By P.R. Pradhan
Recently, India and China agreed to open the Lipulekh Pass for Indian pilgrims traveling to Kailash and Mansarovar, sacred sites revered by both Hindus and Buddhists in Tibet, China. This agreement once again brought Nepal’s long-standing territorial concerns into the spotlight. Nepal has already sent diplomatic notes to both India and China, clearly stating that the territory belongs to Nepal and that no bilateral agreement involving Nepali land should be concluded without Nepal’s consent.
Historical evidence strongly suggests that the territory east of the Mahakali River belongs to Nepal. However, following India’s humiliating defeat in the war with China in October 1962, Nepal reportedly allowed India temporary access to Kalapani on humanitarian and strategic grounds. According to this account, Nepal extended support as a friendly neighbor during a difficult moment for India.
According to senior Nepali political leader Bishwabandhu Thapa, who recently died, India was deeply concerned after the defeat by China and feared possible strategic vulnerability from the Himalayan frontier. It is said that the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru formally requested King Mahendra to permit temporary shelter to Indian security forces in the Kalapani region. King Mahendra reportedly consulted Nepal’s ambassador in New Delhi and other senior diplomats before making a decision. Given the regional security environment at the time and India’s weakened position after the war, Nepali diplomats advised that extending assistance to India would be a wise gesture of goodwill and regional cooperation. On that basis, Nepal allowed Indian forces to remain temporarily in Kalapani. The expectation, however, was that the forces would eventually withdraw once the security threat subsided. That withdrawal never happened.
Historically, Nepal once extended from the Tista River in the east to the Satlaj River in the west, including the plains of the Ganga in the south. Following the Anglo-Nepal War, the Sugauli Treaty signed between British India and Nepal in 1815 drastically reduced Nepal’s territory, limiting it to the Mechi River in the east and the Mahakali River in the west. Despite the territorial loss, the treaty clearly stated that lands east of the Mahakali River would remain part of Nepal.
The central dispute lies in identifying the true source of the Mahakali River. Nepal maintains that the river originates from Limpiyadhura, based on historical maps, watershed principles, and old administrative records. If this interpretation is accepted, then Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura all lie east of the river and therefore within Nepal’s sovereign territory. India, however, claims that the river begins from a different point, which shifts the boundary in its favor.
The dispute is not merely about geography; it is also about legal consistency and respect for international agreements. If India accepts the Sugauli Treaty as the legal basis for the Nepal-India boundary, it should also accept Nepal’s interpretation based on the treaty’s original provisions. If India rejects this interpretation, Nepal may justifiably raise the issue of the 1947 agreement between India and the United Kingdom prior to British withdrawal from the subcontinent. According to that understanding, territories occupied by the British were to be returned to their original rulers. On that basis, Nepal could theoretically revive claims over territories historically lost to British expansion, stretching from the Tista to the Satlaj. Whether India is prepared to entertain such arguments is another matter.
Furthermore, the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Nepal and India stated that previous treaties and arrangements would be superseded by the new framework of bilateral relations. This raises important legal questions regarding the continued interpretation and application of earlier treaties and boundary understandings.
Unfortunately, despite possessing strong historical, cartographic, and legal arguments, Nepal has not been able to effectively reclaim its disputed territory. Domestic political instability, inconsistent diplomatic priorities, and Nepal’s geopolitical dependence have weakened its bargaining position. As a result, the Kalapani issue has remained trapped between rhetoric and inaction.
If India continues to deny Nepal’s legitimate concerns, Nepal should seriously consider internationalizing the matter through legal and diplomatic platforms, including international arbitration or adjudication mechanisms. A peaceful and rules-based resolution is in the long-term interest of both countries. For Nepal, the issue is not merely about a small patch of land; it is about sovereignty, national dignity, and the credibility of international law.
Login to add a comment