By Sharachchandra Bhandary
The recent meeting between India’s Ambassador, Naveen Srivastava, and Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle, as reported by janaaastha.com, has once again exposed the persistent complexities in Nepal–India relations. When the ambassador bypassed customary procedures and met the Finance Minister directly, despite instructions from Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal, it was more than a procedural lapse—it was a stark reminder of entrenched hegemonic attitudes that have long influenced Nepal’s political and economic life.
In some matters, India has been notably reluctant or even obstructive towards Nepal’s sovereign initiatives. Nepalis have not forgotten how, when the Constituent Assembly of Nepal promulgated the Constitution, India “only noticed it” rather than acknowledging Nepal’s sovereign decision. More painfully, after the devastating 2015 earthquake, when Nepal was struggling to rebuild and millions were in desperate need of aid, India imposed a blockade that exacerbated human suffering and delayed recovery.
Similarly, the Pokhara International Airport and Gautam Buddha International Airport were built to expand connectivity, boost tourism, and foster regional economic growth. Nepal has sought India’s cooperation in fully operationalizing these strategic gateways, yet the support has been limited. In particular, the Gautam Buddha International Airport remains under-utilized because its critical Instrument Landing System—designed to allow safe landings in poor visibility—requires airspace clearance from India. Despite repeated requests, approval was delayed for months, preventing the airport from operating at full capacity. While Nepal respects India’s legitimate security concerns, these persistent operational restrictions impede national development, constrain international connectivity, and cast serious doubt on the sincerity of India’s “Neighborhood First” rhetoric. A country that speaks of partnership cannot, at the same time, hinder the operationalization of its neighbour’s infrastructure while expecting political loyalty or compliance.
History offers further lessons. The 2015 blockade demonstrated how India could leverage geographic and economic proximity to exert pressure. Similar patterns of influence extend back decades, from interventions during political transitions to informal consultations by Nepali leaders in Delhi before critical decisions, including constitutional milestones. These precedents have left a lasting imprint on the national consciousness, reinforcing the perception that Delhi often plays an outsized role in Nepal’s internal affairs. The consequences are clear: political actors and citizens alike understand that foreign influence is a constant variable in domestic politics, and the balance between sovereignty and cooperation is delicate.
While external influence is real, internal behavior often enables it. Past and present Nepali leaders have repeatedly sought consultations in Delhi before taking critical decisions, bypassing state mechanisms. Such practices weaken negotiating positions, diminish accountability, and legitimize external influence. High-profile visits to India are often presented as participation in seminars, diaspora programs, or health consultations, yet the real intent frequently involves engagement with Indian political, diplomatic, and intelligence figures. Transparency suffers, and national interest can be subordinated to personal or party gain. This pattern must end. The Balendra Shah government presents a unique opportunity to establish a culture of transparent diplomacy, institutional discipline, and accountability, ensuring that engagement with foreign actors serves the national interest rather than individual ambitions.
India must recognize that Nepal is no longer willing to accept selective cooperation. The Balendra Shah government is committed to constructive engagement, yet Delhi’s bureaucracy and political leadership must act consistently with their stated policies. Respect for Nepal’s sovereignty cannot coexist with restrictions on air connectivity, casual breaches of protocol, or undue influence in domestic affairs. Likewise, Kathmandu must ensure that every high-level meeting with foreign diplomats is routed through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, properly documented, and subject to full accountability. Transparent diplomacy is not optional—it is essential for safeguarding sovereignty, maintaining national dignity, and projecting Nepal as a principled and reliable partner. Leaders must not treat foreign engagement as a tool for personal advantage. Sovereignty is defended not by speeches, but by adherence to institutional processes and transparency.
Nepal–India relations encompass centuries of shared history, cultural bonds, religious linkages, and economic interdependence. Yet this closeness creates a dual responsibility: Nepal must protect its sovereignty while benefiting from the advantages of proximity. The open border, shared culture, and linguistic ties should be leveraged for mutual growth, not as instruments of influence or control. The Balendra Shah-led government has the chance to recalibrate this relationship by insisting on transparent processes, operational cooperation, and genuine mutual respect. India’s “Neighborhood First” policy has the potential to strengthen South Asian ties and regional stability, but Nepal expects that policy to translate into concrete actions. This includes full support for Nepal’s infrastructure projects, facilitation of air connectivity, respect for diplomatic protocol, and consistent political engagement based on equality and mutual respect. Rhetoric without action will be interpreted as hegemonic maneuvering, undermining trust and partnership.
For Nepal, the path forward requires both vigilance and initiative. Internally, state machinery must be strengthened to ensure that foreign engagement advances the national interest. Leaders must resist the temptation to bypass institutional channels for personal or political gain. Externally, Nepal must assert its sovereignty in bilateral relations, demanding clarity, operational support, and adherence to agreed protocols. Only when these principles are respected can Nepal–India cooperation become genuine, sustainable, and mutually beneficial.
The Balendra Shah government stands ready to take Nepal–India relations to a new high, leveraging centuries-old ties while asserting the independence, dignity, and strategic priorities of a modern Nepal. India, too, must move beyond symbolic gestures and rhetoric, aligning its actions with the declared objectives of its “Neighborhood First” policy. Only then can both countries realize the full potential of a partnership that respects Nepal’s sovereignty, promotes regional connectivity, and strengthens people-to-people ties. In diplomacy, credibility is measured by deeds, not words. Nepal is watching closely, and the time for consistent, principled, and respectful engagement has arrived.
Login to add a comment