SEPTEMBER 10 — When Nepal’s Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli of the Communist Party tendered his resignation under the weight of social upheaval and political infighting, the tremors were not just confined to Kathmandu. 

They resonated across the Himalayan arc and deep into Beijing’s corridors of power. For Nepal, the resignation was a familiar dance of fragile coalitions unravelling. For China, however, it was a sobering reminder that political instability in the Himalaya is not a distant curiosity — it is an existential concern.

The Himalaya, often romanticised as the “roof of the world,” is more than a natural barrier separating South Asia from Tibet. 

It is a geopolitical hinge that links China’s security, India’s regional aspirations, and the fragile sovereignties of Nepal and Bhutan. What happens in Kathmandu does not stay in Kathmandu. It seeps into Beijing’s calculus of stability and survival.

The water question: Why Beijing watches the Himalaya

At the heart of China’s anxiety is water. The Himalaya icecap, stretching across Nepal and Tibet, is one of the most critical freshwater reservoirs on Earth. Its meltwaters flow into the Tibetan Plateau, nourishing riverine systems that sustain not just Tibet but all of China downstream.

The Yellow River and the Yangtze, among others, originate or are fed by Himalayan glaciers. 

Together, these rivers directly or indirectly sustain more than 70 percent of China’s 1.4 billion citizens. They irrigate fields, generate hydropower, and sustain the industrial heartlands of the east. Any disruption — political, climatic, or ecological — ripples across Chinese society like concentric waves from a stone cast into a pond.

Beijing has always been acutely aware of this fragility. 

It has built massive dams, invested in glacial monitoring, and even militarised aspects of Tibet to ensure it has firm control over these lifelines. The fear is straightforward: if the Himalaya becomes politically unstable, the integrity of these water sources could be jeopardised.

Nepal’s fragility, China’s anxiety

Nepal sits uneasily between two great powers: India to the south and China to the north. While New Delhi views Nepal as part of its traditional sphere of influence, Beijing sees Nepal as an indispensable buffer zone shielding Tibet. 

When Oli resigned, the streets of Kathmandu were filled with discontent. Protests, demonstrations, and factional battles within the Communist Party raised fears of a prolonged vacuum.

For Beijing, this was doubly worrying. First, political volatility in Nepal risks creating openings for India to reassert influence at China’s expense. 

Second, instability can invite external actors — whether Western NGOs, intelligence agencies, or transnational movements — who might use Nepal’s fragile state to pressure Beijing on Tibet.

From Beijing’s vantage point, the issue is not merely who governs Nepal, but whether that government is capable of maintaining order. 

A weak Nepal magnifies China’s insecurities about Tibet, Xinjiang, and even Hong Kong — regions where Beijing has already spent considerable political capital to assert authority.

The Himalaya as a geopolitical fault line

It is easy to underestimate Nepal’s significance in the Himalayan order. 

Yet, instability here can act as a trigger for larger confrontations. Consider the recent skirmishes between Indian and Chinese troops in Ladakh. These clashes were not in Nepal but were shaped by the broader contest for influence across the Himalayan belt. 

A fragile Nepal tilts this balance further, forcing both India and China into sharper postures.

Moreover, Nepal is strategically intertwined with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Chinese infrastructure projects — roads, hydropower dams, telecommunications links — are not just economic ventures but mechanisms of geopolitical control. If Nepal’s political class fractures, these projects could be delayed or disrupted, undermining Beijing’s vision of seamless connectivity.

Climate change and political instability: A deadly combination

Overlaying Nepal’s political fragility is the ecological fragility of the Himalaya. Climate change is accelerating glacial melt at alarming rates. Studies show that one-third of Himalayan glaciers could disappear by the end of this century. 

For China, this is not an academic problem. It is a question of whether Beijing can guarantee food security, water supply, and social stability for its people.

Now imagine this ecological crisis coinciding with political disorder in Nepal. Dam collapses, floods, or mismanaged water-sharing agreements could fuel transboundary disputes. Already, India and China eye each other warily on how Himalayan waters are managed. A chaotic Nepal would further complicate the picture.

Why stability in Nepal matters

Stability in Nepal is not about protecting the careers of politicians in Kathmandu. It is about ensuring the Himalayan system — ecological, political, and geopolitical — remains predictable. 

For China, predictability in the Himalaya means it can focus on pressing challenges elsewhere, whether in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, or its economic rivalry with the United States.

A Nepal in turmoil forces Beijing to divert attention and resources northward. It forces China to recalibrate relations with India, perhaps even harden its Himalayan deployments. It also complicates Asean’s broader regional environment. 

For South-east Asia, peace in the Himalaya reduces the likelihood of Sino-Indian conflict spilling into larger regional forums like the East Asia Summit.

The responsibility of Nepal’s leadership

Nepal’s leaders must recognise that their political squabbles carry consequences beyond their borders.

A cycle of governments rising and falling every few years creates instability that magnifies the insecurities of its powerful neighbours. 

Whether the next government is led by the Communist Party, the Nepali Congress, or a coalition, its task is clear: to maintain internal order, to balance relations with India and China, and to ensure that Nepal does not become a pawn in great-power rivalries.

Nepal as the Himalayan linchpin

China’s sensitivity to Nepal’s instability should not be dismissed as paranoia. 

It is grounded in hard realities: the dependency of 1.4 billion people on Himalayan waters, the vulnerability of Tibet, and the geopolitical contest with India. The resignation of Prime Minister Oli was a domestic matter, but in Beijing’s eyes, it was another reminder of how fragile the Himalayan balance can be.

For Asean observers, this lesson is clear. Just as the Mekong defines livelihoods in South-east Asia, the Himalaya defines China’s stability. 

A fragile Nepal is not only Nepal’s problem — it is Asia’s problem. Ensuring a stable Nepal, therefore, is not an act of charity but of enlightened self-interest, especially for a region already teetering under the weight of multiple crises.

*Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

**Luthfy Hamzah is a Research Fellow at IINTAS.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.