Submit your Article

The ‘One Man Army’ of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Balendra ‘Balen’ Shah, has breathed new life and energy into both the party and its chairman, Rabi Lamichhane. The results and the popular vote in the March 5 election have once again proven the power of this ‘magical’ figure. While his popularity in Kathmandu was well-known—evidenced by the massive crowds that gathered whenever he appeared—few could have speculated that the ‘Balen craze’ would sweep the entire nation. By leaving traditional parties in a state of political turmoil, his popularity has fundamentally altered the political landscape and the status of the RSP.

​The bitter truth is that before Balen’s formal alignment with the RSP, the party’s standing under Rabi Lamichhane was precarious. Critics claimed the RSP was facing its darkest hour. Lamichhane’s alleged involvement in cooperative fraud, money laundering, and other legal issues had pushed the party onto the defensive. Even during the GenZ movement, the RSP chair was held in Nakhu prison, with several cases registered against him in various district courts. Despite these hurdles, RSP cadres and leaders leveraged the momentum of the GenZ movement to help Lamichhane secure his release. Following his exit from jail, Lamichhane and his supporters hoped the youth movement would propel him to the Prime Minister’s office. Surprisingly, leading GenZ activists began criticizing his actions on social media, even starting trends against him. Amidst this friction, high-profile leaders Sumana Shrestha and Santosh Pariyar left the party, dealing a significant setback.

​However, the tide turned suddenly. Sudan Gurung emerged to unite Balen, the RSP, and other forces. This strategic move revitalized the party and successfully captured public sentiment. Balen became the center of attraction; his ‘face value’ alone significantly enhanced the party’s ability to garner votes.
​The election results proved the power of this alliance. Despite political fluctuations, the RSP led by Lamichhane secured nearly a two-thirds majority. While journalists and analysts had predicted RSP gains due to the GenZ movement and the negligence of old parties, the sheer scale of the landslide victory was unexpected. Even RSP leaders were surprised by the outcome. Beyond the victory itself, several crucial factors shifted the electoral scenario and the public’s mentality toward traditional parties.

​The primary factor behind the shift was undoubtedly Balen. The public’s trust in him is near-total. While some argue he hasn’t yet achieved results that match the party’s current standing, one cannot deny that Balen is the ‘Midas’ of Nepali politics. His charm and aura prove he is a man of the masses. His recent political campaigns silenced those who questioned his fame; everywhere he went, massive crowds gathered just to catch a glimpse of him. Human chains lined the roads to greet him, a spectacle that directly translated into votes for the ‘Bell’ (the RSP electoral symbol).

Another key driver was Balen’s strategic alliance with the RSP. Although Balen presents as an individual, he is backed by a powerful network of GenZ activists, celebrities, content creators, and influential social media groups like Routine of Nepal band (RONB) and Men’s Room Reloaded (MRR). The names ‘Balen’ and ‘Ganti’ (the Bell) became synonymous. Even citizens not yet eligible to vote were swept up in the fervor. During the election, the common refrain was simply, ‘Vote for the Bell’. Voters often prioritized the symbol and Balen’s endorsement over the actual quality of individual candidates. Viral social media clips even showed voters outside Jhapa-5 claiming they ‘voted for Balen and the Bell’, cementing his role as the architect of this victory.

Furthermore, the RSP’s tactical move to project Balen as the upcoming Prime Minister played a significant role in capturing the public’s desire for youthful leadership. Had the RSP proposed any name other than Balen for the premiership, the strategy likely would have failed. Conversely, the repetitive rhetoric and perceived failures of veteran leaders paved the way for this ‘Balen and Bell’ victory. The election even transformed the Madhes region—traditionally a stronghold for regional Madhes-based parties. In a stunning shift, the RSP secured 30 out of 32 seats in the region. This was largely due to Balen’s influence; the Madhesi community sought a representative who could lead the government, and the RSP’s move to elevate a figure with Madheshi roots resonated deeply.

Despite this unbelievable victory, the RSP must remain alert. To maintain this favor, they must address public needs and navigate complex geopolitics. Balen and the RSP leadership must realize that this mandate is a cry for change from a public fed up with traditional politics. This is a golden opportunity for Balen and the RSP to succeed where old leaders failed—specifically in governance, economic development, and loyalty to the people. They must prioritize equality, equity, and social emancipation. If they fail, the Nepali electorate has shown time and again that they are not afraid to change their leaders once more.

The growing prominence of Balendra Shah, widely known as Balen, to the position of Prime Minister comes at a time when India-Nepal relations are steady but not without underlying tensions. The relationship has always been unique, shaped by an open border, deep cultural overlap, economic interdependence, and a shared civilizational space. Yet, it has been marked by phases of temporary mistrust, especially when internal politics, leadership struggle, or public dissatisfaction in Nepal shift outward and take a stronger anti-India stance. In this context, Balen’s emergence is not just a political shift within Nepal but a moment that could potentially reshape how the two countries engage with each other.

What makes Balen different is the source of his political power. Unlike many leaders in Nepal who come from long-standing party structures, Balen represents a break from the traditional leaders. He rose as an independent, outsider figure. Unlike most politicians’ dependence on party backing, networking, and support from senior leadership, he was never a party worker and his reputation and visibility was not tied to traditional political machinery. His popularity has been built on governance, efficiency, and a promise to clean up public institutions. This matters for India. One of the recurring difficulties in dealing with Nepal has been political instability and frequent changes in leadership, which slow down decision-making and delay bilateral projects. 

For instance, Arun III Hydropower Project has taken years due to approvals, renegotiations, and political uncertainty. That’s why, a leader with a strong mandate and a focus on delivery rather than ideology can bring a certain level of predictability. That alone can improve the policy continuity between New Delhi and Kathmandu.

There is also a noticeable shift in tone with Balen. He does not rely heavily on identity-based narratives or historical grievances like sovereignty or nationalism. Instead, his politics is grounded in practical concerns like urban planning and tackling waste management, improving business environment and creating local economic opportunities, and public services like roads and basic civic services. Balen’s focus on execution over rhetoric reduces the incentive to use anti-India sentiment, historical disputes, and ideological dialogues as a political tool, something that has surfaced in Nepal at different points in the past. If domestic legitimacy is tied to performance rather than nationalism, the room for stable and constructive engagement with India expands.

Another important factor is the generation he represents. Much of Balen’s support comes from younger voters who are less interested in geopolitical posturing and more focused on economic opportunities. In other words, Balen has entered a politics of economic desperation, not aspiration. Moreover, Balen uses social media for quick response to issues and has been building a perception of transparency. Undoubtedly, the urban voters, youth, and people frustrated with corruption and inefficiency see him as a welcome change. For them, India is not just a neighbour but a major source of trade, education, employment, and mobility. India is Nepal’s largest trading partner, a place for higher education in cities like Delhi and Bangalore, and a destination where millions of Nepali citizens live and work without visa restrictions. 

Consequently, economic stability in Nepal is closely linked to access and cooperation with India. Therefore, a government that is responsive to the “Youthquake” is more likely to prioritise connectivity, cross-border trade, and investment flows, all of which naturally strengthen ties with India.

Balen’s leadership could also bring a more balanced approach to Nepal’s external relations. Nepal has always had to manage its position between India and China. It has been rightly described that Nepal is a “yam between two boulders”. At times, this balancing act has turned into strategic signalling, with Kathmandu leaning towards one side to counter the other. The 2015 blockade made Nepal sign multiple agreements with China on transit and infrastructure to reduce dependency on Indian routes. Likewise, during the 2020 Kalapani border dispute with India, Nepal issued a new official map that included several disputed areas within Nepal’s territory and followed this by a constitutional amendment to formalise the change. So, a leadership that is less tied to these legacy political alignments may approach the balancing act differently. Instead of sharp swings, there could be a steadier, more measured engagement with both neighbours. 

For India, this kind of consistency is easier to work with. It reduces uncertainty and allows for long-term planning and policy continuity in areas like infrastructure, energy cooperation, and regional connectivity. It could mean continued hydropower cooperation with India alongside selective infrastructure projects with China without framing them as alternatives to India.

There is also a practical angle that often gets overlooked. Many India-Nepal agreements struggle not because of disagreement at the top, but because of slow implementation on the ground. Bureaucratic delays, regulatory hurdles, and lack of coordination have held back several projects. Take the cross-border railway projects like Jaynagar-Bardibas Railway as an example, it took years to operationalize because of construction delays and procedural hurdles on the Nepali side. Other important initiatives like Integrated Check Posts at border points like Birgunj witnessed delays in expansion due to regulatory and logistical challenges. 

In this context, Balen’s track record as a city administrator suggests a preference for speed and accountability. He is willing to cut through red tape, follow timelines, and hold officials accountable for delays. If that approach carries into national governance, it could improve execution. Faster project delivery in sectors like hydropower and transport would directly benefit both countries.

That said, none of this is automatic. Moving from municipal leadership to national governance is a significant jump. Unlike his role as a mayor, as a Prime Minister of Nepal, Balen requires a different level of institutional coordination and strategic thinking. He has to diplomatically manage relations with neighbours on sensitive matters of security and trade. Balen will need to rely on experienced advisors and build a capable team to handle complex regional dynamics. So, the actual test is not whether Balen can win elections, but whether he can expand the Nepal state’s capacity and functionality. At the same time, India’s approach will be just as important. A respectful and non-intrusive engagement style from New Delhi will go a long way in supporting a stable partnership. The relationship has always worked best when both sides show sensitivity to each other’s concerns.

In many ways, this is less about one individual and more about a broader shift in Nepal’s political landscape. Balen represents a demand for cleaner governance, economic focus, and a break from old patterns. These aspirations do not clash with India’s interests. In fact, they align closely with what India seeks in its neighbourhood: stability, growth, and reliable cooperation.

If handled carefully, his leadership could move India-Nepal relations into a productive phase. That, in the long run, is often what sustains strong bilateral relationships.

The author is an editor at Zebra Learn. She studied International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Her research focuses on South Asian politics

In any democracy, the ultimate measure of progress is not the charisma of a leader but the strength of the institutions that guarantee freedom, accountability, and justice. History has repeatedly shown us that when democracies begin to worship individuals rather than nurture institutions, the system tilts dangerously toward authoritarianism. Conversely, where institutions are built to outlast personalities, democracy endures even amidst crises.

A strong framework of institutions—such as the Election Commission, the Supreme Court, and Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority—should be nurtured to sustain and strengthen democracy. These bodies become the backbone of democratic functioning, which in turn nurtures smooth transitions of power and safeguards constitutional values. Whereas in countries where democracy slid into personality cults, rulers risk turning to ruler-for-life. By centralizing power around oneself and eroding institutions like the judiciary and civil services, the ruler hollows out the very foundations of governance. What follows is economic collapse, rampant corruption, and political instability. The lesson is clear: when institutions are weakened in favor of individuals, democracy becomes hostage to whims rather than laws.

Nepal’s recent political landscape offers a vivid illustration of this dynamic. Balendra Shah—popularly known as Balen—first captured the nation’s imagination when he stood as an independent candidate for Kathmandu Mayor in the 2022 local elections, becoming the first independent candidate ever elected to the position. His victory set off a wave of enthusiasm, particularly on social media, where his profile grew rapidly into something resembling a movement.

As a mayor, Balen gained immense popularity. He rarely spoke to the public and avoided the media, choosing instead to communicate through social media, generating significant online engagement. The former rapper became an enigmatic figure. People wanted to know more about him, but he rarely revealed much about himself. He attempted to clear squatter settlements in Thapathali, used force against street vendors, and openly expressed frustration with the government’s failure to coordinate on waste management—going so far as to order rubbish dumped outside government offices. These actions drew criticism and backlash, but they also cemented his image as someone willing to act where others merely talked. His aura was, by most accounts, unmatched in recent Nepali political history.

That boldness extended beyond municipal governance. He frequently lambasted the major political parties, including the Congress, CPN (UML), the Maoists, and even the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), and his voice came to embody the frustration of thousands of Nepalis who felt disillusioned with these parties. During the GenZ protests on Sept 8–9 against corruption, nepotism, the social media ban, and other governance failures in Nepal, he expressed support for the demonstrators. He also called former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli a “terrorist” and demanded that he take responsibility for the deaths during the protests. 

On 28 Dec 2025, Shah formally unified with the RSP, resigning as Kathmandu mayor on 18 Jan 2026 to contest the 2026 general election as the party’s prime ministerial candidate. While RSP chair Rabi Lamichhane retained his formal title, Shah became the party’s dominant public face and the principal engine of its electoral momentum.

The results were staggering. Shah ran against four-time former Prime Minister Oli in the latter’s own stronghold—and won convincingly.  Shah secured 68,348 votes, the highest vote total ever recorded in Nepal’s parliamentary election history. This surpassed the previous record of 57,139 votes set by Oli himself in the same constituency in 2017. Oli received just 18,734 votes, leaving Shah with a winning margin of 49,614 votes. The symbolism was impossible to miss: the new Nepal, it seemed, had emphatically displaced the old.

RSP’s broader performance matched the scale of Shah’s individual triumph. With 12 candidates winning over 50,000 votes each, the party swept the election with a landslide victory, claiming close to a two-thirds majority—falling just two seats short. Balen and his party became a defining force within the very mainstream system he once so loudly criticized.

This victory arrives at a particularly delicate moment for Nepal. In the aftermath of the GenZ protests, the country stepped outside its constitutional framework, appointing a former chief justice as prime minister. It is now on the path back to constitutional order through fresh parliamentary elections. In that context, RSP and Balen represent both enormous opportunity and considerable challenge.

The opportunity is obvious: a party with a sweeping mandate and a charismatic leader who commands genuine popular trust. The challenge is subtler—and more dangerous. Posts are already circulating on social media that deify Shah in terms that should give any democrat pause. Owing to the coincidence of his birth date with Oli’s electoral rise in the early 90s, some have compared him to Lord Krishna, born to end the reign of the tyrant Kansa. It is a flattering myth, but myths of this kind carry real costs in a democracy. When leaders are elevated to quasi-divine status, the institutions meant to check them begin to seem like obstacles rather than safeguards.

Building robust institutions ensures continuity and accountability. Leaders may inspire, but institutions protect. Personality cults may offer temporary stability, but they weaken checks and balances. True democracy is not about deifying a figure—it is about ensuring that no one is above the constitution, and no one is indispensable to governance.

Balen faces a challenge: to meet the sky-high expectations of a people hungry for honest, effective governance. But the responsibility does not rest with him alone. The people who voted for him—and those watching from afar—must also resist the temptation of placing him on a pedestal he was never meant to occupy. He is a representative of the general public in a democratic country. Nothing more, and nothing less. He cannot be above his party. He cannot be above the constitution.

If Nepal—and democracies everywhere—wish to thrive, they must resist the temptation of idolizing individuals and instead invest in the institutions that will safeguard freedoms for generations. After all, it is institutions, not idols, that make democracies durable.

In any democracy, the ultimate measure of progress is not the charisma of a leader but the strength of the institutions that guarantee freedom, accountability, and justice. History has repeatedly shown us that when democracies begin to worship individuals rather than nurture institutions, the system tilts dangerously toward authoritarianism. Conversely, where institutions are built to outlast personalities, democracy endures even amidst crises.

A strong framework of institutions—such as the Election Commission, the Supreme Court, and Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority—should be nurtured to sustain and strengthen democracy. These bodies become the backbone of democratic functioning, which in turn nurtures smooth transitions of power and safeguards constitutional values. Whereas in countries where democracy slid into personality cults, rulers risk turning to ruler-for-life. By centralizing power around oneself and eroding institutions like the judiciary and civil services, the ruler hollows out the very foundations of governance. What follows is economic collapse, rampant corruption, and political instability. The lesson is clear: when institutions are weakened in favor of individuals, democracy becomes hostage to whims rather than laws.

Nepal’s recent political landscape offers a vivid illustration of this dynamic. Balendra Shah—popularly known as Balen—first captured the nation’s imagination when he stood as an independent candidate for Kathmandu Mayor in the 2022 local elections, becoming the first independent candidate ever elected to the position. His victory set off a wave of enthusiasm, particularly on social media, where his profile grew rapidly into something resembling a movement.

As a mayor, Balen gained immense popularity. He rarely spoke to the public and avoided the media, choosing instead to communicate through social media, generating significant online engagement. The former rapper became an enigmatic figure. People wanted to know more about him, but he rarely revealed much about himself. He attempted to clear squatter settlements in Thapathali, used force against street vendors, and openly expressed frustration with the government’s failure to coordinate on waste management—going so far as to order rubbish dumped outside government offices. These actions drew criticism and backlash, but they also cemented his image as someone willing to act where others merely talked. His aura was, by most accounts, unmatched in recent Nepali political history.

That boldness extended beyond municipal governance. He frequently lambasted the major political parties, including the Congress, CPN (UML), the Maoists, and even the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), and his voice came to embody the frustration of thousands of Nepalis who felt disillusioned with these parties. During the GenZ protests on Sept 8–9 against corruption, nepotism, the social media ban, and other governance failures in Nepal, he expressed support for the demonstrators. He also called former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli a “terrorist” and demanded that he take responsibility for the deaths during the protests. 

On 28 Dec 2025, Shah formally unified with the RSP, resigning as Kathmandu mayor on 18 Jan 2026 to contest the 2026 general election as the party’s prime ministerial candidate. While RSP chair Rabi Lamichhane retained his formal title, Shah became the party’s dominant public face and the principal engine of its electoral momentum.

The results were staggering. Shah ran against four-time former Prime Minister Oli in the latter’s own stronghold—and won convincingly. Shah secured 68,348 votes, the highest vote total ever recorded in Nepal’s parliamentary election history. This surpassed the previous record of 57,139 votes set by Oli himself in the same constituency in 2017. Oli received just 18,734 votes, leaving Shah with a winning margin of 49,614 votes. The symbolism was impossible to miss: the new Nepal, it seemed, had emphatically displaced the old.

RSP’s broader performance matched the scale of Shah’s individual triumph. With 12 candidates winning over 50,000 votes each, the party swept the election with a landslide victory, claiming close to a two-thirds majority—falling just two seats short. Balen and his party became a defining force within the very mainstream system he once so loudly criticized.

This victory arrives at a particularly delicate moment for Nepal. In the aftermath of the GenZ protests, the country stepped outside its constitutional framework, appointing a former chief justice as prime minister. It is now on the path back to constitutional order through fresh parliamentary elections. In that context, RSP and Balen represent both enormous opportunity and considerable challenge.

The opportunity is obvious: a party with a sweeping mandate and a charismatic leader who commands genuine popular trust. The challenge is subtler—and more dangerous. Posts are already circulating on social media that deify Shah in terms that should give any democrat pause. Owing to the coincidence of his birth date with Oli’s electoral rise in the early 90s, some have compared him to Lord Krishna, born to end the reign of the tyrant Kansa. It is a flattering myth, but myths of this kind carry real costs in a democracy. When leaders are elevated to quasi-divine status, the institutions meant to check them begin to seem like obstacles rather than safeguards.

Building robust institutions ensures continuity and accountability. Leaders may inspire, but institutions protect. Personality cults may offer temporary stability, but they weaken checks and balances. True democracy is not about deifying a figure—it is about ensuring that no one is above the constitution, and no one is indispensable to governance.

Balen faces a challenge: to meet the sky-high expectations of a people hungry for honest, effective governance. But the responsibility does not rest with him alone. The people who voted for him—and those watching from afar—must also resist the temptation of placing him on a pedestal he was never meant to occupy. He is a representative of the general public in a democratic country. Nothing more, and nothing less. He cannot be above his party. He cannot be above the constitution.

If Nepal—and democracies everywhere—wish to thrive, they must resist the temptation of idolizing individuals and instead invest in the institutions that will safeguard freedoms for generations. After all, it is institutions, not idols, that make democracies durable.