By K Raveendran
The commotion in Nepal has brought into sharp focus a generational shift in the country’s politics, one that has made the term Gen Z part of the mainstream political vocabulary rather than just a casual reference to youth culture in India and elsewhere in the subcontinent. The unexpected rise of Sushila Karki, who has emerged as a symbol of both promise and risk, marks a generational rupture with the established order that has traditionally shaped Nepal’s political trajectory.
For India, the choice of someone like Karki—who has expressed a favourable disposition towards New Delhi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi—is reassuring in the short term, but it does not eliminate the structural uncertainties that have long characterised Nepalese politics. The enthusiasm of the youth has given a fresh dimension to politics in Kathmandu, but the lack of historical depth and the inexperience of this generation raise important questions about stability in the long run.
The Gen Z generation, both in Nepal and across the region, comes equipped with certain undeniable strengths. They are digitally savvy, globally connected, and brimming with ideas about political reform, economic modernisation, and social inclusivity. Their ability to mobilise public opinion rapidly, leveraging social media and digital networks, has already transformed the political culture of Nepal. This youth-led wave is not merely about idealism; it has a clear sense of urgency in addressing unemployment, corruption, and governance inefficiencies that have plagued Nepal for decades.
Yet, as much as this generational momentum excites the masses, it lacks the accumulated experience, historical grounding, and nuanced understanding of geopolitical balances that come only with long years of political practice. Without this maturity, there is always the danger that leadership may falter when tested by the intricate challenges of governance in a country as politically volatile and strategically positioned as Nepal.
For India, however, the rise of Sushila Karki offers immediate comfort. New Delhi has often been confronted with leaders in Kathmandu who vacillate between India and China, leveraging their position to extract short-term gains from both sides. In contrast, Karki’s outlook suggests a more stable alignment with Indian interests, at least in the initial phases of her leadership. Modi’s government would understandably welcome a cooperative regime in Kathmandu that understands the depth of India’s stakes in Nepal. Yet, Indian policymakers are well aware that goodwill in the present does not necessarily translate into stability in the future, especially given the fragility of Nepal’s political institutions and the volatility of coalition politics.
The structural importance of Nepal to India cannot be overstated. Beyond cultural ties and the open border that allows free movement of people, there are deep economic interdependencies. Indian investments have been pivotal in driving Nepal’s industrial and service sectors, creating jobs and contributing to state revenues. More than 150 Indian companies currently operate in Nepal across diverse sectors ranging from consumer goods to tourism and infrastructure, demonstrating the breadth of India’s economic footprint.
The energy sector, however, remains the crown jewel of Indian involvement. With its abundant hydropower potential, Nepal represents not only a source of clean energy but also a critical component of India’s long-term energy security strategy. Transmission line projects and hydropower plants funded and operated with Indian capital are strategic assets that tie the two economies together in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
The numbers speak for themselves. According to the Nepal Rastra Bank, India’s foreign direct investment in Nepal reached USD 755.12 million as of July 2023, amounting to roughly 35 percent of Nepal’s total foreign investment. This dominant share underscores India’s centrality in Nepal’s economic future. Such investments are not just about capital inflows; they represent deep political linkages. Indian firms bring with them infrastructure, jobs, technology transfer, and training, embedding themselves within Nepal’s economic architecture.
For New Delhi, this creates both opportunity and vulnerability. Opportunity lies in consolidating influence and fostering growth in a close neighbour. Vulnerability arises when political instability in Kathmandu threatens to derail projects, delay implementation, or invite competing influences, particularly from China, which has been expanding its footprint through the Belt and Road Initiative.
Against this backdrop, the generational transition represented by Karki’s rise becomes even more significant. A leader inclined toward India could ensure continuity of projects, facilitate smooth investment approvals, and maintain a policy climate conducive to bilateral cooperation. But the question remains whether such a leader, backed by a restless youth base, can sustain a consistent and pragmatic approach amidst the inevitable pressures of governance. Gen Z may be less burdened by the baggage of past ideological battles, yet this very detachment from history can translate into a lack of caution in managing external relations. Nepal’s political history is littered with examples of leaders who started with goodwill but faltered due to domestic factionalism, populist pressures, or inability to manage external expectations.
New Delhi, therefore, must balance its immediate satisfaction with longer-term strategic prudence. While it is encouraging to have a leader in Kathmandu who is positively disposed towards Modi and India, New Delhi cannot afford complacency. It must engage not just with Karki’s leadership but also with the broader ecosystem of Nepal’s politics, including opposition groups, civil society, and business stakeholders.
Building enduring institutional linkages, rather than relying solely on personalities, is key to insulating India’s stakes from the swings of Nepal’s turbulent political landscape. India’s approach must also remain sensitive to the aspirations of Nepal’s youth, who increasingly see themselves as global citizens and may be skeptical of overt external influence. Support for capacity building, skill development, and technology collaboration could help cement India’s image as a partner in Nepal’s generational transition rather than a meddling neighbour. (IPA Service)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
