Nepal Also Encroaches on Indian Territory? Examining the Evidence Behind Balen Shah's Claim
When Nepal Prime Minister Balen Shah stated in Parliament:
"भारतले नेपालको जग्गा मात्र हैन, नेपालले पनि भारतको जग्गा धेरै ठाउँमा मिचेको रहेछ। एउटा साथीको रूपमा समाधान गर्ने चाहिँ हामीले सोचिराखेका छौँ।"
the statement immediately triggered controversy.
For decades, Nepalis have primarily heard about Indian encroachment into Nepali territory—whether in Kalapani, Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, Susta, or numerous other disputed areas along the Nepal–India border. Hearing a Nepali Prime Minister publicly acknowledge that Nepal may also be occupying Indian land surprised many observers.
Some argued that the statement weakened Nepal's diplomatic position. Others viewed it as an honest acknowledgment of a complicated reality.
But was Balen Shah's statement actually supported by evidence?
The available evidence suggests that it was.
The Nepal–India Border Is More Complex Than Most People Realize
The Nepal–India border stretches nearly 1,880 kilometers and passes through rivers, forests, farmland, villages, and densely populated settlements.
This creates several recurring problems:
Rivers frequently change course after floods.
Boundary pillars are damaged, displaced, or disappear.
Communities continue cultivating ancestral land regardless of technical border lines.
The open border allows movement and settlement across the frontier.
As a result, many border disputes are not simple cases of one government deliberately occupying another country's territory. Instead, they often involve decades of cross-border land use, unclear demarcation, and conflicting interpretations of maps and treaties.
Evidence From Nepal's Own Border Studies
One of the strongest pieces of evidence comes from findings reported by Kantipur in 2021 based on information connected to Nepal–India boundary studies.
According to the report:
Indian citizens were using land on the Nepali side in 668 locations.
Nepali citizens were using land on the Indian side in 274 locations.
The report specifically stated that Nepalis were engaged in farming and land use on territory that official boundary records classified as being inside India.
These cases were categorized as "cross-border occupation" or "cross-border holding."
Importantly, these findings were linked to ongoing work conducted by Nepal–India boundary mechanisms and survey authorities rather than political activists or social media claims.
Officials involved in border management acknowledged that people from both countries had crossed into the other side and were cultivating or occupying land there.
This provides substantial evidence supporting the factual basis of Balen Shah's statement.
River Borders Create Disputes in Both Directions
A major reason for border disputes is that many sections of the Nepal–India boundary follow rivers.
When rivers change their course, land that once appeared on one side may later appear on the other.
This issue is particularly visible in:
Susta
Kailali's Mohana River region
Kanchanpur
Parts of the Mahakali and Gandak river systems
In such situations, local residents often continue using the same land regardless of how the river moves.
As a result, allegations of encroachment can emerge from both sides depending on which maps, river channels, or legal principles are used.
This is why many experts describe these cases as border-management disputes rather than straightforward territorial grabs.
The Susta Example
Susta remains one of the most disputed sections of the Nepal–India border.
Nepal argues that changes in the Gandak River's course allowed India to occupy territory that legally belongs to Nepal.
However, Indian media and local officials have also periodically alleged that Nepal exercises administrative control over areas India considers its own.
A report by Dainik Bhaskar claimed that Nepal had established roads, schools, public services, settlements, and police presence in areas claimed by India.
Whether one accepts the Indian claim or not is a separate issue.
What matters is that accusations of cross-border occupation have existed in both directions.
Nepal's Major Claims Against India Remain Unchanged
Acknowledging cross-border occupation by some Nepalis does not weaken Nepal's major territorial claims.
Several disputes remain highly significant:
Kalapani–Lipulekh–Limpiyadhura
Nepal argues that the origin of the Kali River lies at Limpiyadhura, making the disputed region part of Nepal under the Treaty of Sugauli.
India maintains a different interpretation and continues administrative control over the area.
Susta
Nepal argues that changes in the Gandak River's course should not alter the international boundary.
Other Border Disputes
Border disputes also exist in:
Kanchanpur
Kailali
Bardiya
Kapilvastu
Rupandehi
Chitwan
Parsa
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Morang
Jhapa
Ilam
Panchthar
Taplejung
These involve missing pillars, river shifts, dams, embankments, settlements, and conflicting interpretations of historical maps.
Was Balen Shah Making a Diplomatic Mistake?
Whether Balen's statement was diplomatically wise is a separate question from whether it was factually accurate.
Traditionally, governments avoid publicly highlighting facts that could weaken their negotiating position.
Critics argue that acknowledging Nepali occupation across the border gives India additional arguments during future negotiations.
Supporters argue that recognizing reality increases credibility and encourages more honest discussion of border management problems.
Reasonable people can disagree on the diplomatic implications.
However, the factual basis for the statement appears difficult to dismiss.
Conclusion
The evidence does not support the simplistic narrative that border encroachment occurs in only one direction.
Official reports, boundary studies, and statements from officials indicate that:
Indian citizens use land on the Nepali side in hundreds of locations.
Nepali citizens use land on the Indian side in hundreds of locations.
River shifts, missing pillars, historical landholdings, and weak border management contribute to these situations.
Major disputes such as Kalapani and Susta remain unresolved.
Therefore, Balen Shah's statement was not invented or unsupported.
The available evidence suggests that some form of Nepali cross-border occupation exists, just as Indian cross-border occupation exists.
The Nepal–India border issue is ultimately not a one-directional story of encroachment.
It is a complex border-management issue shaped by geography, history, river systems, administration, and competing interpretations of sovereignty.
Understanding that complexity is essential if lasting solutions are ever to be found.
References
Parliamentary statement by Prime Minister Balen Shah.
Kantipur (2021): Cross-Border Occupation Findings.
https://ekantipur.com/news/2021/03/21/161628972658557122.htmlNagarik News (2019): Dasgaja Encroachment Issues.
https://nagariknews.nagariknetwork.com/politics/197486-1575337140.htmlDainik Bhaskar (2018): Susta Dispute and Indian Claims.
https://www.bhaskar.com/news/nepal-occupies-thousands-acres-of-land-in-india-near-bihar-border-5937538.htmlTreaty of Sugauli (1816).
Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, Border Management of Nepal.
Surya Nath Upadhyaya, writings and interviews on Nepal–India border management and the Fixed Boundary Principle.
.png)
.png)
.png)
0 Comments