Nepal: Oli's Rhetoric, India's Predicament, and the Making of a Monkey Trap

Former Nepali Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli has once again found a way to occupy the headlines with a sharp, calculated claim: he was pushed out of power for daring to challenge India by stating that Lord Ram was born in Nepal, not Ayodhya. This isn't just a random pronouncement; it's a political maneuver layered with intent. Oli uses this audacious statement to strike at the very ideological heart of the BJP's cultural plank while simultaneously positioning himself as a nationalist martyr of Indian interference. This single episode lays bare the deeper, more complex dynamics of India's relationship with Nepal—a relationship burdened by history, culture, and strategy, and one that China has learned to exploit with remarkable subtlety.

Nepal, the Perpetual Chessboard

For centuries, Nepal has not been an isolated Himalayan kingdom. Instead, it has been a strategic chessboard for larger global and regional powers. The British Raj treated it as a manpower reservoir, recruiting the Gurkhas for their imperial wars. The United States, during the Cold War, saw it as a crucial listening post to monitor China's sensitive Tibetan frontier. Today, China approaches Nepal through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), offering infrastructure deals and nurturing political ties, all while being carefully reserved about over-commitment.

India, however, is a different story. For New Delhi, Nepal is not an optional arena. An open border, shared religion, deep historical linkages, and the vital Himalayan defence architecture make Nepal a matter of existential strategic security. This explains Prime Minister Narendra Modi's potent remark during a visit to Manipur: "Nepal is not our neighbour, but our partner." For India, the relationship with Nepal is not merely a foreign policy concern; it's a civilizational continuum.

Oli's Political Gambit

Oli’s recent rhetoric is a masterful play on three fronts:

Cultural Politics: By asserting Nepal as the birthplace of Ram, he directly challenges the core cultural plank of the BJP, the Ram Mandir movement that has been a transformative force in Indian politics.

The Victimhood Narrative: He frames his ousting as a direct result of Indian pressure, painting himself as a brave nationalist who dared to stand up to an overbearing neighbor.

Strategic Signalling: His words are a coded message, subtly pushing Nepal closer to China by portraying India as a conspiratorial and meddlesome power.

This isn't about historical accuracy. It's about political positioning: weakening India's cultural legitimacy while cementing his own nationalist credentials for a domestic audience.

China's Calculated Inaction

Oli's previous stint in power saw him openly embracing Beijing. He was paraded prominently at China’s Victory Day celebrations, a clear signal of China's willingness to showcase him as a partner. Yet, when his government began to falter, Beijing's response was a deafening silence. There were no lifelines thrown, no diplomatic interventions to save him.

This was not an act of abandonment, but a deliberate strategy. China employs a "touch-and-withdraw" policy in Nepal. It invests selectively, offers support when it's convenient, but never overcommits itself. By doing so, Beijing ensures that Kathmandu remains primarily India's problem—a costly and emotional entanglement—while China quietly accrues influence at minimal cost.

The Monkey Trap

This dynamic is a perfect reflection of the classic monkey trap. A monkey reaches into a jar to grab a handful of fruit, but with its clenched fist, it cannot pull its hand out. To escape, it must release the fruit, but pride and greed prevent it from letting go.

India's Grip: Cultural ties, Ram Mandir politics, security anxieties, and a sense of historical obligation bind India to Nepal. For New Delhi, letting go is an unimaginable prospect.

China's Bait: Beijing dangles economic projects and strategic gestures but deftly avoids being caught in the trap itself.

The Trap: India's deep, emotional involvement yields minimal strategic returns. Instead, it often breeds resentment among Nepali elites and the public. Meanwhile, China steadily expands its influence by ensuring India remains overcommitted and exhausted.

For India, Nepal has become a profitless entanglement. Oli's cultural provocation, China's tactical silence, and India's own civilizational embrace create a scenario where New Delhi remains ensnared. India cannot release its grip on Nepal without risking its own security and cultural narrative, yet gripping tighter only deepens the resentment and drains resources. The challenge for India is to transform this burden into a balance—to reduce its over-emotional engagement, recalibrate its strategy with economic pragmatism, and multilateralize its development partnerships with Nepal. Otherwise, Nepal will remain less a partner and more a trap, carefully set in the shadow of the Himalayas.