Prime Minister Balendra Shah has completed 124 days in office. Fairly speaking, this government has so far failed to inspire hope among the people. Even within this short period, citizens from different professions, age groups, and social classes have publicly expressed disappointment over the government’s overall performance. This article, however, does not assess the government’s overall performance. Instead, it focuses specifically on its foreign policy orientation.

In reality, Prime Minister Shah has not publicly presented a comprehensive outline of his government’s foreign policy. Therefore, any assessment of his foreign policy must be drawn from his public statements, diplomatic acts, and the decisions taken by his government over the past four months. From that perspective, four major concerns deserve attention.

First: Wrong statement

Prime Minister Shah made an incorrect statement regarding Nepal’s border dispute with India. He stated that Nepal has also encroached upon Indian territory, just as India has encroached upon Nepal’s territory. This statement is factually incorrect. Nepal has never officially claimed or occupied any Indian territory beyond its own internationally recognized claims. Likewise, India has never officially accused Nepal of encroaching upon Indian territory. The dispute concerns Nepal’s claim over the territories of Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani, which Nepal maintains have been under Indian administration. Such a statement from the Prime Minister weakens Nepal’s long-standing diplomatic position. 

The second concern relates to the Prime Minister’s remarks suggesting that Nepal had approached the United Kingdom regarding historical documents related to Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani. This was another serious mistake. The dispute exists between Nepal and India. Although historical documents from the British colonial period may be useful as reference materials, the dispute itself can only be resolved through sustained bilateral negotiations between Nepal and India. Without exhausting bilateral diplomatic mechanisms, raising the prospect of third-party involvement unnecessarily complicates the issue. Later, during his party’s national convention, Prime Minister Shah clarified that Nepal had not sought British mediation. However, he has never corrected his earlier statement that Nepal had also encroached upon Indian territory. As a result, his original position continues to stand without clarification. Foreign policy demands consistency. When an inaccurate statement affects a country’s sovereign position, timely clarification is essential.

Second: Protocol as statecraft

Every government must carefully observe diplomatic protocol while dealing with foreign diplomats and dignitaries. Since assuming office, Prime Minister Shah has not held individual courtesy meetings with Kathmandu-based ambassadors, unlike previous prime ministers. Instead, he met ambassadors collectively, which was seen as a new diplomatic approach. While such a collective meeting may be useful, it cannot replace individual diplomatic engagement.

Ambassadors are not merely individual diplomats; they are the official representatives of their respective heads of state and government. Courtesy meetings with ambassadors are a well-established diplomatic practice. They help build trust, facilitate communication, and create opportunities to address bilateral issues directly. Furthermore, Nepal’s foreign policy has always recognized different levels of strategic priority. Relations with India and China occupy a unique place because of Nepal’s geography, economic interdependence, and historical ties.

Recognizing these priorities does not undermine Nepal’s sovereign equality with other countries. Rather, it reflects geopolitical reality. A Prime Minister should therefore engage with ambassadors according to national priorities and the substantive agenda of bilateral relations. Diplomatic protocol is not merely ceremonial; it is an instrument of statecraft. Ignoring established practices may unintentionally create misunderstandings about Nepal’s foreign policy priorities.

Third: India visit

The Prime Minister of a sovereign nation has every right to visit whichever country best serves its national interest. Such visits should be guided by diplomatic priorities rather than domestic political controversy. As Nepal’s immediate neighbors, India and China naturally occupy the highest priority in Nepal’s foreign relations. Therefore, there would have been nothing unusual if Prime Minister Shah had chosen either India or China as his first official bilateral destination.

According to available information, Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal and India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar discussed the possibility of the Prime Minister’s visit to India during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of a meeting in Mauritius. Subsequently, India’s Foreign Secretary, Vikram Misri, was expected to visit Kathmandu as part of the diplomatic preparations. However, Prime Minister Shah reportedly declined to meet the visiting Foreign Secretary, resulting in the postponement of the visit.

Now, instead of using the established diplomatic channel, the Prime Minister sent his adviser, Kumar Benjankar, to New Delhi to meet India’s National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval. Foreign policy should primarily be conducted through constitutionally designated institutions, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When parallel channels are created without proper coordination with the Foreign Minister, it risks creating confusion regarding who actually speaks on behalf of the Government of Nepal.

According to media reports, the visit of the Prime Minister’s adviser did not receive formal recognition from India’s Ministry of External Affairs. During a regular press briefing, the ministry’s spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, stated that he had no information regarding the adviser’s visit. When asked about Prime Minister Shah’s proposed visit to India, the spokesperson stated that a formal invitation had already been extended to the Nepali Prime Minister, although no details regarding its timing were provided. Whether intentional or not, bypassing established diplomatic procedures weakens institutional diplomacy and creates unnecessary uncertainty in bilateral relations.

Fourth: Geopolitical sensitivity

The fourth concern is the government’s apparent failure to fully understand Nepal’s geopolitical sensitivity. Nepal has long pursued an independent foreign policy based on sovereign equality, peaceful coexistence, and non-alignment. Although the classical concept of non-alignment has evolved significantly since the Cold War, its central principle remains relevant: Nepal should avoid becoming an instrument of strategic competition among major powers. This does not mean Nepal should distance itself from any particular country. Rather, Nepal should maintain constructive relations with all major powers while ensuring that its territory is never used against the legitimate security interests of another state.

Nepal’s commitment to the One China Policy is one example of this principle. Similarly, Nepal has consistently maintained that activities directed against neighboring countries should not be allowed from Nepali soil.

Geography is Nepal’s permanent reality. It cannot be changed, but it can be managed wisely. Nepal’s location between two major powers should be viewed as a strategic advantage rather than a geopolitical burden. India and China will always remain the country’s foremost priorities. This is not a matter of political preference but of geography, economics, and national security.