Kathmandu. Finance Minister and Vice-Chairman of the ruling party Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Dr. Swarnim Wagle's statement in New Delhi that 'the era of nationalism linked to anti-India sentiment has ended' has landed in controversy.
Minister Wagle's statement has sparked debate in political and diplomatic circles and raised questions about what nationalism is based on.
Speaking at the 'NDTV World Summit 2026' program in Delhi on Friday, Minister Wagle stated that while Nepali nationalism was once linked to anti-India sentiment, that era has now ended.
'The relationship between India and Nepal is very deep. Sometimes problems also arise. We are strongly connected to each other,' said Dr. Wagle. 'Nepal does not have a relationship with any other country in the world like it does with India. At one time, nationalism was linked to anti-India sentiment, but that era has now ended.'
It is this statement by Minister Wagle that has become controversial. Experts in diplomacy and foreign affairs have commented that Wagle's statement is against national interest and amounts to being a broker for the Indian regime.
WhatsApp Image 2026-10-23 at 124203
Former Foreign Minister and leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) Narayan Kaji Shrestha said that Minister Wagle's statement was not even worth commenting on.
'He (Dr. Swarnim Wagle) is someone who supports the Monroe Doctrine in its formal setting. How can someone who does anything for themselves say such a thing about nationality and nationalism?' Shrestha questioned, 'When did Nepal ever oppose India?'
He clarified that Nepal's policy has always been to maintain friendly relations with India, and according to that policy, only exploitation, oppression, and expansionist and interventionist policies are opposed.
'However, Wagle, who is also the Finance Minister, spoke in a way that implies that Nepal should not adopt policies in favor of national independence and equality, but should instead curry favor and act as a broker for India. He said that we should not even raise our voice for our independence and self-respect,' Shrestha said.
narayankaji-shrestha1_Ukf1Fst8Lx.jpg
He added that Wagle's statement could not even be called immature. 'Rather, it is not difficult to understand that statement as a deliberate expression of subservience and brokerage to the Indian regime,' he said.
Dr. Dinesh Bhattarai, an expert in foreign affairs, said that it is wrong to call Nepalis realistic, pragmatic, and speaking in favor of Nepal as anti-India.
Bhattarai, a former ambassador to the United States, said that saying Nepal's nationalism was built on an anti-India foundation and that era has now ended creates a situation where the basis of nationalism must be identified.
Dr._Dinesh_Bhattarai_MVoaLAhxFI.jpg
'What we understand as nationalism is the country's independence, sovereignty, and its people,' said Dr. Bhattarai. 'Some parties may have created an anti-India Nepali nationalism, and they did, but not everyone did.'
According to Dr. Bhattarai, if Wagle generalized nationalism in that way, as reported in the media, it cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances. He told Ratopati, 'Speaking realistically based on ground realities, being pragmatic, and speaking for Nepal cannot be called anti-India at all.'
He argued that if Nepal has some issues with China and someone talks about it, it doesn't mean they are anti-China. He stated that since relations with neighbors are of utmost importance and priority, it is necessary to express oneself judiciously on such matters.
Dr. Rajan Bhattarai, a foreign affairs expert and secretary of the CPN (UML), interprets Finance Minister Wagle's statement as 'part of a series of attempts to label voices raised in favor of Nepal's national interest as anti-India.'
rajan-bhattari_jUGvAagPI2.jpg
According to Dr. Bhattarai, Finance Minister Wagle's statement is very serious and needs to be analyzed from several angles.
'Indians have long accused Nepal of being anti-India when Nepal speaks on matters of its national interest,' Dr. Bhattarai told Ratopati. 'But today, the Finance Minister of the government itself, speaking in Delhi, makes the matter extremely serious.'
Dr. Bhattarai said that with this statement, questions have arisen whether Finance Minister Wagle will speak on issues related to national interest in the future and whether he will be considered anti-India when he does.
According to him, it is even more dangerous for a responsible official to speak about their own country in a foreign forum. 'If he suspects someone is anti-India, he should discuss it within his own country,' said Dr. Bhattarai, citing the example of former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. 'Manmohan Singh, while returning from a Moscow visit, criticized the BJP on the plane, but the BJP created a ruckus in the Indian parliament in protest.'
He recalled that Manmohan Singh later had to provide a clarification for the incident. During that time, Singh clarified that he had already entered Indian airspace when he made the statement.
According to Dr. Bhattarai, in diplomacy, it is unacceptable under any circumstances for a responsible official to speak about their own country in another country.
'The question is whether the current minister used the venue to speak about his country in a foreign land knowingly or unknowingly,' said Dr. Bhattarai. 'Even if he wanted to please, a responsible person would not make such a statement at that level and expose themselves.'
Dr. Bhattarai argued that even if Minister Wagle considers what he said to be trivial, it is extremely serious in matters of nationality.
'The subject, time, and place are also not appropriate for saying such things,' said Bhattarai.
Dr. Bhattarai clarified that looking at Wagle's past statements, his thinking is flawed. He said, 'He is a proponent of the Monroe Doctrine, which Latin American countries themselves rejected a hundred years ago.'
Former Foreign Minister Kamal Thapa commented that Dr. Wagle's statement in Delhi regarding Nepal-India relations is not only objectionable but also a direct devaluation of Nepali nationalism and irresponsible.
kamal-thapa_QetjsnhhA6.jpg
'Nepali nationalism has never been based on opposition to any particular country. His argument that the era of anti-India nationalism has ended by going to a foreign forum and weakening issues of national concern is completely irresponsible,' Thapa said.
Thapa interpreted Minister Wagle's view of seeing the national sentiment of the entire country as narrow based on the exceptional views of a small group as a product of Wagle's prejudiced perspective.
'Nepal's nationality is centered on protecting the country's sovereignty and the interests of the Nepali people,' Thapa said. 'We want a relationship of equality and respect with India; but speaking out against atrocities like border encroachment, flooding, or blockades is not anti-India, but an inseparable loyalty to the nation.'
Thapa questioned whether this statement by Wagle is a result of the self-destructive 'Monroe Doctrine' he advocated in the past, and said that a responsible person must answer this.
According to diplomatic experts, Wagle himself will have to answer some questions raised recently regarding nationalism.
According to Dr. Rajan Bhattarai, Wagle will have to answer these questions:
1. When India constructs structures on Nepal's southern border, causing Nepali territory to be submerged because floodwaters cannot flow south easily, is this considered opposing India or not?
2. Should our agricultural products like cardamom, tea, and jute be allowed to be exported to the Indian market without obstruction according to bilateral agreements? Is speaking in favor of Nepal's national interest or opposing India?
3. According to the electricity trade agreement between Nepal and India, should India be compelled to purchase electricity produced in Nepal without hindrance? Is it not permissible to say that India's insistence on purchasing electricity only from producers chosen by them is not in accordance with the agreement?
4. Some past treaties and agreements with Nepal are unequal, and some are no longer relevant. Is updating them on the basis of mutual equality in accordance with the current times speaking in favor of Nepal's national interest, or something else?
5. What is the meaning of saying that according to the Treaty of Sugauli of 1816, Nepal's territory belongs to Nepal? Is claiming one's historical territory considered anti-India?
6. In accordance with the international order, international law, values, norms, and practices established after World War II, should relations between two independent and sovereign countries be advanced, and should Nepal have the right to make decisions on its national affairs? Is this considered opposing anyone?
It should be noted here that Nepal's foreign policy has been guided by principles such as Panchsheel, non-alignment, mutual respect, and peaceful coexistence. Even ordinary citizens understand that the fundamental spirit of Nepal's foreign relations is not to portray any country as an enemy but to expand relations based on mutual respect, cooperation, and friendship.
Therefore, experts are unanimous that when making statements in international forums, Nepal's official foreign policy, national interest, the principle of sovereign equality, and diplomatic decorum must be taken seriously.
According to them, if any statement creates a situation where Nepal's established diplomatic norms and practical realities are misrepresented, it can have serious consequences.
It appears that Minister Wagle has not taken into account that leadership in international politics is evaluated not by provocative statements but by fact-based perspectives, responsible diplomacy, and the judicious representation of national interest. Experts believe that it is wise to demonstrate maturity, balance, and diplomatic responsibility, rather than an immature and disorganized leadership style, when representing Nepal in international forums.
While Minister Wagle's statement is being strongly criticized in political and diplomatic circles, leaders of the ruling RSP have remained silent. When contacted by Ratopati, most leaders responded that they would not comment on the matter.
Ganesh Parajuli, deputy leader of the RSP parliamentary party, said that he is currently out of the country and has no information about the statement, adding that he will comment as needed upon his return to Nepal.
ganesh-parajuli_iH121pit25.webp
What is the Monroe Doctrine?
The Monroe Doctrine came before Congress on December 2, 1823, during the seventh annual message of U.S. President James Monroe (term 1817–1825). Monroe was an individual, and the doctrine named after him was associated with the principle he adopted, whose main objective was that European colonization should not occur in the Western Hemisphere around America at that time. This principle was important in U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century. However, it has now been rejected even in Latin America.
monroe-doctrine-101-header-960x540-c
At the time this doctrine was introduced, American rulers were concerned that Europeans might encroach upon America. Therefore, President Monroe presented this 'doctrine' to Congress.
