Submit your Article

Since the 1950s, America’s development assistance to Nepal has steadily increased. However, after Donald Trump was re-inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, this assistance was significantly cut, straining small countries’ health, education, and humanitarian sectors.

Small nations are increasingly viewing superpowers as unreliable partners, as assistance and projects have often been canceled midway. Experts say at the very least small countries should have been given time to find alternative sources of funding before support in critical sectors like health and education was withdrawn.

While the exact figures remain unclear, dozens of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have canceled projects previously supported by USAID. Referring to America’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) during an internal party meeting, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli noted that agreements signed after years of deliberations were abruptly terminated.

With media reports suggesting that the Trump administration might shut down the MCC, there is growing concern in Nepal that two major projects—a cross-border transmission line and a road upgrade—could be affected. Prime Minister Oli says that Nepal should not overly rely on foreign aid. In a direct reference to the MCC, he noted that even though the parliaments of both countries had ratified the compact, the US unilaterally decided to terminate it.

Foreign policy experts say the new US administration’s policies pose both challenges and opportunities for countries like Nepal, which have relied heavily on foreign aid for decades, even in critical sectors like health. In the short term, countries will struggle to secure funds, impacting infrastructure development. But in the long run, experts say it presents an opportunity to reduce dependency on foreign assistance.

Nilanthi Samaranayake, an independent analyst based in Washington, DC, says that smaller countries are clearly affected by the shift in US international engagement policy and that they should reassess their economic and security dependencies on the US.

Nepal, she suggests, should seek a broader range of international partners beyond just the US, India, and China. While Washington’s policy changes bring challenges, she is of the view that they also offer Nepal an opportunity to enhance its diplomatic outreach and diversify its economic and security partnerships.

Development cooperation between Nepal and the US dates back to 1951, when the two countries signed their first bilateral aid agreement under the US’s Point Four Program. Early US assistance prioritized building roads, establishing telephone exchanges, eliminating malaria from the Tarai region and promoting agricultural development. By 1959, the US had helped Kathmandu install its first automatic telephone exchange, providing 1,000 lines, and supported the construction of the 87-kilometer Bharatpur-Hetauda road under the Rapti Development Program. Work also began on the Hetauda-Kathmandu ropeway the same year.

In the 1960s, during King Mahendra’s consolidation of the Panchayat system, US aid surged dramatically. President Dwight Eisenhower’s unexpected $15m pledge to King Mahendra in April 1960 marked a turning point in US involvement in Nepal’s development. USAID expanded its programs in agriculture, health, education and industrial development. After King Mahendra dissolved parliament and banned political parties in 1960, US aid was redirected to support the Panchayat system. The US supported construction of administrative structures across Nepal, viewing the Panchayat system as a potential vehicle for mobilizing human resources and fostering economic, social and democratic political development.

Chandra Dev Bhatta, a Kathmandu-based geopolitical expert, says that as traditional Western donors reassess their commitments, the impact on countries like Nepal’s development and service delivery mechanisms could be significant.

“With the withdrawal of USAID and now the MCC, some of Nepal’s vital infrastructure projects may face serious challenges, if not come to a complete standstill,” Bhatta says. “International aid architecture is not only evolving but has also become increasingly politicized. While reduced aid and grants are a concern, Nepal must press forward with infrastructure development and keep the service delivery systems intact.”

In the short term, Bhatta suggests that Nepal should urge donor countries to honor their previous commitments despite new geopolitical realities. In the long term, he says, the importance of recognizing that aid is often driven by the donor’s own interests. “This is the stark reality of international cooperation,” he says. “Global political and economic dynamics demand us to have self-reliant models of economic development, and Nepali certainly will have to work in that direction.”

It is now almost certain that US assistance to Nepal will continue to decline. Support is likely to persist only in areas aligned with the Republican Party’s priorities. So far, there have been no concrete discussions between the two countries regarding this new reality.

Satoru Nagao, a Non-Resident Fellow at the Hudson Institute, says that under the current rules of global free trade, China has been catching up with the US. And for small countries, he adds global trade brings both opportunities and challenges. “While factories may relocate elsewhere, small countries can still attract investment if they maintain competitive production costs.”

Nagao points out that if tariffs dominate the new global trade rules, small countries will need to adapt. Although this shift may allow local industries to survive, there will likely be fewer opportunities for foreign investment. He says since the primary target of current US policy is China, countries that depend heavily on China could suffer under these shifts. He warns that if Nepal increasingly relies on China, it risks becoming “a passenger on a sinking ship.”

The ongoing teachers’ protest has compelled Minister for Education, Science, and Technology, Bidya Bhattarai, to resign. On one hand, she was under mounting pressure to address the demands of teachers; on the other, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was reportedly dissatisfied with her performance.

A clear divergence emerged between the interests of the ruling CPN-UML and Bhattarai’s method of handling pressing issues in the education sector. With her background as a university lecturer, Bhattarai was seen as a competent and knowledgeable figure to lead the ministry. Yet, despite her credentials, tensions within the government and on the streets reached a breaking point. For over three weeks, secondary school teachers have been staging protests in central Kathmandu, severely disrupting the education of thousands of students in public schools. These demonstrations have also caused traffic congestion, significantly affecting transportation systems and local businesses.

In response to the leadership vacuum, senior UML leader Raghuji Pant has been nominated as the new Education Minister. According to government sources, fulfilling the teachers’ demands is no easy task. They argue that some grievances can only be addressed once the long-awaited Education Bill is passed by Parliament. However, the unrest is not limited to teachers. Numerous groups and organizations have taken to the streets to voice their own frustrations and demands.

Resident doctors are rallying for fair allowances, local government staff are staging demonstrations, and in recent years, victims of cooperatives and loan sharks have also mobilized. The cumulative pressure from these groups poses a serious challenge for the government. How these compounding issues will be handled remains uncertain, but many fear the situation may escalate beyond control if not addressed promptly.

Within the Nepali Congress (NC), internal efforts are reportedly underway to topple the current government, despite party president Sher Bahadur Deuba's preference for maintaining the coalition. Other senior leaders—such as Purna Bahadur Khadka, Shekhar Koirala, Gagan Kumar Thapa and their allies—are advocating for a renewed alliance with the CPN (Maoist Center). This week, Khadka publicly criticized the coalition’s performance, emphasizing the urgent need to improve the government’s working style.

At the same time, Maoist Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal has made it clear that his priority is to form a coalition with the NC. Political analysts suggest that Dahal is maneuvering to increase his party’s bargaining power with both NC and UML in the context of upcoming electoral alliances. If negotiations with the NC fail, Dahal is expected to revive the idea of a leftist coalition as a strategic alternative.

Amid these political shifts, the government is preparing to unveil new policy programs and the national budget. However, these initiatives could spark further friction between coalition partners NC and UML. Historically, budget and policy disagreements between ruling parties have often become flashpoints that lead to instability or even regime change.

Meanwhile, the recent wave of pro-monarchy protests appears to have lost steam. Last week, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party staged demonstrations in Kathmandu and several locations outside the valley. However, the low turnout has prompted the party to reconsider its strategy before organizing further events. Following the arrest of Durga Prasai, his supporters have remained largely absent from the streets. Dozens of them have been detained for alleged involvement in the arson and vandalism that occurred on March 28.

After nearly a month of house arrest, Nava Raj Subedi has returned to lead the pro-monarchy movement, but the campaign seems to have lost momentum. Former king Gyanendra Shah has reportedly urged calm, expressing concern that further violence could trigger government retaliation against him. According to sources, Gyanendra has instructed his followers to keep protests peaceful. However, the extent of coordination between him and pro-monarchy groups remains murky. As the movement weakens, mainstream political parties and the government have noticeably softened their tone regarding the former monarch.

In other political developments, top leaders from UML, NC, and Maoist Center convened this week to discuss critical matters, including the stalled transitional justice appointments and pending education legislation. Despite the meeting, no substantial progress was made.

Nevertheless, the appointment process for the transitional justice mechanism has resumed. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Oli publicly addressed rumors of an internal challenge to his leadership, allegedly spearheaded by former President Bidya Devi Bhandari. Speaking at a public function, Oli asserted that the UML is unimaginable without him, boldly claiming that he “won’t grow old” for another 20 to 25 years.

In recent weeks, Bhandari has become increasingly vocal about her political ambitions, stating that numerous party leaders are urging her to take the helm. Dissatisfaction with Oli’s leadership has led some senior UML figures to shift their allegiance to Bhandari, who is emerging as a new power center within the party. “Some people are raising concerns about my age and health, but no one should imagine this party without me,” Oli recently declared.

In a move to reassert control and respond to public criticism, Oli has announced the formation of a high-level good governance committee, which he will personally lead. While the initiative is ostensibly aimed at combating corruption and restoring good governance, public skepticism about its efficacy remains high. Governance has been one of the biggest casualties of the NC-UML coalition, with many key decisions delayed due to inter-party disagreements. One such example is the government’s failure to appoint a new governor for the Nepal Rastra Bank, a deadlock rooted in internal political differences.

Meanwhile, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) continues to face criticism for lacking a clear ideological direction. This criticism intensified when the party opted to remain silent during the recent wave of pro-monarchy protests. However, this week, senior RSP leader Swarnim Wagle outlined the party’s position on several national issues during a public event outside the valley. He stated that the RSP supports scrapping the current federal structure, arguing that it imposes an unsustainable financial burden on the state. He also proposed a downsizing of both federal and provincial legislatures—positions that clearly suggest the party is not fully aligned with the principles enshrined in the 2015 constitution.

In a related development, two Madhes-based parties—the Janamat Party and the Nagarik Unmukti Party—are preparing for a merger. CK Raut is expected to take the helm of the unified political force, signaling a new chapter in regional political realignment.

It has been over a week since the World Exposition opened in Osaka, where an estimated 28m visitors are expected over the six-month event. Among the 158 participating countries—including Nepal—nearly all have set up their pavilions. However, Nepal failed to open its pavilion on the inauguration day (April 13) due to construction delays, exposing governance shortcomings.

The delay stems from a dispute between the Nepali government and the contractor. Two years ago, the government selected a private company to construct the pavilion, yet poor coordination and unresolved issues prevented its timely completion.

Jitendra Basnet, spokesperson for the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies, cited cost overruns, budget shortages and logistical lapses as key reasons for the delay but declined to provide further details. Other officials also refused to comment.

A senior official involved in the project, speaking anonymously, revealed that the conflict arose over payment procedures. Nepal Rastra Bank required contractors to pay a 30 percent tax before transferring funds from Japan, which the contractor refused. Visa complications further stalled progress. “Despite two years of preparation, we couldn’t complete the pavilion—it’s embarrassing,” the official admitted.

Government authorities are now scrambling to resolve the dispute and open the pavilion soon. Durga B Subedi, Nepal’s Ambassador to Japan, said he would assess the situation in Osaka next week before commenting. Meanwhile, it remains unclear whether Nepal will have high-level representation at the expo.

The Nepal Pavilion was intended to showcase the country’s cultural heritage, natural beauty and other attractions. With 119,000 visitors on opening day—and other nations’ pavilions drawing large crowds—the delay could hurt Nepal’s tourism and economic prospects at the event.

Held at Yumeshima (“Dream Island”), a reclaimed industrial site in Osaka Bay, the expo—with the theme “Designing Future Society for Our Lives”—features futuristic exhibits from over 160 countries and organizations across 80 uniquely designed pavilions. This is Osaka’s second expo after the hugely successful 1970 , which set a record with 64m visitors until Shanghai’s 2010 event.

The United States of America has condemned the violence that occurred during the pro-monarchy protests in Kathmandu on March 28. It extended deepest condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives.

On that day, pro-monarchy protests vandalized the public buildings including the offices of Annapurna Media Network and Kantipur Publication. They also set the buildings on fire with some damages.

A State Department spokesperson said: “The fundamental freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly must be protected. However, we do not condone violence and the destruction of property.” Regarding the attack on media houses, the spokesperson said that the United States supports media globally. The free flow of accurate information, ideas and opinion is the cornerstone of democracy, and it is essential that journalists be able to perform their work free from fear, the spokesperson said.

There are growing demands that there should be a fair investigation on the violence that occurred in the Tinkune area of Kathmandu. 

There are also reports that police used excessive force and indiscriminately opened fire on the protestors. Police have already arrested more than five-dozen people in connection with the violence.

The Nepal government is refusing to form a judicial commission to probe the March 28 violence. Regarding the attack on media houses, the international community remains silent and the US is the first country to speak about the violence. Over the past few weeks, pro-monarchy protests have been hitting the streets demanding the restoration of the monarchy and the Hindu state. In a latest series of protests, Rastriya Prajatantra Party organized a protest in Kathmandu on Tuesday.

The events of March 28, 2025 at Tinkune remain shrouded in uncertainty. What started as a pro-monarchy demonstration quickly spiraled into a violent confrontation between protestors and police. Protestors claim the situation escalated when police fired teargas shells while they were assembling for a peaceful demonstration. On their part, police officials argue they had no choice but to intervene after some commanders allegedly urged crowds to advance toward the airport and the parliamentary building.

In the aftermath, police arrested Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) leaders Rabindra Mishra and Dawlshamsher Rana for their alleged involvement in inciting a mob that vandalized multiple office buildings and private properties in the Tinkune area.  Authorities are now collecting evidence to file cases against them, while Durga Prasai—reportedly named as a protest commander—remains on the run. 

The Ministry of Home Affairs and Nepal Police are under fire for their handling of the protests. Reports indicate that officers used live rounds on demonstrators, with at least 20 people injured in the shootings. Tragically, two individuals—including a journalist—lost their lives, while dozens more sustained injuries. The police have admitted to the shootings, claiming they aimed to defuse tensions.

Adding to the chaos, misinformation and disinformation have flooded social media. Fake videos falsely linked to the Tinkune incident have been widely circulated, making it even harder to determine the truth. Protestors also launched a targeted attack on media houses, vandalizing the offices of Annapurna Media Network and Kantipur Television and even attempting to set them on fire.

Surprisingly, international media rights organizations and democratic nations—including the United States and the European Union—have remained silent. This marks a stark departure from their usual strong stance on press freedom violations in Nepal. The silence raises questions about whether human rights and freedom of speech are still priorities for the global democratic community. Some analysts even speculate that the shift could be linked to Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency.

Amid the growing controversy, there is mounting pressure on the government to establish an independent commission to investigate the Tinkune incident. Such a body could uncover the truth, ensure justice for victims, and hold those responsible accountable. However, Nepal’s major political parties have shown little interest in forming such a commission.

The incident has also exposed serious flaws within Nepal’s security apparatus. First, there was a lack of coordination among agencies. Second, security forces failed to gather intelligence on Prasai’s plans in advance. Lastly, Nepal’s law enforcement faces severe shortages of essential equipment, with no significant procurement in the last decade.

The government has pointed fingers at former King Gyanendra Shah, alleging that he played a role in orchestrating the protests by appointing Prasai as a commander. On March 27—just a day before the demonstrations—Shah met with Prasai, further fueling suspicions. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has publicly stated in Parliament that the former king was involved and "will not be spared." However, it remains unclear what legal actions, if any, will be taken against him.

Meanwhile, political leaders are busy countering the pro-monarchy narrative that the republican system has failed Nepal. Nepali Congress General Secretary Bishwa Prakash Sharma has sought to shift the debate by presenting comparative data on development under monarchy versus republican governance. Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah’s move to fine the former king for the environmental damage caused by protestors has also drawn mixed reactions. Major political parties who criticized Mayor Balen’s activities in the past are now praising him, while pro-monarchy forces have decried the mayor’s action.

Despite their shared goal of restoring the monarchy, pro-monarchy factions remain divided. Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) leaders Rajendra Lingden and Kamal Thapa, while supporting the broader movement, chose not to participate in the March 28 protests. In contrast, Mishra and Rana did, despite warnings that Prasai’s involvement could lead to violence.

Leadership changes have also added to the instability. With Nava Raj Subedi placed under house arrest following the protests, Jagman Gurung has taken over the movement’s leadership. However, internal conflicts continue to plague the royalist forces, threatening their momentum.

India’s influence has also been a topic of debate. Last week, the CPN-UML had to issue a formal statement clarifying that it never accused India of backing the pro-monarchy movement. Despite this, some communist leaders continue to push the narrative that India is supporting the royalist cause. Meanwhile, Nepal’s Ambassador to India, Shankar Sharma, recently met with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, sparking speculation about whether India—or at least some of its political figures—has a stake in the unrest.

The pro-monarchy movement shows no signs of slowing down, with protestors vowing to continue demonstrations despite the setback on March 28. However, the movement faces internal fractures, wavering political support, and government crackdowns. Whether the former king himself will break his silence remains an open question, but his close aides insist that he does not take sides in political matters.

In a landmark visit—the first official trip since the establishment of Nepal-Thailand diplomatic relations over 60 years ago—Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli held bilateral talks with Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. The two leaders witnessed the signing of eight Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), expanding cooperation in tourism, culture, trade, industry, medicine, agriculture, and academia.

The visit, coinciding with the 66th anniversary of their diplomatic ties, highlighted the strong spiritual and cultural connections, particularly the annual pilgrimage of thousands of Thai Buddhists to Lumbini. 

Following the talks, the two leaders held a joint press conference, hailing the visit as a milestone in elevating bilateral relations. Prime Minister Oli extended an invitation to his Thai counterpart to visit Nepal, which she accepted, pledging to do so at a mutually convenient time.

Oli emphasized the discussions on deepening diplomatic and people-to-people ties. He highlighted Nepal’s potential in hospitality and aviation, urging Thai investors to explore opportunities in these sectors. “Nepal and Thailand share strong agricultural, trade, tourism, and cultural ties. I encourage Thailand’s business community to invest in Nepal,” he said.

Prime Minister Shinawatra noted the long-standing friendship between the two nations, rooted in shared history and culture. “This visit marks an opportunity to strengthen our partnership and explore new avenues for collaboration,” she stated. She praised Nepal’s effective management of water resources for hydropower development, which has significantly contributed to economic growth.

The Thai prime minister also stressed the importance of improving the ease of doing business, reducing trade barriers and leveraging comparative advantages. “With bilateral trade currently at $40m, we have significant potential to expand. These measures will boost trade and investment, giving Thai businesses greater confidence to enter Nepal’s market,” she added.

Connectivity emerged as another key focus. “We recognize the role of Thai airlines in enhancing ties through increased flight frequency, resuming direct Bangkok-Kathmandu routes, and expanding services to Lumbini,” Shinawatra said.

The leaders also discussed strengthening the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). “With solidarity among member-states, we will ensure BIMSTEC remains a dynamic and relevant organization,” Shinawatra said. She reiterated her commitment to advancing bilateral and multilateral relations across diverse fields for sustainable prosperity.

Nepal and Thailand also signed several agreements regarding cooperation in various sectors. Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba and Thailand’s Minister for Culture, Sudawan Wangsuphakijkosol, signed an MoU on cultural cooperation, while Deuba and Thai Tourism and Sports Minister Sorawong Thienthong inked a tourism agreement. 

Other agreements included partnerships between Nepal Netra Jyoti Sangh and Thailand’s Mahidol University, Janata Agro and Forestry Nepal (JFL) and Kasetsart University, the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Board of Trade of Thailand, and Kathmandu University and Siam University. 

Additionally, the Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI) and the Federation of Thai Industries, along with the Nepal Chamber of Commerce and the Tourism Council of Thailand, signed agreements to bolster private-sector collaboration.

Key areas of discussion 

• Bilateral relations 
• Trade and investment 
• Agriculture and technology 
• Development cooperation 
• Multilateral and regional cooperation 
• Connectivity 

In the wake of violent protests organized by pro-monarchy forces in Kathmandu on March 28, politicians and security experts have raised serious concerns over the government’s handling of the demonstrations. Critical lapses in intelligence and security preparedness allowed chaos to spiral out of control.

Security officials revealed that agencies failed to detect or act on the plans of Durga Prasai, the protest’s designated leader. Prasai reportedly used incendiary language, framing the event as a “people’s revolt” rather than a peaceful rally. Experts argue that his rhetoric was deliberately provocative, even suggesting the Nepal Army might intervene—a claim that heightened tensions ahead of the protest.

Lawmaker Raj Kishor Yadav, chair of Parliament’s International Relations and Tourism Committee, criticized the glaring lack of preparations. “Despite knowing about the protests days in advance, key installations in the Tinkune area—including airports, petrol pumps, and media houses—were left unsecured,” Yadav noted.

The administration’s decision to permit two large-scale protests on the same day further strained security forces. Authorities were reportedly preoccupied with preventing potential clashes between republican and pro-monarchy supporters, diverting attention from preventing vandalism and property damage. Yadav argued that a single protest might have led to a less severe outcome.

Another point of contention was the police’s inaction when Prasai was seen recklessly driving from Tinkune to Baneshwor. Security experts criticized the decision not to immobilize his vehicle—such as by deflating its tires—instead of resorting to a risky attempt to snatch the keys from a moving car. Many believe this hesitation endangered both law enforcement and the public.

Former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, chairman of CPN (Unified Socialist), questioned whether police ignored directives after protesters vandalized the party office in Aalok Nagar. “Did police disobey your instructions?” he pressed Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, highlighting concerns over accountability. Party leaders claim they had warned police of a potential attack on their party office that morning—yet no preventive measures were taken. Further scrutiny arose over Prasai’s delayed arrest. Despite remaining in the Kathmandu Valley late into the night, he was not apprehended, with police now claiming ignorance of his whereabouts.

Behind these operational failures lies a long-standing issue of resource shortages. Both Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force have repeatedly cited inadequate funding and outdated equipment. For over a decade, requests for modern weapons, vehicles, and logistical support have gone unaddressed by the Home Ministry, severely hampering their ability to manage large-scale unrest.

Last year, Nepal Police explicitly warned the Home Ministry of their inability to control riots due to logistical deficiencies. Home Minister Lekhak too was informed but took no action. “The failure to procure weapons for over a decade has crippled our operations,” a senior officer stated. As the country reflects on the events of March 28, urgent questions remain about security agencies’ decision-making and the systemic failures that enabled the chaos. A thorough review of security protocols, resource allocation, and inter-agency coordination is now imperative to prevent future breakdowns.

Whenever significant political developments unfold in Nepal, politicians are quick to draw connections to India. For instance, in 2021, when the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli dissolved Nepal’s Parliament, his own colleagues accused him of acting under India’s influence. Senior leaders from major parties, including Pushpa Kamal Dahal, publicly urged India to “stand in favor of democracy” in Nepal, arguing that Oli’s move was an attempt to undermine the 2015 constitution.

At the time, many political leaders speculated that India’s influence extended to Nepal’s judiciary, suggesting that the Supreme Court might validate Oli’s decision to dissolve Parliament. However, the court overturned Oli’s move, reinstated Parliament, and directed the then President Bidya Devi Bhandari to appoint Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba as the new prime minister.

Fast forward to the present, and pro-monarchy forces are mobilizing to restore the monarchy and what they describe as “true democracy.” Once again, whispers within Nepal’s ruling party suggest that India might be backing this movement. According to The Kathmandu Post, Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba raised this concern directly with her Indian counterpart, S Jaishankar, during a recent meeting. Jaishankar reportedly denied any involvement, and upon her return from India, Deuba stated that she sensed no intention from India to alter Nepal’s current political system.

Despite these assurances, some politicians have pointed to the presence of a poster featuring Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as “evidence” of India’s support—a claim widely dismissed as weak and unconvincing.

Foreign Minister Deuba’s blunt and undiplomatic remarks have drawn criticism from strategic circles. In a recent internal meeting, senior leaders of the CPN-UML discussed the possibility of “foreign forces” supporting royalist movements. Similarly, CPN (Maoist Center) Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal briefly alluded to external backing for the pro-monarchy campaign.

Political analyst Puranjan Acharya notes that while the Indian government may not officially support the monarchy, organizations like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), its affiliate Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other Hindu nationalist groups have long advocated for Nepal to return to being a Hindu state. Acharya explains that while the Indian government is committed to secularism, these organizations are free to push their agendas in Nepal.

Arun Subedi, a foreign affairs advisor to a former prime minister, adds that while RSS and BJP may not directly support the pro-monarchy protests, India has become increasingly reactive to Nepal’s political developments due to geopolitical considerations.

Former Indian ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Rae emphasizes that Nepal’s issues must be resolved by its own people and leaders. In an op-ed published in India’s Deccan Herald, Rae stated that it is not in India’s interest to take sides in Nepal’s internal affairs. He also cautioned the Indian media, which has a significant audience in Nepal, against engaging in partisan rhetoric.

Rae further argued that instability in Nepal is detrimental to India’s interests as a turbulent Nepal could provide opportunities for external players to increase their influence, thereby jeopardizing India’s strategic position. Historically, both the monarchy and communist forces in Nepal have fueled anti-Indian sentiments and sought closer ties with China. For example, in 2005, shortly after assuming absolute power, King Gyanendra attempted to facilitate China’s entry into SAARC during the Dhaka Summit.

Geopolitical analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta believes there is no evidence of Indian backing for the pro-monarchy protests. Instead, he attributes the growing support for the monarchy to widespread public frustration with Nepal’s major political parties, which have failed to deliver on their promises. Bhatta stresses that the protests are driven by internal factors rather than external influence.