Submit your Article

India and Nepal share a long and open border stretched across five Indian states of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Sikkim. On Nepal’s side, Madhesh, Koshi, Bagmati, Lumbini and Sudurpaschim touch India’s border. A mix of Himalayan hills and Tarai marks up the geography of its open borders, effective since 1950. Indian paramilitary force Shashatra Seema Bal (SSB) guards these borders from the Indian side while the Armed Police Force (APF) of Nepal guards Nepal’s side. Barring some contention, the India-Nepal open border has served its purpose effectively, whether it is keeping the tradition of Roti-Beti alive or contributing to the economies of both countries. Open borders also kept the bioregion of the Himalayas intact, whose impact is visible on the flora and fauna between the borders. 

Nevertheless, for states, security is a non-negotiable, as is the question of the security of open and porous borders and people living around and beyond them. India has been a victim of terrorism for a very long time, and Nepal also has been a victim of organized violence for decades. In 2020, during diplomatic tensions, Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli backed India’s call for a standard definition of terrorism during the UNGA. Five years down the line, we do not have a standard comprehensive convention against international terrorism, which rocked South Asia two months back in Pahalgam. India and Nepal have an extradition treaty, and the political elites and intellectuals see the border security with grave concern. 

However, there are growing anxieties from both sides about illegal migration. Elites in Kathmandu point out the illegal migration coming from India, while India also occasionally finds people from Myanmar and Bangladesh on the border regions with Nepal. There has also been a growing movement of countries from the Gulf and Turkey promoting their specific ways of Islam through many organizations in the Tarai region of Nepal, which is home to the majority of the Muslim population of the country. The mushrooming of many infrastructure projects backed by Turkey near the border areas needs closer scrutiny. The Turkish NGO Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) has been flagged by Indian agencies as an entity of concern. Many reports in Indian as well as Nepali media from time to time report the activities of this organisation working with the Islamic Sangh Nepal as a security threat to both nations. A recently-released report has flagged specific concerns in India. 

After Operation Sindoor and Turkey’s open support to Pakistan in the same, Turkey and Pakistan are being viewed by India as security threats. This is why these new developments in the border regions of both countries are being viewed cautiously. It is also worth noting here that Indian anxieties over these developments are not only part of rhetoric, but India has faced multiple security risks, most notably the IC-814 hijacking and the fake Indian currencies printed with the help of Pakistan’s ISI. They have also used the traditional criminal networks between India and Nepal to further their means. Well-documented sources suggest that ISI has used Nepali soil to harm India since the 1980s. It has also harmed Nepal, as the country is currently on the FATF’s grey list due to ‘deficiencies in anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) regimes.’ Terrorists and financiers use any loopholes in any country to achieve their end results. The Nepal government, however, has taken the list very seriously, and the officials are working to remove the country from the list. 

If we look at the Turkish involvement in this already complex scenario, which is constantly working in tandem with Pakistan, it fuels more of India’s anxieties. There are multiple infrastructure projects IHH is taking with other organizations in the Tarai region, making up a thorny issue for Indian agencies. IHH’s record also backs these issues, as the organization has been accused of planning a bombing in Los Angeles in 1999 and is said to have ties with Al Qaeda. Many international agencies also flagged their concern about IHH, which is also known to support Erdogan and is said to have close relations with the Turkish government. 

In this context, the broader border security arrangements between India and Nepal need to be examined. The India-Nepal open border stands today at the intersection of tradition and shifting geopolitics. As external actors with divergent strategic ambitions insert themselves into the region, the onus is on India and Nepal to jointly future-proof the border against vulnerabilities that neither side can tackle alone. The task is straightforward: border management must evolve from merely guarding physical space to understanding and disrupting transnational networks that exploit social, religious and financial channels.

This calls for institutionalised cooperation, not just between security agencies, but also through shared platforms for intelligence, financial scrutiny and civic engagement along the border regions. A proactive approach would also mean enhancing community resilience in the Tarai and adjoining areas, ensuring that developmental gaps are not filled by opaque foreign entities with unclear agendas. Both governments can explore structured dialogues at the level of home ministries and central banks to counter emerging threats like terror financing and ideological radicalisation. At stake is not just bilateral security, but the health of the broader Himalayan bioregion, where open borders have historically sustained both people-to-people ties and ecological continuity. Preserving this openness while safeguarding sovereignty will require vigilance, trust-building and a strategic alignment that reflects the realities of an interconnected and contested neighborhood. India and Nepal have the history, goodwill and institutional frameworks to achieve this; what is needed now is the political will to update and act on them with clarity and foresight.

The author is a PhD Candidate at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is preparing to lead the CPN-UML for a third consecutive term, a move not uncommon in communist parties. To facilitate this, the party is set to amend its statute at the upcoming statute convention next month. The proposed amendment would remove the two-term limit and the 70-year age cap for the party leadership. The rationale is straightforward: Oli is already 74, and party insiders argue there is no other leader capable of steering the party through the current challenging situation.

“In the seventh general convention, I myself had proposed the 70-year age limit, but the context of the party and the country has changed entirely,” Oli told the UML Central Committee on Monday. His push for a third term is not without precedent. Madhav Kumar Nepal, now leading a separate party, served as the UML's executive general secretary for 15 years, from 1993 to 2008. Still, within UML, there is no clear or consistent policy regarding age or term limits for top leadership roles.

Oli’s supporters insist he must remain at the helm for at least five more years, arguing that the party faces a monumental challenge in becoming the largest political force in the 2027 elections. Within the UML, Oli continues to project himself as the undisputed leader, and is determined not to allow the rise of any rival faction. According to leaders close to him, Oli has repeatedly made it clear that he will not settle for being the party's second-in-command.

Oli has also consistently warned against the formation of factions. In the ongoing Central Committee meeting, Oli cautioned leaders against acting as “spokesperson” for former president Bidya Devi Bhandari, as speculation grows about her potential entry into party politics. Among UML’s senior leadership, figures such as Ishwar Pokhrel, Yubaraj Gyawali, Astha Laxmi Shakya, Ram Bahadur Thapa, Surendra Pandey, Shankar Pokhrel, and Pradeep Gyawali remain influential. Of these, only Pokhrel and Pandey are seen as sympathetic to Bhandari.

Oli first became UML chairperson in 2015 after defeating Madhav Kumar Nepal, and won again in 2021, decisively beating Bhim Rawal, despite his aim for a unanimous endorsement. Following disagreements with Oli, Nepal left UML to form the CPN (Unified Socialist), while Rawal also exited the party. Within Nepal’s communist parties, long-term leadership is not uncommon. CPN (Maoist Centre) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has led his party since the 1980s without holding intra-party elections and has indicated that he intends to remain in power indefinitely.

Dahal’s key rivals, Baburam Bhattarai and Mohan Baidya, have already departed from the Maoist party. Although Janardhan Sharma has emerged as a potential challenger, he has yet to pose a serious threat to Dahal’s leadership. Meanwhile, CPN (Unified Socialist) Chair Nepal has refused to step down, despite ongoing corruption cases filed against him by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority.

UML, however, has traditionally operated differently from the Maoists and other fringe parties. Since 1990, it has held regular intra-party elections to choose its leadership, the last of which was in 2021 that re-elected Oli. To win a third term, Oli will once again need to secure internal support.

The recent public statement by former President Bhandari announcing her return to active politics has sparked criticism of Oli’s third-term ambition. Oli maintains that he deserves another term, citing significant progress in party organization. He told the Central Committee that ordinary party membership had increased by 28 percent under his leadership. Moreover, he emphasized the absence of ideological or policy disputes within the party and called on all members to work collectively to position UML as the decisive political force in 2027.

Bhandari’s re-entry into party politics could pose a serious challenge to Oli’s dominance. However, Oli has publicly stated that a former head of state should not return to active politics, arguing that doing so would undermine the dignity of the presidential office. Referring to leaders close to Bhandari, he accused them of deliberately trying to create discord within the party. Oli is aware that Bhandari’s political engagement could lead to the emergence of a strong rival faction, potentially challenging his leadership at the upcoming general convention. In recent months, Bhandari has been quietly working to consolidate her influence within the party. Nevertheless, Oli continues to enjoy a firm grip over the party, with dissenting voices largely subdued.

A nation once deeply rooted in patriarchal traditions, Nepal continues to bear traces of the oppressive legacy. The influence can be seen in the male dominance in politics which fuels the perception that women are secondary players in leadership. Women in politics continue to face a pervasive narrative, rooted in historical stereotypes: men are meant to be strong leaders and women are supposed to be good supporters. Generalized instances of underperformance by women are frequently used to question the collective competence of women leaders. This fallacy not only reinforces irrelevant stereotypes but also disregards the reality that political efficacy is not determined by gender but by individual’s capability, dedication and output.

Renu Chand, a central committee member of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), Member of the Constituent Assembly and current National Assembly member firmly rejects the narrative that women’s electoral losses reflect their incompetence. “Every male who gets a ticket to run for the election doesn’t win; the same should go for women; this is how election results work” says Chand, rejecting the narrative that women’s electoral losses reflect on their personal incompetence. She dismantles the flawed logic that equates electoral losses with weakness for a particular gender only. Chand’s words highlight the double standard that continues to define Nepal’s political landscape; the idea that women must constantly prove they belong, while men are allowed to fail without being labeled or consequence.

Chand further sheds light on the overlooked struggles of women in politics - their inherent multitasking abilities of balancing family and professional roles, showcasing their resilience. She mentions, “some may struggle due to various relevant reasons but it is inaccurate to brand all women in politics as incapable”. Selective criticism on the basis of gender is simply used as a tactic to uphold patriarchal norms and discourage women leaders from pursuing leadership roles. It works by amplifying the shortcomings while ignoring similar failings in men. This bias leads to the continuation of the stereotype that men are better suited for leadership. She recalls how, during Nepal’s civil war during 1995-2006, many women joined the movement and they fought hand in hand with men. “But as soon as the civil war ended, many women were sent back to households while men continued to pursue their political career” she adds.

Member of Parliament Roshan Karki, also a senior leader of National Democratic Party (RPP), highlights, “women are inherently more giving in nature and often sacrifice their career, particularly as mothers, wives and to support their families”. She points out that, “in families where men are involved in politics, women frequently step back to let their male counterparts advance. This self-sacrificing nature along with the societal structures that favor men, pose a disadvantage for women in general”.

Nepali women have been held back, not because of lack of potential but due to denial of equal access to opportunities or acceptance. In Nepal the preference for male children is very strong and that is reflected in terms of educational attainment and other opportunities as well. While this is changing in modern times, its impact is still visible. Former Member of Parliament and Constituent Assembly member Shanti Pakhrin, a member of Communist Party of Nepal (UML), puts emphasis on the transformative journey that women of Nepal have undertaken from restricted domestic roles to prominent leadership positions, women are coming to the forefront. “Since the starting line was not the same for all, we cannot expect the same results instantly”. Pakhrin emphasizes the need for positive feedback rather than negative criticism. In addition, it is equally important to understand that meaningful change requires time and continual support and promotion. 

Member of Constituent Assembly, Rita Shahi, a member of Nepali Congress Party, adds to Pakhrin’s narrative by saying, “there is a tendency to impose the incapability narrative while ignoring society’s own role in empowering women”. People easily bring out the incapability narrative but no one ever questions what have I done to make women capable or empowered? What is my contribution? 

Echoing Pakhrin’s call to recognize women’s collective progress, Shahi adds another layer by addressing the issue of compartmentalizing women’s issues stressing that treating these concerns as separate will lead to the marginalization of more than half the population. To avoid this, it is necessary to view women’s issues as central to the overall progress of the society.

Women who are in politics of Nepal are slowly and steadily dismantling the barriers that take the form of a deeply ingrained myth of capability and incapability based on gender bias. By showcasing their resilience and determination in the face of these barriers and their stories of balancing family and a career, pioneering achievements and enduring scrutiny reveals their profound strength. This represents a transformation of the political landscape. As Nepal steps into a new era that opens doors for future generations of Nepali women leaders in various sectors, there is a call for action that rings loud and clear: to move beyond limiting beliefs and build a future where every woman’s voice is not just heard but also respected and empowered. The creation of a just society now depends on the young generation, a society where people support the rise of women who are to Nepal’s progress, growth and development.

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s announcement to rejoin active politics has raised widespread concerns about the impartiality and integrity of the presidency. Political leaders and experts argue that her decision undermines Nepal’s nascent republic, which is already facing challenges from royalist forces.

Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai criticized the move, stating that it contradicts the CPN-UML’s professed ideology of multiparty democracy, as championed by Madan Bhandari. “Bhandari’s return to active politics is not just an internal party matter. It has serious implications for national interests, the spirit of the federal republic, and governance,” he said.

Nepali Congress (NC) leaders warned that Bhandari’s political reentry could intensify attacks on the republic and erode public trust in the presidency. Over the past year, Bhandari has been conducting parallel party activities and has openly declared her ambition to lead the UML and eventually become prime minister.

In contrast, former President Ram Baran Yadav (2008–2015) has refrained from active politics, focusing instead on social work. While former Vice President Nanda Kishor Pun joined Maoist politics, observers note that the roles of president and vice president carry vastly different symbolic weights, making Bhandari’s case more contentious.

Political analysts warn that if Bhandari resumes active politics, the presidency may no longer be seen as an impartial institution, weakening the republican system. Past decisions by both Yadav and Bhandari have already faced public scrutiny. Yadav clashed with non-NC prime ministers, while Bhandari was accused of favoring the UML during her tenure. Her latest move reinforces the perception that presidents prioritize party interests over national ones. Unlike in democracies where former heads of state typically engage in philanthropy, Bhandari’s decision sets a concerning precedent.

Prime Minister and UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli has opposed Bhandari’s return, calling it detrimental to both the country and party unity. He noted that the UML supported her presidency assuming she would adhere to constitutional norms barring former presidents from active politics. “Her plan to rejoin politics is alarming, given her former role as head of state, supreme commander of the Nepali Army, and a symbol of the republic,” Oli said.

Bhandari is pressuring the party to clarify her position, reportedly seeking senior leadership status before next month’s statute convention. However, the UML has delayed renewing her ordinary membership, citing ongoing review. Senior leader Surendra Pandey claims her membership was renewed two years ago, but the party has not officially confirmed this.

Meanwhile, Bhandari has been expanding her influence through the Madan Bhandari Foundation, a think tank named after her late husband, and touring provinces to bolster her support base.

As Bhandari maneuvers for a comeback, the UML is preparing amendments to allow Oli a third consecutive term as chairman and abolish the 70-year age limit, a move opposed by Vice-chairperson Ishwar Pokhrel but met with silence from other senior leaders. Leaders like Pokhrel, Ananda Pokhrel, Karna Bahadur Thapa and Gokul Banskota have openly backed Bhandari, while top figures remain noncommittal.

Amid rising tensions, Oli and Bhandari held a one-on-one meeting at the UML headquarters on Sunday, signaling unresolved negotiations over her political future.