Nepal’s political landscape has been in a constant state of flux, and finds itself at a critical juncture in its democratic journey. Over the past three decades, Nepal has transitioned from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, and eventually to a federal secular republic. However, the ongoing political turbulence—punctuated by protests, dissatisfaction, and competing ideologies—has left the Nepali people disillusioned with the political system they once hoped would deliver on its promises.
Nepal’s political transitions have always been marked by external influence, particularly from India, which has had a notable role in the country’s path to democracy. So, decoding the intent and what went about in the recent one-to-one bilateral meeting between Prime Minister KP Oli and PM Narendra Modi holds further portrayal.
Legacy of political transitions
New Delhi has constantly portrayed a notable share in Nepal’s transition to democracy. The absence of a twin pillar foreign policy of a constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy in 2006 paved the way for the current federal secular republic.
On March 17 at the CPN-UML secretariat meeting chaired by PM Oli emphasized the importance of united efforts by republicans to counter the monarchist movement against the federal republic in addition to claims that India has played a role in the pro-monarchy movement. He also urged the party’s youth wing volunteers to “attack anyone trying to snatch away the rights that we fought for.”
Nepali Congress (NC) President and former PM Sher Bahadur Deba said that India does not support the royalist movement in Nepal.
Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba while in Delhi raised a question about potential Indian support to the pro-monarchy protest with her Indian counterpart S Jaishankar, who denied any backing for the protests. Though PM Oli has not been officially invited to visit New Delhi, he had a bilateral meeting with Indian PM Modi on April 4 on the sidelines of the Sixth Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) summit in Bangkok.
The 35-minute one-to-one discussion came at a time when protests were going on in Nepal demanding the restoration of monarchy and a Hindu state with a catchphrase of anti-corruption drive and end of federalism. This was a second bilateral meeting between Oli and Modi after the sidelines meeting during the 79th United Nations General Assembly in New York in Sept 2024. The difference is that the first was held with officials while the latter was one-to-one.
Complex political landscape
Nepal’s political arena is highly polarized, with three dominant ideological camps vying for influence. The first group consists of the status quoists, who advocate for the current federal secular republic. The second group is the reformists, who are pushing for structural political changes to address governance issues, corruption, and inefficiencies. Finally, the growing pro-monarchist movement that calls for the restoration of the monarchy, albeit in a symbolic role, with an elected Head of Government. These factions reflect a deep division in how the country’s future should be shaped.
This polarization, while enriching the political discourse, also makes it difficult to reconcile these opposing views. Each faction draws on different historical narratives, cultural values, and visions for Nepal’s national identity. The fundamental issue, however, is not about rejecting democracy but about the effectiveness of the system that was supposed to deliver a better future.
Governance crisis and public discontent
At the heart of the current dissatisfaction is poor governance. The public’s anger is not directed at democracy itself, but at the way it has been implemented. The promises made by the political leaders, from economic development to efficient governance, have largely gone unmet. Corruption remains rampant, institutions are weak, and political leaders are seen as more interested in maintaining their power than in serving the people.
This disillusionment is not just ideological; it is deeply pragmatic. The people are questioning whether the system can truly deliver. The notion of democracy, for many, has become synonymous with inefficiency, corruption, and political infighting. The failure to meet basic expectations has created a breeding ground for discontent, with many wondering whether the existing political framework can ever be fixed.
Global democratic backsliding
Nepal’s democratic challenges are not isolated; they are part of a global trend of democratic backsliding. Countries around the world—India, the US, Sri Lanka, Israel—are witnessing increased political polarization, the rise of populism, and the erosion of democratic norms. In this context, Nepal’s situation reflects a broader pattern of democratic disillusionment that is sweeping across many parts of the globe. This global backdrop, however, also provides an opportunity for Nepal. There is a chance to rethink democratic governance—not by retreating into authoritarianism but by rebuilding a more inclusive, accountable, and citizen-driven democracy. The key lies in re-establishing the connection between the people and their representatives, ensuring that the political system is genuinely responsive to the needs of the people.
What’s confidential about “boosting relations”?
Headlines say: PM Oli and PM Modi agree to “boost Nepal-India relations” in their meeting on the sidelines of the Sixth BIMSTEC Summit. The one-to-one meeting is a strategic win for PM Modi and a purposeful attainment for PM Oli claiming that all officials including Minister of Foreign Affairs Arzu Rana Deuba encompassed a bilateral meeting that was changed at the last minute by the Ministry of External Affairs, India (MEA).
What’s confidential about “strengthening mutually beneficial cooperation in areas such as development partnership, energy, connectivity, and people-to-people relations”. The phrase “mutually beneficial cooperation” in public statements may obscure deeper strategic negotiations. The MEA statement said “They expressed satisfaction at the progress in enhancing physical and digital connectivity, people-to-people linkages, and in the domain of energy. They agreed to continue working towards further deepening the multifaceted partnership between our two countries and peoples”. Nepal is a priority partner of India under its Neighbourhood First Policy. This meeting continues the tradition of regular high-level exchanges between the two countries.”
On X PM Modi posts “India attaches immense priority to relations with Nepal. We discussed different aspects of India-Nepal friendship, especially in sectors like energy, connectivity, culture and digital technology. We also talked about some of the key positive outcomes from this year’s BIMSTEC Summit, especially in areas of disaster management and maritime transport.”
In a post on X, PM Oli said that he was delighted to meet Modi, had a meaningful and positive conversation and described the meeting as intimate. “Had a warm and heartfelt meeting with my dear friend, Prime Minister Shri @narendramodi Ji. Our discussions were highly meaningful and constructive. I express my appreciation over this cordial exchange.”
During the same stretch of the secluded meeting, there are protests in the streets which have weakened all the political powers whether democratic forces or the communists in Nepal. In addition, the political powers behind the compelling of the 2015 constitution is ineffectual and ineffective. The focus could be with cultural ties, and geopolitical manoeuvring particularly China in view and the ongoing protests in the streets of Kathmandu.
Underlying strategic motives
Limiting China’s engagement that influences Indian security concerns—India is wary of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects and growing political ties. The discrete nature of the meeting could indeed involve such discussions. Renouncing anti Indian oratory as a slogan for nationalism-Anti-Indian sentiment has been weaponized politically. India may be seeking Nepalese leaders to dial this down in return for greater cooperation.
Strengthening of Nepal and India deep cultural, religious and ethnic ties with arrangements even through constitutional reform-This would resonate with India’s soft power diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy is a core part of the “Neighbourhood First” policy. Constitutionally and not physically owned map of Nepal embracing Kalapani-Limpiyadhura-Lipulekh region as an impediment in relationship during Oli’s premiership that transformed ‘territorial claim’ to ‘occupied’-This remains a sticking point. Modi-Oli’s rapport might open doors for de-escalation or reinterpretation of constitutional stances to ease tensions.
Political context and transformation
Nepal may undergo a major transformation but not a principled constitutional shift. There is growing momentum for systemic reform, but not necessarily a dismantling of the ideal framework. All major parties, from NC to UML to Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) to RPP to Madhes-centric alliances with eight parties on board, seem interested in functional reform over structural revolution—more governance efficiency than ideological upheaval. The idea of a "reformed federal secular republic" is gaining quiet traction—a way to appease conservative, nationalist, and regional groups without overturning the constitutional ethos.
PM Modi and Delhi will retain substantial influence over Nepal’s political-economic direction. India remains Nepal’s largest trade partner, transit route, and a soft power heavyweight. Nepal’s fragile economy and political flux create a strategic vacuum India is eager to fill, especially amid China's growing interest.
Conclusion: Balanced, yet urgent
The PMs’ meeting on the sidelines of BIMSTEC is not just a symbolic continuation of bilateral ties but potentially a strategic recalibration. The confidentiality, the exclusion of key Nepali diplomats, and diplomatic subtleties hint at unspoken understandings on contentious topics. The expected transformation in Nepal is likely to be governance-oriented, not ideological, possibly backed or influenced by New Delhi’s geopolitical imperatives.
The Meeting and its timing with one-on-one meetings were strategic and involved a late-stage change by MEA, suggesting high confidentiality. High-level bilateral talks between PM Oli and PM Modi have always been significant due to both nations intertwining cultural, economic, and strategic ties. The MEA and both PMs’ statements reinforce the notion that the meeting, while framed in diplomatic language, likely involved deeper strategic discussions. The late-stage restructuring (excluding the Foreign Minister) raises questions of trust, exclusivity, or sensitive content, especially amidst domestic unrest in Nepal.
The national challenges are both status quo defenders and the supporters of change to rethink what democratic governance means in practice and in Nepal. It implicitly asks:
- Can Nepal create a democracy that delivers?
- Can it preserve diversity without fragmentation?
- Can it reform without losing headway?
The answer lies not in returning to past systems, but in building a new democratic consensus—inclusive, accountable, and rooted in justice. Structural flaws remain with federalism without proper devolution of power; judiciary questioned for political bias; weak checks and balances in governance and institutional corruption; economic struggle; environment vulnerability; food security; infrastructure connectivity and chain of supply and political instability.
Thus, a call for constitutional reform seems timely—but it must avoid top-down imposition. Instead, reform should be participatory, deliberative, and aimed at creating a more functional democracy, not just changing symbols or structures.
The author is a retired major general of the Nepali Army
