Nepal and India, two neighbors bound by geography and history, share one of the most complex bilateral relationships in South Asia. While cultural and religious affinities have tied the nations together for centuries, modern geopolitics, territorial disputes, and perceived power imbalances have introduced tensions that make many in Nepal question whether India is a friend, a rival, or both.
This article explores the key dimensions of the Nepal-India relationship, including historical ties, border disputes, political interference, and cultural encroachment, with a focus on presenting facts from a perspective often underrepresented in regional discourse.
Cultural and Religious Ties
Nepal and India are linked by deep-rooted religious and cultural traditions. Hinduism and Buddhism, the two major religions that have shaped the soul of South Asia, have historical roots in Nepal. Lumbini, the birthplace of Lord Buddha, is in Nepal—a fact often underemphasized in regional narratives.
Pashupatinath, one of the holiest Shiva shrines in Hinduism, is located in Kathmandu. However, international representations, often influenced by Indian narratives, tend to overshadow Nepal’s significance in these religions. Indian media and educational content frequently center Varanasi or Bodh Gaya while neglecting the spiritual contributions of Nepal.
Both nations celebrate festivals like Dashain, Tihar, and Chhath. Yet, the portrayal of such cultural practices often highlights their Indian versions, minimizing Nepal’s unique customs. Despite the cultural bond, many Nepalis feel that India often takes the role of the “elder brother” rather than an equal partner.
Social and Ethnic Connections
There are long-standing familial and ethnic links between people across the open border. Communities like Maithils, Bhojpuris, and Tharus span across both countries, with shared languages, traditions, and intermarriage.
The 1,800-kilometer open border allows millions to cross for work, family, and festivals. However, this openness sometimes fuels resentment when Nepali concerns over sovereignty or cultural identity are brushed aside under the guise of shared heritage.
Historical Ties and the 1950 Treaty
Historically, Nepal has maintained independence even during the height of British colonialism. The 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed shortly after India’s independence, laid the foundation for modern bilateral ties.
While the treaty granted open border access and equal treatment for citizens in each other’s territories, it has been criticized in Nepal for creating unequal obligations. India has often cited the treaty to justify deep involvement in Nepal’s affairs, but Nepali leaders and intellectuals have pushed for a revision to reflect sovereign equality.
India’s Relationship with Nepal’s Monarchy
India has had varying relationships with Nepal’s monarchs. It supported King Tribhuvan’s return to power in 1951 and facilitated the downfall of the Rana regime. During King Mahendra’s reign, relations remained stable, though his push for a “Zone of Peace” clashed with Indian strategic interests.
King Gyanendra’s 2005 royal takeover marked a low point. India, aligning with Western countries, supported the democratic movement and ultimately the abolition of the monarchy. While this was celebrated by many as progress, it also cemented the belief among royalists that India selectively supports political forces for its own strategic gains.
India’s Influence Over Nepali Politics
Indian involvement in Nepali politics dates back decades. During the Panchayat era and the Maoist insurgency, India hosted, mediated, or influenced key political players.
The 2006 Comprehensive Peace Accord, which ended the Maoist insurgency, was indirectly facilitated by Indian diplomacy. However, Nepal’s constitution-drafting process saw direct Indian pressure, particularly regarding provisions related to Madheshi representation. This culminated in the unofficial 2015 blockade after Nepal promulgated its new constitution, which India claimed marginalized certain communities.
The blockade was widely condemned in Nepal as coercive. Many saw it as a violation of Nepal’s sovereignty and a clear message that India expects a role in Nepal’s internal decision-making.
Border Disputes and Encroachment
Kalapani-Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura Dispute
This long-standing territorial dispute flared up in 2020 when India inaugurated a road through Lipulekh, a territory claimed by Nepal based on historical documents including the 1816 Sugauli Treaty with the British. In response, Nepal released a new political map incorporating Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura into its official territory.
India rejected Nepal’s map, calling it “unilateral.” However, Nepal’s claim is supported by historical maps and evidence that places these areas east of the Kali River—the agreed-upon boundary.
Susta and Other Border Disputes
Susta, in Nawalparasi District, is another example of Indian encroachment, reportedly involving hundreds of hectares of fertile land now under Indian control due to river shifts. Nepal has requested joint surveys and negotiations, but progress has been slow.
River Disputes and Water Sharing
Nepal and India share over 6,000 rivers and tributaries, leading to constant friction over water management and flooding.
Koshi and Gandak Embankments
Indian-built embankments on these rivers have repeatedly caused floods in Nepali territory, displacing thousands. Although bilateral treaties exist, Nepal often lacks enforcement power. Local communities in the Terai region have long demanded compensation and joint engineering projects.
Mahakali Treaty
Signed in 1996, the Mahakali Treaty was meant to ensure fair water sharing and electricity generation. However, delays in implementation and differences in interpretation have eroded Nepali trust in such agreements.
Cultural Encroachment: Bollywood, Hindi, and Media Domination
Cultural domination is a subtle but significant concern. Bollywood, Indian TV serials, and Hindi songs dominate Nepali airwaves, especially in urban and border areas. While cultural exchange is natural, many fear that Nepali language, film, and traditions are being overwhelmed by Indian content.
Hindi’s growing presence in public spaces—movies, markets, and even government offices—has sparked backlash, especially in the context of language-based identity.
The problem isn’t just influence—it’s dominance. While India protects its own languages from external dilution, it exerts little effort to appreciate or promote Nepali culture in return.
Minimizing Nepal’s Role in Hinduism and Buddhism
Despite being home to sacred sites like Pashupatinath and Lumbini, Nepal is often sidelined in regional religious narratives.
For instance:
- Lumbini, the birthplace of Buddha, is overshadowed by Bodh Gaya, where he attained enlightenment.
- Pashupatinath, one of the most sacred Shiva shrines, rarely features in Indian religious tourism promotions.
This has frustrated many Nepalis who believe India selectively promotes its religious sites while benefiting economically and diplomatically from a spiritual narrative that should also include Nepal.
Indian Supremacy in Bilateral Relations
India is Nepal’s largest trade partner and a crucial source of fuel, medicines, and remittances. However, this dependence has been weaponized during disputes, notably during the 1989 and 2015 blockades.
Trade routes, energy supplies, and border logistics are areas where India has exercised control, leading to accusations of “coercive diplomacy.”
Nepali efforts to diversify partnerships—such as increased engagement with China—are often met with suspicion from New Delhi, further complicating Nepal’s foreign policy.
Modern-Day Diplomacy and Strategic Shifts
Relations have seen both friction and cooperation in recent years. Prime Ministerial visits, cross-border rail projects, and energy trade have occurred alongside contentious issues like the border map and the 2015 blockade.
India’s “Neighbourhood First” policy has tried to mend ties, but skepticism remains strong in Nepal. At the same time, China’s growing presence, seen in infrastructure development and investment, is altering the traditional strategic balance.
Nepal is increasingly asserting a balanced foreign policy approach, seeking engagement based on sovereignty and mutual respect—not dependency.
People-to-People Perspective
While politicians and policymakers debate, citizens in both countries maintain strong ties. Thousands of Nepalis work in India, while Indian pilgrims and tourists continue to visit Nepal.
However, anti-Indian sentiment in Nepal has grown, especially among youth, who see India as overbearing and insensitive to Nepal’s sovereignty.
Social media plays a significant role in shaping these perceptions. Viral content, historical grievances, and nationalist rhetoric influence how the next generation sees the relationship.
Conclusion: A Relationship in Need of Rebalance
Nepal and India are not enemies. Their bond is too deep for outright hostility. But being friends requires equality, respect, and understanding—not dominance or interference.
Nepal seeks a relationship based on partnership, not paternalism. Recognizing Nepal’s contributions to religion, culture, and regional stability is essential. So is respecting its political choices, borders, and identity.
As Nepal matures on the global stage and diversifies its diplomatic ties, India has a choice: embrace a new model of friendship rooted in mutual respect—or risk alienating a neighbor that has long stood by its side.