Kalapani, Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura: A Nepal’s Territory

IMAGE CREDIT: BBC

History, Geopolitics, and Law at the Heart of a Himalayan Dispute

Introduction: Three Stones and a Hundred Questions

Let’s start with a simple map, if only it were simple: up in the northwesternmost edge of Nepal lies a jagged triangle of highland known as Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura. At first glance, these places appear as mere blots on a Himalayan atlas- remote, windswept, almost mythical. But in truth, they have become the very epicenter of one of South Asia’s most heated and persistent border disputes, one that pits not just Nepal and India, but, by proximity and strategic necessity, China as well.

Why have less than 400 square kilometers of mountains, glaciers, and tributaries sparked so much passion, protest, and statecraft from Kathmandu to New Delhi and Beijing? Is it really about boundaries... or about something deeper: treaties and colonies, hydrology and trade, nationhood and pride? How can a river’s source determine the fate of a region’s sovereignty?

This blog plunges into that story-a story of power and maps, of rivers that change their course, of treaties signed and disputed, and of a people’s determination to reclaim what they believe is rightfully theirs. And in telling it, we invite you to weigh in: Should international law bend to historical justice? Are treaties that once victimized small nations still binding after political winds have shifted? Does modern geopolitics trump ancient boundaries?

Join the discussion in the comments section below. Let’s chart a course together through history, politics, and law. If you have experiences, scholarly input, or even local insights into the Kalapani region, your voice is essential-just as every tributary counts in tracing the source of the Kali river.

What’s at Stake? The Disputed Region in Focus

The Kalapani-Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura tri-junction spans roughly 335-370 square kilometers, marking the intersection of Nepal’s far west, India’s Uttarakhand state (Pithoragarh district), and the Tibet Autonomous Region of China¹². Its boundaries snake along perilous mountain passes-Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura-at altitudes rising above 17,000 feet.

Why does this small patch of Himalayan land matter so much?

· Strategic Trijunction: The area is a gateway for military and trade routes between India and China; it is also a key pilgrimage trail to Mount Kailash and Lake Mansarovar in Tibet.

· Boundary Integrity and Sovereignty: For Nepal, regaining the territory is about restoring the post-Treaty of Sugauli border-a core question of nationhood and historical justice.

· Resource and Security: Control offers command over water resources (the Kali/Mahakali river), surveillance over highland passes, and thus leverage in India-China unsteady equilibrium².

The Treaty of Sugauli: The Fork in the River

The Treaty That Drew The Line

Signed in December 1815 and ratified in March 1816, the Treaty of Sugauli is the singular legal document at the heart of this dispute³. Nepal, reeling from defeat in the Anglo-Nepalese War, ceded approximately one-third of its territory-including Sikkim, Kumaon, Garhwal, and swathes of the Terai- to the British East India Company. Article V of the treaty declared:

“The Rajah of Nepal renounces for himself, his heirs, and successors, all claim to or connection with the countries lying to the west of the River Kali and engages never to have any concern with those countries or the inhabitants thereof.”

The river Kali was thus set as Nepal's western boundary, but-crucially-neither maps nor survey details were attached to the treaty, sparking historical contest over where the river began⁴³.

(Read the original Treaty for yourself: http://nepaldevelopment.pbworks.com/w/page/34197552/Sughauli%20Treaty%20of%201815%3A%20Full%20Text)

The River Kali: Defining The Boundary

The Core Question: Where Does the Kali Begin?

Nepal’s Perspective:

· The true Kali originates at Limpiyadhura, far northwest of Kalapani and Lipulekh. Old British maps (e.g., 1827, 1856, 1859) and even Qing Dynasty Chinese maps show this: the river is marked “Kali” from Limpiyadhura⁵⁶.

· All land east of this river-including Kalapani, Lipulekh Pass, and Limpiyadhura-is unequivocally Nepali territory as per the original Sugauli boundaries.

India’s Perspective:

· India claims the Kali arises at a smaller stream (Pankhagad) near Kalapani, with the boundary tracing along that channel (or even further east at Lipulekh)⁴².

· Thus, Kalapani and Lipulekh would fall within district boundaries of Uttarakhand, India.

Why The Confusion?

Both Nepal and India rely on different sets of maps-sometimes even produced by the same colonial British cartographers but at different dates, and with contradictory interpretations. Historic records note that colonial surveyors changed the mapping and naming of rivers, often for strategic or administrative convenience⁷. As a result, the very origin of the Kali remains “ambiguous by design,” a cartographic conundrum with very real territorial consequences⁵.

Colonial Map Games and Post-Colonial Realities

Manipulated Maps: The “Cartographic Aggression” Allegation

· 19th Century Maps: Early East India Company and British Survey maps (pre-1860s) consistently label Limpiyadhura as the Kali’s source, placing Kalapani and Lipulekh within Nepal.⁵⁷

· Shifting Lines: By the late 19th-early 20th century, as trading and defense priorities shifted (especially following the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny and the 1860 restitution of territory to Nepal as a British favor), some maps began to move the “Kali’s origin” eastwards, placing Kalapani within British India’s Kumaon district. The switch was neither mutually agreed nor based on local consultation⁷.

· Unilateral Map Changes: After India’s independence, maps issued by the Survey of India (1960s onward) continued to show Kalapani and Lipulekh as within India. Nepal’s own maps, meanwhile, were only formalized into its legal-administrative record much later, and sometimes, due to technical backwardness or Indian influence, adopted Indian map lines⁷⁸.

Indo-Nepal Boundary Commissions

· Joint Boundary Working Group: In the 1980s-2000s, Nepal and India created technical commissions to settle the border. Of 98% of the 1,751 km border, consensus “strip maps” were agreed-except at Kalapani-Limpiyadhura-Lipulekh and Susta⁹.

· Stalemate: Negotiations repeatedly stalled at the northwest trijunction; Nepal maintained the Sugauli line must hold, India insisted on later administrative status quo⁴.

Law, Sovereignty, and the Force of Treaties

The Sugauli Treaty’s Enduring Power... Or Is It?

· Legalists contend: The Sugauli Treaty-signed under duress, but nevertheless an international agreement-is still the definitive document. Its Article V boundary is binding, and no subsequent administrative act (even the British/Indian occupation of Kalapani) can override it; any unjust gain is subject to remedy, especially as international law now frowns upon “unequal treaties”³.

· India’s position: By de facto presence and control since colonial times (and with some reference to a boundary treaty with China in 1961), Kalapani and Lipulekh have been under Indian administration for generations. The Sugauli Treaty lost its significance as local populations and state functions (taxes, police, etc.) have long been exercised by Indian authorities.

· Nepal’s counter: No effective legal “acquiescence”-Nepal never gave up its claim, it just could not enforce it due to weakness. The original intent of the treaty, and the spirit of pacta sunt servanda, must be restored.

International Law and River Boundaries

There’s precedent: when rivers define a boundary, their origin and main channel must be interpreted as per hydrological “main stream” rules-that is, the longest course or channel with the greatest flow, unless explicitly specified otherwise. Multiple international court cases (including Nigeria v. Cameroon, 2002) have endorsed this principle¹⁰.

Maps, unless jointly endorsed as part of a treaty, are secondary evidence-not a primary determinant of state boundaries¹¹¹².

The Preah Vihear Case: Lessons from Cambodia v. Thailand

The International Court of Justice, in its 1962 and 2013 judgments over the Preah Vihear temple on the Cambodia-Thailand border, set an influential precedent:

· Where maps existed but the treaty text was ambiguous, the ICJ examined the original intent, subsequent conduct, and official acceptance of maps (including silence/acquiescence) as decisive¹³.

· Cambodia’s claim succeeded, in large part, because of unbroken assertions of sovereignty and consistent representation in domestic and international arenas-despite Thailand’s longer de facto control and administrative presence.

Could Nepal use a similar argument at the ICJ, or is the centuries-long military and administrative status quo insurmountable?

Modern Legal and Constitutional Assertions

Nepal’s Constitutional and Diplomatic Moves

Facing India’s 2019 publication of a new political map showing the disputed region as Indian, Nepal retorted with a dramatic legal maneuver:

· 2020: Constitutional Map Amendment
A constitutional amendment unanimously passed by both houses of the Nepali Parliament updated Nepal’s official map and national emblem, incorporating Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani as Nepali territory. This put the claim into Nepal’s legal, administrative, and diplomatic framework in 2020¹⁴¹⁵.

· Repeated Diplomatic Notes
Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent multiple diplomatic notes to India and (when necessary) China, objecting to all activities-especially road construction, border trade, and bilateral agreements-on what it argues is sovereign Nepali land. The Ministry’s statements stress the need for consultation concerning any development or agreement within the disputed area¹⁶¹⁷.

India’s Official Position

· Consistent Rebuttal
India’s Ministry of External Affairs, as recently as August 2025, “firmly dismissed” Nepal’s protests, calling Nepal’s claims “unjustified, untenable, and devoid of historical facts.” India asserts that trade and military presence at Lipulekh and Kalapani are long-standing and that Nepal’s new map is an “artificial enlargement” having no legal or historical basis¹⁸¹⁹.

· Invitation for Dialogue
Despite the tough rhetoric, India repeatedly states its openness to “constructive interaction” to resolve “outstanding boundary issues”-but always bilaterally, and never involving third parties such as China or international courts²⁰.

21st Century Flashpoint: India-China Trade via Lipulekh

2015 and 2025: The India-China Trade Agreements

· 2015: India and China agreed to expand border trade through Lipulekh, as noted in their joint communiqué. Nepal protested, sending formal notes of objection to both India and China for “ignoring Nepal’s territorial claims.” This was seen as a direct violation of Nepal’s sovereignty and the spirit of the Sugauli Treaty by Nepalese leaders²¹.

· 2025: Following a thaw in India-China tensions after the Galwan Valley clash, both nations agreed again (in August 2025) to reopen border trade through Lipulekh, Shipki La, and Nathu La. Nepal once again protested, issuing statements and diplomatic notes, reiterating that Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Limpiyadhura are integral parts of Nepal as inscribed in the national constitution and map¹⁶¹⁷.

India’s Response

India claims that border trade through Lipulekh Pass has been ongoing since 1954, interrupted occasionally by external crises, and that Nepal’s claims lack “any historical basis.” India considers this a mutually agreed practice with China, not a matter requiring Nepal’s involvement¹⁹²².

China’s Position

Tangential and non-committal: China, pressed for comment, frames the matter as “a bilateral issue between Nepal and India,” and refrains from intervening or validating either side’s claim⁵.

Hydrology and the Mainstream Dilemma

What Does Science Say about the Kali?

· The widely accepted hydrological principle-used in international river boundary disputes globally-is that the main stem of a river is the channel with the longest length and the greatest flow at the point of bifurcation¹⁰.

· Remote sensing, GIS mapping, and new field studies have repeatedly concluded: the river emerging from Limpiyadhura not only has the greatest length but also the dominant discharge as confirmed by 19th-century British maps and records⁷⁵.

· At the confluence near Gunji, the Kali’s Limpiyadhura branch substantially exceeds the “Pankhagad” or “Lipulekh” branches in all measurable parameters.

Thus, by international hydrological standards and historical mapping, Nepal’s claim on the basis of the Sugauli Treaty is scientifically robust.

Geopolitics and the Himalayan Great Game

Why is the Area so Strategic?

Military/Security

· The Kalapani-Lipulekh region is a high-altitude wedge between India, Nepal, and China (Tibet), offering commanding access to Tibet, early warning of Chinese movements, and rapid deployment for the Indian Army, which has had a military base at Kalapani since the 1962 Sino-Indian war⁵¹.

Trade and Pilgrimage

· Pilgrims from India use the route via Lipulekh to reach Kailash Mansarovar (Tibet/China), with a road now connecting Dharchula (India) directly to Lipulekh since May 2020².

· China, through the Belt and Road Initiative and increased cross-border infrastructure, eyes these Himalayan passes as vital connecting arteries in trans-Himalayan logistics.

Diplomatic Leverage

· For Nepal, assertion of sovereignty in this “buffer” territory between two Asia giants is about more than borders: it’s about national pride, diplomatic leverage with both Beijing and Delhi, and resisting any further encroachment on Nepali territory⁸.

Grassroots, National, and Media Perspectives

How Do People in Nepal and India See the Issue?

In Nepal:

· There is national unity, rare for Nepali politics, behind the claim-across party lines. Protests erupt after every Indian move in the area; “cartographic aggression” is a common headline⁸²³.

· Civil society and intelligentsia see regaining these lands as a form of historical justice, especially after an “unequal” colonial treaty.

· Media, academia, and local authorities in Darchula (Byas rural municipality) cite land records, tax receipts, and population census data from 1962 as proof that areas like Gunji, Nabi, and Kuti were once Nepali-administered²⁴.

In India:

· The dispute is often seen as a minor border technicality, with mainstream discussion framing Nepal’s assertion as “artificial enlargement” or, at times, “Chinese instigation” threatening Indian security at the Himalayan frontier⁸.

· Political and military establishments stress the “status quo” and the dangers of altering border arrangements in sensitive areas.

The Case for Reclaiming Kalapani: Violation of the Sugauli Treaty?

The Nationalist and Restorative Perspective

Nepali historical and legal scholars argue that:

· The Sugauli Treaty, though “unequal," set a river boundary that has been systematically violated by both colonial and postcolonial powers, from British India to independent India.

· This violation, compounded by the absence of a jointly agreed map and by unilateral cartographic manipulations, opens space for Nepal to claim restitution-drawing inspiration from Hong Kong’s return from Britain to China, and Macao’s from Portugal³.

· The Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950) and its own provisions annul all prior treaties and agreements at odds with Nepali sovereignty³.

· International law acknowledges that territories gained through “cartographic aggression” (illegal map manipulations unsupported by on-ground control or mutual agreement) can be returned to their rightful sovereign given evidence and diplomatic will¹¹.

Comparative International Experience: When Rivers Move Maps

The Kalapani-Lipulekh question is not unique:

· Countless international disputes arise from changing river courses (Susta, Mechi, the Danube, Rio Grande). In nearly all instances, international courts favour the original treaty boundary, corrected for hydrological fact, unless otherwise mutually agreed.

· The Nigerian-Cameroon case at the ICJ (Bakassi Peninsula, 2002) and the Preah Vihear judgment (1962) have validated historic treaties and original intent over shifting administrative maps and de facto presence¹¹.

Political Realities and the Path Forward

Can “Quiet Diplomacy” Succeed?

Many seasoned analysts caution that:

· Given the overwhelming strategic importance assigned by India to the area, and China’s reluctance to intervene, Nepal is unlikely to recover the territory by aggressive confrontational diplomacy or international judicialization⁴.

· The best hope lies in generating broad Indian public sympathy for the Nepali claim (as occurred momentarily in 2020-21), and in using bilateral diplomatic channels, supported by evidence, to press for recognition, or at a minimum, for shared administration and demilitarization.

Stakes for the Region

· Failing a peaceful settlement, the dispute will provide fodder for external actors to exacerbate South Asia’s already fraught geopolitical climate.

· For Nepal, the risk is of further “salami slicing” by larger neighbours if it cannot muster the will and unity to press its case.

Links:

Have you or your family lived or travelled in the disputed region? What do you think international law should prioritize: history or present-day realities?

· Share your thoughts and stories in the comments below.

· If you found this article insightful, subscribe for more in-depth Himalayan and South Asian geopolitics analysis.

· Join our upcoming webinar on South Asian boundary issues-register today for alerts!

Conclusion: History, Justice, and the Making of Borders

The story of Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura is more than a tale of lines on a map. It is about the continuing struggle by small states to reclaim histories rewritten by colonial powers, the challenge of amending international law to the needs of contemporary justice, and the resilience of local communities determined not to let their river’s name, or their nation’s boundary, be stolen by the tide of history.

Whether this region will one day fly Nepal’s flag again, or remain in the shadow of international realpolitik, will depend less on the changing flow of the Kali than on the will, unity, and diplomatic skill of the Nepali people-and the conscience of the region’s larger powers.

What do you think? Should Nepal press its claim, settle for joint administration, or move toward regional integration in the Himalayas? Have your say below. The conversation, and the boundary, continues.

References

1. A view from Kathmandu: Deciphering the Kalapani-Lipulekh conundrum. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/view-kathmandu-deciphering-kalapani-lipulekh-conundrum-66497

2. Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, Kalapani: Trying to understand the dispute. https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/lipulekh-limpiyadhura-kalapani-trying-to-understand-the-dispute/

3. Sugauli Treaty 1816 - History Journal. https://www.historyjournal.net/article/42/2-2-17-612.pdf

4. Limpiyadhura-Kalapani-Lipulekh dispute - The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2020/06/04/limpiyadhura-kalapani-lipulekh-dispute

5. Deciphering the Kalapani-Lipulekh Conundrum - NIICE NEPAL. https://niice.org.np/archives/4795

6. Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani (Nepal) - INSIGHTS IAS .... https://www.insightsonindia.com/2024/05/07/lipulekh-limpiyadhura-and-kalapani-nepal/

7. These 11 maps show how India encroached upon Nepali land. https://english.onlinekhabar.com/these-11-maps-show-how-india-encroached-upon-nepali-land.html

8. Politics and history of Nepal’s Kalapani claim - South Asia Monitor. https://www.southasiamonitor.org/nepal/politics-and-history-nepals-kalapani-claim

9. India-Nepal border dispute: Kalapani and Lipulekh . https://iasbaba.com/2020/06/india-nepal-border-dispute-kalapani-and-lipulekh/

10. 7. RIVER BOUNDARIES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW - Brill. https://brill.com/previewpdf/display/book/9789047433644/Bej.9789004167858.i-504_008.xml

11. Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/45

12. Analysis of the Preah-Vihear Temple Case, Cambodia v/s Thailand ... - IISTE. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JLPG/article/download/21704/21896

14. Nepal parliament unanimously endorses second amendment, map updated. https://thehimalayantimes.com/kathmandu/parliament-unanimously-endorses-second-amendment-updating-nepals-map/

15. Constitution of Nepal (Second Amendment 2077) Bill - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Nepal_%28Second_Amendment_2077%29_Bill

16. Nepal’s Clarification on Lipulekh Agreement - The Territory is an .... https://nepalekhabar.com/2025/08/117271

17. Lipulekh Territorial Dispute: Nepal Asserts Claim Amid India-China .... https://www.oneindia.com/international/lipulekh-territorial-dispute-nepal-india-china-011-7836027.html

18. MEA rejects Nepal’s claims over Lipulekh after India, China restart .... https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-refutes-nepals-objection-over-lipulekh-trade-agreement-with-china/article69957893.ece

19. Nepal stand on trade through Lipulekh not justified: MEA. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/nepal-stand-on-trade-through-lipulekh-not-justified-mea-10201733/

20. India Rejects Nepal’s Objection To Lipulekh Trade, Calls Claims .... https://news.abplive.com/news/india/india-rejects-nepal-s-objection-to-lipulekh-trade-calls-claims-unjustified-and-untenable-1795753

22. India rejects Nepal’s claim over Lipulekh, says border trade with China .... https://kathmandupost.com/national/2025/08/21/india-rejects-nepal-s-claim-over-lipulekh-says-border-trade-with-china-dates-back-to-1954

24. (PDF) Evolution of cartographic aggression by India: A study of .... https://www.academia.edu/43211482/Evolution_of_cartographic_aggression_by_India_A_study_of_Limpiadhura_to_Lipulek

13. Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law: Temple of Preah Vihear Case. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e216?prd=MPIL

21. India, China agree to reopen trade route through Nepal's Lipulekh. https://en.setopati.com/political/165051

23. India’s new political map places disputed territory of Kalapani inside .... https://kathmandupost.com/national-security/2019/11/04/india-s-new-political-map-places-disputed-territory-of-kalapani-inside-its-own-borders

Keywords: Kalapani dispute, Lipulekh Pass, Limpiyadhura, Nepal map update, Treaty of Sugauli, Nepal-India border, India-China trade agreement, Nepali territory claim, Himalayan border disputes, Mahakali river source.

Kalapani, Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura: Mapping the Dispute Over Nepal's Northwest Frontier