Spread the love

By P.R. Pradhan

Concerns about the role of foreign influence in Nepal’s politics have resurfaced again and again, with critics arguing that political leaders supported by external powers often face diminishing relevance once their usefulness declines.

Historical examples are frequently cited in this context. Lhendup Dorje, who played a key role in the merger of the Himalayan kingdom of Sikkim into the Indian Union, is often mentioned as a figure whose later life did not reflect the political significance of his earlier actions and died a dog’s death.

Former prime minister of Nepal, Surya Bahadur Thapa, regarded by many as an India-leaning political figure, died while undergoing medical treatment in New Delhi. His body was transported to Kathmandu in an Indian military aircraft, but no special state honors were accorded by the Indian government.

Former prime minister, Marichman Singh Shrestha, who was widely viewed as a nationalist leader. Upon his death, the government did not grant him official state honors. However, large numbers of citizens attended his funeral rites, demonstrating significant public respect. Former prime minister, Kirtinidhi Bista, who is regarded as a patriotic leader, had earlier stated his wish not to receive state honors after his death. Such events continue to shape public perceptions of political legacy in Nepal.

More recently, attention has focused on senior leaders of the Nepali Congress and their declining political influence. Observers note that a party president and former prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and his spouse Dr Arzu Rana Deuba—often described as having close ties with the United States—have lost political prominence.

At present, Gagan Thapa has emerged as a leading figure within the Nepali Congress. Supporters view him as a potential future prime minister, while critics allege that his rise reflects growing American influence in Nepali politics. Other popular figures, including Ravi Lamichhane, Balendra Shah (Balen), and Kulman Ghising, are also frequently mentioned in discussions about American deep state backed leadership in Nepal.

Understandably, there is visible Indian involvement in Nepal’s internal political processes. Sources claim that earlier former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba appointed Gagan Thapa as health minister under a strong political pressure from India. During the 2015 earthquake relief efforts, India provided large quantities of humanitarian assistance, some of which were distributed through political figures, including Thapa. Analysts differ in their interpretation of the political implications of these actions.

Since the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990, Nepal has experienced sustained influence from India in political and economic affairs. Until recent years, the United States was generally seen as engaging with Nepal largely through India’s strategic perspective. More recently, however, Washington has expanded its direct diplomatic and strategic engagement with Kathmandu.

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution has yet to receive formal acceptance from India. At the same time, the United States supports Nepal’s republican, secular, and federal system as part of its broader regional strategy, particularly in relation to China and India. According to this view, Nepal’s strategic location has increased its importance in geopolitical competition.

How China and India ultimately assess these developments remains unclear. Some commentators compare the situation to that of Ukraine, where domestic politics became deeply entangled with international power rivalries.

Many analysts warn that Nepal may be moving toward a period of heightened political and strategic vulnerability. They argue that failure by regional powers to address emerging tensions in a timely manner could further complicate the situation.

Nepal’s traditional foreign policy emphasizes non-alignment, non-interference, and balanced relations with neighboring and friendly countries, as well as the principle that Nepali territory should not be used against any other state. Critics caution that these principles are increasingly under strain due to external pressures.

These developments, they argue, should serve as a warning both to Nepal’s neighbors and to domestic political actors. There is a growing perception among sections of the public that national political decision-making is becoming less autonomous.

Some political groups, commentators and patriotic population, have therefore called for a return to the spirit of the 1990 Constitution, arguing that it represented a more balanced and nationally driven political framework.