By P.R. Pradhan
After all, they are all Bukhyachas (scarecrows).
Sher Bahadur Deuba, K.P. Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai—all, in this view, were Bukhyachas stalled by foreign “deep states.” When their usefulness was over, a new set of Bukhyachas—or, one might say, Kathaputalis (puppets) of foreign powers—emerged. The Gen-Z movement of September 2025 and the March 2026 general elections brought a new generation of leaders to power. Critics now argue that this new leadership, too, are vulnerable to external influence.
The old set of alleged puppets were eventually punished politically when, according to this interpretation, they attempted to become “over-smart.” Now, a report by the US-based investigative outlet The Grayzone has raised fresh questions about the background and training of several members of Nepal’s new political leadership. The report, published on September 9, 2026, says leaked documents reviewed by the publication indicate that Balen Shah, Rabi Lamichhane, Sudan Gurung and MP Sagar Dhakal were among Nepali political figures identified as “catalytic civic leaders” whom organisations associated with the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) sought to support and train. The report links CEPPS to US-funded organisations, including the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute.
The Grayzone has made stronger claims, describing the programme as part of a broader US effort to cultivate political actors in Nepal. Its reporting is based on leaked documents and represents the publication’s interpretation of those documents; the existence of training or engagement with a foreign-funded organisation does not, by itself, establish that an individual is a foreign “puppet” or that he or she acts on behalf of a foreign government.
The central question, therefore, is whether Nepal’s present political leadership will act independently in accordance with Nepal’s national interests or whether external actors will exercise disproportionate influence over the country’s political direction. Now, the Rastriya Swatantra Party government should be judged by its policies, decisions and conduct.
The roots of the present political order go back to the 12-point understanding reached in New Delhi in November 2005 between the Maoists and the seven-party alliance. The agreement called for an end to autocratic monarchy (not a constitutional monarchy) and committed the parties to democracy, peace, prosperity and social advancement.
Nepal subsequently became a federal democratic republic and adopted a secular constitution in 2015 against the public wish. It is also important, however, to distinguish political disagreement from formal non-recognition. India had serious reservations about aspects of Nepal’s constitutional process, particularly concerning representation and constitutional amendments, but its official records show continued engagement with Nepal’s constitutional and political process. In January 2016, for example, India described Nepal’s constitutional amendments as a “positive development” and expressed hope that remaining issues would be resolved constructively.
Nepal’s political transformation has therefore involved domestic struggles as well as significant external interests. India, China, the United States and other international actors all have strategic interests in Nepal. The responsibility of any government in Kathmandu is to maintain balanced relations with all countries while safeguarding Nepal’s sovereignty, independence and national interests.
By undermining the legitimate security concerns of powerful neighbouring countries, Nepal cannot safeguard its independence, sovereignty and geopolitical position. At the same time, if any foreign power seeks to shape Nepal’s government through political influence, it could seriously affect the country’s geopolitical calculations and strategic autonomy.
The fundamental concern is that, following the abolition of the monarchy, Nepal has entered a more vulnerable political era. Some analysts argue that India seeks to “Bhutanize” Nepal, while the United States seeks to develop Nepal as a strategic launch pad against India and China. China, meanwhile, is closely monitoring these developments. If Nepal were to become a strategic platform for any external power, Nepali territory could potentially become a source of serious security concerns for both of its immediate neighbours.
To conclude, Nepal’s patriotic forces should come together to defend the country’s sovereignty, independence and national interests and to critically examine the present constitutional and political order, as well as foreign activities and influence in Nepal. For this, we must restore the institution of monarchy. Ultimately, Nepal’s political future should be determined by the Nepali people and guided by the country’s long-term national interests.
Login to add a comment