Elected with an unprecedented two-thirds majority, Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s government has completed its 100 days in office. Shah entered office with a strong political mandate and high public expectations. Such a mandate offered a rare opportunity to redefine foreign policy priorities, strengthen engagement with key international partners, and provide strategic direction to the country’s diplomacy.
Yet public debate during the first 100 days was largely centered on Shah’s decision not to meet resident foreign ambassadors on an individual basis. The prime minister’s stance of not meeting with ambassadors is not a wise idea. At least, he should regularly meet ambassadors from India, China, America and other major powers. It is indeed a flawed approach and needs to be corrected immediately.
The government’s performance in this period has largely been characterized by caution, limited political engagement, and the continuation of routine diplomatic practices. While there have been no major foreign policy setbacks, there has also been little evidence of proactive leadership or efforts to capitalize on the goodwill that greeted the formation of the new government.
By directing ambassadors to engage primarily through MoFA, the prime minister sought to institutionalize diplomatic communication and strengthen the ministry’s role. On foreign policy, PM Shah has consistently argued that MoFA should serve as the country’s primary diplomatic institution.
But, strengthening the ministry alone is not enough. The PM office must work closely with MoFA, security and intelligence agencies, and other relevant ministries to ensure effective coordination. Actually, MoFA is like a communicating ministry instead of handling all foreign policy related issues.
The prime minister also represents the country at the major international forums and is ultimately responsible for setting the country’s foreign policy direction. In countries such as India and China, strong teams within the Prime Minister’s or President’s Office work in close coordination with foreign ministries on strategic foreign policy issues.
The current approach suggests that the government lacks a comprehensive understanding of how foreign policy should be coordinated and led. The lack of coordination with security agencies and other ministries in the past has created a lot of problems.
Institutional discipline alone cannot substitute for political leadership. Foreign policy is ultimately driven by the head of government, particularly in countries where the prime minister exercises executive authority. While the MoFA plays a critical role in implementing diplomatic initiatives, it cannot independently redefine strategic priorities or undertake high-level political engagement without direction from the Prime Minister’s Office.
The absence of such leadership has become increasingly apparent during the government’s first 100 days. There has been no comprehensive articulation of Nepal’s foreign policy priorities, no significant diplomatic initiative aimed at strengthening regional or global partnerships, and no indication of how the government intends to navigate the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape in South Asia and beyond.
High-level political engagement remains one of the most effective instruments of diplomacy. Meetings between heads of government help build personal trust, resolve misunderstandings, provide strategic direction to bureaucracies, and unlock opportunities that routine diplomatic channels often cannot. Throughout Nepal’s diplomatic history, prime ministerial visits have frequently resulted in major agreements, infrastructure projects, investment commitments, and breakthroughs on longstanding bilateral issues.
This has been particularly evident in Nepal’s relations with India. Successive Nepali prime ministers have traditionally made India their first foreign destination after assuming office, reflecting the depth of the economic, political, cultural, and people-to-people ties between the two countries. There are also ample activities in the Panchayat regime with the king as head of the state playing a vital role to shape and expand the country’s foreign policy.
These visits have often produced tangible outcomes, including agreements on connectivity, energy cooperation, trade, and infrastructure development. Even during periods of political instability and frequent changes of government, Nepal maintained engagement at the highest political level with both India and China.
PM Shah has deliberately broken with this tradition. 100 days into office, he has shown little interest in visiting India or holding a summit with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Likewise, there has been no indication of an early visit to China. Advisors close to the prime minister have even suggested that he does not intend to undertake any foreign visits during his first year in office.
While every government has the sovereign right to determine its diplomatic calendar, a prolonged absence of summit-level engagement carries significant costs. In diplomacy, personal interactions between leaders often create momentum that officials alone cannot generate. Political trust established at the highest level frequently facilitates cooperation across multiple sectors, from trade and investment to security and infrastructure development.
Nepal today needs precisely such political engagement. The country stands at the crossroads of intensifying geopolitical competition while simultaneously seeking greater economic opportunities from both its immediate neighbors and wider international partners. Strategic diplomacy requires active leadership rather than passive management.
Relations with India illustrate this challenge. Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal visited New Delhi and held discussions with his Indian counterpart, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. The meetings reviewed ongoing bilateral cooperation and reaffirmed existing commitments. Likewise, regular meetings of bilateral mechanisms have continued as scheduled.
However, these engagements have largely focused on maintaining existing cooperation rather than exploring new strategic opportunities. India has emerged as one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and is expected to become the world’s third-largest economy.
Nepal needs a comprehensive strategy to maximize the opportunities arising from India’s rapid growth through expanded trade, investment, energy cooperation, cross-border infrastructure, tourism, and technology partnerships. Such an agenda requires sustained political leadership at the highest level.
A similar pattern is evident in Nepal’s engagement with China. Foreign Minister Khanal also visited Beijing and held talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. During the visit, Nepal reiterated its commitment to respecting China’s security and strategic interests while both sides reviewed existing areas of cooperation.
Nevertheless, little progress has been made in identifying new avenues for collaboration. Beyond traditional infrastructure and connectivity projects, Nepal and China possess considerable potential for cooperation in artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, higher education, public health, agricultural modernization, green technology, and innovation. These sectors remain largely unexplored despite their enormous potential to contribute to Nepal’s economic transformation.
China, meanwhile, appears to have adopted a cautious “wait-and-see” approach toward the new government. Although several senior Chinese officials have continued visiting Nepal, Beijing appears to be waiting for clearer signals regarding the Shah government’s foreign policy priorities before pursuing new initiatives.
The same uncertainty is evident among other international partners. Senior officials from the United States and several development partners have visited Nepal to engage with the new government and explore areas for future cooperation. The international community initially welcomed the formation of a politically stable government capable of pursuing long-term reforms. Many countries expressed interest in expanding cooperation in areas ranging from investment and climate resilience to digital transformation, education, renewable energy, and infrastructure.
However, Nepal has yet to formulate a coherent strategy to translate these expressions of interest into concrete partnerships. The absence of clearly articulated national priorities has slowed diplomatic engagement and diminished the initial enthusiasm that accompanied the government’s formation.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently publicized its 100-day report card, highlighting routine diplomatic activities, bilateral meetings, and administrative achievements. While these activities are essential to the day-to-day functioning of diplomacy, they should not be mistaken for strategic accomplishments. Presenting routine bureaucratic functions as major achievements risks creating a misleading impression of the government’s foreign policy performance.
Meaningful foreign policy achievements require political vision, strategic planning, and sustained engagement from the country’s leadership. Diplomatic institutions can implement policies, but they cannot substitute for political direction. Without active leadership from the Prime Minister’s Office, Nepal’s foreign policy is likely to remain reactive rather than proactive.
Another issue that generated controversy during the government’s first 100 days was Prime Minister Shah’s statement in Parliament regarding Nepal’s border disputes. Rather than contributing to diplomatic clarity, the remarks sparked domestic political debate and continued to reverberate in Parliament. Given the sensitivity of border issues, careful coordination between the political leadership and diplomatic institutions is essential to avoid unnecessary complications while safeguarding Nepal’s national interests.
The first 100 days do not determine the success or failure of a government. They do, however, establish its governing style and signal its strategic priorities. In foreign policy, the prime minister has demonstrated administrative restraint but limited political activism. Stability and institutional discipline are valuable, but they cannot replace strategic engagement in an increasingly competitive international environment.
The government still has ample time to recalibrate its approach. Nepal requires an active foreign policy guided by national interests, supported by strong institutional capacity, and driven by high-level political leadership. Summit diplomacy with neighboring countries, stronger engagement with development partners, a clear economic diplomacy strategy, and closer coordination among government institutions should become priorities in the months ahead.
