Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle's recent comments in India have stirred up a debate about Nepali nationalism. Speaking at the NDTV World Summit in New Delhi, he said that the period of nationalism tied to anti-India feeling has become a thing of the past. Political leaders and international affairs experts were quick to criticize his remarks, questioning his knowledge of nationalism and Nepal's relationship with its neighbors.
Wagle, however, is fair about one thing: Nepal and India share deep links. The two nations have an open border, cultural ties, familial contacts, and considerable commerce. Nepal needs positive ties with India to boost its economy and preserve regional peace. However, claiming that the age of anti-India nationalism has ended is a different story. His comment suggests that those who dispute India's conduct are trapped in the past and unable to adopt a more sensible approach to international relations.
Nepali nationalism is about more than just resisting India. It also involves independence, territorial integrity and the sovereignty of its citizens. While some political parties have used anti-India slogans to win mass support, this does not mean that anti-India sentiment is the sole driver of Nepali nationalism. Some experts say that anti-Indian sentiment has increased because of India's actions. The 2015 border blockade, which followed the promulgation of Nepal’s new constitution on September 20, 2015, disrupted daily life, trade and essential supplies, deepening resentment against India among Nepalis already struggling to recover from the devastating Gorkha earthquake.
Desperate search for missing girls as nearly 80 dead in Texas f...
Fears of border encroachment, flooding caused by the construction of embankments along Nepal’s southern border in violation of international protocols, barriers to Nepali products’ access to the Indian market, and restrictions on energy exports have all fuelled public outrage. None of those can be written off as 'outdated nationalism' simply because they strain relations with India.
As a land-locked country, Nepal is far behind India in terms of its size and economic development. A decision in New Delhi can have a significant impact on our economy and politics. That is why it is all the more important for Nepal to safeguard its interests. Being a good neighbor does not mean a blind acceptance of all Indian policies towards Nepal. We need to have open discussions to sort out issues in a mutually agreeable manner.
Former foreign ministers Narayankaji Shrestha and Kamal Thapa and international affairs experts Dinesh Bhattarai and Rajan Bhattarai have vociferously criticized Wagle's ideas. Despite coming from a different political background, they have one thing in common: one can pursue a pro-Nepal course without being anti-India. There is no contradiction in maintaining good relations with India while promoting equality, sovereignty, and international law.
The fact that Wagle made these statements in New Delhi is equally significant. As a sitting Finance Minister, his views have more weight than those of the average politician. He may have attempted to convince Indian officials and business people that Nepal's new administration values stable ties. However, there is a distinction between creating confidence and seeming to reject Nepal's concerns in order to appease a strong neighbor.
Wagle's earlier invocation of the Monroe Doctrine has further complicated the debate over Nepali nationalism and anti-India sentiment. Introduced by US President James Monroe in 1823, the doctrine opposed European interference in the Western Hemisphere but eventually became associated with American dominance over Latin America. Critics have questioned Wagle's endorsement of the doctrine, arguing that it contradicts the principle that smaller nations enjoy the same sovereignty as larger ones.
Why does Wagle continue to make remarks that raise questions about his stance on Nepal's sovereignty? Perhaps he wants to depict himself as a contemporary leader ready to transcend the politics of previous generations. It is also reasonable to wonder if more alignment with New Delhi would strengthen his popularity inside the Rastriya Swatantra Party or help him attain a higher political position. However, there is no proof that he is seeking Indian assistance for personal gains.
What matters more is Wagle's need to work towards preserving Nepal's interests by dispelling India’s distrust. He should advocate for equitable access to the Indian market for Nepalese products and should express worries about border tensions and flooding. He should convince India to uphold power trade agreements too. These are the issues Wagle as an important member of the government should be raising on bilateral platforms.
Finally, Nepal will not gain from its antagonism toward India, and it should protect its national interests while demonstrating friendliness. The solution to nationalism is not an acceptance of a stronger neighbor's demands. Wagle should be reminded that a nation’s fair foreign policy founded on diplomacy, fair negotiations, and respect for both nations' sovereignty will deepen the feeling of nationalism. Wagle should explain what it means for Nepal’s interests. Experts say Nepal has little negotiating power against its stronger neighbors; therefore, its leaders must speak clearly about national interests. If our leaders increase connections with India but show a lack of willingness to express what Nepal’s concerns are, it may hamper Nepal’s ability to express its concerns to bigger neighbors.
