By Annunthra Rangan
Between September 9 and 12, 2025, Kathmandu witnessed one of the most intense episodes of political unrest in recent decades. What began as youth-driven demonstrations against corruption and a temporary social media blackout quickly spiralled into arson, violent clashes, and widespread destruction. By mid-September, the violence had claimed dozens of lives, with hospitals overwhelmed by thousands of injured and rescue teams uncovering bodies in charred buildings. The turmoil culminated in the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and the unprecedented appointment of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as interim prime minister, tasked with steering the country towards parliamentary elections now scheduled for March 5, 2026.
INDIA’S IMMEDIATE DILEMMA
For India, Nepal’s turbulence presents a complex challenge. The two nations are bound by an open border, intertwined economies, and a deeply layered political relationship. The immediate policy dilemmas for New Delhi are both urgent and delicate: how should it engage with the interim administration? Can stability be pursued without tying it to individual political figures? And should economic interdependence serve as the primary tool for ensuring long-term stability?
THE PROTEST WAVE
The eruption of protests in Nepal was driven by a convergence of grievances: widespread frustration over entrenched corruption, a controversial ban on social media that galvanised Gen Z mobilisation, and growing resentment towards the perceived insularity of the political elite. Demonstrations rapidly escalated into targeted attacks on government offices and politicians’ residences, while security forces, at times, resorted to live ammunition. Official figures and independent reporting indicate that the unrest left dozens dead, thousands injured, and significant damage to public infrastructure. In its wake, an interim government was constituted under Karki—Nepal’s first woman prime minister.
NEW DELHI RESPONDS
New Delhi was quick to respond. The ministry of external affairs welcomed the formation of the interim administration, affirming India’s commitment to work with Nepal in pursuit of peace and stability. Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally conveyed his support to Karki, framing India’s engagement as both constructive and neighbourly. Yet, regional observers caution that overt or heavy-handed involvement by India risks reinforcing nationalist narratives within Nepal, while simultaneously providing Beijing with an opportunity to expand its diplomatic footprint in Kathmandu.
CHINA IN THE SHADOWS
Nepal’s current political turbulence is more than an internal matter; it carries significant implications for India’s regional strategy. For New Delhi, the stakes lie not only in managing a close neighbour’s instability, but also in countering the influence of competing external actors, most notably China, whose investments in infrastructure, political diplomacy, and cultural outreach have steadily expanded in Kathmandu. Yet India must navigate this moment with care. Among Nepal’s younger generation of activists, there is deep sensitivity to perceptions of external interference, shaped by past experiences of what was seen as a heavy-handed “big brother” approach. Any indication that India is privileging personalities or partisan agendas over democratic processes risks undermining its credibility and could drive Nepal further towards Beijing’s sphere of influence.
INDIA’S THREE PRIORITIES
In the immediate term, three complementary priorities stand out for New Delhi. First, India must engage with tact and discretion—projecting a tone of solidarity and partnership while keeping substantive pressure confined to private channels. Welcoming the interim administration and expressing readiness to work for mutual stability set the right public tone, but words must be matched by deeds. Development-oriented assistance, ranging from humanitarian support where necessary to technical and logistical help for the forthcoming elections, should be structured to reinforce Nepali ownership rather than impose external preferences.
Second, India should resist the familiar temptation to equate state stability with individual political leaders. The current crisis was sparked by a broad-based movement demanding systemic change, not the removal or preservation of specific figures. For New Delhi, backing personalities at the expense of institutions would risk repeating past missteps. Instead, emphasis should be placed on strengthening Nepal’s constitutional processes: ensuring that the March 2026 elections proceed as scheduled, supporting credible investigations into recent violence, and building capacity within independent institutions such as the judiciary and the election commission. By privileging institutional resilience, India positions itself as a dependable partner across political cycles rather than a stakeholder in factional contests.
Finally, deepening economic interdependence remains one of the most effective levers for anchoring bilateral ties. Expanding cross-border trade, energy cooperation, transport connectivity, and people-to-people exchanges can generate broad-based benefits that resonate with ordinary Nepalis. The key lies in ensuring transparency, inclusivity, and tangible outcomes, avoiding projects that appear captured by elites or tainted with conditionalities. Practical measures such as improved market access for Nepali agricultural producers, streamlined border procedures, and joint infrastructure ventures that create visible employment can build trust and reduce the appeal of external alternatives.
GUARDRAILS FOR ENGAGEMENT
Taken together, a calibrated blend of tactful diplomacy, institutional support, and carefully designed economic engagement would allow India to manage Nepal’s transition responsibly. Such an approach balances strategic prudence with normative credibility, strengthening New Delhi’s role as a long-term, reliable partner in Nepal’s democratic journey.
No approach to Nepal’s current transition is without risk, which makes it essential for India to establish clear guardrails in its engagement. Transparency should remain central: all offers of assistance must be explicit in intent and open in financing and implementation, leaving little room for allegations of covert influence. Equally important is Nepali ownership. By working through local institutions and civil-society actors such as the media, electoral observers, and municipal governments, India can help strengthen domestic legitimacy rather than undermine it. Diplomatic flexibility will also be critical. Rather than tying itself too closely to any one faction or figure, New Delhi should sustain broad relationships across the political spectrum and social groups. Coordinating with regional actors and multilateral institutions would further reinforce India’s credibility, ensuring that election support or humanitarian relief is framed as cooperative rather than unilateral. Finally, India must invest in narrative management, acknowledging Nepali agency and grief, condemning violence regardless of its source, and avoiding any triumphalist language that could be misinterpreted as paternalism.
THE ROAD AHEAD
Equally clear are the paths India must avoid. Openly backing a political faction or leader would erode its credibility as a neutral partner and invite patriotic backlash within Nepal. Heavy-handed security measures, including any form of military intervention across the border, would be disastrous for bilateral relations and regional stability. Economic engagement too carries risks if it is channelled through patronage networks, as this would reinforce corruption narratives and deepen the very grievances that drove protesters to the streets.
India’s strategic competition with China adds another layer of complexity, but New Delhi’s best response is not coercive diplomacy. Instead, it lies in crafting an alternative that is visibly Nepali-centric, transparent, and tangibly beneficial to ordinary citizens. By privileging institutions over personalities and economic opportunity over political patronage, India can pursue its strategic interests while also preserving
credibility with Nepalis. This principled form of realpolitik strengthens New Delhi’s position against Beijing while allowing it to maintain the moral high ground.
Nepal’s fragile transition creates only a narrow window for constructive action. The appointment of an interim prime minister and the announcement of fresh elections offer a chance to help steer the country back towards constitutional politics—provided India engages carefully. The priorities for New Delhi are straightforward: engage early and respectfully, support institutions rather than individuals, and deepen economic ties in ways that are transparent and widely shared. If pursued with discipline, this approach would allow India to stabilise a vital neighbour, safeguard its regional interests, and demonstrate that meaningful partnership is about enabling Nepal’s agency, not overshadowing it.
—The writer is a Senior Research Officer at Chennai Centre for China Studies. Her research interests constitute China-WANA (West Asia and North Africa) relations and human rights