{"id":19127,"date":"2026-06-22T19:36:12","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T13:51:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=19127"},"modified":"2026-06-22T19:36:12","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T13:51:12","slug":"the-truth-of-the-border-the-dignity-of-the-nation-nepal-cannot-step-back-on-kalapani-and-lipulekh","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=19127","title":{"rendered":"The Truth of the Border, the Dignity of the Nation: Nepal Cannot Step Back on Kalapani and Lipulekh<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2013 Sanket Kirati<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura is not merely a dispute of geography. It is a serious issue connected with Nepal\u2019s sovereignty, historical justice, national memory and the self-respect of the state. After Prime Minister Balendra Shah \u201cBalen\u201d clearly stated that Kalapani and Lipulekh are Nepal\u2019s land, that Nepal possesses historical evidence regarding them, and that British-era records could also be searched if necessary, this issue has once again come to the center of national debate. His expression is not merely an ordinary political statement; it is a signal that Nepal must take its border question forward on the basis of evidence, diplomacy and national confidence.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s border issue should not become only a subject of emotional speeches. But it is also wrong to consider the nation\u2019s emotion weak on a question as serious as the border. Nationality is not merely a slogan, but national consciousness also does not remain alive without slogans. Evidence, history, diplomacy and public opinion together make a border claim strong. Therefore, Prime Minister Shah\u2019s statement should not be taken as excitement or a momentary political expression, but as an opportunity to re-institutionalize Nepal\u2019s historical position.<\/p>\n

The main basis of Nepal\u2019s claim over Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura is the Sugauli Treaty of 1816. The historical fact that the treaty recognized the Kali River as Nepal\u2019s western boundary is the backbone of Nepal\u2019s position. Nepal\u2019s argument is clear: the source of the Kali, that is, the Mahakali River, lies in the Limpiyadhura area, and the territories east of it belong to Nepal. On this basis, Nepal has regarded those areas as its land. India, however, has continued to reject Nepal\u2019s claim on the basis of administrative control, security presence, pilgrimage routes and its own cartographic interpretation. But long-term control or the use of a route alone does not automatically settle the question of sovereignty.<\/p>\n

The complexity of the border dispute lies here. This is not an issue that can be settled by one map or one statement. Historical maps, the actual source of the river, treaty documents, revenue records, local life, old administrative papers, military presence, the history of trade and pilgrimage routes and bilateral correspondence are all connected to it. Therefore, Nepal must stand its claim not on emotion, but on organized evidence. When the Prime Minister says, \u201cWe have evidence; if you have it, bring it, let us sit and talk,\u201d that is the right direction. Now it is necessary to turn this statement into the state\u2019s diplomatic action plan.<\/p>\n

In 2020, Nepal issued a new political and administrative map incorporating Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura. Through a constitutional amendment, it was included in the national emblem. That step was an important moment of Nepal\u2019s national unity. But issuing a map is not the final solution. A map is the formal expression of a national claim. The real solution is possible only through a long-term diplomatic, historical, legal and technical process. Therefore, after issuing the map, this is not the time for Nepal to slow down; it is the time for even greater preparation.<\/p>\n

The issue of British records should also be understood correctly. The Sugauli Treaty was signed between Nepal and then British India. Therefore, British-era maps, surveys, administrative correspondence and diplomatic records can be important sources of evidence for interpreting the border. But this does not mean that Nepal is seeking third-party mediation. The Nepal-India border dispute must be resolved by Nepal and India themselves. External records can be sources of evidence, not decisive political actors. This distinction must be kept diplomatically clear.<\/p>\n

India has been describing Lipulekh as an old route for the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage. But the fact that a route has been used for a long time does not automatically determine the sovereignty of that territory. A pilgrimage route, trade route or military movement may be a historical fact, but the final basis of boundary determination is the treaty, map, geography and legal interpretation. Nepal must present its argument on this point in a stronger, more systematic and internationally legal language.<\/p>\n

The question of Lipulekh is not limited only to India either. When India and China reach understandings related to trade or pilgrimage routes in this area, it is natural for Nepal to feel ignored. Regarding a territory that Nepal has included in its constitutional map, it is necessary for neighboring countries to hear Nepal\u2019s position when they reach mutual understandings. But Nepal should not try to make this issue a strategic tool against China or against India. Nepal\u2019s policy should be clear: its own land, its own evidence, its own diplomacy and its own national dignity.<\/p>\n

The timing of Prime Minister Shah\u2019s expression is also worth analyzing. He placed such a clear position not merely at a regular government press conference, but on a politically meaningful platform such as the RSP convention. A convention is not only an internal program of a party; it is also a place to publicly declare the leadership\u2019s ideological direction, future political line and position on national issues. Therefore, such a comment on the border appears to have sent a message at once to the party rank and file, supporting public opinion and the wider political circle: the new leadership wants to stand on the question of national independence not defensively, but in an assertive language backed by evidence.<\/p>\n

The fact that such an expression comes in the context of preparations for an American delegation to visit Nepal, or amid growing American diplomatic activism in Nepal, should also not be taken lightly. Nepal has recently become a sensitive center of increasing geopolitical interest among India, China and the United States. In such a situation, the Prime Minister\u2019s clarification on the border is not limited only to a bilateral dispute with India; it also signals to external power centers that Nepal is capable of maintaining an independent position on questions of its territory, map and national dignity. This does not mean Nepal is seeking to become an instrument of any power bloc; rather, it means Nepal wants to engage with all friendly nations by keeping its national interest at the center.<\/p>\n

But for this very reason, the government\u2019s language must be even more mature and balanced. Firmness is necessary on the border question, but it must not turn into diplomatic carelessness. If the political energy of the convention and the external diplomatic context have been used to express a national position, then it becomes the government\u2019s responsibility to transform it into an institutional diplomatic process. Otherwise, such expression may remain limited to momentary nationalist applause. The real test will not be the speech, but the evidence, negotiation mechanism and long-term border strategy the government prepares afterward.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s greatest strength on the border issue is national unity. This is not the private agenda of any party, government or leader. The question of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura is the position of the state. It is not in Nepal\u2019s interest for the border narrative to change as governments change. It is necessary to prepare one national strategy by bringing together the ruling side and opposition, parliament and government, experts and diplomats, security specialists and local communities. Border policy should not be the policy of a government; it should be the policy of the nation.<\/p>\n

Nepal must now make long-term and institutional preparations. A permanent high-level national mechanism comprising historians, cartographers, hydrologists, international law experts, diplomats, security experts and local experts from border areas is necessary. It must organize all historical evidence, maps, records, studies, local administrative facts and diplomatic correspondence related to the origin of the river and prepare a national dossier. Nepal\u2019s negotiations with India should not be based on emotional arguments; they should be based on professional evidence.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the state\u2019s presence in the border area must also be strengthened. A border is not merely a line on paper; it is also the experience of the state in the lives of citizens. A strong state presence is necessary in infrastructure, administration, communication, education, health, security and public services in Darchula and border areas. A state that claims its land cannot neglect its border citizens. Citizens living on the border are the nation\u2019s first guards. Making their lives safe and dignified is the foundation of border security.<\/p>\n

For India too, it would not be wise to take this issue lightly. Nepal and India have deep relations at the level of open borders, culture, religion, trade, labor, rivers, security and people-to-people ties. It is not beneficial for either side for a knot of permanent mistrust to remain between two countries that are so close. If India is a major regional power, it must be able to listen to the historical sensitivities of its neighbor. Unilateral activities regarding disputed territories, disregard for Nepal\u2019s objections or the tendency to dismiss the border question merely as an administrative claim increases mistrust in Nepal.<\/p>\n

Nepal also should not make this issue a permanent political weapon of anti-India sentiment. National dignity and a long-term relationship with a neighbor are not mutually contradictory. Firmness and restraint can go together. Nepal\u2019s language should be clear: we will not step back from our claim over our land, but we will seek a solution through dialogue, evidence and diplomatic process. This is mature nationalism. Loud speeches may awaken public sentiment, but a permanent solution to the border can only be provided by evidence and dialogue.<\/p>\n

Prime Minister Shah\u2019s expression is important from this perspective. He repeated Nepal\u2019s position, spoke of evidence and sent the message that he is ready to sit with India and discuss. This is both nationalist and diplomatic. But now the question is not of expression, but of implementation. The government must move forward with activating formal border talks, making the joint technical mechanism result-oriented, searching British-era records, organizing scientific study regarding the source of the Kali River, and bringing parliament and the national security mechanism together.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s historical pain is that we often wake up on border issues only at moments of crisis. Statements are issued, public opinion heats up, maps come into discussion, but after some time the diplomatic process slows down. This cycle must be broken. The border issue must be made not an event, but a continuous national project. A practice should begin in which progress is reviewed every year, diplomatic dialogue is updated, the collection of records continues, and border area development is linked with national security policy.<\/p>\n

Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura are names connected with Nepal\u2019s national dignity. These names are not merely geography; they are Nepal\u2019s history, treaty, memory and claim to the future. No sovereign nation can remain unclear about its land. But wisdom is also needed to protect dignity. The identity of a mature nation lies in its ability to turn emotion into evidence, evidence into diplomacy, diplomacy into national strategy and strategy into a just solution.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Nepal cannot step back from the truth of the border. Nepal\u2019s position on Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura is based on national consensus, historical evidence and the constitutional map. But to make this position successful, a firm voice alone is not enough; state capacity, diplomatic continuity, professional presentation of evidence and a real presence in the border area are necessary. Prime Minister Balen\u2019s clarification has awakened the debate once again. Now Nepal must turn this debate into results.<\/p>\n

The border of the nation is the soul of the nation. The soul is protected not by excitement, but by truth, patience, evidence and resolve. Nepal\u2019s voice on Kalapani and Lipulekh is the voice of that truth. That voice must now be transformed not into a momentary speech, but into a permanent national commitment.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t