E-Paper
Shah’s victory could mark a turning point for Nepal
This article is authored by Brabim Karki, author, Nepal.
Nepal’s March 5 election may well prove a political inflection point. Balendra Shah, more popularly known as Balen, and his Rastriya Swatantra party's rare landslide victory would dramatically reshape the politics of the Himalayan nation perched between China and India. Nepal stands at a geopolitical crossroads where India, China and the US each have their own interests. Balen, who is viewed as an avatar of change, is on track to become Nepal's prime minister (PM) after he dismantled Nepal’s political elite. The challenge for the new government under Balen's leadership will be balancing ties and maintaining formal non-alignment with three giants without leaning heavily on any.
A party founded barely four years ago, has made history, securing the largest mandate in Nepal’s modern electoral era. It secured 182 of 275 seats. Shah has defeated former PM KP Sharma Oli by a wide margin in Jhapa-5. The power in Nepal has largely rotated between major parties including the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal, and the Maoist Centre for several years. Voter anger with entrenched parties has been evident for years, but the sweep suggests something more decisive- a willingness to reset the political order rather than merely reshuffle it.
That sentiment has deep roots. Since the end of monarchy in 2008, Nepal has cycled through governments with disconcerting frequency, with none completing a full term. Corruption allegations, patronage networks and weak service delivery have eroded public trust. Youth unemployment remains stubbornly high, pushing many to seek work abroad. Protests in recent years, including those that turned violent, underscored how quickly frustration can spill over.
The challenge for Shah and the RSP now lies in translating electoral enthusiasm into effective governance. Foreign policy will be equally consequential. Nepal sits between two giant powers, China and India, each with strategic interests. Nepal’s geography makes strategic balancing unavoidable, but the emphasis should remain on predictability and clarity. For India, which shares an open border and dense economic and social ties with Nepal, political stability in Kathmandu is a practical necessity. A government with a clear majority could, in principle, help sustain long-pending connectivity and infrastructure projects, and improve coordination on border management. New Delhi, for its part, will need to engage early with the new leadership, keeping in mind Nepal’s sensitivities on sovereignty.
Balen's victory suggests a shift away from traditional pro-India or pro-China labels towards a dignified bilateral partnership focusing on economic diplomacy and regional markets. Balen focused on transparency and Nepal's first rhetoric to attract voters. New Delhi must be prepared for a young leader who is more vocal on sovereignty and it may need a more independent approach that prioritises Nepal's sovereignty.
China’s engagement, including through the Belt and Road Initiative, will continue to shape Nepal’s infrastructure choices. The US, through programmes such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation compact, has sought to expand development partnerships and institutional capacity. For Kathmandu, the task is to draw benefits from each without allowing external alignments to define domestic priorities.
This also requires a degree of restraint in political signalling. Issues such as the Kalapani-Limpiyadhura dispute have periodically strained ties with India. Nationalist rhetoric can carry short-term political dividends, but it often complicates the steady, less visible work of economic cooperation and dispute resolution. A government that foregrounds delivery at home may find it easier to manage these sensitivities abroad.
For India, there is a parallel lesson. Nepal’s electorate has asserted its agency. Engagement that is attentive, consistent and respectful of that agency is more likely to endure than episodic or overly transactional approaches.
None of this diminishes the scale of the challenge before the RSP. It remains untested at the national level, and expectations are unusually high. Converting a large mandate into durable governance is difficult in any system; in Nepal’s, with its institutional constraints, it will be harder still. Anti-corruption promises, economic revival and improvements in public services will be the real measures of success.
For now, Shah’s victory opens a window. Whether it becomes a turning point will depend less on the scale of the electoral win and more on the discipline of governance and the steadiness of Nepal’s external engagement.
This article is authored by Brabim Karki, author, Nepal.
