By Our Reporter
Quiet diplomacy has always been part of international relations. Governments often use informal channels to explore sensitive issues, reduce tensions or prepare official talks. Such contacts are not unusual, and secrecy alone does not imply wrongdoing.
The controversy over the reported visit of Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s Chief Adviser Kumar Byanjankar, better known as Ben, to New Delhi is different. The real issue is not whether backchannel diplomacy is acceptable. It is whether Nepal’s foreign policy is being conducted through institutions or through individuals acting outside established mechanisms.
The facts remain disputed. Ben has repeatedly denied travelling to India or meeting Indian officials, saying he only went as far as Simara. Several media reports, however, claim he crossed into India through Raxaul and met senior Indian officials, including National Security Adviser AjitDoval or officials from the Ministry of External Affairs. Neither side has produced conclusive evidence.
That leaves two possibilities. If Ben never entered India, the government should release credible evidence and end the speculation. If he did travel and held unofficial meetings while denying them publicly, the issue becomes far more serious than one person’s movements.
Foreign policy is not designed around personal relationships. Nepal’s Constitution and administrative system assign clear responsibilities to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Nepali Embassy in New Delhi and other state institutions. These bodies exist to maintain continuity, accountability and institutional memory. They ensure that every diplomatic engagement reflects official state policy rather than individual initiative.
When advisers conduct sensitive discussions outside these structures, confusion follows. It becomes unclear who speaks for Nepal, what commitments are made and who bears responsibility for them. Governments change, but institutions preserve the state’s long-term interests.
The reported absence of Nepal’s embassy from the alleged meetings raises further concerns. Embassies are not ceremonial offices. They document discussions, provide diplomatic context and ensure consistency in bilateral relations. Excluding them weakens institutional oversight.
If reports of a meeting with AjitDoval are accurate, the stakes become even higher. India’s National Security Adviser handles strategic and security issues. Such meetings normally require political approval, inter-ministerial coordination and diplomatic preparation. Conducting them outside formal channels risks sending mixed messages to one of Nepal’s most important neighbors.
Supporters may argue that informal diplomacy often succeeds where official diplomacy fails. History offers many examples of backchannel talks producing breakthroughs. That argument has merit. But successful backchannel diplomacy usually operates with the knowledge and approval of authorised institutions, not around them.
Equally troubling are reports that Nepal’s Foreign Ministry was unaware of the alleged visit. If the ministry responsible for foreign affairs is left uninformed, it raises legitimate questions about coordination inside the government. Parallel diplomatic channels weaken rather than strengthen state capacity.
The controversy also tests the Balen government itself. It came to power promising transparency, accountability and institutional reform. Those commitments naturally create higher public expectations. Questions about undisclosed meetings and unofficial diplomacy appear difficult to reconcile with that message.
The government has an opportunity to resolve the matter. If the reports are false, it should provide evidence that clears Ben’s name. If the meetings took place as part of an authorised initiative, it should explain their purpose, mandate and institutional oversight. Silence only fuels speculation.
Ultimately, diplomacy is about more than maintaining foreign relations. It is about preserving public confidence in how national interests are protected. Nepal’s relationship with India is too important to depend on informal channels that leave ministries, embassies and the public uncertain.
The debate over Ben’s reported India visit is therefore larger than one adviser. It is a test of whether Nepal’s foreign policy will be guided by institutions with clear lines of accountability or by informal networks operating beyond public scrutiny. In a democracy, trust grows when diplomacy is anchored in transparent institutions, not in unanswered questions.
Login to add a comment