(This is an updated version of the article published earlier on the website.)

Introduction

On May 20, 2020, on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, Nepal’s Lower House approved a new map of the country which showed Kalapani and Lipulekh as part of Nepal. On 13 June 2020, the then K. P. Sharma Oli led Nepal government released a new emblem of Nepal following the passing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of Nepal on June 13, 2020. India has claimed these territories as its own. Decisions have also been taken to print new maps on Nepalese currency notes. Although India and Nepal have had the border dispute about Kalapani for a long time, Nepalese government’s recent action have complicated the matter. This article provides a background to the Kalapani border dispute between India and Nepal.

1815 Treaty of Sugauli

Following Nepal’s defeat in the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814 to 1816), the British East India Company and the King of Nepal signed the Treaty of Sugauli. As per Article 5 of the Treaty, the King of Nepal renounced all claims to “countries laying to the west of the River Kali”. The geography of the river was not given. The India-Nepal boundary is based on this Treaty of the Sugauli. The important events relating to this Treaty are tabulated below:

Developments in Nepal regarding India-Nepal Boundary

On August 4, 1996, the Government of Nepal acknowledged the concern expressed in Parliament and media over the matter concerning the construction of border pillars and made a statement that the India-Nepal boundary had been fixed by the 1815 Treaty of Sugauli, and that in 1818, the then British India government had established the reference pillars on its side, but that no such pillars were constructed by Nepal on its side. ^[1] On that day, Nepal’s Foreign Minister, Prakash Chandra Lohani, issued a press statement that mentioned that Nepal and India had agreed on the demarcation of the Mechi River area in 1988 using boundary markers according to the border map drawn by British India, and agreed upon as the standard border map to be referenced by both countries. ^[2]

Bilateral Mechanism

The absence of a bilateral mechanism to resolve border disputes had affected bilateral relations. In 1981, a Joint Technical Level Nepal-India Boundary Committee (JTC), composed of the Surveyor Generals of the two sides and other officials and advisers was created in to complete the demarcation of the Indo-Nepal border. On November 17, 1981, the JTC’s first meeting was held in New Delhi. The Indian team was led by Lt. Gen. K. L. Khosla, the Surveyor General of India. Both sides initially noted that since the common border was already well-defined and demarcated, as such there was no need for any further demarcation of it. ^[3] The 17th meeting of the JTC, held at New Delhi, in turn, decided to constitute a Joint Working Group (JWG) on August 26, 1994, which was mandated to examine the relevant facts regarding the western sector, including the Kalapani issue, and if necessary, suggest measures to resolve the problem. ^[4] The first meeting of the JWG, held at Jhapa in Nepal from May 22-25, 1995, carried out field investigations at various riverine areas, examined the field records of all riverine segments and relaid the segments on the fixed boundary principles. ^[5]

In its third meeting in Kathmandu on July 3-7, 1997, the JWG exchanged views on the demarcation of the boundary alignment in the western sector, including the Kalapani area. ^[6] In the fourth meeting held on December 15-16, 1997, in New Delhi, views were exchanged on the demarcation of the boundary alignment in the Kalapani area. Both sides agreed to continue the discussions. ^[7]

After the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Nepal in June 1997, three meetings of the JWG have been held since then and the discussions at the expert level continue on this issue. ^[8] Almost 98 percent of the India-Nepal boundary had been clarified by May 2013. ^[9]

Political Implications

On April 9, 1998, Nepal’s Home Minister Khum Bahadur Khadka, made a statement, in the parliament that Nepal, despite its small size, was prepared to make any sacrifice to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity should anyone try to snatch even a single inch of its land forcibly. He said the Nepalese people would not remain silent on the issue. He clarified that Nepal would arrive at its own conclusions on the basis of a field survey and old documents regarding the question of Kalapani. Later, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN- UML) and Communist Party of Nepal-Marxist Leninist (CPN-ML) leaders raised the issue of encroachment of border areas at various places from Mechi to Mahakali and of Nepal’s land in Pashupatinagar. The CPN-ML alleged that Indian soldiers were still camping in the Vyas Village Defence Committee (VDC) area of the country’s Dharchula district. ^[10]

The Kalapani border issue was exploited by the All-Nepal National Free Students Union (ANNFSU), which had linkages to the CPN-UML. They planned to hold a march from Kathmandu to Kalapani to highlight the border encroachment issues. Trying to defuse the situation, Mr. K. V. Rajan, the then Indian Ambassador, met an ANNFSU delegation at the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu on June 3, 1998 and updated them about the ongoing dialogue between both governments and their decision to engage experts to examine historical aspects of the boundary question in this sector. He also issued a press release clarifying that the Indian Army had not been present in Kalapani since 1962, adding that only a post of the Indo-Tibet Border Police (ITBP) continued to be located in an area on the Indian side since the 19th century and that this had been acknowledged by successive British, Indian and Nepalese governments. Avtar Singh Bhasin noted that the Nepali media coloured the above remarks of the Indian Ambassador saying that India had laid claim to Kalapani. Clarifying Nepal’s position in the light of media criticism of the government, Nepal’s then Prime Minister, G. P. Koirala, told journalists on June 8 that the territory “is ours” and that “the controversy surrounding it should be resolved once and for all”. In addition, Murari Raj Sharma, the then Foreign Secretary of Nepal, lodged a protest with Ambassador K. V. Rajan, alleging that a new “no-entry zone” had been erected by Indian security personnel inside Nepali territory at Kalapani to prevent threats of a march by the NNFSU. The CPN-UML organised a 20,000 strong cadre march on June 12 towards the Indian Embassy in support of Nepal’s claim to Kalapani. The ANNFSU marchers were welcomed by their fellow comrades in the CPN-ML with a call to India to vacate the area. On June 29, Nepal’s nine left parties, including the CPN-ML wrote to the UN office in Kathmandu, drawing the attention of its Secretary-General, to the alleged Indian encroachment of Nepalese territories, and prevention of the movement of Nepalese citizens in their own territory. Indian action were seen by the protestors as seriously breaching international norms and as a provocation on the part of the Indian government. ^[11]

On June 07, the Indian Embassy in Nepal issued a press release clarifying the misunderstanding in some sections of the Nepalese press and highlighting that expert-level dialogue between both governments were going on to demarcate the entire boundary, including the western sector. It added that all border-related issues, including Kalapani, could be amicably resolved to the satisfaction of both countries after transparent and objective examination of all relevant historical facts. ^[12]

Soon after above incident, replying to a question in the Rajya Sabha on June 11, 1998 on the “Demarcation of Indo-Nepal Border”, Vasundhara Raje, Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), informed that a Joint Technical Level India-Nepal Boundary Committee had been constituted in 1981 to oversee and co-ordinate the work related to the inspection, verification and restoration of missing, or damaged pillars, and recording of encroachments. She added that the tasks assigned to the Joint Committee were of an ongoing nature. As per joint decisions taken by the Committee, work on identifying the boundary in the riverine segments on the fixed boundary principle, renumbering of boundary pillars or points and preparation of base maps was being undertaken in a sequential manner, starting from the eastern side. The progress in field work, plans for which were decided jointly, were being reviewed on a periodic basis, and if necessary, rescheduled to take into account the difficult terrain, the problems of riverine segments, and local issues that might have arisen. And as per the schedule jointly worked out by both sides, the demarcation work of the Indo-Nepal border was expected to be completed by 2001. ^[13]

A considerable ambiguity has arisen due to the map published at different times. In a reply to a letter (Jun 9, 1998) of the Delegated Legislation and Government Assurances Committee of the National Assembly, the Nepalese Prime Minister’s office reiterated that the Kali River was established as the western boundary of Nepal as per the Treaty of Sugauli of 1816. |The Kali River was shown as the boundary between India and Nepal in the map published by the Survey of India in 1850 and 1856 respectively. The Nepalese PMO claimed that as per those maps, Kalapani came under the territory of Nepal. Subsequently, a third map published by the Survey of India in 1879 showed the boundary from the Kali River to the ridge (watershed) on the southern side of the Pankhagad river beyond Kalapani. This map marked Kalapani on the Indian side.

In this letter, the Nepalese PMO added that when Nepal and China signed the boundary agreements in 1961 and 1979 to determine the trijunction point, the Lipulekh Pass was treated as the origin of the Kali River as per the 1850 map of the Survey of India in order. It was stated that there was no justification or basis now for India claiming Kalapani as the maps published in 1850 and 1856 by the Survey of India showed the Kali River originating from the Lipulekh Pass as the boundary between the two countries. Referring to Indo-Tibetan Border Police post in the Kalapani area and the Indian claim on this area, it pointed out that both countries were holding bilateral talks to prove their respective claims supported by evidence. ^[14]

The border dispute attracted the attention of the members of Parliament in India in July 1998. They demanded information on the diplomatic and political steps being taken by the Indian government. In her reply to a Lok Sabha Question on the “Kalapani issue”, on July 7, 1998, the Minister of State for External Affairs Vasundhara Raje said that the government of India was aware of the June 13 ANNFSU march from Kathmandu to the India-Nepal border facing Kalapani in Pithoragarh district and Nepal’s assurance that ‘marchers’ would not be allowed to enter Indian territory. Raje added that at Kalapani, the ITBP, which manned the post there, had laid barbed fencing as a temporary and precautionary measure, within Indian territory and along the border, to prevent Nepalese ‘marchers’ from crossing over into Indian territory. ^[15]

Replying to a separate Rajya Sabha Question on the “Claim made by Nepal on Kalapani” on July 16, 1998, the minister informed that Nepal had claimed a 35 square kilometers area of the Kalapani sector on the Indo-Nepal-Tibet border on account of a difference in the perception of the boundary alignment in the western sector of the India-Nepal border. Elaborating on the ongoing bilateral mechanism involving the JTC and the JWG to resolve border disputes, the minister added that although there was no other such claim made by Nepal in the recent past, cases of local encroachments, including at Narasahi-Susta in Bihar and in the Mechi sector in West Bengal, did exist. Such cases had been examined by the JTC to coordinate work relating to the inspection and or restoration of missing, or damaged boundary pillars, and recording of encroachments. ^[16]

Indian Position

The fifth meeting of the JWG on the India-Nepal Boundary, held at Kathmandu on July 17, 1998, pointed to the three maps of the Survey of India of 1850, 1856 and 1879, and sought clarification from the Indian side on the divergent depiction of the river Kali and the boundary in the various versions of the maps. They wanted to know from the Indian side whether any bilateral treaty or boundary agreement had superseded the Treaty of Segowlie (Sugauli).

The Indian side stated that under Article 5 of the Treaty of Segowlie (Sugauli), the Raja of Nepal had renounced all claims with regard to “countries laying to the west of the River Kali”. In absence of any scientific survey at that time, the treaty neither contains any definition of the boundary in the area, nor any map. After the ratification of the Treaty of Segowlie in March 1816, differences, including the ownership of four villages, were resolved through the “Governor General’s ruling of 1817”, which also clarified that the Kalapani fountain was the source of the River Kali. The first scientific topographical survey of the area during 1873-77 resulted in the publishing of the Kumaon and British Garhwal Sheet No. 37 of 1879, depicting correctly, the India-Nepal boundary in the area. This map incorporated relevant data as well as provisions of the Treaty. Thus, the maps of 1850 and 1856 could not be regarded as authoritative or correct.

The Indian side further added that on the request of the then Prime Minister of Nepal, topographical surveys in this area were conducted during 1924-27, under the Nepalese government supervisors Lt. Col. Ganesh Bahadur Chhetri and Captain Gang Bahadur Karki. The maps thus prepared in 1928/29, were cleared by the Nepalese government, with spelling mistakes of some placenames. The maps were printed after the corrections. The boundary alignment depicted in the maps of 1928/29 reconfirmed the alignment shown in the map of 1879. Nepal accepted the boundary alignment depicted in map of 1879, which was also indicated in the Nepal-China Boundary Treaty of 1961 and the Nepal-China Boundary Protocol of 1963, positioning the “starting point”/ “western extremity” of the Nepal-China boundary to coincided with the tri-junction, as depicted in the Survey of India maps. It was further stated that available evidence was based on tradition, customs and administrative jurisdiction, including revenue records dating back to the 1820s, census and electoral data. The existence of a police post at Kalapani since 1955 confirmed that the area in question had been under the jurisdiction of the then Kumaon Province and now Pithoragarh District of India since the Treaty of Segowlie. ^[17]

Politicisation of the Issue in Nepal

The CPN-UML leader K.P. Sharma Oli presented an adjournment motion in the Nepalese parliament on August 10, 1998, on the government’s failure to prevent encroachment of Nepal’s borders in many places including Pashupatinagar of llam district. He protected the presence of the Indian Army in the Kalapani territory in the Darchula district of the Mahakali Zone. He also blamed leaders of the Nepali Congress government for ignoring this issue relating to national sovereignty and integrity. He demanded the withdrawal of the Indian armed forces from Kalapani. ^[18]

On August 11, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala opined that the Indian security post had to be immediately removed from that place. He claimed that this controversy had existed since the Panchayat times and all previous governments, including that of the CPN-UML as well as his government have sought a solution to the problem of Kalapani. It was pointed out, that according to Nepal government records; the Indo-Tibetan Border Police had been occupying the 35 square kilometre area near the Nepal-India-China tri-junction since 1962. He felt that this problem could not be solved without the cooperation and understanding of India. He added that the Kalapani issue and the western border of Nepal had already been brought and discussed during the state visit of the then Indian President K.R. Narayanan to Nepal and with the then Indian Prime Minister during the 10th SAARC Summit held in Colombo. The issue further came up during various meetings at the political level and at the foreign secretary level, and during the visit of then Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral. He also requested all Nepalese political parties to cooperate and help the current government to solve the Kalapani issue through diplomatic channels. ^[19] Subsequently, the Speaker of the Nepal Parliament turned down the adjournment motion to discuss the presence of Indian armed forces in ‘Tulsi Nuyangma’ area of the Kalapani region in Darchula district and the removal of Indian troops, as the Koirala government had been trying their level best to solve the problem. ^[20]

On July 26, 1999, in his reply to a parliament question by Bharat Mohan Adhikari, the Chief Whip of the CPN-UML, Nepalese Foreign Minister Ram Saran Mahat repeated that the government was making all diplomatic and political efforts to resolve the Kalapani issue with India because of goodwill. ^[21]

The Kalapani issue also resonated in the Lok Sabha on the same day. Then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh provided details on the Indo-Nepal dispute over the Kalapani issue, which were sought by Yogi Adityanath through a parliament question, including whether certain vested interests were creating a rift between both countries over this issue, and whether efforts were being made to resolve the dispute amicably. The minister informed that there was a difference in perception between India and Nepal over the correct source of the river. Both sides had accepted the 1816 Sugauli Treaty, according to which the Kali River forms the India-Nepal border in that region. The government was aware that attempts could be made to exploit such perceived differences between two friendly neighbours.’ He also gave details about the India-Nepal expert level Joint Working Group (JWG). He added that three meetings of the JWG had been held and the discussions were continuing. Yogi Adityanath mentioned that discontent was simmering over Kalapani in Nepal and some mischievous elements were trying to create wedge between India and Nepal on this issue. He further asked about Nepal’s intention in making this area of strategic importance as disputed area. The minister clarified that “India has never any intention or desire to occupy even an inch of land of another country. Relations between India and Nepal were such that India can never think of occupying Nepalese territory. There are number of rivers, which pass through both sides of the Indo-Nepalese border…. as you know, several rivers pass through Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and it is difficult to demarcate these rivers. India’s viewpoint and thinking regarding Kalapani is absolutely clear. I think it will not be wise to create a dispute on such matter.” ^[22]

On May 10, 2005, the Nepalese Foreign Ministry issued a press release stating that the attention of the Nepali Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has been drawn to some media reports and write-ups citing the issue of Kalapani in the border protocol between the Governments of India and China during the visit of Wen Jiabao, Prime Minister of China, to India in April 2005. It added that the Chinese government had informed the MOFA that “there is no concern belonging to Kalapani” among the documents signed between China and India during the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit. The Chinese embassy in Kathmandu further said, “Chinese side always holds the view that the problem of Kalapani between Nepal and India should be resolved through friendly bilateral consultation” and “the Chinese side fully understands the concerns of the Nepalese side and respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nepal”. The press release mentioned that “It is to clarify that the matters relating to demarcation of boundary between Nepal and India, including the issue of Kalapani, were being looked into by a JTC between the two countries and would be resolved bilaterally between Nepal and India in the spirit of bilateral understanding and cooperation. Therefore, the MOFA urged all to refrain from making any comments on the matter in any manner that may affect Nepal’s friendly relations with its neighbours.” ^[23]

The Survey of India has the responsibility for the demarcation of India’s external boundaries, their depiction on maps published in the country, and also to advice on the demarcation of inter-state boundaries. For the demarcation of external boundaries, a joint survey team of both countries should agree. The first meeting of the Nepal India Boundary Working Group (BWG) to demarcate the boundary was held in Kathmandu on September 17 to 19, 2014. The BWG’s mandate includes construction, restoration and repair of boundary pillars, and works related to the clearance of no-man’s-land and GPS observation of boundary pillars. The first meeting of Nepal-India Boundary Survey Officials Committee (SOC) was held in Dehradun, India, on December 30-31, 2014, to finalise the work programme of field survey team, composition, location of camp offices, GPS observation and technical specifications for the field work. ^[24] The fourth meeting of SOC was held in Kathmandu from June 20 to 22, 2016.

The Third Nepal-India BWG meeting from June 23 to 25, 2016 held at Kathmandu, reviewed the reports of the SOC meetings, Joint Field Survey Teams (FST), the ongoing boundary works at Nepal-India border, and prioritised the completion of the pending tasks. In this meeting, internationally practised positioning systems, using Nepal-India Boundary Global Navigation Satellite System (NIB GNSS), was accepted for the Nepal-India boundary pillars. ^[25] The fourth meeting of BWG, held on August 30, 2017, at Dehradun, reviewed the progress made over the past three years. The BWG decided to expedite the remaining works by deploying an additional joint field team and complete the boundary field works in the next five years, that is by the year 2022. ^[26]

Meanwhile, the Indian areas covering Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh, were claimed by the Nepal government led by Sushil Koirala and subsequently politicised by K. P. Sharma Oli. The joint statement signed on May 15, between the India and China during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to China, had mentioned that China and India had agreed to hold negotiations on augmenting the list of traded commodities and expand the border trade building bilateral trade corridors through three locations, including via the Lipulekh Pass in the Indian state of Uttarakhand in 2015. ^[27] The then government of Nepal had expressed its disagreement in 2015 through separate diplomatic notes addressed to the Governments of both India and China, when the two sides agreed to include the Lipulekh Pass as a bilateral trade route without Nepal’s consent. ^[28]

The sixth meeting of the BWG was held in Dehradun, India, from August 28 to 30, 2019. The meeting reviewed the implementation of the agreed minutes of the fifth meeting held in Kathmandu on September 19 to 21, 2018. The meeting also discussed, reviewed and approved the recommendations of the ninth and tenth Survey Officials’ Committee and finalisation of the plan, schedule, and technical specifications for undergoing large scale mapping, using UAVs, after clearance from their respective governments for the pilot project. ^[29]

Recent Developments

Subsequent to the last BWG meeting, the following developments have taken place, which need to be taken care of politically and diplomatically.

For facilitating the Kailash-Manasarovar Yatra and border area connectivity, Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh, inaugurated the road link between Dharchula (Uttarakhand) Lipulekh (Indo-China Border) on May 8, 2020. ^[30] Reacting to this event the next day, the government of Nepal expressed its regret over the ‘inauguration’ by India of what it described as the “Link Road” connecting to Lipulekh (Nepal), which, as per Nepal’s claim, passes through Nepal’s territory. Further, it said, that it has consistently maintained that as per the Sugauli Treaty (1816), all territories east of Kali (Mahakali) River, including Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh, belonged to Nepal. It said that its position had been reiterated by several times in the past and most recently through a diplomatic note addressed to the government of India dated November 20, 2019 in response to the new political map issued by the latter. ^[31] It may be recalled that on the basis of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2019, the Survey General of India had prepared the political map of India by depicting the new Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, as created on October 31, 2019 along with the map of India. ^[32]

Without naming China, the then Army Chief, General M. M. Naravane had on May 15, 2020, suggested that there was no ‘contradiction’ with regard to the road India had constructed to the Lipulekh Pass that lies on its border with China, and added that Nepal might have protested over it at the “behest of someone else”. ^[33] General Naravane was responding to a question posed at a talk organised by a think tank through a webinar.

Responding to media queries on the House of Representatives of Nepal passing a Constitutional Amendment Bill that revised Nepal’s Coat of Arms on June 3, 2000, spokesperson of the MEA, Mr. Anurag Srivastava, said, “We have noted that the House of Representatives of Nepal has passed a Constitution Amendment Bill for changing the map of Nepal to include parts of Indian territory. We have already made our position clear on this matter.” India called Nepal’s actions as an attempt at “artificial enlargement of claims”, which were not based on historical facts or evidence and was not tenable, and called Nepal’s attention to the two countries’ current understanding to “hold talks on outstanding boundary issues.” ^[34]
Border management also figured in talks at the sixth meeting of the India-Nepal Joint Commission co-chaired by India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar, and Nepal’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, in New Delhi on January 15, 2021. Both delegations included the foreign secretaries of the two sides. ^[35]
Lastly, in their summit meeting of April 2, 2022, Prime Ministers Sher Bahadur Deuba and Narendra Modi discussed the border issues, with Deuba urging India to resolve the dispute through established bilateral mechanisms. The Indian foreign secretary, referring to a “brief discussion” on the issues, said there was a “general understanding” and they needed to be addressed in a responsible manner through dialogue and without any effort to politicise it. ^[36]

Concluding Observations

India and Nepal, the two friendly neighbours, have continued to make serious efforts to resolve the Kalapani border dispute. There is, however, a difference in perception on the boundary alignment in the western sector of the India-Nepal border, where the Kalapani area is located. While both sides have accepted the ratified 1816 Sugauli Treaty, according to which the Kali River forms the India-Nepal border in that region, the difference in perception is over the correct source of this river. The government of India is aware that attempts would be made to exploit such perceived differences between the two friendly neighbours. ^[37]

Kalapani is a territory under India’s Uttarakhand state since the Sugauli Treaty of 1816. Nepal cannot escape from this ground reality. India’s stance on the India-Nepal boundary is “well known, consistent and unambiguous.” India emphasises on the established bilateral mechanisms to resolve outstanding ‘mutually agreed boundary issues in the spirit of our close and friendly bilateral relations.’

References

^[1] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1187. Page 2915-2917. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[2] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1188. Page 2917-2919. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[3] Ibid, Documents nos. 1162 and 1163. Page 2827-282.8
^[4] Ibid, Document no. 1180. Page 2888-2891.
^[5] Ibid, Document no. 1181. Page 2891.
^[6] Ibid, Document no. 1190. Page 2925.
^[7] Ibid, Document no. 1191, Page 2928-2929.
^[8] INDO-NEPAL DISPUTE OVER KALAPANI ISSUE. Ministry of External Affairs, Lok Sabha Starred Question no.43 dated 26 July 2000. http://loksabhaph-nic-in/Questions/QResult15-aspx?qref=6836&lsno=13
^[9] ILLEGAL OCCUPATION AT BORDER AREAS. Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Sabha Starred Question no. 579 dated 07 May 2013.https://www.mha.gov.in/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2013-pdfs/ls-070513/579.pdf
^[10] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1193. Page 2932-2933. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[11] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1196. Page 2937-2939. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[12] Ibid, Documents no. 1197, Page 2939.
^[13] Ibid, Rajya Sabha Question dated 11 June 1998, Documents no. 1198. Page 2940.
^[14] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1199. Page 2941. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[15] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1200. Page 2942. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[16] Ibid, Documents no. 1201. Page 2943.
^[17] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1202. Page 2944-2945. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[18] Ibid, Document no. 1203, Page 2947.
^[19] Ibid, Document no. 1204, Page 2948-2949.
^[20] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1205. Page 2949-2950. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[21] Ibid, Document no. 1207. Page 2959-2960.
^[22] Ibid, Document no. 1209, Page 2965-2966.
^[23] Bhasin, Avtar. S. 2005. Nepal India and Nepal China Relations Documents (1947-2005), Volume IV. Section VI. Indo Nepal Boundary. Document no. 1226. Page 3028. Geetika Publishers, Delhi 28.
^[24] “Annual Report 2014-15.” Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi. Department of Science & Technology, International Boundary Surveys. Government of India. Page 98. https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/DST-2014-15-english-with-cover_0.pdf
^[25] “Third Boundary Working Group Meeting”. Press Release-Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Nepal. 26 June 2022. https://mofa.gov.np/press-release-2-2/
^[26] “Meeting of Boundary Working Group”. Press Release-Embassy of Nepal, New Delhi. 30 August 2017. https://in.nepalembassy.gov.np/meeting-boundary-working-group/
^[27] “Joint Statement between the India and China during Prime Minister's visit to China”. Press Release-Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). 15 May 2015. https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/25240/Joint_Statement_between_the_India_and_China_during_Prime_Ministers_visit_to_China
^[28] “Lipu Lake”. Press Release-Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Nepal. 09 May 2020. https://mofa.gov.np/press-release-regarding-lipu-lekh/
^[29] “SIXTH MEETING OF NEPAL-INDIA BOUNDARY WORKING GROUP” Ministry of Foreign Affairs BULLETIN Current Affairs, Nepal. August - September 2019 |Vol 4, Issue 2, Page 5. https://mofa.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/MoFa-Bulletion-Vol4-Issue2.pdf
^[30] “Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh inaugurates 80 km long road curtailing Kailash-Mansarovar pilgrimage time”. Press Release-Ministry of Defence (MOD). 08 May 2020. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1622091
^[31] “Lipu Lake”. Press Release-Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Nepal. 09 May 2020. https://mofa.gov.np/press-release-regarding-lipu-lekh/
^[32] “Maps of newly formed Union Territories of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh, with the map of India”. Press Release-Ministry of Home Affairs. 02 November2019. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1590112
^[33] “Nepal protest over road to Lipulekh along LAC at “behest of someone else”: Army Chief Gen Naravane” Gurung S. K. The Economics Times. 15 May 2020.. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/nepal-protest-over-road-to-lipulekh-along-lac-at-behest-of-someone-else-army-chief-gen-naravane/articleshow/75763105.cms?from=mdr
^[34] “Official Spokesperson’s response to media queries on the passing of Constitutional Amendment Bill revising the Coat of Arms of Nepal by the House of Representatives of Nepal”. Ministry of External Affairs. Response to Media Querie. 13 June 2020. https://mea.gov.in/response-to-queries.htm?dtl/32757/Official_Spokespersons_response_to_media
^[35] “Sixth India-Nepal Joint Commission Meeting”. Ministry of External Affairs Press Release. 15 January 2021, https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/33391/Sixth_IndiaNepal_Joint_Commission_Meeting
^[36] “Nepalese PM raises border issue with Modi, agrees not to politicise it: MEA”., The Times of India. 03 April 2022. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/nepalese-pm-raises-border-issue-with-modi-agrees-not-to-politicise-it-mea/articleshow/90616440.cms
^[37]Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI. Lok Sabha Starred Question no. 579, dtd.07 May 2013 https://www.mha.gov.in/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2013-pdfs/ls-070513/579.pdf

(The paper is the author’s individual scholastic articulation. The author certifies that the article/paper is original in content, unpublished and it has not been submitted for publication/web upload elsewhere, and that the facts and figures quoted are duly referenced, as needed, and are believed to be correct). (The paper does not necessarily represent the organisational stance... More >>