Submit your Article

India, the world's largest democracy, is busy holding the 18th Lok Sabha elections which will conclude on June 1. The global community is closely watching the outcomes of these elections. With its burgeoning population having surpassed China's, India is on track to claim the mantle of the world's third-largest economy by 2030. As a key player in the Indo-Pacific region and a torchbearer for the Global South, India's policies, both domestic and foreign, resonate far beyond its borders.

The significance of India's elections reverberates throughout the region. While there are widespread projections that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will win a third consecutive term, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi continuing in office, opposition parties are expected to strengthen their position compared to the 2019 elections.

The election outcomes in India are of particular significance for South Asian nations including Nepal, where India wields deep political, economic and military influence. In 2014, upon assuming power with a resounding victory, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reinvigorated the 'Neighborhood First' policy, although he failed to achieve the expected outcomes. 

To demonstrate the BJP government's priority for neighbors, he invited the heads of state and government from South Asian countries to attend his swearing-in ceremony. When re-elected in 2019, Modi continued the 'Neighborhood First' policy by inviting BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Pectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) member countries to his swearing-in ceremony. If re-elected for a third term, the BJP government is likely to maintain the 'Neighborhood First' policy, although India has been focusing more on regions beyond South Asia in recent years. 

Despite occasional highs and lows, the trajectory of Nepal-India relations points toward a positive outlook, poised to weather the complexities of shared history and future aspirations.

Over the past decade, under Modi's leadership, Nepal-India relations have witnessed many highs and lows. However, the relationship is moving in a positive direction, which should continue even after the elections.

Crucial issues such as the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty and boundary disputes remain on the diplomatic agenda, albeit the two countries approach them with varying degrees of emphasis. Nevertheless, the two neighbors recognize the imperative of fostering trust and stability to navigate these challenges successfully. A notable shift in India's approach to the internal affairs of its neighbors signals a promising era of cooperation built on mutual respect and understanding.

The BJP government has changed its approach on how to view the internal political affairs of South Asian countries which has helped to build an environment trust.

One encouraging signal is that economic collaboration has emerged as a cornerstone of bilateral relations, with a growing focus on development partnerships and infrastructure projects. Despite changes in political leadership, the momentum in bilateral engagements remains steady, underpinning a commitment to sustained progress and prosperity.

Over the past three decades, India has faced charges of not completing development projects for extended periods. However, several bilateral projects are now making progress, ultimately helping to build an environment of trust. Recent visits by Nepali leaders to New Delhi and Indian leaders to Kathmandu have focused on enhancing economic and development partnerships. The energy cooperation agreement between Nepal and India has paved the way for regional energy cooperation, with Nepal positioned as a clean energy provider to the region. 

As India's economy continues to rise and rise, and major multinational companies shift their industries to India, Nepal, which shares an open border, should get the opportunities. India could become a destination not only for unskilled Nepali workforce but also for highly skilled professionals in sectors such as education, health, IT, banking, and others, which have not received much discussion. Both Nepal and India should seriously consider these issues and clearly outline their plans to derive economic benefits from India's rising economy. These matters should be taken seriously regardless of which party comes to power.

Amid robust economic collaboration between two countries, over the past few years, Nepal is witnessing a debate about the growing ideological influence of BJP in Nepal. In recent years, there has been a perception among Nepali leaders and the public that the BJP and its affiliates are pushing for a Hindu agenda in Nepal. It is often said that they are suggesting (sometimes pressuring) Nepali leaders to scrap secularism and go for the Hindu state. There are also reports that various organizations linked with the BJP are active in Nepal with their Hindu agenda. 

While Nepal's top leaders are aware of those issues, they have not spoken publicly. However, they want to discuss those issues with Indian leaders. BJP leaders should be mindful that such efforts could again strain the bilateral relationship, which has reached a new level after sustained efforts from both sides. It would be worthwhile to recall India's approach to the demands of Madhes-based parties, mainly after 2017, which helped enhance the bilateral relations.

Many Nepali politicians and analysts view the growing activities of Hindu organizations as an attempt to overturn the 2015 constitution. This suspicion among Nepali politicians obviously does not help enhance the bilateral relationship. There should be frank and open discussions between the two sides, not only on these issues but also on other issues of mutual concern. 

India's relationship with global powers also affects its South Asia policy. The India-US strategic partnership is likely to be enhanced, but there are divergent views on several bilateral and global issues, including the Russia-Ukraine war. The India-China relationship is unlikely to improve for at least the next few years. As I have highlighted in my previous columns, Nepal's approach should be not to engage in the big-power rivalry but to focus on economic development.

The future of Nepal-India relations hinges not on fleeting political interests but on a shared commitment to long-term prosperity and mutual respect. By prioritizing economic and developmental collaboration, both nations can chart a course toward a brighter, more interconnected future.

On 4 March 2024, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal changed his coalition partners, citing lack of cooperation from the Nepali Congress (NC), his key coalition partner at the time. 

He strung together a new coalition, with the support from CPN-UML, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), CPN (Unified Socialist), and Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), and promised to deliver on the missed promises to the nation. It’s been almost two months since the formation of the new alliance, and Prime Minister Dahal has little to show for his promises. 

Already, cracks seem to have appeared in the ruling alliance, with the Unified Socialist refusing to support a common candidate between UML and Maoist for the by-election that is taking place in Ilam-2 on April 27. This refusal has particularly angered the UML, which has fielded Suhang Nembang, son of late UML Vice-chairman Subas Nembang, in Ilam-2. While Prime Minister Dahal’s Maoist party has agreed to support UML in the by-poll, there is still risk of vote-splitting as the Suhang’s candidacy has caused a division within the local UML leaders. In such a scenario, the Unified Socialist’s electoral support to the UML would have been welcome. The Unified Socialist’s decision to field its own candidate in Ilam-2 has certainly not helped ease the rift with its former mother party, UML.

Meanwhile, Chairman of Unified Socialist Madhav Kumar Nepal also seems ill at ease with Prime Minister Dahal. Nepal is apparently resentful of Prime Minister Dahal not taking him into confidence before breaking the alliance with the NC.   

Nepal on Monday expressed doubts regarding the longevity of the latest coalition. He noted that the shifts in ruling coalition in a short period of time have raised a serious suspicion regarding the longevity of the latest alliance.     

“I am not in a position to answer how long this coalition will last. Perhaps Prime Minister Dahal could answer these questions,” he said. 

Nepal’s dissatisfaction with the fellow ruling coalition partners, particularly Maoist and UML, was clear when he said that the current coalition does not seem favorable. 

“We are not feeling comfortable,” he said.  

Earlier, Nepal had threatened to pull out of the coalition after his party was denied the position of chief minister in Sudurpaschim Province. When UML and Maoist Center decided to support Kailash Chaudhary of Nagarik Unmukti Party for the post, Unified Socialist backed Laxman Kishor Chaudhary from the rival faction of Nagarik Unmukti led by Resham Lal Chaudhary. 

Laxman Kishor also had the support from the NC. At the time, Unified Socialist leaders had said that what happened in Sudurpashchim Province was just the beginning and that other provincial governments could also fail. 

Taken aback, the Maoist Center and UML immediately decided to back Dirgha Sodari of Unified Socialist for the position of Sudurpaschim Province chief minister. However, the formation of the Unified Socialist-led government in Sudurpaschim did not defuse the tensions among the coalition partners. Nepal’s recent remarks regarding the Dahal-led government suggest as much. 

“We are not subservient to anyone, and we do not listen to anyone’s threats, intimidation, abuse or insults,” he said recently.  

RSP, another major member in the ruling coalition, is also in a difficult position at the moment. Rabi Lamichhane, the party’s chairman and minister for home affairs, is under pressure to quit the government for his alleged involvement in a fund misappropriation case of a financial cooperative.  

The NC has been obstructing the parliament demanding for a panel to investigate the allegation against Home Minister Lamichhane. If the case against Lamichhane escalates, he is likely to face pressure to take a break till the investigation is over. In that scenario, it is unsure whether the RSP will continue to remain in the government. The Dahal government could slip into a minority. 

Even if Lamichhane does not step down, the RSP could walk out of the coalition if the government fails to deliver on its promises. A large section of the RSP are of the view that it is better for the party to concentrate on the 2027 general election if the current coalition government fails to work effectively.

As of now, the UML has maintained a low-profile in the coalition. The party has pledged steadfast support to Prime Minister Dahal as long as his government works in favor of the country and the people. 

Meanwhile, the NC has been making efforts to improve its relationship with the UML. NC leaders, mainly senior leader Shekhar Koirala faction, is in constant communication with the UML to change the coalition. 

Koirala is proposing that the current electoral system should be changed once NC and UML come together. Regarding the power-sharing arrangement, he has said that Oli can lead the government with the condition that he cedes the power to the NC in the run up to the 2027 elections.

Amid all these coalition infighting and political maneuvering, it appears that Prime Minister Dahal is the only one committed to saving the rickety alliance that he has put together. Nepal’s political landscape is getting more murkier and turbulent with each passing day.

It’s difficult to form opinions based solely on the speeches of Nepal’s political leaders and their political documents. More often than not they contradict themselves, disregarding their previous positions. 

Amid discussions of unity within communist parties, the recent political document presented by CPN-UML Chairman KP Oli has sparked interest, as it explicitly states UML's reluctance to endorse polarization among major political entities under the guise of communist unity. This stance has raised eyebrows within CPN (Maoist Center). Presenting his political report at the meeting of the UML National Representatives Council in Lalitpur on Saturday, Oli emphasized that aligning political forces solely under leftist or socialist banners, while excluding other ideologies and entities, is not pragmatic. 

Instead, he stressed the importance of cooperation among like-minded forces. He highlighted the need to foster trust and cooperation among diverse ideological backgrounds, suggesting that unity should evolve naturally as trust deepens. "As cooperation deepens and an environment of trust is built, those with similar ideas can gradually come together in the future. But for now, it is more important to move forward by taking all positive forces along." 

Regarding the current political landscape, Oli acknowledged that the formation of a new alliance comprising the Maoist Center, UML, Rastriya Swatantra Party, and few other parties has improved the political situation. However, he expressed concerns about the sustainability of this coalition, citing past incidents. “Based on some past incidents, contexts, and experiences, there are doubts in people’s mind about the sustainability of this cooperation," Oli said. He underscored the importance of actions over rhetoric in dispelling doubts about the coalition's longevity.

Furthermore, Oli warned of the increased possibility of instability stemming from the presence of multiple parties in parliament, particularly those with diverging views on key constitutional issues. 

"The country is in need of stability. But the presence of a dozen parties in the House of Representatives and a significant number of those disagreeing on key issues of the constitution has further increased the possibility of political instability," he said. 

The UML chair also noted the emergence of populist forces and the resurgence of traditional right-wing parties, attributing these trends to disillusionment among the populace caused by political shortcomings and economic crises. "Political shortcomings, economic crisis, lack of job opportunities and poor governance have all fed the public’s disillusionment with traditional political parties. Meanwhile, populist and right-wing forces are exploiting the public discontent," he added.

While Oli's rejection of immediate leftist unity may seem like a tactical maneuver, he hasn't entirely dismissed its possibility. UML perceives the current coalition as an achievement, having thwarted the anti-UML alliance between Nepali Congress and the Maoist party preceding the 2022 national elections. 

Currently, there are three major communist parties—UML, Maoist Center and CPN (Unified Socialist)—of which UML is the largest and strongest. In case these three parties decide to unite, the asymmetry between them is likely to make the power-sharing and leadership issue very challenging. For instance, Unified Socialist Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal and Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal may seek vital positions within the unified party, a proposition that the UML leaders close to Oli will not accept. 

The strained relationship between Oli and Nepal could also hinder the unification process. Although the Maoist is talking about communist unity, UML and Unified Socialist do not appear too keen about the idea.  “There are no immediate possibilities of communist parties uniting because of the disparity between their ideologies and their future course,” said Rajendra Pandey, vice-chairman of CPN (Unified Socialist). 

Analysts suggest that Oli prioritizes securing unwavering commitment from all parties before pursuing communist unity in the long term. Although he envisions leading a united communist front eventually, he refrains from polarizing national politics along communist and non-communist lines for now. Uncertainty looms over the future of the current coalition, with UML closely monitoring the government’s functioning while refraining from committing to long-term support for Prime Minister Dahal. Maoist leaders say Oli’s position on left unity could be a tactical move and he may have informed Dahal about it. Or else, they say this could be the beginning of the crisis in the current coalition. 

After Oli unveiled his political document, Prime Minister Dahal has also changed his position about the communist unity. 

“This government is not wholly composed of communist parties. There are other parties too. So it is not a left unity, it is just a ruling coalition. If there is an understanding among the communist parties, they may come together some day,” Dahal said. This was a clear departure from his previous statement where he said that the current coalition was a beginning of the communist unity. 

The key takeaway from Oli’s political document is that UML currently extends support to the government, but it is also keeping avenues open for potential collaboration with Nepali Congress in the future.

The discussion of leftist unity in Nepal has drawn international attention, with China advocating for a unified communist party while other democratic powers prefer a coalition government encompassing both communist and non-communist forces. Oli's political document also addresses escalating geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, cautioning against provocative actions that could jeopardize regional stability and world peace, particularly highlighting US involvement in the Taiwan issue. “The task of safeguarding Nepal’s national independence, dignity and national interests has become more complicated, amidst the changing geopolitics, geo-economics and competition between major powers,” Oli said in his political report. “We must move forward carefully to protect our national interests by viewing these changes in geopolitics with a sensitive perspective.”

In my previous column, I discussed how chronic political instability is affecting the conduct of our foreign policy. Here, I delve into how foreign powers, big and small alike, influence Nepal’s foreign policy. We often criticize our politicians for their lack of maturity and consistency. In most foreign policy discourses, I often hear this question: Who will believe us (read our politicians)? It is a reality that our politicians are neither serious nor have they realized their weaknesses. But it would be unjust to solely blame our politicians without considering other aspects like how foreign powers are behaving with us. Nepal’s key priorities are economic prosperity and social development. For a long time, we have been mobilizing our foreign policy to achieve these goals.

From Prithivi Narayan Shah to the current set of leaders, all have realized that Nepal is situated between India and China, understanding the difficulties of being caught between two global powerhouses. For a long time, our Rana rulers tried to live in isolation out of fear that opening up could threaten their regime. Nevertheless, they still endeavored to serve both their personal interests and national interests. After the 1950s, Nepal began diversifying its economic, security, development and trade policies or looking beyond its immediate neighbors. Let’s consider the current situation. We are conducting our foreign policy in accordance with the 2015 constitution.

Article 51 of the constitution states: “Safeguarding the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality, independence, and dignity of Nepal, the rights of the Nepalis, border security, economic well-being, and prosperity shall be the basic elements of the national interests of Nepal.” Nepal places economic diplomacy at the forefront of its engagement with the wider international community. We need money and technology to accelerate social development and economic prosperity. Lately, we have been vocal about our reluctance to take on significant loans, preferring grants for infrastructure development. Our stated position is that we will not align with any strategic or military blocs.

Nepal takes a neutral position in regional and international conflicts, consistently advocating for their resolution through peaceful means, with some exceptions resulting from adventurous policies of our politicians. Nepal believes in non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, non-aggression, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. For instance, Nepal opposed the Russian attack on Ukraine while maintaining a neutral stance on other issues. Many argue that this stance contradicts Nepal’s non-alignment policy, but it aligns with our stated policy. If one sovereign country attacks another, Nepal cannot remain neutral and opposes such actions but avoids taking sides.

Our message is clear: we do not wish to be embroiled in big power rivalries, and we urge major powers not to involve us in their geopolitical games. Currently, amid the Middle East crisis, we maintain the same policy. If not a zone of peace, we aspire to become a zone of investment. We have a straightforward message for major powers: we understand and protect your security and other legitimate concerns, but only a prosperous and strong Nepal can effectively address those issues, so invest in our country. Of course, challenges such as corruption and bureaucratic red tape exist, but the investment climate in Nepal is comparatively favorable, and we have big markets like India and China in close proximity. Despite getting huge support from major countries in Nepal’s social and economic development, the country is starting to feel the heat of geopolitical tensions. As these tensions escalate, there is a fear among our politicians that major powers may pull Nepal into their orbit through economic assistance. As major powers roll out strategic initiatives one after another, there are concerns that Nepal may become ensnared in a geopolitical ambush. Not only politicians, but senior bureaucrats also find themselves in awkward positions as they consolidate all bilateral issues under one strategic basket. And, there is a lack of understanding among politicians and bureaucrats about these issues, and there have been no efforts to educate them.

By closely monitoring negotiations between our leaders and major powers, we can see that our leaders are facing pressure. Whenever they engage in talks with their counterparts, they struggle to avoid committing to strategic projects outright. Since they cannot outright reject them out of fear for their regime’s stability, they attempt to reassure that Nepal could consider such initiatives after thorough study and consensus at home. Due to such apprehensions, our politicians are even hesitant to accept pure development projects without strings attached. Similarly, diplomats in Kathmandu bypass the due process in dealing with Nepal. Instead of going through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, foreign countries tend to approach political leaders and certain ministries directly seeking their consent. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be unaware of a host of initiatives proposed by major powers. If there is institutional memory, foreign countries cannot complain about policy inconsistency or lack of ownership across governments. If all proposals go through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which remains unaffected by changes in government, it ensures policy continuity to some extent.

Our stance remains that, due to our geopolitical location and other factors, we cannot align with major powers. Whether termed neutral, non-aligned or otherwise, our bottom line is clear: we seek engagement solely on economic terms. If major powers engage with Nepal in this manner, frequent changes in government may not pose significant difficulties. Therefore, support and invest in Nepal, so that we can safeguard the security and other legitimate interests of our friends. If major powers attempt to turn Nepal into a battleground for their conflicts, it will be detrimental not only to the Nepali people but also to the major powers. We understand that our neighboring countries, both near and distant, desire to see a stable and prosperous Nepal, as it serves their interests. My request to all: we aspire to grow with you as a sovereign and peaceful country. As I mentioned in my previous opinion piece, major countries should not favor one party over another or play them against each other. Instead, they should adopt a Nepal-centric policy with the economy at the forefront. Moreover, major parties should collaborate to formulate a common position on the issues mentioned above. We want to declare Nepal as a Zone of Investment.

As by-elections draw closer in Ilam-2 for House of Representatives (HoR) and in Bhajang-2 for Sudurpaschim Provincial Assembly, major parties have expedited their election campaigns and top leaders are preparing to reach the constituencies to back their candidates.

This will be the second by-elections since the 2022 national elections in which the Nepali Congress emerged as the largest party while the CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) polled in second and third respectively. However, the most talked about outcome of the election was the emergence of the newly formed Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) as the fourth largest party.

In the first by-election held in Tanahu and Chitwan in 2023, RSP candidates Swarnim Wagle and Rabi Lamichhane both registered thumping victories against the candidates fielded by major parties. So winning the Ilam-2 by-election—and winning it with a big margin—has  become a prestige issue for major parties. And it is not just prestige that is on the line for them. If the RSP candidate were to win in Ilam-2, it could very well mean game over for the big parties. 

The RSP is already popular among a large section of young urban Nepalis. If the party wins the Ilam-2 constituency, some Nepali Congress (NC) leaders say it could disrupt the voting pattern in the rest of the country in future elections. In other words, there is a high likelihood of RSP emerging as a major—if not the largest—political entity in Nepal come the next general election of 2027.

To stop the RSP, the two ruling parties UML and Maoist have forged an electoral alliance in Ilam-2. They have fielded the UML candidate, Suhang Nembang, son of late UML Vice-chairman Subas Chandra Nembang. Another ruling coalition partner, CPN (Unified Socialist), has refused to support Nembang and has come up with its own candidates. The main opposition, NC, has also fielded its own candidate in the fray.  

Cross-party leaders who just returned from Ilam predict that it is going to be a tight electoral race. 

 “There are intra-party rifts within both NC and UML, and as the voting day nears, it remains to be seen how these intra-party rifts will be managed,” says Nain Singh Mahar, a NC leader who recently visited Ilam. 

A large chunk of UML cadres are unhappy with the candidate selection in Ilam-2, stating that those who had been working for the party for a long time were sidelined. They argue that Suhang may very well be the son of a senior party leader who contested and won many elections from Ilam-2, but he doesn’t know anything about the constituency he represents. 

The Ilam-2 constituency became vacant following the death of UML Vice-chair Subas Chandra Nembang, in September last year. A total of 19 candidates—12 from different political parties and seven independents—are contesting in the by-election. 

The main contest is expected to be among UML’s Suhang Nembang, NC’s Dambar Bahadur Khadka, RSP’s Milan Limbu, and independent candidate Dakendra Singh Limbu Thegim.

Suhang has the support of the UML, Maoist Center and the Nepal Communist Party led by Netra Bikram Chand (Biplav). He has been appealing to the voters to write down their needs, problems, and aspirations on paper, assuring that he and his party will fulfill them.

Meanwhile NC’s Khadka, who was edged by Subash Chandra Nembang with just 114 votes in the last general election, hopes to win this time. But in 2022, he had received votes from various coalition partners, including the Maoist Center. 

This time the Maoist party is supporting UML’s Suhang. UML and Maoist Center have signed a five-point agreement at the Koshi Province level to secure Suhang's victory. As per the agreement, the by-polls will be a stepping stone for cooperation among left forces to create a foundation for party unification in the future.

However, local UML leaders fear that all Maoist votes may not be transferred to Suhang. Also, there are fears that RSP candidate Milan Limbu, who was earlier with the Maoist Center, will get substantial Maoist votes. 

Some Maoist leaders say about a third of the party’s vote could go to RSP’s Limbu. Although traditional parties have been the major players in Ilam-2, Limbu expects a miraculous vote shift in his favor this time. RSP had received 4,686 proportional representation votes and 1,380 direct votes in 2022.

Independent candidate Dakendra Singh Limbu Thegim also hopes to pull off a surprise electoral victory from Ilam-2, with the support of 41 identity-based groups. He has been reaching out to voters with the agenda of strengthening federalism, identity, equal rights, peace, and sustainable development. 

Thegim has the support of Janata Samajbadi Party as well as identity-based parties like the Rastriya Janamukti Party, Sanghiya Loktantrik Rastriya Manch, Nepal Samajbadi Party, Nagarik Unmukti Party, and Kirat Yakthung Chumlung, Kirat Rai Yayokha, and social organizations, including the Kirat religious guru Atmananda Lingden.

Apart from these four candidates, Jit Bahadur Rai of CPN (Unified Socialist), Lakshmi Gurung of Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Prem Kumar Thamsuhang of the Janmat Party, Shyam Bahadur Darji of the Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, Min Bahadur Limbu of Mongol National Organization, Dhanraj Rana Magar of the National Republic Nepal, Jayant Bikram Shah of the Rastriya Mukti Andolan Nepal, and Ganesh Bahadur Chauhan from the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, among others, are in the fray. 

Independent candidates Dak Prasad Gautam, Manoj Niroula, Arjun Kumar Shahi, Dipesh Bohra, Yogendra Gurung, and Raj Basyal are also contesting the election. The constituency comprises all of Chulachuli, Mangsebung and Phakphokthum rural municipalities, as well as parts of Ilam (excluding 10 wards), Deumai, and Mai municipalities. There are 115,342 voters in the constituency

Is it possible for Nepal’s major communist parties to unite and establish a robust, unified communist entity? Leaders from the prominent leftist parties—CPN (Maoist Center), CPN-UML, and CPN (Unified Socialist)—acknowledge the allure of such a union, yet express doubts about its realization. They attribute this uncertainty mainly to the intricacies of power-sharing dynamics and the personal egos of senior figures.

In Nepal’s modern political history, a powerful communist party Nepal Communist Party (NCP) was formed in 2018 after the unification between CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center). However, the harmony among its top leaders—KP Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and Madhav Kumar Nepal—proved short-lived. The root cause of their discord lay in a struggle for control over both the party and the government. Despite initial attempts at reconciliation, subsequent alliances faltered, leading to renewed efforts on March 4 to pursue the vision of a unified communist front. While Dahal remains vocal about his commitment to this cause, UML adopts a cautious stance, refraining from labeling it as a communist alliance outright.

UML leaders suspect Dahal's motives, viewing his push for unity as a tactic to prolong his tenure and retain power under the guise of communist solidarity. Dahal, however, has clarified his intentions, stating that his aim was to unite leftist parties, not to secure the prime ministership. Following the formation of a new coalition, Dahal and Oli made concerted efforts to persuade CPN (Unified Socialist) leader Nepal to join, possibly even offering him the premiership after Dahal. However, tensions surfaced when Nepal's faction aligned with the Nepali Congress, causing a rift among the leaders to form the government in Sudurpaschim province. The fact that the three communist parties failed to field a common candidate for the upcoming by-election in Ilam-2 also suggests the lack of trust between them.   

On Monday, Oli clearly said that the unity among the communist parties could be detrimental to both the current government and the country. While he acknowledged the importance of unity, the UML chair was critical of the parties that claim to be leftist and align with the Nepali Congress. He was hinting at the CPN (Unified Socialist)-Nepali Congress alliance in Sudurpaschim. Oli cautioned against harboring the illusion of political strength through unification with such entities.

The notion of communist unity holds appeal mainly for second-rung leaders and they are actively seeking to realize it. They seem hopeful despite the apparent reluctance shown by the senior leaders. 

Leaders who have made communist unity their agenda say it will take some time for the parties to come together. According to one Maoist leader, unification between communist parties is inevitable.  

“To face up with the new political forces, there is no alternative for the communist parties to come together,” he says.

But Nepal’s communist parties have historically been plagued by factionalism and division. Theirs is a history of polarization and intragroup conflicts. As the murmurs grow regarding the unification among major communist parties, so too do whispers of an alliance between Congress and UML. Only time will tell if the leftist forces can set aside their differences and march as one towards a shared future.

There is no shortage of discussion in Kathmandu on the changing geopolitical landscape and the challenges Nepal currently faces in its external relations. Although serious research and publications are lacking, Kathmandu-based think tanks somehow manage to secure financial resources to organize programs at upscale hotels. Lately, there has been a boom in the number of foreign strategic and geopolitical experts visiting Kathmandu on the invitation of universities, think tanks and media houses, among others. These international and regional experts often visit Kathmandu to attend seminars and talk programs on geopolitics and foreign policy.

Although political leaders also participate in such programs as keynote speakers, only a few have the appetite and enthusiasm to listen to expert opinions. The main arguments of foreign policy watchers in Kathmandu can be summarized in the following points: there should be a national consensus among parties, at least on foreign policy issues; Nepal should strike a balance between India and China while maintaining cordial ties with the US; and Nepal should prioritize economic issues over strategic ones when dealing with major powers. While examining the election manifestos of major political parties, it seems all parties have the same position on foreign relations, as they all emphasize an independent foreign policy; balanced and cordial relationships with both neighbors; adherence to non-alignment and Panchsheel; and engagement with major powers on economic terms, among others. 

However, there are differences in the tone, tenor, and conduct of foreign policy between the Nepali Congress (NC) and major communist parties, particularly CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center), which have been in power for the past three decades. To illustrate these differences, let's consider some recent examples. Nepal voted in favor of a UN resolution condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but communist parties opposed it, stating that it goes against Nepal's policy of non-alignment. While some former foreign ministers from left parties said it was okay, dominant communist leaders saw it as a tilt toward the West. Many communist leaders support Putin's justification of the attack, which is why Russia is engaging with communist leaders, not NC leaders. When it comes to China, communist parties, mainly CPN (Maoist Center), are a step ahead and more vocal than NC in upholding the one-China policy. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, during his China visit last year, made a commitment on the one-China principle (previously policy) and said Nepal stands against Taiwan independence. He often repeats the same statements in Kathmandu. We do not hear such statements from NC leaders. 

Earlier, in 2018, the then Nepal Communist Party-led government supported Hong Kong's new security laws. Another issue is the reported border encroachment by China in Humla district. NC formed both government-level and party-level panels to investigate this matter, but communist government and party leaders often reiterate that there is no border encroachment by China at all. 

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is another case in point. Though the basic framework of BRI was signed by NC's foreign minister Prakash Sharan Mahat in 2017, the party is less interested in its implementation. Some leaders are openly opposing it. NC leaders may disagree, but it is clear the party is not as enthusiastic about BRI as communist parties. With India, communist parties are more vocal about some disputed issues such as the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty, the Eminent Persons' Group (EPG) report and border disputes. These issues have also been mentioned in the Common Minimum Program (CMP) of the present coalition government. However, the NC is not as vocal about those agendas. Instead, some NC leaders have started saying that there is no need to amend the 1950 treaty, and the party has not taken ownership of the EPG report. 

Regarding the US, fringe communist parties often criticize the US as an imperialist power. While mainstream communist parties do not directly subscribe to these views, there are differences between NC and communist parties on democracy and US policies. Communist parties are skeptical about America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy. They all were against the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) program in Nepal initially. While NC openly supported, lobbied, and was even ready to break the alliance with Maoists to get the MCC endorsed by Parliament, left parties either opposed it or sat on the fence. Whether one agrees or disagrees, there is now more cordiality between China and Nepal's communist parties. China is engaging with NC at least at the government level. Over the past few years, it is a bitter reality that there is a lack of trust between NC and China, and between India and communist parties. The relationship between NC and China is not so cordial, mainly after 2015-2016, though Chinese leaders and scholars often remind NC about the role played by BP Koirala in laying the basic foundation between the two countries.

Additionally, political parties have highly politicized issues relating to major countries. This has been further exacerbated by coalition governments and political instability. It is futile to expect any substantial progress when parties with different views and political ideologies form a coalition government. There is a tendency among parties not to take ownership of agreements or understandings signed by governments led by other parties. $Due to the sudden changes of foreign ministers, if not the government itself, foreign powers are finding it very difficult to deal with Nepal. All this has eroded trust in the political parties and successive governments. There is no common vision or guiding document on how Nepal wants to engage with major powers in the changing geopolitical situation. 

No wonder, Nepal has not been successful in reaping the benefits from the economic rise of India and China. What is worrying is, there is no sign of improvement in the near future. There will not be political stability for at least next four years because parties have already agreed to lead the government by turns. Even after the 2027 elections, political stability remains elusive, as the possibility of a single party getting a majority is slim. If parties are responsible, they should deal with this issue seriously. Parties should refrain from taking sides or positions on big-power rivalry and should not politicize development issues; instead, they should focus only on economic engagement. However, there is slim hope with the current set of leaders whose only aim and ambition seems to be grabbing power by appeasing external power centers. The current polarization in the political landscape must be stopped without delay.

During the constitution drafting process from 2008 to 2015, the electoral system emerged as a key contentious issue among major political parties and stakeholders. Various electoral systems practiced in different countries were proposed. Ultimately they compromised on a mixed electoral system combining first past the post (FPTP) and proportional representation voting system. The aim was to address demands for inclusion and proportional representation across society. Since the promulgation of the new constitution in 2015, which solidified this mixed model, two elections for the three-tier government have been held, with parties preparing for the next elections in 2027, pending any unforeseen circumstances.

Ever since the country adopted a new constitution in 2015, no single party has secured a majority to govern the country independently. Although there was a single-party majority following the merger of CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN-UML, it was not a result of the election. With no possibility of single-party majority, parties have turned to coalition governments, resulting in frequent and unpredictable changes. Many, both within and outside active politics, attribute this political instability to the current electoral system, suggesting that Nepal cannot achieve stability unless changes are made.

Senior Nepali Congress leader Shekhar Koirala has been a vocal advocate for changing the electoral system, proposing that the House of Representatives (lower house), consisting of 275 members, be elected solely through the FPTP model to ensure a single-party majority and political stability. However, his own party, NC, has not officially discussed changing the electoral system. Koirala argues that the root cause of the current political crisis lies in the electoral system itself.

Despite Koirala’s proposal, cross-party political leaders and experts argue that changing the electoral system, which is closely linked to inclusion, a fundamental aspect of the constitution, is nearly impossible. The proportional representation system has ensured the representation of marginalized communities in the legislative process, although political parties have been criticized for appointing their family members. Santosh Pariyar, chief whip of Rastriya Swatantra Party, vehemently opposes changing the current electoral system, considering it a violation of the constitution and a threat to the rights of marginalized communities.

Deepak Bhatta, a CPN-UML leader, contends that once a system is adopted, it should be allowed to function for at least 15-20 years before considering changes. He criticizes the shifting political agendas of leaders and emphasizes the need for stability in governance. However, past experiences have shown that even single-party majority governments have failed to complete their terms due to intra-party disputes, casting doubt on the correlation between electoral systems and political stability.

While major political parties such as Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Center) have yet to officially discuss constitutional amendments, there are various viewpoints within each party. The issue of electoral system change must be carefully considered, as it requires consensus among major political parties, including those representing Madhes. Until political parties address systemic issues and work towards genuine consensus, achieving political stability will remain a distant goal, with electoral system changes alone unlikely to suffice.