By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
Over the years, many things have changed in the Nepal-India relationship, while many others have remained the same. What has not changed is India’s controversial stance on Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Limpiyadhura—a triangle in the northwestern corner of Nepal’s Sudurpaschim Province (Darchula District). India continues to claim that the region belongs to it, a position that is not only deplorable but also unacceptable. The following discussion examines why India’s claim over Lipulekh is concerning.
The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814–1816), also known as the Gorkha War, was a significant conflict between the Kingdom of Nepal and the British East India Company, triggered by border disputes and expansionist ambitions. It resulted in a British victory and forced Nepal to sign the Treaty of Sugauli in 1816, ceding about one-third of its territory. The Treaty of Sugauli defines the Kali River as Nepal’s western boundary, thereby placing Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Limpiyadhura within Nepal’s territory. It is important to note that the Kali River originates in Limpiyadhura, meaning all territory east of it belongs to Nepal.
Furthermore, the residents of the Kalapani region—specifically the villages of Gunji, Nabi, and Kuti—paid land taxes (known as bali or malpot) to the Nepali administration for a significant period. In fact, residents reportedly paid land taxes and other revenues to Nepali authorities until 2035 BS (approximately 1978–1979 AD). The Government of Nepal still holds records and receipts of land taxes paid by the locals. Likewise, the cadastral details (land ownership records) of residents from Gunji, Nabi, and Kuti were historically maintained by Nepal’s Department of Survey.
It should also be mentioned that residents of these areas reportedly took part in national censuses and the 1980 referendum, indicating historical links with the Nepali administration. However, despite these historical connections, the area has been under India’s de facto administrative control since 1962.
On 13 February 1952, the government led by Matrika Prasad Koirala opened the way for the Indian military to enter Nepal to organise and provide training to the Nepali Army. Soon after, on 27 February, the first team of the Indian Military Mission arrived in Nepal. The Indian soldiers who entered in this way were deployed in 17 locations across Nepal. As China’s influence increased in Tibet and India perceived a threat from China, India established an additional military post in Kalapani for strategic purposes, bringing the total number of Indian military posts in Nepal to 18. The military post at Kalapani was established following the 1962 Sino-Indian War, as India viewed it as a strategic point from a security perspective.
India’s move to deploy a military post in Kalapani drew widespread criticism. Voices grew louder against India’s action, demanding the withdrawal of Indian troops from Nepali territory. Under the reign of King Mahendra, the then prime minister initiated the removal of Indian military personnel from Nepal. However, the Indian personnel stationed at Kalapani did not leave and instead remained there, gradually expanding their security infrastructure over time.
This incident reminds us of a story. There was once a homeless and poor hunter who asked a king for shelter. Moved by compassion for the hunter’s suffering, the king granted him a small piece of land on which to build a home. However, the irony lies in what followed: over the years, the hunter, driven by greed, began to claim that the land had always belonged to him and that no king had ever granted it to him.
During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Nepal after assuming office in 2014, he committed to resolving the border dispute through diplomatic talks and negotiations. Over the years, Kathmandu has repeatedly called on New Delhi to resolve the border dispute through diplomatic channels. It is therefore puzzling that New Delhi has largely ignored Kathmandu’s requests. The reason appears to be either that India lacks sufficient evidence to support its claim over Lipulekh or that it is unwilling to present such evidence. We hope the reasons will become clear soon.
While Nepal was making every effort to resolve border disputes through diplomatic means, the Lipulekh dispute took a new turn in 2019 when India unilaterally released a political map that included Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura within its territory and refused to address Kathmandu’s concerns. In response, the government led by KP Oli in 2020 issued its own administrative map placing the three areas within Nepal’s borders.
A few weeks ago, Nepal was once again taken aback when India and China agreed to resume the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra via Lipulekh Pass without consulting Nepal. The route, which had been suspended after the COVID-19 pandemic, is set to reopen from June to August. This move by India and China is not only condemnable but also demonstrates blatant disregard for Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It is troubling that India does not appear to fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its immediate neighbours. It is equally surprising that India does not seem to recognise the importance of Nepal-India bilateral relations characterised by mutual benefit and equality. While India claims to be the world’s largest democracy, its behaviour and attitude toward neighbouring countries raise questions about its democratic credentials.
There is a common refrain among Indians that India is the “big brother” while Nepal is the “small brother.” This narrative is often seen as serving Indian interests. Although Nepal-India relations go beyond simple bilateral ties, this framing should not be used to justify the expectation that Nepal must comply with India’s demands, particularly on sensitive issues such as territorial disputes.
Given its growing economy, India should focus on bringing South Asian countries together for regional economic prosperity rather than fostering bitterness over border disputes. It should refrain from actions that undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its immediate neighbours. In a rapidly changing global order, India may well need the support of its neighbouring countries at critical moments.
Nepal will continue to pursue its vital national interests in this regard, and we are waiting to see how our historic neighbour will help defuse tensions. We also await New Delhi’s response to Kathmandu’s call for dialogue.
Login to add a comment