On April 3, the Government of Nepal sent diplomatic notes to India and China raising the issue of border disputes in the Lipulekh area. India claims that the route through Lipulekh Pass has been an old path for the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage since 1954. Nepal, having issued a new map including Limpiyadhura in 2020, has clearly asserted its territorial claim and expressed readiness for negotiations.
April 4, Kathmandu – After India opened the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage route through Lipulekh, Nepal sent diplomatic notes to both neighbors on April 3. Soon after the notes were made public, India responded. Indian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randeep Jazwal claimed that the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage route via Lipulekh has been continuously used since 1954 and is an established path, dismissing it as not a new issue.
Provisions related to pilgrimage travel were included in the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement between India and China, allowing pilgrims and traders to use routes including Lipulekh Pass. However, at the time of that agreement, Nepal and China had not yet established bilateral relations, which officially began in August 1955.
According to the 1816 Sugauli Treaty between Nepal and India, the territory up to Limpiyadhura, not just Lipulekh Pass, is Nepali land. The treaty specifies that all territory east of the Kali (Mahakali) River belongs to Nepal. Experts in diplomatic affairs suggest emphasizing details about Nepali territory. Former Ambassador Neelambar Acharya states, “It is unnecessary for other countries to claim past agreements on the use of Nepali land. The key point is facts and evidence — if Lipulekh belongs to Nepal, then it is Nepali land.”
Even if Indian Foreign Ministry claims pilgrims used the route earlier, that does not justify another country’s ownership of Nepali land. Since no entry permission was required at that time, Indians could easily enter Nepali territory. Nepal asserts that areas such as Kalapani, where Indian security forces have been stationed, are Nepali. Former Ambassador Acharya has emphasized that mere usage does not justify foreign claims over Nepali land.
It is not new for each party to present its arguments in a border dispute. Both Nepal and India have mutually acknowledged that a border dispute exists in Kalapani of Darchula and Susta of Nawalparasi. Because there is a dispute, a solution must be sought.
Before considering whether the diplomatic notes Nepal sent on Sunday and the Indian Foreign Ministry’s response reflect progress toward a solution, it is important to understand the background of Nepal’s recently released so-called “false” map. The origin of Nepal’s 2020 map, which includes Limpiyadhura, appears to be India’s own actions.
On November 1, 2019, Survey of India released its eighth political map, violating the provisions of the Sugauli Treaty, by including Nepali territories such as Lipulekh, Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, and areas east of the Mahakali River as part of India. Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on November 5, 2019, rejecting the unilateral map. Then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli convened an all-party meeting and concluded that the river originating from Limpiyadhura marked as Kali (Mahakali) in the Sugauli Treaty.
Following the all-party meeting, on November 10, 2019, the Parliamentary State Affairs and Good Governance Committee directed the government to release a new map including Limpiyadhura. PM Oli supported an attempt at a bilateral agreement rather than issuing the map unilaterally. Nepal sent three diplomatic notes to India within November 2019. Despite efforts including sending special envoys, success was not achieved due to Indian non-cooperation.
Meanwhile, Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh publicly inaugurated the road to Kailash Mansarovar, constructed by encroaching on Nepali territory. In protest, the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu was surrounded by demonstrators. Nepal repeatedly sought dialogue and negotiations, but India neglected these citing the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite protests, Parliament, under pressure, issued the new map. The situation worsened after the Indian Army Chief attributed protests in Nepal to “Chinese instigation.” On May 15, 2020, the ruling Nepal Communist Party’s secretariat decided to issue the map. Thereafter, the President incorporated the map into the government’s policy and programs presented in Parliament. The government issued the map based on the Sugauli Treaty and other historical facts. Parliament also amended the constitution to endorse the government’s position.
The plan to use Lipulekh as a route for trade and pilgrims was agreed upon between India and China in 2015. Both countries consented to reopen the border post, closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2024. Last August, both also announced restarting pilgrim travel via Lipulekh.
Although Nepal has sought to resolve the issue through talks and dialogue, both neighboring countries appear to have given it little priority. However, India’s Foreign Ministry’s response includes a positive element. In a press note issued by spokesperson Jazwal, India expresses not only a unilateral claim but also its willingness for dialogue. He stated that India is open to constructive engagement and diplomatic interaction with Nepal on border dispute resolution and improving bilateral relations.
India seems internally prepared for dialogue, which is a positive sign. Experts suggest Nepal, India, and China should use this opportunity to resolve the matter via diplomatic dialogue. Former Ambassador Neelambar Acharya regards Nepal’s firm stance as positive and emphasizes turning it into a chance for dialogue. He says, “We have friendly relations with our neighbors; Nepal’s correspondences can be used to open a channel for dialogue and problem-solving.”
Diplomat Jayaraj Acharya points out that although India had shown little interest in dialogue after Nepal issued the new map, India’s recent response can be utilized as a point to start discussions. He says, “Since this issue has emerged, it should be approached positively and used as an opportunity for resolution through dialogue.”