By Our Reporter
Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s remarks in Parliament that Nepal has also “encroached upon Indian territory” have triggered a controversy that goes beyond domestic politics. The backlash is not simply about the wording of a statement. It is about how a prime minister’s words can affect Nepal’s long-standing position on one of its most sensitive foreign policy issues: the border dispute with India.
For years, Nepal has maintained that India is occupying Nepali territory in the Kalapani-Limpiyadhura-Lipulekh region. Successive governments, despite political differences, have broadly spoken with one voice on the issue. Nepal’s updated political map of 2020, parliamentary resolutions, diplomatic notes, and official statements have all been based on the argument that historical evidence and the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli support Nepal’s claim.
Against this backdrop, Shah’s statement came as a surprise. The prime minister appears to have been referring to technical findings from border surveys that identified instances where citizens of both countries have crossed the boundary line, cultivated land, or occupied property on the other side. Former Survey Department chief Toya Baral has clarified that such cases exist along the open border and affect both countries. However, experts argue that these localised cases of cross-border occupation are entirely different from state-level territorial disputes such as Kalapani or Susta.
That distinction is crucial. When a prime minister says Nepal has also encroached upon Indian territory, many listeners may interpret it as an admission that the two countries are equally responsible for border disputes. Border experts say that is not what official surveys show. While there are cases of individuals occupying land across the border, Nepal as a state has not laid claim to Indian territory in the way India has maintained control over Kalapani since the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
This is why experts have called Shah’s statement technically inaccurate. The concern is not merely semantic. Diplomacy often depends on consistency. Countries build international support for their positions by presenting a clear and coherent narrative backed by evidence. Nepal’s case regarding Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, and Lipulekh rests on historical treaties, maps, and legal arguments. When the head of government publicly suggests that Nepal may also be guilty of encroachment, it risks creating ambiguity around that narrative.
Such ambiguity could weaken Nepal’s bargaining position in future negotiations.
India has consistently described Kalapani as part of its territory. Nepal, meanwhile, argues that the area lies east of the Mahakali River and therefore belongs to Nepal under the Treaty of Sugauli. The dispute remains unresolved because both sides interpret historical evidence differently. In such circumstances, every official statement matters.
Diplomatic negotiations are not conducted only through formal talks and documents. Public statements by senior leaders are also closely examined. If Nepal appears uncertain about its own position, India could potentially cite such remarks to argue that even Nepal’s leadership acknowledges complexities beyond a simple claim of Indian occupation.
This helps explain why the government quickly appeared to move into damage-control mode. Officials and aides sought to clarify that Shah was referring to broader border-management issues rather than the disputed territories themselves. Supporters argued that the prime minister was merely highlighting realities uncovered through technical surveys and discussions with experts.
Yet the controversy also points to a larger challenge facing Shah’s administration. As a relatively new national leader, Shah has built his reputation on speaking candidly and challenging established political practices. That style has earned him support among voters frustrated with traditional politics. But foreign policy and diplomacy often operate differently from domestic politics. Directness that works in municipal governance or political campaigning can create unintended consequences when dealing with sensitive international disputes.
Border issues are particularly delicate because they involve national identity, sovereignty, and historical grievances. Governments usually choose their words carefully not only because they are addressing domestic audiences but also because neighbouring countries are listening.
The broader lesson from this episode is that Nepal’s position on Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, and Lipulekh requires precision and consistency. Experts are not questioning the need for honest discussions about border management or cross-border occupation by citizens. Their concern is that conflating those issues with territorial disputes risks blurring the distinction between local boundary problems and Nepal’s formal claim over disputed land.
Whether Shah intended it or not, his remarks have opened a debate about that distinction. The challenge now for the government is to reassure both domestic audiences and diplomatic partners that Nepal’s official position on the disputed territories remains unchanged and firmly grounded in historical and legal evidence. In border diplomacy, clarity is often as important as the claim itself.
Login to add a comment