Nepal increasingly appears to be turning into a playground for competing foreign powers. Since 1990, the country has often been viewed as an open arena for Indian influence. Now, a new and increasingly assertive player—the United States—has entered the field. India, despite its own deep-rooted influence in Nepal, does not appear entirely comfortable with the growing American presence. Yet, New Delhi has been reluctant to openly oppose Washington’s expanding engagement.
The United States is widely perceived as seeking to contain China’s influence in the region, with Nepal’s strategic location making it an important point of interest. Washington has also increased its support for Tibetan refugees in Nepal. During last year’s Gen-Z unrest, reports and observations raised questions about the presence of pro-Tibetan elements among demonstrators, some of whom carried slogans such as, “We want our motherland back.” There were also allegations that some protesters had obtained Nepali citizenship using forged documents—claims that require credible investigation and verification.
The public celebration of the Dalai Lama’s birthday this year, attended by diplomats from several Western countries, further highlighted the sensitivity of the Tibetan issue. Some experts, including Dr Pushpa Adhikari, have even raised concerns about the possibility of arms being stored in Tibetan monasteries, although such claims should be independently verified before being treated as established facts.
Moreover, if reports of the new Dalai Lama being born in Nepal prove to be true, they could potentially put Nepal at odds with its trusted neighbour and friend, China. Meanwhile, the US government has allocated substantial funds to support Tibetan refugees and related programmes.
China is watching these developments closely. Its concerns became particularly evident when Kathmandu University planned to host an international conference on Tibetan studies. Following strong objections from China, the Nepal government ultimately decided not to hold the conference.
During Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal’s visit to Beijing, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi remarked that “close neighbours are better than distant relatives.” The message was unmistakable: Nepal should give greater importance to its immediate neighbours rather than becoming excessively dependent on distant powers.
China may be less concerned about India’s traditional influence than about the expanding strategic role of the United States in Nepal. For Beijing, Nepal’s territory is too strategically important to be allowed to become a platform for activities directed against China.
The real danger is that Nepal could become a battleground—or “playground”—for rival powers. Kathmandu must therefore pursue a balanced and independent foreign policy, ensuring that Nepal’s territory and national interests are never used to serve the strategic ambitions of others.
Login to add a comment