In April, the Nepalese government sent diplomatic notes to India and China protesting the use of the Lipulekh Pass. India responded within hours, claiming the pass has been in use since 1954 and rejecting Nepal’s claim as lacking historical facts and evidence. India also left the door open for bilateral talks. China, however, has remained silent, prompting Nepal to call for a trilateral dialogue to resolve the dispute. Kathmandu, May 21 – Following the increased use of the Lipulekh Pass by India and China, Nepal dispatched diplomatic notes to both countries in April. While India promptly replied, the Chinese government has kept its traditional silence. Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal asserted that the Lipulekh Pass is an old route in use since 1954 and is not a new development. He refuted Nepal’s claims as not being grounded in historical facts or evidence but stated that India remains open to bilateral talks. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nepal has not issued a clear position given the lack of response from China. Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal said continuous dialogue is ongoing with the northern neighbor. “We are in constant contact and dialogue with our northern neighbor,” Minister Khanal told a parliamentary committee. “They have expressed interest in our priority issues, especially regarding which topics will take precedence after the formation of the new government. We continue to engage on these matters.” The border dispute involving Nepal, India, and China is not new. Despite resurfacing tensions, Nepal’s efforts to initiate talks have not been met with serious consideration. In 2015, India and China had already agreed to allow pilgrims and trade to pass through Lipulekh Pass. The late former Prime Minister Sushil Koirala’s administration also sent diplomatic notes to both neighbors concerning Lipulekh, but China reportedly did not respond at that time either. Nepal’s western border was defined under the 1816 Sugauli Treaty, which ended the Anglo-Nepalese war but resulted in significant territorial loss for Nepal. Article 5 of this treaty extinguished Nepal’s claim to the west of the Kali (Mahakali) River; however, ambiguity over the river’s true origin has perpetuated the dispute. Conflicting representations of the Kali’s source on Survey of India maps have deepened tensions. This ambiguity, combined with diplomatic inconsistencies, has made the Kalapani region the most contentious geopolitical issue between the two neighbors. When Nepal and China signed a border treaty in 1961, the westernmost tri-junction point among India, Nepal, and China had not been clearly determined. Though King Mahendra agreed on a border with China, the tri-junction involving Kalapani and Lipulekh was kept undefined, likely due to sensitivities with India. Foreign affairs expert Dr. Yubaraj Sangroula explains that this unclear tri-junction point has complicated the border issue further: “Even though the tri-junction was agreed upon, no boundary pillars or identifying markers were placed there, increasing uncertainty.” In Nepal-China treaties, the western limit of their border is described as the “initial point of the Nepal-China border’s western end.” Old joint maps and documents from that era support Nepal’s assertion that the Lipulekh area falls within Nepal’s territory, a point China has officially acknowledged. However, India’s diplomatic note counters by saying the Lipulekh Pass has been used since 1954, during a period when Nepal-China formal ties were not established. After India included the Kalapani region in its new political map in 2019, Nepal protested by sending a diplomatic note, but dialogue did not follow. When India’s Defense Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated a 79-kilometer road passing through Lipulekh in 2020 for pilgrims traveling to Kailash Mansarovar, Nepal also objected. Despite repeated calls from Nepal for dialogue, these have largely been ignored. Nepal issued a new “Chuche” map including Limpiyadhura, Kalapani, and Lipulekh, which was ratified by parliament and became constitutional law. India rejected it as “artificial” and “unilateral.” During Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s India visit in August 2025, the two neighbors agreed to commence border trade via Lipulekh Pass. Decisions made in their absence regarding land claimed by Nepal seriously challenge Nepal’s sovereignty. India’s diplomatic reply to Nepal emphasized longstanding trade practices, while China maintained silence. Against this backdrop, former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli raised the Lipulekh issue with Chinese President Xi Jinping during his September 2025 visit to China. President Xi reportedly described it as a bilateral issue between Nepal and India to be resolved independently and hinted at China’s verbal position. The Lipulekh dispute is likely to persist unless all three countries convene to officially demarcate the tri-junction point. Dr. Bhattarai notes that despite the absence of formal responses to diplomatic notes, conversations indicate positions, as reflected in President Xi’s reply. Dr. Sangroula finds it diplomatically unusual that Nepal’s border dispute is included in India-China bilateral summit talks. Nepal’s long-standing absence from asserting land claims and inconsistent diplomatic engagement may have psychological impacts. Although Nepal possesses historical evidence from the Sugauli Treaty, India has prioritized administrative and military control that has persisted for decades. This clash between historical records and administrative practice underpins the dispute. Former Ambassador to China Mahendra Pandey remarked, “China is not hasty or impulsive in international affairs and is always prepared for serious dialogue.” Nevertheless, with China agreeing on trade and pilgrim access with India via Lipulekh Pass, it should not ignore Nepal. Constructing roads in Bhutan without consulting Nepal violates border treaties and is unacceptable. Pandey added, “China’s silence is also a diplomatic message. For this sensitive matter, mandatory consultation with Nepal before decisions is essential.” The former ambassador emphasized that trilateral talks among Nepal, India, and China are the only viable and practical long-term solution to this complex issue. Though the Lipulekh dispute will continue until the tri-junction is officially established, it needs to be addressed through dialogue.
