government of Nepal as source of Kali river. I also added a link of map issued by government of India on which river is named as "Kali" not as "Kuti Yangti".--- 👤Raju💌 15:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The river shown as "Kali" is not Kuti Yangti, but the

Darma River

. Somebody screwed up obviously.

In any case, we shouldn't combine material like that, as per

WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 17:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added a small sentence "The book also states that the true source of Kali river is "Kuthi Yankti".--- 👤Raju💌 06:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL. I know this line very well, and will be moving it to the Dispute section when I expand it. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 21:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sources for the "Indian administration". But practically all the sources cited on this page say it, if you actually bother to read them.

Wikipedia's

WP:THIRDPARTY policy is not based on countries, but rather on whether the source is engaged in the dispute or whether it is describing it and analysing it. Unfortunately, pretty much all the news sources from Nepal are engaged in the dispute, as are the scholarly sources. They also get the facts badly wrong. So it has been difficult to get the Nepalese side of the picture. But I am slowly finding some sources that seem decent. If you want a source from a third country, please read the Sam Cowan's article, which was published by the London School of Economics. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sudur Pashchim province.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Raju Babu, I don't think the provenance of this map is clear. First of all, you have downloaded this from zenodo.org according to the commons entry. But who published it on zenodo? Where did they get it from?

Secondly, this was not a "published" version of the map. It was hand-copied by somebody in 1829, from the Surveyor General's office. So we can't be sure that it is Webb's version of the map, precisely. The first map that I had included at the beginning of the article is taken from a book published by the Survey of India in 1856. So that is not original either. But it is at least authenticated by Survey of India. It also has Webb's signature on the bottom left.

The funny thing about the copy you have produced is that the labelling of the "KALEE Rr" is stenciled upside down. It is the only lettering on the map that is upside down. I also have another version of a map, where also it is written upside down, but in a different handwriting from the original writer.

We need to be careful about attributing ideas to Webb, because Webb himself is said to have been the principal proponent of the Kalapani river being the Kali river. So, claiming that he labelled Kuthi Yankti as Kalee would be a major inconsistency.

We cannot push maps too far. We need content, coming from reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Ji, I have not produced this map at my home. This map is catalogued in CATALOGUE OF THE HISTORICAL MAPS OF THE SURVEY OF INDIA (1700-1900) which is available at NATIONAL ARCHIVE OF INDIA and it was published by THE NATIONAL ARCHIVE OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. Check here [12]. Now accept that the river was first named Kalee River and later after 1860, they named it Kuty Yangti. Sometimes before 1860 they named it West Kalee River too. Kuti Yangti is Bhot name for Kali Nadi which means Black river in English. If you want more maps showing Kali river instead of Kuti Yangti I can show you. Well I have found a source that says: The decision to give the long strip of land east of kali river was taken on 18th of December, 1817 when Zamindar (landlord) of six villages Boodhi, Gurbeea, Goonjee, Nabhee, Nihal, Kuthi of Beans Pargunnah wrote a letter to commissioner of Kumaun that their tenans lived east side of kalee river then the Acting Chief Secretary directed his Kumaon Commissioner to give those land to Nepal govt. and then those six villages were put in Doti Pargunna. But I am looking for more reliable sources--- 👤Raju💌 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We can get to that later, but let us focus on the map for now. The map here says it is a copy made in 1829. So this is not the map in the archives of the Survey of India. Whether the map in the archives has the same labelling, we don't know. (By the way, I believe that it probably does. But I am not convinced that Webb put that label. It might have been added by somebody in the Survey of India. But we won't know until we see the original.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't say more about it. You can just read here about it. https://zenodo.org/record/3596387#.XtCyznWEbqv--- 👤Raju💌 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have found and uploaded the original map drawn by Webb. It was right there on the pahar.in web site. You will notice here that the lettering of the "Kalee-R" added to the Kuthi Yankti river is different from all the others (it is "printed" rather than "written" in cursive style; it is also not stenciled like that of Dhauli and Gori rivers). It is also upside down, as I mentioned earlier. It is remarkable that all the other people that copied this map also retained the upside-down orientation of the name.

I also have written confirmation that this map existed, from Henry Strachey, and also a confirmation that the map was "wrong".

The Kunti-Yankti is a third larger than the Kali, both in size of channel and volume of water, and nearly four times the length from source to confluence; notwithstanding which the eastern and smaller branch has given its name to the united river. The name of the Kali is said to be derived from the Kalapani springs, erroneously reputed the source of the river, but in fact unimportant tributaries merely; and both are so called from the dark color of the water; but even in this respect the Kali is exceeded by the Kunti-Yankti; such are the foolish contradictions of Hindu Geography. This eastern Kali, however, is now the actual boundary between the British and Nepalese territories, and according to the Bhotias of the place, has always been so; therefore the map also, though theoretically right, is practically wrong in giving the name of Kali to the western river, the Kunti-Yankti, and drawing the red boundary line along it.^[1]

We don't know which version of the map Strachey was carrying, and he says it carried a "red boundary" along the Kuthi Yankti. (The original map did not draw a boundary.) But the actual boundary was at the eastern Kali (Kalapani). According to the locals, it had always been so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As per the OpenStreetMap, Kalapani is in Nepal.

There is a bit of confusion about it because there are two places being labelled Kalapani. The traditional Kalpani village, which is where the Kali temple is, is very much in Nepal. But there is no road to it from inside Nepal. India's Kailas-Manasarovar track crosses into Nepal at this location.

A little further up, after crossing the Lillini Khola river, there is another little settlement, which is in Indian claimed territory. I expect that that is where the Indian border post is. The claims in the Nepali media that Indian security doesn't allow Nepalese to go there (or beyond there) is probably true, because it is border post and, in order to cross it, you would need papers for entry to China. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The Kali temple, in Nepal, where the river is believed to originate from! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A little further up, the mouth of the Lillini Khola Pankha Gad Khola. Here the Indian border leaves the Kali river and heads to the mountain ridge. On the left is the Kalapani camping ground, where I think the Indian border post is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A bird's eye view of the "Kalapani territory". Just that one mound ahead of us, whose water-parting line India defines to be its boundary. The mountain crevice nearer to us directly leads down to the campground and the Lillini Khola valley on the opposite side. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two VDC beyond this man made small Kalapani river who used to pay tax to Nepal, participate in Government election process.The original Nepal’s boarder should be discuss with British regime as they have evidenced for map. Current India is what the land left by British, and treaty goes back to Sugauli Treaty. Pathakdhruba (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that the OpenStreetMap has now been changed as per the US Army map shown on this page. Kalapani is now in Indian territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been looking at the gallery of maps currently being shown in the article. There is a lot to unpack as to how this dispute has evolved till date. I believe there should a few additional maps in the gallery that would make the timeline a bit clearer.

• The current flare-up had its precursor in Nov 2019, when India released its new map showing the newly created Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. There were a lot of noise coming from Nepal over this map. What exactly was this noise about is something I am unclear about.

1. Was it the Nepalese contention that India was suddenly showing the Kalapani area (east of Lipu Gad) as part of its territory? My understanding is that this area was always shown as part of India prior to Nov 2019. Case in point Census of India 2011 map of Uttarakhand
2. Was it because Nepal disapproved the continued showing of the territory within Indian maps? I am looking at an article in the Diplomat by a Nepalese journalist, Arun Budhathoki.

The Kali River originates from Kalapani and, surprisingly, India now has included the river in its map when it had removed its existence previously.^[1]

He says something has changed and that India has included a river that it had not included earlier. I can't figure out what this means. In any case, I think it would be be good if we can compare the Indian maps pre and post Nov 2019 and if needed, show them in the gallery.

• It has to be made very clear in the article that before 20 May 2020, the dispute was confined to the watershed to the east of Lipu Gad above Kalapani. An official Nepal map like this from the Election Commission, Nepal or a more zoomed in map for the Darchula region of Nepal should be shown in the gallery with appropriate caption to make this point.
• Again going back to the Diplomat article by Arun Budhathoki^[1]

Furthermore, the Nepal-China March 20, 1960, treaty also supports the claim of Nepal (per Article 1): "The Nepalese-Chinese boundary line starts from the point where the watershed between the Kali River and the Tinkar River meets the watershed between the tributaries of the Karnali (Mapchu) River on the one hand and the TInkar River on the other hand, thence it runs southeastwards along the watershed between the tributaries of the Karnali (Mapchu) River on the one hand the TInkar River and the Seti River on the other hand, passing through Lipudhura (Niumachisa) snowy mountain ridge and Lipudhura (Tinkarlipu) Pass to Urai (Phelin) Pass."

I don't understand how this is supporting the Nepalese claim.

1. This wording means that the Nepal-China boundary starts exactly where the current defacto boundary starts. See this image for reference.
2. Tinkar Khola meets the Kali river at Chhangru. Therefore the watershed between Tinkar river and Kali river starts at the present day defacto trijunction between India, Nepal and China.
3. The Chinese side along this boundary is the watershed of the Karnali river tributaries. The Nepal-China boundary from this starting point immediately passes through the Tinkar La pass and goes southeastwards to Urai La Pass, where it makes a north-northeast turn.

From the looks of it, this is a treaty between Nepal and China where they mutually agreed in 1960 on a boundary that starts at the current defacto Nepal-China-India trijunction. Or am I making a mistake somewhere. Ashinpt (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

On your first question, we don't have a full picture of the Nepalese thinking. But roughly speaking, in 1997 or 1998, India agreed to discuss the Kalapani boundary in a technical committee. This could have led to an expectation that India would start treating the Kalapani territory as a disputed territory or something. If so, the 2019 map might have seemed to be a violation of that. That is the most honourable explanation I can think of. But, more realistically, I think it was just an emotional reaction. There is no solid information within Nepal about the Indian position on the border. There is just a lot of speculation and make-believe propaganda that keeps circulating. The Diplomat article that you cite is similar to what gets printed on Nepalese newspapers. Nothing useful there. Note that our page already discusses the 1960 boundary treaty, correctly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that that's the most "positive" explanation we can have. But honestly, it looks to be much more grey than that. It might be that a some folks are reacting as such, but I think that there is a section of the Nepalese society that thinks that somehow India's map vis-a-vis Nepal changed in Nov 2019. What portion of Nepal believes this to be the case, I don't know. Have a look at this editorials from

Kathmandu Post

.

While Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura have been featured in India’s maps for a long time, something Nepal’s leaders have tacitly acquiesced to (besides the routine call for dialogue) this new map placed Kalapani within Indian borders.^[2]

And these from Nepali Times.

Then on 2 November last year, an official Indian map showed not just the original 336sq km of Limpiyadhura within India’s external boundary, but for the first time also depicted a whole 66sq km swath of the east bank of Lipu Khola also as Indian territory. That is when the manure really hit the fan.^[3]

The latest episode in the dispute began in November when India for the first time included the Lipu Lekh region in its official map, and followed it up this month by inaugurating a road to the Chinese border through a valley that Nepal considers its territory.^[4]

I'm not sure where or even if this can go into the article. There is a lot of other stuff to de-clutter in any case. -- Ashinpt (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:THIRDPARTY newspapers instead of Indian or Nepalese. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 12:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

On your observation, not just a "section", but practically the entire population of Nepal thinks that India changed its map in 2020 (just like practically the entire population of India thinks that India shot down an F-16 in the 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The article section for 20th century history mentions seventy five posts set up in Nepal. I think the source mentions 17 posts manned by 75 personnel. Interestingly, there have been some places where the claim made that one of these 17 posts was Kalapani which was not vacated by India.^[1] We have Sam Cowan's article also talking about the Indian border check posts. It quotes from Buddhi Narayan Shrestha's book about the list of Indian check posts in Nepal. The list does not have Kalapani in it.^[2]

Indians were stunned to get the request to remove the 17 checkposts, but that seven posts were evacuated in December 1969 and that “the evacuation of nine remaining border watchposts” would take place during 1970. (One checkpost may have been withdrawn earlier and although most sources refer to 18 checkposts, it is possible that one initially planned was not deployed, though there are some indications that at one stage the number might have gone up to 20.)

Indian Military Check-posts on the Northern Frontier of Nepal (Deployed from 1952 to 1969)

Check-post District 1. Tinkar Pass Darchula 2. Taklakot Bajhang 3. Muchu Humla 4. Mugugaon Mugu 5. Chharkabhot Dolpa 6. Kaisang (Chhusang) Mustang 7. Thorang Manang 8. Larkay Pass Gorkha 9. Atharasaya Khola Gorkha 10. Somdang Rasuwa 11. Rasuwagadhi Rasuwa 12. Tatopani (Kodari) Sindhupalchok 13. Lambagar Dolakha 14. Namche (Chyalsa) Solukhumbu 15. Chepuwa Pass Sankhuwasabha 16. Olangchungola Taplejung 17. Thaychammu Taplejung 18. Chyangthapu Panchthar

(Shrestha, 259)

There might be some other definitive

My apologies. It was indeed 17 checkposts but 75 personnel. I have corrected it now.

By the way, these were not "Indian checkposts". They were Nepalese checkposts where Nepal agreed (and possibly asked) for Indian personnel to be stationed. They were non-combatant technical personnel. Nepal agreed that it would continue to maintain the posts after the Indian withdrawal, but apparently did not abide by it. The post at Tinkar pass was gone by 1972 and a new post at the Tinkar village was established. The police official of this post started patrolling up to Kalapani, which seems to have alarmed India and caused it to shut down access to Kalapani for the Nepalese.[3]

Buddhi Narayan Shrestha is not a reliable source. He constantly misrepresents the facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My all edits always has been reverted by Kautilya3 even I have linked my edits with proper sources saying you need to do consensus, so I am agree and ready to do consensus. My edit was:

The Kalapani territory is a 372 square kilometres (144 sq mi) of area at present controlled by India, which has a post there since 1962.

Sudurpashchim Pradesh.^[8]

Please give your opinion and suggest if it really need a consensus.--- 👤Raju💌 12:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have numerous objections to your edit.

• Please see
  MOS:LEAD
  for how the lead section should be structured. The first few sentences should describe the scope of the subject being discussed. Your edit changes the scope without any discussion or reliable sources to back it.
• The term Kalapani territory has been in use on this page to refer to the 35 sq km area to the east of Kalapani. It is backed by reliable sources. You cannot change the definition of the term unilaterally.
• Indian newspapers in general have no clue what is going on, and they are copying information from Wikipedia. Please be careful citing them. The Times of India has been noted at
  WP:RSN
  as being unreliable for anything controversial.
• Why is the Treaty of Mahakali being bolded? Does it agree with
  MOS:BOLD
  ?
• Are you saying that Nepalese claims to Kalapani started only after the Mahakali treaty? Are there
  WP:HISTRS
  that back that assertion? Do they say that before then, Nepal accepted the Indian version of the boundary?
• How does a newspaper article published in 2019 know what was the "main reason" for the dispute? What evidence does it present for this claim? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1998

I am gathering here a bunch of quotes from scholarly sources regarding what happened in 1998. I am not yet ready to synthesize content. But at least these facts should be known.

• Tom Lansford:

A cabinet reshuffle in August 1998 marked formation of an NC-led coalition with the new CPN (ML), which had demanded in return for its support, review of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty; withdrawal of Indian troops from the disputed Kalapani border area, where they had been posted since the 1962 Sino-Indian war; and repatriation to Bhutan of the nearly 100,000 Bhutanese refugees of Nepali descent who had been sheltered in camps in southeast Nepal since 1990. In December, charging that the NC had failed to honor its commitment, the CPN (ML) withdrew from the government, prompting Prime Minister Koirala to recommend that the lower house be dissolved.^[1]

• Leo Rose:

In 1998, primary attention was focused on the Indian military posts on the Kalapani border area between northwest Nepal, India, and Tibet. Indian military units first occupied this area, which appeared to be a potentially strategic route from Tibet into northern India, in the context of the build-up to the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Nothing happened here in 1962, but India maintained these outposts. Nepal virtually ignored the Kalapani issue from 1961 to 1997, but for domestic political reasons it became a convenient India-Nepal controversy in 1998.^[2]

• Leo Rose continues:

In September 1998, the NC-ML coalition government reached an agreement on the main issues of bilateral negotiations with India: (1) all border disputes, including Kalapani, will be resolved through talks with India; (2) these talks will also include a discussion of the 1950 India-Nepal security treaty, which most Nepalis would prefer to have modified or even cancelled (political leaders in the Tarai are the main exceptions); (3) the NC-ML government is preparing a report on the Mahakali Treaty that deals with the development and distribution of hydropower and water resources in the major river systems in their border areas. A broad range of talks began in late 1998.^[2]

• Prashant Jha:

An ideological tenet of the UML had been ‘nationalism’, which often translates into resisting the ‘special relationship’ with India in order to make Nepal a more autonomous state. UML, in its previous avatars, had often castigated the NC for being India's brokers. In G. P. Koirala's first term as prime minister, the party had opposed a hydropower arrangement with India. A moment of reckoning had, however, arrived for the party in 1994, when it came to power. It now had to engage with India on similar issues of bilateral cooperation. It agreed to a larger understanding whereby India would develop hydropower resources on the Mahakali, the major river in Nepal's far west, and construct storages; Nepal would, in turn, get additional electricity and water benefits. This was the famous Mahakali Treaty, which would eventually be signed when Sher Bahadur Deuba visited India in 1996—it was during this trip that the Maoists had begun their rebellion.^[3]

• Prashant Jha continues:

Krishna KC [a student leader allied with CPN(ML)] was not happy with the UML's decision to support the Mahakali Treaty in Parliament. His unease was a reflection of the unhappiness among a large section of Nepal's Left-wing politicians, who had grown up viewing India as a predator which exploited Nepal's resources and milked it dry. Past experiences with the Gandak and Kosi Treaties in central and eastern Nepal had not been encouraging either. In the dominant Nepali narrative, India had received all the benefits—of irrigation and control of the management of the barrage—while Nepal had to pay the price—the loss of land, citizens being displaced with no compensation being provided, and inequitable gains.... Direct quoe: ‘I was also active in the movement against border encroachment. India wants to surround and take over Nepal. Nepal stretched from Teesta in the east to Kangra in the west but our land was taken away in the Second World War. But we don't want to lose Mechhi, Mahakali, Kalapani and Susta.’^[3]

• The finale:

Krishna joined Bamdev Gautam and C. P. Mainali who had walked away from the UML to set up the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) [ML]. ‘They told us UML has betrayed the nation, that we will give a new direction to the party.’ The ML adopted a staunchly ultra-nationalist platform; it was suspected to have a tactical understanding with the Maoists. But in the 1999 elections, it failed to win a single seat (despite winning a respectable vote-share). The ML's presence had led to the UML's defeat because it split Left votes, and ensured that the NC emerged victorious. The defeat was a sobering moment and, in due course, Gautam was to return to the parent party.^[3]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

For the newbies to Nepalese politics, this same Gautam is the deputy prime minister in 2020, and some sources speculate that he is pegged to be the next prime minister. History comes a full circle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will have to finish it because It is difficult for me to reply and write so much content from a Mobile.--- 👤Raju💌 15:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Dispute section

I want to modify some content in Dispute section. Let me allow to do so or you can do it.--- 👤Raju💌 06:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Raju Babu:, Can you mention the changes here so that we could discuss it?--BRP ^ever 11:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Nepal laid claim to all the areas east of the Kuti Yangti River.^[1] The Nepalese contention was that the Kuti river was in fact the Kali River up to its source. They wanted the western border shifted westwards so as to include the whole land east of Kuti river. Indian officials responded that the administrative records dating back to 1830s show that the Kalapani area had been administered as part of the Pithoragarh district (then a tehsil of the Almora district) ^{[citation needed]}. India also denied the Nepalese contention that Kuti River was the Kali River. In the Indian view, the Kali River begins only after Lipu Gad is joined by other streams arising from the Kalapani springs. Therefore, the Indian border leaves the midstream of river near Kalapani and follows the high watershed of the streams that join it.^[2]

The 395 km² of area between the Kuti Yangti River and the watershed of the Lipu Gad river is the disputed Kalapani territory. Despite several rounds of negotiations from 1998 to the present, the issue remains unresolved.^[2]

High Himalaya, Unknown Valleys is a book written by Harish Kapadiya in 1993 states:

"It was britishers who interchanged the names of white Kali (an small stream of water near a temple, which water is not black) and blakish Kuti (real Kali) rivers. This ensured a vast area of land as british territory as Kali river was always accepted as the border.- a good example of British practical diplomacy. They built the above temple (a temple of Goddess Kali) to authenticate the name."

^[3]--- 👤Raju💌 12:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)ish

Harish Kapadia is a mountaineer, narrating "as legend goes" about events that happened roughly 200 years ago. How much weight can we place on this? This is not part of Dispute anyway. It should go in History, if we can authenticate the story somehow. Are there any other sources that mention this supposed "British practical diplomacy"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you make a History section to give detail, how encroachment was given place and how real Kali named Kuti Yangti and how britishers changed the border river by river and how the border drawn on ridgeline of mountains of Api Nampa mountain? From how long people are living there, what is opinion of people living there, etc.--- 👤Raju💌 05:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What you call "encroachment" is already described in the Kalapani territory#Late 19th century section. As for the "opinions" of people, please feel free to propose which ones you would like to see included.

I am really interested to see what the Nepalese position has been over the years since 1947. We don't have any information about it yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, on your first question, you definitely don't need my permission or anybody else's permission to edit the page. But you do need

WP:CONSENSUS for your edits, or they will get reverted. There is no harm in proposing edits here first when the issues are controversial. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 11:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, just popping in to clarify that the defacto border between India and Nepal does not pass through Api and Nampa, but rather through the watershed peaks immediately to the east of Kalapani, the highest of which is about 6172m. The Api-Nampa ridge lies to the south completely within the borders of Nepal. I don't know where this confusion has come about. -- Ashinpt (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "Nepal releases new political map showing Lipulekh and Kalapani as part of its territory". Hindustan.com. 20 May 2020. Retrieved 31 May 2020.
2. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference Alok was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ "High Himalaya, Unknown Valley". Harish Kapadiya. 1993. Retrieved 31 May 2020.

NPOV dispute

This article is in serious need of a NPOV dispute tag as per

WP:NPOV

. There is an obvious bias in the way that it's written. Please tag it and/or fix it.

Examples:

"The Kalapani territory is an area under Indian administration as part of Pithoragarh district in the Uttarakhand state,[4][5] but is also claimed by Nepal since 1998.[6][7] According to Nepal's claim, it lies in Darchula district, Sudurpashchim Pradesh.[8]"

If this is a disputed region, shouldn't that be the initial statement? See the wikipedia page on Olivenza for an example on how to write an article from a NPOV.

"Scholar Leo Rose states that Nepal virtually ignored the Kalapani issue from 1961 to 1997. In 1998, it became "convenient" to Nepal to raise a controversy about it for domestic political reasons.[15] In September of that year, Nepal agreed with India that all border disputes, including Kalapani, would be resolved through bilateral talks.[15]"

This isn't how you write someone elses opinion. Please fix to "According to Rose, in 1998 it became "convenient" to Nepal to raise a controversy about it for domestic political reasons.[15]" or use quotation marks for all sentences taken from that source.

Sorry for my poor editing skills, haven't done it in years.

And by the way, I don't care about who that sliver of land belongs to, I just hate bias. Again, look at the Olivenza page to learn how to write an unbiased article about a disputed region under the control of one of the claimaints. Thank you.

--Hrodrik (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be called a "disputed territory" when sufficient number of

WP:THIRDPARTY

sources start describing it as a disputed territory. We can't do it on our own.

As for Leo Rose's statement, he is an acknowledged academic scholar who has written multiple books on Nepal. His assessments can be reported as fact without any attribution. (Now that I have studied some of the 1998 history, I can see why he says that.) Unless you have sources that show that territory was raised or discussed in Nepal before 1998, please feel free to bring them up and we can revisit the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"His assessments can be reported as fact without any attribution."

Very unscientific. --Hrodrik (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, it is a disputed territory, nearly every source, independent or not, refers to it as disputed. Some examples: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Also, Rose's statement should be attributed more clearly as it's controversial, and is his statement. Regards, Vermont (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kalapani is a disputed area and the nature of this article shows Indian view. The article should be written in neutral point of view.--- 👤Raju💌 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not strictly true. Manandhar & Koirala's peer-reviewed paper and Sam Cowan's LSE article are also used in a major way. If the Nepalese scholars publish papers discussing 20 Indian maps and only one Nepal map, they are being quite far from being scholarly. If they discuss both the sides with equal vigour, they would qualify. Otherwise, they are just engaging in

advocacy. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 11:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY refers to what Wikipedia is not, and in no way prohibits use of sources that could be described as advocacy. However, overly biased content may be unreliable, and regardless of peer-reviewed papers this territory is contested. Vermont (talk

) 15:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly enough sources that say that the region is disputed. Also, nothing is wrong with attributing a statement to a notable academic. AnomalousAtom (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

This edit request to Kalapani territory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Problem: Its extremely difficult to locate Limpiyadhura on google map, there is no such place name on google map.

Edit/Solution 1 of 3: Where ever the term Limipiyadhura first appears in the article, please change it to either

Limipiyadhura (also called "Lampia Dhura Pass" on google map) 

or

Limipiyadhura (also called "Lampia Dhura Pass"). 

Thanks ji. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 No technical evidence I don't see "Lampia Dhura Pass" on Google Maps either. [19] P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

This edit request to Kalapani territory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit 2 of 3: To make it very clear, especially in the religious and geostrategic context, please undertake the following change to last para of "Kalapani dispute (1998–2019)" section by (a) slightly expanding, (b) piping few terms, and (a) appending a new sourced sentence.
From:

In May 2020, India inaugurated a new link road to the Kailas-Manasarovar. Nepal objected to the exercise and said that it was violative of the prior understanding that boundary issues would be resolved through negotiation. India reaffirmed its commitment to negotiation but stated that the road follows the pre-existing route.[1]

To:

In May 2020, India inaugurated a new 80 km long 
India-China Border Roads project] to the Kailas-Manasarovar. Nepal objected to the exercise and said that it was violative of the prior understanding that boundary issues would be resolved through negotiation. India reaffirmed its commitment to negotiation but stated that the road follows the pre-existing route.[2] In July 2020, India also opened a newly constructed road in this area from Gunji to Limpiyadhura Pass which will reduce the trek time to Adi Kailash to two hours.[3]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The 'Hindustan Times' returns page not found. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit 3 of 3: Pipe the first occurence of "Gunji" to Gunji. you can find it in the "Geography and tradition" section, 2nd para, first sentence. Thanks and Namaste. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done ~ Amkgp 💬 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations

References

1. ^ Suhasini Haidar, New road to Kailash Mansarovar runs into diplomatic trouble, The Hindu, 9 May 2020.
2. ^ Suhasini Haidar, New road to Kailash Mansarovar runs into diplomatic trouble, The Hindu, 9 May 2020.
3. ^ Kalyan Das and BD Kasniyal, Road to Limpiyadhura will reduce Adi Kailash trek to two hours, Hindustan Times, 17 July 2020.

Restriction zone map

"The name of the Kali is said to be derived from the Kalapani springs, erroneously reputed the source of the river, but in fact unimportant tributaries merely ; and both are so called from the dark coIor of the water ; but even in this respect the Kali is exceeded by the Kunti Yankti; such are the foolish contradictions of Hindu Geography. This eastern Kali, however, is now the actual boundary between the British and Nepalese territories, and according to the Bhotias of the place, has always been so; therefore the map also, though theoretically right, is practically wrong in giving the name of Kali to the western river, the Kunti-Yankti, and drawing the red boundary line along it." (Page 117, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 1848)

"It was a mistake leaving this little valley to the Gorkhas when the rest of the district was brought under British rule. The true frontier line was the range of snowy mountains on the East Tinkar, Nampa and Api. On the other side of which lies the district of Marma and the north most division of Doti and the inhabitants of which like those of Dung, next south are Khasia and not Bhotia." (page 112 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 1848)

Above given lines from the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 1848 book clearly shows british intension that they wanted to capture Limpiyadhura-Kalapani-Lipulekh area from the early of the time.

Restrictions on the map of border areas of neighboring countries by "Survey of India" has made difficulties to find maps supporting Limpiyadhura-Kalapani as part of Nepal. [20] Although we have found some earlier SDUK maps which is showing Kalapani-Limpiyadhura as part of Nepal. SDUK was established in London so I don't think they published wrong maps.

Ghaghra river which is called Karnali river in Nepal and Majia Zangbu by Bhot-Tibetan people, Kuti-Yangti (ཀུཏེ ནག་པོ།) is also a given name to Kali river by Bhot-tibetan people near upper region of the Kali river. When the Kali river reaches to the plain-terai area it is called Sharda river --- 👤Raju💌

|

The Asiatic Society was a research organisation and Henry Strachey was an explorer. He was apparently qualified enough to critique his government's policy, calling the transfer of Tinkar to Nepal a "mistake".

As for the rest, I would point you to

WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 09:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)