Poonam Sharma
Nepal, a nation usually trapped between its democratic inclinations and long-standing institutional vulnerabilities, seems to be moving into a new and unfamiliar phase. Reports have it that the Nepal Army has approached Sushila Karki, ex-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a graduate of Banaras Hindu University (BHU), to become a “supervising prime minister.” Should this happen, it would be a turning point in Nepalese politics – a point where demands from civil society, institutional strength from the army, and Indian cultural influence converge at a decisive juncture.
A Profile of Sushila Karki
Born in 1952, Sushila Karki gained fame as the first female Chief Justice of Nepal in 2016, shattering a glass ceiling in Nepal’s judiciary. Her academic background—an M.A. in Political Science from BHU followed by a law degree in Nepal—trenchantly connects her to the intellectual and cultural world of India. Prior to entering the judiciary, Karki had a career in social work and is an advocate of transparency and clean governance.
Her Chief Justice term was defined by acts of courage. She was a household name in 2017 after standing up to entrenched corruption under the government of then-Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. When the government moved against her in impeachment proceedings, it sparked a mass anti-government movement. There were huge protests throughout Nepal, and the government was forced to reverse its decision. This act not only established her as a courageous reformer but also revealed the fault lines of Nepal’s governance system.
After retirement, Karki wrote two books, among which is an autobiography, and got involved in social service again. Her integrity among citizens and civil society organizations is still remarkably high in a political environment dominated by contentious party politics.
The Role of the Army and the Decline of Party Politics
The Nepal Army’s factional outreach, reported on, is instructive. Nepal has historically been plagued by a struggle between civilian leadership and the military establishment, with the abolition of monarchy in 2008 leaving a power vacuum that the political parties have been unable to fill. Nepal’s polity today remains acutely factionalized: unstable coalition governments, endemic corruption, and a growing disillusionment among the public have provided rich soil for an extra-parliamentary actor to fill the space.
If Sushila Karki does take up a supervisory position at the request of the army, it would represent a quasi-technocratic or caretaker type of government – one that combines judicial integrity with military support. It would be a first in Nepal’s contemporary history, where prime ministers have hitherto come from mainstream political parties. This could stabilize Nepal in the short term or escalate its crisis of institutions if viewed as an army-sponsored takeover of democracy.
The India Factor and Cultural Significance
Karki’s connection to Banaras Hindu University carries heavy symbolic weight. BHU has historically been a crucible of South Asian thought and nationalism, and its alumni network spans politics, academia, and public service across the region. For Nepal’s Hindu majority, her educational background at a prominent Indian Hindu institution may resonate with aspirations for cultural revivalism and closer ties to India.
This is especially relevant at a time when Nepal’s ties with India have been strained by border controversies, trade friction, and Kathmandu’s increasing engagement with China. A Karki premiership would put this trend into reverse by strengthening cultural and diplomatic alignment with New Delhi. In Indian policy circles, her selection may be interpreted as a signal that Nepal is backtracking after some period of geopolitical hedging.
The “Hindu Rashtra” Narrative
The notion that Sushila Karki’s leadership could open the path to Nepal becoming a “Hindu Rashtra” reflects a growing undercurrent of religious nationalism in the country. Since the monarchy’s abolition, Nepal has been constitutionally secular, but conservative groups—often inspired by India’s Hindu revivalist movements—have advocated for restoring Hindu statehood.
Karki herself has not herself publicly supported such a transformation. But her individual record as a reform-oriented, culturally grounded leader, along with army backing and popular dissatisfaction with traditional parties, might make her a focal point for forces attempting to re-Hinduize Nepalese politics. Whether she herself would heed or reject such pressures is uncertain, but the symbolism is strong.
Risks and Opportunities
The possible appointment of a retired chief justice as an overreaching prime minister poses a chain of risks. It might erode Nepal’s weak democratic institutions by institutionalizing military intervention in civilian politics. It might also lead to tension with hardened political parties, resulting in street agitation or even constitutional crises. Additionally, China, a growing assertive stakeholder in Nepal, may consider such an event with suspicion, deeming it as leaning towards India and a retraction of its own influence.
Yet there are also opportunities. Karki’s personal reputation for integrity could restore public trust in government, at least temporarily. Her distance from party politics could allow her to act as a neutral arbiter during a period of unrest, overseeing electoral reforms or anti-corruption initiatives. If managed carefully, a Karki premiership could serve as a bridge to more stable democratic governance.
Implications for Indo-Nepal Relations
From India’s perspective, Sushila Karki’s rise could be a strategic boon. The Modi government has been eager to reclaim influence in Nepal after several years of setbacks. A Nepali leader with strong cultural and educational ties to India could help reorient Kathmandu’s foreign policy priorities toward greater alignment with New Delhi, particularly on issues like cross-border security, infrastructure projects, and religious tourism.
But overt Indian enthusiasm might be counterproductive. Nepalese politics is extremely responsive to any perception of Indian interference. For Karki to become successful, she has to prove her independence from both internal military pressure and foreign influence, including that of India.
A Defining Moment for Nepal
Nepal is at a crossroads. The reported attempt to make Sushila Karki a supervising prime minister reflects the desperation of the political system as well as the aspiration of the people for clean and accountable governance. Her rise could bring a era of reformist stability, rethink Nepal’s relationship with India, and even redefine the country’s secular identity. But it also threatens to institutionalize the role of the army in politics and antagonize influential constituencies in Nepal and abroad.
Whether this experiment succeeds will depend on Karki’s ability to maintain credibility while navigating the competing demands of the army, civil society, political parties, and foreign powers. If she can do so, Nepal may not only find a temporary reprieve from instability but also set a precedent for a more accountable and culturally grounded governance model in South Asia.
