The domestic politics of neighboring Nepal has often come in the way of its relations with India. The history of border disputes between India and Nepal is also not free from complexities. Instead of resolving boundary issues politically, Nepal’s political parties have often used them to fulfill their domestic political objectives. It is also important to understand the historical significance of these borders.
After political upheaval in Nepal, when a new government was formed under the leadership of Balen Shah, there were expectations that it would move toward establishing cordial relations with India. However, Balen Shah has stirred up the Lipulekh dispute and played the nationalist card. Nepal’s Foreign Ministry has objected to the use of the Lipulekh Pass route for the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage. Kathmandu has lodged protests with both India and China in this regard, and Nepal has also summoned the Indian ambassador over the issue. India, in response to Nepal’s claims, has taken a firm stand.
India maintains that Lipulekh Pass has been a traditional route to Kailash Mansarovar since 1954, and pilgrims have been traveling through this path for decades. Regarding territorial claims, India has consistently stated that such claims are neither correct nor based on historical facts and evidence. It argues that the issue should not be exaggerated in a unilateral and artificial manner. However, both India and Nepal have agreed to continue dialogue.
Nepal’s strong reaction is rooted in the Treaty of Sugauli signed in 1816, which ended the Anglo-Nepal War and redrew the map of the region. Under this treaty, the Kali River, also known as the Mahakali River, was established as Nepal’s western boundary. Since the 1990s, Nepal has maintained that the origin of this river is at Limpiyadhura, and therefore all land east of that origin—including Kalapani and Lipulekh—belongs to Nepal. These three areas together cover a strategically important part of the western Himalayas, located at the tri-junction of Nepal, India, and Tibet.
New Delhi argues that the true origin of the river lies further east, near the Lipukhola tributary. If this is accepted, Kalapani and Lipulekh would fall outside Nepalese territory. After the Sino-Indian War, Indian troops established posts in the Kalapani valley to monitor the Chinese border and have remained there ever since. Over decades, the region has transitioned from being “disputed” to effectively “administered.” India has consistently regarded it as its territory, while Nepal remained largely silent on the issue for many years.
Former Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal also raised this issue during periods of tension in India-Nepal relations. Later, K. P. Sharma Oli amplified it further by releasing a new map of Nepal that included Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani as Nepalese territory. India rejected this map as baseless, reiterating that its activities were entirely within Indian territory.
In 2020, after Defense Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated the Dharchula-Lipulekh road, tensions escalated. This 80-kilometer road runs from Ghatiabgarh in Dharchula to Lipulekh. Nepal claims that the road passes through its territory. The issue sparked unrest in Nepal, with some people burning effigies of Prime Minister Oli and accusing him of failing to act in time against the Indian project. Critics in Nepal also accused him of using aggressive nationalism to divert attention from governance failures and ineffective handling of COVID-19. Nevertheless, many people supported nationalist sentiments and praised the government’s firm stance.
In Nepal, the Lipulekh issue has become an emotional matter for the public, making it difficult for governments to act against popular sentiment. On the other hand, the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage is deeply emotional and spiritual for religious devotees in India. Every year, groups of pilgrims undertake this challenging journey.
This time, the approach of the Balen Shah government is somewhat different, as it has raised objections not only against India but also against China. Earlier, K.P. Sharma Oli had primarily objected only to India, drawing Nepal closer to China. By raising this sensitive issue, Balen Shah appears to be attempting to enhance his political image—an approach that is neither based on historical facts nor justified.
By creating obstacles in the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage, he has not demonstrated political maturity. Strained relations with India are likely to harm Nepal. It remains to be seen whether a diplomatic solution emerges in the coming days and what direction the situation and the pilgrimage will take.
