Realistically speaking, options for the small states in dealing with big powers in the international system has always been limited. Thanks to the globalisation and the growing interdependence, which has reduced the risk of military invasions, it has widened the room to manoeuvre small states’ foreign policies. Since the end of the cold war, the question of what strategy small states should adopt to manage tensions with big powers has been widely discussed. Among others, there are two viable policy options: the first is “stay neutral” and the second is “form alliances against dominant powers.” Nepal has tried long and hard to stay neutral while maintaining its autonomy but this policy could not succeed. It has also attempted to ally with others to counter the overbearing influence of New Delhi but the 1950’s friendship treaty obligations have tied up Kathmandu’s hands to do so. Nepal is a landlocked country, sandwiched between the two Asian giants: China and India. It shares a long border with India, covering West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh states in the east, west and the south and the Tibetan autonomous region of China in the north. The country, unfortunately, fell under the Indian sway soon after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947. The Chinese annexation of Tibet in 1950 further intensified Indian hegemonic moves in the northern terrains of Nepal to establish military check-posts. India approached the Rana rulers of Nepal to counter emerging security i.e. Chinese encirclement. The Ranas, on the other hand, were looking for foreign support to consolidate their power against the democratic forces in the country accepted India’s friendship proposal. To cement their ties, a Treaty of Peace and Friendship along with secret letters was signed between the two states in 1950. Under the immense pressure, the Nepali government initiated a constitution amendment The present border controversy between Nepal and India has been triggered by Indian release of a new political map showing Kalapani under the Pithoragarh district in the state of Uttarakhand in November 2019, which Nepal strongly objected and raised its old claim over the Kalapani, Limpiadhura and Lipulekh (geographically a tri-junction between India, Nepal and China). Nepali parliament has recently approved a new political map in this regard. Another development that added into Nepal’ worries was the inauguration of Kailash-Mansarovar road in May 2020 by India’s Minister of Defence Rajnath Singh. This 80 km road is said to be the shortest route to reach Kailash-Mansarovar, a Hindu pilgrimage site in the Tibetan plateau. However, it passes through Lipulekh which Nepal has claimed her own. This has triggered a fresh dispute in the tri-junction. Nepal views it an encroachment to its territory and has asked New Delhi to refrain from carrying out any construction. India has been exercising control over these areas since the 1962 war with China, however. Nepal claims are based on the Sagauli Treaty of 1816 signed between the British East India Company and the Gurkha rulers of Nepal. The treaty decided that the Kali River was a boundary line between India and Nepal. Since the origin of the river has been a bone of contention between the two states. India claims that river originates through a small stream down from Lipulekh area of Kalapani while Nepal claims that it flows from Kuthi Yanki stream in Limpiadhura marked a border between the two states. The Kalapni region lies between India’ Uttarakhand and Nepal’s Sudur Paschim Pradesh and touches Tibet in the north. Limpiadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh together make almost 370km area that is considered the largest territorial dispute between New Delhi and the Kathmandu. This area is strategically important for India as it served the base of Indian forces during the Sino-Indian war in 1962. India fears Chinese incursions through Lipulekh pass which is located at the top of Kalapani, and a tri-junction between China, India and Nepal. India, since 1962, has been controlling the Kalapani, Lipulekh and surrounding area through its Indo-Tibetan Police. India is of the view that poorly guarded passes were one of the reasons behind Indian defeat in Sino-Indian war. Therefore, India put great emphasis on the security of the passes to China and the Lipulekh is one of them. On May 8, 2020, another move that triggered a diplomatic row between the two countries was the inauguration of the 80-kilometre road to the Lipulekh which Nepal objected as an encroachment to its territory as at least 17 kilometres of this road passes through its territory. Amid illegal Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019, Nepal took both Indian cartographic move and building road issue more seriously. There were widespread protests in the country, one in the front of the Indian embassy in the Kathmandu, demanding to withdraw of Indian forces from the Kalapani. The social media also flared up with trending #BackOffIndia. Nepali government, on its part, immediately moved police forces to that area and also registered a protest with Indian ambassador in the Kathamndu. Besides, the Nepali government under the immense pressure initiated constitution amendment. Recently, Nepal has issued a new map that showed Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiadhura as part of its territory. Claimed that the map is based on historical facts and in line with the Sagauli treaty of 1816. On June 13, 2020, Lower House of Nepal’s parliament unanimously passed an amendment in 2015 constitution to give legal status to the updated map of Nepal. With the constitutional cover, Nepal’s claim has become a permanent foreign policy irritant in New Delhi-Kathmandu relations. Under the Modi government, this is not the first time that New Delhi is challenging the sovereignty of a smaller neighbouring state. In 2015, soon after the promulgation of a new constitution by Nepal, India imposed an unofficial blockade using ‘Madhesi card’ that resulted in the severe humanitarian crisis in the country and more than two dozen causalities. Same happened in Chittagong Hills Tracks of Bangladesh that is adjacent to India’s Tripura state. India supported the secessionist movement in Chittagong Hills Tracks provided them shelters, arms, and money in 1976 aiming to dismember Bangladesh. In sum, India’s foreign policy vis-à-vis small states in the region has been big brotherly and often lack mutual respect. Having said, policy options for the Kathmandu are limited but potentially achievable. Kathmandu needs to adopt a cautious but assertive foreign policy approach as the country does not face an unavoidable existential choice between New Delhi and the other states in the region and around. Nepal’s economy is indeed largely dependent on Indian supplies of essential goods, however, with the assistance of regional and international regimes Nepal can escape asymmetrical interdependence with India. The dynamic foreign policy approach will surely enhance the Kathmandu’s bargaining power. In line with, Islamabad’s diplomatic support will make a difference. Pakistan put great emphasis on the friendship between the two countries. In 1975, Islamabad strongly supported Nepal’s proposal to declare it a “Zone of Peace.” The recent border controversy also connects the dots with Islamabad as the new map released by India also showed Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh as its Union Territories, which Islamabad has strongly protested. In line with thinking, Kathmandu’ concerns would be welcomed by Pakistan and its diplomatic support amid New Delhi’s cartographic manoeuvring in Kalapani, Limpiadhura and Lipulekh areas would help promote Nepal’s cause. The writer is a Research Analyst at the Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad