Nepal's Border Issues: Historical Context and Political Commentary

There are some eternal questions in history that not only draw the borders of the political map but also measure the real weight of national pride, the moral character of leadership, and the diplomatic strength of the state. For Nepal, the question of border, sovereignty, and territorial integrity is such a sensitive issue. This can never be just an election manifesto of a particular party or an agenda to gain momentary political advantage. It is an irrefutable and sovereign matter linked to the country's existence, historical continuity, and the secure future of the coming generations. Unfortunately, in Nepal's modern political arena, this sensitive issue of nationality has been made the easiest ladder to climb to the throne. The dual character of burning the strong fire of nationalism while on the streets and donning the blanket of diplomatic helplessness and subservience once in the seat of power is the permanent destiny of Nepali politics. Historical Link and Evidence Ground The determination of Nepal's western border was not based on any imaginary line or verbal agreement. Its legal basis is clearly laid down in Article 5 of the Sugauli Treaty signed with the East India Company on March 4, 1816. According to the provisions of that historical document, the then Nepali government had renounced all its claims with the Mahakali River and the countries west of it. The direct and irrefutable legal meaning of this is – all territories east of the Mahakali River are indisputably Nepal's sovereign territory. Scientific principles of hydrology and historical maps published by the then British India government itself, especially the official maps of 1816, 1819, and 1856, have accepted the river originating from Limpiyadhura as the real Mahakali River. Not just geography and maps, but records of land revenue collection from citizens of that area until the 1950s, official census data, and living evidence of administrative presence are preserved in the archives of the Government of Nepal. Despite having grounds that are considered irrefutable by international law and evidence, the reason for the border dispute to escalate instead of being resolved is as much due to the neighbor's encroaching tendency as it is due to the extreme diplomatic incompetence, opportunism, and dual character of the Nepali political leadership.

Only geography and maps are not enough, but records of land revenue collection from citizens of that area until the 1950s, official census data, and living evidence of administrative presence are preserved in the archives of the Government of Nepal.

A few years ago, Nepal's parliament displayed national pride by unanimously issuing a map including Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani, but no government has shown concrete willingness to take it to the result-oriented diplomatic table and find a permanent solution through evidence-based diplomatic acumen based on the established principles of international law like the Vienna Convention of 1969. It is true that the tendency of winning the people's national sentiment by passing a map from parliament but hesitating to sit at the actual negotiation table has always weakened our diplomatic stature in the international arena. Amidst the continuation of this diplomatic indifference and procrastinating policy, Nepal's Prime Minister Balen, from the country's highest sovereign forum, has made a highly irresponsible and immature statement saying that Nepal has also encroached upon or trespassed on India's land. This challenges the sovereignty and integrity of the nation much more than it violates diplomatic protocol. It is a matter of shame not to have the minimum awareness that every word spoken by the country's executive level on a technical and sensitive issue like the border has international legal implications. In a situation where Nepal's own land is being encroached upon, the Prime Minister's statement has dealt a serious blow to our diplomatic capacity. There is an established principle in international law, 'Estoppel', according to which any admission or formal statement made by an official or executive head of a country on a public platform can be used as a legal weapon against that country in future international courts or diplomatic forums. Such casual remarks provide a golden and legal opportunity to the neighboring country to question Nepal's just claims. What is even more ironic is that on the eve of the ruling party president's visit to India, such anti-national and submissive statements from the head of government will completely undermine the Nepali side's stance and bargaining power at the New Delhi negotiation table, putting them on the defensive. Sugauli Treaty and Review of Territories Limiting our border debate only to the 372 square kilometers of Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura cannot do full justice to India's historical encroaching character and Nepal's rights. If the real text of the Sugauli Treaty of 1816, historical facts, and the irrefutable evidence of the Kali River are revived, Nepal has the full moral and legal right to demand a review of its lost vast territory. Before the Sugauli Treaty, Nepal had spread its sovereign empire across the Satlaj River to Kangra in the west and to the Teesta River in the east, which the treaty limited to the narrow confines of the Mechi and Mahakali. However, according to the established principles of international law, if the conditions of a treaty are continuously violated by one party or if the source of the Kali River is artificially changed through forgery, the validity of the entire Sugauli Treaty is seriously questioned. Based on the provisions of the Sugauli Treaty and subsequent historical documents, Nepal should strengthen its claim over various border-encroached areas of Kumaon, Garhwal, and the Terai. Historically, these areas were ruled by Nepali administrators like Amar Singh Thapa and Bam Shah.

Based on the provisions of the Sugauli Treaty and subsequent historical documents, Nepal should strengthen its claim over various border-encroached areas of Kumaon, Garhwal, and the Terai. Historically, these areas were ruled by Nepali administrators like Amar Singh Thapa and Bam Shah.

Even after the Sugauli Treaty, Nepal's borders were redrawn in the phases of December 1816 and the return of the 'Naya Muluk' in 1860, as a result of which the continuous minor encroachments in the Susta, Mechi, and Dashgaja areas are the products of neo-colonial tendencies in South Asia. If the leadership had even a little national consciousness and foresight, they would not have surrendered in parliament to hide their weaknesses. Instead, with determination, they would have collected historical documents based on the Sugauli Treaty and Article 8 of the Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950 (which repeals all previous treaties with the British government) and drawn a broader picture of national pride. Where Did Nepal Go Wrong The dual character of Nepali leadership is clearly reflected in the mirror of relations with neighbors and internal politics. On one hand, there is a drama of protesting on the streets and social media, marching to Kalapani, and passing maps to appear 'revolutionary' in the eyes of the public, while on the other hand, once in power, they remain silent to please Delhi. The leadership that speaks grand and pleasing words about sovereignty in parliament and public forums seems incapable of even raising issues like border disputes, review of the 1950 treaty, and understanding and submitting the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report at the bilateral negotiation table. Rulers who give speeches saying 'We will not tolerate neighbor's interference' end up advocating for the neighbor by standing in their own sovereign parliament and saying 'We have also encroached on others' land.' A permanent and just resolution of the border dispute is never possible through street agitation, cheap popularity in parliament, or the childishness and submissive statements of the leadership. It requires historical facts, technical accuracy, and mature statecraft. The leadership must immediately correct its irresponsible statement, apologize to the nation, and Nepal must take concrete steps to find a solution institutionally, scientifically, and legally, not based on political whims. For this, the government must inevitably form a powerful national border task force. A empowered and permanent task force comprising historians, land survey experts, former diplomats, and international legal experts should be formed. This task force should be completely free from the country's unstable political changes and continuously protect and advocate for border-related evidence, so that the state's diplomatic policy does not change with the change of government.

The government must inevitably form a powerful national border task force. An empowered and permanent task force comprising historians, land survey experts, former diplomats, and international legal experts should be formed.

Second, Nepal should not delay in collecting original maps, letters, and inscriptions from the East India Company from the Sugauli Treaty era, which are located in the British Library and Public Record Office in London, and getting them legally authenticated. These documents are strong bases for establishing Nepal's just claims in international forums. Third, Lipulekh is not just a matter of concern for Nepal and India; it is a tri-junction connected with China as well. In 2015, the agreement made between India and China to open a trade route through Lipulekh, bypassing Nepal's presence and consent, requires high-level diplomatic dialogue with China to explain historical facts to Beijing and to gain their trust for regional balance, which will be Nepal's diplomatic acumen. Fourth, future negotiations with India should not be based on political slogans or emotions, but only on digital mapping, GPS technology, and satellite-based hydrological data. The negotiation can be brought to a logical conclusion only by establishing the fact that the main source and flow of the Kali River is Limpiyadhura based on irrefutable facts of science and geography.

Future negotiations with India should not be based on political slogans or emotions, but only on digital mapping, GPS technology, and satellite-based hydrological data. The negotiation can be brought to a logical conclusion only by establishing the fact that the main source and flow of the Kali River is Limpiyadhura based on irrefutable facts of science and geography.

Fifth, if India refuses to back down from its high-handedness and encroaching tendency by closing all doors of bilateral negotiations, Nepal must fully prepare its legal documents based on the Vienna Convention of 1969 to take the case to the United Nations Security Council or the International Court of Justice with the collected irrefutable evidence. Finally, the political leadership must understand that it is not enough to sell nationalism in the election market and climb to the throne of power. You have to do something for the nation to legitimize what you have done in history. The public gave you this responsibility. No self-praise or appeasement can replace the supreme interest of the nation. Now, instead of hollow lamentation and cheap popularity, Nepal must revive its lost historical territory and degraded diplomacy by integrating the collective wisdom of historians, diplomats, and legal experts. If there is no diplomatic maturity and firm resolve of the entire country, the erosion of Nepal's geography and pride will continue. Therefore, let us all unite and move forward in time.