Spread the love

By Arpan Shahi, Nepalgunj



As Nepal gears up for the March 2026 general elections, the candidacy of Tashi Lhazom, a 25-year-old former climate activist running under the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), has emerged as a defining test of the nation’s commitment to its longstanding diplomatic principles, bilateral strategic interests, and domestic political stability. Once a prominent figure in Nepal’s 2025 Gen Z anti-corruption movement, Lhazom’s well-documented pro-separatist leanings, controversial ideological background, and extensive ties to foreign institutions have raised profound, bipartisan concerns about her alignment with Nepal’s sacrosanct One-China policy, casting serious doubt on her fitness for public office.​


Nepal’s One-China policy is the cornerstone of its bilateral relationship with the People’s Republic of China. Under this framework, Kathmandu unequivocally recognizes Tibet as an inalienable part of China, strictly bans all forms of anti-China separatist activities within its borders, and upholds the principle of non-interference in neighboring nations’ internal affairs. For decades, this commitment has underpinned cross-border security, large-scale infrastructure cooperation (including flagship Belt and Road Initiative projects), mutually beneficial economic partnerships, and regional stability in the Himalayas. Yet Lhazom’s public record directly contradicts this foundational diplomatic compact, threatening to unravel decades of trust and cooperation.​


Publicly verifiable social media archives confirm Lhazom’s repeated expressions of sympathy for the “Free Tibet” separatist movement. These include archived comments endorsing Tibetan independence, as well as a deleted post in which she openly defended her stance on the Tibetan issue with minimal retraction or meaningful clarification. Compounding these concerns is her educational background: she studied at a Tibetan exile-affiliated institution in India, where she also participated in diaspora forums focused on advancing Tibetan separatist agendas. For a candidate representing Humla District, a remote Himalayan region sharing a direct, strategically sensitive border with China, these are not mere “personal views.” They constitute a tangible risk to Nepal’s border security, diplomatic credibility, and the hard-won stability of its northern frontier.​

Equally alarming are Lhazom’s deep, well-documented connections to U.S.-funded institutions and foreign-backed non-governmental organizations (NGOs) ties that have fueled widespread suspicion of external influence in her political ascent. Her professional trajectory includes a fellowship with Girl Rising, an organization heavily reliant on USAID grants; membership in the U.S. Embassy Youth Council Nepal; and involvement in documentaries supported by U.S.-affiliated foundations. Critics across Nepal’s political spectrum argue that her rise is not rooted in grassroots Nepali interests, but in geopolitical manipulation by external actors seeking to exploit Nepal’s democratic processes. This concern is not abstract: in 2025, Lhazom was nominated for a ministerial role overseeing NGOs via the Social Welfare Council, a position that would have granted her direct authority to shape Nepal’s engagement with foreign-funded organizations, creating a direct channel for external agendas to infiltrate domestic governance. Amid intense public outcry over the conflict of interest, her nomination was ultimately withdrawn, but the risk persists in her current electoral bid.​

The controversy surrounding Lhazom has already fractured Nepal’s Gen Z movement, with core protest groups like Gen Z Karnali explicitly disavowing her political ambitions. These groups emphasize that the 2025 youth uprising was a grassroots push for systemic anti-corruption reform, not a platform to elevate individuals with questionable foreign ties and separatist sympathies. Politicians and geopolitical analysts have gone further, alleging coordinated external lobbying to boost Lhazom’s career, undermining public trust in the integrity of Nepal’s democratic process. Former lawmaker Gyanendra Shahi, for instance, accused the U.S. Embassy of actively lobbying for her 2025 ministerial appointment, warning that the youth movement had become vulnerable to “foreign manipulation.”​

Against this backdrop, Tashi Lhazom’s electoral candidacy poses profound, potentially irreversible risks to Nepal’s national sovereignty and long-term interests. Her election would not only erode Nepal’s commitment to the One-China policy, a diplomatic red line for Beijing, but also strain its most critical bilateral relationship, jeopardize billions in infrastructure and economic cooperation, and embolden foreign interference in Nepal’s internal affairs. For a nation navigating the complex geopolitics of the Himalayas, where balancing relations with neighbors and global powers is a matter of survival, endorsing a candidate with documented separatist leanings and conflicting external loyalties directly contradicts Nepal’s constitutional obligations, diplomatic commitments, and national security imperatives.​


As Nepali voters prepare to cast their ballots, the choice before them transcends individual political preferences. It is a decision to either uphold the sovereign principles that have guided Nepal’s foreign policy for decades, or to compromise those principles for short-term political gains, risking long-term instability, diplomatic isolation, and the erosion of national sovereignty. The stakes could not be higher: Nepal’s future as a stable, independent Himalayan nation hangs in the balance.​