Every statement of the Prime Minister reflects the common beliefs and understanding of the country. Especially when the Prime Minister is speaking on global values ​​and bilateral relations, he is expected to continue the stance that the country has been taking.

Even if an attempt is made to walk in a new path and style, it is necessary to be clever in presenting the legacy and future strategy together. On Sunday, Prime Minister Balendra Shah made an unexpected statement in the House of Representatives – ‘You may be surprised by one thing, I also came to know after becoming Prime Minister yesterday that not only India has encroached on Nepal’s land, but Nepal has also encroached on India’s land in many places.’

His statement is contrary to the understanding and advocacy of the Nepalese government and Nepali citizens. Such a statement will also establish the image of Nepal as a ‘land grabber’. It will further weaken the efforts to bring back Nepali land that has been deliberately encroached and encroached on, mainly by the Indian side. Therefore, the Prime Minister should either confirm his statement and tell the Nepali people the truth, or make it more clear in a public manner.

Prime Minister Shah, who arrived at the House of Representatives for a question-and-answer program, had said that he had sent a 'diplomatic note' to India regarding the Nepali land Limpiyadhura-Lipulek-Kalapani that India has been using and enjoying and that a reply had also been received. In response, he informed that both governments would resolve the issue through table talks by having their historians, surveyors, and people who have knowledge of their land.

He also informed that he had spoken to the English government. He said, 'We have spoken to not only India and China but also the English government regarding this. Since the problem they are leaving British India is still happening to us, it is our belief that England should also be concerned about it.' He informed that all issues would be resolved through table talks and diplomatic means. Although trying to connect England could have created discomfort in bilateral relations, the Prime Minister's statements were generally informative and restrained.

But later, after becoming Prime Minister, he said that India had encroached on not only Nepal's land, but also Nepal's land in many places. What the Prime Minister said while standing on the rostrum of the Parliament, going beyond the expected answer to the MP's question, reveals his weak diplomatic understanding.

The ease and openness of Nepal-India relations due to the close and open border is also as complex as the ease and openness. The relationship between the people of the two countries is described as a 'bread-daughter relationship'. There is a presence of people from both countries in many border areas. In some places, in terms of farming or movement, there is no feeling of a different country.

Even if the political map shows a specific area as Nepal or India, it is not found to be a matter of controversy or prestige due to the history of settlement and bilateral relations. This issue is basically related to cross-border land occupation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also stated that ‘due to the adoption of the principle of fixed border in the river border area while determining the Nepal-India border, there is a situation of cross-border occupation where citizens of one country are farming and settling in the land falling within the territory of the other country.’

The problem arose from not adopting a scientific system to demarcate the border line in the beginning, from continuing the practice of open borders, and from changing the course of rivers and streams. This is a problem that arose in the course of practice, not a problem that arose due to the intention and strategy of the Nepal or Indian governments. ‘Cross-border occupation’ persists till date because it was not considered a significant problem.

Another issue is serious. The Indian side has occupied Nepali land that was determined and clarified by the Sugauli Treaty. A strong reference to this is the Limpiyadhura-Lipulek-Kalapani area. According to the Sugauli Treaty, the land east of Kali (Mahakali) belongs to Nepal. The source of Kali is Limpiyadhura. Therefore, the land east of Limpiyadhura belongs to Nepal. But there is a presence of Indian soldiers in Kalapani. Due to which the Limpiyadhura-Lipulek-Kalapani area has come under Indian occupation. It is under its administrative control. And, in recent years, India has also intensified the work of reaching an agreement with China and building structures regarding the use of the same land of Nepal.

The Nepal government had recently sent a 'diplomatic note' after it resumed the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra through the Lipulekh pass. Earlier, the federal parliament had also updated the map of Nepal by including the land there. On Sunday, members of parliament had asked a question in parliament about the presence of the Nepal government in the same land of Nepal. In which the Prime Minister conveyed an opinion that was irrelevant to the question.

As Prime Minister, Shah on Sunday linked the serious problem related to the Limpiyadhura-Lipulekh-Kalapani area being occupied by the Indian side with the general and practical problem related to the rights of occupation seen in the border area. The Indian side's occupation of Nepali land is intentional and has a political and strategic objective. And, this is its central policy. But the problem related to the rights of occupation in any specific place in the border area is not the central policy of either country, there is no political objective and strategy hidden there. It is basically a local problem between the citizens of the two countries.