Submit your Article

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has hailed the export of electricity from Nepal to Bangladesh via the Indian grid as a landmark in sub-regional energy cooperation. 

Speaking at a joint press conference with Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in New Delhi on Saturday, Modi emphasized that the swift implementation of such large-scale initiatives in multiple areas within just one year reflects the dynamic pace and scope of bilateral relations.

Last year, Nepal and India signed a long-term power trade agreement, which included India's consent to facilitate the sale of Nepali electricity to Bangladesh. Officials from Nepal and Bangladesh are currently finalizing the modalities of this agreement.

The joint statement underscored the commitment to expanding power and energy collaboration and developing intra-regional electricity trade. This includes competitively-priced power generated from clean energy projects in India, Nepal, and Bhutan, transmitted through the Indian electricity grid. To support this initiative, India will expedite the construction of a 765 kV high-capacity Katihar-Parbatipur-Bornagar interconnection, with suitable Indian financial assistance, to serve as a key anchor for grid connectivity.

Modi and Hasina also discussed regional issues, highlighting the potential of the India-Bangladesh relationship as a major anchor for regional and sub-regional integration under the BIMSTEC, SAARC, and IORA frameworks. They committed to working together on global platforms to advance their common interests, particularly those of the Global South.

As part of sub-regional connectivity initiatives, India will provide transit facilities for the movement of Bangladeshi goods to Nepal and Bhutan via the railway network. The two leaders also reiterated their commitment to the early operationalization of the BBIN Motor Vehicle Agreement to enhance sub-regional connectivity.

Recognizing the significant contribution of their partnership to regional peace, security, and stability, India and Bangladesh reaffirmed their commitment to a free, open, inclusive, secure, and rules-based Indo-Pacific region. With converging visions for the Indo-Pacific and awareness of the region's vulnerability to climate change, India and Bangladesh will co-lead the ‘Disaster Risk Reduction and Management’ pillar of the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI). They will cooperate to mitigate disaster risks, build disaster-resilient infrastructure, and contribute to the sustainability of their shared maritime region.

Narendra Modi was sworn in for his third consecutive term as India’s prime minister on Sunday. The ceremony, held at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi, was  attended by leaders from neighboring countries, highlighting strong regional ties. 

Nepal’s Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Sri Lanka’s President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Maldives’ President Mohammad Muizu, Bhutan’s King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk, Seychelles’ Vice-President Amhed Afif, and Mauritius’ President Prithvirajsing Roopun were among the attendees.

Modi, who began inviting his neighboring counterparts when he was elected the prime minister for the time in 2014, has continued with the tradition for his third-term as well, apparently signaling that he will stick to ‘Neighborhood First’ policy. Under Modi’s stewardship, this policy continues to evolve, focusing on mature, nuanced, and practical responses to regional issues. 

A prime example is India's measured approach to anti-India rhetoric from Maldives President Mohammad Muizu, who attended Modi’s swearing-in ceremony. Enhanced development and economic partnerships with neighboring countries have also marked this period, achieving greater regional connectivity, infrastructure improvements, and stronger development cooperation. Now, all South Asian countries are seeking an enhanced economic and development partnership with India avoiding geopolitical and other issues. 

Except with Bhutan, India's relationship with neighboring countries witnessed many highs and lows during Modi’s first two terms as India’s prime minister. With Nepal, significant progress has been made in cultural, economic, and development spheres despite past disputes like the economic blockade and the map row, which still cast a shadow over the relationship. Trust between India and Nepal is yet to return to the high levels seen in 2014.

India’s relations with Pakistan remain strained, affecting regional cooperation and the functionality of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Ties with the Maldives are also fraught, with little signs of improvement. As a regional leader aiming for global influence, India is expected to play a proactive role in mending ties with its smaller neighbors and addressing their concerns. 

Over the past few years, India has projected itself as a leader and voice of the Global South or more importantly South Asia. As a strong prime minister, Modi and his government could have played a vital role to resolve the issues with the South Asian countries. In his third tenure, Modi leads a coalition government. It might not be easy for him to take decisions without the consent of ruling partners.

Nitish Kumar, chief minister of Bihar and his Janata Dal (United), the second-biggest ally, will also have a greater say when it comes to Modi government’s Nepal policy. Though India’s external policy is under the control of the Union government, of late, states are having greater influence on those countries which share borders with them. 

A significant concern for India is the growing Chinese influence in the region. While India seeks to reduce this influence, its neighbors are increasingly looking to China for assistance and investments. As Modi looks ahead to lead India for the historic third consecutive term, smaller neighbors like Nepal will be keenly watching India’s ties with China, because they believe improved India-China relationship will make it easier for them to deal with both countries. 

But foreign affairs experts say the India-China relationship, strained by border disputes, is unlikely to improve soon, impacting India’s relations with its smaller neighbors. Modi’s third term presents a long list of tasks to strengthen ties with neighboring countries, essential for regional connectivity, collaboration, and stability. The Nepal-India relationship, in particular, is expected to sail smoothly without major hurdles.

India’s 18th Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) election results are out, with the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) securing the majority needed to form a new government. Although the BJP did not achieve a single-party majority as it did in 2014 and 2019, coalition support ensures that Narendra Modi will enter a historic third consecutive term, a first since 1962. 

The election results indicate a weakening of the BJP’s dominance, a resurgence of the Indian National Congress, and a growing influence of regional parties. This also marks the return of coalition governance in India after a decade. Since Nepal and India are close neighbors, a pertinent question arises: What will India’s Nepal policy look like under Modi’s third term? Over the past decade, Nepal-India relations under Modi's leadership have seen many fluctuations. 

Modi’s emphasis on the ‘neighborhood first policy’ in 2014 placed Nepal at the forefront. However, Nepal-India relationship hit its lowest point right after Nepal promulgated its new constitution in 2015. Seemingly to show its disapproval of Nepal’s new charter, India imposed an undeclared border blockade for about six months, causing an economic and humanitarian crisis in Nepal that was still reeling from the devastating earthquake of 2015.

Relations began to improve from mid-2016 but hit another rocky patch during the 2019 map dispute. Despite these highs and lows, Modi visited Nepal five times during his first two terms. Under his leadership, bilateral mechanisms were revived, several long-standing issues were resolved, and numerous connectivity projects—such as the cross-border pipeline, Integrated Check Post, railways, roads, and digital connectivity— were advanced. In the final months of this second term, two countries signed a power agreement to export Nepali electricity in India and Bangladesh. 

Recently, bilateral relations have stabilized, and with Modi’s third term, major changes to India's Nepal policy are unlikely. Over the past decade, the BJP has strengthened its ties with Nepal's political parties. In several instances, Nepali leaders are employing BJP channels to reach out to the highest level of government to resolve outstanding issues.

This elevation of bilateral relations to a political level has opened more communication channels. Prior to 2014, interactions were largely limited to bureaucratic and security agencies, with minimal high-level exchanges. Recently, the relationship has evolved into a robust development partnership, though some contentious issues remain unresolved. 

While the BJP has faced criticism for allegedly fueling Hindu radicalism, these claims lack independent verification. Before the elections, political analysts speculated that the BJP might push to turn both India and Nepal into Hindu states in Modi’s third term. However, the return of a hung parliament may hinder such plans. The Modi government should reassure Nepali leaders that there is no such agenda in Nepal. 

Continuation of Modi as prime minister presents an opportunity for Nepal to address pending issues and explore future avenues. Compared to the BJP, the Indian National Congress and other parties have fewer communication channels with Nepal's political leaders. Key contentious issues, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaty and border disputes, require intense diplomatic and political dialogue. Both sides must avoid politicizing these issues to maintain healthy bilateral relations. India’s Nepal policy is expected to remain stable for India’s political parties are not much divided on foreign policy issues. 

Nepal government and political parties need a clear strategy for engagement with India. All political parties in Nepal should unify on major issues with India, ensuring that changes in government do not disrupt bilateral relations. Consistent positions from major political leaders, regardless of their power status, will facilitate smoother negotiations with India on contentious issues. It would have been better if those issues were settled when there was a powerful government led by Narendra Modi for 10 years. 

Enhanced coordination between political leadership and bureaucracy is essential. Rather than focusing solely on India’s Nepal policy, Nepal must prepare its own strategy for dealing with India, which is poised to become the world’s third-largest economy. The key question is how Nepal will manage this relationship, with economic and development partnerships forming the foundation of bilateral ties over the past decade. 

The current coalition government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal may not collapse in the near future, though Prime Minister Dahal himself seems less certain. Political analysts and leaders agree that as long as the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, the first and second largest parties respectively, do not join forces to form a new government, Dahal will continue to exploit the situation. However, the complexity of Nepal’s political parties makes it challenging for analysts to make definitive predictions. Few anticipated that Dahal would expel the Nepali Congress from the government on March 4 and ally with his rival, KP Sharma Oli of UML. 

For over a year, Dahal has remained in power somehow, securing the vote of confidence three times, highlighting his government’s fragility. Since the beginning, even Dahal has appeared uncertain about the government’s longevity. He often tells his colleagues that despite predictions he wouldn't last a couple of months, he has managed to stay in power for over a year. His remarks in public also indicate his doubts about the government's survival. There are several factors that are feeding Dahal’s doubt, including the possibility that coalition partners, mainly CPN (Unified Socialist), could withdraw support anytime. 

This uncertainty has also made Dahal desperate to cling on to power. To bolster his position, Dahal facilitated a split in the Janata Samajbadi Party led by Upendra Yadav, creating a new party of seven lawmakers who now support his government. Dahal was worried after reports that Yadav was planning to pull out its support from the coalition and join forces with Congress, the main opposition, in a bid to form a new government.    

Dahal’s CPN (Maoist Center) has just 32 seats in the House of Representatives, which makes it a distant third largest party after the UML and NC. Yet, Dahal managed to become prime minister after the 2022 general elections, which took much negotiations, political maneuverings, and making and breaking of alliances.    

Dahal’s guile and cunning has kept him at the helm so far, but he has yet to (and he may never) shake off the specter of one of the coalition partners turning against him, reducing his government into a minority status.  

With Yadav’s Janata Samajbadi Party out of the picture, Prime Minister Dahal is now concerned that CPN (Unified Socialist) Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal might withdraw support to the coalition due to his growing closeness with Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba. While this might not immediately topple the government, it would definitely force Dahal to reaffirm his majority, further weakening his political standing. Additionally, Rastriya Swatantra Party Chair Rabi Lamichhane, also the minister for home affairs, faces the allegation of embezzling cooperative funds, and Dahal fears a court order might force Lamichhane to resign, prompting RSP to leave the government.

Political parties have finally agreed to form a parliamentary committee to probe the misuse of funds by multiple cooperatives across the country. Had Lamichhane’s name been included in the probe committee’s terms of reference, he might have resigned. But to prevent this, Prime Minister Dahal successfully convinced NC President Deuba to adopt a more flexible stance. It was NC that first raised the demand for a parliamentary panel to probe the financial scandals in various cooperatives, including the one linked with Home Minister Lamichhane.  

Dahal’s visit to Deuba’s residence before the budget session suggests a possible agreement between the two leaders. After forming a new  ruling coalition in March by breaking the alliance with the Congress, Dahal feels external forces might attempt to remove him from power. This explains his attempt at appeasing India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, which is likely to get a historic third term as several exit polls indicate.

After parting ways with the NC, Dahal has faced increasing difficulties. Relegated to the opposition bench, the NC has been creating obstacles in the Parliament and has even initiated street protests, aiming to topple the government. There are also reports about the NC holding back-channel negotiations with the UML to form a new coalition, the one that is stable and strong.   

Within the UML, opinions are divided: some leaders believe a coalition with NC would ensure stability, while others argue that as key electoral competitors, the two parties should not ally. Nonetheless, it won’t be surprising if they come together. Some NC leaders want to join the government, fearing that the current home administration under Lamichhane might target them in corruption scandals.

At this juncture, it is difficult to gauge Oli's intentions. The UML leader has been saying that the internal and external environment is not conducive for him to become prime minister, which is why he is currently supporting Dahal and focusing on strengthening his party. 

Oli aims to make UML the largest party by inducting lawmakers from fringe parties. But at the same time he has not completely ruled out the possibility of forming an alliance with the Congress. Some leaders say Oli’s preferred option is to ally with the Maoists and ultimately seek to merge the two parties, with UML leaders in dominant positions. Oli might even try to secure the position of president after the 2027 elections, while his current targets remain NC and RSP, seeing the former as a key electoral competitor and the latter as a formidable threat to all major parties. 

With both ruling and opposition parties expending significant energy either to maintain or disrupt the coalition, governance, economy, and development are taking a hit.

The US Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) was a hotly debated topic in political and diplomatic circles from 2019 to 2022, though discussions have subsided somewhat since then. In Nepal, discourse on the IPS has been dominated by its security and strategic components, with support for this initiative often viewed as joining the US-led military alliance.

In a veiled reference to IPS, Nepali leaders often say that Nepal cannot and should not join any military alliances as it goes against the country’s long-standing commitment to the non-alignment policy. Bolstering Indo-Pacific security is a key part of the IPS which faced stiff opposition in Nepal after the country was mentioned in the 2019 Indo-Pacific Strategy Report by the US Department of Defense.

Additionally, some US documents claimed that Nepal had joined the State Partnership Program (SPP), prompting Nepal to reportedly request for removal from the SPP. Some SPP documents, however, still include Nepal. Nepali leaders also briefly put off the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) project, stating that it was part of the IPS. Discussions on the IPS in Nepal are framed around these two issues, but the strategy encompasses much more.

For the US and international strategic community, the 2022 Indo-Pacific Strategy unveiled by the Biden administration serves as the guiding document on IPS and its execution. The Trump administration had placed the military component as the central pillar of the strategy which landed it in controversy. So, the Biden administration introduced a new Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), which has now entered its third year of implementation. US officials are currently occupied with compiling progress reports on a country-by-country basis. Contrary to the Trump administration’s confrontational approach toward China, the Biden administration’s IPS adopts a different stance. It consists of five pillars: promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific, fostering connections within and beyond the region, driving Indo-Pacific prosperity, enhancing Indo-Pacific security, and building regional resilience to 21st-century transnational threats.  Biden’s IPS focuses more on economic cooperation, capacity building of regional partners, and the view that US resources alone are insufficient. 

A frequently asked question in Nepal is whether the country is already a part of the IPS. This is a tricky question and the answer can be both yes and no. Those who view the IPS solely through the prism of security and military cooperation say Nepal is not involved. However, considering all components of the strategy and its implementation, Nepal can be seen as a part of the IPS. US officials and experts have often clarified that the IPS is an overarching framework outlining how the US, as a superpower, envisions the Indo-Pacific region. Nepal, being the landlocked country situated between India and China, is a high priority in the region. US officials have stated in documents that ‘Nepal can play a vital role in the Indo-Pacific region’ and that Nepal is ‘a valued partner in the Indo-Pacific’.

The broader context suggests Nepal is indeed a high priority for the US within its overarching Indo-Pacific policy. In recent years, the US has stepped up diplomatic engagements with Nepal through high-level visits. These visits have focused on increasing US development assistance to Nepal, attracting private investment, promoting democracy and human rights, curbing corruption, and boosting collaboration across sectors. At the same time, the IMF, World Bank and other financial institutions have also intensified their engagements with Nepal. The MCC compact is a case in point.

Looking at how the IPS is being implemented in Nepal through various US agencies like USAID, there are investments “to strengthen democratic institutions for good governance and human rights; foster sustainable, inclusive, transparent economic growth; and improve resilience to health and climate threats” which is the thrust of IPS.

Let’s consider some specific cases now. The first pillar of the IPS is a free and open Indo-Pacific. Targeting the first pillar, the US has been supporting Nepal across domains like governance, democratic values, security and stability. This includes working with Nepal’s media, civil society and key institutions to build capacity, as well as security cooperation with Nepali forces on disaster preparedness, humanitarian assistance, border security, and more.

US agencies are actively engaged in Nepal across other pillars of the IPS. The US closely coordinates with allies and partners, recognizing its resources alone are insufficient for the region's challenges. Hence, allies like Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and the UK are also expanding their presence and investments aligned with their own Indo-Pacific outlooks.

While the IPS has many facets, discussions and understanding in Nepal have been narrow. Obviously, there are challenges in dealing with the strategic initiatives, but time has come to make an understanding and position about what IPS means to Nepal. In the lack of an official government position, politicians and bureaucrats face difficulties addressing IPS-related issues and projects, particularly with the US.

As Nepal desperately seeks investment across sectors, the US and its partners are exploring opportunities, alongside emerging economies eyeing Nepal. Rather than shying away or viewing the IPS solely as a military strategy, there is a need for open dialogue to build an accurate understanding. The IPS involves US engagement with Nepal on clean energy, climate change, disaster preparedness and facilitating regional power trading agreements. On energy cooperation, the US is working closely with south Asian countries including India, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal. The US also played a vital role in facilitating a regional power trading agreement in South Asia. Regarding climate change, the US partners with various organizations in Nepal, particularly targeting youth engagement—an area where Nepal can greatly benefit as it already faces impacts from climate-induced disasters. Another associated issue is preparedness for disaster response and relief operations. 

There is a need to build an understanding of the IPS to provide clear thoughts and ideas on how to address these challenges. Better comprehension of the multifaceted IPS can offer Nepal significant benefits. However, there are inherent risks if Nepal fails to develop a uniform and consensus-based position on it.

In the Lowy Institute's Asia Power Index 2023, 15 countries, including Japan, Russia, Australia and South Korea, are classified as middle powers, while Nepal along with nine other countries are categorized as 'minor powers.' The foreign policy discourse in Kathmandu is dominated by the three major powers—India, China, and the United States. There is a lack of deliberation about Nepal's engagement with these middle powers which have been our long-standing development partners. 

Unlike the major powers, middle powers seemingly have fewer strategic interests in Nepal, making it easier to attract more investment and development assistance from them. Of late, these countries have shown a greater interest in engaging with Nepal across multiple areas. It is, therefore, time to explore how Nepal can maximize benefits from them. 

Many middle powers are increasing their partnership with Nepal, and they do not want to be seen as aligning with major powers, at least publicly. However, there is a convergence between the US and other middle powers on issues like democracy, human rights, and, more importantly, containing China's influence in the Indo-Pacific region. These middle powers often work through loose networks on several issues, and the US is working to empower their capacity while seeking their support to counter China.

In Nepal, these middle powers are trying to distance themselves from geopolitical ambitions but they are also concerned about Nepal’s position on key regional and international issues. 

For instance, during Japanese Foreign Minister Kamikawa Yoko's recent visit to South Asia, including Nepal and Sri Lanka, discussions focused on global and regional issues like the situation in the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine war, and other South Asian regional matters.

Over the past few years, Japan has been investing in infrastructure development in South Asia in close collaboration with India. Its main priority is enhancing connectivity between South Asia and Southeast Asia, and for this purpose, Japan is investing in infrastructure in Northeast India. In this context, Japan considers Nepal an important position and is already investing in Nepal's infrastructure development. Japan is also concerned about the growing Chinese loans in South Asian countries, which could be a reason for the Japanese foreign minister’s visit to Nepal and Sri Lanka. Kamikawa conveyed the message that Japan is ready to step up its cooperation with Nepal, and to work closely with South Asian countries on regional and global issues.

The United Kingdom is also one of Nepal's oldest friends. The two countries established diplomatic ties in 1816. The Treaty of Friendship that the two countries signed in 1923 further formalized bilateral relations and helped Nepal claim UN membership, and reiterate its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The UK has consistently been one of Nepal's top development partners. Still, there is a perception in Nepal that the UK has maintained a low profile or has been quieter about its diplomatic engagement over the past decade.

Recently, the UK has shown a greater interest in Nepal, with increased grants and a keenness to bring foreign direct investment (FDI) to the country. In February 2023, UK Minister of State (Development and Africa) Andrew Mitchell launched a new £400m UK-Nepal development portfolio, aimed at mobilizing vital private sector funding for development and creating 13,500 jobs in Nepal.

Let’s talk about South Korea now. Seoul is gradually enhancing its cooperation and engagement with Nepal. Last year, South Korea sent President Yoon Suk-Yeol's special envoy Jang Sung Min to Nepal for discussions on bilateral and other issues. The two countries are currently discussing a wide range of bilateral issues, and high-level visits are on the agenda. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal is preparing for an official visit to South Korea soon.

The trade volume between South Korea and Nepal has significantly increased from $100,000 in 1970 to $37m in 2023. Between 1987 and 2022, South Korea provided Nepal with $282.4m in Official Development Assistance (ODA) in areas like health, water, sanitation, education, rural development and energy. The private sector of South Korea has also shown interest in investing in various sectors in Nepal. This week, South Korea’s Ambassador to Nepal Park Tae-Young said they are willing to step up cooperation with Nepal. 

All these three countries—Japan, the UK and South Korea—have strong ties with the US and are often taken as junior partners of the superpower. The Indo-Pacific outlook unveiled by these countries are very similar in content to the US’ Indo-Pacific Strategy. All of these countries have stepped up strategic partnerships with India, which has a huge influence in Nepal. Along with these, other countries like Australia and France are also increasing their engagement with Nepal. Europe’s major power Germany is also keen to invest more in Nepal. 

While Nepal is preoccupied with dealing with the three major powers, the time has come to comprehensively engage with these middle powers to bridge the investment gap that the country is currently facing. These countries have clearly shown their interest in investing in Nepal if a conducive investment climate is created. It is easier to deal with these powers because they are publicly stating that their support for Nepal is guided by deep people-to-people relations and geopolitical factors do not prominently figure into their engagement. In a recent interaction, a diplomat said: Our support in Nepal is guided by a long history of people-to-people connections and we do not have much geopolitical interests in Nepal, although there is a lot of geopolitics in Nepal.

One immediate opportunity is the high chance of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). After the 2024 Nepal Investment Summit, these middle powers are encouraged by the government's amendments to laws as demanded by international investors and the all-party consensus on these issues. If some of their remaining issues are resolved, Nepal can attract more investment. For instance, during the investment summit, the UK conveyed that many UK investors are ready to invest in Nepal if issues related to tax and the safe repatriation of profits are eased.

Therefore, the government, think tanks and civil society should pay greater attention to stepping up engagement with these middle powers, along with the major powers vying for influence in Kathmandu. It is time for Nepal to seize this opportunity and tap into the potential of these middle powers for its development.

Earlier this week, on May 5, the Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal, led by Upendra Yadav, underwent a sudden split. Out of its 12 lawmakers in the House of Representatives, seven members led by Ashok Rai filed an application with the Election Commission seeking the registration of a new party. The following day, despite legal ambiguity, the election body, perceived to be influenced by parties in power, registered the new party, Janata Samajbadi Party and issued a certificate of political party to the Rai-led panel.

Yadav, also the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Health, was in the US when the split occurred. Upon hearing the news, he cut short his trip and returned to Nepal, but there was little he could do to persuade the dissident leaders to undo their action. What might have caused the split within Samajbadi party? There's a prevalent belief among top politicians that Yadav and Madhav Kumar Nepal, chair of CPN (Unified Socialist), were plotting to withdraw support from the current coalition government simultaneously, potentially to topple it.

Media reports suggest that Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli got wind of this plan and orchestrated the split to salvage the coalition. Rai and his supporters publicly endorsed this narrative, claiming they felt compelled to part ways with the mother party due to Yadav's alleged intention to withdraw support from the current coalition. Days after the party split, Prime Minister Dahal on Thursday stated his determination to maintain the coalition by any means necessary. 

Following Samajbadi’s split, there were rumors that senior Unified Socialist leader Jhala Nath Khanal may also split the party if its chairman, Nepal, decides to withdraw from the Dahal-led government. However, Khanal has refuted the rumors. Upon his return from the US, Yadav met with Prime Minister Dahal to assert his commitment to the coalition and clarify any misinformation. Despite the split, Yadav expressed his intention to remain in the government, though much depends on the prime minister, who appears to favor the Rai-led faction for their role in preserving the coalition. Even if Yadav walks out of the government, Dahal will technically have majority support in the Parliament to continue his government.

The Unified Socialist has also publicly declared its intent to stay in the government, despite its Chairman Nepal voicing doubts about this coalition’s longevity. While reports suggest that the main opposition, Nepali Congress, was in discussions with Nepal of Unified Socialist and Yadav of Samajbadi Party about forming a new coalition, there were reportedly no significant talks between NC and Yadav.

A senior NC leader indicated readiness to accept Nepal as prime minister if the coalition collapses, but denied willingness to support Yadav for the position. Meanwhile, Yadav's camp has expressed willingness to form a new coalition only if offered the prime ministerial position. The NC itself is a divided house when it comes to forming a coalition with the Samajbadi and Unified Socialist. While leaders close to Deuba want to form a new coalition sans UML, its senior leader Shekhar Koirala is in talks with the UML to forge a coalition between the two largest parties. 

However, according to some UML leaders, the party chair, Oli, is in no rush to break the current coalition. They say he is aiming for a long game with the sole purpose of making the UML the largest party through the general elections of 2027. It appears Oli is in no hurry to become prime minister.   With the Samajbadi party split in two, it is now up to Prime Minister Dahal to decide whether to keep both Yadav and Rai factions in the coalition. He is already under pressure from the Rai camp to throw out the Yadav faction. Rai has clearly stated that the prime minister should choose between him and Yadav.

The events that unfolded over the past few days reveal that the split within JSP was not solely driven by coalition issues; intra-party conflicts also played a significant role. Before leaving for the US, Yadav issued an intra-party circular outlining the formation of an election committee for the upcoming general convention. Rai claimed Yadav favored his supporters as convention representatives, sidelining other senior party members. Yadav was also accused of attempting to transform the party into a regional entity centered on Madhes, despite its national scope. Rai acknowledged that aside from coalition concerns, intra-party disputes fueled their rebellion against Yadav.  Despite multiple splits over the years, Yadav continues to retain leadership of the party due to his strong base in Madhes. He hopes to do the same this time as well. 

Last week, the Supreme Court (SC) ordered the Nepal government to limit the number of climbing permits for Mt. Everest and other peaks. The court order comes amid the concerns that increasing human activities in the mountains is causing pollution and other harms, coupled with adverse impact of climate change. However, stakeholders say the directives made by SC are not feasible to implement, though it may have been issued with a good intention but it affects the tourism industry.

Nima Nuru Sherpa, president of Nepal Mountaineering Association, says though he honors SC order it was issued without proper study of the issue. “More than one thousand trekking industries are operating in Nepal for the same purpose and the flow and number of mountaineers are fixed only two-three months before the climbing season, so it is not possible to pick certain numbers for the climbing,” he says. 

In 2020, Nepal Army had also suggested to the Nepal government to limit the number of climbers before the beginning of the climbing season, which was met with criticism from tourism and mountaineering agencies. Multiple people who spoke with ApEx contend that the SC issued the order without the basic knowledge about the mountaineering industry.  If limitation is imposed, Sherpa says it would severely impact Nepal’s tourism industry.  Lawyer Deepak Bikram Mishra, who had filed a petition urging permits to be curtained, recently told AFP that the court had responded to public concerns about Nepal’s mountains and its environment.

The number of people climbing Everest and other peaks is increasing every year.  In 2019, there was a massive traffic jam on Everest, resulting in at least nine deaths. Since then, there has been discussion about limiting the number of climbers to the world’s highest peak. The government also formed a high-level panel to suggest ways to regulate mountain expeditions. But notably, the panel did not suggest limiting the numbers of climbers. Instead, it recommended measures such as employing experts for rope-fixing tasks, building an effective climate prediction system, fixing dates for climbing, and not allowing more than 150 climbers in a day. The panel also suggested effective coordination among key government agencies. In 2023, altogether 478 permits were issued to climb Everest; 287 people made successful ascent. For this spring, the Department of Tourism has issued over 400 permits. It also issued climbing permits for more than 30 other mountains. 

Along with limiting the permits, the joint bench of justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Sushma Lalita Mathema has ruled the government to ban the use of helicopters in the areas, except for emergency rescue. The court has directed expedition teams to maintain the transparency of the items they plan to take with them and they should be recorded at the departure point. The court has also expressed concerns about the growing impact of climate change in Nepal’s mountainous areas.

Stating that climate-induced disasters are affecting the tourists, local residents and minority groups, the court has also directed the government to undertake special care and protective measures in response to the impacts of climate change on mountains and glaciers.  There are growing concerns about the growing pollution in the mountainous region, and mainly in the Everest base camp. The government and various non-governmental organizations are engaged in waste management at the base camp, but the efforts so far have not been effective. 

On this issue, the SC has said that there is a need for proper waste management in mountainous regions to prevent adverse effects on the environment and human health. The court has directed the government to enhance coordination between government and non-governmental agencies engaged in sanitation and to ensure the effective implementation of existing laws. It has instructed the government and stakeholders concerned to coordinate garbage and corpse management and to establish a monitoring team of experts.

In February this year, Khumbu Pasang Lhamu Rural Municipality enacted Base Camp Management Procedures 2024 to manage the human activities in the foothills of various mountains in the region, including Mt. Everest. As per the new regulations, climbers are required to carry a poop bag or biodegradable bag to manage and bring back their waste from higher altitudes of the mountains.

Migma Tshering Sherpa, chairperson of the rural municipality, says they have implemented some measures that aim to control the pollution, waste and other aspects in the mountain.  “We are coordinating with the provincial and central government in order to implement the provisions mentioned in the procedures and we hope that situation will improve.”  Sherpa, however, doubts whether the order issued by the Supreme Court can be implemented.  According to a study conducted by the government, there are over 1310 mountains eligible for climbing, out of them only 414 have been opened for commercial mountaineering expeditions.

Box

Year wise permits