Submit your Article

We, the people of Nepal, now disown all socially misfit, politically dogmatic and morally degraded individuals donning the garb of politicians. The landslide victory of political novelty, charismatic leadership and the individuals, who have the good of the people and the country at heart, is what we expect in the 2027 general elections. That victory will be a landslide rejection of bygone-era dogmas and gospel of socialism so that the haters and dividers will never rise again. It’ll have to spearhead against the mañana mentality—the regular tendency of putting off until tomorrow what can be done today. We know the politics of our geopolitical, geostrategic and geo-economic contexts, and what best politics can produce. We now need to categorize and showcase the actions into social, political, cultural and economic folders. Current governance politicizes every citizen’s concerns—it’s a political immaturity that always misleads, misguides, deceives and distorts our spirit of change, hope for political novelty and noble need of good governance. Political patriarchs and their swarms of henchmen perform no meaningful action for the commoners. Leaders follow leaders; some are bad, others are very bad. Most state organs and their services are wobbly, wonky and unsteady. Neither they put national priorities on the frontburner nor do they strategize national strategies. Sickening scenes have been staged as alliances are made and broken—the undignified path of collusion for short-term gains. Unprecedented political choreography can be seen in Nepali politics—a Leftist party forges alliance with the Rightist one striving to get the political benefits of state’s power buttons, defeat rival factions within organizations, devouring opposite parties across the aisle in the parliamentary melodrama, crushing the coalitions so as to exercise de facto power without being in power; these racketeers must be voted out. Regressive, revisionist and extremist ideas through religious fanaticism are steadily gaining strength—as the last local, provincial and general elections have shown—and lurking to plague those inclusive and accommodative socioeconomic and political achievements tossing all the progressive forces aside. Despite their many names, most of the political forces in Nepal have proven themselves as center-left parties. The new custodians of the nation must, therefore, exercise accountability, responsiveness and direct link to the people upholding meritocracy in every move. They should intervene into politics for reforming the education system, public service delivery system and prepare state mechanisms to combat pandemics, climate crises, growing inequalities, rising debt burdens, economic shocks and many other crises that can eventually morph into a greater humanitarian crisis. Other crucial actions for making the state resilient are addressing the recurrent problems of long-standing infrastructure gaps, structural socioeconomic challenges and enormous development needs. They must address challenges of foreign policy priorities resulting from a land-locked geography and encirclement of nuclear powers. Nepal's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, freedom, protection of national interest, and promotion of national respect and dignity must always top the list. Additionally, they must internalize the values of sovereign equality, Panchsheel, mutual respect and benefit, among others, something which the existing leadership has largely failed to do. Then comes justice, equality and accountability accompanying the spirit of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Economic progress and prosperity, ecological balance, human security and conservation of the planet complete Nepal’s foreign policy pantheon. Apart from that, these forces need to comply sincerely with Nepal’s foreign policy priorities so as to shape their foreign policy behavior. A member of the UN’s Peacebuilding Commission, Nepal’s troop contribution to UN peacekeeping missions is the second largest. Nepal was an elected non-permanent member of the UN Security Council twice, in 1969-1970 and 1988-1989, and is now a member of the UNHRC for the second time (2021-2023). What’s more, it’s role is enlarging. Given this context, these forces need to act simultaneously on foreign policy priorities for the neighborhood, South Asia, Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Central Asia, West Asia and Africa, Europe and the Americas, regional cooperation—SAARC, BIMSTEC, BBIN etc—not to mention multilateral affairs. They must acknowledge the norms of Non-Alignment while dealing with IPS, BRI, QUAD, RCEP and other strategic and economic global alliances. Nepal is soon graduating from LDC and the nascent leaders must grasp this. To graduate from the LDC category, according to the UNCTAD 2022 report, it must meet the established graduation thresholds of at least two of the three criteria for two consecutive triennial reviews—the Income Per Capita, an Index of Human Assets and an Index of Economic and Environmental Vulnerability. A myopic socio-political vision further worsens the nation’s image. So, pragmatic approaches for enhancement of strong economic diplomacy, promotion of soft powers, jobs for youths in the country, protecting industrial sector, export-oriented industrial policy, modernization of agriculture, promotion of tourism and protection of Nepalis at home and abroad are immediate actions to be taken to get rid of ever yawning socio-economic gaps. It is evident that the government's legitimacy relies on trust of sovereign people. When the people stop believing in it, a government loses legitimacy. People are not like Newton’s ‘mass’ that remains at rest or motion until external force is applied; people regenerate their needs and aspirations, and forces of circumstances create their able leaders to mobilize them. The credibility of established institutions and leadership also are questioned. Presently, widespread distrust toward government mechanisms and state institutions have come to light. Words like democracy, government, service delivery, justice, free press, economic growth and welfare have so far become discredited. We cannot deny pro-public features of democracy. Fascinatingly, public opinion expressed through the recent by-election is a genuine expression of mass frustration and anger. Such consequences reveal distrust and legitimacy gaps in the community. Therefore, we must apply democratic forces for the abrupt collapse of stagnant political dogmas, erratic populism and victory of democracy, multiplicity, inclusiveness, and ultimately the triumph of We the People through a sovereign voting right.

Ideological politics often arise in response to certain social or cultural issues or values. However, as these values change over time, the relevance and appeal of certain ideological positions may diminish. Then, it cultivates political polarization, cultural conflict, social discrimination, economic stagnation and complete division of the people among rival factions, and the politicians retain power among themselves. But it fails to adapt to changing circumstances to effectively address new challenges losing relevance and support initiating decay of its own. Additionally, changing demographics also impact patterns of political supporters—ultimately, forcing it to die out simply because of the failure of gaining enough popular support. Economic, social, or political crises are critical ingredients of any society. They can undermine the credibility of ideological movements and lead to their decline and implant a new dominant ideology that causes crumbling of the existing sociopolitical structures. Then people begin to question the incumbent system. Again, people also get fed up with the ideological conflicts among the leaders of conflicting ideologies. The ideological politics are mostly divisive and contentious, leading to social and political unrest wreaking havoc in people’s lives. Over time, generational changes immensely affect this process. Nepal has a complex and dynamic political landscape, with multiple parties and ideologies competing for power and influence. As the new constitution was promulgated in 2015, it ushered some changes and brought both new opportunities and new challenges. Nepal needs a gradual shift toward a more pragmatic, issue-based approach to governance involving a greater focus on addressing the country's economic, social, and environmental challenges, rather than ideological posturing and identity politics. The emergence of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) in 2018 was seen as a sign of continued relevance of ideological politics in the country. However, the party was short-lived, and it split into two factions in 2020, with each faction accusing the other of deviating from communist ideology. The current political landscape in Nepal is characterized by a mix of ideological and pragmatic politics. While there are still parties that adhere to specific ideologies, such as NC, CPN UML, CPN (Maoist Centre) and Janata Samajwadi Party among others who have, to the larger extent, failed to charm the electorate. In South Asia, BNP, CPB and JIB in Bangladesh, DMK ADMK, CPI, CPI(M), INC, SAD among others in India, CPN-UML, NC, RPP and others in Nepal, ML-N, PPP-P and others in Pakistan, SLFP, UNP, SLMC among others in Sri Lanka all suffer socio-political and ideological stagnation. Many countries that have embraced communism, socialism, or other ideological systems have experienced economic stagnation, social unrest, and political instability. The rise of technology and social media has led to a fragmentation of political discourse and a growing distrust of established political parties and institutions. Some of the ideology-based political parties in some corners of the world are trying to preserve their destiny, while most of them are gradually dying out. Since the middle of the 20th century, Nepali people have been witnessing a sea change in socio-political, cultural and economic patterns of their life. They saw the expiry of the Rana regime that ruled Nepal from 1846 to 1951. It was characterized by authoritarianism, repression, and the concentration of power in the hands of a small ruling elite. Growing public discontent, external pressure, internal power struggles and rise of democratic and progressive forces dismissed it mercilessly, and the multiple party democratic system was introduced. Then the Panchayat system which was established in Nepal in 1962, following a coup led by King Mahendra, again concentrated power in the hands of a small group of elites. However, the popular discontent, economic stagnation, international pressure and the rise of democratic and progressive forces toppled the 30-year-long direct rule of monarchs in Nepal—a turning point in Nepal's history that paved the way for the country's transition to a more democratic and inclusive society. Though it emphasized industrial development, promotion of agriculture and rural infrastructure, including roads, schools, and health facilities leading to an increase in agricultural productivity and a reduction in poverty rates in rural areas, it could not survive longer. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Nepal saw growing popular discontent with the monarchy, which was seen as corrupt, autocratic, and out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the Nepali people. Nepal's monarchy was increasingly isolated on the international stage, with many countries and organizations criticizing the government's poor human rights record and lack of democracy. The decentralization of power, fiscal decentralization, promotion of local entrepreneurship, agriculture development, social development, and employment opportunities could not sustain the system and it perished. The Maoist insurgency that began in 1996 posed a significant challenge to the monarchy's authority and legitimacy, and the government's harsh response to the insurgency further fueled public anger and resentment toward the monarchy. In 2006, a mass popular movement led by political parties, civil society groups, and student organizations succeeded in toppling King Gyanendra's authoritarian regime and restoring democracy in Nepal. Following the success of the popular movement, political parties negotiated with the monarchy to transition Nepal to a federal democratic republic. Later, Nepal abolished its monarchy in 2008 and established a federal democratic republic. However, the rise of populist politics also promotes polarization, disruption of political institutions and practices but also enables simplification of complex problems. It can erode trust in institutions and defend the corrupt and self-serving elite, but encourages greater political participation and civic engagement of the previously marginalized segments of the demography. Thus, an increasing number of voters have now broken the chains of all ideologies—the heroism of the sovereign citizen and the beauty of democracy. No political power is comfortable anymore without a direct link to citizen-life through good governance and public service delivery. Legacy politics, nepotism or any form of favoritism have no longer been enough to win people's votes. Now the voters believe those who have greater knowledge of contemporary global communities and true apprehension of the country, the people at home and abroad, and those who have yet to be tested. Common citizens are attracted to new parties and faces. Misfortune looms large over the fate and longevity of existing ideology-based political parties in Nepal.

Recently, Nepal gifted its neighboring state India two huge ‘sacred’ Shila (believed to date back crores of years) sourced from the Kaligandaki river, known the world over as the only river on whose banks the sacred Shaligram are found. The two Shila are to be sculpted into the images of Lord Ram and Mata Janaki and installed at the Ram Temple, under construction in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.  During their journey, the Shila won the hearts and minds of more than a billion Sanatana dharma believers. The devotees stood in queues for hours in both the countries waiting for the procession to pass by. Both the Nepalis and the Indians stood hand-in-hand for their audition with the holy Shila. The Shila have been bejeweled not only with garlands of flowers and fruits found on their way to Ayodhya, but also loved by the peoples of both the countries with ample hope that Nepal and India will never be at loggerheads. Love and respect for the Shila poured in as they passed the believers by on their way to Ayodhya. Chanting of the cadences Jay Shree Ram, Jay Sita Ram with sudden jerks and thrills resonated through the hills and the valleys, the gorges and the gullies making their kinesis a timeless convoy. The Vedic verses echoed through the serpentine highways. Some of the devotees, enchanted with devotion, joined whereas others were charmed with glimmering shreekhanda paste and saffron ramanami shawl bejeweling the Shilas. The highways along the holy rivers of Nepal became sanctified as the Shila moved on, while the snow-capped Dhaulagiri, Annapurna, Machhapuchhre and other Himalayan peaks seemed to be watching over the holy procession. What the believers of all colors, classes and castes loved the most was the spirit, the transcendent and fiery expression of thoughts and ardent resolve they overwhelmed with the calling of the Creator, the earthly but non-anthropomorphic countenance of the Lord Vishnu whose seventh of the ten avatars, according to the Vedic scriptures, was Lord Ram. However, Nepal-India relations may not flow like the waves of the Kaligandaki or glister like the Shaligram found on its banks. Diplomacy moves through multiple undertakings. The characters, natures and features of it get multiplied, enriched and groomed along the journey it covers, and gathers timely attributes. If not rendered timely, it may gather dirt. Tools and skills of diplomacy work for preserving peace and preventing conflicts. The procession of two heavy-duty trucks bearing the holy boulders on their payload carriage from Shalagram kshetra (Nepal) to Ayodhya (India) through the holy places of Nepal brandished a fresh journey of Nepal-India relations—the Shaligram Diplomacy. In fact, Nepal-India relations have witnessed a constant ebb and flow. Nepal has survived multiple nakabandi (blockades) imposed by India. Nakabandi against a country, 91 percent (almost) of whose population consists of Sanatana believers. The last one was during the holy season of Dashain and Tihar festivals of 2015 creating crises and shortages of everything in Nepal. The strategic blunders that Indian states persons committed through the blockades against Nepal did not yield their country any favorable return. Rather, they led to the erosion of India’s image in the global community. It was the Indian blockade of 1969 that resulted in Nepal’s first trade deal with China. In 1989, India again imposed a trade embargo on Nepal, which lasted more than a year—a foreign policy blunder on the part of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that further enhanced Nepal’s ties with China and quickened the erosion of India’s global posture of fraternity. The cinematic display of goodwill by PM Narendra Modi during his visit to Nepal fooled the Nepali Hindus as his government imposed a blockade in 2015. It resulted in the Nepal-China transit and trade agreements that offered Nepal strategic ports for export and import of Nepali goods. The Chinese President Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Nepal in 2019, which further emboldened the ties. Hence, every generation of Nepali people has beheld such Indian moves against them. Relations between nations may face high and low tides but that have to be dealt with diplomatic prowess acting like the states persons and swiftly opening all diplomatic corridors for peaceful resolution of the crises. Since Nepali people do not harbor the animosity of any color, character or composition against the Indians, they expect the same from India. Both of the friendly countries have been rejoicing people-to-people ties for ages. Open borders, cross-border landholdings and homogeneous civilizational sorority are evident for the preceding premise. What issues exist between them are the socioeconomic and political economic hitches—record high export-import disparity, unsettled border disputes and long-standing unresolved snags regarding bilateral treaties and agreements. Nepalis deserve respect abiding by the spirit of bilateral treaties. India needs to contribute to the reasonable progress and development of Nepal with its economic and social splendor and prosperity. Nepal-India ties should never meet with vehement opposition. India’s diplomatic moves through bureaucrats, political figures, Bollywood icons, prominent individuals or institutions should stop engendering resentment in Nepali hearts. Nepal-India ties should be without paradoxes. Nepalis cannot tolerate any external involvement in their domestic affairs, a fundamental ground for preserving sovereignty of a state. India, as the ‘best friend in need’, should neither pose a threat nor be a sole source of security. Fraternal rhetoric must breed the friendlier reality—Nepal-India relations require it to be as sacred and inviolable as Shaligram Shila themselves. The author is the PhD scholar at DIRD, TU

A vector signifies a quantity with both magnitude and direction in physics. A quantity must adhere to specific combination criteria in order to be considered a vector even if it has magnitude and direction. A state’s multi-vector foreign policy strategy serves as a foundation for a flexible approach in its interactions with rival international entities in order to benefit from alliances or partnerships that have both economic and military benefits. Historically, Nepal adopted this strategy for a series of asymmetrical bargaining diplomatic devices in order to deal with competing rival regional powers China, India, the USA and the Western nations over the conditions of cooperation in socioeconomic developments, including infrastructures for industrialization and modernization of its society. Nepal’s multi-vector foreign policy leads toward an approach to international affairs that promotes cordial and predictable relationships with all nations. This approach is different from the one in which governments strengthen their relations with one country while disregarding others at the same time. The multi-vector foreign policy strategy may win helpful collaboration of all nations with an interest in it. This is the core of the strategy. Nepal is on the brink of circumstances where it has to adopt a multi-vector foreign policy, interacting favorably not just with its powerful neighbors but also with the US, the EU, and the rest of the world. Even the high-level reports and policy papers on Nepal’s foreign policy and diplomatic behaviors from 1996, 2006, International Relations and Human Rights Committee (IRHRC)-2011, 2017 through 2020/021 have alarmed the strategic crises on all fronts. It may sound newer now, but its components are found in practices that can be traced back to Nepal’s cold war-era non-alignment policy. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, respect for mutual equality, non-aggression and peaceful settlement of disputes, cooperation for mutual benefit, abiding faith in the Charter of the United Nations, and value of world peace have been some of the principal foreign policy features of Nepal. The prospect of strategic autonomy contains fundamental components of multi-vector policy. At the advent of the multi-polarity and fluidity of international relations, the multi-vector foreign policy rules prominently since it favors neither bipolar dilemma nor unipolar despotism. Nepal’s foreign policy now exclusively relies on clauses on the Constitution of Nepal (2015). The Article 5.1, Article 50.4 and Article 51 determine foreign policy priorities, national interests and national policies of Nepal. Additionally, Nepal focuses on pertinent chances for collaboration within the bilateral and multilateral partnership, as required by our national objectives of foreign policy, having recognized economic growth as our country's top priority. Nepal’s geostrategic position necessitates extensive and multifaceted interaction with its neighbors on government-to-government, people-to-people and business to business levels. Without falling under any country-specific category, Nepal needs economic assistance of India, the connectivity infrastructure provided by the China-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), as well as a significant amount of funding from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department for International Development (DFID), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The Foreign Policy 2077 (2020) focuses on soft power, multifaceted connections with neighbors, Nepali diaspora, opinions on updating bilateral agreements, settling border issues, track-two diplomacy, public diplomacy, labor diplomacy, and climate change. Affirming the existential priority of the nonalignment policy, it attempts to define its politico-diplomatic and economic stance in an altered geopolitical, regional, and global environment. This prescribes Nepal to increase opportunities for multidimensional connectivity with its neighbors, including through the infrastructural development which helps Nepal attain the LDC graduation. Continuation to find new areas of cooperation motivated by a common desire to gain access to technology is a must. These areas solidify Nepal’s relationships with regional and global powers through the exchange of high-level visits, the development of people-to-people ties, and building of trust and confidence between nations. Nepal’s novel foreign policy and diplomacy must be based upon the strong state power, vibrant bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, and a framework based on a pragmatic and non-ideological foundation. Multi-vectorism, in practice, sets the goals to create the relational power that enables a weaker state to lessen the difficulties of independence and neutrality while interacting in an asymmetrical manner with comparatively stronger powers. Nepal needs to discourage regional players like China and India from cultivating, developing, and reestablishing a sphere of privileged interests in its internal and foreign affairs. Deep engagement with international and regional society can be possible only by adopting policy goals, increasing space and process of interacting with the states, encircling it in a web of persistent interactions with long-term goals of strategic and economic incorporation. Lately, the issues of climate change and its impacts have massively drawn policy attraction. However, the sustainable development goals and forums for landlocked states can drive Nepal to identify the relevance of Track II Diplomacy for mitigating and eliminating challenges of its strategic position as global order shifts in an unparalleled manner. It has emboldened Nepal’s foreign policy toward major powers approaching the global community with sustained norms of non-aligned policy at unprecedented circumstance in humanitarian crises which may force it to resort to populism or protectionism while dealing with the great powers. Having said that, the multi-vector foreign policy of Nepal can resolve the most challenging issues of its foreign policy by increasing engagement with its neighbors, regional powers and great powers. This policy enhances Nepal’s national interests and confirms its commitments toward multilateral and regional forums thereby boosting economic diplomacy, labor diplomacy and public diplomacy through promotion of soft-power. Nepal has to reassess the philosophical foundations of its foreign policy. In addition, cultivating the belief that by encouraging great power involvement in regional institutions rather than domestic matters, Nepal will be able to increase strategic interdependence of rival nations, making direct confrontation prohibitively expensive.

Nepali politics is gradually becoming synonymous to coalition politics and we are worse off for that. There is no single party in the country that has a realistic prospect of creating a government on its own.  It has been proven time and again that coalition governments are less pragmatic. We have all seen that coalition governments lead to political instability. A coalition government will invariably collapse and create the condition for re-election. It is unquestionably less effective, non-durable, and untrustworthy compared to a government constituted by a single party with defined principles and a distinct ideology. In case of a coalition government, the majority of ministers are nominated on the suggestion of parties. These candidates were never vetted for their competence and qualifications, and at the end of the day, it is the country that suffers. Another disadvantage of Nepal’s coalition government is horse-trading. Horse-trading in politics is often seen as unethical and unpleasant, and it should be prohibited. It is claimed that horse-trading occurs in order to influence a no-confidence vote. True, consolidation of democracy sometimes necessitates coalition politics. This, however, is not the case in Nepal. Ideally, formation of a new government should promote qualitative advancement, notably inter-ethnic harmony and social concord. And coalition governments, which share power between two or more political parties, should encourage and contribute to democratic consolidation. It should contribute to the improvement of democratic institutions. These objectives are not being met by coalition politics in Nepal. Most of the countries in South Asia have adopted the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, which was inherited from the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent. The single-member territorial electoral districts, where victory is guaranteed for the candidate who receives a majority of votes, have their own advantages and disadvantages. In a developing nation like Nepal, there must be a reasonable link between coalition politics and the advancement of democracy. Nepal has been heavily impacted by the subcontinent’s postcolonial political landscape. The underlying causes that have contributed to the establishment and growth of electoral and governing coalitions by South Asian political parties have had a significant influence on Nepal’s electoral system. The major political parties in Nepal have substantially adopted their democratic and public policy features. As in the rest of the region, the dynamics driving coalition politics as a recurrent character of government formation are prevalent in Nepal. Nonetheless, the question of whether the coalition administration has offered chances for ethnic minority representation to influence public policy making processes is relevant. Even if there is a slip-up in the electoral system, it cannot be removed by simply reforming it. The voters’ verdicts have determined the kind of the political candidates they prefer—the political parties mostly fail to apprehend the people’s sentiments, potential popular candidates, and election system and management experts. Party leaders have misused the election system to consolidate political power and financial strength since they do not select the right candidates. Nepotism and favoritism are rife in the candidate nomination process. It seems that the trend has become the core mode of politics in Nepal. After the restoration of democracy in 1990, politicians, election administrators and stakeholders have increased interest in elections. Everyone has started paying attention to the electoral reform process. In this context, it is natural to discuss what kind of electoral system is suitable for the land. There is no doubt that political stability is necessary for institutional development of democracy. However, what constitutes political stability has been the subject of intense research. Nobody disagrees with the reasons why our democratic system is not fruitful and sustainable, since almost all our elected governments in the past have been unstable. Not a single government since 1994 has been formed and led by a single party. And, as in other parts of the region, Nepali political leaders only concern themselves with winning elections, gaining political power and enhancing individual success in petty political ambitions that always lead to accumulation of wealth to ensure victory in the next election. They put aside all the common pro-people agendas and policies as long as they cling on to power. This scenario, therefore, convinces us that there is a real need for systemic reform in the electoral system in Nepal. Changing electoral systems is always risky. However, if we want the good of the country and the citizens as a whole, we must dare to change the system, improve the method and process. As the FPTP system failed to meet the requirements of relatively proportional inclusive representation, we adopted a mixed electoral system. Although some achievements have been achieved through this system, it has been seen and experienced that the representation has not been fully proportional, and the election has become very expensive and many distortions have been introduced in the use of the system. Not only this, there was not even a proportional representation of all classes, regions and groups in the elected bodies. So, changing our electoral system is an urgency of the time. The author is the PhD scholar at DIRD, TU  

“New rules or a game without rules?” asked Russian President Vladimir Putin almost a decade ago, questioning the US-led unipolar international order. The Western world mostly ignored Putin’s remark. In 2014, Russia sent its military into Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. In 2022, it declared an all-out war against the same country.

The West has now retreated from the global stage thanks to its expensive war on terror, economic depression, and a rise of populism and nationalist politics. These in turn have shrunk its military advantages.

As Ukraine became vulnerable, Russia questioned its statehood and accused NATO of jeopardizing Russia’s security. It also inexplicably accused Ukraine of committing genocide against its Russian-speaking citizens. So, on February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine.

It is worth recalling that Ukraine was the world’s third largest nuclear power at the end of the Cold War—until it was denuclearized under bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions. Its denuclearization was frequently heralded as a victory for arms control, as Ukraine was portrayed as a model in a world rife with potential nuclear powers.

But the security and territorial guarantees that came with the disarmament proved to a mirage. In reality, no force could prevent the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014 or Russia’s all-out war against Ukraine at present. This is why every middle-income country in the world aspires to possess nuclear warheads to deter potential aggressors: denuclearization and security arrangements just don’t work. Now, the nuclear dilemma is once again haunting Ukraine and other geo-strategically vulnerable states around the world.

Nepal’s vulnerable geo-strategic location has always endangered its very existence. Both India and China seemingly want to exploit the country to gain geo-strategic advantage.

The Cold War-era diplomacy of great powers centered on enticing weaker states with infrastructure projects—national highways, industries, university buildings, government secretariat buildings, student exchange programs, scholarships, etc. That kind of diplomacy had, to an extent, proved worthwhile for Nepal. But then any development assistance for Nepal was always contingent on serving the larger strategic interests of big foreign powers.

British India saw Nepal as a buffer against Imperial China. Independent India pursued the same British-era strategic policy, which continues to this day. China wants a strictly neutral Nepal. The US and the West, meanwhile, need Nepal to check the ambitions of a rising China.

Things are going from bad to worse. The Americans are pushing hard on the MCC compact and the Chinese are doing the same with the BRI, suggesting neither side is ready to give an inch. They will also ask Nepal to increasingly do their bidding. 

Gradually, Nepal is being obliged to ratify agreements, development protocols and strategic assurances that ultimately weaken its sovereignty, independence and autonomy. A strategically weak Nepal can hardly decide on its own, a fate similar to Ukraine’s.

The country has had to feel the burnt of the recent uptick in US-China rivalry. The relations with India also remain dicey. Nepal as a poor and unarmed country is left without choice—it has no option but to explore a safe strategic space from which it can rally for global peace, vocalize its neutrality and advocate non-alignment.

We need to be well aware of any potential strategic miscalculations while dealing with great powers—for instance, Ukraine had virtually signed its suicide note by agreeing to disarm.

The contracts and compacts Nepal signs can trap it geopolitically under the guise of development. Nepal must learn from the fate of Karna who surrendered his Kavacha and Kundala—body armors and earrings—to Lord Indra, and was then slaughtered in the battlefield.

Nepal’s Kavacha and Kundala are neutrality, advocacy for peace and non-alignment. We should not make the mistake of surrendering these attributes that have guaranteed our sovereignty and independence for so long.

The author is a PhD Scholar at the Department of International Relations and Diplomacy (DIRD), Tribhuvan University, Nepal.