Rethink the Neighborhood First policy on the pretext of Nepal and remove the shortcomings: Sood:

News Topical, Digital Desk : The Zen-Ge revolution in Nepal has overthrown the government of KP Sharma Oli. A new government is in power. This raises many questions. When will Nepal's political instability end? What kind of political changes will be seen after the upcoming elections? How should India view the changes taking place in our neighboring country?

Answering these questions is crucial because five of India's neighboring countries in South Asia have witnessed mass movements and government changes. The changes in most of these countries have directly impacted India's interests. Rakesh Sood, who served as India's ambassador to Nepal, believes that India should not allow a political vacuum to develop in Nepal.

Furthermore, Nepal needs to be used as a pretext to revisit the Neighborhood First policy and address its shortcomings immediately. Sood, who grew up in Delhi, served as ambassador to Nepal and Afghanistan. He has also served as ambassador and permanent representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

He also served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC. He also served as First Secretary at the Pakistan High Commission. He is also knowledgeable about international security matters. Dainik Jagran's Assistant Editor, Jaiprakash Ranjan, discussed each issue with him in detail. Here are the highlights of the conversation:

What are your understandings of the post-Zenji movement scenario in Nepal?

Elections are being discussed in Nepal in six months. In such a situation, changing the system seems difficult, as the political parties will remain the same. What lies ahead? It's difficult to predict what will happen in the current situation. Will the Gen-G show a willingness to participate in the elections? Much will depend on this. If revolutionary youth express a desire to contest, then obviously, not everyone can run independently. They will have to form their own party. If this decision is made, it could have an impact. If this happens, major changes can be expected in Nepal's politics.

In such a situation, how do you see the role of the old political parties?

Look, all of Nepal's older parties, whether it's the Nepali Congress, the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist), or the Nepal Communist Party (UML), are already experiencing considerable internal turmoil. General assemblies are pending within all three parties, scheduled to be held within the next six months.

Now, who knows what will happen in this new environment? For example, in the case of the CPN-UML, its president, K.P. Sharma Oli, is the Prime Minister, but opposition to him is becoming increasingly vocal within the party. Nepal's former President, Vidya Devi Bhandari, belongs to this party and has indicated her intention to re-enter politics. Oli tried hard to stop her, but other party leaders are promoting Bhandari. Similarly, in the Nepali Congress, Sher Bahadur Deuba is trying to get his party's general assembly postponed, as several of his rivals are showing signs of strengthening their positions.

Former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda is also facing challenges within his party (the Maoist). Prachanda has been president of the party since 1989. Recently, some members of his party proposed limiting the term of the party president. Clearly, older leaders in all major political parties are facing challenges. My assessment is that the days of all these prominent leaders are over. Now we have to see who will replace them. Change seems inevitable in these parties, and the impact of this change will be visible.

Nepal has been experiencing instability for a long time. What impact has this had on the internal situation there?

You're right, instability has existed in Nepal for a long time. Ever since the first movement for political change in Nepal in 1990, the political environment has been volatile. Now, in the past 35 years, Nepal has seen 32 changes in government. When the first mass movement took place, a constitution was drafted for a multi-party political system.

But soon after, the then-king began interfering in the government's functioning. This caused significant disruptions. In 2004, the king even dismissed all governments. By 2006, 15 governments had come and gone in 16 years. In 2006, another mass movement against the king erupted. Then, in 2008, Nepal was declared a republic, abolishing the monarchy. The process for a new constitution began again.

The new constitution came into effect in 2015. Between 2008 and 2025, governments changed 15 times. Even after the current constitution was implemented in 2015, governments have changed eight times. This means that no matter the system in place, governments in Nepal have remained stable. Previously, political parties blamed the monarchy for this instability, but that hasn't been the case for the past 17 years.

In such a situation, the general public has begun to blame these political parties for the instability. Especially when only a few leaders are becoming Prime Minister repeatedly. Deuba has served as Prime Minister three times. This was Oli's third term. Prachanda has also held power three times. There has been a transfer of power between them, but there has been no stability. This has caused public anger.

Does this kind of instability in Nepal seem to have any impact on India?

We have an open border with Nepal. Therefore, if there is any instability there, we have to close our border. Because no country wants instability to enter its country from the border. The most adverse effect of border closures is on the general public. The people of both countries have to face difficulties and business is affected.

A significant amount of goods are exported from India to Nepal. People from one country travel to another for medical treatment, employment, and business. Furthermore, it's important to note that many of our states share borders. Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Bengal share significant borders with Nepal. The people living along the border in these states have a "bread and butter" relationship with Nepal.

We also share a large border with Bangladesh, but a large portion of it is already monitored and not open. Therefore, there is always a possibility that the situation in Nepal will have an impact on these states. Bihar is going to have elections soon, and Bihar has close ties with Nepal, so the first impact may be felt there. India needs to remain vigilant.

China's influence is increasing in Nepal's relations. Its influence has also increased there. Has political instability led to China becoming more active there?

Look, all of India's neighbors in South Asia are smaller than India's. In population, economy, and area. Whether it's Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, or Sri Lanka, any external interference in these neighboring countries could be detrimental to our interests. If there's a political vacuum in these countries, the likelihood of intervention from other countries will be greater.

Our interests will become more insecure. The question then is why a political vacuum is allowed to develop in these countries. We must ensure that this does not lead to a political vacuum. Regarding China, it is no longer the same China as before. Let me give you an example. Former Chinese President Jiang Zemin stated in the Pakistani Parliament in 1995-96 that Pakistan should manage its border with India in the same way China did. This is quite different from China's behavior today.

This same China told Nepal in 2005-06 that all of its trade is with the South (India). It is dependent on it. But today's China is a superpower. It will try to interfere. Now consider the other side: China also has significant trade with India. Indian markets are flooded with Chinese products. So, how can we prevent Bangladesh or Nepal from trading with China? Yes, if we allow a political vacuum to develop there, China's activity will increase.

Please explain in detail, what role can India play to avoid political vacuum?

In 2014, the Modi government implemented the "Neighborhood First" policy to advance relations with neighboring countries. Today, instability is emerging one after another in all our neighboring countries. This is not a normal phenomenon. We must reflect deeply on this policy. In 2021, a military coup took place in Myanmar against Aung San Suu Kyi, ousting her from power. In 2021, the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan.

In 2022, Sri Lanka faced a financial crisis, protests, and a government change. In 2023, when Imran Khan was jailed in Pakistan, his supporters took to the streets. The military there took strict action to control the situation. Then, in 2024, Bangladesh saw protests against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, forcing her to leave the country.

In 2025, Prime Minister Oli was forced to resign after a two-day protest in Nepal. I'm not saying that all these reasons are the same. Of course, each country has its own situation, and the protests there are driven by local and other factors. The internal situations of these countries differ from one another, but our neighborhood is ours.

All are in South Asia, where India is the largest country. Don't we keep an eye on them? We have embassies there and other systems. We know what's happening there. There are flaws in our policies, and when they happen, we are taken by surprise. This is a weakness in our policies. Addressing this weakness should be our priority. We should communicate with every section of these countries.