Kalapani-Susta Dispute Demands Political-Level Resolution as Technical Talks Stall
The news summary has been reviewed. The visit of Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairman Ravi Lamichhane and Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal to India has placed economic partnership and development diplomacy at the forefront of priorities between the two countries. Former Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Ranjit Rai, has suggested that Nepal and India should immediately initiate talks through a foreign secretary-level mechanism to resolve the border dispute. He emphasized that although there was a delay in submitting the EPG report, both countries urgently need to commence foreign secretary-level discussions to review the 1950 treaty.
Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s comments about the Nepal-India border issue during the House of Representatives session stirred political discussions within Nepal. At that time, RSP Chairman Ravi Lamichhane and Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal were on a visit to India. In an interview regarding this visit, former Indian Ambassador Ranjit Rai stated, “Whenever Nepal holds prime ministerial elections, the first foreign trip traditionally is to India, but this time, RSP Chairman Ravi Lamichhane reached India even before the Prime Minister and received notable honors from Indian institutions.”
The relationship between India and Nepal is unique and holds immense significance from both development and security perspectives. Historically, their relations have been cordial and warm. Typically, after political leadership changes or government transitions, visits occur between the two countries. Given Nepal’s significant political transformation and the emergence of new parties and leaders in power, it is essential to establish a good relationship with the new leadership. From this perspective, RSP Chairman Lamichhane’s visit should be seen positively.
Following the India-China agreement on trade and Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage utilizing the Lipulekh pass, the Kalapani and Susta border disputes between Nepal and India have resurfaced. Should India have resolved these disputes before concluding the agreement with China? Actually, the India-China agreement on trade and pilgrimage via the Lipulekh pass was made decades ago and is not a recent development. India highlights a small disputed area in Kalapani within the border disagreement. In 2020, Nepal incorporated Lipulekh, Lipu Lekh Pass, and Limpiyadhura into its official map, expanding the disputed territory, which India has not acknowledged.
Approximately 98 percent of the Nepal-India border has been settled, with technical-level agreements already signed. The remaining 2 percent can be resolved through political dialogue. Therefore, a meeting of the foreign secretary-level mechanism must be convened immediately. Currently, Nepal’s two-thirds majority government has amended the constitution through what some critics call a false constitutional amendment and ratified a new map; consequently, the parliament is expected to approve any agreement reached through bilateral talks.
Given that the RSP holds a significant majority in parliament, there is no need to play the anti-India nationalist card internally. How will the Indian establishment interpret this? In my personal view, the Indian side has taken this positively. This is evident from the reception and interest shown during the visit.
The visit of RSP Chairman Lamichhane and Foreign Minister Khanal has been deemed fruitful. Two key themes emerged from this visit: first, prioritizing development diplomacy, and second, the expression that “his party is free from old political burdens and biases.”
The Nepal-India relationship will now prioritize economic development. Past political difficulties had hindered economic cooperation, but there is an expectation that these barriers will now be removed.