Why is Nepal in crisis?
# Muna Chand
As we approach mid-2025, Nepal’s political landscape is caught in a cycle of serious instability. At every critical juncture in history, Nepal has faced question marks over its internal independence due to leadership crises, institutional incompetence, and foreign interests. But the current situation is becoming more dire. Where the international balance of power game, diplomatic incompetence, regional imbalances, and the Prime Minister’s irresponsible leadership style are posing a deep threat to Nepal’s sovereignty and national interests.
Nepal is currently caught between the strategic agendas of three major foreign powers – the United States, India, and China. But unfortunately, Nepal’s rulers seem more active in ‘accepting and implementing’ their projects than engaging in self-respectful dialogue with them. The US has established its strategic presence through MCC, GSI (Global Security Initiative), Indo-Pacific Strategy, etc. Despite public discontent against this, the government is becoming more favorable. India has not only intervened through borders, rivers, trade, and infrastructure, but has also been playing the role of a director of internal politics through its informal networks. China, which has made Nepal sign the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) agreement, still appears to have failed in practical implementation. China’s waiting strategy has been further complicated by Nepal’s indecision.
Since the implementation of federalism, Nepal’s regional balance has been steadily heading towards disintegration. Provincial governments appear powerless, financially bankrupt, and run on centralized orders. Foreign-funded projects in the name of development are weakening local capacity. Indian influence networks are still strong in the Terai-Madhesh. Indian currency, security agency infiltration, and religious extremism are spreading in the border areas. The activities of foreign NGOs/INGOs and CTA-supported groups are increasing in the Himalayan regions, spreading separatist consciousness under the guise of ‘development’ in the Nepal-China border region.
Nepal’s foreign policy is now becoming directionless, reactionary and incoherent. Nepal has never been able to define its ‘permanent national interest’. As a result, projects like BRI and MCC have ambiguous and contradictory policies. Nepal has not been able to formulate a balanced ‘values-based’ foreign policy between India and China. Nepal’s voice in multilateral organizations like the United Nations, SAARC or BIMSTEC is minimal. Nepal is only currently pursuing reactive diplomacy. Where any strategy is being built not on one’s own initiative, but relying on external circumstances. ‘Policies made under donor pressure, not in the interest of Nepal’ is a serious challenge today.
The character of Nepal’s executive leadership has deteriorated further since the leadership of Sher Bahadur Deuba, KP Sharma Oli and Prachanda. The current Prime Minister Oli has become the embodiment of the extreme contradiction between ‘words and actions’. He publicly criticizes the US GSI, but promotes cooperation through back channels. Declares friendship with China, but seems unable to control pro-CTA activity. They talk about self-respect with India, but are hesitant to stop border encroachment and increase economic dependence. The government led by Prime Minister Oli is neither accountable to the people, nor a symbol of political correctness. In his greed to maintain power, he is ready to make any alliance and compromise—the impact of which is being seriously seen on the sovereignty and policy-making capacity of a small country like Nepal.
Political parties are limited to the arithmetic of the ruling coalition. Parliament, instead of being a center for policy-making, has been reduced to a place for sharing power. While the essence of the Constitution is ‘the rights and freedoms of the people’, it has now become a mere tool for rhetoric. This is why the ruling parties are reducing the effectiveness of parliament; there is a practice of making the president a strategic pawn; and there is an increasing tendency to make the security forces an accessory to politics.
Nepal has reached a decisive juncture. Where the ruling system itself has lost the trust of the people and the nation; There is a danger of becoming a puppet of international strategy; The constitutional structure is in crisis. Now it is necessary to build a strong, self-reliant, ideological nationalist force. Clarity in foreign policy, planning based on long-term interests; enhancing the political consciousness of the people, searching for alternative leadership; protecting the spirit of the constitution, and legal control over foreign interference.
Otherwise, Nepal will risk becoming a new strategic colony, “appearing democratic but with foreign dominance in decision-making.”
