Friends Divided by a Line

India and Nepal share an enduring relationship rooted in history, culture, trade, and open borders. Millions cross freely for work, family, or pilgrimage, and the two countries have often described their ties as that of “roti-beti” (bread and marriage). Yet, despite this closeness, their relationship has occasionally been strained by recurring territorial disagreements. The latest flashpoint is the Lipulekh Pass, a Himalayan trade route at the India-China-Nepal trijunction, where old disputes have resurfaced following the resumption of India-China trade.

Why Lipulekh Matters

The Lipulekh Pass, situated in Uttarakhand and historically used for trade and pilgrimage to Kailash-Mansarovar, has long been a sensitive zone. Recently, India and China agreed to reopen border trade through three routes—Lipulekh Pass (Uttarakhand), Shipki La (Himachal Pradesh), and Nathu La (Sikkim)—after disruptions caused by the pandemic.

While this move was seen as a revival of traditional exchanges between India and China, it immediately triggered objections from Nepal. Kathmandu insists that Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani fall within its territory, citing the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, which placed lands east of the Kali River under Nepal’s control.

Nepal’s Objection: Sovereignty and Maps

Nepal’s Foreign Ministry released a strongly worded statement reiterating that its official constitutional map includes the three contested areas east of the Mahakali River. It asked India not to engage in road construction, expansion, or trade through what it considers its land.

Kathmandu also reminded both New Delhi and Beijing that it had already notified China of its claim. The statement stressed Nepal’s willingness to resolve the issue peacefully through dialogue and diplomacy, backed by “historical treaties, maps, and evidence.”

This is not Nepal’s first protest. In 2015, Kathmandu had raised similar concerns when India and China included Lipulekh as a trade corridor. In 2020, Nepal even amended its constitution to include a new map depicting Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura as its own. India rejected the move, dismissing it as a unilateral action without basis in historical facts.

India’s Stand: Consistency and Continuity

India has been equally firm in its rebuttal. The Ministry of External Affairs stated that trade through Lipulekh has been ongoing since 1954, and resuming it is neither new nor provocative. According to New Delhi, Nepal’s claims are “unjustified, artificial, and untenable.”

India points out that the boundary in the region has been consistently recognized and administered by it, including the construction of infrastructure such as the 80-km road link inaugurated in 2020 to facilitate pilgrimages to Kailash-Mansarovar. For India, this is both a question of sovereignty and strategic necessity, given the road’s proximity to the sensitive India-China border.

The Historical Dispute: River Origins and Colonial Maps

At the heart of the conflict lies the Kali River. The Treaty of Sugauli established the river as the boundary line, but its precise source remains contested. Nepal argues that the Kali originates from Limpiyadhura, placing Lipulekh and Kalapani east of it and within Nepal’s territory. India, however, claims the river begins near Lipulekh, giving it administrative control over the disputed tracts.

Former Nepali diplomat Lok Raj Baral explained that Nepal’s weak cartographic capacity in the past left it reliant on maps produced by British India, which sowed seeds of confusion. Nepal made its first explicit territorial claim in 1962, during heightened geopolitical tensions in the Himalayas.

The Larger Relationship: Tensions and Cooperation

Ironically, the latest dispute flared even as India extended generous assistance to Nepal. Both countries recently inaugurated two new bridges in Koshi Province, and New Delhi pledged ten prefabricated steel bridges to help Nepal rebuild infrastructure destroyed by floods in September 2024.

Such cooperation underscores the paradox: while political mistrust simmers, grassroots connections remain strong. India remains one of Nepal’s largest trading partners and aid providers, while Nepal is strategically vital for India’s Himalayan security architecture.

Beyond Borders: Regional Implications

The Lipulekh standoff is not just about land. For India, the pass offers a crucial route to Tibet and is strategically important given its proximity to China. For Nepal, the issue represents sovereignty and national pride, with domestic politics often amplifying territorial concerns.

Observers warn that repeated flare-ups may push Nepal closer to China, altering the delicate balance in South Asia. Meanwhile, unilateral assertions—whether maps or road inaugurations—risk hardening positions instead of fostering dialogue.

The Way Forward

The Lipulekh dispute illustrates the fragility of even the closest bilateral ties when nationalism and territorial identity come into play. While India and Nepal share deep people-to-people bonds and wide-ranging cooperation, unresolved borders continue to act as fault lines.

Both sides have emphasized dialogue, but the key lies in moving beyond symbolic cartography or strong statements. A joint technical commission to verify historical records, river origins, and modern realities could provide clarity. Simultaneously, confidence-building measures such as continued infrastructure cooperation and cultural exchanges may help prevent political tensions from spilling over into broader mistrust.

For two countries bound by history and geography, a lasting solution will require empathy, pragmatism, and statesmanship. The Lipulekh Pass should serve as a bridge for connectivity, not a barrier dividing friends.

(With agency inputs)