India and Pakistan’s cross-border military operations have ceased for the moment, but the conflict continues to crystallise the nature of Nepal-India relations.

Over the last two weeks, India’s official position and voices inside Nepal have diverged, creating inherent differences. Three features are remarkable. First, despite denouncing terrorism, Nepal has appeared willing to preach to India about peace, de-escalation and dialogue. Second, as the chair of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Nepal has adopted an unrealistic and idealistic view about regional cooperation that jars with the current reality. The third is that Nepal, as a whole, has failed to empathise with India’s positions.

In the immediate aftermath of the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 people including a Nepali from Butwal, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli held a telephonic conversation with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Posting to X after his conversation, PM Oli wrote that he spoke with PM Modi and conveyed his “deepest condolences on the loss of lives in the Pahalgam terrorist attack” and “reiterated Nepal’s firm solidarity with India against such heinous acts.”

In the aftermath of the incident, Nepal reiterated its commitment to India that it wouldn’t allow its territory to be used against neighbours and has also stepped up security measures along the southern border. But so far, no one has visited the family of the victim in Butwal killed by the terrorists, indicating a lack of understanding about India’s feelings.

It appears as if Nepal has failed to understand the gravity with which India approached the terrorist attack or to empathise more deeply.

On May 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a second statement expressing concerns about the “escalating tensions between India and Pakistan.” Then, during an event organised to mark Buddha Purnima, PM Oli recalled how Nepal wished for de-escalation and also talked with India and Pakistan. “As if on cue, they expressed commitment not to go to war,” Oli said.

If Nepal and India ties are to grow stronger, Nepal must try to diplomatically address India’s expectations.

First, India expects Nepal to recognise the normalisation of politics and the security situation in Kashmir. India’s abrogation of the Article 370 of the Constitution in 2019 indicated that the region had made a complete transition under the Indian Constitution.

The timing of the Pahalgam terrorist incident indicated that the terrorists wanted to bring global attention to the issue of Kashmir. The attack came during the private visit of US Vice President JD Vance, at a time when the US as well as the world are giving up on Pakistan.

And the attack did manage to draw global attention to Kashmir, much to the chagrin of India. The international media, while highlighting the terrorist incident, focused on two related themes: The long-standing conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and the prospect of nuclear war in the region.

While the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir is a significant contextual factor, the act of terrorism in Pahalgam should be approached distinctly and separately from the longstanding issue. Otherwise, acts of terrorism will continue to achieve their objectives, legitimising the acts.

The focus on Kashmir directly fulfilled the wishes of the perpetrators. For example, in the last several years, India has managed to normalise the situation in Kashmir, politically and strategically, and attract a large number of tourists to the area.

India also expects Nepal to recognise the fundamental Indian positions outlined by Modi during his May 12 speech—the need to forge a unified stance against terrorism.

He also indicated that India’s well-wishers need to recognise India’s right and ability to defend itself and strike against terrorists or those aiding them. He touted India’s attacks deep into Pakistani territories, like Muridke and Bhawalpur, as major achievements.

India believes that its ability to conduct “precise and forceful strikes” in Pakistan, combined with its “aggressive countermeasures” led Pakistan to look for a ceasefire. According to senior Indian officials, the cessation of hostilities was the result of India’s conventional military superiority and not of any outside mediation.

India has committed to punish “every terrorist and their backers,” and is likely to pursue this anti-terrorist agenda until it has achieved its objectives. In the past, India sought to expose and isolate Pakistan, but this strategy, clearly, has not worked.

The actual impact of the military operations is still emerging, with some reports claiming that despite the bluster, the damage was limited. Despite the limited damage, India showed a capability to penetrate deep inside Pakistan.

Indian PM Modi outlined a new security doctrine: decisive retaliation, no tolerance for nuclear blackmail, and no distinction between terror sponsors and terrorists. India is looking for the global community, including Nepal, to support this new doctrine.

The focus on the threat of nuclear war covered up the role of Pakistan in nurturing and harbouring terrorist organisations like Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which had previously perpetrated terrorist attacks in India.

Despite the initial empathetic response from Nepal against terrorism, Nepal’s foreign policy positions have shifted, gradually diverging from India’s expectations from Nepal and moving closer to the position of China.

For example, China’s second statement, issued on May 10, called on both India and Pakistan “to act in the larger interest of peace and stability, exercise calm and restraint, return to the track of political settlement through peaceful means, and refrain from any action that could further escalate tension.” China has sought to position itself as a responsible power, but it has a clear bias towards and strategic interests tied to Pakistan.

As the chair of SAARC, Nepal has a responsibility to work for the revival of the regional grouping, even if it is only to ensure regional peace and stability. But India expects Nepal to be realistic and not preachy.

But, Indian PM Modi highlighted that any dialogue with Pakistan, if any, will focus solely on terrorism and Pakistan-held Kashmir from now on. This has strong implications for SAARC.

Promoting SAARC at this point in time would lead to greater space for China and its desire to play a balancing role in South Asia. It would also generate the possibility of SAARC trying to revive the question of Kashmir and its autonomy.

The nature of Nepal-India relations could also have significant implications for cross-border dynamics. If terrorism continues to remain problematic and Nepal-India relations sour, then India could seek greater securitisation of the border, requiring electronic identification and security checks for people crossing the border. This would have the most impact on the poor and the vulnerable people of Nepal.