New Delhi: India and Nepal have age-old civilizational ties of friendship and New Delhi remains committed towards strengthening them, the Ministry of External Affairs said on Thursday, amid a strain in bilateral relations.
India’s assertion comes days after Nepalese Prime Minister K P Oli made critical remarks aimed at India, further straining bilateral relations already impacted over the map issue.
Prime Minister Oli, 68, on Sunday claimed that there have been various kinds of activities in the “embassies and hotels” to remove him from power. He said some Nepalese leaders were also involved in the game.
Asked about Oli’s remarks and the strain in Indo-Nepal ties after Nepal amended its Constitution to update its new political map featuring areas which India maintains belong to it, MEA Spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said, “India and Nepal have age-old civilization ties of friendship, rooted as they are in deep cultural and societal linkages.”
“We remain committed towards continuously strengthening these ties,” he said.
India had termed Nepal’ map move as “untenable” and asserted that artificial enlargement of territorial claims by Nepal is not based on historical facts or evidence.
On trade issues, Srivastava said both sides have worked hard and diligently to ensure smooth flow of trade between the two countries.
“Even during the times of most stringent COVID-19 lockdown measures in India, the movement of trade in goods and supplies have continued smoothly,” he said.
Asked about reports on problems in flood prevention-related works along the Indo-Nepal border, Srivastava said, “Repair and maintenance of embankments is being carried out regularly by the concerned state governments under the established mechanisms.”
Also read: Kathmandu crossed red lines. India-Nepal relations are entering a deep freeze
“Nepal is not based on historical facts or evidence. We remain committed towards continuously strengthening these ties,” This is MEA S spoke person Anuraga Srivastava’s remarks whic in my view are are controversial and contradictory. Such unfriendly versions tease us more. Without sitting on table and not examining mutual documental proofs and shadowing Sugauli treaty how can he deny our claims. Should this approach be called friendly or taken as diplomatic version ?