The Mask of Nationalism: From Mahendra to the Modern Era

Analysing the Kalapani dispute through the lens of political survival and historical blame.

The Historical Context 

While some figures are remembered for their diplomatic courage—like BP Koirala asserting Nepal's rights over Mount Everest in Beijing—others used nationalism as a shield for autocratic survival.

The Monarchical Era 

History remembers King Mahendra for introducing the party-less Panchayat system, often framed as "nationalist." Yet, there is a dark irony here. While Mahendra was arguably currying favour with Jawaharlal Nehru to solidify his domestic power, the Indian military presence in Kalapani was being established. Instead of addressing the strategic "GPS" he had handed over, the narrative was later twisted to deflect blame onto BP Koirala and the Nepali Congress.

The Panchayat Legacy 

The trend continued with figures like Kamal Thapa and the "Mandale" groups. By paying lip service to Indira Gandhi to preserve the Panchayat regime, they maintained a fragile grip on power. Today, the followers of that same brand of politics—now influenced by the likes of Yogi Adityanath—continue to lecture the Nepali Congress on "nationalism," despite their own history of tactical silence.

The Modern Crisis 

Today, we see the pattern repeating. A Communist government that rode to power on a "two-thirds majority" and fierce nationalist slogans now finds itself on shaky ground. As their grip on power slips, they look toward New Delhi and Narendra Modi for a political lifeline. To distract from their internal failures, they have resurrected the Kalapani-Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura issue, conveniently shifting the burden of "nationalist failure" onto previous administrations.

Conclusion 

Nationalism should be a shield for the country, not a life jacket for failing politicians. When leaders use border disputes as a "last-minute life line" to save their seats, they don't just disrespect history—they betray the very soil they claim to protect.