No Room for Guesswork on National Borders

A nation’s borders are not an ordinary subject of political debate. They are inseparably linked to history, sovereignty, the Constitution and the rights of future generations. When a prime minister speaks about national territory, the remarks do not remain a personal observation; they are recorded at home and abroad as an expression of the state.

Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s statement in Parliament suggesting that Nepal has also encroached on Indian territory cannot be dismissed as a minor verbal error. If the government possesses evidence showing which Indian territory Nepal has allegedly occupied, where it is located and on what basis the claim is made, that evidence must be presented to Parliament and the public. If no such evidence exists, the statement must be clearly corrected.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has interpreted the prime minister’s remarks as referring to encroachment in the no-man’s-land zone, cross-border use of privately owned land and technical boundary complications. But private citizens using land across the border and one state occupying another state’s sovereign territory are not the same matter. The government’s later explanation confirms the ambiguity of the original statement; it does not eliminate it.

Nepal’s official position is unambiguous: Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani are integral parts of Nepal. This national position cannot be altered according to the convenience of a political party, leader or government. Nepal must pursue respectful diplomatic dialogue with India on the basis of historical treaties, maps, documents and evidence. But language that appears to weaken Nepal’s position before negotiations even begin is not diplomatic caution.

The opposition’s demand for evidence and clarification from the prime minister is both legitimate and necessary. Its objective, however, should be to make the government accountable—not to paralyse Parliament indefinitely. Once the prime minister provides a clear answer in the House, the opposition should allow regular parliamentary proceedings to continue.

The Speaker’s responsibility is not limited to asking the opposition to remain silent. His primary duty is to bring the prime minister before Parliament and facilitate an institutional resolution. Asking those raising questions to end their protest before obtaining an answer from the executive risks undermining confidence in the impartiality of Parliament.

Patriotism does not mean hostility towards a neighbouring country. It means defending national territory, history and the official position of the state with evidence, restraint and determination. Nepal needs friendly relations with India, but friendship must rest on sovereign equality and mutual respect.

The prime minister should appear before Parliament, clarify his intention and, where necessary, withdraw or correct the statement. The government should also publish an official briefing that clearly distinguishes sovereign territorial disputes from technical boundary issues and cross-border land use. Such a step would help end the parliamentary deadlock and protect Nepal’s diplomatic credibility.

There is no room for guesswork, emotion or ambiguity when national borders are concerned. Territory is not an instrument of political prestige; it is the indivisible inheritance of the nation. Its defence begins with words.