A 210-year-old sugauli treaty that remains central to Nepal’s territorial claims against India has returned to the spotlight after the Nepalese government acknowledged that it cannot definitively establish whether the original document is in its possession.
The development has added a fresh and potentially sensitive dimension to the long-running India-Nepal border dispute, particularly over Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura. Nepal has historically cited the 1816 Sugauli Treaty to support its claim over the disputed Himalayan areas, while India maintains that the territories are part of Uttarakhand.
Nepal unable to locate original Sugauli Treaty
Nepal’s Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal recently told the House of Representatives that the government did not have clear information about whether it possessed the original Sugauli Treaty.
According to the parliamentary statement, Nepal has records connected to the 1816 treaty in its archives, but officials have not been able to confirm whether those documents are the authentic originals.
The issue is not new. A parliamentary investigation previously examined government archives, libraries, museums and other repositories in an effort to locate the original treaty. The search reportedly included the National Archives, the Department of Archaeology, Narayanhiti Palace Museum, and Nepal’s ministries dealing with foreign affairs and law.
Despite the extensive search, the original treaty papers could not be conclusively located.
Why the 1816 Sugauli Treaty matters
The Treaty of Sugauli followed the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-16 and established the territorial framework between Nepal and British India. It was signed in December 1815 and ratified in March 1816.
Its relevance to the present dispute comes largely from Article 5, which established the Kali River as the western boundary of Nepal. The unresolved question is where exactly the Kali, also known as the Mahakali, River begins.
Nepal argues that the river originates at Limpiyadhura. Under that interpretation, the areas of Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh would fall on the Nepalese side of the boundary.
India disputes that interpretation. New Delhi’s position is that the Kali originates from springs below the Lipulekh region and that Kalapani has historically been administered as part of the Indian territory that is now Uttarakhand. Both countries have relied on historical maps, administrative records and other documents to support their respective positions.
Missing original does not automatically settle border claims
The disappearance or uncertain status of the original treaty does not, by itself, determine ownership of the disputed territory.
The border question involves more than one historical document. Maps, administrative records, surveys, revenue documents and subsequent agreements also form part of the historical and legal arguments presented by both sides.
A major complication is that the Sugauli Treaty did not explicitly identify Limpiyadhura as the source of the Kali River. Nor is there a mutually authenticated map attached to the treaty that definitively establishes the river’s source in the manner claimed by Nepal.
This has allowed the disagreement to persist for generations.
Balen Shah’s remarks add another political twist
The latest controversy comes months after Nepal Prime Minister Balen Shah made remarks in Parliament acknowledging that Nepal may also have occupied Indian territory in several locations.
Shah said that after taking office, he learned that India was accused of encroaching on Nepalese territory, but Nepal had also encroached on Indian land in multiple places.
His comments triggered political discussion because they appeared to introduce a different dimension to Nepal’s traditionally forceful position on territorial disputes.
Nepal’s Foreign Ministry later clarified that Shah was referring to technical or local cross-border occupations and that Kathmandu’s official position on the disputed territories had not changed.
Lipulekh dispute keeps India-Nepal tensions alive
The border issue gained renewed attention after India and China agreed to reopen trade through the Lipulekh Pass.
Also Read: Air India Phuket-Delhi Flight Faced 9 Alarming Warnings Before Sudden 300 Ft Drop
Nepal objected, reiterating that Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura are integral parts of its territory. The disagreement has also been linked to the route used for the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, making the strategically important Himalayan region a recurring source of diplomatic friction.
The dispute had already intensified in 2020, when Nepal released a revised political map incorporating the three territories. The map was subsequently endorsed through a constitutional amendment.
India rejected Nepal’s move, describing it as an “artificial enlargement” of territorial claims and arguing that the unilateral action was not supported by historical facts and evidence.
A historical dispute with modern geopolitical stakes
The missing treaty papers have therefore become significant not simply because of the age of the document, but because historical evidence remains central to the India-Nepal border dispute.
Both countries share deep cultural, economic and people-to-people ties, including an open border. Yet disagreements over territory have repeatedly tested bilateral relations.
For Nepal, the Sugauli Treaty remains a key reference point for its claims. For India, the interpretation of the Kali River’s source and subsequent historical and administrative records are critical to its position.
With the original treaty still unverified or untraceable, the debate over Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura is unlikely to disappear. Instead, the latest revelation could intensify calls in Nepal for a fresh examination of historical archives and could add another layer to one of South Asia’s longest-running territorial disputes.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel for real-time news updates and exclusive coverage.
