Spread the love

By Our Political Analyst

As Nepal moves closer to March 5, a familiar pattern has returned. Nepali leaders are packing their bags for Delhi, one after another, at a time when domestic politics is tense and uncertain. Publicly, these trips look routine. Leaders attend seminars, festivals, interaction programs, or diaspora gatherings. Behind the scenes, these visits carry far greater weight. They signal anxiety, calculation, and a long-standing habit of seeking reassurance across the southern border when politics at home turns uneasy.

This is not new. Whenever Nepal enters a sensitive political phase, elections, regime shifts, or street movements, Delhi becomes a key stop for leaders from across the spectrum. The current wave fits that pattern. Former prime minister Baburam Bhattarai’s four-day India visit, followed quickly by Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda’s trip, set the tone. Soon after, Arzu Rana reached Delhi, with more leaders preparing to follow. Even newer political actors now feel the pull. The message is clear. When the stakes rise in Kathmandu, leaders look south.

The timing matters. Nepal is heading into elections after months of public frustration, youth led protests, and weakening trust in established parties. Many leaders sense that the old political order is under strain. For those who played a role in the 2006–07 change, Delhi still represents a place where past alliances were shaped and political survival once secured. India, too, has long framed that period as part of its own regional success story. That shared history still shapes present behavior.

Official schedules rarely tell the full story. Bhattarai spoke at academic and policy forums and gave media interviews. Prachanda attended a program organized by party aligned Non-Resident Nepalis. Yet the real attention focused on Prachanda’s private meeting with India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. A hotel dinner, a one on one conversation, and no public readout spoke louder than any formal event. Such meetings are not about speeches. They are about signals, reassurance, and red lines.

India’s own concerns explain part of this rush. Its traditional political partners in Nepal have weakened. The monarchy is gone. The Nepali Congress struggles to regain momentum. The Maoists no longer command the influence they once did. At the same time, India’s sway in Nepal faces pressure from China and, to a degree, the United States. The Gen Z protests last year caught both Delhi and Beijing off guard. That shock still lingers.

In this setting, India appears eager to stay engaged before voters speak. Elections offer predictability. Delhi’s message, shared privately and publicly, stresses stability and process. For Nepali leaders, this attention cuts both ways. Some seek India’s comfort to steady their footing at home. Others hope to show they remain relevant regional players. Even emerging leaders seem keen to be seen, heard, and noted in Delhi’s policy circles.

China is watching quietly. Recent signals suggest Beijing now reads Nepal’s street politics more carefully, even acknowledging actors it once ignored. This adds another layer to Delhi’s urgency and to Nepali leaders’ calculations.

At heart, this beeline to Delhi reflects a deeper problem. Nepal’s leaders still lack confidence in resolving high stakes political moments at home. Instead of building trust with voters and institutions, many look outward. As March 5 nears, these trips reveal less about India’s power and more about Nepal’s unresolved dependence, a habit that refuses to fade even as politics at home demands a reset.