KALAPANI AND THE CHANGING CONTOURS OF INDIA-NEPAL RELATIONS

 KALAPANI  AND  THE  CHANGING  CONTOURS OF INDIA-NEPAL RELATIONS

 Lhamu Tshering Bhutia     

 Department of Political Science Lady Brabourne College, Kolkata Email: lhamutbhutia.06@gmail.com

 Abstract

India  and  Nepal  share a  historically deep and multidimensional relationship,  reinforced by cultural, religious, and geographic linkages, as well as an open border under the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. While fostering integration and interdependence, structural asymmetries have fueled periodic tensions,  with  the  Kalapani dispute emerging as  a symbol of contested sovereignty and shifting strategic dynamics. In this context, the Kalapani territorial dispute has evolved into a potent symbol of contested sovereignty and national identity, exposing the deeper structural issues in an otherwise interdependent relationship and signalling a shift in the strategic calculus of India-Nepal bilateralism. By situating Kalapani within the larger framework of India’s evolving border relations, this article examines the historical roots, geopolitical significance, and regional implications of the Kalapani dispute, emphasising that border disputes profoundly shape bilateral trust and  narratives. 

The  study  highlights  the  dual importance  of  Kalapani as  both  a  site of  strategic control  over  vital  Himalayan  passes  and  as  a  potent  symbol  in  the  politics of sovereignty and nationalism. The study further underscores the imperative of sustained diplomacy and institutionalised cooperation to resolve the issue and strengthen stability along the Himalayan frontier. Keywords: India, Nepal, China, Relations, Kalapani, South Asia, IntroductionIndia  and  Nepal share  one  of  South  Asia’s  most enduring  and multidimensional  bilateral  relationships,  rooted  in  deep civilisational,  historical,  and  cultural  linkages  that  date  back  centuries.  Geographic  contiguity  is  complemented  by  an  intricate  web  of  religious,  linguistic,  and  familial  bonds,  reflected  in  shared  Hindu-Buddhist  traditions,  intermarriage  across communities, and overlapping ethnic identities in border regions such as the Terai and Indo-Gangetic  plains.  The  open  border  framework,  institutionalised  through  the  1950  Treaty  of  Peace and Friendship, has enabled restricted cross-border mobility, fostering social integration and mutual economic independence. Politically, India has exerted substantial influence over Nepal’s modern state-building processes, from backing democratic institutions to supporting post-conflict reconstruction. However, structural asymmetries in size, economic capacity, and strategic leverage have periodically generated tensions, with Nepal often seeking to recalibrate the terms of engagement. In this context, the Kalapani territorial dispute has evolved into a potent

A Bi-annual  South Asian Journal of Research & Innovation /  Vol: 12 | Issue 2 | July: 2025 | ISSN: 2392-495054symbol of contested sovereignty and national identity, exposing the deeper structural issues in an otherwise interdependent relationship and signalling a shift in the strategic calculus of India-Nepal bilateralism. India-Nepal ties illustrate the broader transformation of India’s societal interactions and  border  politics.  While  civilisational and  cultural  linkages  remain a  durable  foundation,  shifting territorial sensitivities, evolving geopolitical alignments, and the changes in perceptions are redefining the contours of engagement. The trajectory of this relationship will ultimately depend on whether both sides can transform borders from zones of contestation into platforms of cooperation, which will be essential for India and Nepal to sustain their unique relationship and contribute to stability in South Asia.

The  origin  and  evolution  of  the  Kalapani  dispute are  deeply  rooted  in  the  legacy  of  the  1816  Treaty of Sugauli, a geopolitical settlement that reshaped the Himalayan frontier and delineated the  territorial  contours  of  the  modern  Nepali  state.  The  1816  Treaty  was  signed  between  the  Kingdom of Nepal and the British East India Company following the conclusion of the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816). Nepal’s defeat in the Anglo-Nepalese War culminated in the loss of nearly one-third of its territory across the eastern,  western,  and southern frontiers.

This marked one of the most significant territorial losses in Nepal’s history, reshaping its geopolitical landscape and diminishing its strategic depth in the Himalayan region. Following the British withdrawal, India and Nepal entered a new phase of engagement marked by the signing of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which replaced earlier agreements but left unresolved the fundamental question of the Kali River's origin (Bhattarai, 2024). This ambiguity lies at the heart of the Kalapani dispute, encompassing approximately 35 square kilometres of contested territory. While the 1816 Treaty established the Kali River as Nepal’s western boundary, it left its source undefined. Nepal identifies the river’s origin at Limpiyadhura, claiming Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, and Lipulekh, while India locates it further upstream, placing the area within its jurisdiction. In both narratives, Kalapani is firmly projected as integral to their respective sovereign claims (Kumar & Thakur, 2024). Disputes over rivers in South Asia underscore their significance as both vital resources for survival and natural demarcations of territorial borders. Colonial-era treaties left ambiguities that continue to fuel contestation, as seen in the Indus and Teesta water-sharing issues with Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Kali River similarly occupies a central role in defining the India-Nepal boundary.

The Kalapani dispute becomes more complex with the involvement of the Lipulekh Pass, a strategically significant corridor situated at the tri-junction of India, Nepal, and China. While India leverages the pass for cross-border connectivity and strategic depth, Nepal views its exclusion from related agreements as an erosion of sovereignty (Thakur & Kumar, 2022). Attempts at institutional resolution, such as the Joint Technical Boundary Committee (1981), failed to settle the issue, leaving Kalapani a persistent fault line in bilateral relations and a pressure point within the wider Sino-Indian strategic rivalry (Baral, 2018).

 While the India-Nepal Joint Technical Boundary Committee resolved nearly 97% of the border, the remaining 3%, including Kalapani-Limpiyadhura (370 km²), Susta (24 km²), and several other scattered pockets, totalling roughly 606 km², remains unsettled.The dispute persists largely due to A Bi-annual  South Asian Journal of Research & Innovation /  Vol: 12 | Issue 2 | July: 2025  | ISSN: 2392-495055the limited and contested access to historical maps and documents.

 Both India and Nepal rely on colonial-era cartographic records and treaties, such as the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, to substantiate their claims, yet the interpretation of these documents varies significantly (Nayak, 2020). This perpetuates mistrust, thereby obstructing a definitive settlement of the boundary question. This cartographic ambiguity is further entangled in regional geopolitics, as Nepal’s territorial claims intersect  with  India’s  strategic  concerns  along  the  Himalayan  region  and  China’s  growing influence, making the dispute not merely a bilateral issue but a wider geopolitical flashpoint. The Politicisation and Resurgence of the Kalapani DisputeBefore the 1990s, during the Panchayat era, the Kalapani dispute remained largely absent from public debate, as foreign policy was managed by the monarchy with limited scope for scrutiny or public engagement. The democratic transition of the 1990s, however, reframed it as a sovereignty concern, with Khum Bahadur Khadka’s 1998 parliamentary intervention politicising India’s military  presence.  Since  then,  Kalapani  has  become  a  recurring  theme  in  Nepal’s  democratic  trajectory, shaping public perceptions and exerting a significant influence on India-Nepal diplomatic interactions (Kumar, 2024). In recent years, particularly since 2019, the Kalapani dispute has regained  prominence  due  to  three  critical  developments. 

 First,  following  India’s  abrogation  of  Article 370 in August 2019 and the subsequent reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir to Union Territories,  New  Delhi  issued  new  political  maps  that  depicted the  Kalapani  region  as  part  of  Indian territory. This move provoked sharp reactions in Kathmandu, where political leaders and the  public  viewed  it  as  an  assertion  of  unilateral  cartographic  control  over  contested  territory.  Second, India inaugurated a new road through the Lipulekh pass in order to facilitate pilgrimages and enhance connectivity with Tibet. While strategically significant for India, this development was  perceived  in  Nepal  as  a  direct  encroachment  on  its  sovereignty,  sparking  protests  and  deepening mistrust between the two countries. 

 In retaliation, Nepal released an official map depicting the disputed region as part of its territory (Aryal & Bharti, 2022). Third, during the 24thround of the Special Representatives dialogue on boundary issues between India and China, the two sides reached an understanding to reopen the Lipulekh pass as a means of improving cross-border trade and connectivity. However, the decision carries implications beyond the India-China framework. For Nepal, the agreement was untenable as it was concluded without its consultation, despite the pass lying in a disputed territory claimed by Nepal. This development has been seen in  Kathmandu  as  an  infringement  upon  its  sovereign  interests,  thereby  adding  another  layer  of  complexity to the already contentious Kalapani dispute (Giri, 2025).

 Kalapani and the Changing Contours of India-Nepal Relations. While Nepal’s  political  landscape  remains  fragmented,  territorial  disputes,  particularly  over  Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura, have emerged as a point of consensus among rival factions.  The  need  to  safeguard  national  sovereignty  often  overrides  ideological  differences,  and  Nepal  is  no  exception,  with  political  parties  presenting  a  united  front  in  the  public  sphere.  Nepali media and civil society portray India as an encroaching power, continuously highlighting historical imbalances in bilateral relations. This interplay of political unity and public discourse further amplifies the prevailing anti-India sentiment (Behera et al, 2024). This dynamic has eroded A Bi-annual  South Asian Journal of Research & Innovation /  Vol: 12 | Issue 2 | July: 2025 | ISSN: 2392-495056 goodwill and undermined India’s Neighbourhood Policy, reducing the scope for a stable, forward-looking bilateral engagement.

 Moreover,  the  Kalpani  dispute extends beyond a  bilateral territorial  disagreement  as  it  carries  wider regional implications for the security framework of South Asia. Situated at the tri-junction of India, Nepal, and China, Kalapani occupies a strategically sensitive frontier whose importance was heightened in the aftermath of the 1962 Sino-Indian War. India’s continued military presence in Kalapani, originally sanctioned after the 1962 war, highlights its strategic utility as both a buffer against China and a control point over the Lipulekh corridor, reinforcing India’s northern security calculus  while  intensifying  Nepal’s sovereignty concerns.  Although  Nepal  has  raised  concerns  over encroachments along other sections of its borders, the Kalapani dispute stands apart, as the continued presence of Indian military personnel in the area has significantly increased nationalist sentiments.

 For India, therefore, Kalapani holds strategic significance as it provides a critical vantage point for monitoring Chinese military movements along Nepal’s border with Tibet, making it integral to its northern security arrangement. While for Nepal, the territory constitutes a core question of sovereignty and national identity, making its control not merely a territorial claim but also a matter of political legitimacy and national pride. Such contrasting interpretations have consistently exacerbated diplomatic frictions between the two countries (Kumar & Thakur, 2024)At the regional level, the dispute complicates India-Nepal relations by increasing distrust and suspicion, thereby undermining the prospects for meaningful regional cooperation in South Asia, including the already fragile institutional mechanisms such as SAARC. Simultaneously, the dispute is also deeply embedded within the wider strategic dynamics of the India-China rivalry.

 Beijing’s growing infrastructural and military presence along the Himalayan region has increased New  Delhi’s  anxieties  about  potential  territorial incursions,  compelling  India  to reinforce its  northern  security posture. China’s growing influence in Nepal has complicated the Kalapani dispute by altering its strategic context. Once a bilateral issue, it now intersects with Sino-Indian rivalry as Beijing’s investments under the Belt and Road Initiative, political engagement, and infrastructure projects give Nepal greater confidence in asserting its claims.

 Although China avoids openly supporting Nepal, its influence reinforces Indian apprehensions and intensifies the strategic sensitivity of the trijunction (Thakur & Kumar, 2022). Therefore, the Kalapani dispute has altered the trajectory of India-Nepal relations by shifting them  from a  cooperative  framework  rooted  in  historical  and  cultural  affinities  toward  one defined  by  mistrust  and  strategic  contestation.  For  Nepal,  the  issue  has  become  a  rallying point  for  sovereignty  and  national  identity,  uniting  otherwise  divided  political  factions  and  reinforcing anti-India sentiment. For India, however, Kalapani remains a non-negotiable security imperative tied to its broader China strategy.

 This clash of perceptions shifts the relationship into a more adversarial space, where territorial disputes overshadow cultural and economic ties. The dispute also internationalises the bilateral relationship, as China’s proximity amplifies both Nepal’s assertiveness and India’s security anxieties. Therefore, these shifts reflect a move from predominantly cooperative and asymmetrical engagement to a more contested and strategically complex  relationship,  highlighting  how  bilateral  ties  adapt  to  changing  domestic  and  regional  contexts.

 A Bi-annual  South Asian Journal of Research & Innovation /  Vol: 12 | Issue 2 | July: 2025  | ISSN: 2392-495057ConclusionThe  Kalapani  dispute,  though  strategically  significant,  remains  constrained  by  structural limitations; the contested area spans only a few square kilometres of the trijunction of India, Nepal, and China, and holds limited economic value beyond its geographic significance. While symbolically  powerful  in  Nepal’s  domestic  politics,  the  dispute  largely  functions  as  a  tool  for  nationalist  mobilisation  rather  than  as  a  practical  foreign  policy  instrument. 

 Moreover,  Nepal  lacks the diplomatic or military leverage to alter the status quo, resulting in a prolonged stalemate. However, if the dispute remains unresolved, it carries implications for India’s broader regional and global ambitions, particularly its aspirations to be recognised as a credible regional and rising major power. As India envisions itself as a Viksit Bharat (Developed India) by 2047, unresolved border disputes pose a significant strategic challenge. At the regional level, India has long sought to use its Neighbourhood First Policy on the basis of trust, stability, and developmental partnerships with  immediate  neighbours.  Therefore,  persistent  territorial  tensions  with  neighbours  such  as  Nepal, China, and Pakistan not only undermine India’s regional credibility but also constrain its ability to project itself as a responsible and stabilising force in South Asia.

 At the global level, India’s ability to project itself as a responsible power is linked to how it manages its immediate periphery. Unresolved disputes like Kalapani expose vulnerabilities in India’s regional leadership and raise questions about its ability to effectively manage its immediate neighbourhood, a critical prerequisite for achieving the status of a great power. Furthermore, overlooking Nepal’s concerns undermines India’s traditional influence in Kathmandu, especially as China expands its footprint through infrastructure, trade, and political engagement. Therefore, addressing these issues through sustained diplomacy, confidence-building, and equitable negotiation is not merely a bilateral necessity but also a strategic necessity for India’s broader ambition to establish itself as a leading power in the global order.

 Resolving the Kalapani dispute demands a balanced strategy rooted in historical understanding, mutual respect, and pragmatic diplomacy. Confidence-building measures such as joint boundary surveys, transparent map-sharing, and structured negotiations could build trust. A negotiated settlement would not only restore India-Nepal trust but also contribute to regional stability in South Asia, offering a precedent for constructive conflict management amid intensifying Sino-Indian competition in the Himalayas. ReferencesAryal, S.K., & Bharti, S.S. (2022).

 Comparison of Indian and Nepalese media on nepal’s new political map. Asian Politics and Policy. Volume 14, Issue 1. 134-138. Baral, T.N. (2018). Border disputes and its impact on bilateral relations: a case study of Nepal-India international  border  management.  Journal  of  APF  Command  and  Staff  College.  Volume 1, Issue 1. 28-36. Behera, A., Nayak, G., & Hari, P. S. (2024). Making sense of Nepal’s Nationalism: Implications for the India-Nepal relationship. India Quarterly. Volume 80, Issue 1. 55-71. Bhattarai, Richa. (2024). Nepal-India territorial dispute and national identity: a qualitative study of the understanding of Nepali youth living in the United States. Multilingual Academic Journal of Education and Social Sciences. Volume 12, Issue 1. 68-93.

 A Bi-annual  South Asian Journal of Research & Innovation /  Vol: 12 | Issue 2 | July: 2025 | ISSN: 2392-495058Giri, Anil.  (2025, August  22). 

 Nepal  leaders  unite  to  denounce  India-China  deal  on  Lipulekh. The Kathmandu   Post.https://kathmandupost.com/politics/2025/08/22/nepal-leaders-unite-to-denounce-india-china-deal-on-lipulekh. Kumar, J. (2024). India-Nepal border disputes & the Kalapani issue.

 Vivekananda International Foundation. https://www.vifindia.org/print/13197. Thakur, H.K.& Kumar, R. (2022).

 Rivers, geostrategy and state sovereignty: Understanding the Kalapani dispute and its geopolitical implications for India and Nepal. Kurdish Studies. Volume. 10. Issue No. 1. 204-212. Kumar, R. & Thakur, H.K. (2024).

 The Kalpani River dispute: a strategic and diplomatic conundrum for India and Nepal. International Journal of Applied Social Science. Volume 11 (11 & 12). 596-604. Nayak,  Sohini.  (2020). 

 India and  Nepal’s  Kalapani border dispute: An explainer. ORF  issue brief.  Issue   No.   356.   Observer   Research   Foundation.   https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/posts/pdf/20230524163856