By Sharachchandra Bhandary
A nation does not prove its friendship with a neighbour by remaining silent about its own interests. Nor does it demonstrate nationalism by treating every disagreement with another country as a matter of national honour. Genuine nationalism lies in the ability to protect national interests, defend sovereignty and build respectful relations with other countries without fear or prejudice
Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle’s recent remark in New Delhi that the era of equating Nepali nationalism with anti-India sentiment is over has sparked a debate about the meaning of nationalism and the direction of Nepal-India relations. His statement comes at a time when Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s proposed visit to India has drawn considerable attention, with expectations that the two countries will strengthen their relationship and address outstanding concerns.
The question is not whether Nepal should maintain friendly relations with India. It certainly should. The real question is whether moving beyond anti-India politics also means moving away from the legitimate concerns that Nepalis have raised over the years.
Former secretary Dwarika Nath Dhungel has raised a pertinent question about Wagle’s remarks: how should ordinary Nepalis interpret the suggestion that loving their country and raising issues with a neighbour could be associated with anti-India nationalism? His concern deserves attention. Expressing concern about national interests does not automatically mean opposing another country.
Former foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali has also questioned the premise of Wagle’s statement. Nepali nationalism, he argues, has never been fundamentally defined by opposition to India. Nepal has long sought friendly relations based on sovereign equality and mutual respect. At the same time, several bilateral issues remain unresolved, including the boundary dispute, the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship, trade barriers and the growing trade deficit. These matters affect Nepal’s economic and national interests and cannot simply be set aside.
Former foreign minister Kamal Thapa has similarly argued that Nepali nationalism is not directed against any particular country. Raising concerns about border encroachment, inundation and blockades should not be equated with anti-India sentiment. He has also questioned whether Wagle’s remarks represent the government’s official position and called for clarity.
Former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Sujata Koirala has criticised Wagle’s remarks as immature and questioned the diplomatic rationale for making such a statement in India. She has stressed that friendly relations with India do not require Nepal to remain silent on border disputes or other national concerns. Her response brings an important question into the debate: how can Nepal strengthen ties with its neighbour without weakening its own voice?
Senior actor Rajesh Hamal has also weighed in on the debate, emphasising the importance of sovereignty, dignity and sound diplomatic judgment. Nepal and India share deep historical, geographical and cultural ties, and there is every reason to strengthen their relationship. But closer relations must go hand in hand with respect for Nepal’s national interests and the peaceful resolution of outstanding disputes.
These reactions come from people with different backgrounds and political perspectives. Their views are not identical, but they point to a common concern: friendship with India should not require Nepal to abandon its independent position.
Nepal and India share an exceptionally close relationship shaped by geography, history, culture, religion, family ties and extensive people-to-people connections. Millions of people on both sides of the open border maintain family and social relationships. India is also a major economic partner and an important destination for Nepali workers, students and patients. Cooperation between the two countries is a practical necessity, not merely a diplomatic choice.
Nepal has every reason to welcome better connectivity, energy cooperation, investment, wider market access and smoother cross-border movement. A stable relationship with India is important for Nepal’s economic development and regional engagement. Yet the importance of this relationship should not prevent Nepal from speaking openly about matters that affect its sovereignty and national interests.
The history of Nepal-India relations includes difficult periods that cannot be erased simply by recalling shared culture and historical friendship. One of the most painful came in 2015, when Nepal was struggling to recover from a devastating earthquake that flattened homes, destroyed infrastructure and left thousands of families grieving and homeless. The country urgently needed fuel, medicines, construction materials and other essentials for relief and reconstruction.
It was during this difficult period that a blockade and severe disruptions to essential supplies brought immense hardship to ordinary Nepalis. The crisis followed the promulgation of Nepal’s Constitution by the sovereign Constituent Assembly on September 20, 2015. The Constitution emerged from a long political transition and represented Nepal’s exercise of its sovereign constitutional authority. India expressed concerns about certain constitutional provisions and called for the grievances of Madhesi and other groups to be addressed. Nepal, however, regarded the Constitution as the outcome of its own constitutional process.
The disruption of essential supplies left a deep imprint on Nepal’s public consciousness. People faced shortages of fuel, medicines and other necessities while the country was still recovering from a national catastrophe. The experience also exposed the vulnerability of a landlocked country heavily dependent on a single transit route.
Recalling this period is not an argument for hostility towards India. It is a reminder that a durable relationship requires mutual respect and sensitivity to each other’s circumstances. It also explains why Nepal needs to diversify its transit options, strengthen its economic resilience and reduce the risk of essential supplies being disrupted by bilateral tensions.
The unresolved territorial questions are equally important. The disputes concerning Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh, as well as Susta and other contested stretches of the Nepal-India boundary, require serious attention. Historical documents, maps, treaties and established diplomatic mechanisms should guide efforts to resolve them. These issues should not be exploited for domestic political gain, but neither should they be brushed aside to preserve the appearance of cordial relations.
Such concerns cannot simply be dismissed as expressions of anti-India nationalism. Nor should they be used to promote hostility towards India. They relate directly to Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, economic security and national dignity. A relationship becomes stronger when both sides can address difficult issues honestly and peacefully.
Nationalism becomes counterproductive when it turns into hostility towards another country. But the desire to maintain friendly relations can also become problematic if it discourages a country from raising legitimate concerns. Nepal must be able to build friendship with India while defending its own interests.
This is why statements by senior officeholders require careful judgment. A minister’s words can influence public opinion, affect diplomatic perceptions and create expectations about the government’s position. Sensitive foreign-policy matters need clear and considered communication.
Wagle’s argument against defining nationalism through hostility towards India raises an important point. Nepal should not measure its patriotism by how strongly it opposes a neighbour. However, declaring an end to an era of anti-India nationalism risks oversimplifying a complex history if it suggests that concerns about bilateral relations belong to an outdated way of thinking.
There is a clear difference between hostility towards India and the defence of Nepal’s interests. A citizen who raises a boundary dispute, questions an agreement or calls for fair treatment of Nepali products is not necessarily opposing India. Such concerns can be raised constructively and addressed through diplomacy.
Nepal’s foreign policy should rest on national principles, informed judgment and institutional consistency, not personal discretion or political expediency. Historical records, official maps, bilateral agreements and diplomatic engagement must guide discussions on territorial questions. Casual statements should not create uncertainty about Nepal’s position on matters of national importance.
Nepal’s geographical position between India and China makes an independent and balanced foreign policy particularly important. Cooperation with India need not come at the expense of engagement with China, just as closer ties with China should not be interpreted as hostility towards India. Nepal’s interest lies in maintaining mutually beneficial partnerships with both neighbours while avoiding unnecessary involvement in their strategic rivalry.
Independence, however, requires more than diplomatic declarations. Nepal must strengthen its institutions, improve economic competitiveness, diversify trade and transit routes, and negotiate international agreements from a position of confidence. Economic resilience is an important part of sovereignty because excessive dependence on external partners can limit a country’s choices when disagreements arise.
At the same time, Nepal should recognise the opportunities that constructive engagement with India offers. Better connectivity, energy cooperation, investment and expanded market access can benefit both countries. These opportunities should be pursued with transparency, mutual respect and an understanding of each other’s legitimate interests.
Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s proposed visit to India offers an opportunity to put this approach into practice. The visit should not become a contest over who is more nationalist or more accommodating. Both sides should focus on practical outcomes that improve the lives of ordinary people. Outstanding bilateral issues, particularly the boundary question, deserve sustained attention through established diplomatic mechanisms.
For Nepal, success should not be measured by tough language or the warmth of ceremonial exchanges alone. The real test is whether diplomacy protects national interests, helps resolve outstanding problems and delivers lasting benefits to the people.
Nepali nationalism draws strength from the country’s independent identity, its cultural heritage and the determination of its people to preserve their freedom. It does not require hostility towards India or any other country. Equally, Nepal should not dilute its national interests to accommodate the sensitivities of an external power.
A nation can be friendly without being submissive, cooperative without being dependent, and pragmatic without abandoning its principles. These are not contradictory positions. They are the foundations of a mature foreign policy.
Nepal and India have a relationship too deeply rooted in history and too important for their shared future to be reduced to political slogans or gestures of personal deference. Their friendship will be stronger when disagreements can be discussed openly, legitimate concerns are taken seriously and both sides respect the principle of sovereign equality.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Nepal should abandon anti-India politics. It is whether the country can move beyond a narrow, reactive understanding of nationalism and pursue a confident, principled foreign policy. The answer lies neither in hostility nor in accommodation for its own sake, but in clarity, consistency and respect for national interests.
Friendship with our neighbours and fidelity to our sovereignty are complementary responsibilities. Nepal can be a dependable partner precisely because it is an independent nation, confident in its identity and clear about its national interests. That is the nationalism Nepal needs to uphold—not one defined by whom it opposes, but by how effectively it protects its people, territory, dignity and future.
Login to add a comment