Key Points
- Nepal PM says both Nepal and India may have crossed into each other’s territory
- India reiterates border issues must be handled without external involvement
- Dispute linked to 1816 Sugauli Treaty and differing river interpretations
ISLAMABAD: A fresh round of debate has emerged over the long-running border issue between Nepal and India after Prime Minister Balendra Shah called for a third-party joint technical review of disputed territories, saying both sides may need to reassess historical boundary assumptions.
Shah’s remarks, made during a parliamentary address, suggested that boundary discrepancies could exist on both sides of the frontier and should be examined through shared fact-finding mechanisms rather than unilateral claims.
A key element of his proposal is the formal inclusion of the United Kingdom and China, which Nepal argues hold historical records relevant to the original demarcation of boundaries dating back to the 1816 Sugauli Treaty period.
Shah said the legacy of British India’s departure left unresolved cartographic ambiguities that continue to affect present-day borders.
The comments have triggered political debate in Kathmandu and renewed attention to the disputed western border region.
The government of Nepal has not issued a formal clarification beyond stressing the importance of dialogue and technical cooperation in resolving outstanding boundary questions.
India, however, responded by reiterating its position that all boundary matters with Nepal are strictly bilateral and must be addressed through existing institutional mechanisms between the two governments.
The dispute centres on the Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura region, an area claimed by both countries.
It stems from differing interpretations of the 1816 Sugauli Treaty, signed between Nepal and British India, particularly the origin and course of the Kali River, which defines the boundary under the treaty.
Nepal maintains that historical maps and river-origin studies support its claim to territory further west than the current line of control.
India cites administrative records and long-standing control of the region, including deployment of forces since the 20th century, in support of its position.
The issue has surfaced repeatedly over the years, including diplomatic tensions in 2020 following infrastructure developments in the region, which led to protests from Kathmandu.
Political analysts say Shah’s comments reflect renewed emphasis in Nepal on technical reassessment and historical documentation. The opposition parties in Nepal have urged the prime minister to clarify his position in parliament.
Despite recurring friction, both sides continue to express formal commitment to dialogue, though progress on a mutually accepted boundary interpretation remains limited.
