Nepals claim on Lipulekh neither justified nor based on historical facts: MEA
PTI
Last Updated:
New Delhi, Aug 20 (PTI) India on Wednesday categorically rejected Nepal's objection to a decision by New Delhi and Beijing to resume border trade through Lipulekh pass, saying Kathmandu's claims on the territory are not justified.
India and China on Tuesday agreed to resume border trade through Lipulekh pass and two other trading points.
The Nepalese foreign ministry on Wednesday objected to the move to resume border trade through Lipulekh pass saying the territory is an inseparable part of Nepal.
In 2020, Nepal triggered a border row by issuing a political map that showed Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh as part of the country. India had strongly trashed the claims.
External affairs ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal rejected Nepal's territorial claims.
'We have noted the comments of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal related to resumption of border trade between India and China through the Lipulekh pass," he said.
'Our position in this regard has been consistent and clear. Border trade between India and China through Lipulekh pass had commenced in 1954 and has been going on for decades," he added.
Jaiswal said the trade had been disrupted in recent years due to COVID-19 pandemic and other developments, and both sides have now agreed to resume it.
'As regards territorial claims, our position remains that such claims are neither justified nor based on historical facts and evidence. Any unilateral artificial enlargement of territorial claims is untenable," he said.
'India remains open to constructive interaction with Nepal on resolving agreed outstanding boundary issues through dialogue and diplomacy," he added. PTI MPB KVK KVK
view comments
First Published:
August 21, 2025, 00:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Loading comments...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
US Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783 million in medical research grants
A divided US Supreme Court let the Trump administration at least temporarily cut off millions of dollars in medical research grants that government officials say don't align with the president's policies. The administration told the Supreme Court the NIH was being forced to keep paying out $783 million, though the challengers questioned that figure.(AFP) The justices partially put on hold a federal trial judge's decision that the National Institutes of Health acted in an 'arbitrary and capricious' manner when it terminated thousands of grants as part of President Donald Trump's crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion. The decision wasn't a total win for Trump. The justices kept in place a block on NIH guidance documents that bar funding for research connected to DEI, gender-identity, vaccine hesitancy, Covid or climate change. But the court indicated on a 5-4 vote that US District Judge William Young in Boston lacked jurisdiction to order reinstatement of specific grants. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's three liberals in dissent on that issue. The challengers, which include research organizations and states whose universities rely on NIH funding, said the cutoff would set back crucial research by years, if not decades. 'A stay would abruptly, and in many cases permanently, halt lifesaving biomedical research that Congress has directed the NIH to fund, with irreparable consequences for scientific progress,' the groups, led by the American Public Health Organization, argued in court papers. The administration told the Supreme Court the NIH was being forced to keep paying out $783 million, though the challengers questioned that figure. 'The government is irreparably harmed when forced to pay out millions of dollars on discretionary grants, with no guarantee of recouping the money,' US Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers. Sauer is the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. The case is National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, 25A103.
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
Trump Pick Alina Habba Serving Illegally As US Attorney, Says Federal Judge
Last Updated: Judge Brann further noted that Habba's appointment had occurred 'through a novel series of legal and personnel moves.' Alina Habba, currently serving as the acting US Attorney for New Jersey, has been disqualified from continuing her role in any active criminal cases initiated by her office. A federal judge issued the ruling on Thursday, stating that the former personal attorney for President Donald Trump has not been lawfully serving in an official legal capacity. 'Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not," wrote Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in his opinion. Judge Brann further noted that Habba's appointment had occurred 'through a novel series of legal and personnel moves." His ruling may still be appealed by the Trump administration before it officially takes effect. The decision came in response to a legal challenge brought by criminal defendants in New Jersey. The group questioned the validity of the charges filed against them, arguing that Habba no longer held the authority to prosecute after the expiration of her 120-day term in July. Last month, in anticipation of the term's expiration, New Jersey's federal district judges had selected a new nominee to succeed Habba as acting US Attorney. However, that appointment was blocked by US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who removed the judges' nominee from the office entirely. Habba was sworn in as acting US Attorney on March 28, shortly after serving as President Trump's personal legal counsel. In April, during a Fox News interview, she revealed her office had initiated an investigation into New Jersey's Democratic Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matthew Platkin. The following month, in May, she again appeared on Fox News to announce that criminal charges were being brought against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. Her 120-day appointment officially concluded last month. To continue serving in the role beyond that term, Habba would require confirmation by the US Senate, something that has not occurred yet. The Justice Department, however, has defended her continued service, asserting that the president holds wide authority to fill such vacancies. 'The President has made clear that he will not permit anyone other than Ms Habba to fill the current vacancy in the office of the United States Attorney on a temporary basis," prosecutors wrote in a recent court filing. view comments First Published: August 22, 2025, 03:35 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut $783 mn of research funding in anti-DEI push
Last Updated: Washington, Aug 21 (AP) The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court decided Thursday. The high court majority lifted a judge's order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump's priorities. The high court did keep Trump administration guidance on future funding blocked, however. The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was along those who would have kept the cuts blocked, along with the court's three liberals. The order marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with cancelling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life". The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing" and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination." The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training programme cuts. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. But the plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers, they argued. US District Judge William Young judge in Massachusetts agreed, finding the abrupt cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this," Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing in June. He later added: 'Have we no shame." An appeals court left Young's ruling in place. (AP) SCY SCY view comments First Published: August 22, 2025, 03:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
