KATHMANDU, Aug 11: More than two centuries after the Sugauli Treaty reshaped Nepal’s borders, a basic question remains unanswered: Does Nepal still possess the original document?
A similar uncertainty surrounds another crucial document—the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Nepal and India. Despite their significance to Nepal’s modern borders and foreign relations, it remains unclear whether the government possesses the original official copies of either treaty.
The issue resurfaced in Parliament on Monday when Nepali Congress (NC) Whip Nishcal Rai questioned the government about the whereabouts and authenticity of the two historic documents. His question raised concerns that the original copy of the Sugauli Treaty, signed between Nepal and British India in 1816, and the Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed in 1950, may have been lost.
Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal acknowledged the uncertainty, saying the government has documents relating to both treaties in the National Archives but does not have clear information on whether they are the original official documents.
“To my knowledge, we have some documents of the 1816 Treaty and the 1950 Treaty, but the Government does not have clear information on whether we have the official documents of the treaties or not,” Khanal said.
He said the National Archives contains documents related to the treaties, but their status as the formal treaty documents has yet to be established.
Khanal was responding to a verbal question registered by Rai in Parliament on June 22.
Govt uncertain whether it has original copies of Sugauli, 1950...
This is not the first time the government has acknowledged uncertainty over the documents. Former Foreign Minister Dr Narayan Khadka publicly disclosed on November 20, 2021, that Nepal did not possess the original versions of the two historic treaties.
The Center for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS) has also raised concerns over the issue. At a program in Kathmandu, it said the government did not possess the important original documents of the 1816 Treaty and the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty, arguing that their absence reflected weaknesses in the country’s institutional memory.
The issue resurfaced on May 20, 2026, during a meeting of the House of Representatives’ International Relations and Tourism Committee. Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmaker Dhananjay Regmi said he had been unable to access even a copy of the Sugauli Treaty.
For diplomatic analysts, however, the uncertainty is far more serious than a matter of misplaced paperwork.
“This is a serious issue connected to national memory and sovereignty,” a diplomatic analyst said. “This in itself sends the message that the state’s institutional memory is weak and accountability in the process is missing.”
The Sugauli Treaty has long been at the center of debates over Nepal’s territory. Former Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party lawmaker Prem Suwal has repeatedly demanded its annulment, arguing that territories lost under the treaty should be returned to Nepal. He has also criticized what he considers unequal agreements, including the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty and the Mahakali Treaty, for increasing external interference in Nepal.
According to a foreign expert, the Sugauli Treaty provides an important legal basis for determining Nepal’s modern borders. Historical documents of this nature can serve as crucial evidence when Nepal makes diplomatic or legal claims in border disputes involving areas such as Kalapani, Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Susta.
“If the existence of the original documents itself is in doubt, Nepal risks weakening its position in future diplomatic and legal negotiations,” the expert said.
The concern, therefore, goes beyond the loss of “old papers.” The treaties are records of Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial boundaries and international relations. Their preservation is particularly important as Nepal continues to deal with sensitive border issues.
On May 31, Prime Minister Balendra Shah told the House that Nepal was holding talks with the British Government over the Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura disputes with India. He also said Nepal believed the UK government should take an interest in the issue. The original Sugauli Treaty could serve as an important historical reference in such diplomatic efforts.
Experts have called on the government to immediately form a committee of specialists to determine whether the documents preserved in the National Archives are authentic treaty documents.
If the originals cannot be located, they recommend obtaining authenticated copies held in the national archives of the United Kingdom and India through diplomatic channels and preserving them as part of Nepal’s permanent national records.
Experts have also suggested maintaining certified digital copies in multiple secure locations rather than relying on a single physical copy. Such a system would reduce the risk of vital documents being lost through accidents, administrative relocation or other unforeseen circumstances.
The frequent relocation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has itself raised concerns about document security. Rai noted that the ministry had moved from the President’s Office to the Narayanhiti Palace Museum premises and later to the Ministry of Finance premises.
“The Ministry continuously moving like this has caused important documents to be misplaced. More documents are likely to be lost,” Rai said.
Asked when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would have a permanent building of its own, Minister Khanal said construction would begin in the upcoming fiscal year. The government has allocated Rs 500 million for construction of a permanent office building for the ministry in fiscal year 2026/27, with bidding expected to begin in the coming fiscal year.
Analysts say leaving the historical and legal foundations of Nepal’s identity, borders and sovereignty shrouded in uncertainty would be an injustice to future generations.
The treaties of 1816 and 1950 are not merely files stored in government archives. They are historical records of Nepal’s sovereignty, independence, territorial boundaries and international relations. Preserving, authenticating and making them accessible should be a basic responsibility of the state.
If a state cannot safeguard its own historical records, questions inevitably arise over how effectively it can protect its national interests and defend its territorial claims on the international stage.
Experts therefore argue that the issue should not be dismissed as an old question resurfacing. Instead, they say, it should be treated as an opportunity to strengthen Nepal’s institutional memory—and ultimately its ability to protect its sovereignty.
