In Nepal, millions are still reeling from an anti-corruption rebellion led by the country’s urban youth, which ousted the government led by K P Sharma Oli earlier this month.
Oli’s power collapsed within mere days — so quickly, in fact, that some Nepalese now speculate that protesters must have had help from abroad. A rare congratulatory message from religious leader Dalai Lama further fueled the debate on social media.
Others, however, insist that the revolution was launched and conducted by the Nepalese themselves.
“The Gen Z campaign is often compared to movements in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or Syria,” Kathmandu-based journalist Devendra Bhattarai wrote in his recent column.
“But it must not be forgotten that this is less the result of outside influence and more a revolution born and nurtured by Nepali leaders here.”
Political scientist Sucheta Pyakurel told DW that the government’s ouster was a “revolution of mass frustration” generated by lack of opportunities and cronyism.
At the same time, she also pointed a “correlation between sovereignty and external influence.”
“As we lose our grip on both the state institutions and the market — with so many youths leaving for jobs abroad — external influence naturally grows,” she said.
Nepal’s international balancing act
Nepal, a Himalayan nation of nearly 30 million people wedged between India and China, has struggled with instability for many years.
Between the adoption of a new constitution in 2015 and the latest deadly unrest, the country has seen eight government centered around the same three leaders: Oli of CPN-UML, Sher Bahadur Deuba of Nepali Congress, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal of CPN (Maoist-Center).
Parts of Nepal’s political scene, especially left-leaning and pro-monarchy forces, have repeatedly claimed that foreign powers like India, the United States, and the European Union are behind Nepal’s frequent political shifts. China has only recently joined this line-up, as its traditional image of “quiet diplomacy” has waned.
Officially, Kathmandu pursues a “non-aligned foreign policy” — a principle established by King Prithvi who united modern Nepal in 1768. A key element of this policy could be summed up as “friendship with all and enmity with none” to ensure diplomatic and developmental support from all sides, especially India and China.
Nepal also views the US as its “third neighbor” due to Washington’s global dominance. In turn, India, China, and the United States all have genuine stakes in Nepal and concerns regarding sudden shifts in the nation’s politics.
Stuck between India and China
Nepal and India enjoy deep-rooted civilizational, cultural, economic and security ties. India also shares a 1,751-kilometer open border with the smaller country.
Because of its geographic and cultural proximity, India experiences the immediate impact of instability in Nepal. Security is a prime concern, but India also seeks a reliable partner in Kathmandu to continue pursuing smooth relations.
With China, Nepal shares northern border with its Tibet Autonomous Region, and Beijing views instability in Nepal as a potential threat to Tibet’s security.
China insists Nepal uphold the “One China Policy” and prevent anti-China activities on its soil. Nepal repeatedly reaffirmed this principle, recognizing Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan as integral parts of China.
Western stake in Nepal
Since 2017, Nepal has joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with the vision of multi-dimensional trans-Himalayan networks connecting two countries, including railways, roads, and digital and energy links.
“Nepal’s foreign policy is all about its efforts to maintain a delicate balance with all three regional and global powers,” Chandra Dev Bhatta, a geopolitical analyst, told DW.
“For Beijing, a stable and peaceful Nepal serves two purposes: Safeguarding Tibet’s security and rallying smaller states behind China’s global policies,” Bhatta said.
At the same time, Kathmandu also seeks to maintain ties with the US and its allies, including the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. These nations support Nepal’s policy frameworks through both government-to-government programs and civil society funding.
Recently, the US has provided a $530 million Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant to scale up Nepal’s energy grids and road infrastructure. The MCC is seen as the Western countermeasure to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
How close was Oli to Beijing?
In recent years, Nepal has moved close to China diplomatically, but also in the area of economics.
Analyst point to China’s apparent preference for Nepal’s left-leaning parties — especially the Maoists and CPN-UML.
Since Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Kathmandu in October 2019, leftist prime ministers and presidents have repeatedly visited China. Just days before the outbreak of deadly protests in Nepal, then-Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli attended a military parade in Beijing marking the 80th anniversary of China’s victory over Imperial Japan.
During this visit, however, Oli raised Nepal’s concerns over the India and China agreement to open up economic and pilgrimage routes through Lipulekh Pass, a territory Nepal has claimed historically. On the sidelines, he also met Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Also, the Chinese side claims that Nepal expressed support for the Global Security Initiative (GSI) — still a loosely defined idea to form a security bloc spearheaded by China, in what would be a breach of Nepal’s neutrality policy. However, the Nepali side has denied Oli endorsed the GSI.
For Bhatta, Oli’s strategy of leaning on China was “uncommon.”
“Since our engagement is greater with India and the West, our strategic tilt toward China could be viewed unfavorably,” he added.
It is also worth noting that Japan was the first nation to congratulate the regime change in Nepal, hinting at Tokyo’s displeasure with Oli’s diplomatic course.
Karki’s government still an unknown
The interim government, led by former Supreme Court justice Sushila Karki, was also warmly welcomed by the international community, including India, China, the US, the EU and the United Nations.
During a phone call with Karki last week, India’s Narendra Modi reaffirmed New Delhi’s “steadfast support for her efforts to restore peace and stability.” In turn, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said Beijing “respects the development path chosen independently by the people of Nepal.”
The interim government is currently focused on organizing elections that would see it hand power to a new, elected Cabinet. It is therefore too early to predict how the interim leaders would shape ties with global and regional powers.
Indra Adhikari, a board member of Nepal’s Policy Research Institute, notes that there are voices claiming credit for Nepal’s political shift in various power corridors.
However, she warns that “Nepal should refrain from deviating from its foreign policy mantra of non-alignment and falling into a geopolitical trap.”
