By Our Reporter
Nepal is preparing to discuss one of the most sensitive questions in its relationship with India, its territorial boundaries, yet the government cannot say with certainty whether it possesses the original document that helped define those boundaries.
Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal’s admission that the government has documents related to the 1816 Sugauli Treaty and the 1950 Nepal India Treaty of Peace and Friendship, but does not know whether they are the official originals, exposes a serious weakness in Nepal’s institutional memory. These are not ordinary historical papers. They are records tied directly to Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial boundaries and foreign relations.
The timing makes the issue even more troubling. Nepal has repeatedly raised border questions involving Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura. Prime Minister Balendra Shah has said Nepal is discussing the matter with Britain and believes London should take an interest because of its historical role. At precisely this moment, Kathmandu should be able to produce its own documentary record with confidence.
Instead, it is still asking where the originals are. The Sugauli Treaty was signed in 1816 between Nepal and British India after the Anglo Nepal War. It established important parts of Nepal’s modern boundaries. Nepal’s 2020 political map, which incorporated Limpiyadhura, was also defended on the basis of the treaty and other historical evidence.
India, however, has consistently rejected Nepal’s territorial claims in the Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura areas. New Delhi’s latest response to the controversy over the treaty is revealing. Indian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said issues concerning the original copy should be discussed through existing bilateral mechanisms. He also stressed that India Nepal relations remain good despite differences on some issues.
This creates a difficult situation for Kathmandu. If Nepal enters a serious discussion about the Sugauli Treaty without knowing where its own original copy is, it risks appearing institutionally weaker. India may have its own archival records, while Britain, as the former colonial power and one of the parties to the treaty, is also likely to possess historical material. Nepal cannot afford to approach such a dispute relying largely on secondary copies, recollections or documents whose authenticity has not been firmly established.
If the original copy cannot be found, Kathmandu should formally approach the British government and relevant British archives, museums and libraries to obtain authenticated copies. India should also be approached through diplomatic channels for certified archival material. Nepal should not wait for a border dispute to intensify before doing this work.
The same urgency applies to the 1950 treaty. Its political and diplomatic implications have been debated for decades, and Nepal has repeatedly questioned aspects of the agreement. Losing or failing to authenticate its original record only adds unnecessary uncertainty to an already sensitive relationship.
The government must also address a deeper institutional problem. The Foreign Ministry has moved between different premises over the years, raising legitimate concerns about the security and preservation of official records. Important state documents cannot depend on temporary offices, individual officials or fragile paper archives.
A permanent diplomatic archive should be created, with physical originals preserved under strict archival standards and certified digital copies stored securely in multiple locations.
India’s position also offers Nepal a diplomatic opening. New Delhi has said the issue can be discussed through bilateral mechanisms. Kathmandu should take that invitation seriously, but it must prepare properly before entering the room.
Diplomacy rewards preparation. Territorial negotiations are not won by louder rhetoric. They depend on evidence, legal arguments, historical records and institutional credibility.
The Sugauli Treaty is more than a two-century old document. It is part of the documentary foundation on which Nepal understands its modern territory. If the government cannot establish where its original copy is, it should explain why, recover an authenticated copy from Britain if necessary, and build a system that ensures such a loss never happens again. A country preparing to defend its borders should not have to begin by searching for its own history.
Login to add a comment