KATHMANDU, Nepal — Prime Minister Balendra “Balen” Shah, who leads a single-party government with a near two-thirds majority, has sparked major controversy following remarks about the Nepal-India border dispute.
The comments have roiled political and diplomatic circles just ahead of a visit to India by Rastriya Swatantra Party Chairman Rabi Lamichhane. During a House of Representatives meeting Sunday, Shah claimed from the parliament rostrum that border encroachment is a two-way street.
“You might find it surprising, and even I only found out about it recently after becoming the prime minister,” Shah said. “It is not just India that has encroached on Nepal’s land; Nepal has also encroached on India’s land in many places.”
While Shah maintained that both countries plan to study the dispute and resolve it amicably as friends, the unexpected statement has sent shockwaves through the country’s political landscape.
Expert Calls Claim Factually Incorrect
Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, a border expert, said the prime minister’s claim is factually incorrect and emphasized that Nepal has never encroached upon Indian territory.
“What we see at the border is ‘possession or usage’ (Bhogchalan), meaning citizens from this side might utilize some land on that side, and vice versa,” Shrestha told local news outlet Ratopati. “However, this cannot and should not be labeled as land encroachment or state-level occupation.”
Former Foreign Minister Demands Apology
Pradeep Gyawali, a former foreign minister and leader of the CPN (UML) party, strongly objected to the remarks. Terming the statement suspicious and condemnable, he demanded an immediate retraction and a public apology.
“The prime minister standing at the parliament rostrum and claiming that Nepal has encroached on Indian land in many places is highly objectionable, suspicious, and condemnable,” Gyawali said. “This statement must be withdrawn immediately, and a public apology must be made to the nation.”
Risks to National Interest and Diplomacy
Rajan Bhattarai, a foreign policy expert and member of the Eminent Persons Group formed to study Nepal-India relations, urged the public and lawmakers to take the statement seriously. He argued that because the address directly impacts national interest, border security, and diplomatic sensitivity, a thorough review of its long-term consequences is crucial.
“The primary and foremost duty of any prime minister is to protect the sovereignty, geographical integrity, and national interest of their country,” said Bhattarai, who also serves as the CPN (UML) secretary. “The Nepal-India border issue is complex, sensitive, and deeply historical. In such a scenario, the government’s chief responsibility should be defending its territory, finding a logical solution to disputes, and ensuring border security.”
Bhattarai also criticized the prime minister for hinting at third-party involvement to resolve the dispute, noting that international standards dictate such matters be resolved through bilateral dialogue.
“In 2014, the India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement resolved the border issues between India and Bangladesh without any third-party role,” Bhattarai added. “Similarly, the long-standing border dispute between India and China is also being managed and resolved through bilateral dialogue. Therefore, we must make the utmost effort to resolve issues regarding Nepal’s border and sovereignty bilaterally.”
A Weakened Diplomatic Stance
Constitutional and legal experts also criticized the prime minister’s statement, calling it unusual and grave. Senior Advocate Bhimarjun Acharya, a constitutional expert, said this is the first time in the nation’s history that a head of government has delivered such an irresponsible remark.
“The prime minister’s statement in parliament claiming Nepal has encroached on India’s border is highly unusual and severe,” Acharya said. “No previous prime minister has ever recorded such a suicidal statement inside or outside parliament, and it is never expected.”
Acharya warned that the remark could inadvertently legitimize foreign encroachment on Nepali territory.
“The capitulatory statement by the head of government, suggesting that border encroachment is happening mutually from both sides, clearly shows that this government either does not want to or cannot protect Nepal’s geographical integrity,” Acharya said. “This severely weakens Nepal’s established diplomatic stance. The time has come for the entire nation and its citizens to be even more vigilant in protecting national sovereignty.”
Government Clarifies Remarks
Later in the evening, Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement clarifying the prime minister’s remarks, indicating they were made in reference to technical aspects of border management rather than formal territorial encroachment.
Responding to media queries, the ministry said Nepal had already clarified its official position on India’s use of the Lipulekh route for the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage in a statement issued on May 3. It noted that Nepal had sent a diplomatic note to India and received a response through diplomatic channels, with both sides expressing commitment to resolving border disputes through dialogue.
The ministry emphasized that Nepal and India share a long, open border historically defined by the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, with boundary delineation still pending in areas such as Susta and Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani.
According to the statement, the prime minister’s remarks relate primarily to issues of “cross-border occupation” and encroachment in the no-man’s land (Dasgaja area), rather than state-level land encroachment. Due to the fixed boundary principle applied in riverine border areas, there are instances where citizens of one country cultivate land or reside across the border in the other country.
The ministry said joint technical teams and bilateral mechanisms are working to manage the border, including constructing and maintaining boundary pillars, documenting encroachments in the Dasgaja area, and recording instances of cross-border occupation.
Findings from ongoing technical studies indicate that in some locations, land currently used by Nepali citizens may fall within Indian territory, and land used by Indian citizens may fall within Nepal. The ministry said the prime minister’s remarks about land possibly lying on the other side were based on these technical realities.
Reaffirming Nepal’s position, the ministry said the government remains committed to resolving all border-related issues through diplomatic negotiations, in line with historical treaties, agreements, and maps, and in keeping with the close relationship between the two countries.
Editor’s Note: This report has been updated to include the Government of Nepal’s official clarification issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the prime minister’s remarks on the Nepal-India border issue.
Suraj Ghimire
View More PostsSuraj Ghimire is a Nepali journalist based in Kathmandu. He focuses on political, social, migration, and international issues. He has also worked with various national television networks in Nepal.
