Nepal Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli on Saturday conveyed to Chinese President Xi Jinping that Lipulekh is Nepali territory, in the first such assertion by a Nepali leader before the Chinese President since 2015. Mr. Oli, who was on a five-day visit to China to participate in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, also held bilateral talks with Mr. Xi in Tianjin in China on Saturday.
A statement issued by the Embassy of Nepal in Beijing said: “Referring to the recent understanding reached between India and China on border trade through the Lipulekh Pass, Prime Minister Oli stated that the territory belongs to Nepal and that the Government of Nepal has registered its strong objection to the same.”
A recent deal between India and China on August 19, during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to New Delhi to reopen Lipulekh as a bilateral trade route, had sparked widespread opposition in Nepal.
India has historically claimed Lipulekh, along with Limpiyadhura and Kalapani, as its own. However, in 2020, Nepal published a map to lay claim to the territory.
Nepal’s statement has no mention of the Chinese response. A statement regarding the Oli-Xi meeting by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also silent on the matter.
Nepal Foreign Secretary Amrit Bahadur Rai, however, told the media that Mr. Xi, in his response, said: “Lipulekh is a traditional border pass, and an agreement has been made to operate it accordingly. China respects Nepal’s claim, but since the border dispute is a bilateral issue [between India and Nepal], it is something for the two sides to resolve.”
Mr. Xi’s response clearly seems to align with China’s standard policy, as its map released in 2023 also did not acknowledge the new Nepali map — which was viewed in Kathmandu as Beijing’s reluctance to accept Nepal’s claim, or tacit support for India’s traditional claims.
Nepali foreign policy watchers say the development is more likely to complicate the border issue than to resolve it.
Anurag Acharya, Director at Policy Entrepreneurs Inc, a Kathmandu-based think tank, says the visit has now become controversial because the Nepal Embassy in Beijing stated that Mr. Oli, during his meeting with Xi, expressed “strong objection” to the China-India deal to resume trade via the Lipulekh pass.
“This will undoubtedly have consequences for future dialogue between Nepal and India on the disputed territory, and possibly create further tensions in bilateral ties,” Mr. Acharya told The Hindu.
Both Nepal and India have expressed willingness to resolve border issues, but with differing framing.
After the August 19 deal, Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the next day: “…the government of Nepal remains committed to resolving the boundary issue between the two countries through diplomatic means, based on historical treaties and agreements, facts, maps and evidence.”
Delhi reacted the same day, saying India remains open to “constructive interaction” with Nepal on the agreed-upon outstanding boundary issues through dialogue and diplomacy. Nepal’s territorial claims, India said, are “neither justified nor based on historical facts and evidence.”
Chandra Dev Bhatta, a Kathmandu-based political scientist, says the crux of the problem is how to find the door to dialogue.
“Nepal’s decision to publish the map and incorporate it in the constitution gives Delhi enough room to argue that the door has been closed,” said Mr. Bhatta. “And now, by raising the issue before the highest leadership of China — which says it’s not a party to that dispute — Nepal seems to have complicated the matter further, deliberately or inadvertently.”
Earlier in June, India and China had also agreed to resume the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra via Lipulekh. In 2015, Nepal’s two neighbours had signed an agreement for trade via Lipulekh. The then-government in Kathmandu, led by the Nepali Congress’s Sushil Koirala, had sent diplomatic notes to both Delhi and Beijing. This time too, Kathmandu sent notes to both of its neighbours, according to Foreign Ministry officials. The Ministry, however, has not made any formal announcement in that regard.
Sanjay Upadhya, a U.S.-based Nepali author, said that Mr. Xi reiterated Beijing’s traditional affirmation that China has always supported Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
While preparing the press releases, both sides agreed to omit any reference to an issue that could affect — and even worsen — ties with India, according to him.
“As our Foreign Ministry took a calculated backseat in public, Nepal secured the ‘concession’ to allow its embassy in Beijing to issue a press release mentioning the Lipulekh issue, with our Foreign Secretary elaborating on the discussions between Mr. Oli and Mr. Xi, targeting a Nepali audience,” said Mr. Upadhya, the author of the book Backfire in Nepal: How India Lost the Plot to China.
Shifting sands
Though Mr. Oli was expected to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi in China, it did not materialise. There is growing pressure in Nepal for Mr. Oli to raise the Lipulekh issue just as strongly with the Indian leadership during his upcoming visit to Bodh Gaya.
Mr. Oli is set to visit India but the date has not been finalised yet.
Mr. Oli’s relations with Delhi have not been smooth, largely due to his ultranationalist stance rooted in anti-India sentiment, coupled with a perceived tilt towards the north.
But lately, the sands are shifting. In light of setbacks in the neighbourhood — vis-à-vis Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives — and the United States’ recent harsh tariff moves, New Delhi seems to be making a renewed push for its ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy.
The invitation handed over to Mr. Oli personally by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri in Kathmandu was seen as a sign of the importance Delhi attaches to Nepal.
Mr. Oli’s visit to China — his second within a year — happened against this backdrop.
Mr. Acharya says Mr. Oli’s participation in the SCO is a significant development for Nepal, as this is probably the first time a government head has participated in the event.
“This could be good for Nepal’s future aspirations to become an observer and eventually a member state,” he said.
But regarding the boundary issue, Mr. Acharya adds that while Nepal is right to register its objection with the Chinese side, discretion should have been exercised on diplomatically sensitive matters.
“This public statement from the government will only complicate future dialogue with India on boundary disputes and put unnecessary stress on the committee that is tasked with negotiating the issue,” he said.
Oli’s foreign policy balance
The Chinese statement noting that Mr. Oli said “Nepal supports the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative (GSI) and the Global Civilization Initiative proposed by China” has further perplexed some experts. Mr. Oli also attended the Chinese Victory Parade in Beijing on Wednesday. Nepal, currently a dialogue partner, is seeking observer status in the SCO.
Experts say Nepal’s efforts to seek observer status in the SCO, Mr. Oli’s nod to participate in the Beijing Victory Parade, and his support for the GSI create a larger diplomatic picture that suggests a tilt towards China.
According to Mr. Bhatta, Nepal’s diplomacy is on a tightrope — and in such times, the simultaneous nature of such moves could lead to increased concerns from India, the U.S., and other global partners about Nepal’s alignment.
The GSI, proposed by Xi, does not explicitly emphasise military action, but it does contain security components. There are concerns that participation in this could increase Chinese influence in Nepal’s security and political spheres. This could, some say, lead to increased dependency on China, as Nepal may be drawn into long-term commitments — both economically, via the Belt and Road Initiative, and politically, via security agreements.
“The shift in alignment might help Nepal secure economic and security cooperation with the north, but it could backfire if Nepal fails to maintain its traditional balance in regional and global politics,” Mr. Bhatta said.
This raises the question: at a time when Nepal faces immense challenges in navigating shifting dynamics, is raising the border issue with the leadership of a country that has minimal involvement a wise move — or a strategic misjudgment?
“After all, India has physically controlled the Kalapani region and the Lipulekh pass for many decades,” Mr. Acharya said. “And Nepal is in no position to challenge it without engaging [India] diplomatically.”
(Sanjeev Satgainya is a journalist based in Kathmandu.)
