By : Dipesh Shrestha The Nepal–India border issue is a highly sensitive and complex matter that is intrinsically linked to Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, national dignity, and diplomatic relations. Public discourse on such matters must be grounded in facts, historical records, legal principles, and diplomatic realities. When border-related questions are reduced to emotional nationalism or political point-scoring, they risk deepening controversy rather than advancing solutions.

Recent remarks attributed to Prime Minister Balen Shah in Parliament have generated considerable debate. Some critics have characterized the statement as contrary to national interests, while others have interpreted it as a pragmatic acknowledgment of realities on the ground and a courageous attempt to seek solutions. Ultimately, such statements should be assessed not through emotion, but through evidence and context.

The Sugauli Treaty and the Basis of Border Delimitation

The foundation of Nepal’s present international boundary lies in the 1816 Sugauli Treaty. Under the treaty, the Kali River was recognized as Nepal’s western boundary. However, disagreement has persisted for decades regarding the true source of the Kali River.

This dispute lies at the heart of the ongoing disagreement over Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani. Nepal’s official position maintains that Limpiyadhura is the genuine origin of the Kali River and that the disputed territory therefore constitutes an integral part of Nepal. India, however, advances a different interpretation. Consequently, the dispute is not merely about territory; it is fundamentally about competing interpretations of the river’s source.

Nepal has formally expressed its objections to India’s operation of the Mansarovar pilgrimage route through Lipulekh by issuing diplomatic notes. India has likewise responded through diplomatic channels. Both countries have repeatedly affirmed their commitment to resolving border issues through dialogue, diplomacy, and mutual understanding.

Distinguishing Between “Encroachment” and “Infringement”

Terminology plays a crucial role in border discourse. Although the terms “encroachment” and “infringement” are often used interchangeably, they carry distinct legal and political implications.

“Infringement” may refer to interference with a historical claim or asserted right, whereas “encroachment” generally implies the occupation, use, or exercise of control over another party’s territory without legal authorization. For this reason, discussions on border issues should prioritize evidence-based and legally precise language rather than emotionally charged terminology.

Dasgaja Encroachment and the Reality of Cross-Border Occupation

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister’s parliamentary remarks were primarily related to encroachments in the Dasgaja (the no-man’s-land area along the border) and the phenomenon known as “cross-border occupation.”

In the demarcation of the Nepal–India border, riverine sections were delineated under the principle of a fixed boundary. Over time, however, shifts in river courses, geographical changes, and local patterns of land use have created situations in which citizens of one country cultivate land, graze livestock, collect fodder, or even reside on land technically located within the territory of the other country. This phenomenon is commonly described as cross-border occupation.

Historical local practices in areas such as Huti, Dhaulakot, and Sunsera in Darchula illustrate this reality. Residents have traditionally used grasslands and grazing areas across the Mahakali River for generations. While such areas may not formally fall within Nepal’s official maps, local usage has persisted historically. These circumstances must be distinguished from formal territorial encroachment and understood within the context of traditional land-use rights.

Challenges Faced by Both Sides in Border Management

 

Nepal and India share an open border and centuries-old people-to-people ties. As a result, challenges related to border pillars, the Dasgaja zone, river-induced geographical changes, and local land use have emerged in several areas. Data from Nepal’s Armed Police Force indicate that instances of border encroachment by Nepali citizens have been recorded in certain locations, while cases involving encroachment upon Nepali territory by Indian actors are reported to be more numerous. Acknowledging these realities is not an act of anti-nationalism. On the contrary, responsible statecraft requires confronting problems honestly and seeking practical solutions.

Joint technical teams, border working groups, and bilateral mechanisms remain engaged in addressing these concerns. Technical committees that had remained inactive for extended periods have resumed their work, including joint surveys, data collection, and mapping exercises.

Technical studies have suggested that some areas currently used by Nepal may fall on the Indian side according to established boundary records, while some areas presently used by India may legally belong to Nepal. The Prime Minister’s observation that “there may be places where Indian land is situated on the Nepali side” should therefore be understood within this technical and cross-border occupation context.

Understanding the Prime Minister’s Remarks

Some commentators have portrayed the Prime Minister’s statement as an attack on Nepal’s national interests. However, clarifications issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicate that the remarks were intended not to weaken Nepal’s territorial claims but to acknowledge technical realities that exist in certain border regions.

Patriotism does not require the concealment of facts. Rather, it demands the steadfast defense of Nepal’s territorial rights through evidence, historical documentation, and legal arguments. Where border-related issues may also involve actions or irregularities on the Nepali side, acknowledging them and pursuing solutions reflects a mature and confident form of nationalism.

The Debate on Internationalization

Whether the border dispute should be internationalized has become another important dimension of the discussion. India has consistently maintained that border disputes should be resolved through bilateral negotiations.

At the same time, some political figures and scholars in Nepal argue that, given the historical context of the Sugauli Treaty and the role of the former British authorities, international avenues may be considered if bilateral efforts fail. Discussions surrounding the concept of “Greater Nepal” periodically re-emerge within this broader debate.

However, such questions cannot be advanced through emotional slogans alone. They must be evaluated objectively through the lenses of international law, historical evidence, diplomatic feasibility, and Nepal’s long-term national interests.

Nationalism Must Be Reflected in Solutions, Not Slogans

Nepal’s national identity should not be reduced to speeches, slogans, or political competition. Genuine patriotism lies in safeguarding every inch of the nation’s territory, preserving historical evidence, protecting the interests of border communities, and pursuing durable solutions through effective diplomacy.

Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani remain matters of profound national concern. Likewise, challenges relating to Dasgaja encroachments, border pillar management, river-induced boundary changes, and cross-border occupation continue to require attention and resolution.

Nepal must continue to present its claims firmly on the basis of evidence, maps, historical records, and internationally recognized principles. India, for its part, should respect Nepal’s sensitivities and historical claims as those of a sovereign neighbor. Friendship and cooperation should not be obstacles to resolving border disputes; rather, they should serve as the foundation for meaningful and lasting solutions.

The Nepal–India border dispute must ultimately be addressed through facts, history, evidence, international law, and diplomatic engagement—not through emotion alone. The remarks made by Prime Minister Balen Shah should be understood within this broader context. Recognizing realities such as cross-border occupation, Dasgaja encroachment, and technical complexities is not an act of anti-nationalism; it is a necessary step toward a sustainable resolution.

The need of the hour is not for any individual or political group to claim a monopoly over patriotism. Instead, all Nepalis should unite in defense of the national interest. The protection of Nepal’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and dignity can only be achieved through evidence, dialogue, and national consensus. The lasting resolution of border disputes will likewise emerge through the same path.

 For comments, suggestions, or feedback, readers may contact the author at: [email protected]