Submit your Article

A day after the Pushpa Kamal Dahal government blasted the then government under CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli for not duly communicating with the international community about Nepal’s new map comprising the Lipulek, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura areas, the main opposition CPN-UML had the government in its crosshairs.

Addressing the Lower House, Raghuji Panta, a UML lawmaker, said, “The Parliament approved the new map of Nepal unanimously. But China’s recently-issued map does not show Nepal’s pointed map (including the territories of Lipulek, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura) in its neighborhood. It shows the old map.” “The Foreign Minister has flayed the previous government for ‘not communicating with the world’ about the new map,” he said. Panta went on, “With how many countries has this government communicated regarding Nepal’s new map? I demand an answer, pronto.”

Dil Kumari Rawal, another UML lawmaker, joined forces with Panta and accused both China and India of seeking to undermine Nepal’s status as a fully sovereign country.

Speaking at the National Assembly, Rawal blamed the two neighbors for disregarding Nepal’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.    

She was referring to India’s act of including Lipulek, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani in its new political map issued in 2019 and China’s recent act of including the old map of Nepal shorn of the 400-sq km that it has been claiming as her own by presenting historic records like land ownership certificates issued to local people and the receipt of land tax from them.

Rawal expressed doubts that the omission may have occurred due to weak diplomatic steps on the part of governments vis-a-vis the new map. She urged the government to attend to this serious matter. 

It may be noted that India and China signed a 40-point pact in 2015, which, among other things, envisages using Lipulek for bilateral trade, by sidelining Nepal. The then government had objected to the move, to little avail. 

Successive governments have pledged to resolve the dispute with India through diplomatic means, yet they have done precious little toward dispute resolution with the thorny issue not even figuring in bilateral talks. 

Kathmandu Metropolitan City Mayor Balen Shah has said that he will take initiative to construct a cricket stadium if the federal government provides land to the metropolis.

Shah, who had reached Sri Lanka to watch a game between Nepal and India, said that the metropolis will take the initiative to build a cricket stadium if the government provides 100 ropani land.

Shah estimates that a stadium where a match between Nepal and India was held can be constructed for Rs 800 million.

He claimed that the Nepali players’ skills will be developed if the big games are held in Nepal and can also earn millions of rupees.

Taking to Facebook, he said, “The stadium of Sri Lanka where the matches are being held was similar to the cricket stadium of the Tribhuvan University. There were a few parapets and more facilities. A similar level of stadium can be built for Rs 800 to 900 million except for the land in Nepal.” “We will take initiative to construct a stadium from the Kathmandu Metropolitan City if the Nepal government provides necessary 100 ropani land around Kathmandu metropolis.

In the match held on Monday, Nepal lost to India by 10 wickets.

Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) Chairman Mahantha Thakur has said the Madhes agendas are not watered down, but relevant and vibrant.

Addressing the extended meeting of DSP Province Committee at Bardibas on Monday, Chairman Thakur reminded that the party would reach the agendas of the party establishment time to the people again. "Some of the political agendas we raised were established based on movement. However, the suppression from the state is continuous," he reminded, adding that the party cadres are still facing false charges over the Madhes movement.

He urged the party leaders and cadres to reach every doorstep of the people and make them aware about achievements of the Madhes movement and active for further rights.

Top leaders Rajendra Mahato, Sharad Singh Bhandari and Anil Kumar Jha among others were present in the meeting.

Province committee Chairman Jitendra Sonal said that the objective of the extended meeting of the party's Madhes province committee is to set further agendas and strategies in Madhesh. "We move ahead by meticulously analyzing the performance of the party. The weaknesses would be identified and measures for solution sought to take ahead the Madhesh movement," he shared.

He further claimed that the party would reach the people along with Madhesh agendas again.

Before the election to the first constituency assembly in 2064 BS, the leaders from Madhes left the mainstream parties and formed Tarai/Madhesh Loktantrik Party based on the foundation of the Madhes movement.

Those to join the bandwagon were leader Thakur, Mahendra Ray Yadav, Sarvendra Nath Shukla, and Brishesh Chandra Lal, among others. But the party then witnessed a series of splits and mergers and arrived at this stage.

Currently, the party is engrossed in expanding organizational base at local level.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered a debate regarding Nepal's commitment to non-alignment policy. As the world watched, Nepal voted in the United Nations’ proposal that condemned Russia's aggression, while neighboring South Asian countries, including India, chose the path of abstention.

This divergence of stance stirred criticism from foreign policy experts and communist parties, who vehemently posited that Nepal's vote in the UN resolution represented a stark deviation from its enduring non-alignment doctrine. They contended that Nepal, like several regional counterparts, should have maintained a resolute neutral position.

In recent months, a fresh discourse has taken root among foreign policy luminaries and political leaders, probing the question of whether Nepal should relinquish its non-alignment policy in light of the ever-shifting regional and global power dynamics. Yet, some proponents of this shift offer their case without specifying what should supplant the non-alignment policy.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), born in the cauldron of the 1950s and 1960s, had at its heart the notion of eschewing alignment with either of the two prevailing blocs: the democratic realm led by the United States or the communist sphere headed by the Soviet Union. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the bipolar world transitioned into a unipolar landscape under US dominion. Currently, there are 120 members that follow the non-alignment policy. 

Nepal has enshrined it in its constitution of 2015. Article 51 of the constitution explicitly mandates Nepal to conduct an independent foreign policy based on the United Nations Charter, non-alignment, Panchasheel principles, international law, and world peace norms. It underscores the overarching imperative of safeguarding Nepal's sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence, and national interests.

Those advocating for abandoning the non-alignment policy often cite India as an example. They argue that India has embraced a multi-alignment doctrine in recent years. India's reduced emphasis on global non-alignment conferences is seen as a testament to this shift. Experts assert that India has deftly carved a path of strategic autonomy and multi-alignment, all while preserving the core tenets of non-alignment.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, India's steadfast neutrality and ongoing engagements with both Russia and the US have underscored the nuanced nature of its foreign policy. Professor of international relations, Khadka KC, contends that even India has not categorically severed ties with non-alignment, hinting that Nepal, in its own way, has been practicing a form of multi-alignment since the 1960s, all while upholding the principles of non-alignment.

It's argued that Nepal actively pursues economic benefits from major global powers, including Russia, and, since 1960, has remained untethered to military alliances. Experts assert that the current non-alignment doctrine does not preclude Nepal from engaging with any nation to further its national interests. However, the unique geography of Nepal necessitates a cautious avoidance of taking sides in global conflicts.

Beyond Nepal's borders, the Global South at large grapples with the intricacies of non-alignment and neutrality, particularly in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite fervent lobbying by the US and its allies, many Global South nations have refrained from endorsing US sanctions on Russia. The positions of these smaller nations have triggered consternation, as they effectively curtail the impact of the sanctions on Russia’s economy.

Professor KC staunchly advocates for Nepal's continued adherence to non-alignment, affirming that it's intrinsic to Nepal's foreign policy fabric. He emphasizes that geography and evolving regional and global power dynamics underscore the primacy of Nepal's non-alignment policy.  “Nepal can simultaneously reap economic benefits from major powers while remaining committed to non-alignment,” he says.
Former diplomat Dinesh Bhattarai insists that at the core of Nepal's non-alignment policy lies the art of making independent judgments without tilting toward any side, a principle perfectly aligned with Nepal's unique geographical constraints. He dismisses claims that non-alignment stifles development.

“I have heard the contention that non-alignment policy hinders our development. What I say is geography is an omnipotent factor, and taking sides offers no guaranteed path to rapid progress.” 

Mriendra Bahadur Karki, executive director at the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, offers a nuanced perspective. “Nepal should reinvent non-alignment to involve active engagement in global affairs while sidestepping military alliances,” he says.  

Karki also defends Nepal's prudent decision to vote against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, portraying it as an embodiment of active non-alignment.

International relations analyst Gaurab Shumsher Thapa underscores that non-alignment does not entail turning a blind eye to regional or global events. “Instead, it beckons active engagement in world affairs without shackling Nepal to any military blocs.”  Given Nepal's intricate geopolitical milieu, Thapa asserts that the relevance of non-alignment will likely increase rather than dwindle in the country's future.

To date, Nepal remains an ardent advocate of the non-alignment policy. In a recent ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau, Foreign Minister NP Saud reaffirmed Nepal's unwavering faith in the principle of the Non-Aligned Movement. He stressed the imperative of international cooperation within NAM, the strengthening of south-south collaboration, and the fortification of multilateralism with the United Nations at its nucleus, as a means to surmount contemporary global challenges.

Saud maintained: "As NAM members, we must address the root causes of persistent global problems, such as poverty, conflict, and violence. We must champion enduring peace through dialogue and respect for diversity while accelerating our economic development to attain the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development."

Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in conversation with ApEx, contend that the ongoing debate on non-alignment falls short of mirroring the contemporary reality. In the face of external forces exerting pressure to enlist Nepal in their ranks, they say the most prudent course for Nepal would be to remain steadfast on its non-alignment commitment. 

They firmly assert that Nepal, in view of its unique position, cannot afford to antagonize any nation by picking sides. Critics of non-alignment, they argue, have yet to furnish a coherent alternative.