Five key issues on the agenda during Prime Minister Shah’s India visit

Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s November 22–25 India visit will focus on five priorities. Nepal wants financial help after devastating floods, additional air-entry routes for its international airports, progress on the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project, discussion of border disputes and concrete movement on India-backed infrastructure projects. These issues combine urgent recovery needs with older bilateral disagreements.

The largest request is $2 billion, including concessional loans and grants. Nepal also wants routes that would make flights to Pokhara and Bhairahawa more viable. Pancheshwar remains blocked by disagreements over costs and water benefits. The border issues concern Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Susta. Planned project announcements include bridges, check posts, hydropower and a pipeline.

Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri’s Kathmandu meetings prepared the ground, but border disputes were not discussed. Technical talks are expected on air routes and Pancheshwar before Shah meets Narendra Modi on November 23. The visit’s success will depend on whether announcements become implementation.

Nepal has formally asked India for $2 billion to support recovery after the August 26 floods in the Rasuwa-Bhotekoshi corridor. The proposal contains $1 billion in concessional loans, $500 million in grants and another $500 million for reconstruction and rehabilitation, also likely as a grant. The package would address both immediate damage and longer rebuilding needs.

The disaster killed at least 1,455 people and injured more than 9,000. More than 5,000 people remained unaccounted for. Flooding also severely damaged infrastructure and disrupted Nepal’s trade connectivity with China. Those effects make the request larger than a standard emergency relief appeal.

Indian officials have indicated that they are ready to consider Nepal’s proposal. However, the final amount and financing terms have not been settled. Shah’s visit may bring an assistance announcement, but the scale of actual support will depend on the two governments’ negotiations.

The Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project is a cross-border water project conceived under the 1996 Mahakali Treaty. It is intended to use shared water resources for multiple purposes, making it important to Nepal-India cooperation. Its progress would also test whether the two countries can convert a major treaty commitment into a functioning project.

The central mechanism behind the delay is disagreement over who pays and who benefits. The two sides have reportedly narrowed their differences on construction costs. Current discussions suggest Nepal would cover 25 to 30 percent, while India would pay the remainder. That cost understanding has not solved the question of water-related benefits.

The project has therefore remained stalled after decades of negotiations. Further technical discussions are expected before Shah’s visit. Unless the countries agree on how to share benefits from the water resources, a possible cost-sharing formula may not be enough to move construction forward.

Additional air-entry routes from India would give international flights more practical access to Nepal’s Gautam Buddha International Airport in Bhairahawa and Pokhara International Airport. Nepal has requested these routes since 2014. Better access matters because an airport cannot attract many international services if aircraft lack suitable pathways to enter and leave its airspace.

The article links the current shortage of routes directly to constrained airport operations and difficulty attracting international airlines. If the route issue is resolved, airlines could find the airports more workable for scheduled international services. That would strengthen the airports’ role in Nepal’s wider transport network.

India has reportedly responded positively, but no final agreement exists. Civil aviation officials from both countries are expected to hold technical discussions before Shah’s visit. The immediate outcome will be whether those talks produce an agreement that allows the airports to operate more effectively and attract additional carriers.

Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Susta are areas at the centre of Nepal-India boundary disputes. In general, such disputes arise when neighbouring countries interpret boundary arrangements, maps or territorial control differently. The article does not provide the detailed legal or historical basis for each claim, so it cannot establish a complete explanation for all three areas.

It does show the political sensitivity. After India released the Akhand Bharat Map, which included Limpiyadhura and Kalapani, Shah placed a Greater Nepal map in his office. He also once moved to ban Indian films in Kathmandu. In May, however, he said Nepal had encroached on India’s land too, suggesting a softer position.

Nepal hopes the disputes will enter the visit’s agenda, but they did not arise during Vikram Misri’s Kathmandu meetings. Their inclusion remains uncertain. That makes the border question a possible diplomatic complication rather than a confirmed outcome of the visit.

Several India-backed projects are expected to give Shah’s visit visible, practical results. The two prime ministers may inaugurate completed or near-completed facilities and jointly launch new construction. These projects matter because they connect security, trade, transport, energy and regional infrastructure rather than representing only diplomatic promises.

Expected inaugurations include the Nepal Police Academy in Panauti, a bridge in Darchula, the integrated check post in Bhairahawa and a motorable bridge over the Mahakali River. Planned launches include the Dodhara Chandani integrated check post, the Lower Arun hydropower project and a petroleum pipeline from Siliguri to Charali in Jhapa. India has also said preparations for Ayodhya-Jan akpur railway service are complete, with a trial run held.

The governments will also discuss roads, railways, transmission lines, energy and digital connectivity. The key test is implementation. Announcements during the visit will matter most if construction, operations and cross-border services proceed afterward.

Shared river projects require countries to agree on three linked questions: who pays, who receives water and who gets the economic benefits. The aim is usually an arrangement viewed as fair by both sides, not necessarily an equal split. Countries may consider expected benefits, financial capacity, population needs, water use and project responsibilities when negotiating.

For example, one country might pay more if it receives more electricity or irrigation water, while the other contributes land, construction support or downstream facilities. Water can be divided by volume, season or use. Benefits can include hydropower, irrigation, flood protection, navigation and improved local infrastructure. The agreement should also set rules for operation and future changes.

The Pancheshwar discussions illustrate the difficulty. Nepal may pay 25 to 30 percent of construction costs, with India covering the rest, but the water-related benefits remain unresolved. A cost formula alone cannot settle the project unless both countries accept the benefit-sharing arrangement.