KATHMANDU: A recent joint expedition by Nepali and Indian army personnel to Mount Kanchenjunga — situated along the Nepal-Sikkim border — has reignited political and cultural tensions. The mountain, deeply revered by Sikkim’s indigenous communities as a sacred entity, was climbed from the Nepali side, prompting protests over religious sentiments and sovereignty concerns. Here is an explainer on the unfolding controversy, beginning with the background of Sikkim’s 2000 decision to ban ascents of Kanchenjunga in respect of local spiritual beliefs.

Why did the Sikkim government ban expeditions to Mount Kanchenjunga in 2000?

In July 2000, the government of Sikkim imposed a ban on climbing Mount Kanchenjunga and seven other sacred peaks out of respect for the religious sentiments of the local Buddhist population. The decision followed strong backlash over a controversial Austrian expedition that had been allowed to scale the northeast face of Kanchenjunga—one of the most challenging and sacred mountains in the region. Although the team agreed to stop 10 meters short of the summit, public anger was intense.

Indigenous communities, especially the Buddhists, consider the mountain a deity and its slopes the dwelling place of spiritual beings like the yeti (Nee-gued). The Concerned Citizens of Sikkim likened the climb to desecrating a holy object, while monks and cultural leaders accused the state of prioritizing tourism revenue over religious values.

Former Chief Minister B.B. Gurung framed the ban as a “gesture of respect,” asserting that such sacred places must be protected, even as other parts of India opened up previously restricted peaks to foreign climbers.

What was the reaction of local communities and international climbers to the 2000 climbing ban on Mount Kanchenjunga?

The ban on climbing Kanchenjunga from the Sikkim side sparked mixed reactions. While Sikkimese Buddhists and cultural organizations praised the decision as a necessary step to protect their spiritual heritage, many in the international mountaineering community expressed disappointment.

Austrian climber Willie Bauer, whose team was at the center of the controversy, defended their expedition, emphasizing that they respected local sentiments by halting before the summit.

He argued that mountaineering and cultural preservation could coexist, and highlighted the economic opportunities such climbs could bring to local communities.

Indian mountaineer Colonel Narinder Kumar, who led the first Indian ascent of Kanchenjunga from Sikkim in 1977, also opposed the ban, calling the peak “one of the most difficult 8,000-meter climbs in the world.” Kumar contended that climbing the mountain was not a spiritual offense but rather a celebration of human endurance and respect for nature. Nevertheless, the Sikkim Assembly upheld the ban, reinforcing a cultural boundary even as India liberalized climbing access to other peaks to boost tourism.

What is the recent controversy surrounding Mount Kanchenjunga about?

The controversy emerged after a joint expedition by Nepali and Indian army personnel successfully summited Mount Kanchenjunga on May 21, 2025, from Nepal’s Taplejung district. This climb, though entirely from Nepalese territory, sparked strong protests in the northeastern Indian state of Sikkim. The peak, regarded as sacred by the indigenous peoples of Sikkim, has been off-limits to climbers from the Indian side for decades.

The participation of Indian Army members in an ascent from Nepalese soil prompted Sikkim’s Chief Minister Prem Singh Tamang (P.S. Golay) to write to the Indian Union Home Minister Amit Shah. He demanded that the Indian government ensure no future expeditions to Kanchenjunga are allowed from the Nepal side either, arguing this violates Sikkim’s religious and cultural sentiments. The controversy highlights tensions over sovereignty, cultural heritage, and the politics of mountaineering in the Himalayas.

Why is Mount Kanchenjunga sacred to the people of Sikkim?

Kanchenjunga is not only the third highest mountain in the world, standing at 8,586 meters (28,169 feet), but it holds profound spiritual significance for the Bhutia, Lepcha, and Sherpa communities of Sikkim.

 The name “Kanchenjunga” translates roughly to “five treasures of the high snow” in the local Tibetan-Sikkimese dialect, symbolizing five divine treasures: gold, silver, gems, grain, and sacred texts.

The mountain is regarded as the home of ‘Dzoe-Nga’ or ‘Fo Lha,’ the principal guardian deity and protector spirit of Sikkim.

This deity is worshipped as the chief of all supernatural entities in the region, with its spiritual importance reinforced by historical religious leaders such as Guru Padmasambhava (Ugyen Guru Rinpoche), the revered Patron Saint of Sikkim. To honor and preserve its sanctity, the Sikkim government has imposed a complete ban on climbing Kanchenjunga from its side, a policy also supported by local cultural and religious groups.

Who led the recent expeditions to Kanchenjunga and from which side did they climb?

Two notable expeditions in May 2025 attracted attention. The first was a joint mission involving 10 members of the Nepali Army and 5 from the Indian Army, led by Major Gajendra Deuba of Nepal and Colonel Sarfaraz Singh of India. This team summited Kanchenjunga on May 21, planting the flags of Nepal, India, and the United Nations at the peak.

 Earlier, on May 18, another Indian Army team led by Colonel Ranveer Singh Jamwal, supported by four Indian soldiers and four Sherpas, climbed the mountain as part of the “Har Shikhar Tiranga” campaign, also from the Nepal side. Both expeditions followed established routes within Nepal’s Taplejung district, which houses one of the primary access points to Kanchenjunga, and did not seek permission from Sikkimese authorities.

How has the Sikkim government responded to these climbs?

Sikkim’s leadership reacted strongly to the news of the expeditions. Chief Minister Prem Singh Tamang (Golay) officially wrote to Union Home Minister Amit Shah on May 24, requesting that the Indian government intervene diplomatically with Nepal to prevent future expeditions from Nepal’s side.

In his letter, CM Golay emphasized that climbing Kanchenjunga from any direction violates Sikkim’s religious sentiments and legal provisions protecting cultural heritage.

He highlighted the sacred status of the mountain and referenced past agreements and customs that led Sikkim to ban climbing on its side.

The government also clarified it had not issued any permits for climbs from within Sikkim and reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the mountain’s sanctity. Tourism and Civil Aviation Minister Tshering Thendup Bhutia reiterated that Sikkim would never facilitate any ascent of Kanchenjunga to respect its cultural significance.

What role have local groups in Sikkim played in the controversy?

Local cultural and religious organizations in Sikkim have been vocal in their condemnation of the recent ascents. The Sikkim Bhutia Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC), a prominent body representing indigenous communities, condemned the expeditions as violations of sacred tradition.

Chheten Tashi Bhutia, SIBLAC’s coordinator and senior advisor to the BJP’s Sikkim unit, stated that Kanchenjunga is a vital protector of Sikkimese identity and heritage, safeguarded under Article 371F of the Indian Constitution, which grants special protections to the state.

The Sikkim Sherpa Protection Force also criticized the state government for not taking a more assertive stance earlier. These groups demand stricter enforcement of the ban and urge authorities to ensure respect for the religious and cultural importance of the mountain, calling for cooperation from Nepalese authorities as well.

How has Nepal reacted to the Sikkim government’s demand?

The Nepali government has maintained an official silence on the issue so far. Many Nepali citizens and officials assert that Mount Kanchenjunga lies fully within Nepal’s internationally recognized boundaries and has traditionally been accessed from the Taplejung district, which offers better climbing infrastructure and safety measures. The expeditions were carried out legally under Nepalese regulations.

Some in Nepal view the Sikkim government’s demand as an unwarranted infringement on Nepal’s sovereignty. The dispute thus underscores long-standing challenges in Himalayan border areas, where cultural ties and political borders often overlap and lead to diplomatic sensitivities. Nepal continues to assert its jurisdiction over the mountain and its right to manage access from its side.

What are the broader implications of this dispute?

This controversy is emblematic of the complex intersection of religion, culture, national sovereignty, and tourism in the Himalayas. Kanchenjunga serves multiple roles: a sacred site for Sikkim’s indigenous people, a national symbol for Nepal, and a globally renowned mountaineering destination.

The involvement of Indian Army personnel climbing from Nepalese territory further complicates diplomatic relations between India, Nepal, and the state of Sikkim.

The issue also highlights tensions in managing sacred natural sites that cross political borders and the challenge of balancing respect for spiritual beliefs with economic opportunities from tourism and international mountaineering.

Moving forward, this may require sensitive bilateral discussions to protect cultural sentiments while respecting territorial rights.

How does this controversy compare with similar issues involving sacred mountains?

The Kanchenjunga dispute parallels other cases in the Himalayas where spiritual beliefs influence government policies on mountaineering. For example, China has long banned expeditions to Mount Kailash, a peak sacred to Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, and Bon followers, to preserve its sanctity.

Like Kanchenjunga, Kailash is not climbed to respect religious traditions. These cases illustrate how mountains are more than just physical landmarks; they are deeply embedded in the cultural and religious fabric of local communities. They demand respect and recognition beyond political borders.

The Kanchenjunga controversy reveals the need for greater dialogue between governments and indigenous groups, to develop cooperative frameworks that honor religious beliefs while managing international mountaineering activities.