Submit your Article

Nepal is already caught in the geopolitics of great power competition, and we cannot escape from it. The only option left for us is building our capacity to deal with the fast-changing geopolitical situation. There is a national consensus that Nepal should use the current situation as an opportunity to advance its economic interests. Foreign and geopolitical experts, including this scribe, often wonder whether we have built our capacity to deal with the complex, uncertain, and chaotic world. In one way or another, Nepal is already bearing the brunt of increasing geopolitical tensions. The pressing issues that the global community is confronting are growing tensions between the US and China, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Taiwan tension, the Middle East crisis and the impacts of climate change. The impact of those issues in Nepal is evident in the conduct of foreign policy, the economy, and to some extent, the domestic political landscape. Over the past few years, we have already become hostages of indecision, ill-decisions, delayed decisions, or fractured decisions on important bilateral, regional or global issues.

To deal with the complex geopolitical situation and other global issues, Nepal needs to pay serious attention to strengthen the existing mechanisms and create new structures, if required. First, it needs to make the existing mechanisms effective. Second, it needs to work out whether it needs new mechanisms. Third, there should be effective and timely coordination among the key state institutions. 

Let's begin with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA). The ministry has 10 divisions covering all countries, regional and global organizations. However, these divisions fall short of human resources and expertise to deal with global issues, given the workload of all divisions. The creation of divisions is based on geography, not issues. Like in many other countries, there are no think tanks within the ministry to support its functioning. Nor is MoFA tolerant or positive about the government think-tank, the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA). MoFA officials have yet to realize the importance and role of think-tanks. They think, since they are involved in all bilateral, regional and multilateral negotiations, they have first-hand information on all issues and do not require inputs from any think-tanks. That is why, for a long time, the IFA has been left totally paralyzed.

And it is because of this hubris, the units within MoFA have failed to produce in-depth reports on important bilateral and regional issues. Take the examples of America's Indo-Pacific Strategy and China's Belt and Road Initiative. There has been no serious research and studies on either of these. As MoFA has not developed its capacity, other ministries and departments cannot take its support. Based on conversations with government officials, this scribe can conclude that there is a vague understanding of these issues among them, and they are facing difficulties in taking decisions. There is another side to the story too; there is a lack of independent experts and scholars who can conduct in-depth study and research on what Nepal's position should be in the changing geopolitical situation. There are some non-government think-tanks doing research, but government agencies and officials do not take them seriously due to their poor quality.

The underlying problem is that there is a serious flaw in the appointment of the foreign minister. Those who have at least some idea about foreign policy or geopolitics should be appointed foreign minister. On the one hand, the tenure of foreign ministers is usually short, while on the other, it takes several months for them to grasp the basic knowledge of how MoFA functions and what the key issues are. Foreign embassies or permanent representatives are one of the important wings of the ministry. However, they are almost dysfunctional. Barring some exceptions, Nepal is sending inexperienced, low-profile politicians as its ambassadors to key global capitals such as New Delhi, Washington and Beijing. 

There are some basic problems with ambassadors appointed on political quotas. First, they lack knowledge of the basics of how diplomacy works. Second, they usually do not cooperate with their respective division at the ministry; they do not even feel comfortable reporting to the foreign secretary. They work directly with the foreign minister or the prime minister. Whereas, career ambassadors have the tradition of not taking decisions out of fear of being dragged into controversy. That is why they confine themselves to day-to-day administrative tasks. There is, therefore, a need for a complete overhaul in the functioning of the ministry and its units.

Another equally important issue is the lack of cooperation between state mechanisms, mainly the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers (OPMCM). Currently, there is a lack of coordination between OPMCM and the Foreign Minister. In some cases, the OPMCM takes decisions without consulting or informing MoFA. One example of this is the appointment of ambassadors. There is also a lack of coordination between the foreign ministry and other ministries. In principle, all decisions and communication related to foreign policy should be conducted through MoFA, but this is not happening. At the same time, there is a lack of consultation between MoFA and security agencies. Not only is there a lack of coordination among ministries, but there is also a lack of coordination between MoFA, and provincial and local governments.

Experts have been raising this issue for a long time. But political leaders do not take these issues seriously because they are wielding foreign policy to advance their party and personal interests. If all the activities and processes are made transparent, they fear losing the privilege of making secret deals or appeasing others to remain in power. This is why they usually do not want to include MoFA officials in talks with other countries, except in formal delegation-level meetings. At the same time, Nepal seriously lacks capable human resources to deal with the complex geopolitics. This should be our priority issue although it may not be a priority issue for our politicians. Our politicians should realize that they alone cannot handle foreign policy in this complex geopolitical situation. Politicians may have certain issues with the foreign ministry, but there cannot be its replacement. They, however, have all rights to restructure it.

The CPN-UML has decisively won the recent by-elections in Ilam-2 for the House of Representatives and Bajhang (A) for Sudurpashchim Provincial Assembly, signaling a significant shift in political dynamics.

In Ilam-2, Suhang Nembang secured an impressive victory with 27,772 votes, surpassing his closest rival Dambar Bahadur Khadka from the Nepali Congress who garnered 21,942 votes. Similarly, in Bajhang (A), Daman Bahadur Bhandari clinched a narrow win over NC’s Abhishek Bahadur Singh with a margin of just 267 votes.

Prior to the elections, uncertainties loomed due to internal divisions within both the NC and UML, as well as the emergence of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, which had shown considerable strength in previous by-elections in Tanahun and Chitwan. However, the latest by-election results underscore the UML’s successful efforts to fortify its organizational structure, reflecting positively on its strategies.

Since the 2022 general elections, the UML has been actively engaging with the public through initiatives like Mission Grassroots and Sankalpa Yatra, demonstrating a commitment to connect with constituents at all levels. Senior UML figures attribute their recent victories to adept management of internal discord in Ilam and Bajhang.

“We are encouraged by the by-elections results. The results show that the party has succeeded in managing the intra-party rift both in Ilam and Bhajang,” a senior UML leader said.  

The UML’s unveiling of the Mission ‘84 campaign, aimed at the 2027 general elections, indicates a strategic push to ascend as the leading political force. The outcomes of the Ilam-2 and Bajhang (A) by-elections hint at a potential shift in power dynamics, with the UML poised to challenge the NC’s dominance.

Conversely, the NC faces a significant setback in the aftermath of the recent by-elections, echoing previous defeats to the RSP in Tanahu and Chitwan. Meanwhile, the erosion of voter support, exemplified by a substantial decline in votes for both the NC and UML in Ilam, underscores the urgent need for both parties to reassess their strategies.

The overall votes of both UML and NC have gone down in Ilam. In the 2022 general elections, the UML candidate Subas Chandra Nembang had secured 30,020 votes, while the NC’s Dambar Bahadur Khadka had garnered 29,006 votes. In the latest by-election, the UML candidate secured around 2,000 fewer votes than last time and the NC lost around 7,000 votes. 

Losing around 7,000 voters should be a matter of grave concern for the NC, but the party leadership seems unfazed.

The rise of identity politics, particularly evident in Ilam’s electoral landscape, presents a formidable challenge to traditional parties like the NC and UML. Independent candidate Dakendra Singh Limbu’s robust performance underscores the resonance of identity-based narratives, posing a challenge for established parties.

Whether they believe it or not, despite UML’s victory in the recent by-elections, major political parties face serious challenges in the coming days. A key challenge for the established old parties is to retain their cadres and supporters.

And while the RSP candidate did not put on a strong electoral show, the party’s rising popularity, especially among young voters, cannot be discounted when Nepal goes to general elections in 2027.  

Looking ahead, both the NC and UML confront an uphill challenge of retaining their support base amidst the emergence of new political forces like the RSP. The need for organizational rejuvenation, coupled with a shift toward younger, more dynamic leadership, emerges as a critical imperative for both parties.

It could be argued that Suhang Nembang won the by-election in Ilam-2 due to the sympathy vote following the death of his father and former UML Vice-chairperson Subas Chandra Nembang. But the party, unlike the NC, has at least realized that there are problems within the party organization and that support base is dwindling. The party is willing to put in the hard work necessary to retain its cadres and voters. 

For the NC, the latest by-election results once again send a clear message that the party needs to wake up and  work hard to strengthen its organizational strength, resolve the intra-party rift, and pick young and fresh candidates. It is no more business as usual.

India, the world's largest democracy, is busy holding the 18th Lok Sabha elections which will conclude on June 1. The global community is closely watching the outcomes of these elections. With its burgeoning population having surpassed China's, India is on track to claim the mantle of the world's third-largest economy by 2030. As a key player in the Indo-Pacific region and a torchbearer for the Global South, India's policies, both domestic and foreign, resonate far beyond its borders.

The significance of India's elections reverberates throughout the region. While there are widespread projections that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will win a third consecutive term, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi continuing in office, opposition parties are expected to strengthen their position compared to the 2019 elections.

The election outcomes in India are of particular significance for South Asian nations including Nepal, where India wields deep political, economic and military influence. In 2014, upon assuming power with a resounding victory, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reinvigorated the 'Neighborhood First' policy, although he failed to achieve the expected outcomes. 

To demonstrate the BJP government's priority for neighbors, he invited the heads of state and government from South Asian countries to attend his swearing-in ceremony. When re-elected in 2019, Modi continued the 'Neighborhood First' policy by inviting BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Pectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) member countries to his swearing-in ceremony. If re-elected for a third term, the BJP government is likely to maintain the 'Neighborhood First' policy, although India has been focusing more on regions beyond South Asia in recent years. 

Despite occasional highs and lows, the trajectory of Nepal-India relations points toward a positive outlook, poised to weather the complexities of shared history and future aspirations.

Over the past decade, under Modi's leadership, Nepal-India relations have witnessed many highs and lows. However, the relationship is moving in a positive direction, which should continue even after the elections.

Crucial issues such as the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty and boundary disputes remain on the diplomatic agenda, albeit the two countries approach them with varying degrees of emphasis. Nevertheless, the two neighbors recognize the imperative of fostering trust and stability to navigate these challenges successfully. A notable shift in India's approach to the internal affairs of its neighbors signals a promising era of cooperation built on mutual respect and understanding.

The BJP government has changed its approach on how to view the internal political affairs of South Asian countries which has helped to build an environment trust.

One encouraging signal is that economic collaboration has emerged as a cornerstone of bilateral relations, with a growing focus on development partnerships and infrastructure projects. Despite changes in political leadership, the momentum in bilateral engagements remains steady, underpinning a commitment to sustained progress and prosperity.

Over the past three decades, India has faced charges of not completing development projects for extended periods. However, several bilateral projects are now making progress, ultimately helping to build an environment of trust. Recent visits by Nepali leaders to New Delhi and Indian leaders to Kathmandu have focused on enhancing economic and development partnerships. The energy cooperation agreement between Nepal and India has paved the way for regional energy cooperation, with Nepal positioned as a clean energy provider to the region. 

As India's economy continues to rise and rise, and major multinational companies shift their industries to India, Nepal, which shares an open border, should get the opportunities. India could become a destination not only for unskilled Nepali workforce but also for highly skilled professionals in sectors such as education, health, IT, banking, and others, which have not received much discussion. Both Nepal and India should seriously consider these issues and clearly outline their plans to derive economic benefits from India's rising economy. These matters should be taken seriously regardless of which party comes to power.

Amid robust economic collaboration between two countries, over the past few years, Nepal is witnessing a debate about the growing ideological influence of BJP in Nepal. In recent years, there has been a perception among Nepali leaders and the public that the BJP and its affiliates are pushing for a Hindu agenda in Nepal. It is often said that they are suggesting (sometimes pressuring) Nepali leaders to scrap secularism and go for the Hindu state. There are also reports that various organizations linked with the BJP are active in Nepal with their Hindu agenda. 

While Nepal's top leaders are aware of those issues, they have not spoken publicly. However, they want to discuss those issues with Indian leaders. BJP leaders should be mindful that such efforts could again strain the bilateral relationship, which has reached a new level after sustained efforts from both sides. It would be worthwhile to recall India's approach to the demands of Madhes-based parties, mainly after 2017, which helped enhance the bilateral relations.

Many Nepali politicians and analysts view the growing activities of Hindu organizations as an attempt to overturn the 2015 constitution. This suspicion among Nepali politicians obviously does not help enhance the bilateral relationship. There should be frank and open discussions between the two sides, not only on these issues but also on other issues of mutual concern. 

India's relationship with global powers also affects its South Asia policy. The India-US strategic partnership is likely to be enhanced, but there are divergent views on several bilateral and global issues, including the Russia-Ukraine war. The India-China relationship is unlikely to improve for at least the next few years. As I have highlighted in my previous columns, Nepal's approach should be not to engage in the big-power rivalry but to focus on economic development.

The future of Nepal-India relations hinges not on fleeting political interests but on a shared commitment to long-term prosperity and mutual respect. By prioritizing economic and developmental collaboration, both nations can chart a course toward a brighter, more interconnected future.

On 4 March 2024, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal changed his coalition partners, citing lack of cooperation from the Nepali Congress (NC), his key coalition partner at the time. 

He strung together a new coalition, with the support from CPN-UML, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), CPN (Unified Socialist), and Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), and promised to deliver on the missed promises to the nation. It’s been almost two months since the formation of the new alliance, and Prime Minister Dahal has little to show for his promises. 

Already, cracks seem to have appeared in the ruling alliance, with the Unified Socialist refusing to support a common candidate between UML and Maoist for the by-election that is taking place in Ilam-2 on April 27. This refusal has particularly angered the UML, which has fielded Suhang Nembang, son of late UML Vice-chairman Subas Nembang, in Ilam-2. While Prime Minister Dahal’s Maoist party has agreed to support UML in the by-poll, there is still risk of vote-splitting as the Suhang’s candidacy has caused a division within the local UML leaders. In such a scenario, the Unified Socialist’s electoral support to the UML would have been welcome. The Unified Socialist’s decision to field its own candidate in Ilam-2 has certainly not helped ease the rift with its former mother party, UML.

Meanwhile, Chairman of Unified Socialist Madhav Kumar Nepal also seems ill at ease with Prime Minister Dahal. Nepal is apparently resentful of Prime Minister Dahal not taking him into confidence before breaking the alliance with the NC.   

Nepal on Monday expressed doubts regarding the longevity of the latest coalition. He noted that the shifts in ruling coalition in a short period of time have raised a serious suspicion regarding the longevity of the latest alliance.     

“I am not in a position to answer how long this coalition will last. Perhaps Prime Minister Dahal could answer these questions,” he said. 

Nepal’s dissatisfaction with the fellow ruling coalition partners, particularly Maoist and UML, was clear when he said that the current coalition does not seem favorable. 

“We are not feeling comfortable,” he said.  

Earlier, Nepal had threatened to pull out of the coalition after his party was denied the position of chief minister in Sudurpaschim Province. When UML and Maoist Center decided to support Kailash Chaudhary of Nagarik Unmukti Party for the post, Unified Socialist backed Laxman Kishor Chaudhary from the rival faction of Nagarik Unmukti led by Resham Lal Chaudhary. 

Laxman Kishor also had the support from the NC. At the time, Unified Socialist leaders had said that what happened in Sudurpashchim Province was just the beginning and that other provincial governments could also fail. 

Taken aback, the Maoist Center and UML immediately decided to back Dirgha Sodari of Unified Socialist for the position of Sudurpaschim Province chief minister. However, the formation of the Unified Socialist-led government in Sudurpaschim did not defuse the tensions among the coalition partners. Nepal’s recent remarks regarding the Dahal-led government suggest as much. 

“We are not subservient to anyone, and we do not listen to anyone’s threats, intimidation, abuse or insults,” he said recently.  

RSP, another major member in the ruling coalition, is also in a difficult position at the moment. Rabi Lamichhane, the party’s chairman and minister for home affairs, is under pressure to quit the government for his alleged involvement in a fund misappropriation case of a financial cooperative.  

The NC has been obstructing the parliament demanding for a panel to investigate the allegation against Home Minister Lamichhane. If the case against Lamichhane escalates, he is likely to face pressure to take a break till the investigation is over. In that scenario, it is unsure whether the RSP will continue to remain in the government. The Dahal government could slip into a minority. 

Even if Lamichhane does not step down, the RSP could walk out of the coalition if the government fails to deliver on its promises. A large section of the RSP are of the view that it is better for the party to concentrate on the 2027 general election if the current coalition government fails to work effectively.

As of now, the UML has maintained a low-profile in the coalition. The party has pledged steadfast support to Prime Minister Dahal as long as his government works in favor of the country and the people. 

Meanwhile, the NC has been making efforts to improve its relationship with the UML. NC leaders, mainly senior leader Shekhar Koirala faction, is in constant communication with the UML to change the coalition. 

Koirala is proposing that the current electoral system should be changed once NC and UML come together. Regarding the power-sharing arrangement, he has said that Oli can lead the government with the condition that he cedes the power to the NC in the run up to the 2027 elections.

Amid all these coalition infighting and political maneuvering, it appears that Prime Minister Dahal is the only one committed to saving the rickety alliance that he has put together. Nepal’s political landscape is getting more murkier and turbulent with each passing day.

It’s difficult to form opinions based solely on the speeches of Nepal’s political leaders and their political documents. More often than not they contradict themselves, disregarding their previous positions. 

Amid discussions of unity within communist parties, the recent political document presented by CPN-UML Chairman KP Oli has sparked interest, as it explicitly states UML's reluctance to endorse polarization among major political entities under the guise of communist unity. This stance has raised eyebrows within CPN (Maoist Center). Presenting his political report at the meeting of the UML National Representatives Council in Lalitpur on Saturday, Oli emphasized that aligning political forces solely under leftist or socialist banners, while excluding other ideologies and entities, is not pragmatic. 

Instead, he stressed the importance of cooperation among like-minded forces. He highlighted the need to foster trust and cooperation among diverse ideological backgrounds, suggesting that unity should evolve naturally as trust deepens. "As cooperation deepens and an environment of trust is built, those with similar ideas can gradually come together in the future. But for now, it is more important to move forward by taking all positive forces along." 

Regarding the current political landscape, Oli acknowledged that the formation of a new alliance comprising the Maoist Center, UML, Rastriya Swatantra Party, and few other parties has improved the political situation. However, he expressed concerns about the sustainability of this coalition, citing past incidents. “Based on some past incidents, contexts, and experiences, there are doubts in people’s mind about the sustainability of this cooperation," Oli said. He underscored the importance of actions over rhetoric in dispelling doubts about the coalition's longevity.

Furthermore, Oli warned of the increased possibility of instability stemming from the presence of multiple parties in parliament, particularly those with diverging views on key constitutional issues. 

"The country is in need of stability. But the presence of a dozen parties in the House of Representatives and a significant number of those disagreeing on key issues of the constitution has further increased the possibility of political instability," he said. 

The UML chair also noted the emergence of populist forces and the resurgence of traditional right-wing parties, attributing these trends to disillusionment among the populace caused by political shortcomings and economic crises. "Political shortcomings, economic crisis, lack of job opportunities and poor governance have all fed the public’s disillusionment with traditional political parties. Meanwhile, populist and right-wing forces are exploiting the public discontent," he added.

While Oli's rejection of immediate leftist unity may seem like a tactical maneuver, he hasn't entirely dismissed its possibility. UML perceives the current coalition as an achievement, having thwarted the anti-UML alliance between Nepali Congress and the Maoist party preceding the 2022 national elections. 

Currently, there are three major communist parties—UML, Maoist Center and CPN (Unified Socialist)—of which UML is the largest and strongest. In case these three parties decide to unite, the asymmetry between them is likely to make the power-sharing and leadership issue very challenging. For instance, Unified Socialist Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal and Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal may seek vital positions within the unified party, a proposition that the UML leaders close to Oli will not accept. 

The strained relationship between Oli and Nepal could also hinder the unification process. Although the Maoist is talking about communist unity, UML and Unified Socialist do not appear too keen about the idea.  “There are no immediate possibilities of communist parties uniting because of the disparity between their ideologies and their future course,” said Rajendra Pandey, vice-chairman of CPN (Unified Socialist). 

Analysts suggest that Oli prioritizes securing unwavering commitment from all parties before pursuing communist unity in the long term. Although he envisions leading a united communist front eventually, he refrains from polarizing national politics along communist and non-communist lines for now. Uncertainty looms over the future of the current coalition, with UML closely monitoring the government’s functioning while refraining from committing to long-term support for Prime Minister Dahal. Maoist leaders say Oli’s position on left unity could be a tactical move and he may have informed Dahal about it. Or else, they say this could be the beginning of the crisis in the current coalition. 

After Oli unveiled his political document, Prime Minister Dahal has also changed his position about the communist unity. 

“This government is not wholly composed of communist parties. There are other parties too. So it is not a left unity, it is just a ruling coalition. If there is an understanding among the communist parties, they may come together some day,” Dahal said. This was a clear departure from his previous statement where he said that the current coalition was a beginning of the communist unity. 

The key takeaway from Oli’s political document is that UML currently extends support to the government, but it is also keeping avenues open for potential collaboration with Nepali Congress in the future.

The discussion of leftist unity in Nepal has drawn international attention, with China advocating for a unified communist party while other democratic powers prefer a coalition government encompassing both communist and non-communist forces. Oli's political document also addresses escalating geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, cautioning against provocative actions that could jeopardize regional stability and world peace, particularly highlighting US involvement in the Taiwan issue. “The task of safeguarding Nepal’s national independence, dignity and national interests has become more complicated, amidst the changing geopolitics, geo-economics and competition between major powers,” Oli said in his political report. “We must move forward carefully to protect our national interests by viewing these changes in geopolitics with a sensitive perspective.”

In my previous column, I discussed how chronic political instability is affecting the conduct of our foreign policy. Here, I delve into how foreign powers, big and small alike, influence Nepal’s foreign policy. We often criticize our politicians for their lack of maturity and consistency. In most foreign policy discourses, I often hear this question: Who will believe us (read our politicians)? It is a reality that our politicians are neither serious nor have they realized their weaknesses. But it would be unjust to solely blame our politicians without considering other aspects like how foreign powers are behaving with us. Nepal’s key priorities are economic prosperity and social development. For a long time, we have been mobilizing our foreign policy to achieve these goals.

From Prithivi Narayan Shah to the current set of leaders, all have realized that Nepal is situated between India and China, understanding the difficulties of being caught between two global powerhouses. For a long time, our Rana rulers tried to live in isolation out of fear that opening up could threaten their regime. Nevertheless, they still endeavored to serve both their personal interests and national interests. After the 1950s, Nepal began diversifying its economic, security, development and trade policies or looking beyond its immediate neighbors. Let’s consider the current situation. We are conducting our foreign policy in accordance with the 2015 constitution.

Article 51 of the constitution states: “Safeguarding the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality, independence, and dignity of Nepal, the rights of the Nepalis, border security, economic well-being, and prosperity shall be the basic elements of the national interests of Nepal.” Nepal places economic diplomacy at the forefront of its engagement with the wider international community. We need money and technology to accelerate social development and economic prosperity. Lately, we have been vocal about our reluctance to take on significant loans, preferring grants for infrastructure development. Our stated position is that we will not align with any strategic or military blocs.

Nepal takes a neutral position in regional and international conflicts, consistently advocating for their resolution through peaceful means, with some exceptions resulting from adventurous policies of our politicians. Nepal believes in non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, non-aggression, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. For instance, Nepal opposed the Russian attack on Ukraine while maintaining a neutral stance on other issues. Many argue that this stance contradicts Nepal’s non-alignment policy, but it aligns with our stated policy. If one sovereign country attacks another, Nepal cannot remain neutral and opposes such actions but avoids taking sides.

Our message is clear: we do not wish to be embroiled in big power rivalries, and we urge major powers not to involve us in their geopolitical games. Currently, amid the Middle East crisis, we maintain the same policy. If not a zone of peace, we aspire to become a zone of investment. We have a straightforward message for major powers: we understand and protect your security and other legitimate concerns, but only a prosperous and strong Nepal can effectively address those issues, so invest in our country. Of course, challenges such as corruption and bureaucratic red tape exist, but the investment climate in Nepal is comparatively favorable, and we have big markets like India and China in close proximity. Despite getting huge support from major countries in Nepal’s social and economic development, the country is starting to feel the heat of geopolitical tensions. As these tensions escalate, there is a fear among our politicians that major powers may pull Nepal into their orbit through economic assistance. As major powers roll out strategic initiatives one after another, there are concerns that Nepal may become ensnared in a geopolitical ambush. Not only politicians, but senior bureaucrats also find themselves in awkward positions as they consolidate all bilateral issues under one strategic basket. And, there is a lack of understanding among politicians and bureaucrats about these issues, and there have been no efforts to educate them.

By closely monitoring negotiations between our leaders and major powers, we can see that our leaders are facing pressure. Whenever they engage in talks with their counterparts, they struggle to avoid committing to strategic projects outright. Since they cannot outright reject them out of fear for their regime’s stability, they attempt to reassure that Nepal could consider such initiatives after thorough study and consensus at home. Due to such apprehensions, our politicians are even hesitant to accept pure development projects without strings attached. Similarly, diplomats in Kathmandu bypass the due process in dealing with Nepal. Instead of going through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, foreign countries tend to approach political leaders and certain ministries directly seeking their consent. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be unaware of a host of initiatives proposed by major powers. If there is institutional memory, foreign countries cannot complain about policy inconsistency or lack of ownership across governments. If all proposals go through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which remains unaffected by changes in government, it ensures policy continuity to some extent.

Our stance remains that, due to our geopolitical location and other factors, we cannot align with major powers. Whether termed neutral, non-aligned or otherwise, our bottom line is clear: we seek engagement solely on economic terms. If major powers engage with Nepal in this manner, frequent changes in government may not pose significant difficulties. Therefore, support and invest in Nepal, so that we can safeguard the security and other legitimate interests of our friends. If major powers attempt to turn Nepal into a battleground for their conflicts, it will be detrimental not only to the Nepali people but also to the major powers. We understand that our neighboring countries, both near and distant, desire to see a stable and prosperous Nepal, as it serves their interests. My request to all: we aspire to grow with you as a sovereign and peaceful country. As I mentioned in my previous opinion piece, major countries should not favor one party over another or play them against each other. Instead, they should adopt a Nepal-centric policy with the economy at the forefront. Moreover, major parties should collaborate to formulate a common position on the issues mentioned above. We want to declare Nepal as a Zone of Investment.

As by-elections draw closer in Ilam-2 for House of Representatives (HoR) and in Bhajang-2 for Sudurpaschim Provincial Assembly, major parties have expedited their election campaigns and top leaders are preparing to reach the constituencies to back their candidates.

This will be the second by-elections since the 2022 national elections in which the Nepali Congress emerged as the largest party while the CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) polled in second and third respectively. However, the most talked about outcome of the election was the emergence of the newly formed Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) as the fourth largest party.

In the first by-election held in Tanahu and Chitwan in 2023, RSP candidates Swarnim Wagle and Rabi Lamichhane both registered thumping victories against the candidates fielded by major parties. So winning the Ilam-2 by-election—and winning it with a big margin—has  become a prestige issue for major parties. And it is not just prestige that is on the line for them. If the RSP candidate were to win in Ilam-2, it could very well mean game over for the big parties. 

The RSP is already popular among a large section of young urban Nepalis. If the party wins the Ilam-2 constituency, some Nepali Congress (NC) leaders say it could disrupt the voting pattern in the rest of the country in future elections. In other words, there is a high likelihood of RSP emerging as a major—if not the largest—political entity in Nepal come the next general election of 2027.

To stop the RSP, the two ruling parties UML and Maoist have forged an electoral alliance in Ilam-2. They have fielded the UML candidate, Suhang Nembang, son of late UML Vice-chairman Subas Chandra Nembang. Another ruling coalition partner, CPN (Unified Socialist), has refused to support Nembang and has come up with its own candidates. The main opposition, NC, has also fielded its own candidate in the fray.  

Cross-party leaders who just returned from Ilam predict that it is going to be a tight electoral race. 

 “There are intra-party rifts within both NC and UML, and as the voting day nears, it remains to be seen how these intra-party rifts will be managed,” says Nain Singh Mahar, a NC leader who recently visited Ilam. 

A large chunk of UML cadres are unhappy with the candidate selection in Ilam-2, stating that those who had been working for the party for a long time were sidelined. They argue that Suhang may very well be the son of a senior party leader who contested and won many elections from Ilam-2, but he doesn’t know anything about the constituency he represents. 

The Ilam-2 constituency became vacant following the death of UML Vice-chair Subas Chandra Nembang, in September last year. A total of 19 candidates—12 from different political parties and seven independents—are contesting in the by-election. 

The main contest is expected to be among UML’s Suhang Nembang, NC’s Dambar Bahadur Khadka, RSP’s Milan Limbu, and independent candidate Dakendra Singh Limbu Thegim.

Suhang has the support of the UML, Maoist Center and the Nepal Communist Party led by Netra Bikram Chand (Biplav). He has been appealing to the voters to write down their needs, problems, and aspirations on paper, assuring that he and his party will fulfill them.

Meanwhile NC’s Khadka, who was edged by Subash Chandra Nembang with just 114 votes in the last general election, hopes to win this time. But in 2022, he had received votes from various coalition partners, including the Maoist Center. 

This time the Maoist party is supporting UML’s Suhang. UML and Maoist Center have signed a five-point agreement at the Koshi Province level to secure Suhang's victory. As per the agreement, the by-polls will be a stepping stone for cooperation among left forces to create a foundation for party unification in the future.

However, local UML leaders fear that all Maoist votes may not be transferred to Suhang. Also, there are fears that RSP candidate Milan Limbu, who was earlier with the Maoist Center, will get substantial Maoist votes. 

Some Maoist leaders say about a third of the party’s vote could go to RSP’s Limbu. Although traditional parties have been the major players in Ilam-2, Limbu expects a miraculous vote shift in his favor this time. RSP had received 4,686 proportional representation votes and 1,380 direct votes in 2022.

Independent candidate Dakendra Singh Limbu Thegim also hopes to pull off a surprise electoral victory from Ilam-2, with the support of 41 identity-based groups. He has been reaching out to voters with the agenda of strengthening federalism, identity, equal rights, peace, and sustainable development. 

Thegim has the support of Janata Samajbadi Party as well as identity-based parties like the Rastriya Janamukti Party, Sanghiya Loktantrik Rastriya Manch, Nepal Samajbadi Party, Nagarik Unmukti Party, and Kirat Yakthung Chumlung, Kirat Rai Yayokha, and social organizations, including the Kirat religious guru Atmananda Lingden.

Apart from these four candidates, Jit Bahadur Rai of CPN (Unified Socialist), Lakshmi Gurung of Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Prem Kumar Thamsuhang of the Janmat Party, Shyam Bahadur Darji of the Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, Min Bahadur Limbu of Mongol National Organization, Dhanraj Rana Magar of the National Republic Nepal, Jayant Bikram Shah of the Rastriya Mukti Andolan Nepal, and Ganesh Bahadur Chauhan from the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, among others, are in the fray. 

Independent candidates Dak Prasad Gautam, Manoj Niroula, Arjun Kumar Shahi, Dipesh Bohra, Yogendra Gurung, and Raj Basyal are also contesting the election. The constituency comprises all of Chulachuli, Mangsebung and Phakphokthum rural municipalities, as well as parts of Ilam (excluding 10 wards), Deumai, and Mai municipalities. There are 115,342 voters in the constituency

Is it possible for Nepal’s major communist parties to unite and establish a robust, unified communist entity? Leaders from the prominent leftist parties—CPN (Maoist Center), CPN-UML, and CPN (Unified Socialist)—acknowledge the allure of such a union, yet express doubts about its realization. They attribute this uncertainty mainly to the intricacies of power-sharing dynamics and the personal egos of senior figures.

In Nepal’s modern political history, a powerful communist party Nepal Communist Party (NCP) was formed in 2018 after the unification between CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center). However, the harmony among its top leaders—KP Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and Madhav Kumar Nepal—proved short-lived. The root cause of their discord lay in a struggle for control over both the party and the government. Despite initial attempts at reconciliation, subsequent alliances faltered, leading to renewed efforts on March 4 to pursue the vision of a unified communist front. While Dahal remains vocal about his commitment to this cause, UML adopts a cautious stance, refraining from labeling it as a communist alliance outright.

UML leaders suspect Dahal's motives, viewing his push for unity as a tactic to prolong his tenure and retain power under the guise of communist solidarity. Dahal, however, has clarified his intentions, stating that his aim was to unite leftist parties, not to secure the prime ministership. Following the formation of a new coalition, Dahal and Oli made concerted efforts to persuade CPN (Unified Socialist) leader Nepal to join, possibly even offering him the premiership after Dahal. However, tensions surfaced when Nepal's faction aligned with the Nepali Congress, causing a rift among the leaders to form the government in Sudurpaschim province. The fact that the three communist parties failed to field a common candidate for the upcoming by-election in Ilam-2 also suggests the lack of trust between them.   

On Monday, Oli clearly said that the unity among the communist parties could be detrimental to both the current government and the country. While he acknowledged the importance of unity, the UML chair was critical of the parties that claim to be leftist and align with the Nepali Congress. He was hinting at the CPN (Unified Socialist)-Nepali Congress alliance in Sudurpaschim. Oli cautioned against harboring the illusion of political strength through unification with such entities.

The notion of communist unity holds appeal mainly for second-rung leaders and they are actively seeking to realize it. They seem hopeful despite the apparent reluctance shown by the senior leaders. 

Leaders who have made communist unity their agenda say it will take some time for the parties to come together. According to one Maoist leader, unification between communist parties is inevitable.  

“To face up with the new political forces, there is no alternative for the communist parties to come together,” he says.

But Nepal’s communist parties have historically been plagued by factionalism and division. Theirs is a history of polarization and intragroup conflicts. As the murmurs grow regarding the unification among major communist parties, so too do whispers of an alliance between Congress and UML. Only time will tell if the leftist forces can set aside their differences and march as one towards a shared future.