Kathmandu, October 13
Nepal’s proposed ambassadors to India, China, the United States and the United Kingdom spent more than eight hours answering lawmakers’ questions on Monday, with a central concern running through all four hearings: how will they protect Nepal’s national interests while dealing with powerful countries?
The nominees presented their diplomatic priorities and work plans before the Parliamentary Hearing Committee, which began its meeting at 9:45am and concluded at 6:15pm.
Given the distinct geopolitical interests of the four countries and their strategic, economic and diplomatic relationships with Nepal, the hearings went beyond the nominees’ professional qualifications. Lawmakers sought to assess their ability to navigate competing interests, safeguard Nepal’s sovereignty and maintain balanced bilateral relations.
Questions ranged from the long-standing border disputes with India and Nepal’s approach to Chinese-funded infrastructure projects to potential American pressure over security cooperation and the unresolved issue of equal pensions and benefits for British Gurkha veterans.
Each nominee faced a version of the same question: how will you ensure that Nepal’s national interests take precedence over the interests of the country to which you are appointed?
India: How will Nepal pursue its territorial claims?
Nischal Nath Pandey, Nepal’s proposed ambassador to India, was the first to face questions about protecting national interests.
Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker Punam Kumari Agrawal asked how he would respond if a proposal contrary to Nepal’s interests emerged in India. She referred to the disputed territories of Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura, as well as concerns about Rohingya refugees entering Nepal.
Committee chair Bodh Narayan Shrestha also raised concerns about reports involving the use of Nepal’s national flag and asked how Pandey would ensure that issues concerning Nepal’s national identity received appropriate attention.
Pandey responded by stressing Nepal’s record of maintaining its independence and sovereignty.
“Even when the entire South Asian region was under British colonial rule, Nepal remained independent and sovereign,” he said. “This shows that our diplomatic capacity has not been weak or unsuccessful.”
He acknowledged Nepal’s economic underdevelopment and political instability but argued that the country had continued to perform well diplomatically.
On issues concerning national identity, Pandey said Nepal needed to remain particularly careful and sensitive.
“If I am entrusted with the responsibility of ambassador of Nepal to the Republic of India, I commit to working with complete honesty, integrity and responsibility,” he said.
Border disputes, the EPG report and SAARC
The territorial dispute involving Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura featured prominently during Pandey’s hearing.
CPN-UML parliamentary deputy leader Padma Aryal asked what concrete diplomatic initiatives he would pursue to resolve the dispute, emphasising that the territories belonged to Nepal.
She urged him to deliver tangible results rather than follow the approach of previous ambassadors.
Nepali Congress lawmaker Anand Prasad Dhungana also raised Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s controversial remarks about the Nepal-India border.
Addressing the House of Representatives on May 31, 2026, Shah said the border issue should be resolved through diplomatic dialogue. He also said that, after becoming prime minister, he had learned that Nepal had encroached on Indian territory as well.
Dhungana linked the remarks to a subsequent incident in Susta, where Indian authorities reportedly stopped the construction of an embankment by the Nepali side.
“We have grown up raising slogans demanding that our Susta be returned, but it has still not been returned,” Dhungana said.
Lawmakers also asked about the inactive South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report, and the need to review the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship.
UML lawmaker Prem Prasad Dangal asked how Pandey would help revive SAARC and secure the acceptance of the EPG report, which has remained unimplemented despite being prepared by a bilateral group formed in 2016.
Pandey did not make a specific commitment on when these issues would be resolved.
He said the EPG had been established by mutual agreement between the two countries and that discussions on reviewing bilateral treaties and relations had taken place previously.
“I will have a clearer understanding of the situation after assuming office. Once I understand it, I will be in a position to make representations,” he said.
Pandey argued that the ambassador’s role was not to make decisions independently on every bilateral issue but to create an environment conducive to dialogue and encourage relevant mechanisms to function effectively.
Nepal and India have more than 40 bilateral mechanisms dealing with issues such as borders, trade, security, floods and other shared concerns. However, meetings of these mechanisms have not always taken place regularly.
Pandey said he would work to make the mechanisms more active by establishing meeting schedules, monitoring the implementation of decisions and setting dates for subsequent meetings before concluding each round of discussions.
He also referred to previous diplomatic efforts to review the 1950 treaty and other bilateral issues, including discussions during visits by Indian and Nepali prime ministers over several decades.
However, he offered few concrete commitments on the broader questions raised during the hearing.
China: What is Nepal’s policy on BRI projects?
Kalyan Raj Sharma, Nepal’s proposed ambassador to China, faced questions about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Chinese investment and Nepal’s ability to secure economic benefits without compromising its interests.
RSP lawmaker Rajiv Khatri asked about the operation of Pokhara and Bhairahawa international airports, both built with Chinese assistance.
Another RSP lawmaker, Madhukumar Chaulagain, asked how Sharma would ensure that future BRI projects served Nepal’s national interests, generated economic returns and remained financially sustainable.
The debate over BRI in Nepal has centred partly on whether projects should be financed through grants or loans.
Sharma said Nepal needed to establish a clear policy and financing framework before proceeding with additional projects.
“First, we need to determine a clear policy and modality for what we want to do under the BRI and which model we will adopt,” he said. “We should pursue grants for mega projects. I cannot decide this alone. The government must establish it as policy.”
He said his priorities would include maintaining political trust with China, ensuring the effective implementation of existing agreements and projects, attracting investment and promoting tourism.
He also highlighted the need to increase exports of Nepali products, including organic tea, pashmina and medicinal herbs, while improving connectivity and border management.
Other priorities included cooperation on Himalayan climate resilience, vocational training, technology transfer, stronger consular services and promoting Nepal’s image through public diplomacy.
Addressing vulnerable Nepali women in China
UML lawmaker Aryal also raised concerns about Nepali women who travel to China after marriage and subsequently find themselves stranded or vulnerable.
She asked what Sharma would do to address cases involving marriages allegedly arranged to take Nepali women to China, after which they are left in difficult circumstances.
Sharma said he would work towards establishing a joint mechanism between Nepal and China to distinguish genuine marriages from fraudulent arrangements and prevent abuse.
“Discussions are under way about creating a mechanism involving both countries to distinguish fake marriages from genuine ones and stop wrongdoing. I will work to bring this to fruition,” he said.
Sharma is a Nepal-China relations specialist, scholar of Chinese studies and economist. His background in China-related affairs featured prominently in the questions about how he would manage the bilateral relationship.
United States: How will Nepal respond to strategic pressure?
Chiran Jung Thapa, Nepal’s proposed ambassador to the United States, faced questions about American strategic interests, military cooperation and the implications of the Indo-Pacific Strategy.
Lawmakers focused on the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact, the State Partnership Program (SPP) and the broader Indo-Pacific framework, which encompasses US strategic interests across the Indian and Pacific oceans.
Nepal’s approval of the MCC compact had triggered substantial political debate, while the proposed SPP arrangement was rejected by the government under then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.
Nepali Congress lawmaker Dhungana recalled that many Nepali politicians had initially understood the MCC as an economic assistance programme but became concerned when the SPP proposal subsequently emerged.
He asked how Thapa would respond if Washington again exerted pressure on Nepal to join the SPP.
Nepali Communist Party lawmaker Barshaman Pun said geopolitical competition was intensifying in Nepal and asked how the proposed ambassador would manage American military interests while protecting Nepal’s national interests.
Chaulagain also asked how Thapa would respond to potential pressure concerning the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the SPP, which Nepal has declined to pursue.
Thapa said his priorities would be protecting Nepal’s national interests and strengthening the country’s diplomatic capacity.
“Working within the directions and guidelines of the Nepal government, I will actively seek to make American assistance more effective in areas such as peacekeeping and disaster management,” he said.
“Nothing is more important than Nepal’s national interest.”
Thapa has around two decades of experience in security policy, crisis management and diplomacy. His background in national security and international affairs was also relevant to questions about how he would navigate Washington’s strategic priorities without compromising Nepal’s foreign policy positions.
United Kingdom: When will the Gurkha pension issue be resolved?
Gaurav Shamsher Rana, Nepal’s proposed ambassador to the United Kingdom and a former chief of the Nepal Army, faced questions about the long-running dispute over the rights and benefits of British Gurkha veterans.
UML lawmaker Dangal noted the longstanding diplomatic relationship between Nepal and the UK and asked when the Gurkha issue would finally be resolved.
Other lawmakers also raised the issue, which has remained a major concern for retired Gurkha soldiers and their representatives for decades.
Rana promised to prioritise the issue if appointed.
“If I am given the responsibility of ambassador, the issues concerning equal pensions and benefits for Gurkha soldiers will be addressed during my tenure,” he said.
The central grievance among British Gurkha veterans concerns disparities in pensions, salaries, compensation and other benefits compared with their British counterparts.
Gurkhas who retired before 1997 have historically received substantially lower pensions than British service personnel. Gurkhas who entered or transferred into UK service after 1997 were included in the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, while many who served before that period remained outside it.
Nepalese veterans and their advocates argue that these disparities amount to historical discrimination, despite Gurkha soldiers having served in the British Army for extended periods.
They have also invoked the 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, Britain and India in their campaign for equal treatment.
Rana identified addressing the concerns of British Gurkha soldiers as one of his five principal priorities for the ambassadorship.
Beyond the Gurkha issue, he said he would seek to modernise Nepal-UK relations, established in 1816, through cooperation in renewable energy, education and climate change.
His appointment would bring a former army chief and experienced military strategist into a diplomatic role where the Gurkha issue is likely to remain a central challenge.
A common challenge, four different relationships
The hearings highlighted the different challenges Nepal faces in dealing with its four major international partners.
With India, the immediate concerns include unresolved territorial disputes, border management, bilateral treaties and regional cooperation. With China, the focus is on investment, infrastructure, BRI financing and the economic sustainability of major projects.
With the United States, lawmakers are concerned about the balance between development assistance, security cooperation and strategic initiatives that could affect Nepal’s foreign policy. With the United Kingdom, the long-standing demand for equal treatment of Gurkha veterans remains a central issue.
The nominees broadly pledged to protect Nepal’s national interests and work within the government’s foreign policy framework. However, their responses varied in specificity, with some offering practical priorities while others deferred concrete commitments until they had assumed office.
The hearings therefore raised a question that extends beyond the nominees themselves: whether Nepal’s ambassadors will be able to translate official foreign policy positions into measurable diplomatic outcomes when dealing with countries that have far greater economic, military or geopolitical leverage.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the proposed ambassadors will depend not only on their individual diplomatic skills but also on the clarity of Nepal’s foreign policy, the support they receive from Kathmandu and the government’s willingness to pursue difficult issues consistently.
The post What Nepal’s proposed ambassadors told lawmakers about protecting national interests appeared first on OnlineKhabar English News.