By Our Political Analyst
Nepal’s recent election has produced a seismic result. The rise of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and its near two-thirds mandate has stunned the traditional parties. Communists, the Nepali Congress, and regional Madhesi forces all look weakened now.
In ordinary times such a dramatic shift would cause celebration about democratic renewal. Yet this time another narrative circulates in the political corridors. Many politicians, including Durga Prasai, political analysts, and activists speak about something darker, the growing reach of a rumored deep state operating through invisible and foreign networks.
Although these claims are difficult to prove in a strict legal sense, the conversation centered on deep state manipulating the poll outcome in the RSP’s favor refuses to disappear.
The argument runs like this: The sudden rise of RSP did not occur only because voters wanted change. External actors, working through international foundations, INGOs, and digital platforms, allegedly played a role in shaping the political environment. Names often mentioned in this discussion include the Barbara Foundation, the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), George Soros Foundation-run Open Society Foundations and several others.
These organisations run programs across many countries in the name of democracy promotion and civic engagement. In Nepal, their activities range from youth training programs to offering research grants to carry out social campaigns. Many youths are assigned to create social media contents, probably to influence youths and masses. Critics argue that such work can easily cross into political engineering.
The suspicion deepened because of the timing of RSP’s comeback. Just months before the Gen Z protests of September 8 and 9, the party appeared to be in serious trouble. Its chairman Rabi Lamichhane faced intense criticism over cooperative fraud and money laundering allegations and questions surrounding his passport case. His popularity fell sharply as he spent months in police custody because of cooperative funds scam. Several prominent leaders had also quit the party. At that moment many observers believed the RSP experiment had already run out of steam.
Then the situation changed almost overnight. The Gen Z protests erupted across the country. Public and private buildings were set ablaze after several youths were killed. RSP Chair was brought out of a jail in a broad-day jailbreak. Initially, it was said that Rabi will be the prime minister.
Young people, allegedly incited by certain groups with vested interests, flooded the streets and social media with demands for political change. The protests carried a strong anti-establishment mood. Soon after, RSP regained momentum. Online narratives shifted in its favor. Its leaders began to dominate digital discussions again. Critics claim that sophisticated manipulation of social media algorithms helped amplify this change. According to them, targeted messaging and coordinated online campaigns nudged young voters toward the party.
One name frequently mentioned in these debates is Balen Shah, former Kathmandu mayor and now the Prime Minister-in-waiting. Though he did not formally lead the protests, many believe he worked behind the scenes to energize the youth movement. His popularity among urban voters gave the protests symbolic strength. Later he also played a role in the political negotiations that led to the nomination of Sushila Karki as prime minister. Now with RSP holding a near two thirds mandate, many expect Balen to become the central figure in the next government.
If that happens, Nepal will enter a new political phase. Yet the excitement around the change comes with a deeper concern. Critics argue that a government shaped by external networks could face pressure to endorse strategic agendas linked with foreign powers.
Two issues dominate these concerns. One is the possibility that Nepal may allow stronger activity from the Free Tibet movement on its soil. China has long treated this question as highly sensitive. Any shift in Nepal’s position could strain relations with Beijing.
The second concern revolves around the American State Partnership Program (SPP). The SPP forms part of a wider Indo Pacific security framework led by the United States. Many Nepali commentators believe the program could allow deeper military cooperation with the US, including the entry of American troops during joint exercises or training programs. Some reports claim that the Nepali Army has already expressed support for SPP participation.
Supporters of the program argue that such partnerships bring training, disaster response capacity, and military modernization. Critics see something else. They believe the SPP links Nepal to a strategic design aimed at containing China’s rise. In their view, Nepal risks becoming a piece in a larger geopolitical contest.
This is where the deep state debate becomes politically explosive. If the new government moves forward with these initiatives, it could trigger strong reactions from Beijing. Nepal sits between two powerful neighbors. Any signal that Kathmandu is aligning too closely with one side carries serious consequences.
At the same time, it would be simplistic to assume that foreign influence alone explains the election outcome. Nepal’s old parties created their own crisis through corruption, factional quarrels, and failure to deliver governance. Voters were clearly angry. That anger opened space for a new political force. Yet anger alone does not always produce a near two thirds mandate overnight. The speed and scale of the shift have left many people uneasy. They suspect that unseen actors helped shape the final outcome.
Whether those suspicions prove accurate or not, the next government faces a delicate task. Nepal cannot afford to drift into geopolitical rivalry. Its foreign policy has long rested on careful balance. Preserving sovereignty requires distance from competing power blocs. The debate about a deep state may remain unresolved. Still it reflects a wider anxiety inside the country. People worry that Nepal’s fragile democracy can easily become a playground for external influence. If the new leadership fails to address that fear, the political earthquake of this election could soon open another fault line in the nation’s future.
Login to add a comment