Nepal’s Perpetual Political Transition

Thousands of teachers protesting in Kathmandu
against an education bill in parliament.
Photo credit: @x.com/@airnewsalerts

As discontent grows, the opportunity for meaningful reform continues to diminish.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Nepal is facing a veritable season of discontent. Royalists are protesting for the reinstatement of the monarchy and Hindu statehood. Schoolteachers are agitating for the prompt implementation of legislation that addresses their longstanding concerns about job security, fair wages, and working conditions. They oppose an education reform bill in parliament, which they claim would shift government-run schools to local control, diminish their status, and eliminate many temporary teacher positions. And now, the education minister has resigned from the cabinet.

Key figures within the ruling establishment are blaming one another for the current disorder. Ten months ago, the coalition government of the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist and the Nepali Congress was formed on a platform to amend the constitution. However, it has taken no steps in that direction.

Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli is under renewed pressure following the sudden resignation of Education Minister Bidhya Bhattarai. Her resignation is said to stem from disagreements regarding the management of the teacher protests.

The ongoing demonstrations in Kathmandu and other cities illustrate years of frustration due to political mismanagement, economic hardships, and widespread corruption. Many Nepalis feel stuck in a never-ending political transition.

Since 1948, Nepal has had six constitutions before settling on the current one. The political systems have varied from Rana family rule to multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy, palace-led non-party rule, and a restored multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy. 

In 2008, the nation significantly shifted from a monarchy to a federal and secular democratic republic, which created high hopes for extensive political change. However, persistent political instability raises serious concerns about the state of democracy in Nepal.

Enacting the current constitution in 2015 marked a significant advancement for inclusive governance. This fundamental law aimed to address longstanding structural inequalities by establishing a secular federal republic that distributes power and empowers historically marginalized communities.

A decade later, Nepal’s political landscape remains unstable. Failures within the government, rivalries among political groups, and a tendency to prioritize personal and group interests over the nation’s overall advancement have hindered the progress of democracy.

Internal strife among leading political parties has led to multiple leadership shifts within the executive branch. No party holds an absolute majority in parliament, and successive coalition governments have faced challenges in operating effectively.

Weak institutional growth has hindered both political parties and government agencies. Centralized decision-making among a limited group of senior leaders obstructs internal democratic processes. Excluding younger Nepalis from leadership roles has intensified public dissatisfaction. Many citizens believe that governance is becoming increasingly out of touch with the issues affecting the population.

The impact of federalism has varied significantly among the nation’s seven provinces. Local councils often encounter challenges due to limited resources, insufficient technical expertise, and restricted administrative independence. Furthermore, the central government’s reluctance to delegate substantial authority has led to inefficiencies and growing public dissatisfaction.

The ceremonial presidency, traditionally held by a senior party leader, has consistently failed to rise above partisan interests during pivotal times. Aspirations for an impartial institution to manage the nation’s turbulent politics have been thwarted. Many support the idea of a directly elected executive president, even as discussions continue about restoring the monarchy and establishing a Hindu state identity. 

Royalists view the crown as a symbol of national unity and stability, aiming to restore the monarchy and strengthen Nepal’s identity as a Hindu state. They argue that Nepal has been excessively influenced by foreign powers, particularly India and the West, perceiving the monarchy as a means to reclaim sovereignty and enhance national identity. They assert that the loss of Hindu statehood has diminished the country’s traditions and uniqueness.

In his Nepali New Year’s Eve message on April 13, former king Gyanendra Shah outlined a political and economic roadmap to revitalize the country’s governance based on its traditions and values. Key figures within the ruling parties and strong advocates of the republican model recognize that the government must revise its approach to regain public favor. Nevertheless, they argue that reinstating the monarchy is not the solution.

Additionally, republicans maintain that restoring the monarchy is improbable because of inadequate political and public support, coupled with constitutional challenges. Although there have been royalist demonstrations, they argue that these initiatives are undermined by ineffective leadership and a lack of broad enthusiasm. Republicans further claim that historical controversies surrounding the monarchy obstruct its prospects for restoration.

Political instability continues to impact economic growth significantly. Slow investor confidence has resulted in ongoing delays in crucial infrastructure projects. Key sectors such as tourism, agriculture, and hydropower remain underutilized. Additionally, high youth unemployment and increasing labor migration pose alarming issues.

Like in other countries, the judiciary, civil society organizations, and media are crucial in enhancing accountability and transparency. However, their actions often face increasing criticism from Nepalis. 

Nepalis are advocating for systemic change, effective governance, and inclusive development. Ongoing political unrest underscores the daily challenges encountered by a transitional democracy. However, the likelihood of meaningful reform appears to be waning.

Nepal: The Status Quo Cannot Hold

Whether the country decides to restore the monarchy or strengthen its republic, one thing is clear: the status quo is no longer acceptable to the people.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Royalists hold a street demonstration in Kathmandu on April 8,
demanding the reinstatement of the monarchy.
Photo courtesy: Rastriya Prajatantra Party

The Himalayan republic of Nepal is experiencing a resurgence of pro-monarchy protests in recent weeks, fueled by rising frustration with the country’s political system. Supporters of the former king and nationalist organizations are calling for the restoration of the Hindu monarchy and the abolition of the federal democratic republic.

Corruption, political instability, economic hardships, and disillusionment with the promises of democracy fuel this movement. However, does returning to monarchy provide a solution, or is it merely a longing for a past that might not have been as glorious as it seems?

A March 28 protest turned violent, with police charging batons and lobbing teargas shells at the protesters. Two people were killed, including a video journalist who was burned alive when the building he was filming from was set ablaze. Protesters and police blame each other for the fire. A second victim was a bystander shot by the police. Numerous vehicles and buildings were set ablaze.

The government has blamed the violence on former King Gyanendra Shah, who released a video message a few weeks earlier, urging Nepalis to unite with him to save the nation. The protesters attributed the deaths and destruction to government heavy-handedness and agent provocateurs.

Hopes Defied

Nepal’s monarchy was abolished in 2008, and the country transitioned into a secular, federal democratic republic in 2015. This system has not met the expectations of its people. The succession of more than a dozen prime ministers in the last two decades has resulted in weak governance, instability, and a lack of long-term planning.

Corruption permeates all levels, as politicians are accused of misusing state resources, thereby undermining public trust in the government. Despite countless election promises, economic opportunities remain limited, compelling thousands of Nepalis to seek employment abroad.

Federalism aimed to bring governance closer to the people; however, it created an additional layer of bureaucracy, leading to increased government expenditure with little progress. Many Nepalis believe this governance experiment has proven ineffective and unsustainable for a resource-constrained nation.

Royalists argue that Nepal’s problems arise from its shift away from being a Hindu state and from the monarchy. For centuries, Nepal stood as the world’s only Hindu kingdom, and many believe that secularism has undermined the nation’s cultural and religious identity. Concerns have surfaced that foreign-funded missionary activities are eroding Nepal’s traditions, leading to increasing calls for the reinstatement of Hindu statehood.

Advocates of monarchy assert that the royal family has traditionally offered stability and unity. Despite its shortcomings, the Shah dynasty maintained Nepal’s sovereignty and national identity. Mr. Shah continues to garner a devoted following, with his public appearances and remarks bolstering the royalist movement.

Foreign Influence

Another significant concern is Nepal’s increasing vulnerability to foreign influence. Nestled between two powerful neighbors – India and China – Nepal often finds itself caught in their geopolitical rivalry. India has long exerted substantial political and economic influence, while China has aggressively expanded its presence through infrastructure projects. Many Nepalis believe that external interference threatens their nation’s sovereignty.

Additionally, agreements like the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation grant have prompted protests due to concerns that they act as instruments of foreign control. Border disputes with India in areas such as Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura further intensify nationalist sentiments, leading many to believe that Nepal’s leaders lack the resolve to safeguard the nation’s territorial integrity.

While the monarchy represents stability for some, it does not provide a solution to Nepal’s deep-rooted issues. Corruption, economic struggles, and governance failures have continued under the monarchy. Restoring the crown does not inherently solve Nepal’s challenges, nor does reverting to a Hindu state guarantee national unity.

However, the growing dissatisfaction with the current political order should serve as a wake-up call for Nepal’s leaders. The failure of democratic governance has left people yearning for alternatives. Rather than dismissing royalist movements as regressive, the political establishment must address the people’s genuine concerns – economic growth, governance reforms, and national sovereignty.

Nepal stands at a crossroads. Whether the country chooses to restore the monarchy or strengthen its republic, one thing is clear: the status quo is no longer acceptable to the people.

Nepal: Royalist Burst Hits Republican Barrier

By Sanjay Upadhya

As Nepal grapples with the deaths and destruction resulting from the March 28 protests, the country continues to debate its core demand: the restoration of the monarchy and Hindu state identity.

Two people lost their lives, at least 100 were injured, and numerous vehicles and businesses were set on fire during the protests, prompting the government to impose a curfew in parts of Kathmandu and deploy the army.

Two senior leaders of the monarchist Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), along with several others, are in custody for incitement. At least a dozen individuals have been arrested for looting a department store. The police are currently searching for the chief protest organizer, Durga Prasai, who fled the scene. Some reports suggest he has crossed into India and is plotting his next moves.

The chaos, violence, and government crackdown initially raised questions about the future of the monarchy restoration project in Nepal. However, organizers have quickly regrouped. They appointed Jagman Gurung, the former vice-chancellor of the Nepal Academy, as the new head of the Monarchy Reinstatement Movement Committee. He succeeds Navaraj Subedi, who is currently under house arrest. Gurung will now serve as the committee's leader as royalist groups advance their protest plans.

The government and its allies immediately held former king Gyanendra accountable for the chaos, leading to a reduction in his state-provided security detail. Three days later, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli informed parliament that Mr. Shah was responsible for the mayhem and asserted that the guilty would not escape punishment.

The government is facing pressure from the ruling parties and the opposition to arrest the ex-monarch and revoke his passport. The Kathmandu Municipality has imposed a fine of nearly Rs. 800,000 on Mr. Shah for the damage caused to public property and the environment during the protests. The ex-king has not issued a public statement regarding the violent protests or the allegations against him. Some reports indicate that he has been placed under informal house arrest.

The pro-monarchy movement in Nepal has intensified since February, following a message from Mr. Shah on Democracy Day. In his video message, the deposed monarch urged Nepalis to join him in ‘saving the nation’. Critics of the monarchy, both within the government and outside, began voicing their opposition, which escalated into a crescendo following a rally to welcome the ex-king on March 9, as he arrived in Kathmandu from Pokhara. An estimated 25,000 people participated in the rally, stretching from Tribhuvan Airport to Mr. Shah’s residence, located five kilometers away.

INDIAN ANGLE

The appearance of a poster featuring Yogi Adityanath, the chief minister of the neighboring Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, at the March 9 rally has raised concerns that New Delhi may be behind the royalist resurgence. Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli has made claims to that effect. Nepalis are also contemplating the roles of China, the United States, and the European Union – other influential players in Nepali politics – both before and after the protests.

India has not issued any official comment on the recent political developments in Nepal. However, reports indicate that it is closely monitoring how events unfold. Its broader policy emphasizes supporting Nepal’s democratic process while protecting its strategic interests. Nonetheless, if protests escalate into violence or instability, India may strengthen security along the Nepal-India border to prevent any repercussions.

Some Nepalis believe that although India may not be particularly eager to see the restoration of the monarchy, New Delhi would favor the reinstatement of Hindu statehood within the current republican framework.

The immediate narrative following the March 28 anarchy suggested that the pro-monarchy cause had been severely damaged – perhaps irretrievably – by the actions of the protesters. However, video footage of the events began circulating on social media, fueling speculation that security forces had used excessive force before any genuine security threat emerged. Protesters claimed they were merely responding to police provocation and asserted that government and party provocateurs had infiltrated the demonstration.

The most horrific episode was the burning alive of a video journalist when the building he was working in was set on fire. The government blamed the protesters for the arson, a charge they vehemently deny. It is unclear whether the second deceased was a protester or a bystander. However, some witnesses claim he was a victim of police brutality in an area that did not pose a security risk.

Conflicting accounts about the events leading up to and during the protests have challenged the initial claim of a significant defeat for the royalist cause. The RPP and other groups have vowed to continue demonstrations as part of a broader uprising against the government and the federal secular republican system.

Recent royalist protests in Nepal have been driven by growing public frustration over corruption, mismanagement, impunity, and the government's general lack of direction. Even some members of the ruling parties and supporters of the republican system agree that the government must change its approach to win back public support. Nevertheless, they assert that reverting to a monarchy is not the solution.

Royalists view the monarchy as a symbol of national unity and stability. They seek to restore the institution along with Nepal's Hindu state identity, which was abolished in 2008. Some argue that Nepal has become excessively influenced by foreign powers, particularly India and Western nations, perceiving the monarchy as a way to reclaim sovereignty and national identity.

Republicans argue that a return to the monarchy is impossible because of insufficient political and public support, along with constitutional obstacles. They point out that while royalist protests have occurred, they suffer from weak leadership and lack nationwide momentum. Previous controversies surrounding the monarchy also hinder the restoration of the institution.

Supporters of the monarchy argue that these remarks reflect the last struggles of a system already endangered by corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, and incompetence. They recall that the monarchy was abolished in a highly irregular and authoritarian way.

In 2006, public demonstrations were organized in response to the royal coup of the previous year. Both political parties and the public urged the king to restore parliament and transfer power to an interim prime minister leading a coalition of mainstream political parties and Maoist rebels, who had engaged in a decade-long insurgency against the monarchy and political parties.

A secret five-point agreement – essentially a compromise between the king and the political parties – has been reported to have laid the groundwork for subsequent political developments. The parties, among other things, agreed to support Nepal’s constitutional monarchy.

King Gyanendra appointed and swore in Girija Prasad Koirala, the president of the Nepali Congress, as the interim prime minister. His role was to sign a peace agreement with the Maoists and oversee elections for an assembly responsible for drafting a new constitution. The parties deny the existence of such an agreement, but former King Gyanendra confirmed in a televised interview several years ago that it had been reached.

The parties entrenched their positions over the following months, asserting that the assembly's initial meeting would abolish the monarchy. This development came after the king rejected backdoor negotiations to establish a 'baby king' – specifically, Gyanendra’s grandson – or a powerless cultural monarchy.

While the major parties embraced a republican agenda and secured an overwhelming majority of seats in the 2008 elections, royalist candidates claimed that mass intimidation and, in many cases, outright violence deprived them of campaign opportunities. The monarchy was abolished by a decisive vote of 560 to 4 in the 601-member assembly.

Royalists argue that the parties abandoned constitutional monarchy at the whim of a few leaders, leaving the populace voiceless. However, in successive elections, monarchist organizations like the RPP have not performed very well.

Public consultations garnered significant support for upholding a constitutional monarchy and Hindu statehood during the constituent assembly's preparation of the new constitution in 2015. However, these public sentiments were ignored, and Nepal shifted to a federal, secular democratic republic.

Rejecting the royalist narrative, republicans assert that the current political system arises from widespread discontent with an outdated institution and its inherent problems. However, even staunch republicans privately concede that such appeals are becoming increasingly difficult to make with a populace disillusioned by a series of broken promises.

Royalists express confidence that public frustration with the current order will lead more Nepalis to reconsider the monarchy as a stabilizing force. Furthermore, they argue that shifting regional political dynamics could pave the way for direct or indirect external support for a transition to a monarchy.

Originally published at https://www.vitastapublishing.com

Nepal: Revolution, Regression and Rampage

Royalists persist in their effort to restore the monarchy, while republicans strengthen their stance.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Former king Gyanendra Shah. Photo: Krish Dulal/Wikipedia.

THE highly anticipated royalist demonstrations on March 28 devolved into chaos and violence, raising questions about the future of the monarchy restoration project in Nepal. Two people lost their lives, around 100 were injured, and numerous vehicles and businesses were set ablaze, prompting the government to impose a curfew in parts of Kathmandu and deploy the army.

Two senior leaders of the monarchist Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) – senior vice-president Rabindra Mishra and general secretary Dhawal Shamsher Rana – along with several other individuals, are in custody for incitement. At least a dozen people were arrested for looting a department store.

The police are searching for the chief protest organizer, Durga Prasai, who escaped from the scene. Government supporters held a separate protest on the same day in a different part of Kathmandu, which passed peacefully.

The former vice-chancellor of the Nepal Academy, Jagman Gurung, has been appointed as the new head of the Monarchy Reinstatement Movement Committee. He replaces Navaraj Subedi, who is currently under house arrest. Gurung will now serve as the acting leader of the committee as royalist groups advance their protest plans.

The government and its allies immediately held former king Gyanendra accountable for the chaos, leading to a reduction in his state-provided security detail. Three days later, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli informed parliament that Mr. Shah was responsible for the mayhem and asserted that the guilty would not escape punishment.

The government is under pressure from both the ruling parties and the opposition to arrest the ex-monarch and revoke his passport. Kathmandu Municipality imposed a fine of nearly Rs. 800,000 on Mr. Shah for the damage caused to public property and the environment during the protests. The ex-king has not made a public statement on the violent protests or the allegations against him. Some reports suggest that he has been placed under informal house arrest.

The pro-monarchy movement in Nepal has intensified since February, following a message by Mr. Shah on Democracy Day. In his video message, the deposed monarch urged Nepalis to join him in ‘saving the nation’. Since then, monarchists have staged multiple rallies across Nepal, demanding the restoration of the 240-year-old institution.

The immediate narrative following the March 28 anarchy was that the pro-monarchy cause had been severely damaged – perhaps irretrievably – by the actions of the protesters. However, video footage of the events began circulating on social media, fueling speculation that security forces had used excessive force before any real security threat emerged. Protesters claimed they were merely responding to police provocation and asserted that government and party provocateurs had infiltrated the demonstration.

The most horrific episode was the burning alive of video journalist Suresh Rajak when the building he was working in was set ablaze. The government blamed the protesters for the arson, a charge they vigorously deny. It is not clear whether the second deceased, Sabin Maharjan, was a protester or a bystander. However, some eyewitnesses claim he was the victim of police highhandedness in an area that was not a security risk.

Such conflicting accounts regarding the events before and during the protests have challenged the initial assertion of a significant defeat for the royalist cause. The RPP and other groups have pledged to persist with demonstrations as part of a larger uprising against the government and the federal secular republican system.

The protests were fueled by escalating public frustration over corruption, mismanagement, impunity, and the government’s overall lack of direction. Even some members of the ruling parties and advocates of the republican system concur that the government must alter its approach to regain public support. However, they insist that regressing to a monarchy is not the answer.

Royalists perceive the monarchy as a symbol of national unity and stability. They seek to reinstate the institution along with Nepal’s Hindu state identity, which was abolished in 2008. Some believe Nepal has become overly influenced by foreign powers, particularly India and Western nations, and view the monarchy as a means to reclaim sovereignty and national identity.

Republicans argue that a return to the monarchy is impossible due to insufficient political and public support and constitutional obstacles. They point out that while royalist protests have occurred, they suffer from weak leadership and lack nationwide momentum. Previous controversies surrounding the monarchy also work against a restoration of the institution.

Royalists express confidence that public frustration with the current order will encourage more Nepalis to reconsider the monarchy as a stabilizing force. They argue that the institution has played a crucial role in preserving Nepal’s Hindu identity. Additionally, they maintain that shifting regional political dynamics could lead to either direct or indirect external support for a transition towards monarchy.

For now, the contest will likely continue to take place on the Nepali street.

Battle Royal of Narratives in Nepal

In some ways, Nepal is today involved in a robust debate that is a decade and a half overdue.

By Sanjay Upadhya

Former king Gyanendra addressing Nepalis on the eve of the
75th Democracy Day on February 19.

A message from former king Gyanendra Shah on February 18, on the eve of Nepal’s 75th Democracy Day, and a large public rally two weeks later in support of the monarchy have sparked a vigorous clash of narratives.

In his video message, the deposed monarch urged Nepalis to join him in ‘saving the nation’. Critics within the government and beyond began to voice their opposition, which escalated into a crescendo following the rally on March 9. An estimated 25,000 people participated in the rally, stretching from Tribhuvan Airport to Mr. Shah’s residence, located five kilometers away.

The tone and tenor of the outbursts from the leaders of the three main parties – the Nepali Congress, the Nepal Communist Party Unified Marxist-Leninist, and the Nepal Communist Party Maoist Center – indicate that the establishment is worried about the rise of pro-royalist sentiments.

‘What’s wrong with the nation?’ asked Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli of the Unified Marxist-Leninist Party. Sher Bahadur Deuba, a leader of the Nepali Congress and a former prime minister, offered a tepid response saying the restoration of the monarchy was mere rumor mongering. Other leaders urged Mr. Shah to contest elections if he was eager to serve the nation. The most strident reaction came from former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, a one-time deputy leader of the Maoist rebels, who called for the arrest of the former king for violating the constitution.

The appearance of a poster featuring Yogi Adityanath, the ascetic chief minister of the neighboring Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and a prominent member of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, at the rally has raised concerns that New Delhi may be behind the royalist resurgence. Nepalis are also contemplating how China, the United States, and Europe – influential players in Nepali politics – might react to these developments.

Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’ another former prime minister, intensified speculation by questioning whether both national and international forces were orchestrating the current developments. He described these as part of a conspiracy against the existing federal secular democratic republic. He escalated the situation days later by calling Mr. Shah a ‘brother killer’ – a reference to the June 2001 palace massacre that claimed the lives of then King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya, and seven other royal family members, leading to Gyanendra Shah’s accession to the throne.

Supporters of the monarchy argue that these outbursts represent the last gasps of a system already endangered by corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, and incompetence. They remember that the monarchy was abolished in a highly irregular and high-handed manner.

In 2006, public demonstrations were organized in response to the royal coup of the previous year. Both political parties and the public urged the king to restore parliament and transfer power to an interim prime minister leading a coalition of mainstream political parties and Maoist rebels who had been engaged in a decade-long insurgency against the monarchy and political parties.

A secret five-point agreement – essentially a compromise between the king and the political parties – was reported to have laid the groundwork for subsequent political developments. The parties, among other things, agreed to uphold Nepal’s constitutional monarchy.

King Gyanendra appointed and swore in Girija Prasad Koirala, president of the Nepali Congress, as the interim prime minister. His role was to sign a peace agreement with the Maoists and conduct elections for an assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. The parties deny the existence of such an agreement, but former king Gyanendra confirmed in a televised interview several years ago that it had been reached.

The parties entrenched their positions over the next few months, asserting that the assembly’s first meeting would abolish the monarchy. This development followed the king’s rejection of backdoor negotiations to establish a ‘baby king’ – specifically, Gyanendra’s grandson – or a powerless cultural monarchy.

While the major parties embraced a republican agenda and secured an overwhelming majority of seats in the 2008 elections, royalist candidates claimed that mass intimidation and, in many cases, outright violence deprived them of campaign opportunities. The monarchy was abolished by a decisive vote of 560 to 4 in the 601-member assembly.

Royalists argue that the parties abandoned constitutional monarchy at the whim of a few leaders, rendering the populace voiceless. However, in successive elections, monarchist organizations such as the Rastriya Prajatantra Party have not performed that well.

During the preparation of the new constitution by the constituent assembly in 2015, public consultations garnered substantial support for preserving a constitutional monarchy and Hindu statehood. Nevertheless, these public sentiments were disregarded, and Nepal transitioned into a federal, secular democratic republic.

Rejecting the royalist narrative, republicans assert that the current political system stems from a widespread rejection of an anachronistic institution and its inherent ills. Even staunch republicans privately concede that such pleas are becoming harder to reach with a populace disillusioned by a succession of broken promises.

In some ways, Nepal is today involved in a robust debate that is a decade and a half overdue.

India’s ‘Turbulent Neighbourhood’

Foreign Policy Research Centre Journal interview with Sanjay Upadhya

1. Why are most South Asian states sceptical of India’s primacy in their own ways?

A combination of perceptual and contextual reasons has driven most South Asian states’ scepticism of India’s regional primacy. India’s geographical and demographic heft and preponderance of diplomatic, economic and military power have contributed to an underlying sense of vulnerability among its comparatively smaller and weaker neighbours.
At a concrete level, India’s involvement in the domestic affairs of smaller South Asian states has left a legacy of profound bitterness and resentment. The content and form have differed in individual countries, ranging from outright military involvement in Sri Lanka in the name of peacekeeping to an economic blockade of Nepal to force constitutional changes. Most smaller South Asian states have experienced what they consider flagrant instances of Indian micromanagement of their internal affairs.
These nations fiercely value their independence and sovereignty. They fervently guard their right to make their own decisions based on their perceived national interest. There also is a pronounced sentiment that New Delhi is unable to recognize that India’s adversaries are not automatically adversaries of its neighbours. Broadly speaking, the smaller South Asian states urge India to cease confusing regional leadership with regional policing.

2. Besides China’s assertive behaviour, political and economic instability in “turbulent neighbourhood” is a cause for concern for India. Do you agree?

China’s growing assertiveness in South Asia in recent years has raised India’s concern owing to, among other things, the deep-running Delhi-Beijing rivalry and its regional fallout. Political and economic instability in the smaller South Asian states has compounded that concern. India feels such instability can harm its security interests and vitiate the regional environment to New Delhi’s detriment.
In response, India has employed a combination of traditional diplomatic tools and more novel initiatives. New Delhi has recently been working on integrating the region economically for mutual cooperation to foster collective self-reliance. It is doing so by, among other things, enhancing connectivity through strong physical and digital infrastructure links.
In building strong bilateral ties, India is using its cultural heritage and values to strengthen goodwill and cooperation with its neighbours. The success of such endeavours would depend critically on the extent to which the region manages to overcome the underlying history of distrust.

3. Why is India working on developing an “extended neighbourhood” that involves islands in the Indian Ocean, Gulf countries and nations in South-East Asia.? Is it for a bigger, influential and ambitious India?

With India’s great power ambitions on the ascendant, it is natural for New Delhi to find ways to project its aspirations beyond its immediate vicinity. One way of doing so is by extending what India considers to be its neighbourhood. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has asserted that neighbours are not only those with whom one shares geographical boundaries but also those with whom hearts meet. Beyond such rhetorical flourish, trade, energy, security, and military imperatives underpin India’s extended neighbourhood framework. India’s contests with Pakistan and China – and their wider ramifications – have given added momentum to this approach.
As India seeks its ‘rightful place’ in its extended neighbourhood, concerns continue to be voiced. Commentators – Indian and foreign alike – have suggested that what New Delhi considers its rightful place, others can consider a hegemonistic threat. Nevertheless, the concept has become part of a new national consensus in foreign policy traversing the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Indian National Congress.

4. New Delhi’s ability to deal with Washington and Beijing can be significantly enhanced if India achieves greater strategic confidence in South Asian geopolitics. Do you agree?

Winning the trust of its South Asian neighbours and reflecting that confidence in its policies and pronouncements would certainly enhance India’s ability to deal with the United States and China. Mr. Modi’s Neighborhood First policy, enunciated with his rise to power in 2014, lays the basis for generating such strategic confidence. Under the policy, New Delhi has affirmed the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity; mutual respect and sensitivity; non-interference in internal affairs; shared prosperity; connectivity for regional integration; and people-to-people exchanges.
The invitations to leaders of neighboring states to Mr. Modi’s three oath-taking ceremonies are a manifestation of this approach. However, the practice has also been criticized. Smaller neighbours could perceive the invitations as a demonstration of India’s imperiousness and sense of predominance, akin to Emperor George V’s 1911 Delhi Durbar.
The smaller states assert that there are better ways to underscore good neighbourliness, such as greater Indian eagerness to resolve long-running divisive issues such as border disputes and water sharing. They continue to be concerned about Indian interference in neighbours’ domestic affairs under various guises. New Delhi needs to correct this contradiction in the neighbourhood before it can hope to play a more effective and influential role in the broader global arena.

5. The Indian government’s policy of diplomatically isolating Pakistan does not seem to be succeeding as Islamabad has stepped up its diplomatic efforts to engage Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran. How far is it true?

During the Cold War, Pakistan acquired its own strategic significance, which has not diminished substantially in the aftermath. To be sure, Pakistan faces multiple sources of internal and external conflict. Extremism, intolerance of diversity, and dissent have grown, threatening the country’s social cohesion and stability prospects. From India’s perspective, a nuclear-armed inimical state where good-faith engagement has repeatedly failed deserves to be diplomatically isolated.
Still, Pakistan’s strategic importance persists amid new geopolitical realignments. The country is situated at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, and shares frontiers with Afghanistan, China, India, and Iran. This makes it a central actor in regional stability, trade routes, and global power dynamics, especially in security and energy.
India’s push to promote the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) over the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) as the primary neighborhood platform – in a palpable effort to shun Pakistan – has met with disgruntlement from many smaller states. Moreover, New Delhi’s effort to isolate Pakistan diplomatically has had to contend with a resurgence of Islamabad’s importance to countries such as Russia and Iran, with which New Delhi enjoys close ties.

FPRC Journal-58-(2024-2)

Book Review: Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal

“[A] story of how Nepal’s politicians pull out all the

parliamentary stops to undermine a competent democratic

government in a country starving for modernization,” 

writes JOHN P. HUGHES in the Friends of Nepal Newsletter.

 

https://friendsofnepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/248f52fa-1120-475b-a369-f12084d84062.pdf