Nepal’s Prime Minister Balendra Shah in a parliamentary address announced that his government plans to engage the United Kingdom in discussions over the long-standing Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura border issue with India and China, citing the historical roots of the issue in the British colonial era.
Responding to questions from lawmakers in the House of Representatives on Sunday, PM Shah revealed that Nepal has sent diplomatic notes not only to India and China but also to the United Kingdom regarding the Nepali territories of Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani.
“The government has initiated diplomatic communication not only with India and China but also with the United Kingdom, as the dispute dates back to the British colonial period,” he stated.
“While they were leaving British India, the problem was passed onto generations, which is why we believe that England also needs to be concerned about it,” Prime Minister Shah stated in parliament. “All these issues would be resolved through table talk and diplomatic channels.”
Shah also emphasized a diplomatic and bilateral approach rather than unilateral actions.
He confirmed that India has responded to Nepal’s notes on the Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura issues, and both sides are moving toward “table talks” to resolve the matter amicably.
Shah highlighted the need for mutual discussions involving historians and diplomats, potentially seeking insights from British records on the 1816 Sugauli Treaty, which forms the basis of Nepal’s claims.
In departure from conventional Nepali political rhetoric, Shah also acknowledged complexities on both sides of the border.
He said, “After becoming Prime Minister, I came to know that not only has India encroached on Nepal’s land, but Nepal has also encroached on India’s land in multiple places,” he said. He advocated for both nations to “sit down and look into this matter” as friendly neighbors.
The Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura-Kalapani region, covering approximately 335 square kilometers, has been a recurring flashpoint in India-Nepal-Chinsrelations. Nepal bases its claims on the Sugauli Treaty with British India, while India maintains effective administrative control, particularly over the strategic Lipulekh Pass used for trade and the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra.
India’s position on Lipulekh
India had said earlier this month that it remains open to a constructive interaction with Nepal on all issues in the bilateral relationship, including on resolving agreed outstanding boundary issues through dialogue and diplomacy.
Responding to media queries over claims made by Nepal’s Foreign Ministry regarding border issues in the context of the annual Kailash Manasarovar Yatra, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randeep Jaiswal said India’s position on the matter has remained “consistent and clear.”
“Lipulekh Pass has been a long-standing route for the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra since 1954, and the pilgrimage through this route has continued for decades. This is not a new development,” Jaiswal said.
Addressing Nepal’s territorial claims, the MEA spokesperson stated that India does not consider such claims to be justified or supported by historical evidence.
“India has consistently maintained that such claims are neither justified nor based on historical facts and evidence. Such unilateral artificial enlargement of territorial claims is untenable,” he added.
India had earlier rejected the move by the KP Sharma Oli-led government in Nepal in 2020 to revise the country’s political map by including Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani—areas India says are part of its territory.
In May 2020, Nepal amended its Constitution to incorporate an updated administrative map claiming around 335 square kilometres of territory, including Gunji, Nabhi, and Kuti villages. Nepal’s Department of Survey had cited historical maps linked to the Treaty of Sugauli and land revenue records to support the amendment.
Reacting to the move at the time, the MEA had said, “This unilateral act is not based on historical facts and evidence. It is contrary to the bilateral understanding to resolve the outstanding boundary issues through diplomatic dialogue. Such artificial enlargement of territorial claims will not be accepted by India.”
India has maintained that the Lipulekh route has traditionally been used for both trade and pilgrimage purposes for several decades. According to New Delhi, interruptions in recent years were primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic and not because of territorial disputes.
The government has also defended infrastructure projects in the region, including those undertaken by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), saying they are necessary for local connectivity and border security.
China-India-Nepal dispute on Lipulekh
The issue gained further complexity in 2023 after China released an official map showing the disputed tri-junction area within India’s borders, despite a 2015 India-China joint statement aimed at expanding trade through Lipulekh Pass.
Nepal’s revised political map released in 2020 claims the Kalapani-Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura tri-junction region as part of its territory. Given the area’s proximity to both India and China, the dispute has broader geopolitical implications involving all three countries.
While the Nepal-China border was formally demarcated in the 1960s, factors such as shifting river paths, glacial changes, and difficult terrain continue to create challenges in accurately determining border pillar locations.
China also remains sensitive about activities linked to the Tibetan refugee community in Nepal and has consistently urged Kathmandu to tighten border monitoring and curb what it describes as “anti-China” activities.
At the same time, Beijing has significantly expanded its economic and infrastructure presence in Nepal under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), leading to growing strategic and trade-related concerns in the region.
Despite the competing territorial claims, all sides have repeatedly stressed the importance of maintaining stable bilateral ties and resolving differences through diplomatic engagement. Nepal has also reiterated its commitment to a peaceful resolution and is hopeful that future reviews of historical maps and related documents could help address the dispute.
