Nepal’s government has acknowledged that it cannot confirm whether it possesses the original signed copy of the 1816 Sugauli Treaty, a development that has renewed attention on one of the most important documents in the history of Nepal’s territorial boundaries.
Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal told Nepal’s House of Representatives that government records show that documents relating to historical treaties are held in the National Archives, but officials have been unable to establish whether the original, officially signed treaty is among them. The government has also searched other state offices without locating a definitive original. Recent Nepali reporting indicates that lawmakers have repeatedly raised questions about the whereabouts of the treaty’s original copy.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The issue is not entirely new. In 2019, an investigation into Nepal’s historical treaty records found that the original copies of both the Sugauli Treaty and the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship could not be located in Nepal. At the time, officials said copies and related records were available, but the whereabouts of the original signed documents remained uncertain.
Signed in 1816 following the Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814–1816, the Sugauli Treaty was concluded between the East India Company and the Kingdom of Nepal. It followed Nepal’s territorial expansion and the subsequent conflict with British India. The agreement established territorial arrangements that continue to feature prominently in discussions about Nepal’s historical borders.
The treaty has particular relevance to the modern dispute involving Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura. Nepal maintains claims over these areas, while India maintains that they are part of Indian territory. The disagreement has remained unresolved despite repeated diplomatic engagement.
The dispute gained renewed prominence in 2026 after Nepal Prime Minister Balendra Shah told Parliament that both Nepal and India had areas of alleged cross-border encroachment. He also said the boundary issue should be resolved through diplomatic discussions involving historians, surveyors and other experts.
India, meanwhile, has maintained that the boundary dispute should be handled through existing bilateral mechanisms and has rejected the involvement of third parties.
The missing original treaty does not, by itself, invalidate the historical agreement or automatically determine the modern boundary. Copies, archival records, subsequent agreements, maps, administrative records and other historical evidence can also be relevant when countries examine territorial questions.
The development nevertheless carries symbolic and political significance for Nepal. The Sugauli Treaty remains closely associated with the country’s understanding of its historical territorial boundaries, particularly in debates surrounding the western frontier.
At the same time, Kathmandu has recently emphasized the importance of maintaining constructive relations with both India and China while seeking diplomatic solutions to outstanding issues. Nepal’s current approach therefore appears to combine continued assertion of its territorial position with an effort to avoid allowing the border dispute to overwhelm broader bilateral relations.
With the original document still untraced, the controversy is likely to keep historical records at the centre of Nepal’s wider debate over its borders with India.
