Nepal Clarifies PM Balendra Shah’s Border Remarks as Debate Over No Man’s Land Heats Up

Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has moved to clarify Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s recent remarks in Parliament, saying his comments were aimed at the issue of cross-border occupation and encroachment in No Man’s Land, also known as Dashgaja, along the Nepal-India border.

The ministry reaffirmed that Nepal’s international boundary is defined by the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, while noting that mapping and related technical work still need to be finalized in sensitive border areas including Susta, Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani.

What the ministry said

According to the Foreign Ministry, the prime minister’s statement should be understood in the context of border management and unresolved disputes over encroachment in Dashgaja zones, rather than as a claim that Nepal’s treaty-based boundary is uncertain.

The clarification is important because border language in Nepal-India relations is politically sensitive and often triggers debate at both the diplomatic and domestic levels.

Why the statement matters

By invoking the Treaty of Sugauli, the ministry underscored Nepal’s longstanding position that the country’s international boundary has a historical and legal basis dating back more than two centuries.

At the same time, the acknowledgment that mapping remains unfinished in areas such as Susta, Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani shows that border administration and documentation remain contested and incomplete in practice.

Political and diplomatic context

The clarification comes at a time when attention on Prime Minister Shah remains intense in Parliament, where opposition lawmakers have already been vocal over his conduct and presence in the House.

That broader political pressure has made every major statement from the prime minister more consequential, especially when it touches on national sovereignty and foreign policy.

What happens next

The ministry’s statement appears designed to reduce ambiguity and prevent the border issue from being misread as a shift in Nepal’s official position.

Even so, the underlying questions around encroachment, cartographic alignment, and disputed frontier areas are likely to remain part of Nepal’s diplomatic and political agenda.