When the world's great powers looked away, India quietly stepped in. As conflict flared in Iran, it was not China, the United States, or any Western power that came to the rescue of stranded Nepali nationals-it was India. At Nepal's request, Indian authorities included Nepali citizens in their evacuation flights, ensuring their safe passage home during the acute crisis. This act, swift and discreet, is only the latest in a long line of unheralded Indian gestures that have kept Nepal afloat in its moments of greatest need.

Yet, paradoxically, Nepal's political class has habitually stoked anti-India sentiment, often at the expense of the country's interests. This reflexive antagonism-fuelled by political expediency, misplaced nationalism, and foreign encouragement-has become a defining feature of Kathmandu's public discourse. It is a shortsighted and ultimately anti-Nepal stance that risks squandering the opportunities that could secure the country's future.

Let us consider the facts. When tensions in Iran threatened the safety of Nepali workers, Nepal's government appealed to India for help. The Indian Embassy in Tehran, acting on instructions from New Delhi, extended its evacuation efforts to cover Nepali and Sri Lankan nationals as well. Nepali officials publicly expressed gratitude, acknowledging that India's intervention was decisive in the absence of direct support from other major powers. This is not an isolated incident but part of a consistent pattern.

Recall the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. As Nepal's health system teetered and vaccines were in desperately short supply, India-despite its own immense needs-dispatched one million doses of Covishield to Kathmandu as a grant. Nepal was among the first countries worldwide to receive Indian-manufactured vaccines. This gesture saved countless lives and enabled the country to launch its immunisation drive for frontline workers. This, too, occurred at a time when diplomatic relations between the two governments were at a historic low.

What is striking about these episodes is India's quiet approach. There are no grandstanding press conferences, no strings attached, no attempts to extract political concessions. India's support is often extended discreetly, in contrast to the performative diplomacy of other actors. Yet, far from being celebrated, such gestures are routinely met with suspicion or, worse, ignored by Nepal's political elite.

Nepal's politicians, across the spectrum, have found it expedient to equate anti-India rhetoric with patriotism. This is not only intellectually lazy but actively harmful. It distracts from the real work of governance and development and alienates the partner with the most significant capacity to support Nepal's aspirations. The border disputes, trade grievances, and occasional diplomatic spats are factual but dwarfed by the depth of economic, cultural, and social ties that bind the two countries.

A lesser-discussed but equally corrosive influence is the role of Western ambassadors and UN agency heads in Kathmandu. For many, a posting to Nepal is a consolation prize after missing out on the far more prestigious New Delhi assignment. Their frustration often manifests in subtle-and sometimes not-so-subtle-encouragement of anti-India sentiment among Nepali politicians. These diplomats have learned that stoking anti-India rhetoric is the surest way to ingratiate themselves with local power brokers, who mistake such posturing for genuine national interest. The result is a feedback loop in which anti-India talk is equated with pro-Nepal talk, to the detriment of both countries.

This dynamic is exemplified by the much-laughed-at case, now legendary in Kathmandu's political circles, of an Indian national at the helm of a major UN agency. In a well-known quest for a national award from Nepali politicians, he became notorious for regularly bad-mouthing India in private meetings with politicians. He would distance himself from his passport and say he is an international civil servant with no allegiances. When a Secretary from his line Ministry offhandedly remarked that there were 'too many Indian technical experts' in his office, he promptly dismissed some of his most talented and effective Indian colleagues-experts whose skills Nepal desperately needed.

Ironically, when that Secretary was later replaced, the same UN head quietly hired new Indian staff, albeit with far less expertise than those he had previously ousted. The result was a loss of vital technical capacity for Nepal, all in the service of short-term political appeasement and personal ambition. This farcical episode, often recounted with amusement and exasperation in Kathmandu's corridors of power, perfectly illustrates how performative anti-India gestures can end up harming Nepal far more than they help.

Some in Kathmandu have convinced themselves that China offers a viable alternative to India. The reality is more sobering. As the recent scandal surrounding the Pokhara International Airport makes painfully clear, Chinese-backed infrastructure projects in Nepal have become bywords for corruption and mismanagement. Billions have been siphoned off, and Nepal is left with white elephants that generate debt, not development. By contrast, India's investments-though not without challenges-are rooted in genuine economic integration and mutual benefit.

Nepal has a choice to make. India's economy is on track to reach $5 trillion in the coming years, offering unprecedented opportunities for trade, investment, and employment. Nepal's proximity and deep cultural ties give it a natural advantage that no other country can match. If Nepal fails to seize this moment, it risks consigning itself to irrelevance-a country forever playing catch-up, twenty years behind its neighbours.

It is time for Nepal's leaders to grow up. Patriotism is not measured by the volume of anti-India slogans but by the ability to secure the best possible future for the Nepali people. This means engaging with India as a partner, not an adversary; recognizing quiet acts of solidarity; and resisting the temptations of foreign diplomats with little stake in Nepal's long-term success.

India's offer to rescue Nepalis from Iran is a news story and a reminder of who shows up when it matters. Nepal would do well to remember that and act accordingly.

Prof C K Peela is a geopolitical and security expert on South Asia and Asia Pacific