The “India factor” has normally played a big role in the course of Nepali politics, discourse, and elections
On November 20, Nepal is slated to conduct general elections for the federal parliament and the provincial assemblies. Since the passage of the 2015 Constitution, this is the second democratic election in the politically tumultuous Himalayan Republic. Nepal would vote to elect members of the 275 members of Parliament and 330 members of seven provincial assemblies. The Nepali Congress led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, the Communist Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML) party led by KP Sharma Oli and the Maoist Centre led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal are the main political players in the electoral fray. Analysts predict a hung Parliament, like the 2017 elections which gave Oli’s CPN-UML and Prachanda’s Maoist party a decisive mandate to govern. Incidentally, the decisive mandate was largely secured by Oli and his alliance partners by effectively resonating Nepali grievances against a six-month long border blocked allegedly imposed by New Delhi. Since then, especially after Deuba became prime minister, the relationship between the two closest neighbours have improved. However, the alliance led by Oli is still using anti-India rhetoric. Thus, irrespective of what India does to Kathmandu, it is very difficult to remove the India factor from the domestic politics of the Himalayan republic.
Second, geo-strategically, India has a hegemonic presence in Nepal as it shares a border with India on its east, west and south. Also, the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 has been a prolonged contentious issue in the relations between the two countries as Nepal has perceived the treaty as an instrument for India to influence or interfere in its domestic affairs, especially in the pivotal areas of foreign policy and security. Herein lies the paradox. India, with its military, geopolitical, and economic heft as well as due to cross-border people-to-people ties in the region is often seen as a power responsible for providing assistance in the developmental architecture of Nepal. On the other hand, there is a constant apprehension on Nepal’s part, that owing to India’s dominant position, it might interfere in Nepal’s internal political-economic decisions, threatening the sovereignty and autonomy of Nepal. It is often perceived that in order to check India’s overarching presence in Nepal’s diplomatic priorities, Nepal many a times look up to another powerful Asian neighbour, China, for developmental needs and economic assistance. As India and China are locked in territorial conflicts and geo-strategic competition over expanding their respective influence in the South Asian region, Nepal’s balancing tactic between India and China, many a times, implicitly rakes up suspicion in the mind of the Indian government. The topmost leadership of major parties are accused of siding with one big power over the other and is often derided for compromising national interest for doing the bidding of the bigger powers. While KP Oli is known for his inclination towards China, Sher Bahadur Deuba is seen to be close to India. Such a discourse of the presence of the ‘India factor’ in Nepal’s elections has been a constant element of its democratic politics in which concerns of ‘national interest and sovereignty’ plays an extremely emotive role for galvanising electoral support for Nepal’s political elite. KP Oli and his alliance partners made huge political gains on anti-India campaigns over the 2015 blockade.The compulsion of winning elections in democratic politics often rakes up the issue of safeguarding the ‘national interest’ from an ‘external entity.’ India (and lately China) has often played the role of that ‘external factor’ in Nepal’s political discourse.
Third, Nepal’s cross-border cultural and ethnic linkages might also have a bearing on Nepal’s upcoming elections in two ways. First, the Madhesi movement and the subsequent blockade by India in 2015 have had a deep impact on India-Nepal relations and the episode has revealed how the strong cross-border ethnic ties between the people residing in the geographically proximate border regions of two countries might have the propensity to shape Nepal’s domestic political affairs. The blockade also is perceived to have aggravated the anti-India sentiment in Nepal and compelled the Nepalese government to tilt towards China for assistance. Second, the political rise and consolidation of the pro-Hindu party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, in neighbouring India is understood to have some bearing in the rise of Hindu identity cultural politics in Nepal. Though the country’s democratic politics has not yet witnessed explicit political mobilisation on religious lines, the increasing discourse of religion-based politics is visible as top leaders have promised the building of temples in the electoral agenda, in a society where 80 percent of the population are Hindus.A careful balancing act between India and China has remained one of the major challenges for Nepal’s political elite, in which China’s growing influence looms large.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Ambar Kumar Ghosh is an Associate Fellow under the Political Reforms and Governance Initiative at ORF Kolkata. His primary areas of research interest include studying ...
Read More +
Niranjan Sahoo, PhD, is a Senior Fellow with ORF’s Governance and Politics Initiative. With years of expertise in governance and public policy, he now anchors ...
Read More +
PREV
