By Our Political Analyst
When Prime Minister Balendra Shah took office and started evading to meet visiting dignitaries and foreign ambassadors, many Nepalis welcomed the move. For years, Nepal’s diplomacy had drifted into an unhealthy habit where envoys from powerful countries enjoyed informal, private access to top leaders without institutional oversight. Meetings happened behind closed doors, often without officials from the foreign ministry present, leaving little transparency and plenty of room for speculation.
Shah’s decision to replace that culture with a more structured diplomatic approach was, at least initially, refreshing. It sent a message that Nepal’s sovereignty and institutions matter more than personal chemistry between diplomats and politicians. In a country where political leaders have too often mistaken informal access for foreign policy, drawing boundaries was overdue.
But boundaries, like diplomacy itself, require calibration. A wall built too high can become just as damaging as a door left permanently open.
That is the growing concern surrounding Shah’s increasingly rigid approach to foreign engagement.
The cancellation of Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri’s Kathmandu visit after repeated attempts to secure a meeting with the prime minister reportedly went unanswered has created unease in diplomatic circles. Misri was not arriving as a random visiting official looking for ceremonial photographs and polite tea. He was reportedly carrying an official invitation from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for Shah to visit India.
What complicated matters further was that preparations for the visit had already begun informally in both capitals. Then came the later revelation that Shah would avoid foreign visits for at least a year. India understandably interpreted the sequence as mixed signaling.
The same pattern appeared during the visit of Sergio Gor, a close ally and special envoy of US President Donald Trump for South and Central Asia. Gor had already met senior leaders in Bhutan and Sri Lanka in his official capacity, yet failed to secure time with Nepal’s prime minister.
Inside the government itself, reports suggest ministers like Swarnim Wagle and Sisir Khanal urged Shah to reconsider his rigid stance. That detail matters because it suggests concern is emerging not only from diplomats, but from within the ruling establishment.
To be fair, Shah’s instinct is not entirely wrong. Nepal’s political class has historically overindulged foreign actors. Too many leaders treated access to embassies like political currency. Too many foreign officials operated with unusual intimacy inside Nepal’s power structure. Shah is responding to a real problem.
But diplomacy is not activism. A state cannot conduct foreign relations entirely through symbolic resistance.
Nepal sits in one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical spaces, squeezed between India and China while increasingly engaging with the United States and other global powers. Managing that reality demands nuance, consistency and communication. A prime minister does not protect sovereignty simply by refusing meetings. Sovereignty also depends on the ability to negotiate, reassure, explain national interests and maintain strategic trust.
Right now, Shah’s silence is becoming part of the problem. The government has not clearly explained the principles guiding these diplomatic refusals. Is the policy universal? Does it apply only to bilateral meetings outside formal channels? Are there exceptions for state-level invitations, regional security issues or strategic negotiations? Without clarity, every refusal risks appearing personal, impulsive or politically motivated.
That uncertainty creates another danger. Allies and neighbors may begin questioning whether Nepal’s leadership can reliably engage during difficult negotiations involving trade, energy, transit, investment or border management. Diplomacy depends heavily on predictability. Even powerful countries dislike ambiguity. Smaller countries can afford it even less.
Shah also needs to speak more openly to his own party and coalition partners. When senior ministers publicly appear uncomfortable with foreign policy decisions, it signals internal disconnect. That weakens coherence abroad. Foreign governments closely watch those fractures because diplomacy is often less about official statements and more about reading political confidence behind them. Humans remain deeply committed to decoding body language and silence as if they are contestants in a reality show built entirely around strategic paranoia.
Nepal does need stricter diplomatic discipline. The era of private backchannel access to the prime minister’s residence deserved to end. But replacing one extreme with another will not strengthen national interest.
A balanced approach is still possible. Formalize diplomatic engagement through institutional channels. Ensure the foreign ministry remains central in all high-level meetings. Limit unnecessary access. But remain open to meaningful state-level engagement with key partners, especially when those interactions directly affect Nepal’s economic and strategic interests.
Strong diplomacy is not measured by how many meetings a prime minister refuses. It is measured by whether the country emerges more respected, better connected and more capable of protecting its interests afterward.
Login to add a comment