India rejects ‘third-party involvement’ in boundary talks with Nepal
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Nepal's Prime Minister suggested the UK should take an interest in the India-Nepal boundary dispute due to historical links with the 1816 Sugauli Treaty.
- India firmly rejected any third-party involvement, stating that all outstanding issues are handled through bilateral mechanisms.
- The dispute resurfaced after Nepal protested India's use of the Lipulekh pass, with the Nepali PM also suggesting India has encroached on Nepali territory.
Nepal's Prime Minister Balendra Shah has suggested that the United Kingdom should engage with the ongoing India-Nepal boundary dispute, citing the historical context of the 1816 Sugauli Treaty. Speaking in the House of Representatives, Shah indicated that the UK's involvement would be relevant given its historical role during the British rule of India. He emphasized that such disputes should ultimately be resolved through dialogue and diplomatic negotiations.
Our view is that England [UK] should also take an interest, as the issue dates back to the period when the British ruled India.
India, however, has strongly refuted any notion of third-party intervention in its boundary discussions with Nepal. Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, stated that all outstanding issues are managed exclusively through established bilateral mechanisms. "It should be clear to all concerned that there is no role for any third parties in a bilateral matter between India and Nepal," Jaiswal said during a press briefing. He acknowledged that while approximately 98 percent of the boundary is demarcated, some segments remain unresolved, partly due to the shifting course of the Gandak River.
We have seen the remarks of the prime minister of Nepal concerning the India-Nepal boundary as well as the subsequent statement issued by the Nepali foreign ministry on this matter.
This border issue has surfaced again following the formation of the new government led by the Rastriya Swatantra Party. Previously, Nepal had sent diplomatic notes to both India and China protesting India's decision to reopen the pilgrimage route via Lipulekh. India responded by stating that the Lipulekh Pass has been a long-standing route for the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra since 1954.
We have established bilateral mechanisms to deal with all aspects of boundary matters. It should be clear to all concerned that there is no role for any third parties in a bilateral matter between India and Nepal.
Prime Minister Shah's remarks in parliament have drawn criticism, with opposition parties demanding an apology and the expungement of his statement. He had previously stated that Nepal has also encroached upon Indian territory in several places, a claim that has caused an uproar. The ongoing obstruction in both houses of the federal parliament highlights the sensitivity of the border issue.
Lipulekh Pass has been a longstanding route for the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra since 1954, and the Yatra through this route has been going on for decades. This is not a new development.
Originally published by Kathmandu Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.