Talk:2015 Nepal blockade

Should Heading be changed to something broader ??
As 2015 Nepal fuel crisis may not be suitable title for now. Because The economic blockade from India to Nepal have been a serious threat to Humanity itself. This is not only the situation of fuel crisis but also the crisis of almost goods required for living like medicines, food, vegetables, etc.

Children aren't going to schools. Hospitals are shut down. Medicine is not available. Transportation is halted. More than 5 billion dollars worth of economic loss have been estimated by GoN. People in Nepal are now being deprived of basic human rights like fooding, medicine, education ,etc.

So, I request whole world to take this issue seriously and help raise this issue internationally. Please talk on facebook, twitter, youtube, blogs , etc. everywhere and help solve this issue as soon as possible.

Serious help needed guys, or else Nepal is on the verge of collapse. You don't need to take any side, Just speak what is the truth. Please guys. Nepal needs help once again after that devastating earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.232.230.9 (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nepali politicians to be careful in this case. People are very weakness position of daily living.What problem do known and solve this problem internal meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.50.64.75 (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Tough shit, India doesn't have to give you stuff just because you think you deserve it. Go beg China for help and hope and prey, if India decides to close their border to you, that is their right as a sovereign nation. I think Nepal seems to feel entitled to benefits of interactions with India while being incredibly incredulous towards them in return, if my country was treated so poorly I would shut off the border to them too.

Requested move 21 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that the proposed title would violate NPOV. No prejudice against a new RM with a more neutral proposal, such as "India–Nepal border blockade" or "2015 Nepal blockade". Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 Nepal fuel crisis → Indian Economic Blockade on Nepal – It is not only fuel crisis in Nepal. Nepalese are also suffering from food & medicine crisis. It's all happening because of blockade. So I suggest it to be renamed. Krish Dulal (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 2015 Indian blockade on Nepal. It does appear to extend beyond fuel, but "blockades" are usually economic so no need to include that in the title, and it's not a formal capital-B Blockade (e.g. Berlin Blockade).  There's some wackiness as the Indian government appears to not make this an explicit blockade and there's weird (and likely ludicrous) claims it's actually Nepal's fault, but whatever, a quick check of the sources seems to indicate nobody believes this. SnowFire (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Indian officials/police are clearly involved in the blockade, albeit "unofficially". Fraenir (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Opppose. I've no problem with something like "India-Nepal border blockade", but the title suggested by the requestor is simply pushing one-sided POV, considering that "blockade by India" a claim by Nepalese politicians, and India has repeatedly denied imposing a blockade. There are sources supporting both the narratives, and resorting to only one of the narratives would be against neutrality guidelines. Several non-Nepali non-Indian sources state that the blockade is imposed by Madhesi protesters; at best, some of them accuse India of supporting the protesters. A couple of examples:
 * BBC: "The protesters, from the Madhesi ethnic minority, say the constitution discriminates against their community. They have been blockading the Indian border for two months, causing shortages of food and medicine."
 * TIME: "Madhesi protesters have been blockading the Nepal-Indian border since the constitution passed in September, with, Nepal’s government says, the open support of New Delhi. India denies such claims."
 * Reuters: "Protesters have blockaded trucks from neighbouring India for more than two months, leading to acute shortages of fuel and medicine. Nepal blames New Delhi for siding with the protesters, a charge India denies."
 * The Guardian: "Since August, Madhesi political parties have imposed a general strike across much of the Terai, the southern plains that run the length of Nepal’s border with India. Public transport and health services have been severely disrupted..."
 * I'm not sure which sources is referring to, when s/he says "nobody believes this". Most reputed sources mention India's claim, and at best, accuse India of supporting the blockade imposed by the Madhesi protesters. such declarations by the Madhesi leaders themselves: "The blockade has been done by Madhesi people. The people of Madhesh have sat on the border."
 * utcursch &#124; talk 22:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your own source states that: He said his personnel saw some men smuggling materials like diesel, petrol and fertilizers from Indian side to Nepal. "Petrol, diesel and fertilizers are prohibited materials..." - sure sounds like a blockade to me, as Indian is prohibiting these goods from entering Nepal. Fraenir (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OR apart, you are confusing smuggling of hazardous substances with blockade. Try sneaking through from Canada to US without paying customs duties, that too, with cans of gasoline and chemical fertilizers. I assure you, the border guards will not be amused. Seriously though, such prohibitions have been there for years (and not just on India-Nepal border). For example, here are some news reports about fertilizer smuggling on Indo-Nepal border, from 2009 and 2011. And here's a 2014 Nepali news report complaining about how chemical fertilizers are being smuggled into Nepal via Indian border despite a ban by the Nepalese government (and one for petroleum products, again from 2014). Would you describe this as a self-imposed blockade?
 * Not that this argument matters, though. The issue is that there are multiple (including non-Indian) sources which state that the blockade has been imposed by Madhesi protestors. Some of them state that it has been supported by India. And very few (mostly Nepalese government and media) claim that only India is behind this blockade. You can't just can't move the article to a title that supports only the last narrative. utcursch &#124; talk 04:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are also many sources that state that India is playing a major role in the blockade, especially articles with more in-depth coverage.
 * 1. New York Times: " Kuldiep Singh, an official with India’s border security force, received his orders: Thoroughly search every single truck trying to cross into Nepal. Trucks immediately backed up at the customs post in West Bengal State staffed by his crew." "Whether they amount to a blockade or not, India’s orders have contributed to a drastic reduction in the number of trucks crossing the border, interviews with border officials indicate, and the imposition of exhaustive security checks coincides with the onset of Nepal’s fuel crisis." "But Sishir Dhungana, the director general of customs in Nepal, said that while two of the crossings were high-traffic trade routes, they accounted for fewer than half of the roughly 2,000 trucks that usually cross the border daily, and at several border checkpoints where there are no sit-ins, trucks are still not crossing into Nepal.- this point is made repeatedly by many articles - non-Madhesi checkpoints are also blocked. “Indian customs and border security forces are not releasing the goods,” Mr. Dhungana said."
 * 2. Time: "For more than two months now, landlocked Nepal’s border checkpoints with India have been virtually blocked, most of them by Indian border police and customs officials, and one by activists from Nepal’s plains-dwelling Madhesi community, who are unhappy with the country’s new constitution. " - repeats the theme that most of the blocked checkpoints are due to Indian border police, NOT Madhesi protesters. "... despite glaring evidence to the contrary, including statements by Indian border-security officials and oil-company representatives who have cited “orders from above” to continue stopping fuel trucks. - reinforces the theme that Indian officials are actively working behind the scenes to enforce an unofficial blockade.
 * 3. London School of Economics and Political Science "Delhi on its part says that goods are not able to go towards Nepal because Madheshi protesters are blocking the passage, but traders have highlighted that goods are not even entering Nepal from the entry points like Kakarbhitta which have not been affected by Madheshi protesters." - checkpoints w/o protesters are blocked - NO Madhesi involvement.
 * 4. "However, his claims have been put to question as traders said there has not been any protest at border checkpoints. "There is no sign of protests in Kakarbhitta, Mahendranagar, Rupaidiha, Nepalgunj, and Bhairahawa and other checkpoints," said Suni Mittal, an entrepreneur involved in importing goods. ""Can the Indian side point out when had there been protests in Kakarbhitta this week?" he challenged. - No Madhesi protesters, yet goods still blocked. "Indian paramilitary Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB) has reportedly directed Indian petrol pumps not to supply fuel to any vehicle bearing Nepali number plates from Tuesday onward. We have completely stopped supplying petrol to Nepali vehicles because we have been ordered not to, said a petrol supplier at the Indian border." - describes the actions taken by the SSB to prohibit the movement of fuel into Nepal.
 * 5. Foreign Policy " Indian officials blamed the Madhesi protests and their roadblocks for the interruption in cross-border trade. This claim, however, fails to account for reports that India’s Border Security Force received orders to search every single truck making its way to Nepal. This has resulted in hundreds of vehicles piling up at the border, waiting for tedious and inefficient searches. More damning than the flow of consumer goods and foodstuffs is India’s refusal to release Nepali oil tankers, resulting in an extremely serious fuel shortage." - active involvement of the SSB
 * 6. Statements by Former UN under-secretary-general, Shashi Tharoor, an Indian MP : "Despite its increasingly feeble denials, India’s de facto blockade of Nepal has choked the country’s economy, cut off its oil supplies, ... " - There are multiple voices within Indian that have called out the government on this unofficial blockade (most of them are probably opposition MPs, but clearly there are dissenting voices within India that don't agree with the government's official position).
 * 7. Statement by Indian Justice Markandey Katju The Statesman "Our government has stupidly imposed an undeclared blockade for about two months on supplies of fuel and other goods to Nepal"
 * 8. Statements by the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, a Human rights organization Daily Star They officially blamed India as the source of the blockade "In a joint statement issued yesterday, as many as 17 rights organisations from South Asia noted that "India has imposed an unofficial blockade along the Indo-Nepal border, halting the supply of goods and services, including essential goods such as cooking gas, petrol, diesel and basic medicines." "The rights bodies said the unofficial blockade violated several treaties between India and Nepal as well as UN Convention on Law of the Sea." - this last points is important, and is revisited in the article below.
 * 9. Al Jazeera "But the Indian Oil Corporation's refusal to service Nepali tankers, and the candid comments of officials on the border, make the situation clear enough" "In reality, New Delhi's pressure tactics rely on the fact that no one really believes that. Besides, a blockade cannot be openly admitted because it would almost certainly be illegal and in breach of treaty obligations." - So, we now have two sources stating the same thing - one of the main reasons for the unofficial nature of this blockade is because an official blockade is illegal and violates treaty obligations. That's why the official Indian position is that there is no blockade, but in reality there is. Fraenir (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Playing a major role" is not same as "the only entity responsible for the blockade" (which is what the proposed article title implies). And you are just cherry-picking the parts and sources that support your POV. The TIME article is an opinion piece by Nepali Times publisher Kunda Dixit, the "London School of Economics" article is a blog post by a Nepali student, Shashi Tharoor is in opposition and there are other pieces in the exact same publications talking about the major role of Madhesi protestors in the blockade: E.g. Al-Jazeera (Nepal's indigenous vow to continue crippling blockade), My Republica (Don’t blame India) etc. Not to mention
 * Like, I've mentioned earlier: there are multiple narratives here - Only India has imposed the blockade; Madhesis have imposed a blockade and India is supporting them; Madhesis have imposed a blockade and India has restricted border movements due to security concerns. The proposed title supports only the first narrative, when there are sources backing other narratives too: this violates WP:NPOV. utcursch &#124; talk 17:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The intent behind this name change is to assign blame to India. Some people say that India deserves blame. Indian government sources deny any wrongdoing, so this would be a controversial name change. There is no need for Wikipedia to take a side in this controversy. A neutral name would be better. There could be a name change, but the proposed one should not be it without addressing the controversy.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not asking Wikipedia to take a side. I wanted to move it in a proper title. In every controversies there use to be two sides. Nepal government says it is a Blockade but Indian Government says it is not. Wikipedia is neutral why are you trying to tilt it towards India? May be ISIS never wanted to be recognized as terrorist but they are listed in terror group in Wikipedia. We are human so we have to decide by the fact. If some Indians do not want to call it blockade it wont be BLOCKADE at all, I know this because we (Nepalese) can not debate in international level because of language problem. It had happened in case of Birth place of Gautam Buddha. Some media mentioned here have journalist from India to write articles for Nepal. So they won't write fact. I was a journalist myself. I have found many controversial news published by taking side. I do not want to blame anyone. It is the fact what is happening in Nepal.-Krish Dulal (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Indian government doesn't say that it's not a blockade. They say that India has not imposed any blockade: the Madhesi protesters are responsible for it and India has only tightened security because of these protests. Secondly, even the sources that accused India of intervention mention the role of Madhesis in the blockade.
 * "Tilting the article towards India" would be something like Nepal's new communist leadership, in their bid to bring Nepal closer to China and find excuses to break treaties with India, have embarked on a propaganda to malign India. Nobody here is doing that.
 * ISIS analogy is false equivalence to say the least: unlike their claim of not being terrorist, there are several decent sources that talk about the Madhesi role in the blockade (including Nepali newspapers and the Madhesis themselves; e.g. ). The title suggested by you, on the other hand, implies that the blockade has been solely imposed by the Indian government. utcursch &#124; talk 22:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are other candidates for titles. 's idea of "India-Nepal border blockade" is a neutral title that ought not offend either side. Include all controversial perspectives within the article but the title at least should give the idea without itself being controversial. The other perspective on "Indian Economic Blockade on Nepal" is "Nepali end of contracts with India", because in international news the perspective is that trade has stopped because Nepal is failing to keep contracts because of greed. I have a lot of sympathy for Nepal and personally feel that it is being bullied by India but India has a lot more media power than Nepal and the story that India tells is not "Indian Economic Blockade on Nepal". Keep the controversy out of the title - put the whole story in the article. Maybe propose other titles if you like.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I came here via WT:IN. Requested move is seems to be POV. Article itself says that "Nepal accuses India for blockade to which India deny". So how we can move page to such title which are just accusations? We can write India's role in blockade in article along with some other possible reasons for blockade in addition to India's stand on this issue. So current title is better according to WP:NPOV policy, moving it to Indian Economic Blockade on Nepal will violate WP:NPOV, though we can create redirect.-- Human 3015   TALK   23:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Do the opposers think the current title is accurate or fine?  Regardless of "blame", the problem extends beyond fuel, and is attested as a "blockade" in multiple sources (whether it be the fault of India, Madhesis, Madhesis-backed-by-India, Nepalese incompetence, whatever).  If 2015 Indian blockade on Nepal is too "anti-India", could the article at least be moved to 2015 Nepal blockade or the like? SnowFire (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned in my comment that I'm OK with blockade in the title. I don't really think you'd need a requested move for that. Just be bold and go ahead with the move. utcursch &#124; talk 01:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Krish Dulal moved page 2015 Nepal fuel crisis to 2015 Nepal blockade" - I like this move.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving information to a new 2015 Constitution of Nepal article
A lot of the information here, especially in the background section, should probably be moved to a new article covering the 2015 Constitution of Nepal. Fraenir (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. The entire "Women and citizenship" sub-section can be replaced with one sentence talking about why Madhesis are unhappy with the citizenship bit (If a Nepali woman marries a foreign man, their children cannot become Nepali unless the man first takes Nepali citizenship; whereas if the father is Nepali, his children can also be Nepali regardless of the wife's nationality.). utcursch &#124; talk 22:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup and updates necessary; needs material on Madhesis and earthquake
This article is very dense to read, especially towards the end. The excessive quoting from both Indian and Nepalese newspapers only adds to this article's confusing nature (ex: quote from a Nepali Times editorial on 9 October). While international media (ex: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34968252) and Indian media (ex: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/next-door-nepal-blaming-the-neighbour/) fault Madhesi protesters as the cause of the blockade, the Nepali press appears to fault India. As this article reads now, the dominant impression one takes away is that India is primarily responsible for this blockade/crisis; a section on the Madhesi protesters and the reasons they are protesting would be beneficial (the article on Madhesi people is itself listed as disputed and has little information). Though political talks are ongoing (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nepal-parties-ethnic-protesters-resume-talks-end-crisis-35484815), that information doesn't seem to have been updated in this article since October. As the 2015 Nepal earthquake contributed to this crisis, some more detailed information about that would also help.

In short, this article needs a cleanup, updates and likely rewriting in accordance with WP:NPOV. I'd like to start a discussion on how to proceed; any constructive feedback would be appreciated.Aumnamahashiva (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging BackoffIndia into 2015 Nepal blockade. I think the content in BackoffIndia can easily be explained in the context of 2015 Nepal blockade, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in 2015 Nepal blockade.User4edits (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, as per nom. Fade258 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom Kpddg  (talk)  12:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: The BackoffIndia campaign is not only related to 2015 Blockade. See this article from 2020. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the topic in itself fails notability. The hashtag is not significant enough to be notable on its own. Should be merged to blockade. Coderzombie (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)