India and Nepal share a close connection that few other nations in South Asia can match. An open, passport-free border characterizes their relationship and reflects strong social, cultural, and linguistic ties, as well as centuries of continuous exchange, a shared history, and a deep-rooted bond. However, beneath this surface of camaraderie, the bilateral relationship has fluctuated between cooperation, suspicion, and sometimes outright hostility.
Since the historic 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Nepal’s political upheavals have challenged India’s influence, with New Delhi’s missteps and China’s strategic plans turning an ancient bond into a more complex and contested relationship.
The Foundations: 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship
Signed in July 1950, the Indo-Nepal Treaty, a pivotal moment in the India-Nepal relationship, created a framework of mutual recognition, trade rights, shared residency, and free movement across borders. India’s involvement, which extended beyond diplomacy to include infrastructure, education, and economic aid, established New Delhi as Nepal’s leading supporter for many years.
Yet even at the outset, elements within Nepal’s polity bristled at what they saw as tacit restrictions on their sovereignty, especially the requirement to consult India on security and arms imports. These tensions would continue.
Post-Rana Democracy and Royal Centralisation (1951–1990)
1951 Democratic Revolution. The fall of the hereditary Rana rule, supported by India, led to Nepal’s initial steps towards parliamentary democracy. King Tribhuvan, leading the monarchy, pledged a constitutional and people-focused future.
1960–1990 Panchayat Era. King Mahendra, citing the threat of chaos, dissolved parliament in 1960, banned political parties in 1961, and established the “Panchayat” system, a centralised monarchy that suppressed dissent but also seeded frustration.
Growing Indian influence and support for pro-democracy groups heightened Nepal’s suspicion of interference, although the open border still operated for economic migrants, pilgrims, and cultural exchanges.
Unrest in the Late 1970s (1977–1980)
This period experienced simmering unrest in Nepal caused by political repression, economic stagnation, and increasing discontent with the Panchayat system. Underground parties, influenced by Indian democratic activism and global socialist movements, began mobilising.
In 1979, widespread student protests broke out across Kathmandu and Pokhara, prompting King Birendra to announce a national referendum in 1980 on the future of the political system. Although the Panchayat system narrowly won, it revealed deep divisions within Nepalese society and increased suspicion of India’s covert support for democratic agitators. These events planted seeds of political awakening that would re-emerge in the 1990 People’s Movement.
People’s Movement and the Path to Civil War (1990–2006)
1990 Jana Andolan (People’s Movement). Mountain discontent led to mass mobilisations for democracy, with India quietly supporting the return of multi-party constitutional rule. King Birendra agreed to these demands, restoring parliament and legalising political parties.
1996–2006 Maoist Insurgency. In February 1996, Maoist insurgents, inspired by leftist ideologies, launched a “People’s War” to replace the monarchy and parliamentary system with a communist republic. Over 17,000 Nepalis died in the decade-long civil war, which devastated development and deepened social rifts.
Indian mediation was essential in ultimately brokering a fragile truce. Still, New Delhi’s manoeuvres were viewed with scepticism, especially as Maoists accused India of aiding royalist and parliamentary forces at various stages.
2001 Royal Massacre, Political Instability, and King’s Coup
2001 Royal Palace Massacre. The murder of King Birendra and much of the royal family shocked Nepal and fueled conspiracy theories, further destabilising the monarchy.
2002–2005 Crisis and Royal Coup. King Gyanendra dissolved parliament in 2002, sacked the prime ministers, and declared emergency rule in 2005, claiming to restore order amid Maoist violence. His authoritarian consolidation only increased opposition and drew widespread international condemnation.
India’s Critical Misstep: The 2008 Abolition of Monarchy
Under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India, influenced by coalition politics with strong Left and communist voices, supported the abolition of the monarchy after the 2006 peace deal. This paved the way for the Maoist-led Communist Party of Nepal and the Marxist-Leninists to take control of the political scene, replacing both the Nepali Congress and moderate royalists.
Consequence. Indian leverage weakened as radical left factions, historically distrustful of New Delhi, emerged as kingmakers. Nepali politics shifted from instability to constant government changes; since 2008, no government has completed a five-year term. This shift in power dynamics significantly reduced India’s influence in Nepal’s political landscape.
The Second Blunder: 2015–16 India Blockade
When Nepal enacted a new constitution in 2015, Madhesi groups in the Terai who share close ethnic ties with India protested, claiming they were disenfranchised. India, citing genuine concerns for the Madhesi, responded by tacitly supporting border protests and allegedly orchestrating an undeclared blockade of fuel, medicines, and essentials.
Humanitarian Impact. This blockade, occurring during Nepal’s recovery from a devastating earthquake, led to a severe fuel shortage, threatened transportation and healthcare, and worsened anti-Indian sentiment. The blockade also strained India-Nepal relations, leading to a significant shift in Nepal’s geopolitical alignment.
Strategic Fallout. The world watched as China quickly intervened, providing fuel overland and promising infrastructural investment through its Belt and Road Initiative. Kathmandu’s political stance decisively shifted toward Beijing, highlighting India’s diminishing influence.
Modi’s Rise and Nepal’s Hindu Aspirations (2014)
The election of Narendra Modi in 2014 was met with euphoria across large swaths of India, including religious and nationalist circles in Nepal. Modi’s assertive foreign policy, emphasis on Hindu identity, and early diplomatic outreach to SAARC neighbours raised hopes in Kathmandu. Nepal, long an officially Hindu kingdom until 2008, witnessed a growing demand among conservative factions to re-establish a Hindu Rashtra.
In this climate, Modi’s first visit to Nepal in 17 years by any Indian Prime Minister was seen as a reset moment. His speeches at Pashupatinath Temple and Parliament struck chords of shared civilisational values, reigniting hopes for improved India-Nepal relations. However, the optimism was short-lived as underlying structural issues remained unresolved.
Hill-Madhesi Tensions and Social Fault Lines
Despite strong religious ties and cross-border marriages, Nepal remains divided along deep-seated social hierarchies. The hill-based communities, who dominate political and bureaucratic institutions, have historically seen Madhesis—people of Indian ancestry from the southern plains—as outsiders. This longstanding prejudice fuels social discrimination, political marginalisation, and a national identity crisis.
The Madhesi demand for proportional representation and inclusion in state structures remains a contentious issue. Their geographic and cultural proximity to India makes them both a natural ally and a political burden for New Delhi, as any support for their cause is often seen as interference by Kathmandu’s elite.
China’s Ascendance and Growing Asymmetry
Since 2015, China has increased its influence in Kathmandu. It has formed alliances with leftist parties, strengthened economic ties, expanded infrastructure and military support, and presented itself as Nepal’s partner in genuine sovereignty.
Key milestones.
Construction of highways, hospitals, and feasibility studies for trans-Himalayan railways.
Support for Nepal’s communist parties and diplomatic pressure on Tibetan refugees.
Joint military exercises and modernisation of the security sector.
Meanwhile, Indian projects have been delayed by bureaucratic hurdles, Nepali suspicion, and political instability.
Unrest in the 2020s: A Nation in Perpetual Flux
Nepal’s politics in the 2020s has been characterised by: –
Constant party infighting and the dissolution of parliament (notably by PM Oli in 2021).
Public frustration with elite corruption, unemployment, and inflation.
The rise of young leaders and new forms of protest.
2025: The Most Violent Upheaval Yet
September 2025 marks the gravest crisis in Nepal’s contemporary history: –
“Gen Z” youth protests, triggered by a government social media ban and endemic corruption, erupted across Kathmandu, quickly escalating into deadly violence.
Over 30 people were killed, a thousand were injured, and symbols of authority, including parliament buildings, central media offices, and police outposts, were set ablaze.
Army interventions and curfews temporarily restored order, but the political vacuum and social anger remain unresolved.
External narratives blaming “deep state” plots, CIA-backed NGOs, or anti-Hindu machinations swirl on social media. On-the-ground evidence overwhelmingly implicates domestic grievances, hijacked leadership, and opportunistic violence.
Implications for India: Security and Strategic Costs
India now faces immediate and long-term risks: –
The open border means that Nepal’s disorder can spill into the already volatile northern states of Bihar, UP, West Bengal, and Uttarakhand, posing immediate and long-term risks for India’s security and stability.
The participation of rioters armed with weapons highlights a new, dangerous trend of political mobilisation unprecedented in Nepal’s recent past.
China’s expanding influence in construction, military aid, and diplomatic activism complicates New Delhi’s traditional primacy in the Himalayan buffer.
India has effectively lost its monopoly as Nepal’s strategic partner, and its ability to shape events in Kathmandu is sharply diminished.
What Lies Ahead?
For India
Recalibration Required. India must accept that coercive diplomacy, whether through alliances or economic pressure, no longer achieves influence. Instead, rebooting traditional people-to-people ties, cultural engagement, and nonpartisan development assistance is essential.
Strategic Patience. Nepalese agency and sovereignty must be respected. Engagement should be based on equality, not patronage.
Intelligence and Security Cooperation. There is an urgent need for intelligence sharing, coordinated policing across the open border, and collaborative efforts to prevent militant activity.
Multi-vector Diplomacy. India must accept the Chinese presence as structural and compete on genuine partnership terms, rather than exclusive access.
For Nepal
Stabilisation First. Interim governance needs legitimacy and broad-based support, possibly via an all-party mechanism or neutral technocratic guidance.
Tackling Social Divides. Ethnic, regional, and economic rifts must be honestly addressed in constitutional reform and resource allocation.
Youth Inclusion. The grievances of Nepal’s youth, including employment, corruption, and education, need real solutions, not mere policing.
For Both Countries
Sustaining Open Border with Sensible Controls. The unrestricted border is a unique asset but also a liability if not monitored for trafficking and insurgency.
Preventing Strategic Drift. For both countries, allowing external powers to dictate bilateral relations will only exacerbate instability.
Conclusion
After 75 years of peace, friendship, and recurring turbulence, India-Nepal ties are at a crossroads. New Delhi is indeed reaping the consequences of decades of strategic complacency and miscalculation, as well as China’s calibrated interventions. The ongoing crisis in Kathmandu is not merely a domestic calamity for Nepal; it is a clarion call for India to adapt, renew, and reforge its Himalayan compact based on partnership, not paternalism.
As history shows, instability in Nepal never remains confined within its frontiers. For India, neglect or arrogance could carry a cascading regional cost.