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
