Balendra Shah, a rapper-turned-politician and the prime ministerial candidate for Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), greets his supporters as he celebrates after winning the election, in Damak, Jhapa district, Nepal, March 7, 2026.
| Photo Credit: REUTERS

In the noisy, crowded landscape of Nepali politics, the meteoric rise of Prime Minister-designate Balendra Shah and his party, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), represents a rare political anomaly. While veterans of the 2008 republic traded barbs, the rapper-engineer-turned-mayor bypassed traditional campaigning for a “monastic” silence. His victory in Nepal’s post-Gen Z parliamentary election on March 5 secured a historic mandate for an alternative force he joined a mere six weeks before the polls. Throughout the campaign, Shah spoke for barely thirty minutes, avoided media interviews and notably never once asked for a vote.

His unapologetic critiques of the political establishment during his tenure as Kathmandu’s mayor, mirrored a generation exhausted by stale ideological party politics. In a nation with a median age of twenty-five, Shah’s reputation as a disciplined, clean reformist promising better governance became a viral mandate. His calculated silence mirrored these frustrations, positioning him as the ultimate outsider for an electorate eager for results.

Beyond domestic politics

While capitalising on domestic old-guard fatigue served Shah as a winning electoral strategy, Nepal’s hard geopolitical reality remains stubbornly unchanged. In Nepal, political shifts rarely remain purely domestic, often prompting debates about foreign influence given its geography wedged between the rivalries of India and China.

Yet, Shah, however has sought to counter this by projecting an image of a staunch nationalist. As mayor, his symbolism was deliberate: hanging a “Greater Nepal” map in his office as a direct retort to the “Akhand Bharat” mural in India’s new Parliament House, and briefly banning Indian films. Simultaneously, he signaled caution toward Beijing by dropping a China-backed industrial park from his election manifesto. By distancing himself from large-scale geopolitical projects, Shah reframed the narrative, asserting a sovereignty that felt local, visible, and unapologetically independent.

Balancing ties with India and China

Historically, Nepal’s politics followed rigid ideological scripts. The Nepali Congress, the country’s oldest liberal force, leaned toward Delhi, while communist factions like CPN- UML maintained proactive affinities with Beijing. And at times, the ideological rhetoric from Kathmandu stretched far beyond the Himalayas, from debates over Venezuela’s regime change to contentious political statements on the Ukraine war, issues largely peripheral to Nepal’s own priorities. Under Shah, this era of predictable ideological signaling may finally be fading. His minimalist approach and by speaking less about the world’s ideological battles, Shah’s personality itself can be potent strategic asset to Nepal, but it is immediately replaced by a different kind of geopolitical pressure that needs sustained diplomatic communique.

India remains Nepal’s most consequential partner, linked by an open border, “Roti-Beti” social bonds, and accounting for a significant share of its trade, supplying virtually all of its petroleum, and emerging as the primary market for Nepal’s burgeoning hydropower exports. Meanwhile, China has deepened its footprint through major infrastructure financing, such as $216 million Pokhara International Airport. Intended as a regional gateway, its underutilisation is viewed in Kathmandu as a casualty of the broader India-China friction, particularly New Delhi’s hesitancy to facilitate air routes for Chinese-financed infrastructure.

This is perhaps inaugural diplomatic crucible for Balendra Shah. Having invested heavily, Nepal cannot afford for such massive infrastructure to remain a “white elephant.” The “monastic” outsider must now navigate a landscape where India is indispensable and China is influential. Meanwhile, Washington, a development cornerstone for seven decades, has pivoted from an aid partner to a high-stakes strategic interest partner, with recent post-election congratulations explicitly hinting at “shared security goals.”

But the first “baptism by fire” for the Shah administration may well lie in the volatile West Asia. With millions of Nepalese migrants’ lives and critical energy lifelines tied to the Persian Gulf caught in an escalating US-Israel-Iran War, India’s logistical depth as a regional first responder offers an indispensable synergy for contingency planning to Kathmandu. This is where Balen’s nationalist doctrine must meet the hard reality of strategic pragmatism. The new leadership remains untested in conventional diplomacy.

An opportunity for India

This moment offers a rare opening for New Delhi to recalibrate. India must move past the coercive shadow of the 2015 blockade and what is widely perceived in Kathmandu as outdated impulse for political micromanagement. New Delhi must recognise this transition not as a tilt away from divergence from India preferences but as a new opening for modern partnership that respects the domestic rise of ‘Nepal First’ politics. Shah’s mandate mirrors India’s own tectonic shift in 2014; in Shah, Nepal has found its “strongman” archetype, a leader whose personal charisma and promise of technocratic reform have dismantled a decades-old establishment. Whether this energy can be institutionalised remains to be seen, but for now, the “choreography” of diplomacy must account for a significantly more complex script.

In the end, Nepal’s geopolitical reality remains unchanged even as its politics transform at home. India’s proximity will always matter most, China’s influence will remain structural reality, and world powers like the U.S. will continue to pursue its strategic interests with renewed rigor. Ultimately, Nepal’s voters were not adjudicating between global strategies, but seeking domestic renewal. For Balendra Shah and the RSP, bashing the “old guard” is a potent domestic strategy, but it carries zero currency in the cold-eyed theater of international relations.

While the streets celebrate a new era, the ‘multipolar crosshairs’ of the Himalayas remain unforgiving. Balendra Shah represents a rare, raw moment of new possibility. To ensure that this is not just a brief pause before the old guard returns, Nepal’s new leaders must trade populist fumes for ‘strategically sober’ diplomacy. Because in a crowded neighbourhood, the unstrategic nationalist can quickly become someone else’s strategy.

(Bibek Raj Kandel is an analyst and AsiaGlobal Fellow at the University of Hong Kong and a graduate of Harvard Kennedy School.)

Published – March 23, 2026 10:50 pm IST

Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw
| Photo Credit: ANI

Watch: What’s strategic autonomy and why is it important for India?

In this episode of Realpolitik, Stanly Johny explores the complexities of India’s foreign policy and its balancing act between the U.S. and Russia.

Since independence, all Indian governments have adhered to strategic autonomy in various forms—non-alignment, multi-alignment, multi-engagement, or multi-directional foreign policy.

Today, the global order is changing, and while the United States remains the world’s most powerful country the world order is no longer unipolar. China, already the world’s second-largest economy, is rising as a strong competitor to America’s global primacy. Russia is challenging Western security architecture in Europe militarily.

Script & Presentation: Stanly Johny

Videography: Thamodharan B

Production: Shikha Kumari

French President Emmanuel Macron and Chinese President Xi Jinping review the troops, on May 7, 2024 at the Tarbes airport, southwestern France.
| Photo Credit: AP

France’s President is hosting China’s Leader at a remote mountain pass in the Pyrenees on May 7 for private meetings after a high-stakes state visit in Paris dominated by trade disputes and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

French President Emmanuel Macron made a point of inviting Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Tourmalet Pass near the Spanish border, where Mr. Macron spent time as a child visiting his grandmother. It is meant to be a reciprocal gesture after Mr. Jinping took Mr. Macron last year to the residence of the governor of Guangdong province, where the Chinese president’s father once lived.

Snow coated nearby slopes after new snowfall overnight, and security was tightened around the area. The winding roads up to the pass were blocked by authorities on May 7 for dozens of kilometers (miles).

The mountain meetings come after a grandiose state visit by Mr. Jinping on May 6 that included a ceremonial welcome at the monument housing Napoleon’s tomb and a state dinner at the Elysee Palace with celebrities and magnates.

Mr. Jinping is on a trip to Europe aimed at reinvigorating relations at a time of global tensions. He heads next to Serbia and Hungary.

File picture of Nigeriens gathering in a street to protest against the U.S. military presence, in Niamey, Niger April 13, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Russian military personnel have entered an air base in Niger that is hosting U.S. troops, a senior U.S. defense told Reuters, a move that follows a decision by Niger’s junta to expel U.S. forces.

The military officers ruling the West African nation have told the U.S. to withdraw its nearly 1,000 military personnel from the country, which until a coup last year had been a key partner for Washington’s fight against insurgents who have killed thousands of people and displaced millions more.

A senior U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russian forces were not mingling with U.S. troops but were using a separate hangar at Airbase 101, which is next to Diori Hamani International Airport in Niamey, Niger’s capital.

The move by Russia’s military, which Reuters was the first to report, puts U.S. and Russian troops in close proximity at a time when the nations’ military and diplomatic rivalry is increasingly acrimonious over the conflict in Ukraine.

It also raises questions about the fate of U.S. installations in the country following a withdrawal.

“[The situation] is not great but in the short-term manageable,” the official said.

Asked about the Reuters report, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin played down any risk to American troops or the chance that Russian troops might get close to U.S. military hardware.

“The Russians are in a separate compound and don’t have access to U.S. forces or access to our equipment,” Mr. Austin told a press conference in Honolulu.

“I’m always focused on the safety and protection of our troops … But right now, I don’t see a significant issue here in terms of our force protection.”

Also Watch: What led to the military coup in Niger and how has the world reacted?

The Nigerien and Russian embassies in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. and its allies have been forced to move troops out of a number of African countries following coups that brought to power groups eager to distance themselves from Western governments. In addition to the impending departure from Niger, U.S. troops have also left Chad in recent days, while French forces have been kicked out of Mali and Burkina Faso.

At the same time, Russia is seeking to strengthen relations with African nations, pitching Moscow as a friendly country with no colonial baggage in the continent.

Mali, for example, has in recent years become one of Russia’s closest African allies, with the Wagner Group mercenary force deploying there to fight jihadist insurgents.

Russia has described relations with the United States as “below zero” because of U.S. military and financial aid for Ukraine in its effort to defend against invading Russian forces.

The U.S. official said Nigerien authorities had told President Joe Biden’s administration that about 60 Russian military personnel would be in Niger, but the official could not verify that number.

After the coup, the U.S. military moved some of its forces in Niger from Airbase 101 to Airbase 201 in the city of Agadez. It was not immediately clear what U.S. military equipment remained at Airbase 101.

The United States built Airbase 201 in central Niger at a cost of more than $100 million. Since 2018 it has been used to target Islamic State and al Qaeda affiliate Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM) fighters with armed drones.

Washington is concerned about Islamic militants in the Sahel region, who may be able to expand without the presence of U.S. forces and intelligence capabilities.

Niger’s move to ask for the removal of U.S. troops came after a meeting in Niamey in mid-March, when senior U.S. officials raised concerns including the expected arrival of Russia forces and reports of Iran seeking raw materials in the country, including uranium.

While the U.S. message to Nigerien officials was not an ultimatum, the official said, it was made clear U.S. forces could not be on a base with Russian forces.

“They did not take that well,” the official said.

A two-star U.S. general has been sent to Niger to try and arrange a professional and responsible withdrawal.

While no decisions have been taken on the future of U.S. troops in Niger, the official said the plan was for them to return to U.S. Africa Command’s home bases, located in Germany.

President of Colombia Gustavo Petro gives a speech as part of the 2024 International Workers Day in Bogota, Colombia, on May 1, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images

Colombian President Gustavo Petro on May 1 announced his government will break diplomatic relations with Israel effective May 2 in the latest escalation of tensions between the countries over the Israel-Hamas war.

Mr. Petro again described Israel’s siege of Gaza as “genocide.” He previously suspended purchases of weapons from Israel and compared that country’s actions in Gaza to those of Nazi Germany.

“Tomorrow, diplomatic relations with the State of Israel will be broken … for having a genocidal President,” Mr. Petro said during an International Workers’ Day march in Colombia’s capital. “If Palestine dies, humanity dies, and we are not going to let it die.”

Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz quickly rebuked Mr. Petro’s comments on the platform X.

“History will remember that Gustavo Petro decided to side with the most despicable monsters known to mankind who burned babies, murdered children, raped women and kidnapped innocent civilians,” he said.

Weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel that sparked the current war in Gaza and killed some 1,200 people, Mr. Petro recalled Colombia’s Ambassador to Israel as he criticized the country’s military offensive.

Historically, Colombia had been one of Israel’s closest partners in Latin America. But relations between the two nations have cooled since Mr. Petro was elected as Colombia’s first leftist President in 2022.

Colombia uses Israeli-built warplanes and machine guns to fight drug cartels and rebel groups, and both countries signed a free trade agreement in 2020.

“Relations between Israel and Colombia always were warm and no antisemitic and hate-filled President will succeed in changing that,” Mr. Katz wrote on April 30. “The state of Israel will continue to defend its citizens without worry and without fear.”

The South American country deepened its military ties with Israel in the late 1980s by purchasing Kfir fighter jets that were used by Colombia’s air force in numerous attacks on remote guerrilla camps that debilitated the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. The attacks helped push the group into peace talks that resulted in its disarmament in 2016.

Mr. Petro participated in the march on May 1 in Bogota to promote his proposed health care, pension and labor reforms.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley vetos an Egyptian-drafted resolution regarding recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem, during the United Nations Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including Palestine, at U.N. Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., December 18, 2017.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The U.S. has vetoed a resolution in the U.N. Security Council on the latest Palestinian bid to be granted full membership of the United Nations, an outcome lauded by Israel but criticised by Palestine as “unfair, immoral, and unjustified”.

The 15-nation Council voted on a draft resolution on April 18 that would have recommended to the 193-member U.N. General Assembly “that the State of Palestine be admitted to membership in the United Nations.” The resolution got 12 votes in its favour, with Switzerland and the U.K. abstaining and the U.S. casting its veto.

To be adopted, the draft resolution required at least nine Council members voting in its favour, with no vetoes by any of its five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

U.N. Security Council refers Palestinian application to become full U.N. member to committee

Palestinian attempts for recognition as a full member state began in 2011. Palestine is currently a non-member observer state, a status that was granted in November 2012 by the U.N. General Assembly.

This status allows Palestine to participate in proceedings of the world body but it cannot vote on resolutions. The only other non-member Observer State at the U.N. is the Holy See, representing the Vatican.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz praised the U.S. for vetoing what he called a “shameful proposal.” “The proposal to recognise a Palestinian state, more than 6 months after the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and after the sexual crimes and other atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists was a reward for terrorism”, Katz wrote on X, after the US veto.

U.S. Ambassador Robert Wood, Alternative Representative for Special Political Affairs, said in the explanation of the vote at the Security Council meeting on Palestinian membership that Washington continues to strongly support a two-state solution.

“It remains the U.S. view that the most expeditious path toward statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners,” he said.

“This vote does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood, but instead is an acknowledgement that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties.” Wood said there are “unresolved questions” as to whether Palestine meets the criteria to be considered a State.

“We have long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to help establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas – a terrorist organisation – is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, an integral part of the state envisioned in this resolution,” he said, adding that “For these reasons, the United States voted “no” on this Security Council resolution.” Wood noted that since the October 7 attacks last year against Israel by Hamas, US President Joe Biden has been clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed.

“There is no other path that guarantees Israel’s security and future as a democratic Jewish state. There is no other path that guarantees Palestinians can live in peace and with dignity in a state of their own. And there is no other path that leads to regional integration between Israel and all its Arab neighbours, including Saudi Arabia,” he said.

The Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, sharply criticised the US veto, saying that it was “unfair, immoral, and unjustified, and defies the will of the international community, which strongly supports the State of Palestine obtaining full membership in the United Nations.” Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine, said that “our right to self-determination has never once been subject to bargaining or negotiation.

“Our right to self-determination is a natural right, a historic right, a legal right. A right to live in our homeland Palestine as an independent state that is free and that is sovereign. Our right to self-determination is inalienable…,” he said.

Getting emotional and choking up as he made the remarks, Mansour said that a majority of the Council members “have risen to the level of this historic moment” and have stood “on the side of justice, freedom and hope.” He asserted that Palestine’s admission as a full member of the UN is an “investment in peace.” On April 2, 2024, Palestine again sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres requesting that its application for full UN membership be considered again.

For a State to be granted full U.N. membership, its application must be approved both by the Security Council and the General Assembly, where a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting is required for the State to be admitted as a full member.

Earlier in the day, Guterres, in his remarks to a Council meeting on the Middle East, warned that the region is on a “knife edge”.

“Recent escalations make it even more important to support good-faith efforts to find lasting peace between Israel and a fully independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state,” Guterres said.

“Failure to make progress towards a two-state solution will only increase volatility and risk for hundreds of millions of people across the region, who will continue to live under the constant threat of violence,” he said.

The UN, citing the Ministry of Health in Gaza, said that between October 7 last year and April 17, at least 33,899 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and 76,664 Palestinians injured. Over 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 33 children, have been killed in Israel, the vast majority on October 7.

As of April 17, Israeli authorities estimate that 133 Israelis and foreign nationals remain captive in Gaza, including fatalities whose bodies are withheld.

We are committed to supporting a two-state solution: India on Israel-Palestine conflict