India rejects Nepal's lower House passing amendment to change map, says artificial enlargement of claims not tenable
Jun 13, 2020
New Delhi [India], June 13 : India said on Saturday said that it had noted Nepal's House of Representatives passing a constitution amendment bill for changing map of Nepal to include parts of Indian territory and the artificial enlargement of claims "is not based on historical fact" and is not tenable.
External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava also said that the move is violative of the current understanding to hold talks on outstanding boundary issues.
He was answering a query about Nepal's lower house of Parliament on Saturday passing an amendment to include a new map incorporating Indian areas of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura in the Constitution of the country.
Srivastava said the government has already made its position clear in the matter.
"We have noted that the House of Representatives of Nepal has passed a constitution amendment bill for changing the map of Nepal to include parts of Indian territory. We have already made our position clear on this matter," the spokesperson said.
"This artificial enlargement of claims is not based on historical fact or evidence and is not tenable. It is also violative of our current understanding to hold talks on outstanding boundary issues," he added.
Nepal's House of Representatives had on June 10 endorsed a proposal seeking consideration of a constitution amendment bill for change of country's map after a lengthy discussion. The amendment in the schedule is related to an Article concerning coat-of-arms of Nepal.
Nepal has made offers to India to hold "diplomatic talks to resolve the territorial issue" between the two countries.
India has said earlier this week that has made its position clear on these issues and deeply values its civilisation, cultural and friendly relations with Nepal.
After Nepal released the new political map last month, India had said such artificial enlargement of territorial claims will not be acceptable to it and noted that the "unilateral act is not based on historical facts and evidence".
