India would do well to understand the US’ covert game in Nepal

Bhim Bhurtel

The grand strategy of New Delhi, long predicated on the assumption of a ‘strategic partnership’ with Washington to counter a rising Beijing, is facing a moment of profound reckoning. Nowhere is this more evident than in Nepal’s rugged geopolitical terrain. For decades, the corridors of South Block and the embassy gates at Lainchaur (where the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu is located) have operated under a comforting delusion: that the Indo-American strategic partnership is a monolith, a shared weapon of deterrence against Chinese ambition.

Yet a cold, clinical analysis of American manoeuvres in Kathmandu reveals a reality as startling as it is ignored. The United States (US) is not acting in the letter and spirit of its agreements with India. Instead, Washington’s footprints in the Himalayas suggest a far more Machiavellian objective. The target of American containment is not the Dragon to the north, but the Elephant to the south.

To observe the current state of Indian diplomacy is to witness a masterclass in either extreme naïveté or unparalleled strategic lethality. The narrative that India poses the primary threat to Nepal’s sovereignty is no longer a fringe sentiment; it is being systematically institutionalised with American scaffolding. While Indian strategists congratulate themselves on their alignment with a ‘fellow democracy,’ they remain blissfully unaware of the behaviour of a global hegemon.

India is unaware of the hegemon’s behaviour

History provides a brutal syllabus for those who mistake an alliance with the US for a partnership of equals. In the lexicon of Washington’s foreign policy, a ‘strategic partner’ or ‘ally’ is often a polite euphemism for a vassal state. To enter the American orbit is to forfeit the right to an independent sphere of influence. The US recognises no regional dominance other than its own. Its guiding principle remains the cold calculus of national interest. This process views the borders and traditional spheres of its allies as mere logistical hurdles to be cleared or dismantled.

NATIONAL PRIDE Nepalese celebrate return of a stolen 13th century Buddha from New York

The late Henry Kissinger, a man who understood the dark heart of realpolitik better than most, famously quipped that while ‘being an enemy of the United States is dangerous, being its friend is fatal.’ India is currently testing the veracity of this maxim. Today, American influence is metastasising in Nepal, a territory that was historically, culturally, and economically an undisputed area of Indian influence. Many of the activities undertaken by the US to expand this footprint are directly or indirectly subversive to Indian interests. Yet, New Delhi persists in viewing Washington through the rose-tinted lens of ‘strategic partnership,’ turning a blind eye to a campaign that uses the ‘China threat’ as a Trojan horse to hollow out Indian authority. This is not just a lapse in judgment; it is a definitive example of diplomatic immaturity.

Creating a narrative that India is Nepal’s security challenge

The most sophisticated tool in the American arsenal is not the missile, but the narrative. Washington is engaged in a concerted effort to frame India as Nepal’s primary security challenge. This is not accidental friction; it is a deliberate, multi-layered psychological operation designed to shift the Himalayan state’s defensive posture toward its southern neighbour. Here are a few examples:

US Embassy’s post after Balendra Shah became Prime Minister: The subtleties of diplomatic language are often lost on the distracted, but never on the architect. When Balendra Shah assumed the premiership of Nepal, the US Embassy’s official congratulatory post on X carried a pointed payload—'Congratulations to Prime Minister of Nepal Balendra Shah and the new government. The United States looks forward to working with Nepal to advance mutual prosperity and regional stability.’ 

By looking forward to working with Nepal to advance ‘regional stability,’ Washington signalled a profound verdict: that the region is currently unstable. One must ask: Who is the perceived architect of this instability? In the context of Nepal’s immediate environment, the finger points squarely at India. This was a coded indictment of New Delhi’s historical role, yet the Indian leadership failed to grasp the depth of this semantic assault.

US message after Nepal’s general election: The pattern repeated after the March 5 general elections. In the post on X, the US Embassy wrote—'Congratulations to the people of Nepal on holding elections. We look forward to working with the incoming government on shared goals of prosperity and security for both our countries.’

The US Embassy’s mention of ‘shared goals of prosperity and security’ contains a structural trap. Against whom does Nepal—a landlocked nation sandwiched between two nuclear powers, China and India—require security? The border with China is largely settled and geographically fortified by the highest peaks on earth. Conversely, the border with India remains a flashpoint of contention over Susta, Maheshpur, Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura. When the US speaks of ‘security cooperation’ with Nepal, it validates Nepal’s anxieties about Indian ‘encroachment.’ It takes no great leap of logic to see where the threat is being localised.

India as a bad boy, America as a good boy: In 2022, the 75th anniversary of US-Nepal relations was leveraged as a massive propaganda exercise in Kathmandu. The campaign masterfully juxtaposed India as the ‘bad boy’—the overbearing, interfering neighbour—against the US as the ‘good boy’—the benevolent, distant protector of Nepal’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. This was reinforced by the strategic declassification of documents from the Gerald Ford era, detailing conversations with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping regarding the possibility of India annexing Nepal following the annexation of Sikkim. By reviving these historical fears, the US effectively told the Nepali public: 

Your existence as a sovereign state is only guaranteed because we are watching India.

The narrative that the US is containing China using Nepal: This narrative has proven so effective that it has shifted from the fringes of media discourse to the core of Nepal’s foreign policy establishment. The ‘debt of gratitude’ argument—that the US is the only force standing between Kathmandu and Indian annexation—is now openly echoed, including by a foreign policy advisor to a former Prime Minister of Nepal. At the same time, another strand of this narrative suggests that Washington seeks to use Nepal as a strategic tool to contain China.

Yet this framing is deeply misleading. While these alarm bells ring ever more loudly, Indian leadership appears to be deliberately ignoring them, as if covering its ears to an uncomfortable but important debate.

Contradictions galore

The American justification for its heavy presence in Nepal is almost always the containment of China. However, the optics and actions on the ground tell a different story. In the reception rooms of high-ranking American officials in Nepal (several similar photos were previously shared on the US Embassy’s X account. However, the handle can no longer be accessed and appears to have been deleted), one finds a curious sight: a large Buddha statue flanked by slogans declaring ‘Buddha was born in Nepal’ in both English and Nepali.

To the uninitiated, this seems like a benign cultural nod. To the South Asian strategist, it is a targeted strike. China has never claimed Buddha was born in Beijing or Lhasa. The grievance regarding Buddha’s birthplace is a specific, visceral point of friction between Nepal and India, fuelled by Indian politicians, textbooks and media claims. By amplifying the ‘Born in Nepal’ slogan, the US is not containing China; it is actively stoking anti-Indian sentiment. When every US official makes a pilgrimage to Kapilvastu, they are not checking Chinese advancement; they are validating a Nepali nationalist identity defined in opposition to India. It is also worth noting that Rabi Lamichhane, chairman of the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party, rose to political prominence through his media career, in part by amplifying the slogan ‘Buddha was born in Nepal.’

The US intends to contain India, not China, from Nepal

India’s strategic planners have fallen into a classic trap: mistaking a distraction for the main event. By entering into foundational agreements with the US to build a ‘strategic deterrent’ against China, India has invited a fox into the Himalayan enfold. The US is not containing China in Nepal; it is containing India from Nepal.

The people of Lainchaur and South Block are presiding over a massive intelligence failure. Either the embassy is failing to report the ground reality, or the ministry of external affairs (MEA) is so intoxicated by the ‘Major Defence Partner’ status that it has lost the ability to see a threat coming from its own ally. Nepal is becoming a ‘difficult situation’ for India precisely because Washington is fuelling the fire.

US behind the Chuchche map episode of 2020

The 2020 map controversy, where Nepal claimed the Kalapani-Lipulekh region was a watershed moment. At the time, Indian Army chief Gen. M.M. Naravane suggested Nepal was acting at the behest of ‘someone else,’ implying China. This was a catastrophic misreading. The evidence points to Washington. While Nepal didn’t formally notify missions of the map until January 2025, the US Embassy was amplifying the ‘new map’ on its social media platforms within 48 hours of its passage by the Nepali parliament. This was a clear signal of American endorsement for a move that directly challenged India.

USAID’s India-Centric investment

Follow the money, and the strategy becomes clear. Though now it was shut down from April 2025, USAID’s projects in Nepal were strategically clustered along the Indian border—specifically in Madhesh and Lumbini provinces. This is not the ‘China frontier.’ By focusing developmental and soft-power resources in the plains bordering India, the US was building a demographic and political firewall against Indian influence in the very regions where India has historically been most connected through culture, religion and matrimonial relationships. The goal is to cultivate a generation of border-dwellers whose loyalties and aspirations are decoupled from New Delhi and more toward the West.

Balen Shah and Dean Thomson’s meeting message

The meeting between the US ambassador to Kathmandu Dean Thomson and Kathmandu metropolis mayor Balen Shah (now Prime Minister) on 1 February 2024 was a masterclass in symbolic subversion. In the background of their publicised meeting sat a map of ‘Greater Nepal,’ which includes vast swaths of current Indian territory that Nepal lost after the 1814-1860 Anglo-Nepal war and after the Treaty of Sugauli. By allowing this image to circulate, the US provided tacit legitimacy to irredentist claims against the Indian state. The message to the Nepali public was clear: America supports your most radical aspirations of lost territory against India.

Comparing Nepal’s security sensitivity to China and India

A basic geographic audit reveals the absurdity of the ‘China containment’ excuse. Nepal’s border with China is a great wall of ice and rock of the Himalaya, with a handful of tightly controlled passes. China can secure its frontier with a few battalions, artillery, tanks, and a closed gate.

India, however, shares a 1,800-kilometre open border with Nepal. The cultural, linguistic, and familial ties are so deep that the border is effectively porous. This is a massive security vulnerability for India. If the US establishes a permanent intelligence or military presence in Nepal, they aren’t looking through binoculars at Tibet; they are looking down into the heart of the Indo-Gangetic plain of India. The ‘security sensitivity’ here is overwhelmingly Indian, not the Chinese.

The Indian Army narrative

The recent political instability in Nepal, involving coup threats and a constitutional crisis on 8-9 September 2025, led to the sudden emergence of a narrative that ‘India will intervene militarily.’ Sponsored videos and social media campaigns spread fear that the Indian Army was coming to occupy the country. Right after the September 8-9 coup in Nepal, the statement by current home minister Sudan Gurung, one of the agitators, warning the press that India would seize Nepal if the constitution were dissolved, has also gone viral. This psychological warfare was designed to ensure that any Indian attempt to stabilise its own backyard would be met with violent popular resistance. The fingerprints on this ‘instability-blame-India’ strategy are distinctly Western.

The most tragic irony is that this erosion of Indian influence has accelerated during the Modi era. Historically, India maintained a firm grip on Kathmandu’s intelligence landscape. Yet, reports suggest that senior Indian intelligence assets have used the US embassy as a conduit to defect to the West, as the former deputy inspector general of Nepal police and head of the crime investigation bureau (CIB) wrote three years back. Under the guise of a ‘strategic partnership,’ it appears India has outsourced its intelligence dependencies to Washington, or worse, has become so trusting of its ‘ally’ that it has stopped looking for the knives being sharpened behind its back.

SPP agreement

The State Partnership Programme (SPP) is the ultimate Trojan horse. While framed as a disaster management and security cooperation tool to monitor China, its true utility lies in its proximity to India. As a former Major General of the Nepal Army, Binoj Basnyat has noted, the agreement is already functionally ratified. Because of Nepal’s unique geography, any American security footprint in the country is inherently a check on India. The Himalayas protect China; India is exposed to the plains. The SPP provides the US with a permanent lever to manipulate Indian security policy from a position of geographic advantage.

The ‘Contain China’ narrative falls apart when one looks at a map of the ‘Hu Line.’ China’s economic and demographic heartland is more than 1,000 kilometres from the eastern Nepali border. The vast, empty plateau of Tibet acts as a massive strategic buffer. The US could do its worst in Nepal, and it would barely be a pinprick to Beijing.

But for India, the situation is the opposite. Draw a line south from Nepal’s Western border, and you find 60 per cent of India’s economic activity and population. A crisis in Nepal is a crisis in Delhi, Patna, and Kolkata. It is a hundred times easier for the US to destabilise India from Nepal than it is even to annoy China.

America is not a strategic ally 

What India fails to understand is that America is not a strategic ally or partner, but a rival. The conclusion is inescapable: New Delhi is being outplayed in its own backyard. India has spent a decade courting Washington as a partner to ward off a Chinese advancement, only to find that it has invited a different hegemon to dismantle its regional primacy.

The planners in South Block are currently suffering from a form of strategic vertigo. They see the American flag and think ‘ally’; they see the American activities and see ‘cooperation.’ They fail to see that the US is an imperial power that views India’s ‘strategic autonomy’ as a problem to be solved. By ignoring the blatant anti-Indian trajectory of American policy in Nepal, India is demonstrating a level of diplomatic immaturity that will carry a heavy, perhaps terminal, price. The ‘Lainchaur and South Blocks’ babus’ are not just ignoring the signals; they are effectively subsidising their own containment. If India does not wake up to the reality that its ‘partner’ is its most effective rival in the Himalayas, it will soon find itself a stranger in its own neighbourhood.

(The writer is a professor of global political economy and a columnist at Hong Kong-based Asia Times)