Submit your Article

The Raisina Dialogue 2024, held in New Delhi, indeed reflected India's commitment to engaging with the international community through diplomatic means. The three-day event served as a platform for India to convey its perspective on global issues and showcase its dedication to finding diplomatic solutions to world crises.

The theme of CHATURANGA, derived from the Sanskrit word meaning four components—Conflict, Contest, Cooperate, and Create—reflects the complexity of contemporary world politics. It acknowledges the existing realities of conflict and contest in a changing geopolitical order. The emphasis, however, is on transforming these challenges into opportunities for cooperation and creation.

In the context of global affairs, acknowledging the presence of conflicts and contests is a realistic approach. However, the overarching goal is to transcend these challenges and move toward collaboration and innovation. By fostering cooperation, nations can address shared issues and create a more stable and prosperous world.

Through such global dialogue, India demonstrates its commitment to being an active participant in shaping the global narrative. By emphasizing the importance of diplomacy and negotiation, India seeks to contribute to the development of solutions that benefit the international community as a whole. The event serves as a testament to India's diplomatic prowess and its desire to play a constructive role on the world stage.

Participating in the 2024 Raisina Dialogue has provided me with insights into the underlying messages conveyed by the Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi’s popularity on the global stage, surpassing other world leaders, adds significance to the messages emanating from New Delhi.

In tune with Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, the Indian leadership has communicated a crucial point to major world powers—that dealing effectively with the complexities of the present global landscape is imperative for progress. Jaishankar emphasizes the four dimensions of conflict, contest, cooperate and create, asserting that these elements are driving the games that nations play in today’s geopolitical arena. The Raisina Dialogue, as a platform, is dedicated to deliberating on the risks, challenges, choices and outcomes associated with these dimensions.

Participants might question how fruitful the panels were in addressing the pressing issues of our time and whether the discussions were fair and comprehensive. These aspects can be separately evaluated and discussed.

Through latest global events such as the successful hosting of G20 and a strong presence in global forums, India has tried to give major three messages to the world.

Firstly, India has not merely emerged; it has already established itself as a significant global player. In 2010, during his visit to India, former US President Barack Obama remarked, “India is not rising; India has risen,” emphasizing the nation’s substantial progress. Over the past 14 years, India has become the world’s fifth-largest economy, surpassing Japan.

Secondly, India functions as a bridge and a global balancer. The strategic partnership between India and the US has grown significantly, aligning their approaches on various global and regional issues. Simultaneously, India assumes a leadership role in ‘Global South,’ unifying nations in the southern region to amplify their collective voice. According to Jaishankar, the developed Western world often overlooks the challenges facing the Global South, and India actively advocates for their concerns.

India holds a prominent position in BRICS, a bloc that aims to introduce its currency to reduce reliance on the US dollar. BRICS nations have initiated trade transactions in local currencies, challenging the dominance of the American dollar. Additionally, India is a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), alongside the US, Japan and Australia, formed to address and manage China’s ascent as a formidable global power.

While India collaborates in regional and global blocs to counterbalance China’s influence, it simultaneously maintains issue-based relations with China. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping initiated informal summits, recognizing the significance of their bilateral relations.

India’s role in the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine conflict underscores its autonomy in decision-making. India has strongly asserted its right to determine its policies and actions in these situations, rejecting external suggestions. In West Asian and Eurasian conflicts, India has never sought advice from the West, reinforcing its commitment to independent decision-making.

In essence, India’s global positioning involves being a recognized economic powerhouse, a diplomatic bridge and a strategic balancer, playing a pivotal role in various international forums while maintaining autonomy in addressing regional and global challenges.

Thirdly, India serves as a global public space, exemplified by the inclusive approach taken during the Raisina Dialogue. Leaders from various continents were invited to engage in discussions on global and regional themes. India’s democratic foreign policy and status as the world’s largest liberal democracy has provided a common platform for individuals, regardless of their ideologies, economic status, or political systems, to openly express their perspectives. This inclusivity extends beyond heads of states, prime ministers and foreign ministers to encompass business leaders, thinkers, policy commentators and strategic analysts, who were given the opportunity to interact openly. Thematic sessions and business forums held in different corners of the grand venue facilitated both focused discussions and sideline meetings.

As the upcoming elections draw closer, Prime Minister Modi has been projected as a leader of global stature. The forums like the Raisina Dialogue have contributed to establishing Modi as a globally influential figure, garnering popularity not only within India but also worldwide.

However, it is crucial for Prime Minister Modi and Indian leaders to demonstrate their global exposure and stature in their interactions with neighboring countries. While the ‘Neighborhood First’ policy is in place, there is a need for it to be more action-oriented rather than limited to rhetoric. Jaishankar’s foreign policy approach is realistic, prioritizing India’s national interests. While it is understandable that every sovereign nation should safeguard its national interest, larger powers and economies should adopt a more accommodative stance, especially when developmental issues are at stake. Striking a balance between national interests and regional cooperation is key to fostering positive relationships with neighboring countries.

Vice-minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China (CPCID), Sun Haiyan, visited Nepal in the last week of Jan 2024. During her four-day visit, she engaged in meaningful discussions with the leaders of major political parties, raising various aspects of bilateral relations.

In contrast to previous visits by Chinese delegations, Sun’s visit garnered significant attention from the Nepali government and political parties. It served as a platform to address long-standing issues that had remained unattended. By bringing these matters into open discussion, she actively sought suggestions and recommendations from prominent Nepali parties to chart the future course of Nepal-China relations. Her expressed desire was to elevate the bilateral ties to a new level, fostering mutual trust and respect.

Undoubtedly, Nepal seeks to maintain positive and neighborly relations with both China and India, with all major political parties prioritizing these two nations in their foreign relations. The adherence to the ‘one-China’ policy remains a longstanding and principled position for Nepal, dating back to the 1950s. Furthermore, Nepal is unequivocal in its commitment to preventing the use of its territory against China by any third country or non-state actors. 

Against this backdrop, the Nepal-China relationship appears generally normal and warm, with occasional minor irritants arising from misunderstandings and miscalculations. However, Madam Sun’s statements go beyond addressing these issues and are directed at external narratives that she believes some sections of Nepali society are adopting and endorsing. It is evident that Sun’s remarks aim to dismiss misconceptions and reinforce the importance of a robust and positive relationship between Nepal and China, urging a deeper understanding of shared values and mutual benefits that underpin their diplomatic ties.

Certainly, it’s essential to consider the broader geopolitical landscape when analyzing her statement and the concerns voiced by other Chinese leaders during their recent visits to Nepal. A significant factor in this context is the global positioning of China and the US policy of ‘containment’, particularly evident in the Indo-Pacific region encompassing the heartland and rimland.

Let’s delve into Vice-minister Sun’s statement and the concerns she expressed during her visit to Nepal. In her statement, she pointed out that some countries are actively working to destabilize the robust relations between Nepal and China, while also highlighting attempts to tarnish the reputation of the Belt and Road Initiative, often labeled as a ‘debt trap’. The underlying context of her statement revolves around the global power struggle, where China leads one axis, and the US leads another. The ideological differences between a socialist China and a capitalist US have contributed to conflicting relations that have, to a significant extent, divided the world’s nations and populations.

Chinese leaders, as articulated in their statements, have made it clear that they will not tolerate any attempts by the US and its Western bloc allies to set the stage against China. This geopolitical backdrop forms the nucleus of Vice-minister Sun Haiyan’s concerns, highlighting the complexities and tensions arising from the broader global power dynamics between the two major players, China and the US. The fact that Nepal has initiated steps to implement the MCC project, involving a substantial grant from the US, while progress on BRI projects remains in the consultation phase, is a matter of concern from the Chinese perspective. And, it is quite natural.

The delay and apparent reluctance in executing Chinese investments, especially in comparison to the timely implementation of projects backed by the US, may indeed be viewed as a genuine concern by Beijing. The reference to Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port, labeled as a ‘debt trap’, serves as a cautionary example, emphasizing China’s stance that such narratives are false and designed to undermine its growing global influence. Delay in the completion of Chinese-funded projects in Nepal has been a recurring concern, and Vice-minister Sun, along with Chinese Ambassador Chen Song, also raised this concern. The intention was to identify the reasons behind these delays and work collaboratively to address the issues, ensuring that Chinese aid is not perceived as a burden to Nepal.

Along with these concerns, Sun emphasized three key areas: The status and future of Nepal-China ties, the desired nature of these relations in changing circumstances, and the role Nepali political parties can play in strengthening bilateral ties.

While the general secretary of the CPN-UML, Shankar Pokherel, responded to the concerns raised by Vice Minister Sun, there was a notable absence of responses from leaders of other political parties during the consultation. Despite the silence on these specific issues, all political leaders affirmed their commitment to enhancing relations with China, expressing Nepal’s eagerness to benefit from China's economic growth. They also reiterated their commitment to the ‘one-China’ policy and support for the Belt and Road Initiative.

Ambassador Chen clarified that the BRI involves more than just concessional loans; it also encompasses grant elements. This statement comes in response to Nepal’s long-standing request for Chinese grants, particularly for major projects under the BRI. However, the ambassador also raised a crucial, unanswered question concerning the delays in projects involving Chinese companies. He pointed out that these companies, which successfully complete projects within set deadlines in other countries, face challenges in doing so in Nepal. Ambassador Chen emphasized that both sides should assess the situation and work toward resolving the issues.

The Nepal government should immediately hold consultation with the Chinese side and move toward implementing the projects keeping the grant element in priority as informed by the ambassador. But, the question left unanswered so far must be mutually addressed. That is the question of Chinese investment and its security. In this regard, the question of Ambassador Chen is serious. He queried the Nepali leaders as to why the same Chinese companies, which were completing projects in other countries within set deadlines, have been unable to do so in Nepal. And he quipped,  “Is it only due to us? No. You have to assess it.” Now it is our part to find fairness. Nepal should seriously do homework to benefit from the two rising economies of the world, which happen to be our neighbors. Until and unless we receive financial support from China and India, we cannot transform Nepal’s national aspiration of ‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepal’ into reality.

As the English New Year 2024 commences, Nepal is set to host India’s Minister for External Affairs S Jaishankar, for a ministerial joint commission meeting on Jan 4-5. This visit, which follows Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s official visit to India from May 31 to June 2 this year, holds significance on both political and economic fronts. 

At the PM-level meeting, Nepal and India expressed commitment to implementing bilateral agreements signed earlier. In a departure from the past, Prime Minister Dahal refrained from addressing certain important agendas that his predecessors had been raising consistently, including the Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty 1950 and the EPG report. 

This article aims to highlight the significance of Jaishankar’s visit and emphasizes the tone required for advancing bilateral relations in a mutually beneficial and dignified manner.

Review of past pacts

Jaishankar has transitioned from a technocrat-diplomat to a politician and is recognized as a trusted aide to Prime Minister Modi. He has been remarkably successful in shaping India’s future, making India both heard and seen as a global power. With a keen focus on this goal, he shoulders a huge responsibility in upholding India’s relations with global powers and neighboring countries, prioritizing New Delhi’s needs and interests.

His visit to Kathmandu presents an opportunity for Nepal to garner his support in nurturing the relationship between the two countries. Nepal should use this occasion to openly discuss concerns and priorities with the Indian government. This offers a chance for a more meaningful and constructive dialogue, benefiting both nations and their peoples. For this, Nepal also needs rapprochement; Nepal should strive to lead the bilateral meeting toward a positive direction by focusing more on development and economic support rather than engaging on contentious issues.  

It’s crucial for both sides to prioritize implementation of past agreements instead of reaching new deals. It’s imperative for Nepal and India to refrain from signing new agreements or memoranda of understanding, as both nations have already established a comprehensive array of agreements covering various sectors. ‘Customary’ visits of Nepali Prime Ministers to India right after assuming the high office focus more often than not on addressing pending agendas and concerns. A crucial step for both nations is to meticulously review past agreements, assess the progress achieved and focus on effective implementation. 

One significant agreement expected to be signed during the Indian high official’s visit concerns the import of 10,000 MW from Nepal within the next 10 years. Both Prime Ministers have formally agreed upon this, and the signing of this agreement could mark a pivotal achievement for Nepal, which generates surplus hydropower during the rainy season. While increasing domestic consumption is important, Nepal’s current surplus positions it to capitalize on exporting hydroelectricity and ensuring economic gains.

It’s also important for both sides to engage in discussions on the Pancheshwar project, West Seti project, air routes and cultural aspects.

A development focus 

As previously mentioned, the Modi government has showcased India’s burgeoning global prowess. Prime Minister Modi stands among the world’s leaders, sought after for enhancing international relations. Minister Jaishankar embodies the mastermind behind India’s recently heightened global recognition and stance.

As Nepal continues its thrust toward advancing its development agenda, Kathmandu can concentrate more on seeking development assistance and grants. Nepal should prioritize and categorize pending issues on the basis of urgency, urging the Indian side to align efforts with these mutually chosen agendas.

Unresolved border issues require a diplomatic way out. Such issues might take years to resolve, just like border disputes between India and China. Despite their complexity, diplomatic channels remain crucial for seeking a lasting solution.

Nepal should assure full security for India’s investment projects within its borders, particularly joint investment hydro projects. 

While it’s crucial for Nepal to address such issues and maintain institutional memory, it’s equally important not to let them constantly strain relations and overshadow broader positive aspects of their ties. Border disputes shouldn’t dictate a perpetual state of animosity, neglecting other constructive dimensions of bilateral relationship. 

On Nov 3, Nepal was struck by a devastating 6.4-magnitude earthquake, centered in Jajarkot within the remote Karnali province. This natural disaster left the nation in urgent need of assistance to rescue victims and provide essential relief materials and shelter. The government swiftly undertook rescue efforts at the epicenter and other severely affected areas by deploying the Nepal Army and other security forces. However, a significant gap emerged in providing essential aid to those most affected, leaving many stranded without proper shelter.

The earthquake claimed the lives of at least 157 people, with nearly 400 individuals sustaining injuries across Nepal and parts of India. The dire situation worsened due to the government’s involvement in petty politics when it came to distributing relief materials. Instead of focusing on impartial aid distribution, the ruling parties showed favoritism by prioritizing their own supporters and cadres. This division in aid allocation further exacerbated the suffering of those already grappling with the aftermath of the disaster.

In the aftermath of the earthquake, Nepal’s immediate neighbors, India and China, stepped up to provide crucial support to the affected areas. Additionally, ambassadors from various nations expressed deep condolences for the lives lost in the earthquake and offered readiness to extend support to Nepal during this challenging time. Collaborative efforts of the neighboring countries and the international community played a pivotal role in assisting Nepal’s relief and recovery endeavors after the disaster struck.

Swift response

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the first to extend assistance to Nepal in the wake of the earthquake. Expressing deep sorrow for the loss of lives and damage caused, Modi tweeted his condolences and pledged India’s unwavering support. “India stands in solidarity with the people of Nepal and is prepared to provide all possible assistance. Our thoughts are with the bereaved families, and we wish the injured a speedy recovery.”

India promptly fulfilled Prime Minister Modi’s commitment by delivering the initial phase of relief materials to Nepal on Nov 5. From the Nepalgunj Airport, two truck-loads of essential supplies, accompanied with a security team, were dispatched to Jajarkot and Rukum Paschim. India’s Ambassador to Nepal, Naveen Srivastava, handed over the relief to Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Purna Bahadur Khadka. The aid package comprised 625 units of plastic tarpaulin and tents, 1,000 sleeping bags, 1,000 blankets, 70 large-size tents, 35 packets of tent accessories, medicines and 48 other assorted articles, among other essentials.

On Nov 6, India continued its support by delivering a second consignment of relief materials for the disaster-affected families. The Deputy Chief of Mission, Prasanna Shrivastava, presented the second consignment to Nepal as part of the ongoing aid efforts. 

In the aftermath of the 2015 earthquake, India had been the first country to swiftly provide vital support to Nepal. Maintaining this commitment, India remained steadfast in extending comprehensive assistance to Nepal in the wake of the Jajarkot earthquake. Prime Minister Modi reiterated Indian support to Nepal, emphasizing the significance of assisting neighboring countries during times of crisis and how India continues to stand by its neighbors in times of need. 

China, the northern neighbor, also supported Nepal. On Nov 9, two Chinese cargo planes arrived at the airport carrying 600 cotton tents and 4,600 blankets. 

China’s Ambassador to Nepal, Chen Song, handed over the relief package to Nepal’s Home Minister, Narayan Kaji Shrestha, who acknowledged China’s consistent support for Nepal’s economic development and emphasized their assistance during critical times, such as the 2015 earthquakes and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ambassador Chen highlighted the significance of the relief materials, portraying a strong connection between China and Nepal, characterized by shared mountains and rivers, and a bond of mutual assistance. These supplies symbolize China’s commitment to fostering a community with a shared future for all mankind, he said. This crucial support entered Nepal via the Kerung-Rasuwagadhi border point, facilitated by the Chinese Embassy in Nepal. Additionally, the China International Development Cooperation Agency announced a supplementary batch of emergency humanitarian assistance for Nepal. Furthermore, the Red Cross Society of China offered emergency cash assistance to aid Nepal’s rescue and relief endeavors in the earthquake-affected areas.

During an official visit to Nepal, Communist Party of China’s Tibet secretary Wang Junzheng announced further support for Nepal while paying a courtesy call on Prime Minister Puspha Kamal Dahal. Also, CPC’s International Department (CPCID) extended support to Nepal through party channels. Leaders from Nepal’s major four parties facilitated the distribution of the materials received thus to the affected regions.

Genuine friendship

India and China, as emerging powers and our neighbors, have demonstrated their unwavering support for Nepal in times of crisis. The immediate assistance provided after the earthquake showcased their genuine friendship and solidarity with Nepal in times of need. The border disputes and conflicts between India and China are bilateral issues that Nepal regards as internal matters of the neighbors. How they navigate and develop their relations with the US is their prerogative, and Nepal can only urge both nations to peacefully resolve their disputes through diplomatic channels.

Nepal perceives India and China not as challenges but as opportunities. Their swift aid during this crisis underscores the importance of regional cooperation and mutual assistance in times of adversities. It's crucial for Nepali leaders to recognize that while Nepal benefits from neighborly support, it’s equally important to ensure respect for genuine interests of the neighbors. 

Shared borders and cultural ties mean disputes can crop up because of close proximity. Prime Minister Modi’s ‘neighborhood first’ policy has consistently supported Nepal, just as President Xi Jinping’s ‘peripheral diplomacy’ has guided China’s support to Nepal within this framework.

Nepal must uphold its national interests and sovereignty while engaging with its neighbors. It’s essential not to display bias in dealings with them. Nepal should adopt a pragmatic approach and openly discuss issues. If there are discrepancies or missteps from either neighbor, Nepal should seek rectification in a transparent manner. Nepal’s stance, whether in protest or support toward India and China, should be guided by specific issues and remain issue-centric.

If the presidency of the G-20 symbolizes India’s growing prominence in global power politics, it is evident that India has indeed emerged as a significant player on the world stage. The successful hosting of the G-20 Summit in New Delhi, under the theme of ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future’, underscored the profound concept of ‘Vasudhaiva kutumbakam’, which translates to “the world is one family” in Sanskrit, considered the mother of all languages spoken today in the world.      

During the summit, India’s leadership demonstrated its commitment to fostering unity and collaboration among nations. The emphasis on the interconnectedness of all nations and the importance of collective action showcased India’s diplomatic prowess and its role as a bridge between Eastern and Western perspectives. On the global stage, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister S Jaishankar have been strongly raising the issues of developing nations, which account for a major share in global politics. 

Prime Minister Modi and Foreign Minister Jaishankar have been instrumental in promoting the values rooted in the Eastern knowledge system, often referred to as ‘orientalism’, on the global stage and within the United Nations (UN). Besides ‘'Vasudhaiva kutumbakam'’, one significant achievement was his leadership in declaring ‘Yoga’, an ancient tradition of physical and mental exercises, as the International Yoga Day, an observance recognized and celebrated annually by the UN. The United Nations had proclaimed June 21 as the International Day of Yoga, as proposed by PM Modi in his address at the opening of the 69th session of the General Assembly in 2014.  It was endorsed by a record 175 member-states.   

Yoga, known for its positive impact on physical and mental well-being, has been embraced worldwide as a valuable tool for promoting holistic health and wellness. Before the concept of a modern state system based on geography, the entire Himalayan region, including the south of the Himalayas, was a very fertile land for knowledge, Yoga, meditation and many other ancient innovations, which modern developed states are following these days. 

Certainly, India faces a range of complex challenges, and PM Modi has not been immune to criticism from the opposition parties. Any country’s domestic situation is purely their issue to resolve. And, in a democracy, parties based on different ideologies share differences and that might take the shape of conflict too. But the most important thing is whether they share enmity or differences on foreign policy, foreign relations and building the international image of their country or not. India has set the tone that despite extreme political polarization, the country has never been divided on issues related to external relations.    

There’s no denying that PM Modi and Foreign Minister Jaishankar have effectively elevated India's international standing and ensured that it is noticed and recognized by major global powers. While foreign policy is often considered an extension of domestic policy and circumstances, Modi has managed to navigate the global stage without getting embroiled in divisive domestic politics. On his part,  Jaishankar has played a major role to elevate the image of India as a key player on the global stage. And, it is Jaishankar, who has shown the way to the Europeans and advised them to change their mentality toward Asia. It is Jaishankar, who has adopted a ‘multi-alignment’ policy, according topmost priority to India’s national interest.  

 Let’s enter into the announcement of India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and its significance to the world. One achievement made on the sidelines of India’s G-20 Summit was the new initiative to develop a rail and shipping corridor connecting India with Europe via the Middle East with leaders from the US, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, France, Germany, Italy and the European Union signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the establishment of IMEC.

 IMEC is significant from an infrastructure and connectivity perspective as well as from a geopolitical angle. The project involves two separate corridors—the eastern corridor, which connects India with the Arabian Gulf, and the northern corridor, which connects the Arabian Gulf with Europe. According to the MoU, IMEC is “expected to stimulate economic development through enhanced connectivity and economic integration between Asia, the Arabian Gulf and Europe.” That some of the major Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE, and Jordan, are part of it makes it noteworthy, especially fro

m a geopolitical perspective. Announcing this on the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), the leaders noted that IMEC will involve rail connectivity, shipping lines, high-speed data cables and energy pipelines. 

IMEC has been perceived as a counter-move of BRI launched by China in 2013. Whether it aims to challenge BRI or not, connectivity is an important precondition for development. New Delhi, which has a vital role to play in IMEC, should be aware that such connectivity projects shouldn’t be used strategically to control the power of China or any other countries. Indian leaders must understand that the future of the world largely depends upon what kind of relations the emerging Asian powers maintain.   

As a neighbor of emerging economies (India and China), Nepal would be happy to embrace the rising significance of them, but it should strongly object to any move from the third countries to destabilize Asia, including the South Asia region.

While engaging in discourses on the foreign policy of Nepal in formal and informal forums, some new thoughts and somewhat ‘innovative’ ideas have emerged, influenced by the changing dynamics of global power politics. In a thought-provoking lecture titled ‘Safeguarding Nepal’s National Interest: Foreign Policy Choices in the Changing International Environment,’ under the Yadu Nath Khanal lecture series organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Former Foreign Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya on June 25 shared an interesting perspective. He recommended that Nepal should adopt a policy of ‘multi-alignment’ instead of strictly adhering to the traditional ‘non-alignment’ stance. Acknowledging the shifting dynamics of international politics, Acharya believes that Nepal can better safeguard its national interests by adopting a more flexible and pragmatic approach toward international relations. While internalizing the sensitivities of geo-strategic location, I have presented my perspective in this write-up in a way backing-up this thought of a seasoned diplomat and author of many books, including a famous one ‘'Nepal Worldview'’. Let us define non-alignment and multi-alignment first. Non-alignment is a policy stance where a country chooses not to align itself with any major power bloc or alliance. Non-aligned countries aim to maintain their independence, sovereignty, and neutrality by avoiding formal military alliances or entanglements in conflicts between major powers. Non-alignment was a policy of the Cold War era when non-aligned countries refrained from aligning themselves with the West-led NATO or the East-led Warsaw Pact. The dynamics of international relations have evolved since the Cold War, and the term ‘non-aligned’ may not have the same significance today as it did back then. Nepal is a non-aligned state that has protected its national sovereignty and territorial integrity in major geopolitical turbulences over the decades.  Multi-alignment is a policy approach in which a country actively seeks to engage and maintain relations with multiple powers or regional blocs. Unlike non-alignment, multi-alignment does not imply complete neutrality or a lack of formal alliances. Instead, it emphasizes diversifying diplomatic, economic, and security ties with various countries or groups to safeguard national interests and increase strategic flexibility. By engaging with multiple actors, a multi-aligned country aims to leverage its relationships to maximize benefits, access resources, and pursue its goals effectively. This approach allows countries to navigate complex geopolitical environments and adapt to shifting power dynamics. Multi-alignment is new for Nepal, unlike its southern neighbor India, which has adopted it by terming it as a ‘multi-engagement’ policy.  Should Nepal follow a multi-aligned policy then or just remain multi-engaged? Nepal has adhered to a non-aligned stance since the 1950s, primarily as a means to maintain its independence, sovereignty, and neutrality during the Cold War. During that period, many countries, particularly smaller nations, chose to remain neutral as a survival strategy and to avoid being drawn into the conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union. Nepal's adoption of non-alignment allowed it to assert its own interests and avoid alignment with either of the power blocs. But the situation has changed since then. On the one hand, the Cold War is over, while on the other, there have been errors and blunders in the implementation of non-alignment. Despite deviations from the core principles of non-alignment in some cases, the fundamental principle of maintaining independence, sovereignty, and neutrality has so far remained the guiding force. Given the economic significance and influence of China and India in the region, Nepal must continue to engage with both countries to benefit from economic partnerships, trade opportunities, and infrastructure development. At the same time, maintaining relations with other countries, including the United States and other western powers, can bring additional benefits in terms of investment, and development assistance. A multi-aligned policy approach can offer Nepal strategic flexibility and the ability to navigate its complex geopolitical environment effectively. By engaging with multiple powers, Nepal can leverage its relationships to advance its national interests, access resources, and enhance its development prospects. This is no time to be a mere spectator of developments in our periphery and be submissive to any hegemon. It doesn’t mean that Nepal should immediately embrace the multi-aligned policy; at least we should start contemplating the pros and cons of multi-alignment. Unlike regional powers China and India, which have strategic goals to achieve globally, Nepal has to focus on its strength in the development process.      It is important for Nepal to carefully assess its national priorities and conduct a comprehensive analysis of the potential benefits and risks associated with a multi-aligned approach. This includes considering the potential impact on its relationships with neighboring countries, managing any potential conflict of interest, and ensuring the protection of Nepal's sovereignty and independence. It is important to note that multi-alignment does not necessitate membership in specific security-related alliances such as the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) of the US or the Global Security Initiative (GSI) of China. A multi-aligned state can out-rightly refuse to become a member of initiatives focused on security and military cooperation. However, Nepal has engaged or can still engage with specific programs or initiatives that are not security-related. For example, participation in the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) of the US, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China and the Act East Policy (AEP) of India can offer opportunities for economic cooperation, infrastructure development, and regional connectivity without compromising Nepal’s national interest. When engaging with these programs, Nepal should carefully evaluate any conditions or terms attached to them and assess their implications for national interests and sovereignty. Understanding the geography and geopolitics of the region is crucial for Nepal to navigate new policy orientations.   Nepal should forge partnerships and collaborations with various nations and global actors, regardless of their ideological or political orientations. Rather than being biased toward any specific country, government or ideology, multi-alignment allows Nepal to engage with diverse actors and explore different ideas, which can contribute to the formulation of a unique Nepali perspective on development. For peace, progress and prosperity of Nepal and the Nepalis, the Nepali state should recognize the importance of engaging with different powers and seeking their support in national endeavors.

After a long wait, Prime Minister Puspa Kamal Dahal is set to embark on a four-day official visit to India on May 31. This visit holds immense significance as it was declared as his top priority upon assuming office for the third time, albeit in a tumultuous political landscape. Initially supported by KP Sharma Oli, Dahal soon separated from him and formed an alliance with Sher Bahadur Deuba. Now, the government is expediting preparations to ensure the ‘success’ of this visit. Before the formal announcement of the trip, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) initiated consultations with former foreign ministers, foreign secretaries, and foreign affairs experts to set the agendas for the visit. Foreign Minister Narayan Prasad Saud has been selectively seeking input, carefully considering the recommendations put forth. To understand PM Dahal’s visit, it is essential to examine it from three perspectives: Domestic adversaries, external challenges, and agenda-wise. Firstly, considering the domestic adversaries, Dahal’s capacity to exercise power is severely constrained. Despite a parliamentary majority, he is arguably the weakest Prime Minister in 17 years since the country’s switch to a federal democratic republic. Consequently, while India will respect him as the Prime Minister of a sovereign neighboring nation, it will also take into account Nepal's divided mandate. Dahal’s visit may be perceived as lacking the ability to represent the national conscience and psyche adequately. Secondly, Dahal’s term as PM is fixed for an initial two years as per a gentlemen’s agreement. Sher Bahadur Deuba, the chairman of the largest party in the ruling alliance, is next in line for the premiership. The last one year has been allocated to Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Nepal Socialist Party, which broke away from the CPN-UML. This distribution of the five-year term limits the extent to which any foreign counterpart, government, or party can fully support and collaborate with a PM during his tenure. Although Indian officials may not explicitly convey this, it will inevitably influence every meeting and interaction. Thirdly, the infamous fake Bhutanese refugees’ scandal has impacted national image. Nepal, proud of its history of never being colonized, has now been affected by acts of treason and organized crime. Consequently, these factors will subtly influence PM Dahal’s meeting with his Indian counterpart. Despite these domestic adversaries, the PM can collectively represent national self-confidence and sentiments by engaging with opposition leaders. He can emphasize that his visit to India is guided by a list of common agendas supported by all Nepali parties and stakeholders. Turning to external adversaries, India is not only our neighbor but also an emerging Asian power and a global strategic player. India maintains '’strategic partnerships'’ with the United States, ‘engages’ with Russia as it has done since the time of Indira Gandhi, and balances ‘conflicting and coordinated’ roles with China. Under the ‘neighbor first’ policy, Nepal is given priority, although relatively lesser when compared to global powers such as the USA, Russia, China, and other regional players. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is known to be one of the busiest leaders globally, further reinforcing the need for realistic expectations regarding the extent of India’s focus on Nepal. Furthermore, the inclusion of the China factor in the preparations for the Indian visit has added complexity to the dynamics. PM Dahal himself recently revealed that he had received an invitation to attend the BOAO Forum for Asia, but it was abruptly canceled following consultation with the Chinese ambassador. The sudden change in the Chinese government's decision to invite and then withdraw the invitation raises questions about the ongoing Nepal-China relations. The PM must understand that, when planning a visit to India, it is important to refrain from bringing China into the discourse or involving Beijing in his plans, and vice-versa. Some Previous Nepali PMs have made the mistake of either excessively engaging with neighboring powers or displaying an inferiority complex. A sovereign PM should have the confidence to exercise power independently, regardless of the size or development level of other countries. Equally sensitive and significant is the decision regarding which country should a PM visit first. Typically, the visit of a PM is determined on the bases of agendas and necessities. If the PM can explain the reason behind choosing a particular country for his first foreign trip, that decision should be fully supported. The question of the PM’s first foreign visit to India has not been raised because there are numerous issues that need to be resolved between the two countries. However, it is not the time to choose one country over the other; it is time to maintain a ‘relative balance’ considering the strong historical and multifaceted relations and contributions both countries have made to Nepal. It is important to understand that Nepal-India relations cannot be compared with Nepal-China relations and vice-versa as they have different dynamics. The third aspect to consider is the agenda. Nepal should not approach foreign visits with an extensive shopping list. Instead, Nepal should prioritize projects based on the nation’s needs, with a focus on completing previously agreed-upon projects. Nepal should also raise border issues and seek to resolve them through diplomatic negotiations. In such sensitive matters, there is no need for a display of pseudo-nationalism. If Prime Minister Dahal has mentioned raising the issue of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) and borders, it should not be for public consumption. Apart from border issues, there are no other genuine problems between the two countries. Perceived problems largely stem from misunderstandings that need to be addressed. The leaders of both the countries should move away from this ‘perceptional enmity’. Nepali leaders should refrain from involving India in their domestic issues, and India should respect Nepal’s internal affairs. This change is necessary because the era of political extremism is now over. Diplomatic relations between the two countries should be assessed on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit. Since diplomacy is not a zero-sum game, both countries should strive for a win-win situation. Nepal can expect support from India, an emerging leader in Asia and an influential neighbor, based on the principle of ‘'non-reciprocity’ 'as outlined in the ‘Gujral Doctrine’ by former Indian Prime Minister IK Gujaral. During PM Dahal’s visit, several agreements can be signed, and commitments to diplomatic negotiations for problem-solving can be made. However, the most crucial aspect of all is to bridge trust deficits between the two countries and strive to build a relationship on the basis of renewed trust.

The 10-party ruling alliance under Pushpa Kamal Dahal made its Common Minimum Program (CMP) public on April 6. In general, CMP is a document that outlines the shared agenda and priorities of a coalition government. It is usually negotiated and agreed upon by all the parties in the coalition to ensure a common understanding of the government’s goals and policies. Interestingly, this is the second CMP of the Prachanda government within 100 days. In a rare occurrence, Prime Minister Dahal himself switched sides, leaving a historic but unscrupulous imprint on coalition culture, which should not be repeated in the interest of the parliamentary system. During Prime Minister Dahal’s first 100 days in office, he touted a lengthy list of accomplishments, which drew ridicule from the public. How could the prime minister, who was unable to form a complete cabinet within 100 days, claim such a long list of achievements? Yet, for Prachanda, who relies on propaganda, these claims may seem reasonable. I am not here to expose Prime Minister Dahal for his false claims, which unfortunately are being supported by senior leaders of the Nepali Congress. It seems that the ruling NC is reluctant to criticize the PM’s decisions due to their compulsion to retain the alliance. Instead, my opinion focuses on the foreign and security policies of the present government, as outlined in the CMP. However, I must emphasize that Nepal needs action and implementation, not just more policies, whether in the realm of foreign policy or any other field. Despite the pressing need for action, policy discourse remains crucial given the changing dynamics of the world and domestic politics. The CMP attempts to address some major issues facing Nepal today, but it is essentially a rehashing of previous coalitions’ Common Minimum Programs, with no new programs or solutions for the current crises. The government’s stated priority is to pursue an independent and balanced foreign policy that protects the national interest and promotes the prosperity of the people. However, it is unfortunate that Nepali leaders have never been able to agree on national interest. If leaders of different parties cannot agree on this fundamental issue, how can they effectively protect the national interest? Therefore, it is necessary for leaders to come together and establish a common position on national interest. Observing the current coalition, it is clear that they have been unable to translate their policy into action. The leaders have demonstrated that they prioritize their relationships with certain neighboring countries. While a balanced foreign policy is important in principle, these leaders have practiced it paradoxically. When defining ‘balance’, it should not be an absolute balance, but rather a relative balance based on Nepal’s relations with India and China. With India flanking Nepal on three sides and sharing an open border, and China located in the north with difficult geographic terrain, it is challenging to maintain balance in relations with both countries. The answer is simple: Balance should be maintained reasonably. I am hopeful that this coalition will work toward bridging the differences. Under the title of ‘Independence and Promotion of National Interest’, the CMP has outlined seven points. The second point addresses border-related issues with Nepal's neighbors, including Limpiyadhura, Lipulek, and Kalapani, which the government intends to solve through diplomatic negotiations. However, the CMP does not mention Nepal’s border problem with China. Regardless, negotiations should be the means to a solution. Jingoism, marches, and street demonstrations cannot solve the issue, and war is not a solution. Dialogue is the only way forward. Another point mentioned in the document is about the treaties and agreements signed in different tenures. The document states that “treaties that are against national interest should be reviewed and new treaties should be negotiated if necessary”. However, this is an old rhetoric in Nepal and no concrete steps have been taken in this regard. For example, the peace and friendship treaty of 1950 with India is still in effect. Some articles of the treaty have become obsolete and there have been calls from various quarters in Nepal to replace it with a new treaty that reflects the current realities and aspirations of both countries. However, India has been hesitant to renegotiate the treaty, arguing that it has been the bedrock of the India-Nepal relationship and that any changes should be made only after a thorough review. It must be recollected here that India and Bhutan signed a new treaty in 2007, replacing the 1949 treaty. The new treaty reflected the evolving nature of the India-Bhutan relationship and provided for greater cooperation in areas such as trade, security, and energy. This could serve as a model for India and Nepal to negotiate a new treaty that reflects their current relationship. Nepal and India have done ground work to review the overall relations through the formation of Eminent Persons Group (EPG), which sought to submit its report to both the governments in 2018, but it has not yet been received by both PMs. It is unfortunate that the report has not been given the attention it deserves by both governments, as it represents a valuable effort to address long-standing issues in the relationship between Nepal and India. The EPG report should have been an important basis for discussions between the two countries, and it is important that both sides recognize the value of the report and work toward implementing its recommendations. But this government has not even mentioned the word ‘EPG’ in its CMP. The EPG report could serve as a valuable guide in building new relationships, and it is important that both governments take it seriously and work toward implementing its recommendations. The CMP has a section titled “International Relations”, which consists of six points, with three major ones. The initial point stresses the significance of regional integration, which Nepal has traditionally backed, while also ensuring that its territory is not utilized to the detriment of its neighboring countries. Nevertheless, there have been reports of certain erroneous attempts, prompting Nepal to exercise caution. Additionally, Nepal should take an active role in enhancing the vibrancy of regional and sub-regional forums like SAARC, BIMSTEC, and BBIN. I agree that the idea of formulating foreign policy on the basis of national consensus is crucial for Nepal’s stability and progress. It will ensure that foreign policy decisions are made with a broad understanding and agreement on national interests and priorities. However, it remains to be seen whether the current government can actually implement this promise and bring all stakeholders on board to form a coherent foreign policy.