On Thursday, November 27, 2025, Nepal unveiled a redesigned NPR 100 banknote that has quickly sparked controversy across South Asia. The new note, which entered circulation the same day, features a national map that includes the disputed territories of Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura—areas India claims as its own. The move, rooted in a years-long border dispute, has reignited diplomatic tensions and drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the border, with local traders in India’s Uttarakhand region vowing to reject the note in cross-border trade.
The redesigned currency, printed by China Banknote Printing and Minting Corporation, was commissioned following a contract awarded in October 2024. Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB), the country’s central bank, said in a public notice that the new note not only carries enhanced security and identification features but also reflects the revised national map adopted after a constitutional amendment in 2020. The redesign was formally approved by the Nepalese Cabinet in May 2024 during a meeting chaired by then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, according to reporting by The Times of India and The Kathmandu Post.
The note itself is rich in national symbolism. On the front, it features Mount Everest on the left and the Ashoka Pillar at Lumbini—believed to be the birthplace of Buddha—at the center. A Rhododendron watermark appears on the right, while the reverse side showcases a one-horned rhinoceros with its calf, a nod to Nepal’s unique wildlife. For visually impaired users, a tactile black dot has been added. The note also includes an oval silver-ink image of Maya Devi, the mother of Buddha, and carries the signature of former governor Maha Prasad Adhikari. The series number "2081" is printed in Nepali numerals, corresponding to the Nepali calendar year 2081 Bikram Sambat (2024 AD).
Perhaps the most contentious feature, however, is the updated map. This map, which now appears on the NPR 100 note, incorporates the territories of Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura—areas that have been at the heart of a simmering border dispute with India. Nepal first incorporated these regions into its official map in May 2020 through a constitutional amendment, following India’s inauguration of a 74-kilometer road from Ghatiyabagar to Lipulekh Pass in Uttarakhand’s Pithoragarh district. The move was met with immediate resistance from New Delhi, which described Nepal’s revised map as a “unilateral move not supported by historical facts and contrary to bilateral understandings on resolving boundary issues,” according to The Hindu.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs has reiterated its position in the wake of the banknote’s release, calling Nepal’s actions an “artificial enlargement” of its territory. In a statement, India’s external affairs minister S. Jaishankar said, “Such measures do not change the ground reality and that Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura are Indian territories.” The Indian government has consistently rejected Nepal’s claims, emphasizing that the status of these regions should be resolved through dialogue and not through unilateral actions. Earlier this year, India also dismissed Nepal’s objections to the resumption of India-China border trade through Lipulekh Pass, pointing out that trade at the pass has been ongoing since 1954 and that Nepal’s claims remain unjustified.
The new note, which retains the color and dimensions of its predecessor, is the only denomination currently featuring the revised map. Nepal Rastra Bank ordered a total of 300 million pieces from the Chinese printer at a cost of about USD 8.99 million—roughly NPR 4.04 per note. The bank has stated that the updated design and enhanced security features are intended to modernize the country’s currency and improve accessibility, particularly for the visually impaired.
But the diplomatic ripples have quickly reached the local level, especially in regions straddling the Indo-Nepal border. Traders in Uttarakhand’s Dharchula, a town near the disputed areas, have announced their decision to reject the new note in cross-border commerce. Jagdish Joshi, a trader in Dharchula, told The Times of India, “We have always maintained peaceful trade relations with Nepali sellers and customers, but this note has gone too far. Showing Indian land as part of Nepal is not just unacceptable, it is offensive. The note hasn’t reached here yet, but we’ve already decided—it won’t be accepted in our shops or in cross-border transactions. We urge authorities on both sides to resolve this quickly because such moves only create confusion and tension at the local level.”
For many in Nepal, the new note is a symbol of national pride and sovereignty. The decision to update the map and feature it on the country’s currency followed years of political debate and public sentiment that Nepal’s historical claims needed to be reflected in official documents and symbols. The constitutional amendment that enabled the map change was passed by Nepal’s parliament in 2020, with overwhelming support across party lines. According to The Kathmandu Post, the Nepalese government maintains that the map reflects decisions taken earlier by its cabinet and is consistent with the country’s historical records.
The dispute over Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura is rooted in differing interpretations of the river that marks the boundary between India and Nepal, as outlined in the Sugauli Treaty of 1815 between the British East India Company and the Kingdom of Nepal. Over the years, both countries have cited historical documents, maps, and administrative records to bolster their respective claims. While the issue has periodically flared up—most recently after India’s administrative changes in Jammu & Kashmir and the road inauguration in 2020—it has generally been managed through diplomatic channels. However, the appearance of the disputed territories on a widely circulated banknote brings the controversy into the daily lives of millions, adding a new layer of complexity to an already sensitive issue.
India’s response has been unequivocal, with officials stressing that cartographic assertions on currency or official documents cannot alter established facts on the ground. At the same time, New Delhi has called for a return to dialogue, emphasizing that boundary differences should be settled through diplomatic negotiations and mutual understanding. Nepal, for its part, insists that its actions are consistent with its sovereign rights and historical records.
As the new note begins to circulate within Nepal, its impact on cross-border relations and local economies remains to be seen. For now, the controversy underscores how symbols—whether on maps or money—can carry weight far beyond their face value, shaping national narratives and influencing the delicate balance of regional diplomacy.
