A diplomatic storm is brewing in Kathmandu after Nepal’s newly elected, 35-year-old Prime Minister Balen Shah made a highly controversial statement during his maiden address to Parliament. Shah claimed that Nepal is guilty of encroaching on Indian territory—a remark that directly contradicts Kathmandu’s long-held diplomatic stance and has sparked intense blowback from politicians, experts, and citizens alike.
The open border between India and Nepal is largely governed by the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, but mapping remains incomplete in key strategic areas. While Nepal has traditionally protested against alleged Indian encroachment, Shah’s remarks introduced an unprecedented narrative of mutual blame.
The Statement That Triggered Parliament
Speaking to lawmakers during the parliamentary session that began on May 11, Shah caught the house by surprise with an unvetted revelation:
“You will be surprised to know a fact that I have learnt recently, only after becoming prime minister. India has not only encroached Nepali territory, but Nepal has also encroached Indian territory in many places. Now both countries should study the facts and sit together as friends and resolve the issue.”
Shah failed to provide specific locations or evidence to back up his claims. He did, however, note that Nepali lawmakers have approached both China and the United Kingdom—the latter due to its colonial-era role in drafting the original border treaties—to seek assistance from historians and surveyors.
The Backlash: “Weakening Nepal’s Hand”
Opposition parties and seasoned diplomats immediately went on the offensive, arguing that Shah’s comments severely damage Nepal’s leverage in future territorial negotiations with New Delhi.
Opposition lawmakers, including Basana Thapa (Nepali Congress) and Ramesh Malla (Nepali Communist Party), demanded that the Prime Minister’s remarks be completely expunged from the parliamentary record unless he can provide immediate proof.
What the Experts Are Saying
Foreign policy experts and former ambassadors immediately moved to correct the record, pointing out that there is zero documentation supporting the idea of official state-led encroachment by Nepal.
-
Nilambara Acharya (Former Ambassador to India): Stated that Shah simply lacks accurate information. While missing border pillars mean local citizens from both sides occasionally cross over to farm, the Nepalese government has never actively encroached on Indian land. He noted that 97% of the border disputes are already technically resolved.
-
Deep Kumar Upadhyay (Former Ambassador to India): Expressed confusion over the context of Shah’s speech, adding that India itself has never once put an accusation of Nepalese encroachment on the official record.
Damage Control: The Foreign Ministry Intervenes
Recognizing the gravity of the political fallout, Nepal’s Foreign Ministry quickly issued a clarification, attempting to reframe the Prime Minister’s words as a misunderstanding of technical jargon.
According to the ministry, Shah was referring to the “Fixed Boundary Principle” in shifting river border zones, rather than aggressive state expansion.
The government’s official clarification specified that:
-
The remarks were actually about “cross-border occupation” in the uninhabited no-man’s land, where shifting riverbeds leave farming land on opposing sides of the legal boundary.
-
Joint technical committees are actively working to repair border pillars and map these discrepancies.
-
Nepal’s official sovereign claim over the highly contested Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani regions remains entirely unchanged.
The Indian Stance
While New Delhi has not officially responded to Balen Shah’s speech, India’s position on the broader border issue remains firm. India maintains that the disputed territories are an integral part of Uttarakhand.
Earlier in May, India dismissed Kathmandu’s complaints regarding the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra pilgrimage route through the Lipulekh Pass, calling Nepal’s claims an “unilateral artificial enlargement” of its map. India continues to advocate for resolving any pending border issues strictly through quiet, bilateral diplomatic dialogue.
