Nepal's New Banknote: A Quiet Rebellion Against India's Overreach

Nepal's central bank on Nov. 27 issued a new Rs 100 depicting a revised map that includes Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura, a territory claimed by both countries. The new 100-rupee note is printed by the China Banknote Printing and Minting Corporation. This move has reignited border disputes with India. 

Nepal and India share a border of around 1,850 kilometres. Sikkim, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand of India border Nepal.

Maha Prasad Adhikari, the former governor, signed the new note from the Nepal Rastra Bank. The bank note's issuing date, 2081 BS, indicates that it was issued in 2024. The NRB stated that the map is already there in the old Rs 100 bank note and it has been revised as per the government's decision. 

India claims that Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura belong to it. In 2024, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar had said that Nepal’s move to include Indian territories in its currency note will not change the situation or the reality on the ground when Nepal had announced printing of 100-rupee note. 

Nepal’s new banknote acts like a mirror. It reflects India’s own habit of drawing maps alone. By updating the map on its currency, Nepal isn’t creating a new problem. It is responding to one India built over years. This changes the usual story. 

What looks like Nepal starting a fight is really it defending itself against a map India made without agreement. India’s quiet reaction says a lot. Beyond some early complaints, it hasn’t responded strongly. That suggests India may be hesitant to face its own past actions. Often, India acts like an overbearing older sibling with its neighbors. It offers help and projects but expects loyalty in return.

Think of the 2015 blockade, when Nepal faced severe fuel shortages amid tensions over its constitution. Or in 2020, when India added the Kalapani area to its official map without talking to Nepal first. Nepal then published its own map. These aren’t just small events. They show an attitude that assumes being bigger means you can decide for others. This attitude goes deeper than borders. 

India sees itself as a benevolent leader in the region. But in Kathmandu, the view is different. Many see a country that redraws lines for its own needs—whether for dams or roads in disputed areas. I recall a talk years ago with a Nepali diplomat in Delhi. Over tea, he said, calmly but wearily, “India treats us like a subordinate, not a partner.” That feeling, common in Nepal, led to this banknote. It’s a quiet but powerful reply—useful, meaningful, and permanent now it’s printed. 

This move shows the weakness in India’s approach to its neighbors. By overlooking Nepal’s historical claims—based on old treaties and maps—India has pushed away a close friend. So Nepal tilts more to China, whose projects offer another option besides India. It’s a cycle: push too hard, and those pushed will find support elsewhere. 

Having freed itself from colonial rule, India sometimes acts with the same superiority it once rejected. Maps are never just lines—they’re statements of power and identity. Nepal’s banknote challenges that. 

India must first embrace humility and  acknowledge that its maps aren't infallible. A joint boundary commission could be revived with genuine intent, treating Nepal as an equal partner. New Delhi should invest in people-to-people diplomacy that can build goodwill. New Delhi can play vital role in assisting Nepal in conducting upcoming election after Gen Z protests that shook Nepal. New Delhi should extend cooperation for uplifting the morale of the private sector of India currently engaged in investments in the Himalayan country. 

India could lead by example in several forums, advocating for fair dispute resolution under international law. Imagine a South Asian compact on borders, modeled after ASEAN's cooperative spirit, where maps are negotiated, not imposed. This would not only mend ties with Nepal but signal to Bhutan, Bangladesh, and others that India's rise benefits all of its neighbours.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi could extend a state visit to Nepal and  focus on economic integration, and accelerate the hydropower projects on mutually agreed terms. Such moves would demonstrate that India values stability over supremacy.

Critics might argue that Nepal's note is indeed provocative, driven by domestic politics. Maps can be weapons in populist arsenals. Yet even if motivated by internal pressures, Nepal's action underscores a valid grievance: India's inaction on talks has left little room for subtlety.

This banknote saga is India's wake-up call to rethink its regional posture and diplomacy. It is time for New Delhi to engage, reflect, and rebuild. For in the Himalayas' shadow, ignoring the winds of change risks an avalanche. Let us hope wisdom prevails before the quiet admission becomes a roar.