Tag: lipu lekh nepal reply

The Kalapani Imbroglio: Has India Pushed Nepal Too Far?

Popular sentiment against what is viewed as Indian encroachment in Kalapani and Susta has led to recurrent protests in Nepal which have largely been ignored by the Indian media.

It appears that India is fast losing its friends in the neighbourhood.

This time, the trouble stems from the Modi government’s most recent gift to Hindu pilgrims: a road to reach Kailash-Manasarovar in Tibet. The project was reportedly a top priority for the prime minister.

The road traverses territory claimed by Nepal. Hence, in a bid to assert its claim over the territory, the government of Nepal unveiled a new political map of the country which included the regions of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura as part of its sovereign territory. Nepal has rejected India’s claim over these territories.

Releasing the new political map, Nepal’s minister of land management Padma Kumari Aryal said that Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli was committed to protecting the territorial sovereignty and integrity of the country. Nepal has also claimed a large tract of land across Uttar Pradesh’s Gorakhpur in Susta as a part of its territory in the new maps released on May 20 and has since asked India to remove “encroachments” from the area.

Nepal’s new political and administrative map of Nepal released by its government on Wednesday. Photo: Nepal government

Indian army chief General M.M. Naravane’s remarks alleging that the Nepali government had protested the inauguration of India’s link road to Mount Kailash in Lipulekh at the behest of China were unfortunate and came at a time when all sections of Nepalese society – including all the political parties in the opposition – have objected to the construction of the road.

Shortly after Nepal released the new maps, India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated that Nepal’s revised map “includes parts of Indian territory” and that “this unilateral act is not based on historical facts and evidence”. It urged Kathmandu “to respect India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

Also read: India Should Realise China Has Nothing to Do With Nepal’s Stand on Lipulekh. However, India’s sovereignty over the Lipulekh Pass is yet to be established as it continues to be a disputed region. India’s claims do not acknowledge the fact that, in the last 26 years of discussions, the Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee, which was able to settle nearly 97% of the border, has failed to resolve the dispute over Kalapani and Susta. In 2009, the then Indian external affairs minister, Pranab Mukherjee, on a visit to Nepal said that both sides had “agreed to resolve the long standing border disputes between the two countries at various places, including Kalapani and Susta through further discussions.”

The popular protests, which erupted in Nepal a fortnight ago over India opening a link road to Lipulekh is a reprise of an old story. During my 17-year stay in Nepal, from 1997-2014, I witnessed many such popular protests by Nepalese political parties and people from almost all regions of Nepal against was seen as Indian encroachment in Kalapani and Susta. In India, news of these protests has been largely overlooked by the media, or when reported, Nepali complaints are treated as factually incorrect.

The Lipulekh Pass, which lies at the centre of the current dispute, is situated at an altitude of 5,000 metres. Nepal claims that the Indian army has encroached 372 square kilometres towards Limpiyadhura from Kalapani since the 1962 Indo-China war. At that time, Nepal, as a friendly neighbour, granted permission to the Indian army to set up a camp in the region.

Subsequently, despite several firm requests by Nepal’s prime minister at the time, Kirti Nidhi Bista, to evacuate the camp, Indian troops stayed put. Because of the asymmetric power relationship between the two countries, Nepal has not been able to force India to withdraw its troops from the area.

Demarcation of the modern India-Nepal border began on March 4, 1816, after the Treaty of Sugauli was signed between the British East India Company and the Kingdom of Nepal. The treaty, which declared the Mahakali River of Nepal as the border between the two countries, was expected to resolve border issues. It didn’t. Over the last six decades, the dispute over the border and the surrounding no-man’s land has continued to flare up every now and then.

Also read: India Reacts to New Nepal Map, Says Kathmandu’s ‘Cartographic Assertion’ is Unacceptable

In addition to Mahakali/Sharda (West), Gandak/Narayani (South) and Mechi (East) are two other rivers which demarcate the border between India and Nepal. Around 600 kilometres of the India-Nepal border is defined by rivers: the Mechi in the east, Mahakali in the west, and Naryani in the Susta area.

Over the decades, these rivers have changed courses several times, giving rise to disputes, claims and counterclaims on land. The Nepal government claims that by taking advantage of Nepal’s negligence in guarding its borders, India has encroached on its borderland. Reports from Nepal claim that Indians from UP and Bihar have encroached on over 60,000 hectares of land in 23 out of the 75 bordering districts. There is a great deal of hue and cry in Nepal over encroachment, which unfortunately falls on deaf ears in India.

Soldiers from Nepal’s Armed Police Force begin patrolling a disputed area along the India-Nepal border. Photo: Rastriya Samachar Samiti, Nepal,

The former director-general of the Department of Survey of Nepal, claims that maps from 1850 and 1856, prepared by the Survey of India with the participation of Nepali authorities, clearly state that the Mahakal River originates from Limpiyadhura, 16 km northwest of Kalapani, thereby proving that Kalapani belongs to Nepal.

However, India has consistently refused to accept those maps as proof. Indian officials insist that a map drawn up by the British colonial government in 1875 should be considered instead. This map allegedly shows the origin of the Mahakali River to the east of Kalapani. Unlike the maps from 1850 and 1856, the 1875 map does not have Nepal’s certification.

The Nepalese people are fully aware of the precarious situation they are in. Long ago, Prithvi Narayan Shah – who unified Nepal and established the Shah dynasty – had described Nepal as a ‘yam’ between two hard rocks. Nepal continues to tread a careful path – maintaining cordial relations with two powerful neighbours and consolidating its independent status by reaching out to other nations and playing an important role in the United Nations.

The secretariat of SAARC is situated in Kathmandu. Nepal has also been at the forefront of efforts to secure the rights of landlocked countries in international law. Despite having gone through a series of political and social crises, the Himalayan nation has performed admirably in asserting and protecting its freedom of action vis-à-vis its two powerful neighbours, India and China.

Also read: Nepal’s Armed Police Force Begins Patrolling at Disputed Border Point With India

The Indian army chief ‘s comments that Nepal has asserted its claim on Kalapani at the behest of China has clearly wounded Nepalese national sentiment.

The Nepali prime minister’s uncharacteristically harsh comment on India in Nepal’s parliament recently is an indication of a deepening sense of alienation, which India can ill afford. The army chief’s uncalled for foray into external relations and his attempts to drag China into this dispute may cause further complications.

Tapan Bose was secretary-general of South Asia Forum for Human Rights based in Kathmandu, Nepal.

Note (November 17, 2022): A paragraph quoting what were presented as excerpts from the 1911 Almora Gazetteer included by the author in the original:

It is noteworthy that nearly a hundred years after the signing of the Treaty of Sugali, in 1911 the Almora Gazetteer recorded that the Kali River “is formed by the union of two headwaters: the Kalapani river that originates below the Lipulekh Pas and the Kuthi Yankit river that rises below the Limpiyadhura range. Both the streams have been termed ‘Kali River’ on different occasions. The Kali River serves as the boundary between Uttarakhand (Kumaon region) and Nepal from Limpiyadhura (30.227°N 80.920°E). The Lipulekh pass, as well as the Limpayadhura pass (or Limpiya pass), are on Nepal border with Tibet”.

has been removed. In response to a review of the quote, the author clarified that the paragraph represented his attempt to paraphrase what the gazetteer had said over two pages and was inadvertently presented as direct quotes from the document.
(Updated on November 21, 2022)

With Envoy Still to Obtain Appointment With MEA, Nepal Awaits Indian Signal

Nepal’s ambassador to India had submitted a request to the MEA for an urgent meeting early last month. This request was again followed up on May 21 – but no dates have been given yet to the envoy.

New Delhi: The Nepal ambassador to India, Nilambar Acharya, is awaiting a suitable date for a meeting with the ministry of external affairs after Kathmandu released a new political map which shows Kalapani and Lipulekh in Nepalese territory.

Relations between the two South Asian neighbours have hit a rocky patch this month over a long-pending boundary dispute. The latest friction is over the link road inaugurated by India to Lipulekh on the India-China border, which Nepal claims is part of its territory as per a 19th century treaty signed with the British.

On April 21, Nepal government formally unveiled the map, approved by its cabinet, that showed areas of Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh within its borders.

On the same day, India had responded that this “artificial enlargement of territorial claims” was unacceptable. “We hope that the Nepalese leadership will create a positive atmosphere for diplomatic dialogue to resolve the outstanding boundary issues,” it added.

After the May 8 road opening, Nepal foreign minister had summoned the Indian ambassador and handed over a protest note.

Also read: India Reacts to New Nepal Map, Says Kathmandu’s ‘Cartographic Assertion’ is Unacceptable

Nepal’s leading English newspaper Kathmandu Post reported on Monday that eyebrows had been raised in Nepal that their envoy had been unable to get access to senior officials in the Indian foreign ministry.

Sources confirmed to The Wire that the Nepal’s ambassador to India, Acharya, had submitted a request to the ministry of external affairs for an urgent meeting early last month. This request was again followed up by the embassy on May 21 – a day after the new map was released by Nepal.

The objective of the meeting, as per sources, was not to conduct a ‘negotiation’ over the boundary issue, but to convey the wishes of the Nepalese government for an early high-level meeting to discuss the matter.

While no dates have been conveyed by the Indian side, diplomatic sources noted that the time taken to respond to the request is not surprising as MEA has a lot on its plate. The ministry is currently coordinating operation of flights from over 30 countries to bring back Indians stranded in foreign lands due to snapping of air transport links in March to slow down the spread of COVID-19 pandemic.

In an interview to Nepal’s Republica newspaper, Nepalese foreign minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali indicated that Kathmandu had activated informal networks. “We have been trying to do that. However, formal talks and conversations have not taken place yet. But different channels are actively working,” Gyawali replied in answer to a question whether there had been any high level contacts with India.

Nepal and India share a 1,690-kilometre long border, which is open and porous. Both countries had settled and finalised strip maps for 98% of the boundary in 2007. However, there are two areas – Kalapani in Uttarakhand and Narsahi-susta in Bihar – where both sides still have difference of perception on alignment of boundary.

The Kalapani dispute got revived last November, when India issued a political map to show the newly-created union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. It led to Nepal issuing a strong protest and proposing a meeting of the two foreign secretaries.

Also read: India Should Realise China Has Nothing to Do With Nepal’s Stand on Lipulekh

But India had been unable to give a date for the meeting, especially since there was a transition in leadership at the Indian foreign ministry.

The resurgence of the dispute after the opening of the Lipulekh road was met with a chorus of demands from Nepali politicians for a strong response from Kathmandu. Having been elected on a nationalist campaign platform, Nepal Prime Minister K P Oli, whose popularity had reached its peak during the so-called Indian blockade of 2015, also predictably raised the pitch.

Indian army chief M.M. Navrane’s statement on May 15 that Nepal had objected to the road at the behest of “someone else” – China – also raised hackles in the Nepali establishment.

While there had been no official response from Kathmandu, Nepali deputy prime minister rand defence minister Ishwor Pokhrel pulled no punches in an interview to state-run newspaper, Rising Nepal, on May 22.

Describing the statement as a “political stunt”, Pokhrel asked, “How professional is it for the head of the Army to make a political statement? We don’t have anything like that here. The Nepali Army does not go vocal on such matter.”

The Nepalese minister also said that the army chief’s words had “hurt the sentiments of the Nepali Gurkha army personnel who lay down their lives to protect India”. “It must now become difficult for them to stand tall in front of the Gurkha forces,” he added.

India Should Realise China Has Nothing to Do With Nepal’s Stand on Lipulekh

The feeling in Kathmandu is that China is not ready to compromise its relationship with India over Nepal.

Kathmandu: “There has never been any problem in the past. There is reason to believe that they might have raised the issues at the behest of someone else…” Indian Army chief General M.M. Naravane was quoted as saying on May 15.

He was referring to Nepal’s recent official complaint with India over the latter’s inauguration of a new 75-km track to Lipulekh, a tri-junction point between Nepal, India and China. On May 8, Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh had remotely flagged off the road that will now be the shortest route to Kailash Mansarovar for Indian pilgrims.

The Indian army chief’s statement sparked a furore in Nepal after he hinted at China’s hand behind Kathmandu’s decision to lodge a complaint against the new road. Nepal’s foreign minister, Pradeep Gyawali, summoned Vinay Mohan Kwatra, the Indian envoy to Nepal, and handed him an official note of protest.

Naravane’s statement was both inaccurate and insensitive. The fact is that the government took India on over Lipulekh because there was immense public pressure to do so; China had absolutely no role in this issue.  In fact, most Nepalis are as angry with India as they are with China over the recent developments. Why did China let India build the road on a traditional tri-junction point without consulting Nepal, they asked. Did the Indian action have tacit Chinese support? Foreign minister Gyawali has met the Chinese envoy to Nepal, Hou Yanqi, seeking clarification. Nepal is also preparing to hold high-level discussions with China.

Also read: Nepal Protests India’s New Road to Lipulekh; ‘Entirely Within Territory,’ Responds New Delhi

Perhaps what upset the Indian army chief was Nepal’s Armed Police Force (APF) setting up a new border post close to Lipulekh following India’s inauguration of the new road to Kailash Mansarovar. The APF is a paramilitary outfit in which China has invested heavily, partly because its deployment on the border with China has helped stem the tide of Tibetan refugees entering Nepal.

Recent Chinese activism

Chinese engagement in Nepal has increased in recent years, particularly after the 2016 ouster of K.P. Oli during his first stint as prime minister. Oli was replaced by a Nepali Congress-Maoist coalition, led by Sher Bahadur Deuba. China had been, for some time, cultivating the Nepali communists and urging the two top communist forces in the country—the CPN-UML and the UCPN (Maoist)—to unite. This was part of Beijing’s plan to have a strong and stable power centre in Kathmandu after the abolition of the Nepali monarchy in 2008. It calculated, rightly so, that the communists would soon be the strongest force in the country.

Partly on China’s urging, the two large communist parties united in May 2018 to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP), following the communist coalition’s resounding electoral victory in 2017. Oli became the prime minister for the second time. But infighting soon started to plague the new party, and the NCP again appeared close to a split. It was then that Chinese envoy Hou Yanqi stepped up her activism in Kathmandu and President Xi Jinping even phoned his Nepali counterpart Bidya Devi Bhandari—all supposedly to keep the NCP intact. The split was forestalled.

Nepal’s PM K.P. Sharma Oli with Chinese President Xi Jinping in June 2018. Photo: China_Amb_India/Twitter

Yet it would be wrong to infer that China was solely responsible for the NCP’s formation or for keeping it intact. It was just one factor. And such Chinese meddling has not come without a cost. Many Nepalis now see Beijing as openly interfering in Nepali politics, much like India has traditionally done. Recently, the Chinese embassy in Nepal issued a veiled threat against a Nepali newspaper editor, sparking fears that China was trying to export its restrictive press freedom to Nepal. All these things have marred China’s image.

Now, China is seen as tacitly supporting what is seen by Nepal as Indian encroachment in Kalapani. The Indian army chief’s statement is thus confounding. It didn’t just misread facts on the ground; the tone also reminded Nepalis of India’s traditional ‘big brother’ attitude.

Also read: The Undercurrents of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Upcoming Visit to Nepal

The history

India has had an army base in the Kalapani region near the Lipulekh pass since the early 1950s. Following Nepal’s request, India withdrew 16 of the 17 border army posts in 1970 but not the one at Kalapani. The Nepali monarch at the time, King Mahendra, whom the Indians saw as close to China, did not want to further alienate the Indians and didn’t object to India’s retention of the post there. Since the revival of democracy in Nepal in 1990, successive Nepali governments have requested India to remove the post and return the land to Nepal. India has stayed put.

Things came to a boil in November 2019 when India published a new edition of its political map t0 take into account the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. This map showed the Kalapani territory, including Lipulekh pass, whose ownership Nepal disputes, as falling entirely within Indian territory.

India’s new political map (left) includes the territory of Kalapani. Nepal’s official map (right) also shows Kalapani inside its border. Photo: India’s home ministry and Nepal’s survey department

Even though Lipulekh is acknowledged to be a tri-junction point, most Nepalis have grown up believing that the rest of the Kalapani region belongs entirely to Nepal. So each time India’s cartographic assertions come as a shock.

The new road in Lipulekh and the Indian army chief’s unequivocal statement that most of Kalapani falls within India has reignited anti-India fervour that had reached an apogee during the 2015-16 border blockade.

Indian interest

India had kept its army installation in Kalapani as the area was of high strategic value. The high ground of India’s army post there allows it to monitor the highland passes with Tibet far into the distance. Following the 1962 war, India felt that it could not leave the sector unattended.

India has given Nepali officials reason to believe that the army post is as important to it today as it was in 1962, even though it can now monitor the movement on the segment through drones or satellites.

Then there is the economic logic. Since 2009, India and China have repeatedly tried to develop Lipulekh Pass as a bilateral trade route, by bypassing Nepal, supposedly because that is what India wants. Separately, Chinese President Xi Jinping is believed to be keen on the development of Tibet. Xi reckons Tibet can develop only via greater linkages with India, the economic giant next-door.

Another reason for India’s interest in Kalapani is religious. The Hindu nationalist Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants to get the credit for opening a direct route to one of the holiest Hindu religious sites.

Also read: As Nepal’s Oli Looks to Bolster Ties With China, Modi May Be in for a Rude Awakening

Given the high importance India attaches to Kalapani and China’s seeming nonchalance over the issue, the common feeling in Kathmandu is that China is not ready to compromise its important relationship with India over Nepal.

What next?

Therein lies the great paradox. On the one hand, India and China are seen to be vigorously competing for influence in Nepal, and on the other, they seem to be on the same page when it comes to buttressing their trade ties by impinging on Nepal’s sovereignty.

Indian strategic thinkers have not minced their words in condemning China’s growing inroads in Nepal, and the need for New Delhi to stem this tide. But two respected Nepali geopolitical analysts I spoke to for this article saw the inauguration of the Lipulekh road, in the middle of a pandemic, not as a reflection of Oli’s proximity to China, but on the contrary, as India’s warning to ‘pro-China’ Oli to maintain a safe distance from China. In this reading, if Oli gets the message, India could be amenable to a three-country solution over Lipulekh, say, by including Nepal in a new trade arrangement via the pass.

Nepal’s Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli (L) shakes hands with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi. Photo: Reuters

If Oli doesn’t get the message, Nepali requests to settle Kalapani will continue to fall on deaf ears, and New Delhi could further harden its position vis-à-vis the Oli government. Just as China has been consolidating its political constituency in Kathmandu, India too is quietly putting together an anti-Oli coalition, for instance, by brokering the recent merger between the two biggest Madhesi parties.

One much-discussed option for Nepal is to ‘internationalise’ the Kalapani issues. But it is hard to see what the country will achieve by this, save for further alienating India. China too will not be pleased with the Nepali government it helped form dragging it into international arbitration. In other words, notwithstanding the outpouring of public anger against the perceived land grab, Nepal’s options are limited.

Among the more extreme (and unlikely) options being floated by protestors angry at the stalemate: the complete sealing of the Nepal-India border, sending the Nepal Army into Kalapani, resurrecting the old demand for ‘Greater Nepal‘.

The demand for Greater Nepal—the restoration of nearly half of Nepal’s territories ceded to India’s former British rulers—is an interesting one. If India is seemingly not ready to accept the borders demarcated by the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, the argument goes, why can’t Nepal too claim all the land it gave to British India?

Watch | Has China Weaned Nepal Away From India?

More realistically, India won’t be ready to easily settle the Kalapani dispute, and will look to drag it on indefinitely. But that should not hinder India and China from developing Lipulekh as a bilateral trade route. Nor should it stop Indian pilgrims from taking the new road to the abode of Shiva. Nepal, meanwhile, will continue to be reminded of the harsh realities of a small country wedged precariously between two giants.

That’s the long-term prospect. The latest development in Nepal is the government’s publication of the country’s new map including all the disputed territories of Kalapani. Most Nepalis have been astounded with this display of chutzpah against the regional hegemon, and are now firmly behind their prime minister on the border dispute. K.P. Oli’s popularity will now soar again after hitting a nadir earlier this year following his attempts to engineer a divide in an opposition party. First the 2015-16 blockade and now the new road at Lipulekh, India keeps giving him one shot after another at a phoenix-like political resurrection.

Biswas Baral is the editor of The Annapurna Express, a weekly newspaper published from Kathmandu. He tweets @biswasktm

Army Chief Says Nepal Objected to India’s Link Road to Lipulekh at Someone Else’s Behest

Gen. Naravane said the reaction by the neighbouring country was surprising.

New Delhi: In an apparent indication to a Chinese role, Army Chief General M.M. Naravane on Friday said there were reasons to believe that Nepal objected to India laying a road connecting the Lipulekh pass in Uttarakhand at the behest of someone else even as he asserted that the Army is dealing with incidents of face-offs with Chinese military on a case-by-case basis.

In an interaction at a defence think-tank, Gen. Naravane said India will have to remain “alive” to a scenario of a “two-front” war along the northern and western borders, but noted that he does not foresee the possibility of every confrontation leading to such a situation.

On the Army’s big-ticket proposal to induct youngsters for a three-year tenure under the Tour of Duty (ToD) concept, the Army Chief said the idea germinated following feedback from school and college students that they want to experience military life without opting a permanent career in the Army.

Gen. Naravane said the ToD will help the Army in cutting down revenue expenses on account of payment of pensions and other benefits.

Replying to a question, he said the Army has received an order from the government to cut expenditure by 20 per cent from the current fiscal due to the COVID-19 crisis, adding the force is implementing it without compromising on its combat readiness.

Expenditure is being cut through a variety of measures including restricting large movements of troops, he said in the video-conference organised by Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

Also read: Nepal Foreign Minister Summons Indian Ambassador Over Lipulekh Boundary Issue

On Nepal raising objections to India laying the Lipulekh-Dharchula road, Gen. Naravane said the reaction by the neighbouring country was surprising.

“The area east of Kali river belongs to them. The road that we built is on the west of the river. There was no dispute. I don’t know what they are agitating about,” the Army Chief said.

“There has never been any problem in the past. There is reason to believe that they might have raised the issues at the behest of someone else and that is very much a possibility,” he said.

The 80-km-long strategically crucial road at a height of 17,000 feet along the border with China in Uttarakhand was thrown open by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh last week.

Nepal on Saturday raised objection to the inauguration of the road, saying the “unilateral act” was against the understanding reached between the two countries on resolving border issues.

On two separate incidents of face-offs between Indian and Chinese troops, the Army chief said there was no link between the two, adding “We are dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. I have not seen any concerted design into the face-offs.”

On the two-front war, he said it is a possibility and that the country will have to remain prepared to deal with such a scenario.

“It is a possibility. It is not that it is going to happen every time. We have to be alive to all contingencies which can happen, various scenarios that can unfold. We have to remain alive to the possibility.

“But to assume that in all cases both fronts would be 100 per cent active, I think that would be an incorrect assumption to make. In dealing with the two-front scenario, there will always be a priority front and a secondary front. That is how we look at dealing with this two-front threat,” Gen. Naravane said.

He said the priority front would be addressed in a different manner while the secondary front will be kept as dormant as possible just to conserve resources to focus on the priority front.

“We should not look at a two-front scenario just as a military responsibility. A country does not go to war with its armed forces alone. It has other pillars like diplomatic corp and other organs of government which will come into play to make sure that we are not forced into a corner where we will have to deal with two adversaries at the same time and in full strength,” he added.

“I think that’s where the whole-of-the-nation approach will come into play,” said the Army Chief.

Nepal Foreign Minister Summons Indian Ambassador Over Lipulekh Boundary Issue

Kathmandu has made it clear that it cannot wait till the end of the COVID-19 crisis to hold boundary talks with New Delhi.

New Delhi: Nepal foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali has personally handed over a diplomatic note protesting a new road constructed by India, even as he told Nepali lawmakers that Kathmandu cannot wait till the end of the COVID-19 crisis to hold boundary talks.

On Monday afternoon, Nepal’s foreign ministry reported that Gyawali summoned the Indian ambassador, Vinay Mohan Kwatra, for a meeting and handed over a diplomatic note that “conveyed Government of Nepal’s position on boundary issues”.

The diplomatic note has been handed after two days of high political activity in Kathmandu, with ruling and opposition leaders urging the Nepal government to take a more forceful stance on the latest controversy over boundary with India.

The Indian embassy later tweeted that Kwatra explained India’s position on boundary issues and handed over MEA spokesperson’s response to the Nepal foreign minister.


The issue erupted after defence minister Rajnath Singh on May 9 inaugurated a new link road to Lipulekh on the Sino-Indian boundary, which would reduce the length of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra.

Nepal issued a lengthy statement on Saturday, decrying India’s “unilateral” action, claiming that the road was encroaching onto territory claimed by Kathmandu as per the 1816 Sugauli treaty.

In New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs had responded by saying that the road section “lies entirely within the territory of India”.

Also read: Nepal Protests India’s New Road to Lipulekh; ‘Entirely Within Territory,’ Responds New Delhi

India had also stated that it was ready for a meeting of the two foreign secretaries “once the dates are finalised between the two sides after the two societies and governments have successfully dealt with the challenge of COVID-19 emergency”.

On Monday, Nepali parliament’s international relations committee summoned Gyawali to discuss the boundary issue.

According to Kathmandu Post, Gyawali said that Nepal cannot wait for the coronavirus crisis to be over to hold talks with India. “We are ready for talks at any level with India – at the prime minister’s level or foreign secretary’s level,” he said.

Gyawali also told the parliamentary panel that a new border post will be set up near Kalapani, with a battalion of Armed Police Force to be stationed in the area.

The Nepali foreign minister reportedly said, as per Republica, that government had failed to safeguard Nepali territories in the western frontier with India as it could maintain a presence in the region on a long-term basis. “It is very unfortunate that Nepal could not make its presence in Kalapani for several years,” he said.

Nepal had first sought foreign secretary-level talks last year, after India had issued a new political map to show the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two new Union Territories. Nepal had objected as it showed Kalapani as part of Indian territory.

However, the meeting never took place, with India waiting for a new foreign secretary to take over and then the eventual COVID-19 crisis.

The latest boundary controversy is raising tempers in Kathmandu, with lawmakers from across the aisle condemning India for constructing the road and also trading political barbs during a meeting of Nepal’s House of Representatives on Sunday.

During a meeting of the Parliamentary state affairs and good governance committee on the same day, several members suggested that Nepal government should approach international court to resolve the boundary dispute.

This was reportedly rejected by both the Nepalese foreign minister Gyawali and the chairman of the ruling party, NCP, Pushpa Kamal Dahal.  “The time has not come to go in that direction,” Dahal said.

Nepal Protests India’s New Road to Lipulekh; ‘Entirely Within Territory,’ Responds New Delhi

On Friday, defence minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated by video conference the road between Dharchula to Lipulekh, which will reduce the length of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra by several days.

New Delhi: Rumblings in Nepal about the boundary with India have now resulted in a full scale eruption since India inaugurated a new road in Uttarakhand which leads to territory that is claimed by Kathmandu, near the border with China.

On Friday, defence minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated by video conference the road between Dharchula to Lipulekh, which will reduce the length of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra by several days.


Nepal opposition leaders immediately raised the pitch, asking for the government to clear its public stance.

A day later, Nepal foreign ministry expressed “regret” at India’s “unilateral act” and called upon India to refrain from carrying out any activity on Nepalese territory.

In a lengthy statement, Nepal foreign ministry reminded that Nepal claims all territories east of Mahakali river, “including Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipu Lekh” as per the 1816 Sugauli Treaty.

“This was reiterated by the Government of Nepal several times in the past and most recently through a diplomatic note addressed to the Government of India dated 20 November 2019 in response to the new political map issued by the latter,” it said.

The context of the last diplomatic note is that months ago, India had issued a new political map to show the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two new Union Territories. In it, it depicted Kalapani as part of Indian territory, which led to a strong objection from Nepal.

It further pointed out that when India and China had agreed to include Lipu Lekh pass as a bilateral trade route in a May 2015 joint statement, Nepal had issued separate diplomatic protest notes to the two Asian giants for not obtaining Kathmandu’s consent.

On the latest move, Nepal stated:

“This unilateral act runs against the understanding reached between the two countries including at the level of Prime Ministers that a solution to boundary issues would be sought through negotiation”.

Stating that Nepal sought a diplomatic solution in the spirit of friendly relations, the foreign ministry asserted:

“In light of this development, the Government of Nepal calls upon the Government of India to refrain from carrying out any activity inside the territory of Nepal”.

The Kathmandu Post had reported that Nepalese foreign secretary Shankar Das Bairagi spoke with Indian ambassador Vinay Kwatra on Friday. 

The statement issued in Kathmandu also reiterated that Nepal had twice proposed dates for holding meeting between the foreign secretaries of the two sides after the Kalapani controversy gathered momentum last year. 

Also read: Nepal Fumes Over Kalapani in New Indian Road Map; ‘Accurate,’ Says MEA

Nepal foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali had told visiting Indian journalists in February that if India could solve long-standing and complex boundary disputes with Bangladesh, then it should be able to do so with Nepal.

He had also highlighted that India had still not given a concrete response for a meeting of the two foreign secretaries.

Late evening, India’s Ministry of External Affairs responded that the road section “lies entirely within the territory of India”.

“Under the present project, the same road has been made pliable for the ease and convenience of pilgrims, locals and traders,” said MEA spokesperson Anurag Srivastava.

He added that both countries have an established mechanism on boundary matters and that the delineation of the boundary was still an “ongoing process”. “India is committed to resolving outstanding boundary issues through diplomatic dialogue and in the spirit of our close and friendly bilateral relations with Nepal,” stated Srivastava.

On the demand for a meeting of foreign secretaries, he said that the meeting will be held “once the dates are finalised between the two sides after the two societies and governments have successfully dealt with the challenge of COVID-19 emergency”.

Indicating its annoyance, the foreign ministry’s statement today also brought up the lack of progress in completing the submission of the report of the Eminent Persons Group on Nepal India relations.

The report had been finalised in mid-2018, but has still not been formally submitted. Both countries had agreed that the report would be made public after the EPG members would hand over the report personally to the two prime ministers. However, the Indian prime minister has not given an appointment to the EPG in the last two years, for the ceremony.

“The Group has concluded its task and prepared a consensus report. The Government of Nepal is ready to receive the report and believes that it will be in the interest of the two countries to implement its recommendations which will also help address the outstanding issues left by the history, thereby paving the way for ever stronger neighbourly relations,” said the Nepalese foreign minister.

While India responded to both the Lipulekh matter and demand for meeting of foreign secretaries, the MEA spokesperson was silent on Nepal raising the issue of the finalisation of the EPG report.