Nepal ruling party chief's India visit begins as Kathmandu protests Balen's ‘encroached’ remark

Rabi Lamichhane, chief of Nepal's ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), arrived in New Delhi on Monday for talks with senior BJP leaders even as street protests erupted in Kathmandu and opposition parties disrupted Parliament over PM Balendra ‘Balen’ Shah’s remark that Nepal had “also encroached on India’s land”. Protesters gathered near Parliament and key junctions in Kathmandu, demanding that Shah withdraw the statement and apologise, while opposition MPs said the remark "weakened" Nepal’s claim over Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura.

The controversy comes against a backdrop of growing irritants in India-Nepal relations. Nepal’s stricter customs enforcement on goods brought from Indian markets has triggered protests in border towns and affected local trade. Debate has also intensified after Uttarakhand high court sought clarification on whether Nepali citizens enjoy unrestricted rights to settle and buy property in India under the 1950 India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Reports of anti-encroachment drives near sections of the India-Nepal border have added to the unease.





Lamichhane leads a three-member RSP delegation on BJP’s invitation for party-to-party talks at a crucial juncture. The five-day visit is being seen as the most significant political outreach by Nepal’s ruling establishment to New Delhi since Shah took office. Lamichhane is scheduled to hold strategic meetings with BJP leaders, including BJP national president Nitin Nabin, to exchange views on democratic processes, governance and political outreach.

High-level diplomatic meetings were also being explored with PM Narendra Modi, external affairs minister S Jaishankar and national security advisor Ajit Doval. The delegation is expected to interact with members of the Nepali diaspora in India and will visit Ayodhya before returning to Kathmandu on June 5.

BJP’s foreign affairs in-charge Vijay Chauthaiwale said the visit was aimed at opening a regular political channel with RSP. “BJP is seeking to establish a regular channel of communication with RSP,” he said. “This is new for us too, but we are hopeful that it will set up a kind of regular dialogue between the two parties.”

Back home in Nepal, Shah had told Parliament on Sunday, “After becoming PM, I came to know that not only has India encroached on Nepal’s land, but Nepal has also encroached on India’s land in multiple places.” He added, “Both sides need to sit down and look into the matter.” Shah said the dispute should be resolved through dialogue, diplomacy and technical consultations involving historians, surveyors and border experts.

Govt insiders in Kathmandu said Shah’s remark stemmed from technical briefings on unresolved border issues rather than any attempt to alter Nepal’s territorial claims. “The PM was referring to local-level cross-border occupation, not a formal Nepali claim over Indian territory,” a senior foreign ministry official said. “In several places along the open border, especially in no-man’s-land and riverine stretches, people from one side may be cultivating or occupying land that technically falls on the other side because boundary pillars are missing, damaged or river courses have shifted.”

Opposition lawmakers called the statement “anti-national” and demanded proof. Nepali Congress general secretary Bishwa Prakash Sharma asked, “What is RSP’s stance on this issue? Are we the ones encroaching on someone else’s territory, or are we the victims of encroachment?”

Former Nepal ambassador to India Nilamber Acharya also criticised the PM’s remarks. “Nepal has not encroached on Indian land,” he said, adding that Nepal govt, as a state, had never occupied Indian territory.

Another former envoy to India, Deep Kumar Upadhyay, questioned the basis of the PM’s claim. “Nepal encroaching India’s territory is not there in any record,” he said. “Border disputes should be handled through historical documents, maps and diplomatic mechanisms, not through statements that create confusion about Nepal’s established position.”

Facing mounting criticism, foreign ministry officials sought to contain the fallout by clarifying that Shah’s remarks referred to cross-border occupation and unresolved demarcation issues along the open border, not a change in Nepal’s official stance. Officials reiterated that Kathmandu’s claim over Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura remained unchanged.