PM Shah’s Diplomatic Departure

Place matters in politics. And Nepal epitomises it. Nepal’s domestic politics and foreign policy are conditioned by its geography. The dominant school of thought asserts that Nepal’s politics is shaped by the country’s geolocation. While a minority opinion formers simply dismiss the notion of geopolitics and Nepal’s harsh realities. Late Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of modern Nepal and a visionary monarch, had cautioned the future rulers of Nepal that his kingdom was sandwiched between two giant countries – India and China. 

Despite the passage of centuries and experimentation with various forms of governance in Nepal – from kingship, oligarchy, monarchy, parliamentary monarchy to republican polity – the country has witnessed ups and downs in its relationship with other countries, primarily with India and China. And the trilateral relations have become an overarching priority of Nepal’s foreign policy.

 India-locked country

Nepal shares a 1,751 km open border with India on the East, South and West, and it shares a 1,415 km border with China on the North. Hence, Nepal is described as a landlocked country. But it is an India-locked country. Why not China? First, the insurmountable Himalayas and adjoining difficult terrain separate Nepal from China. Second are the linguistic and cultural barriers. Contrarily, Nepal shares an open and porous border with India and both countries are bound by language, culture, religion and trade. 

Despite Nepal’s long adherence to the policy of maintaining equidistance between its two immediate neighbours, it is the ground reality that keeps Nepal closer to India compared to China. Politically also, most senior leaders – BP Koirala, Man Mohan Adhikari, Ganesh Man Singh, and Pushpa Lal Shrestha, among others – had contributed to the independence movement of India and their political roots lie in India. In fact, the Nepali Congress Party was born in India. Therefore, Nepal has a special relationship with India and Indian political leaders, which extends to personal relations. 

Therefore, India, for many reasons, behaves with Nepal with ‘special care’. And India’s cordiality has often resulted in a ‘love and hate relationship’ with Nepal, as it has long been felt as an interference in Nepal’s internal affairs. India’s patronage has brewed tension among the political parties of Nepal for their tilt towards India at different junctures. Basically, the left-leaning political parties are perceived as tilted towards China, and democratic parties towards India.

Rabi Lamichhane, chairperson of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), paid a visit to India at the invitation of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Nitin Naveen. During the visit, he also held meetings with Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and other senior BJP leaders and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Lamichhane visited India at a time when Prime Minister (PM) Balendra Shah made a bold decision to correct the ills in the operation of Nepal’s diplomatic relations with other countries. Shah ended the ill tradition of the PM meeting ambassadors and other junior officials of other countries at the interest of the visitors. Instead, he collectively met the resident ambassadors of different countries at his office, Singh Durbar, marking a departure from decades-old undiplomatic practices. 

On the one hand, PM Shah’s corrective measure commanded high appreciation at home as people had loathed the ill-practices of the so-called senior leaders of the traditional political parties who used to allow any junior embassy officials to meet them at any time and place the aspirant visitors wanted. On the other hand, Shah’s diplomatic professionalism also irked big powers, including India, which had been enjoying a special privilege as even its junior embassy officials in Kathmandu could see not only the high-ranking government officials but also the ministers and PMs of Nepal at their will.   

Therefore, Lamichhane’s visit to India has been construed as a corrective measure to improve ties between Kathmandu and New Delhi as a boundary dispute resurfaced after India and China decided to resume the pilgrimage to Kailash-Manasarovar via Lipulek, which has traditionally been a part of Nepali territory. This created friction in bilateral relations between Nepal and India. So, Lamichhane is expected to also discuss ways to resolve it. The issue flared after PM Shah made a statement in Parliament on Sunday, 31 May 2026, that Nepal had sought the UK’s help to settle the border dispute. Reacting to PM Shah’s statement, India subsequently responded that the issue should be handled through established bilateral mechanisms, rejecting third-party mediation of the international border.  

Border issue

India, in fact, wants ‘most-favoured nation’ treatment from Nepal and patronises Nepal. But PM Shah made history by outright refusing to meet the Indian ambassador to Nepal, citing mismatched diplomatic protocol, and his assertion to see someone of the same protocol has dismayed India. Therefore, Lamichhane, being the chairperson of the RSP, has a double burden right now: pacifying the parliamentarians of the opposition parties that have been obstructing the house on PM Shah’s statement that ‘I came to know that Nepal too has encroached India’s land,’ terming it unbecoming of the position and patching up relations with India. 

 Although the border issue of Lipulek drags both China and India, China has maintained silence over it, most probably because India had been occupying the disputed land and China just entertained India’s request to resume the pilgrimage route, and it might have let India react to the issue first. Anyway, the anger and frustration at the people’s level is more towards India than China.  PM Shah, who used to hang the map of ‘Greater Nepal’ during his tenure as the Mayor of Kathmandu Metropolis, has been doubly burdened: the oppositions’ unrelentless demand for talking to India and resolving the Lipulek, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani issue, and maintaining his diplomatic stance has long been spoiled by the unscrupulous leaders of the traditional political parties. 

(Sedhai is a freelance writer.)