How Will the Indo-Nepal Border Dispute Be Resolved?

Must Read

An Illummination of the Home Ministry’s Commission for Revision of Penal Laws

The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860. It was formed after the draft was created by the first...

Political Parties and the Affair of Symbols

Introduction A political party is a group of people with the same ideology, intention, and agenda who try to hold power through...

Withdrawal of Judges in light of the Principle of “Nemo Judex In Causa Sua”: An Analysis

"Justice, and the arrival of that justice being delivered, is essential to the protection of the guideline of thumb of law. Justice implies - consistency, in technique and result...

Explained: The Scope of Article 21 During the Era of COVID-19

“One’s right to self, their body, their health, and their livelihoods is inherent to living a meaningful human life, Human...

Explained: Events That Led To the 2020 Rajasthan Political Crisis

The government has been toppled in the state of Rajasthan, following which petitions have been filed in the High...

How Gorakhpur Doctor Kafeel Khan’s Hate Speech Threatened the National Security of India

Dr Kafeel Khan has recently been released from the Mathura Jail after the Allahabad HC sets aside his detention...

Follow us

The Nepalese Parliament, on June 14th, 2020, unanimously passed the Constitution Amendment Bill. This Bill revised the map of Nepal. The new map also claims parts of Indian territory as Nepalese. These include the regions of Lipulekh, Kala Paani and Limpiyadhura situated on the Uttarakhand border.

This issue makes Nepal the third State to have a territorial conflict with India. India already has territorial conflicts with Pakistan and China. The Indian Government has protested this move. It has called it a unilateral act of “artificial enlargement of territorial claim”. 

Why did Nepal revise its boundaries? 

The move came as a protest against the newly built Indian road in Uttarakhand. The road extends up to Kailash Mansarovar via Lipulekh. Nepal issued a statement on the very day that the road was inaugurated. It termed the road as encroachment of the tri-junction of Nepal, Tibet and India. As a result, the Nepalese Foreign Minister said that they pressed for a meeting with India over the issue. However, this meeting never happened. 

In an interview, the Minister said that India must honour the letter and spirit of the Sugauli Treaty. Accordingly, it must hand over the said territories to Nepal. Nepal claims that they based the new map on the Sugauli treaty of 1816. Nepal had signed this Treaty with the British India government. They insist that they have enough proof to show that these territories are Nepalese. These proofs include various documents, facts and maps. 

Nepal argues that the Kali river starts from Limpiyadhura. Limpiyadhura is a region north-west of Lipu Lekh. Thus, the 3 disputed territories fall to the East of the river. This makes them a part of Nepal’s province of Dharchula. India, however, contests this. India maintains that the river originates in Kalapani in the Himalayas. This region is in the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand. India also has records dating back to the 19th century which prove that Kalapani was on the Indian side. 

Why does India reject Nepal’s claim?

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that India has built the link road on its own territory. It also said that this territory is not under dispute whatsoever. The road was built on the pre-existing route for pilgrims of Kailash Mansarovar Yatra. Hence, it had religious as well as strategic importance for India. 

Further, Indian Army Chief General M.M. Naravane hinted at China’s possible involvement. He said that Nepal might have done this “at the behest of someone else”. The road in question is to the West of the Kali river. Thus, it is not on the Nepalese territories which are East of the river. To further clarify, the river is the boundary separating the 2 nations.

The Indian side argued that it has built the road far from the disputed area. Defence Minister, Rajnath Singh also weighed in on the matter. He said the road was important for “strategic, religious and trade purposes”. India sees the building of the India-China border roads as a fraught exercise. India considers such development activities vital for border security.

How are international borders determined? 

For a country to become a member of the United Nations, it has to submit various documents. The official map of the country is one of them. Nepal joined the UN as a permanent member in 1955, 6 years after applying in 1949. Yet, Nepal had not submitted the map then, and instead had offered map-like details. This is the first time Nepal has included the 3 territories in its map officially. This means that the map, as was submitted to the UN did not include the disputed areas. 

Countries decide their international borders by mutual agreement. This is called Boundary Delimitation. India and Nepal are both members of the UN. Hence, they cannot use violent methods for determining their international boundaries. So they must come to a mutual understanding while determining their borders.

In the present case, Nepal took a unilateral decision of changing its map. It did not take India in confidence. Nepal would need a NOC from India if it is to claim areas that are officially included on the Indian map. However, Nepal has not fulfilled any such formality before altering its shared border.

How should the situation be handled?

Nepal’s Constitutional Amendment comes as a unilateral decision on an issue that is bilateral. Talks are necessary between the two countries, especially when Beijing might be deteriorating our foreign relations for its own gains. Nepal and India have always had friendly ties. However, India cannot afford to compromise its position on its borders anymore.

India has already lost plenty of land to its other neighbours. It would not be in our best interest to lose any more of our land. Therefore, the issue must be resolved through dialogue and diplomatic tactics only. The two countries have already expressed their willingness to discuss the matter. India must hold talks with Nepal before this issue escalates any further. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Plea Seeking Dream 11 to Be Declared as Betting Platform Dismissed by Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC dismissed a plea that alleged Dream 11 to be a betting platform, on the assertion that the game depends on skill &...

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -