New Delhi: Nepal’s Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which swept the country’s March 5 general election with a near two-thirds majority, has said it will seek to resolve its territorial disputes with India through dialogue rather than political confrontation, even as it looks to deepen economic and infrastructure ties with New Delhi.Shisir Khanal, a two-term RSP member of parliament from Kathmandu and the party’s lead negotiator who was instrumental in bringing together RSP chairman Rabi Lamichhane and incoming prime minister Balendra Shah, said the new government intended to move away from treating the border issue as a flashpoint.“Our commitment is to resolve such issues through dialogue rather than turning them into political contentious issues,” he said in an interview to The Wire on the phone from Kathmandu.This framing is a departure from the tenor of Nepal-India relations under the previous K.P. Oli government, when territorial disputes created sustained friction with New Delhi and was a political tool domestically.While soliciting investment from Beijing, the head of RSP’s international department also said that the government does not plan to enter into a framework agreement for all Belt and Road Initiative projects with China.“At this point we would prefer to examine each project on a case-by-case basis, where we would look at the financing modality, the economic viability of the project, and the returns we would receive from it,” he said.The RSP secured the strongest single-party mandate in over six decades in Nepal’s snap parliamentary election last week, emerging just two seats short of the two-thirds majority threshold needed to dominate the 275 member House of Representative.The result marks one of the most dramatic political shifts in Nepal in decades, delivering a sweeping mandate to a party that is barely four years old in an election which was held just months after youth-led revolts toppled the old political establishment.It caught even RSP leaders by surprise, with Khanal admitting that it was “beyond our expectation”.With the RSP set to govern a country sandwiched between India and China, New Delhi will be keen to engage quickly with a new administration made up of a generation of politicians it has had little dealings with.Balen Shah arrives at the prime ministership with his own complicated history with India. As Kathmandu’s independent mayor, he displayed a “Greater Nepal” map in his office in 2023 as a counter to India’s “Akhand Bharat” mural in its new parliament, and in November 2025 posted an expletive-laden Facebook message targeting India, among others, before deleting it within half an hour.When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted about his phone call to the two leaders in Nepali, Shah, who had done an MTech in civil engineering in India, replied to say that he looked forward to working together to deepen relations and make them more “outcome-oriented”.Lamichhane, in his public response, said the party looked forward to taking the partnership with India “to new heights”. He used the phrase “development diplomacy” to describe the direction RSP intends to set, a formulation Khanal elaborated on at length.Khanal, who spoke to The Wire in RSP’s first interview to the Indian media since the election, comes from outside Nepal’s traditional political world.The 47 year old spent close to a decade in the United States, studying political economy and then public policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Back in Nepal, he co-founded Teach for Nepal in 2012 before entering politics with the RSP in 2022. He served briefly as education minister in the Prachanda coalition, but the RSP pulled out after 19 days in a dispute over the home ministry portfolio.Now a two-term MP, Khanal played a central role in the alliance-building that delivered RSP its historic mandate.In the interview, Khanal offered a detailed account of what drove the mandate, how the party’s agreement with Shah was forged, and whether the relationship between the RSP chairman and PM-elect will impact the stability of the government. He also laid out the party’s foreign policy priorities, particularly with its two large neighbours.Read the full interview below, edited lightly for clarity.Are you surprised at the scale of the mandate? Many analysts say that constitutionally, Nepal was not supposed to give a single-party mandate of this nature.I have a bit of a different view on that. Even though I’ve heard this argument a lot – yes, the mandate itself is a little larger than we had anticipated. We had expected a clear and clean majority, but we now have almost a two-third…we are two votes or two MPs short of becoming a two-third in the parliament, in the lower house.In Nepal, many political observers and commentators, what they have said all along is that because of Nepal’s nature of electoral system, where 40% comes through PR [proportional representation], it would be impossible for any single party to get two-third, let alone a majority. But facts do not, in my opinion, necessarily agree with that. Nepal’s constitution came out in 2015, and first election based on this constitution was in 2017. And even then, when the Nepal Communist Party, UML and the Maoists said they would merge post-election [when they] went into the election. They were very close to a two-third then as well. But that partnership didn’t last, so they broke up. The government didn’t last a full term. The 2022 elections created a hung parliament.So, Nepal’s electoral pattern is very interesting. Since 1990, every other election in Nepal has produced a majority government. If you look at Nepal’s history and how voters swing, we expected this to be a very strong majority government, but definitely two-thirds was a bit beyond our expectation.What do you think are the reasons for this kind of mandate, which almost seems like the start of a new political era?We have to look into the context and the background. The background was that already by the last election in 2022, when RSP was only a five-month-old party and no organisation base, we had won almost close to 1.2 million votes and became the fourth largest party.That was mostly based on our party chair’s charisma and his popularity, who was a media personality. There already had been a campaign by then of “No, Not Again”, targeting older parties, older leaders. So, people were really fed up. And Nepal’s economy has not done very well since the COVID, and successive governments since then have not really been able to uplift the economy. So that has created a big field of heavy corruption of political parties and political leadership, and a very sluggish economy. There was a sense, there was a huge dissatisfaction, and that dissatisfaction stayed with common people across the board. People were looking for change.In that context, when the government shut down social media and young people came onto the streets for good governance, there was a whole campaign on TikTok about ‘Nepo Baby’. That further fuelled the dissatisfaction over how officeholders’ children were living very lavish lives, whereas most Nepalis struggled to have a decent livelihood in Nepal and had to migrate to other countries. And then the GenZ protests created this background where people were ready to revolt against older parties.On the other side, you had Balen Shah’s popularity and Rabi Lamichhane’s popularity within his own base. The RSP had extended its organisational capacity over the last three years to 75 out of 77 districts. Even when the government of K.P. Oli politically persecuted Rabi Lamichhane on a fabricated case, that only created huge sympathy for him. We had run a signature campaign between July and September, leading up to the GenZ protests. Our campaign message was, “Rabi Lamichhane is being politically persecuted, please come and sign.” Across the board, regardless of which political party they supported, people said they agreed that Rabi Lamichhane had been unduly persecuted. Four million people signed that pledge.File: Rastriya Swatantra Party prime ministerial candidate Balendra Shah (in sunglasses) and party president Rabi Lamichhane (in grey shirt) during a campaign ahead of Nepal’s general election, in Bhaktapur on February 28, 2026. Photo: PTI.When you put all that together, and also bring in Balen’s popularity, we became the only real alternative that people were looking for to lead the government and deliver.And partly Balen’s popularity has been based on his leadership in Kathmandu as the mayor, where he is seen as someone who has gotten things done.Looking back, the coming together of Balen Shah and Rabi Lamichhane was a turning point in reaching this kind of mandate, in which you played an important role. Can you give some insight into how you decided to bring these two forces together and how difficult it was?Post the GenZ protests, after the elections were announced, we began to get very strong feedback from the general public. I was an elected MP myself in the earlier parliament as well. When I spoke to many people in my constituency in Kathmandu, what people were saying was that the deaths of 76 young people on September 8 and 9, and then just having an election for the sake of it, does not justify those deaths.People said they wanted to see real change. But if alternative forces were not coming together and providing a real alternative to the older political parties, then what was the point of voting again? Those were the questions people were asking us.That forced us to think about how to create hope and inspiration among people. Based on that, the RSP Central Committee formed a high-level committee for negotiations to bring together alternative forces.There was a party called Bibeksheel Sajha, founded in 2013, which remained small but had contested elections. They were seen as founders of real alternative political parties. So we brought them in. Even though their size was small, we thought bringing their legacy and history into the RSP would give us that required background.We also reached out to individuals who were elected based on an alternative mandate, including Balen Shah.In all political negotiations, the question is about roles. How do we create opportunity for everyone to exercise political authority?At that time our party chair was in jail waiting for trial. Negotiating between two big leaders, one who was behind bars waiting for trial and one who was the mayor, and bringing them onto common ground definitely took several weeks.But at the end of the day, I think all of us wanted to come together and challenge the status quo, and that desire helped bring everyone together.What was the most difficult part of the negotiations?Actually, there was a point initially where we were not even sure whether the mayor would actually leave his position and want to go for a national election. I think he was more committed at one point to continue and complete his term as mayor. Even right after the GenZ protests, when GenZ leaders proposed him as prime minister, he declined. So persuading him to join national politics took some time, through discussions with people around him, sort of cajoling him in more subtle ways and asking him to join national politics.And then, allowing this relatively new but growing party to accept a new person into a strong leadership role also required a lot of sacrifice from our party chair and other senior leadership. So creating that trust also took some time.Their relationship will naturally draw a lot of attention going forward. Even though you have secured such a strong mandate, many would assume that the stability of the government will depend to some extent on how that relationship evolves. Would that be a fair assessment?Yes, with two very popular leaders, that is a fair question and a good assumption. But to my knowledge, even during the process of reaching the agreement, they spent several hours together in private to build a personal rapport before the agreement was actually signed.Over the past few weeks I have also seen them develop a strong working relationship. They are in constant communication. I expect that their personal rapport and mutual respect will help ensure that both leaders remain committed to the mandate that we have received.Do you expect foreign policy to change after this generational shift in Nepal’s politics?The wisdom in foreign policy is that it is often best to stay the course. Nepal’s constitution itself defines the fundamentals of foreign policy. Non-alignment, no security agreements, territorial integrity and sovereignty are already enshrined in the constitution. We will continue to honour that.What will change is how we conduct foreign policy and what we prioritise. Nepal’s foreign policy has often been seen as a tool used for domestic political gains. We want to focus mostly on economic priorities instead. As we have clearly articulated in our manifesto, we have two big neighbours, and with global geopolitics changing and both of them being rising powers, we want to make sure that we benefit from the strength of these two major neighbours.India has made huge progress in digital public infrastructure and quality infrastructure in recent years, in how it has formalised even local economies and grown its economy over the last 10 to 20 years. We want to basically learn from that and develop partnership based on those strengths.Connectivity is our major priority because our tourism sector has stagnated. We are seen as having very strong potential for tourists, but our road and air connectivity with both our neighbouring countries is very, very sluggish. So basically, economic and development priorities will sort of drive our foreign policy interests.A woman reads a newspaper carrying reports on the landslide victory of Balendra Shah in general elections, in Damak, Jhapa, Nepal, Sunday, March 8, 2026. Photo: PTIYour party chair mentioned “development diplomacy” when responding to the Indian prime minister’s congratulations. What exactly does that mean? India is already implementing many projects in Nepal. Are you talking about speeding those up or launching new initiatives?Nepal and India, besides our standard foreign policy relationship, share unusually close ties because of history, geography and culture. Given the strong mandate we have received, there is pressure on us to deliver results quickly. We have a very clear vision that we want to see Nepal move from its current status as a least developed country to a respectable middle income country within the next decade.Our tax base is small. We are not going to be able to grow on our own local resources alone, so we will need a lot of grants, loans and investments. We are going to have to spend quite a lot on infrastructure, quality infrastructure. Digitisation will be a huge priority. That is where, especially looking at how India has done very well on public digital infrastructure, we want to take that forward.Beyond what is already expected, at a practical level we feel that India’s support, or support from any other country for that matter, has not been fully leveraged. It goes through a very sluggish bureaucratic process at all levels. So we want to fast forward that on both ends.For example, electricity. India has committed to buy about 10,000 megawatts of electricity, and Nepal has the potential to generate power. Our manifesto says we want to increase generation from today’s roughly 4,000 megawatts to 15,000 megawatts in the next five years. But we need the market.And we need not only the market but also the infrastructure, transmission lines from Nepal to India. There was also a trilateral agreement between Bangladesh, Nepal and India. Unfortunately, because of the political situation in Bangladesh, that initial test or small pilot has not been fully leveraged.So we want to focus on those kinds of projects, big infrastructure projects that would add real value to Nepal’s economy.The previous Oli government spoke strongly about border disputes with India, and your party also urged the government to defend Nepal’s territorial claims last year. Could that remain a source of friction?Border issues exist between many neighbouring countries around the world. They are natural between neighbours. Our approach will be to resolve such issues through dialogue rather than turning them into political contentious issues.Do you have any specific requests or priorities that you would raise with India?We have not identified specific projects yet, but our priorities with India would focus on connectivity. That includes hydropower transmission lines across the border, road and rail connectivity, and cultural tourism routes.For example, there have been proposals to connect Janakpur and Ayodhya by rail. That could link cultural destinations and attract tourism.Air connectivity is another issue. There are airports in Nepal that are currently underused. We would like to have open discussions with India about any security concerns that may exist and try to resolve them.For instance a direct Buddha Air flight between Pokhara and Lucknow could make travel much easier. At the moment a journey that should take an hour can take an entire day because passengers must route through Kathmandu or Delhi.Broadly, connectivity will be the focus. Air connectivity as well. We need to find solutions through open dialogue. Two airports were recently built but have not been able to operate fully. We need to understand India’s concerns, especially if there are security considerations. If India has security concerns, we would need to have a very open conversation and respect those concerns.At the same time, we would like to see practical solutions. For example, a Buddha Air flight between Pokhara and Lucknow. That would allow people in Lucknow to come directly to Pokhara instead of travelling to Delhi, then to Kathmandu and then flying onward to Pokhara. A journey that should take about an hour currently takes almost a full day. We want to solve these kinds of problems.Nepal is also looking at China for infrastructure investment, especially under the Belt and Road Initiative. But there has been debate about debt risks. How will you balance that?We are very cognisant and mindful of that reality. That is why I said we are not going to just look at loans. We would like to explore the possibility of grants, and investments as well, for infrastructure.Even in the case of investment with China, we are not going to enter into a blanket BRI multi-project agreement. At this point we would prefer to examine each project on a case-by-case basis, where we would look at the financing modality, the economic viability of the project, and the returns we would receive from it.So we are not going to take a blanket approach to these things. We will be very careful about the financing modalities and whether the returns are sufficient for us to take on that loan.Ideally, though I understand this space is shrinking, we would prefer grants or investment based models. If that is not possible, then perhaps arrangements closer to how multilateral institutions fund projects.What do you plan to do with such a large majority? Are constitutional amendments being considered?We are short of a two thirds majority by a couple of members in the Lower House, and we have no members in the Upper House. Constitutional amendments require a two thirds majority in both houses. So as a single party we do not have the capacity to make those changes on our own.What we have said in our manifesto is that we will begin by preparing a discussion paper. Nepal’s constitution, adopted in 2015, was expected to be reviewed after ten years.The idea is to begin the review process. We have said that within the next three months, we will set up a committee to prepare a discussion paper on what changes may be required. Based on that document, we will try to build a national consensus.We do not want to force our ideas. The way the constitution in Nepal was created reflects very inclusive thinking, and we want to honour that. So we will not take a heavy handed approach. Instead, we want to encourage a robust national discussion on what changes may be necessary and hopefully build a broad consensus for those reforms.What is there in RSP’s political culture that will ensure that, given the mandate you have received and the absence of a strong opposition, the party does not fall into the same patterns of corruption that affected earlier parties?The party itself is still in a very formative stage. It is a three-year-old party that has gone through many ups and downs, including the prosecution of its party chair. So there is quite a lot that we still need to build internally.But we also have a few natural strengths. Almost all of us come from non-political backgrounds. Before RSP was formed three years ago, we were working in very different fields. Some were doctors working as surgeons, others were in the social sector or in technical professions, each with their own personal and professional background.We did not come through 20 or 30 years of interest-driven political history and baggage where we had to rise through the ranks of a political party. We entered politics directly from our professional backgrounds and suddenly became MPs and ministers. That also meant we did not have networks that we had to maintain or support.We do not have patronage networks because there is no such structure. Our campaigns are run mostly through digital platforms, so the costs are very low. At the same time, our support base is quite broad. Instead of being a traditional organisation or cadre based party, our votes come from across society.Those factors naturally protect us, at least at this stage, from the pressures that often push politicians towards corruption.Having said that, we will still need clear guidelines and internal party mechanisms as the party evolves. When allegations of corruption have been made against our leaders in the past, we have taken swift and firm action. We will continue to do that.But eventually you will start to have those structures that most political parties usually develop in power, such as patronage networks.We are very mindful of that. But what we are also very clear about is that the way we won this election matters. At the top, of course, there is the charisma and popularity of our two main leaders.But a few other factors also supported our victory. For example, we did not perform strongly in the northern districts where digitisation is low and internet access is limited. Our strongest performance came in areas where internet penetration is relatively higher.We also did well in districts where there has been significant outmigration, either to major cities or abroad. People in the diaspora called their families back home and asked them to vote for us, to vote for Lamichhane.Our victory did not come through building a strong traditional party cadre structure.The way people choose and support political parties is slowly changing. My assumption is that this trend will continue to grow in Nepali politics over time. As the country becomes more digitised, more urbanised and more connected, the need to build large patronage networks may gradually decline.