The Controversial Statement by Prime Minister Balendra Shah
Prime Minister Balendra Shah of Nepal found himself in the spotlight after making a statement that sparked intense debate and criticism. His remarks about Nepal allegedly encroaching on Indian territory caused an uproar, particularly during a parliamentary session where he addressed questions regarding the disputed regions of Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani.
Shah expressed his desire to respond to lawmakers’ questions, and in doing so, he claimed that “Nepal too has encroached upon Indian territory.” This statement led to sharp reactions from opposition lawmakers, who demanded that the prime minister’s remarks be removed from the record. Diplomats and experts on border matters also refuted the claim, stating that Nepal has not encroached upon Indian territory in the manner suggested.
The dispute over Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani is a long-standing issue between Nepal and India, with both countries claiming the region as their own. The area, which spans 372 square kilometers, has been under Indian control since the Sino-Indian War of 1962. The region is located east of the Mahakali River, known as the Sharada River in India.
Historical Context and Diplomatic Efforts
Shah mentioned that the Nepal government had already sent diplomatic notes to Delhi and Beijing, indicating that the matter was being addressed through international channels. He also stated that discussions had taken place with the British government, citing the historical significance of the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, which involved the East India Company and Nepal. According to Shah, the UK should take an interest in resolving the dispute due to its historical role in the treaty.
An aide to Shah confirmed that Kumar Byanjankar, the prime minister’s chief adviser, had held talks with British Ambassador Rob Fenn. The discussion focused on how the UK could assist in resolving the boundary dispute, given the historical context of the treaty. However, the British ambassador reportedly indicated that the issue was a bilateral matter between Nepal and India, and that the UK would prefer not to interfere.
Despite this, Byanjankar insisted that the UK should support Nepal’s efforts to resolve the dispute, emphasizing the historical legacy of the Treaty of Sugauli. The aide added that the UK may possess crucial evidence and maps that could help clarify the situation.
Expert Opinions and Boundary Surveys
Experts and officials have provided differing perspectives on the issue. Toya Baral, former director general of the Department of Survey, noted that around 1,200 hectares of Nepali land is currently occupied by Indian citizens, while 1,250 hectares of Indian land falls within Nepali territory. According to the latest boundary survey conducted in 2007, both sides had finalized 182 sets of boundary maps using the Global Positioning System, excluding Susta and Kalapani.
Baral explained that issues related to encroachment, cultivation, and possession on both sides of the international border remain unresolved. He emphasized that the Nepal-India Boundary Working Group (BWG) is working to address these issues, but he clarified that Nepal has not encroached upon Indian territory. “The prime minister’s statement is technically incorrect,” he said.
Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, former director general of the Department of Survey, also refuted the claim that Nepal has encroached on Indian land. He noted that while there are cases of cross-holding occupation—where people cultivate or occupy land across the border—this does not equate to state-level encroachment. “In some places, Indians are using land belonging to Nepali farmers, while Nepalis are using land belonging to Indian farmers,” he said.
Clarification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Following widespread criticism, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement clarifying what Prime Minister Shah meant. The ministry explained that the issue raised by Shah was primarily related to encroachment in the Dasgaja area and “cross-border occupation”—the use or possession of land across the border. It highlighted that the Fixed Boundary Principle adopted by Nepal and India in river-border areas has led to situations where citizens of one country cultivate land or reside on land that falls within the territory of the other country.
Regarding the diplomatic notes sent to India and China on May 3, the ministry stated that Nepal has received a response from India through a diplomatic note. It also mentioned that studies conducted by the technical committee have shown that in some places, land currently being used and occupied by Nepal may actually fall on the Indian side of the border, and vice versa.
The ministry concluded that Shah’s statement in Parliament about “in some places, Indian land may be on Nepal’s side” was made in reference to this technical reality and the issue of cross-border occupation.
