[Answered] Amidst a troubled transition, Nepal’s interim government faces illegitimate demands. Examine the challenges of democratic consolidation in India’s neighborhood and the role of its foreign policy.

Introduction

Nepal, faced violent protests, unconstitutional dissolution of Parliament, and institutional erosion. Such troubled transitions highlight the fragility of democratic consolidation across India’s neighborhood, demanding nuanced foreign policy engagement.

Challenges of Democratic Consolidation in Nepal

1. Weak Constitutionalism: Article 76 of Nepal’s 2015 Constitution permits dissolution only after failed prime ministerial appointments. Recent dissolution bypassed this safeguard, undermining constitutional supremacy. Repeated political crises since 2008 show institutional fragility.
2. Youth Protests and Populism: Gen Z-led protests voiced genuine grievances: corruption, governance deficits, and digital censorship (ban of 23 social media websites). Yet violence — burning of Parliament and Supreme Court — threatens democratic legitimacy.
3. Erosion of Institutions: Destruction of legal and parliamentary documents cripples governance. Judiciary and legislature, pillars of the “Naya Nepal” order post-2006 peace process, are now delegitimised by both state actions and mob fury.
4. Entrenched Political Elites: Leadership monopoly by the K.P. Oli–Deuba–Dahal troika alienates youth and marginalized groups. Lack of intra-party democracy prevents fresh leadership from emerging, fuelling distrust in democratic institutions.

Democratic Consolidation Challenges in the Neighborhood

1. Pakistan: Frequent military interference, weak civilian authority, and constitutional manipulation.
2. Sri Lanka: Economic collapse (2022) led to mass protests questioning democratic resilience.
3. Bangladesh: Allegations of authoritarian drift under a dominant-party system.
4. Myanmar: 2021 coup reversed democratic transition, leading to civil war-like conditions.

Common threads: elite capture, weak rule of law, fragile institutions, and populist mobilization — all testing democratic consolidation.

India’s Foreign Policy Role

1. Neighbourhood First Policy: India’s priority is stability in the Himalayan belt. Instability in Nepal threatens border security, trade routes, and migration flows (6 million Nepalis in India).
2. Democracy as Strategic Interest: Stable democratic regimes align with India’s security and economic integration goals (BBIN initiative, BIMSTEC connectivity). Authoritarian backsliding could open space for external actors, especially China’s BRI influence in Nepal.
3. Diplomatic Balancing: India has traditionally followed non-interference with constructive engagement, supporting Nepal during the 2006 peace process. Presently, India must engage the interim government without legitimising unconstitutional practices or violent protestor demands.
4. Leveraging Multilateral Platforms: SAARC remains inactive, but BIMSTEC and BBIN offer cooperative mechanisms. India can champion democratic resilience and disaster governance frameworks regionally, projecting itself as a responsible stakeholder.
5. Soft Power and Developmental Diplomacy: Scholarships, cultural exchanges, digital connectivity, and infrastructure projects foster people-to-people bonds. Lines of Credit, cross-border railways, hydropower projects can stabilise Nepal’s economy, reducing discontent.

Way Forward

1. Support inclusive dialogue in Nepal while affirming constitutionalism.
2. Encourage intra-party reforms through capacity-building and youth engagement.
3. Promote One-South Asia democratic resilience framework to address shared vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

Democracy without institutions risks chaos. India’s foreign policy must anchor Nepal’s democratic consolidation, balancing strategic stability with principled support for constitutional order.