In March 2024, during an energy policy discussion, Finance Minister (FM) Swarnim Wagle, then a Member of Parliament and Vice-President of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), openly advocated for the implementation of the so-called Monroe Doctrine in South Asia, recognising India as the dominant power in the region. Introduced by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine firmly opposed European political interference in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, thereby asserting US supremacy in the region. Although the Monroe Doctrine was introduced in the first quarter of the 19th century and remained an important aspect of U.S. foreign policy until the Cold War, its relevance has significantly diminished over the decades. The concept underlying the doctrine is now widely regarded as outdated in today's multipolar world. However, President Donald Trump appears determined to revive this policy in an attempt to reassert U.S. control over the Western Hemisphere. This ambition is unlikely to be realised anytime soon, as countries such as China and Russia have already established deep economic ties with Latin American nations. FM Wagle appears to be invoking the Monroe Doctrine to justify India's dominance over Nepal and the wider South Asian region. Interestingly, Indian diplomats, academics, and policymakers within the South Block are not known to have openly endorsed this view. Going a step further, Wagle recently claimed at an event organised by NDTV, a private television network, in New Delhi that Nepal's ultra-nationalist era, characterised by anti-India sentiments, was over. This was a deeply distasteful statement from an individual representing Nepal. Wagle has been recognised as an outstanding economist, having worked with the World Bank and the UNDP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific. He has also been involved in Nepal's policymaking process, serving first as a member and later as Vice-Chairman of the National Planning Commission. However, his recent pattern of erratic political behaviour and controversial remarks on political and diplomatic matters has raised questions about his political judgement and diplomatic skills. To begin with, the term anti-India sentiment is vague and misleading. Nepal has traditionally sought to maintain good relations with both its immediate neighbours, India and China. However, some left-wing politicians, such as KP Sharma Oli, have adopted a personalised approach to their political ideologies, gaining popularity in part by criticising India. In hindsight, Oli's meeting with Samant Goel, the chief of India's external intelligence agency, at his official residence late at night while he was still prime minister reveals another dimension of his relationship with New Delhi. The pro-India stance of some influential leaders of the Nepali Congress, the party Wagle previously belonged to, is no secret. Similarly, sections of the Maoist leadership have maintained close political relationships with India. These examples demonstrate that Nepal cannot simply be categorised as either pro-India or anti-India. In fact, Nepal has never maintained a consistent approach towards India; rather, individual politicians have held varying views on relations with New Delhi. Given their strong historical connections, the people of India and Nepal share close cultural, social, religious, and familial ties. These connections underpin the strong people-to-people relationship between the two countries. Therefore, our politicians and policymakers must exercise caution when commenting on Nepal-India relations. Influential figures such as FM Wagle should recognise this reality and refrain from making controversial remarks that could undermine bilateral relations. Despite the unique relationship between India and Nepal, several border disputes remain unresolved. Furthermore, India openly provided refuge to Maoist insurgents, who were considered terrorists in Nepal, during the decade-long, bloody insurgency that claimed thousands of innocent lives. India has also occasionally resorted to a big-brother approach by imposing trade and economic blockades on Nepal. These blockades violated the fundamental rights of a landlocked nation. Raising and condemning such issues in national and international forums does not constitute anti-India sentiment. Such inhumane actions by one neighbour against another were condemned not only by the people of Nepal but also by influential Indian leaders, including those who spoke out in India's Parliament. Criticising India's occasional questionable conduct does not mean that Nepal harbours anti-India sentiments. Rather, it reflects the desire of the Nepali people to be treated with respect and equality-an inherent right of the citizens of a sovereign nation. A genuine and healthy relationship between Nepal and India should allow both countries to criticise each other openly, acknowledge past grievances, and resolve mutual concerns through dialogue and negotiation. The government formed in the aftermath of the Gen-Z movement must exercise caution in managing Nepal's relations with its neighbours and the wider international community. RSP leaders should not seek India's unilateral favour by making reckless statements that undermine Nepal's national interests or disregard public sentiment. History shows that politicians who compromise their country's interests in pursuit of external approval may eventually be abandoned by the very powers they seek to please. In this context, the experience of Kaji Lhendup Dorjee, the principal architect of Sikkim's merger with India in 1975, offers a sobering lesson. In his later years, Dorjee reportedly lamented that he had gone out of his way to facilitate Sikkim's merger with India, only to be ignored by the Indians once the process was complete. Hence, taking a leaf out of Dorjee's fate, Nepal's leaders must remember that diplomatic goodwill should never come at the expense of national dignity, popular sentiment, and sovereignty. Dr Joshi is a senior scientist and independent opinion-maker based in Germany