Prime Minister’s Statement on Nepal Encroaching Indian Territory Surprises Communist Party Secretary

Dr. Rajan Bhattarai, Secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), has expressed surprise over the Prime Minister’s assertion that Nepal has also encroached upon Indian territory. Bhattarai noted that India has never officially claimed that Nepal has infringed on its land. He warned that involving the United Kingdom as a third party in the Nepal-India border dispute would complicate the issue further.
May 29, Kathmandu – Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s recent remarks that Nepal, alongside India, has encroached upon Indian land have stirred significant political upheaval. Opposition parties have demanded disclosure of facts in the House of Representatives, while border experts have refuted the Prime Minister’s statements.
In a brief conversation regarding the issue, Dr. Rajan Bhattarai, a member of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) established to study the Nepal-India border dispute and Secretary of the CPN-UML, shared his perspective:
You mentioned that the Prime Minister stated Nepal has also encroached upon Indian territory. What is your viewpoint on this?
I am almost certain that India has never formally accused Nepal of encroaching on its territory. Through the EPG, we engaged in discussions with the Indian side for two years, examining various aspects of the Nepal-India border issues. During these negotiations, even when territorial encroachments were raised, the Indian side never alleged that Nepal had encroached upon Indian land. Therefore, it is very surprising and puzzling to hear the Prime Minister suddenly acknowledge from the parliamentary rostrum that Nepal has encroached on others’ land, apparently based on some documents or assumptions.
Second, this is a sensitive and serious issue. We are aware that efforts to reclaim encroached lands have included repeated dialogues and bilateral negotiation teams, yet resolution remains elusive and the problem is becoming increasingly complex. At such a delicate time, it was inappropriate for the Prime Minister to make a casual remark about such a sensitive issue.
Third, the Prime Minister mentioned that discussions are ongoing with England, specifically the United Kingdom, regarding this matter. Historically, when India and Bangladesh resolved their border and Ganges river disputes in 2014, the UK was not involved as a third party. Similarly, the border dispute between India and China, related to the McMahon Line stemming from British-era agreements, does not involve Britain as a third party. India and China are negotiating directly, albeit without reaching a final agreement. Hence, involving a third party in Nepal’s case would not be a solution but would likely complicate matters further.
Has India ever claimed that Nepal encroached its territory, while our Prime Minister says otherwise?
India has never officially or diplomatically asserted that Nepal encroached upon its land. This issue did not arise even in our EPG dialogues. Moreover, we were never called upon by India for discussions on this matter.
What are the implications of the Prime Minister’s remarks?
This adds a new layer of complexity. While we are engaged in dialogue with India to reclaim encroached lands, the Prime Minister’s claim that India has also encroached on Nepalese territory—something India has never formally alleged—could provide India with a political advantage and hinder resolution. It risks escalating the dispute rather than resolving it. The Prime Minister, as the chief guardian of national interest over territorial matters, must realize that such statements could jeopardize Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and regional security.
How can this situation be remedied?
The Prime Minister must clarify which specific land he referred to and which documents form the basis of his remarks. Transparency is essential given the sensitivity of the issue.
Do you believe the Prime Minister’s statement was mistaken?
I am fully convinced that such statements do not protect Nepal’s national interests.