法尼德拉·尼泊爾：尼泊爾與印度是“湊合着過”，最大問題是對邊境的蠶食

編者按：大尼泊爾民族主義陣線（The Greater Nepal Nationalist Front）是2001年在加德滿都成立、得到尼泊爾政府承認的一個非政府組織。其成立宗旨是收復尼泊爾根據不平等條約割讓給印度的土地。近日，該組織創始人、主席法尼德拉·尼泊爾接受觀察者網邀請，就讀者感興趣的問題做了書面回答。以下為整理後的文字稿，僅供讀者參考，不代表觀察者網立場。

【文/法尼德拉·尼泊爾，翻譯/鯨生】

**觀察者網：**您對於1816年的《蘇高利條約》及尼泊爾-印度邊境爭議問題的主張是？

**尼泊爾：**尼泊爾與英國東印度公司之間爆發戰爭後，雙方於1816年3月4日簽署了《蘇高利條約》。根據該條約，尼泊爾從其原有的324250平方公里領土中割讓了177069平方公里，領土面積縮減至147516平方公里。該條約簽訂前，尼泊爾的疆域東起布拉馬普特拉河，西至拉維河，北抵喜馬拉雅山脈，南達恆河。

條約簽訂後，尼泊爾的邊界被限定為：東至梅奇河，西至馬哈卡利河，北至喜馬拉雅山脈，南至特萊平原的狹長地帶。該條約所喪失的土地，在英國殖民統治下一直持續到1947年8月。雖然印度和巴基斯坦根據1947年7月18日的《印度獨立法案》成立，令這片土地在法理上獲得獨立，但它從未被歸還給尼泊爾。

儘管1950年簽署的《尼印和平友好條約》（第1條和第8條）廢除了《蘇高利條約》，但該領土仍未歸還。

事實上，“大尼泊爾民族主義陣線”組織成立的宗旨就是從印度手上收復這177069平方公里的領土，包括向尼泊爾公眾宣講其歷史經緯，並施壓尼泊爾政府正式提出這個問題。我們的理由是：既然該條約是與英國簽訂，而非印度，那麼印度佔據該土地就是非法且不公正的。

關於尼泊爾同印度的關係問題，其實，兩國之間是一種“湊合着過”的關係——根源在於“鄰國無法選擇”的觀念。雖然兩國民間關係保持熱絡，但政府層面的關係常常緊張。印度的行為舉止經常透露出優越感，無視主權平等原則。它干涉尼泊爾的政治和內部事務，彷彿這是其理所當然的權利。

尼印兩國間最大的問題在於對邊界的蠶食。自1950年起，印度就殖民了大尼泊爾的部分領土，並篡改了《蘇高利條約》劃定的邊界。印度方面已經摧毀、移除和重置了數百個界樁。

1816年，尼泊爾與英國東印度公司簽署的《蘇高利條約》劃定了現代尼泊爾的領土邊界，但尼、印兩國圍繞卡利河起源的不同解釋為日後的領土主張分歧埋下導火索。 資料圖

**觀察者網：**您如何看待今年4月發生在印控克什米爾的帕哈爾加姆襲擊事件？您認為導致接下來印巴衝突爆發的根源原因是什麼？

**尼泊爾：**印度與巴基斯坦衝突的根源問題在於克什米爾。儘管歷史上的印巴分治基於宗教人口分佈（穆斯林佔多數的地區歸巴基斯坦，印度教徒佔多數的地區歸印度），但印度卻因穆斯林佔多數的克什米爾問題屢次攻擊巴基斯坦。在最近的一次帕哈爾加姆事件後的攻擊中，印度旨在奪取巴控克什米爾。然而，中國的軍事援助幫助了巴基斯坦，導致印度戰略失敗並受挫。

今年4月份發生在克什米爾帕哈爾加姆的事件是恐怖分子所為，但印度聲稱巴基斯坦是其“幕後黑手”，這僅僅是一面之詞。巴基斯坦本身就是一個飽受恐怖主義之害的國家。

我本人於2019年在日內瓦親眼目睹了印度參與組織反巴基斯坦活動，特別是針對俾路支省持續進行的恐怖活動。在那裏，有人分發資金，煽動反對巴基斯坦統一、支持俾路支獨立的口號。

在帕哈爾加姆事件中，印度試圖以狹隘的印度教政治作為擋箭牌。恐怖主義不分宗教，但印度卻試圖將帕哈爾加姆襲擊者的穆斯林身份作為證據，將整個巴基斯坦國家描繪成本質上就是恐怖主義的——印度的不良居心昭然若揭。

按照尼泊爾的理解，印度對巴基斯坦懷有偏見態度。它向國際社會宣揚的“巴基斯坦庇護恐怖分子”的説辭，不過是一廂情願的宣傳。印度似乎認為，抹黑巴基斯坦的形象，就能治癒其過去敗於巴基斯坦的創傷。然而，這種想法是自欺欺人的，因為在帕哈爾加姆事件的背景下，全世界似乎並沒有多少國家選擇站在印度這一邊。

甚至有印度知識分子提出，帕哈爾加姆襲擊是印度自己策劃的。儘管印度有能力迅速抓獲恐怖分子，但襲擊者仍下落不明，這加劇了人們的懷疑：該事件背後得到了國家支持，目的是在國際上抹黑巴基斯坦。

觀察者網：****您認為這一輪印巴衝突對南亞地緣政治格局有什麼影響？考慮到印度向全球派出代表團宣傳其話語敍事，尼泊爾國內的民眾是如何看待並解讀這場衝突的？

**尼泊爾：**印度在帕哈爾加姆事件後對巴基斯坦採取的軍事行動以失敗告終。所謂的事後宣稱勝利，不過是欲蓋彌彰的徒勞之舉。倘若印度在那場衝突中獲勝，它必會強勢謀求主宰南亞地區。但現實結果是，印度只能獨自舔舐傷口，該地區也因此免於遭受印度的軍事侵略。

尼泊爾-印度間的主要邊界問題是卡拉帕尼。根據《蘇高利條約》，卡拉帕尼地區屬於尼泊爾，但印度於2019年11月2日將其納入其政治版圖，標誌着首次印度官方蠶食尼泊爾土地的行為。印度自1962年起就在該地部署軍隊，並拒絕談判。因此，尼泊爾應考慮邀請中國或英國政府進行調解。蘇斯塔地區存在類似問題，印度在那裏侵佔了40000公頃尼泊爾土地。

圖中深紫色區域為尼泊爾主張、印度強佔的卡拉帕尼地區，為回應印度在當地修建公路，尼泊爾政府於2020年、2024年分別在新版官方地圖、新版紙幣中將其包含在本國領土內。 製圖：微博賬號@1002什麼

**觀察者網：**您在寫給印度駐尼泊爾大使的公開信中寫道，印度同時對巴基斯坦和尼泊爾開展了“水資源恐怖主義”活動，請介紹一下您瞭解的情況。

**尼泊爾：**帕哈爾加姆事件後，印度單方面截斷印度河水流，違反了《西姆拉協定》。這是一次針對巴基斯坦的懲罰性和不人道的行為，而巴方據稱與該事件毫無關聯。將水資源用作武器，是一種“水資源恐怖主義”，導致數百萬巴基斯坦普通平民遭受苦難。

印度同樣在剝削尼泊爾的水資源，使用了超過80%，而尼泊爾大部分地區仍乾旱缺水。印度修建水壩並分流源自尼泊爾的水源。1956年的《根德格協議》禁止任何降低根德格運河上游水位的項目，但印度無視了這一條款。印度還干涉尼泊爾的水電項目，以服務於其自身利益。尼泊爾農民對這種水資源的剝削日益不滿，他們視之為印度的“水資源恐怖主義”。

**觀察者網：**如您介紹，尼印兩國在民間社會層面有深厚的聯繫，但兩國關係中卻體現出種種不平等與不和諧。這是為什麼？

**尼泊爾：**值得稱讚的是，尼泊爾與印度的民間關係並未受到政治緊張局勢的影響。這些文化、宗教和教育領域的聯繫由來已久。然而，印度政府持續阻礙尼泊爾的實體與經濟發展。自1950年以來，印度的政策一直是讓尼泊爾陷入經濟疲弱、政治不穩。這服務了兩個目的：一是阻止《蘇高利條約》中被從尼泊爾割走的領土上的人民渴望迴歸尼泊爾；二是維持尼泊爾青年向印度軍隊的兵員供應。儘管印度多次對尼實施經濟封鎖，但印度公民卻常常向尼泊爾民眾展現人道主義支持。因此，“打倒印度擴張主義！”的口號源於真實的怨憤。

**觀察者網：**自特朗普政府關閉美國國際開發署之後，該機構於2022年同尼泊爾政府簽署的價值5億美元的“千禧年挑戰公司”（MCC）相關項目面臨不確定性。這些項目目前處於什麼什麼狀態？您認為中國提供的發展援助項目給尼泊爾國內帶來了哪些影響？存在哪些內部或外部的阻力？

**尼泊爾：**美國援助項目（如USAID和MCC）的中止不會阻礙尼泊爾的發展。這些項目長期以來被懷疑包含有隱藏議程：阻撓中國援助，並利用尼泊爾的領土損害中國主權。在世界主要大國裏，中國在尼泊爾人民中享有最高的信任度。自1950年代以來，中國對尼泊爾發展的貢獻有目共睹。然而，由於來自印度和美國的壓力，尼泊爾政府常常對公開接受中國援助猶豫不決。

中國前駐尼泊爾大使李德標曾在北京的一次午餐會上對我説：“中國政府願意給尼泊爾提供如此多的援助，多到你們數都數不清，但貴國的政府總是説，‘再等等看’。你們在擔心什麼？”

事實上，印度和西方將中國與尼泊爾的經濟往來視為威脅。中尼過境運輸協定的簽署也讓印度感到極度不安。他們試圖阻止中國在尼泊爾的存在，以便於開展反華行動。只要尼泊爾仍然由親印度的領導層執政，這種（反華）空間就會持續存在，這是一個值得尼泊爾和中國共同關切的問題。

原文：

Q1. Greater Nepal Nationalist Front

The Greater Nepal Nationalist Front was established in 2001 in Kathmandu. It is a government-recognized non-governmental organization in Nepal. As a non-political and independent body, it stands above all political parties in the country. People from any political background may join, but they cannot use the organization to fulfill personal or party-political goals.

The organization was formed with the objective of reclaiming the 177,069 square kilometers of land lost to India under the Treaty of Sugauli (March 4, 1816). It aims to inform the general public about the extent of land lost under this treaty and to pressure the government into raising the issue officially.

Q2. The Treaty of Sugauli

Following the war between Nepal and the British East India Company, the Treaty of Sugauli was signed on March 4, 1816. Under this treaty, Nepal ceded 177,069 sq. km of its original 324,250 sq. km territory and was reduced to 147,516 sq. km.

Before the treaty, Nepal’s borders stretched from the Brahmaputra River in the east to the Ravi River in the west, the Himalayas in the north, and the Ganges in the south. After the treaty, Nepal’s borders were confined to the Mechi River in the east, the Mahakali River in the west, the Himalayas in the north, and a narrow strip of the Terai in the south.

The land lost through the treaty remained under British colonial rule until August 1947. Though India and Pakistan were created under the Indian Independence Act of July 18, 1947, and the land technically became independent, it was never returned to Nepal. Even though the 1950 Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty (Articles 1 and 8) annulled the Sugauli Treaty, the territory was not returned. The Greater Nepal Nationalist Front continues to demand its return, arguing that since the treaty was with Britain, not India, India’s retention of the land is illegal and unjust.

Nepal-India Relations

The relationship between Nepal and India is one of compulsion — rooted in the belief that neighbors cannot be changed. While people-to-people relations remain warm, government-level relations are often strained.

India often behaves with a sense of superiority, disregarding the principle of equal sovereignty. It interferes in Nepal’s political and internal matters as though it is entitled to do so. The biggest issue between the two countries lies in border encroachment. India has colonized parts of Greater Nepal and tampered with the boundary defined by the Sugauli Treaty since 1950. It has destroyed, removed, and relocated hundreds of border pillars.

The root cause of the India-Pakistan conflict is Kashmir. Though the partition was based on religious demographics — Muslim-majority areas to Pakistan, Hindu-majority to India — India has repeatedly attacked Pakistan over Kashmir, which is Muslim-majority. In the recent attack following the Pahalgam incident, India aimed to capture Pakistan-administered Kashmir. However, China’s military support helped Pakistan, leading to India’s strategic failure and frustration.

Q3. Pahalgam Incident 

The incident that occurred in Pahalgam, Kashmir last April was the act of terrorists, but India’s claim that Pakistan was behind it is merely an allegation. Pakistan itself is a country suffering from terrorism. I personally witnessed India’s involvement in anti-Pakistan activities in Geneva in 2019, particularly in terrorist activities ongoing in Balochistan. There, money was distributed to provoke slogans against Pakistan’s integrity in favor of an independent Balochistan.

In the Pahalgam incident, India has tried to use narrow politics based on Hinduism as its shield. Terrorism has no religion, yet India attempted to portray the Muslim identity of the Pahalgam attackers as evidence that the entire Muslim nation of Pakistan is terrorist in nature—an ill intention that is evident to all. According to the Nepali understanding, India harbors a prejudiced attitude towards Pakistan. Its narrative to the international community—that Pakistan harbors terrorists—is nothing more than stubborn propaganda. India seems to believe that tarnishing Pakistan’s image is the remedy for its own wounds from past defeats against Pakistan. However, this belief is self-indulgent, as the rest of the world appears to side with Pakistan in the context of the Pahalgam incident.

Q4. Pahalgam Incident and Indo-Pak Conflict

India’s military action against Pakistan after the Pahalgam incident ended in defeat. Claiming victory afterward was a futile attempt to mask failure. Had India won, it would have aggressively tried to dominate South Asia. But instead, India was left nursing its wounds, and the region was saved from Indian military aggression.

The major Nepal-India border issue is Kalapani. According to the Sugauli Treaty, Kalapani belongs to Nepal, but India included it in its political map on November 2, 2019, marking the first official encroachment. India has deployed troops there since 1962 and refuses to negotiate. Therefore, Nepal should consider inviting China or Britain to mediate. A similar issue exists in Susta, where India has encroached on 40,000 hectares of Nepali land.

Indian intellectuals have suggested that the Pahalgam attack was orchestrated by India itself. Despite India’s capability to catch terrorists quickly, the attackers remain untraced, reinforcing suspicions that the incident was state-sponsored to defame Pakistan internationally.

Q5. Indus River Water Crisis and Indian Water Terror

After the Pahalgam incident, India unilaterally halted the flow of water from the Indus River, violating the Shimla Agreement. This was a punitive and inhumane act against Pakistan for an incident it allegedly had no role in. Using water as a weapon is a form of “hydro-terrorism,” with millions of ordinary Pakistanis suffering as a result.

India has similarly exploited Nepal’s water resources, using over 80% while much of Nepal remains arid. India builds dams and diverts water from Nepal. The 1956 Gandak Agreement prohibits projects that lower the water level above the Gandak canal, but India ignores this provision. India also interferes in Nepal’s hydropower projects to serve its own interests. Nepali farmers are increasingly dissatisfied with this water exploitation, which they see as Indian water terror.

Q6. People-to-People vs. Government Relations

It is commendable that the people-to-people relationship between Nepal and India has remained unaffected by political tensions. These ties cultural, religious, and educational have been longstanding. However, India’s government consistently hinders Nepal’s physical and economic development. Since 1950, India’s policy has been to keep Nepal economically weak and politically unstable.

This serves two purposes: to prevent people from the lost territories under the Sugauli Treaty from desiring reintegration with Nepal, and to maintain the supply of Nepali youths to the Indian Army. Despite repeated blockades by India, Indian citizens have often shown humanitarian support toward Nepal. The chant “Down with Indian expansionism!” is thus rooted in real grievances.

Q7. U.S. Aid and Nepal-China Relations

The suspension of American aid projects like USAID and MCC will not halt Nepal’s development. These projects have long been suspected of having hidden agendas to block Chinese aid and use Nepali territory against China’s sovereignty.

Among major world powers, China enjoys the highest trust among Nepali people. China’s contribution to Nepal’s development since the 1950s is well recognized. However, due to Indo-American pressure, the Nepali government has often hesitated to openly accept Chinese aid. Former Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Li Tie Piao, once told the speaker during a lunch meeting in Beijing:

“The Chinese government wants to give Nepal so much aid that you won’t be able to count the amount, but your government keeps saying ‘wait.’ What are you afraid of?”

India and the West view China’s economic engagement with Nepal as a threat. “The Nepal-China transit treaty has also caused India a burning sense of unease.” They attempt to prevent Chinese presence in Nepal to facilitate anti-China operations. As long as Nepal remains governed by pro-India leadership, such space will continue to exist an issue of concern for both Nepal and China.

本文系觀察者網獨家稿件，文章內容純屬作者個人觀點，不代表平台觀點，未經授權，不得轉載，否則將追究法律責任。關注觀察者網微信guanchacn，每日閲讀趣味文章。