A persistent trust deficit at the top political level remains one of the central challenges in the Nepal-India relationship. Despite robust people-to-people, civilizational, cultural, and developmental ties, this lack of trust continually hinders the growth of bilateral relations.
Following 2015, three major leaders—Pushpa Kamal Dahal, KP Sharma Oli, and Sher Bahadur Deuba—led the government on a rotational basis, yet a deep-seated mutual suspicion persisted between Kathmandu and New Delhi. Pivotal events, such as the 2015 Indian economic blockade and the 2020 border map dispute, further eroded political goodwill.
The political landscape shifted dramatically following last year’s “GenZ movement” and the subsequent March 5 elections, which largely sidelined traditional political parties and established leaders. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) emerged as the largest party in the House of Representatives, offering a fresh slate for bilateral engagements. However, the fundamental question remains: Can Kathmandu and New Delhi build a genuine environment of trust?
Early indications from the newly formed government suggest a rocky start. Prime Minister Balendra Shah reportedly refused to meet with the Indian Ambassador in Kathmandu and indicated he would not meet Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri during any potential visit to Nepal. Furthermore, Shah has declined invitations to visit New Delhi in the near future. This apparent lack of rapport at the executive level has reinjected a climate of mistrust into the relationship.
Against this backdrop, the recent visit of RSP Chairman Rabi Lamichhane to India carries significant weight. His high-level meetings with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other senior officials are crucial.
Following a meeting with Rabi Lamichhane, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reaffirmed the commitment to working closely with Nepal for a shared and prosperous future. Emphasizing that Nepal remains a priority partner under its ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy, India expressed a strong desire to collaborate with the country’s new government to elevate the special and multifaceted relationship between the two nations to even greater heights.
Following his meeting with Lamichhane, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar noted that discussions focused heavily on development partnerships and people-to-people ties, highlighting their role in promoting regional growth and prosperity. Strategic circles in India remain skeptical about whether the new administration genuinely desires cordial ties with New Delhi.
While Lamichhane’s visit was intended to bridge the long-standing gap between the two capitals, its ultimate success remains uncertain. The visit could also create internal political friction. Lamichhane is expected to brief Prime Minister Shah on his discussions with the Indian leadership, and much will depend on how Shah responds. There is a delicate risk that this diplomatic move could spark tension between Lamichhane and Shah, potentially prolonging the bilateral stalemate.
The unresolved border dispute remains a primary friction point. Domestically, Prime Minister Shah faces pressure to address the issue directly with India, whereas New Delhi prefers utilizing existing bilateral mechanisms to resolve border concerns. Geopolitical analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta observes that this political trust deficit has been compounding for a long time, exacerbated by foundational issues like the border dispute.
“The time has come for us to move ahead and sort out all these issues amicably,” Bhatta notes. “We certainly committed some foreign policy disasters during the last ten years, like the blockade and the map issue, but we have to move past them. Looking at the relationship solely through a strategic lens is counterproductive to building mutual confidence.”
Bhatta emphasizes the deeper historical connection between the two nations: “Of course, we will have our own priorities, but the fact remains that we are neighbors and part of the same civilization—one is incomplete without the other. India can contribute significantly to Nepal’s development, which is ultimately beneficial for both. A developed and prosperous Nepal is in India’s best interest as well.”
While RSP Chairperson Lamichhane has framed his diplomatic efforts as a ‘reset’ of bilateral ties, Bhatta suggests a different approach. “I wouldn’t use the word ‘reset’; I would prefer to say ‘revitalize’ the relationship,” Bhatta clarifies, emphasizing the need to get ties back on track.
“For many years, relations were not moving forward smoothly, and there were faults on both sides. However, Nepal now has a ruling party with a resounding majority in parliament. Free from heavy ideological baggage, it has a unique opportunity to elevate relations to the highest level.”
