Nationalism Must Be Measured by Nepal’s Interests

Dragon Media Editorial

Finance Minister Dr Swarnim Wagle’s remarks in New Delhi—that the era of linking nationalism with anti-India sentiment is over—have reignited debate over nationalism and Nepal–India relations. His comments appear to call for a relationship built on economic cooperation and shared opportunities. But saying that “era is over” could also suggest that all concerns linking nationalism to India are now irrelevant. That is where greater clarity is needed.

Nepal’s ties with India are closely connected to geography, trade, transit, energy, employment and movement between communities. Wagle’s argument that Nepal can benefit from India’s economic progress deserves serious consideration. Expanding trade, securing market access for Nepali goods, and pursuing energy cooperation and investment opportunities can serve Nepal’s interests. Cooperation does not mean surrendering national dignity.

At the same time, discussion of cooperation must not sideline the difficult aspects of the relationship. Border disputes, inundation in border areas, dependence on transit routes and past tensions have left a deep impression on the Nepali public. Raising these issues does not automatically make someone anti-India. The state has a responsibility to address matters affecting national interests on the basis of facts and to seek solutions. Likewise, branding every agreement or instance of cooperation as a betrayal of the nation is not a thoughtful form of nationalism.

It is not in Nepal’s interest to reduce nationalism to two opposing extremes. It is wrong to treat those who favour friendship with India as indifferent to national concerns. It is equally wrong to dismiss everyone who questions Indian policies as representing outdated thinking. Criticism should be based on facts and national interests. Cooperation should be transparent, reciprocal and consistent with Nepal’s ability to make its own decisions.

The practical question is how Nepal’s national interests will be protected in its relationship with India. Whether the issue is a possible prime ministerial visit or talks on trade, energy and infrastructure, the government should clearly state its priorities, expected outcomes and position on sensitive matters. Keeping Parliament, experts and the public informed is not a diplomatic weakness; it is a practice of accountable government.

The essence of nationalism is neither siding with nor opposing India. It is making decisions firmly on what is right for Nepal. A relationship based on equality and mutual respect can benefit both countries. Nepal should pursue friendship without compromising its national interests and cooperation without weakening its ability to decide for itself. This should be the test of Nepal’s foreign policy: whether each step strengthens the country’s sovereignty, dignity and prosperity.