India Rejects Third-Party Role in Nepal Boundary Issue After PM Shah's Remarks

New Delhi: India on Tuesday said there was no role for third parties in boundary matters between India and Nepal, responding to remarks by Nepal Prime Minister Balendra Shah in parliament on Sunday in which he called for UK and China’s involvement in resolving the border dispute.

At the weekly media briefing, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India had taken note of Shah's comments and a subsequent clarification issued by Nepal's foreign ministry.

"We have seen the remarks of Prime Minister of Nepal concerning India-Nepal boundary as well as the subsequent statement issued by Nepali MOFA on this matter," Jaiswal said.

He noted that most of the India-Nepal boundary had already been settled, while some segments remained unresolved.

"While close to 98% of the India-Nepal boundary has been demarcated, there are some unresolved segments. The shifting of the course of the Gandak river has resulted in this situation. In addition, there are cases of cross-border occupation and encroachment of No-Man's land in demarcated segments of the boundary which are currently being mapped jointly," he said.

Rejecting any suggestion of outside involvement, Jaiswal said India and Nepal had their own channels for addressing boundary issues.

"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," he added.

The comments came two days after Shah told Nepal's parliament that not only had India encroached on Nepali territory, but Nepal had also occupied Indian land in several places. He said both sides needed to jointly examine the situation.

Speaking on the dispute over Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani, Shah said Nepal was pursuing a diplomatic resolution and had engaged not only India and China but also the United Kingdom. He argued that Britain should take an interest in the matter because the dispute stemmed from arrangements dating back to the 1816 Sugauli Treaty signed between Nepal and British India.

Shah also said Nepal had sent an official diplomatic note to India and that New Delhi's response envisaged the formation of teams comprising historians, surveyors and territorial experts to seek a negotiated settlement.

His remarks triggered political debate in Nepal, prompting the Nepali foreign ministry to issue a clarification later on Sunday. The ministry said the prime minister's comments were primarily related to cross-border occupation and encroachment in the Dasgaja no-man's land area rather than the unresolved territorial disputes involving Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani.

According to the ministry, studies conducted by a joint technical committee had found instances where land being used by citizens of one country may formally fall within the territory of the other. It said Shah's reference to Indian land being located on the Nepal side should be understood in that technical context.

The ministry nevertheless reiterated Nepal's longstanding position that demarcation remains pending in the Susta, Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani sectors and that all outstanding boundary issues should be resolved through diplomatic negotiations.

The controversy also prompted commentary in sections of the Nepali media. In an editorial published on Tuesday, the Kathmandu Post said there was "no official record of India ever bringing up the issue of 'Nepali encroachment'" and argued that Shah's statement "strengthens India's hand in future boundary talks".

The newspaper also criticised Shah's suggestion that Britain be involved in the dispute, noting that "India has repeatedly said that it will reject the entry of a third party in all its boundary talks" and warning that "any such effort will only spoil the climate of bilateral negotiations over the boundary."

Republica, another leading Nepali newspaper, said in an editorial that Shah's remarks had been "widely perceived as a departure from Nepal's long-established position" on the border issue. Calling the episode a reminder that "in diplomacy, words matter", it said sensitive issues involving sovereignty and foreign relations required "precision, preparation and restraint". The newspaper added that "the higher the office, the greater the responsibility to choose words carefully".

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.