BP Koirala's Geopolitical Foresight

Nepal’s first-ever elected Prime Minister, BP Koirala, who the king dismissed after just eighteen months of a five-year term, was placed in solitary confinement for eight years and later forced into exile, chose to return home on December 30, 1976, ending eight years of exile in India.  It has been 49 years since his return and 43 years since his death. Despite charges of treason and sedition hanging over his head, Koirala put the nation first and decided to return home in view of the evolving geopolitical situation in South Asia and beyond.  

BP had a premonition that South Asia is going to be gripped by an arc of instability. He issued an appeal on the eve of his return that today stands more relevant than ever.  He said, “today, our country is in a national crisis…as a result, the very national identity has been endangered…because of the lack of national unity, foreign interests have started intrigues in our country, making Nepal a centre of international conspiracy.” The statement further reads, “In our country today, there is a preponderance of self-seeking, communalism (regionalism), an individualistic mentality, and a tendency to look to foreign lands. In such a situation, nationalism is the first casualty.” 

Accumulated challenges

These factors have exacerbated over the years. The state has become fragile and appears to be in deep trouble.  Koirala appealed for national unity and reconciliation to save the country, and called on every Nepali as their first and foremost duty to safeguard the national identity. For this, he emphatically stated that nationalism and democracy must go together. Mere nationalistic rhetoric without substance and people at the centre of governance serves no purpose. He believed nationalism, democracy and economic development are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Over the years, mere sloganeering, politicisation of state institutions and lack of delivery have pushed the country into a deep pit. The country stands at an intersection of these accumulated challenges. 

Populist politics of the left and right-wing parties and beyond has compounded this crisis.  In 1979, BP foresaw the rise of populism in politics, and said, “I do not propose to say or do anything which I think is not correct, even if it is popular. If democracy has to be saved we cannot afford to give in to populism. To save democracy, we may at times have to take unpopular decisions and make the people accept them.”  

South Asia’s current turmoil and gathering storms stand as a testimony to BP’s foresight. The region has never been quiet-marked by an ethnically charged atmosphere and a fractured national identity. Growing religious intolerance may lead to increased violence. The region is increasingly becoming a stage for intensified competition over geopolitical influence. There have been multiple instances of rapid regime change in South Asia in recent years. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled in August 2021 after the Taliban took control of the state. In July 2022, president of Sri Lanka Gotabaya Rajapaksa, fled the country after failing to address the concerns of widespread civilian-led protests. Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was forced to resign and sought asylum in India in August 2024. 

The region has been the worst victim of cross-border terrorism.  Growing mistrust between India and Pakistan following the May clashes and India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty contains risks of a resurgence of bilateral tensions and conflicts.  Nepal remains shaken by Generation Z-led protests over corruption, and inequality, unemployment and demands for good governance and accountability. Amid this tricky neighbourhood, The Economist (November 6) writes, India remains “surprisingly stable” and “calm,” with its leadership giving a sense that better days are really on the way. 

Nepal sits strategically between India and the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China. Tibet’s stability, security and development are closely linked to Beijing’s own. For China, no Tibet-related issue is too small to merit attention.  As the actors involved in the Tibet issue include “the world’s second largest economy, the planet’s most famous monk and the powerful West,” which appears intent on making the Tibetan issue all the more urgent, Beijing’s increasing attention naturally falls on Nepal.  This concern was reflected in a letter sent by U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in 2019, congratulating Prime Minister K.P. Oli on the completion of a year in office, and seeking reassurances regarding the protection of Tibetan refugees in Nepal. 

Koirala said that India considers “the region south of the Himalayas to be of immense importance from her security point of view. India will view with suspicion any endeavour to reduce this importance.” The Himalayan front remains a critical issue in geopolitics. China and India have the longest disputed border in the world. Reports indicate that both sides are building a vast network of roads, tunnels and landing strips needed to move soldiers and supplies in anticipation of future clashes.  Several flashpoints, including Chumbi Valley and the Doklam Plateau, are in this region. The Siliguri corridor, containing the “Chicken Neck” that connects India’s northeastern states with the mainland, is seen as the “terrifying vulnerable artery” in India’s geography. Bangladesh describes India’s northeastern states as landlocked and Dhaka as the “guardian of ocean seas.” 

'State capture' 

South Asia is being watched closely and carefully with the rise of China, through which the shape of the next world order is unfolding. As the saying goes, “The politics of all powers lies in their geography.” Between Beijing and New Delhi lies Kathmandu.  No discussions of evolving geopolitics are complete without them. Nepal is confronting a set of complex and interlocking challenges in its never ending transition. A few hours of protests on September 8 and 9, which dislodged a coalition of two major parties enjoying nearly a two-thirds majority, is beyond anybody’s comprehension.

This demonstrated how the state and its institutions had eroded and lost their strength and credibility, and how years of “state capture” by political parties have assaulted the state system. Unfortunately, Nepal seems to be sitting pretty and out of touch with the new generation of challenges and the rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. Does Nepali Congress have the time and capacity for self-reflection on where and why it deviated from the BP’s path and why his warning went unheeded? 

(The author is the former ambassador of Nepal.)