Why Are Anti-China Activities from Nepali Soil Not Stopped? The Triangle of Dharamshala, Pokhara, and the Open Border

# Prem Sagar Poudel

Nepal’s geopolitical position is one of the most complex in the world. Nestled in the lap of the Himalayas, this nation struggles for existence while maintaining a sovereign balance between two gigantic neighbours: China and India. Testing this very equilibrium, Madan Regmi, Chairman of the China Study Centre, has publicly raised five piercing questions via Facebook. These questions are not merely personal queries; they form an irrefutable basis for dissecting Nepal’s sovereignty, the sincerity of China’s friendship, and India’s dual policy. Nepal has consistently placed its friendly relations with China at the highest priority. But has China shown equal seriousness in safeguarding Nepal’s sovereignty? To seek an answer to this question, one must enter the triangle of Dharamshala, Pokhara, and the open border.

The Reality of Dharamshala: The Centre of Anti-China Activities on Indian Soil

Mr. Regmi’s first question is, “Where does the Indian-occupied Dharamshala lie?” Though this question seems simple, it exposes a deep geopolitical wound. Dharamshala is situated in India’s Himachal Pradesh. But its status is not merely that of a tourist town. For those claiming Tibetan self-rule, it is the ‘capital of the government-in-exile’. It is the headquarters of the Dalai Lama’s so-called government, and it is here that he celebrates his birthday. On that occasion, Indian central ministers, foreign diplomats, and crowds of followers greet him.

India has officially recognised the ‘One China Policy’. Yet in practice, it has been providing security, shelter, and a political platform to the Dalai Lama and his so-called government for decades. In China’s eyes, Dharamshala is a training centre for Tibetan separatism. Mr. Regmi’s second and third questions—”Which is the second homeland of the Dalai Lama?” and “Which is the army that has a Mountain Division of Tibetans?”—lay bare India’s strategic duplicity. It is a publicly known fact that India’s Special Border Force (SSB) has trained Tibetan youths in mountain warfare. Thus, while Indian land and mechanisms are being used against China’s territorial integrity, Beijing’s failure to seriously question Delhi, and its silence on the pain of a small friend like Nepal, is a diplomatic contradiction.

The Concern of Tibetan Activities in Pokhara: Is Nepali Soil Being Used?

Although the answer to the fourth question—”Where does the Dalai Lama celebrate his birthday?”—is Dharamshala, its ripples reach as far as Pokhara and Kathmandu in Nepal. Pokhara has an old settlement of Tibetan refugees. However, in recent times, a suspicion has been growing that former pro-Tibet fighters are consolidating themselves in Pokhara, preparing to launch anti-China activities under the command of Dharamshala. Whether this is merely suspicion or reality must be investigated.

If former fighters are indeed organising themselves in Pokhara, this constitutes a serious question on Nepal’s sovereignty and diplomatic commitment. Nepal has a policy of not allowing its land to be used against any friendly nation. It can be believed that the current government led by Balendra Shah will not allow any activities against the friendly nation of China. However, for this, the Chinese side must also take initiative. If the Chinese Embassy harbours such suspicions, it must inform the Government of Nepal in writing, and should any involvement of the state machinery be found, it must have the capacity to protest diplomatically. There is a danger that China’s current silence may indirectly encourage such activities.

Questions Raised by China’s Silence: The Open Border and the Wound of Sugauli

Here, two extremely sensitive questions raised by Mr. Regmi shake the very foundation of China’s friendship. First, “Why has China not uttered a single word in the struggle of the Nepali people to regulate the open border imposed by India?” The Nepal-India open border has long been a challenge to Nepal’s sovereignty, security, and economy. It has fostered smuggling, crime, and illegal infiltration. When Nepal seeks to regulate this border, it has faced India’s non-cooperation. Is China’s duty merely to remain silent in the name of non-interference in internal affairs? Is it a test of China’s policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’ to remain silent when the sovereignty of a friendly nation is being wounded?

Second, “Why is China supporting the Indian occupation of the more than 80,000 square kilometres of territory that Nepal was forced to cede to the British Empire under the Sugauli Treaty?” This question is filled with a sense of historical injustice. The Sugauli Treaty of 1816 handed over vast Nepali territory to British India, which independent India has also kept under its control. China has never raised this issue. In China’s view, does respecting Nepal’s sovereignty mean merely accepting Indian occupation? If China truly respects Nepal’s sovereignty, it should not hesitate to express moral support against this historical injustice. China’s silence has created unease in Nepali public opinion and a question mark over its friendship.

The Roadmap to a Solution: Trilateral Understanding and Active Diplomacy

The solution to these complex problems lies not in silence and the status quo, but in clarity and active diplomacy.

The first step must be taken by the Chinese Embassy. It must gather credible information regarding Tibetan activities in Pokhara and other parts of Nepal, and if any anti-China preparations are detected, it must inform the Government of Nepal in writing. This is both a diplomatic right and a duty.

Second, a high-level trilateral understanding is necessary between Nepal, China, and India. This can establish a framework ensuring that Nepali territory is not used against any neighbour, controlling cross-border crime, and formulating a common policy on refugees and security matters.

Third, China must stand clearly in favour of Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Whether it is the issue of the open border or the territory lost under the Sugauli Treaty, China must be able to express moral and political support for Nepal’s interests. The meaning of friendship is not limited to trade and infrastructure alone; it is also about raising a voice against injustice.

Fourth, Nepal’s political parties and their leaders must present the answers to these questions before the people. The government must facilitate discussion on this matter in the International Relations Committee of Parliament, and must make its policy towards China and India clear and transparent.

Conclusion: The True Test of Friendship

These five questions raised by Madan Regmi are not merely the curiosity of one individual. They call for a debate centred on Nepal’s sovereignty, the depth of China’s friendship, and India’s dual policy. Nepal has always remained a good neighbour and a reliable friend, and it never provides shelter to any anti-China activities. However, China’s silence over Nepal’s pain, over the wounds inflicted upon its sovereign existence, can no longer be acceptable.

All political parties, the government, and Chinese friends must understand that stability in this region is possible only when Nepal’s sovereignty remains intact. Both China and India respecting Nepal’s sovereignty and ensuring mutual interests and security will be the most powerful solution to this triangle. For that, China must break its silence. Nepal’s soil must become a bridge of friendship, not an arena for anti-China activities. Ensuring this is equally China’s responsibility.

Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has studied Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues in depth.