By Our Reporter
For years, Nepal’s position on the border dispute with India appeared firm and unambiguous. Successive governments asserted that Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani are integral parts of Nepali territory. The publication of the revised political map in 2020 and its incorporation into the Constitution were presented as historic steps in defending national sovereignty.
Today, however, the conversation has shifted from maps to diplomacy. Dialogue has replaced confrontation. Negotiation has replaced symbolism. In principle, that is not a bad thing. Border disputes are ultimately resolved through talks, not through maps, speeches or slogans.
What is troubling is not the government’s decision to pursue dialogue. It is the inconsistency that has accompanied the shift. Prime Minister Balendra Shah surprised many when he told Parliament that Nepal had also encroached on Indian territory in several places and that both countries should jointly examine the issue. The statement immediately triggered political debate because it appeared to depart from Nepal’s long-standing position that it is the aggrieved party in the dispute.
The controversy deepened when the Prime Minister revealed that Nepal had approached the British Embassy seeking historical maps and documents related to the border question. Given that the dispute traces its roots to the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, the statement created the impression that Kathmandu was exploring a broader international role in the matter.
India reacted quickly. New Delhi reiterated that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue and that no third party has any role in resolving it.
Then came Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal’s visit to India. Instead of reinforcing the Prime Minister’s remarks, Khanal appeared to walk them back. He clarified that Nepal was not seeking third party involvement and had merely sought access to historical documents that may be available in British archives. He also avoided repeating the Prime Minister’s claim that Nepal had encroached on Indian territory.
The contrast between the two positions was impossible to ignore. Naturally, questions arise. What changed between the Prime Minister’s remarks and the Foreign Minister’s visit? Did India express strong reservations behind closed doors? Was Kathmandu forced to recalibrate its position after receiving diplomatic pushback from New Delhi? Or was the Prime Minister’s statement simply not coordinated with the Foreign Ministry in the first place?
The government has offered no convincing answers. Diplomacy often requires discretion, and not every detail of a bilateral discussion can be made public. Yet when a government changes its tone on a sensitive national issue, citizens deserve an explanation. Border disputes involve sovereignty, territory and national interest. They cannot be treated as matters that shift according to circumstance.
The lack of transparency surrounding Khanal’s visit has therefore become part of the story. The Foreign Minister returned speaking about dialogue, diplomatic mechanisms and continuous engagement. Those are all reasonable objectives. What remains unclear is what exactly was discussed with Indian leaders. Were there any understandings on Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura? Did India agree to revive dormant mechanisms? Were timelines discussed? Was there any commitment to substantive negotiations?
The public does not know. That uncertainty has created the impression that Kathmandu may have softened its rhetoric without securing anything concrete in return.
To be fair, Nepal’s previous approach was also flawed. Publishing a revised map and printing it on currency generated domestic political support, but those actions did not bring disputed territory any closer to resolution. The maps strengthened Nepal’s legal and political claim, but they did not create a diplomatic pathway forward.
In that sense, the government’s current emphasis on dialogue is a welcome correction. Diplomacy is the only realistic route to a settlement. Former diplomats are right when they say that continuous engagement is essential and that border disputes can take years to resolve.
But effective diplomacy requires consistency. A government cannot tell Parliament one thing and tell foreign counterparts another. It cannot hint at a broader international dimension one week and deny it the next. Nor can it raise expectations at home and then return from important diplomatic visits without explaining what was achieved.
The border dispute with India is too important for mixed messaging. Nepal needs a clear strategy, not changing narratives. It needs sustained diplomacy backed by historical evidence, political consensus and national confidence. Most importantly, it needs leaders who speak with one voice.
The shift from maps to talks may be necessary. Yet if that transition is accompanied by confusion, contradictions and a lack of transparency, it risks weakening rather than strengthening Nepal’s position. Diplomacy works best when it is patient, consistent and credible. At the moment, the government has yet to demonstrate all three.
Login to add a comment