Dr. Pramod Jaiswal
Nepal’s political landscape has once again entered an intriguing phase. The early days of Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s leadership are being closely watched, not just for policy direction, but for signals, tone, and style. And increasingly, it is his silence on the diplomatic front that is drawing attention.
Recent developments have amplified this curiosity
During his visit to Nepal, S. Paul Kapur, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, held meetings with key figures including Shishir Khanal, the Foreign Minister, Dr. Swarnim Wagle, Finance Minister, and Rabi Lamichhane, Chairman of the ruling party – Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). However, he did not meet the Prime Minister Balendra. Shah (Balen). Similarly, the visit of Sergio Gor, US President Donald J Trump’s Special Envoy for South and Central Asia, to Kathmandu has not yielded any confirmed engagement with Balen either.
These are not routine omissions. In diplomacy, meetings, courtesy calls, especially at the highest levels, carry symbolic weight. Absence, therefore, is rarely neutral.
Adding to the evolving pattern, PM Balen, upon assuming office, chose not to meet ambassadors of different countries individually. Instead, he offered a collective audience. While this may have been intended as an egalitarian or time-efficient gesture, it has left diplomats and observers questioning what kind of diplomatic culture and gesture the new government seeks to establish.
Curiosity: A New Diplomatic Style?
At one level, this approach has generated curiosity. Is Nepal witnessing the emergence of a new diplomatic doctrine, one that prioritizes institutional channels over personalized engagement?
There are indications that Balen may be deliberately redefining roles. Speculation suggests that he may prefer ministers, particularly those heading key portfolios, to take the lead in engaging foreign dignitaries. In this framework, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) would be empowered to function more robustly, while the Prime Minister maintains strategic oversight without direct involvement in routine diplomacy.
Such an approach, if intentional, could reflect a governance model focused on efficiency, delegation, and results. Balen’s political brand has been built on delivery, speed, and breaking from tradition. His early reliance on six ordinances to fast-track reforms, despite commanding a near two-thirds majority in Parliament, reinforces the impression that he values urgency over procedural orthodoxy.
Confusion: Mixed Signals to the International Community
However, curiosity has quickly turned into confusion. Nepal’s diplomatic ecosystem is deeply rooted in protocol and access. High-level visits are carefully choreographed, and meetings with the Prime Minister are often seen as essential, not merely for optics but for substantive engagement. When such meetings do not occur, it raises questions: Is Nepal signaling a shift in priorities? Or is it simply an issue of scheduling and transition?
For major partners like the United States, such ambiguity can complicate interpretation. Diplomatic engagement thrives on clarity. When patterns deviate without explanation, they create space for speculation, leaving observers to form their own interpretations.
The situation also raises questions about internal coordination. If senior foreign representatives are engaging with ministers but not the Prime Minister, does this indicate a deliberate hierarchy of engagement, or an evolving system still finding its footing?
Concerns: Strategic Implications for Nepal
Beyond curiosity and confusion lies a more serious layer – concern. Nepal’s geopolitical position demands a careful balancing act. Sandwiched between India and China, and increasingly engaging with the United States and other global actors, Nepal’s foreign policy must remain sensitive, calibrated, and responsive.
Diplomacy, in such a context, is not just about policy, it is about perception. Symbolism matters. Access matters. Even small deviations can be interpreted as signals of alignment, disengagement, or indifference.
The upcoming visit of Vikram Misri, India’s Foreign Secretary, for instance, is already being viewed through this lens. Will he receive a traditional high-level audience? Or will the current pattern continue? The answer will shape not just bilateral optics but broader regional perceptions.
There is also concern among development partners and donors. Nepal’s economy remains intertwined with external assistance, trade, and investment. A perceived distancing at the highest political level, intentional or otherwise, could create unease about continuity and reliability.
Possible Explanations: Strategy or Transition?
There are several plausible explanations for Balen’s current approach. One interpretation is that he is deliberately insulating himself from political and diplomatic noise to focus on domestic governance. His electoral mandate was rooted in promises of efficiency, anti-corruption, and rapid development. Delivering on these fronts within the first 100 days may be his overriding priority.
Another possibility is political balancing within his own ecosystem. By allowing figures like Rabi Lamichhane, Party Chair, to take on more visible diplomatic roles, Balen may be managing internal dynamics and preventing concentration of influence.
A third explanation is institutional strengthening. By empowering MOFA and line ministries, Balen could be attempting to shift Nepal’s diplomacy from personality-driven to system-driven engagement, a potentially long-term reform.
The Risk of Silence
Yet, even if these interpretations hold merit, the risks of prolonged silence remain significant. Diplomacy does not operate in a vacuum. In the absence of clear communication, narratives are constructed by others. Silence can be misread as disengagement; delegation can be mistaken for disinterest.
For a country like Nepal, where external relations are closely watched and often scrutinized, clarity is essential. A simple articulation of approach, whether through policy statements, press briefings, or strategic engagements, could go a long way in addressing current uncertainties.
Balancing Governance and Diplomacy
Prime Minister Balen Shah’s early tenure reflects a leader focused on disruption, challenging norms, accelerating processes, and prioritizing delivery. This has resonated domestically, where expectations for change are high.
However, governance and diplomacy are not mutually exclusive. Nepal’s internal transformation must be complemented by external reassurance.
The challenge ahead is not merely about whether Balen meets foreign dignitaries, it is about how Nepal communicates its intent, maintains balance, and sustains trust in a complex geopolitical environment. Because in diplomacy, as much as in politics, what is not said can sometimes matter just as much as what is.
Dr. Pramod Jaiswal is Research Director at Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement. He has been writing on Foreign Affairs since last two decades.
