New Delhi’s flawed Kathmandu approach

As Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli prepares for his official visit to China, political and diplomatic circles are actively debating the state of Nepal’s relationship with India. Observers suggest this move reflects Oli’s strained relationship with New Delhi and points to a shift in India’s approach toward Nepal. Many Indian politicians, bureaucrats, think tanks, and media figures often attribute fluctuations in bilateral relations to the Nepali side.

Critics in New Delhi argue that Nepali leaders often make commitments in India but fail to uphold them once back in Kathmandu. Similarly, Indian authorities frequently accuse Nepali politicians of politicizing critical bilateral issues for party or personal gain. Nepal’s internal political instability and lack of consensus on key foreign policy matters are also seen as contributing factors to the inconsistent relationship. A foreign policy expert from New Delhi remarked that India seeks a reliable partner in Kathmandu but finds it challenging to trust Nepali leaders, who are perceived as unpredictable.

While these criticisms may hold some truth, there’s also a need for reflection on India’s approach toward Nepal.

One current debate centers on Prime Minister Oli’s planned visit to China, a departure from the tradition of a new Nepali prime minister making their first official trip to India. However, this tradition has been broken before; in 2011, for instance, India did not invite then-Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal, and in 2008, Pushpa Kamal Dahal visited Beijing before later affirming India as his first political visit destination. India’s decision not to invite Oli this time has stirred speculation in political circles that New Delhi is dissatisfied with Nepal’s recent policy moves. At a time when economic cooperation has been progressing, India's hesitation to invite Oli risks undermining bilateral relations, potentially stirring suspicion and impacting other areas of the partnership.

Soon after the formation of the new government, there were talks about a visit from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Nepal, though this has yet to materialize. There are differing views within India’s bureaucracy and ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), leading to mixed signals that complicate Nepal’s understanding of India’s priorities. Unlike in the past, senior BJP leaders have recently engaged with Nepal’s political parties and bureaucracy, but a lack of alignment between India’s political and bureaucratic circles seems to be creating further challenges. India’s handling of issues around trade and assistance has also contributed to tension, with frequent reports of delays in the movement of goods between the two countries, fueling a trust deficit that affects the broader relationship.

There are other factors that call for reflection in both Kathmandu and New Delhi. Among Indian policymakers, there is often a perception that Nepal is solely responsible for any disturbances in bilateral relations. The case of the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) report illustrates this imbalance; India’s reluctance to receive the report has affected  bilateral relations, and the situation will likely remain unresolved unless addressed. Other areas, such as the difficulties faced by Nepali citizens in India and along the border, also deserve more attention from Indian policymakers.

Since 2017–18, New Delhi has maintained a policy of engaging with whichever party leads the Nepali government, a position that should continue. While India may have reservations about Nepal’s growing ties with Washington and Beijing, both sides should openly discuss India’s legitimate security concerns. But for now, a significant trust deficit persists between Nepal and India, which could potentially worsen after Oli’s China visit. Both New Delhi and Kathmandu need to actively work on bridging this gap. Although there was hope for renewed bilateral cooperation after 2014, missteps from both sides since 2016 have strained relations. Only through earnest reflection and engagement can meaningful progress be made.