Border expert Buddhinarayan Shrestha has clarified that Nepal has not encroached upon India’s territory and that only limited mutual land usage occurs in the border areas. India has reportedly encroached upon 372 square kilometers of Nepalese land in Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Limpiyadhura, and another 145 square kilometers in Susta, Nawalparasi. The Prime Minister has announced plans to engage in diplomatic talks with India to resolve the border dispute, adding that consultations with the UK government are also underway. Prime Minister Balendra Shah, speaking from the parliament rostrum, expressed the view that Nepal has also encroached on India’s territory, and he committed to discussing the issue at the negotiation table with India.
The areas of Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Susta are recognized as Nepalese territory encroached upon by India. Following the Prime Minister’s parliamentary statement suggesting Nepal might have encroached on India’s border, what are the facts? In an interview with border expert Buddhinarayan Shrestha, he asserted, “Nepal has not encroached upon India’s border anywhere.” However, a technical aspect to understand is that Nepal shares an 1880-kilometer-long border with India, involving 27 Nepalese districts. Due to the extensive border, there are some cases of ‘cross-holding occupation’ related to land used for farming purposes.
‘Cross-holding occupation’ refers to a situation where residents along the border mutually use each other’s land. To clarify, how does this usage occur? To some extent, Indian citizens cultivate land owned by Nepalese farmers, and likewise, some Nepalese farmers cultivate Indian land. This is a common practice in border areas and does not constitute territorial encroachment. For example, near the district of Parsa close to Birgunj, the Sirsia River historically flowed straightforwardly. Over time, the river changed course, and as the Sirsia River is the border, this shift affected land usage rights.
India has encroached upon 372 square kilometers in Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Limpiyadhura, and 145 square kilometers in Susta, Nawalparasi. Nepal, however, has not encroached upon any significant area of Indian territory. The issue is limited to simple cross-border usage, which cannot be characterized as encroachment but rather as ‘usage interference.’ There are no precise estimates of the area involved in this mutual usage on either side at present.
The Prime Minister stated in parliament that India has responded positively to talks aimed at resolving the disputes concerning Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Susta. Are these issues connected and discussed collectively, or are they separate matters? In fact, they are closely related topics. India is currently preparing to facilitate pilgrims traveling to Mansarovar via the Lipulekh route and has even issued calls for applications to collect funds for this purpose. Following this, the Nepalese government has asserted its rights firmly.
Nepal has sent diplomatic notes regarding this matter to both India and China. The Indian Foreign Ministry spokesperson has rejected Nepal’s claims, alleging that pilgrims are being taken through Indian territory where Nepal claims mutual usage. China has not yet responded. Nepal has proposed resolving the issue through dialogue, a stance the Indian Foreign Ministry spokesperson also acknowledges as necessary, but no concrete steps have been taken so far.
The Prime Minister emphasized the need to initiate dialogue soon. He also mentioned ongoing talks with the UK government regarding the border dispute. How does the UK relate to this issue? According to my research, Nepal has not formally requested the UK government’s involvement, but the Prime Minister’s statement is welcome. The Treaty of Sugauli, signed in 1816, was between Nepal and British India, not independent India.
Requesting the UK to mediate in the border dispute is a constructive proposal. The best resolution is through bilateral dialogue. If that fails, a third party may mediate, potentially including the UK, given its involvement in the Sugauli Treaty. However, no official correspondence has been exchanged so far, and historically Nepal has not engaged in such communications with the UK. Is it possible for Nepal and India to settle their border issues without involving the UK? Yes, both countries can resolve the dispute amicably by referring to old maps, historical documents, and border details through mutual dialogue. Only if negotiations fail should mediation be sought, at which point the UK could be promptly included. Since the Sugauli Treaty was signed with British involvement, the UK could be engaged as a mediator if requested officially. To date, no such official request has been made.
