Border Disputes between Nepal and India: A Study of Limpiyadhura to Lipulekh

Background: The border disputes between Nepal and India concerning the Limpiyadhura–Kalapani–Lipulekh tri-junction region remains one of the most intractable territorial issues in South Asia. Rooted in the ambiguous wording of the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, which designated the Kali (Mahakali) River as the western boundary of Nepal without specifying its precise source, the controversy has persisted for over two centuries. Nepal maintains that the river originates at Limpiyadhura, thereby incorporating approximately 335 square kilometres of the disputed territory within its sovereign boundaries. India, conversely, identifies the origin near Kalapani and has exercised administrative control over the area since the 1960s. The dispute gained renewed intensity following India’s 2019 political map revision and Nepal’s subsequent constitutional amendment in 2020, which formally included Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh in its national map. Recent developments, including India’s 2025 agreement with China to resume trade and pilgrimage through the Lipulekh Pass without prior consultation with Nepal, have further strained bilateral relations and underscored the strategic sensitivity of the tri-junction with China. Objective: This study provides a comprehensive, secondary-data-based analysis of the historical, legal, socio-economic and geopolitical dimensions of the dispute. Methods: Employing qualitative document analysis of primary treaties, British-era and contemporary maps, official diplomatic records, parliamentary proceedings, scholarly literature and media reports, the research examines the evolution of competing claims, the impact of the unresolved boundary on local border communities, and the broader implications for regional stability. Results: Key findings reveal that the dispute is sustained by divergent interpretations of historical evidence, insufficient bilateral mechanisms for dispute resolution, and the absence of inclusive stakeholder engagement. Conclusion: The study concludes that sustainable resolution requires renewed high-level diplomatic dialogue, reactivation of joint technical commissions, confidence-building measures along the border, and possible third-party facilitation grounded in international law and mutual respect for territorial integrity.