Submit your Article

The international peacekeeping exercise started on Tuesday with the initiation of ‘Exercise Shanti Prayas-IV.’ The exercise is taking place at the Birendra Peace Operation Training Center (BPOTC) in Panchkhal, Kavre district, and will continue until March 4. The inaugural session was held at the Nepal Army headquarters on Tuesday.

This exercise is a collaborative undertaking between the Nepali Army and the United States government’s Global Peace Operation Initiative (GPOI). The GPOI focuses on promoting excellence in the proficiency of peacekeeping forces, improving mutual coordination capabilities, and ensuring interoperability among Troops Contributing Countries (TCCs) to the United Nations.

The ongoing event marks the fourth iteration of the Nepal-hosted Exercise Shanti Prayas, with the inaugural exercise conducted in 2000. Subsequent editions occurred in 2013 and 2017. This year’s exercise features the participation of military personnel from 19 nations, including Nepal.

The primary objective of this exercise is to enhance the skills and interoperability among troops from countries contributing to United Nations peacekeeping missions, according to the Nepali Army.

A total of 1,125 participants will engage in various events, including 689 individuals in Field Training Events (FTE), 110 in Staff Training Events (STE) and 326 in Critical Enabler and Capability Enhancement (2CE) activities. “The exercise aims not only to address challenges encountered in peacekeeping efforts but also to increase awareness among participating nations about the challenges,” the Army said.

During the opening ceremony of the exercise, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal highlighted that Nepal’s engagement in UN peace operations has consistently been a crucial component of its foreign policy, aimed at achieving and strengthening global peace and stability, garnering commendation from the global community.

Expressing immense pride, he emphasized Nepal’s current status as the leading contributor of troops and police personnel to United Nations Peacekeeping missions. “Nepal has further pledged to deploy up to ten thousand well-trained and equipped personnel for UN Peace operations on request of the United Nations,” he said.

Affirming Nepal’s unwavering advocacy for peace and equality in international forums, the Prime Minister stated that these commitments are deeply rooted in the country's pursuit of global peace and harmony. “This is further manifested through our participation in the UN peace operations, where our peacekeepers have distinctly demonstrated bravery, compassion, and selflessness in their noble mission to protect and restore hope in regions torn apart by conflict.”

In the current global landscape, peacekeepers confront heightened and diverse threats arising from the complex and multi-layered nature of conflicts, driven by factors such as ethnic tensions and terrorism. Dahal stressed the imperative to adapt to this evolving scenario, as peacekeeping operations have transformed into complex politico-military-humanitarian efforts. This transformation necessitates a greater understanding and preparedness on the part of peacekeepers. He emphasized the crucial need to reassess how peace is delivered in the face of new and complex challenges to maintain the trust and legitimacy of UN Peacekeeping.

He also said that the multinational exercise emphasizes and reminds us of the necessity to continually train, refine strategies, and build strong partnerships among nations for the successful conduct of peacekeeping operations.

The Chief of Army Staff Prabhuram Sharma, while speaking at the program said that the exercise will be fruitful in promoting mutual relations and professionalism among the peacekeepers when working to establish peace in various conflict areas of the world in accordance with the mandate of the UN.

DAS Rachel Schiller, deputy assistant secretary for Programs and Operations, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs said, “The United States remains deeply committed to the success of UN peacekeeping, which is why we are not only the largest financial contributor to UN peacekeeping, but we are also the largest bilateral capacity building partner globally through the Global Peace Operations Initiative through which we have committed over $1.5bn since 2005, to enhance the capacity of partner countries to prepare, deploy and sustain peacekeepers in UN and regional peacekeeping missions.”

Flag Display, Fly Past, Band Display and cultural programs of the participating countries were presented in the event. Soldiers from Bangladesh, Fiji, Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uruguay, United States of America, Australia, Canada, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam are participating in the exercise.

Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Narayankaji Shrestha, Chief Secretary Baikunth Aryal, former Commanders-in-Chief, secretaries of various ministries, Ambassadors, Commissioners, Chiefs of Nepal Police and Armed Police Force and military aides among others were present in the inaugural event.

Nepal became a member of the United Nations in 1955 and since 1958, Nepal has been actively engaged in the broader spectrum of UN Peace Operations. Over the course of over sic and half decade, Nepal has participated in 44 UN peacekeeping missions and during this period, 167,000 Nepali peacekeepers have contributed to these missions and among them, the NA personnel number 149,890.

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal held discussions with the Nepali Army (NA) on Wednesday to explore the revival of the Hetauda Textile Factory. During a high-level meeting at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Army briefed the prime minister on the feasibility study related to resuming factory operations.

The feasibility study aligns with the government’s commitment, outlined in its policies and programs for the current fiscal year, to investigate options for reviving closed industries. The textile factory, initially established in 1975 with financial and technical support from the Chinese government and investment from the Nepal government, ceased production in 2000. It was formally closed by the royal government in 2003, but still retains ownership of 166 ropanis of land.

According to the study report, various factors contributed to the factory’s closure, including inadequate market management, insufficient technological advancements, power outages, overstaffing, and a lack of managerial efficiency.

The report highlights that the Army Welfare Fund has a sufficient budget to operate the industry, and most required raw materials are available within the country. The revived factory, as per the report, is expected to face no market-related challenges, with the Nepali Army potentially becoming a major consumer.

Reviving the industry, as suggested by the report, could significantly contribute to national industrial development, boost the gross domestic product, and convey a positive message to the global market by enhancing national sufficiency and creating job opportunities.

The study’s task force has proposed an outline for re-operation, including a three-year work plan with a target of manufacturing approximately 2.6m meters of cloth. A policy decision is expected in the current fiscal year, and the industry would be transferred to the NA, which will prepare a detailed project report, select, and purchase new machinery.

The proposed outline envisions starting test production in the upcoming fiscal year after completing infrastructure construction and acquiring machinery and equipment. The estimated cost for re-operating the industry is Rs 1.93bn, with an annual operation cost of Rs 780m. The task force predicts that the industry will turn profitable, covering the investment cost, after nine years. The report also calls for government policy and legal support for the re-operation of the industry.

“The Nepali Army has carried out a sound study. I will hold discussions on this at the political level and may form a small team at the government level for further study. We will make a concrete decision in a Council of Ministers meeting thereafter,” Prime Minister Dahal said. He said that the past privatization of government-owned industries had led to decreased productivity and job opportunities, emphasizing the need for careful consideration in decision-making.

Chief of the Army Staff Prabhu Ram Sharma has admitted to the parliamentarians that the Nepali Army would be unable to complete the Kathmandu Tarai/Madhes Fast-Track within the stipulated deadline of April 2027. The project was handed over to the army in 2017, setting a four-year deadline.

This setback has cast a shadow of uncertainty over the fate of this national pride project. Over the past six years, the project has achieved only 28.56 percent physical progress and 29.44 percent financial progress. After widespread criticism of its inability to expedite the project, the army is now passing the blame on other state agencies. Moreover, CoAS Sharma contended that the new deadline cannot be achieved if necessary laws are not amended.

The state mechanisms must address and overcome the hurdles facing the army, particularly those related to felling trees, land acquisition, and the import of explosive materials. As far as strict environmental laws are concerned, they are not only for the army; they apply to all. The army was aware of these laws before it accepted the project. In the first place, the army should not have accepted the government's offer to implement the project because building an expressway is beyond its technical capacity. Additionally, their involvement in business and infrastructure works is already tarnishing their image as a professional and apolitical institution.

The decision to award the project to the army was rooted in the belief that it could execute development works more efficiently than other state mechanisms. However, the army has struggled to expend the government-allocated funds in recent years. Given the economic strain that the government is facing, the army might face a fund crunch even if it expedites the project. People are raising concerns about the delay today. Tomorrow will bring inquiries into the transparency of expenditures and related issues as it involves taxpayers’ money. Instead of deflecting blame onto other state entities, the army leadership should, therefore, earnestly consider expediting the project. If the army feels that it cannot complete the project, it is better to tell the government frankly.

The Tarai-Madhes Fast-Track Project has taught a lesson to both the army and the political leadership. The army shouldn't engage in such infrastructure development works. Instead, it should focus on strengthening the institution to deal with emerging security challenges, particularly those arising from climate-induced disasters. The more the national army engages in controversial projects, the more it risks damaging its reputation. Politicians should refrain from awarding projects merely to appease the national army. And, parliamentarians instead of engaging in publicity stunts should work to resolve the problems faced by the Army in fast track to complete it on time. 

Recent calls from some lawmakers for downsizing the Nepali Army and using the money thus saved for development works have courted controversies.  

On July 11, a National Assembly member and former minister for foreign affairs, Bimala Rai Paudyal, stood in the parliament in favor of downsizing the national army while taking part in a discussion on cost-cutting measures. Paudyal reasoned that Nepal did not need a big army in times of peace and that it would be impossible for the army to defend the country against either of the two neighbors even if the need arose, while also pointing out the army had not been able to protect the borders. 

Swarnim Wagle, an economist and lawmaker from the Rastriya Swatantra Party, has also been advocating for downsizing the national army as a means to reduce pressure on the economy. Citing Sri Lanka’s example, which reduced the size of its army by a third to combat the recent recession, Wagle argued during a meeting of the House of Representatives on June 20 that Nepal should consider similar measures.

These calls from the two parliamentarians, who are also PhD scholars, have sparked a series of discussions at the national level. While these are not the first such calls, it is the first time a debate has taken place in the parliament on the matter. Discussions about the national army are not unwarranted, but they should be contextual and based on facts. A state’s policies and plans determine the size and the structure of its army, so it will be far-fetched to take the army leadership as the sole factor in this. 

Development and expansion of any institute, including the national army, takes a long time, hard work, and investment, with the concerned state’s plans and policies playing a vital role in the whole process. Therefore, demands for reduction, structural changes, or removal of responsibilities should be based on careful consideration rather than momentary impulses, even if they are coming from scholars. Instead of arguing irresponsibly (without presenting solid proof to back their arguments) and eroding the morale of the army, policymakers should focus more on enhancing the army’s capabilities.

History and the way forward

The history of the Nepali Army is closely linked with the unification of modern Nepal. Founded by King Prithvi Narayan Shah to support the unification campaign, the army has evolved into its current form. It has a rich history of engaging in various wars and is considered the most experienced army in South Asia in terms of war experience. The army has played an important role in the Nepal-Tibet War, Nepal-China War, the war with East India Company (Anglo-Nepal War), quelling the unrest in Hyderabad at the request of India, ending the Indian Sepoy Mutiny as well as ending the Khampa conflict within the country and in controlling the 10-year Maoist insurgency. Apart from maintaining peace, the army is adept at military diplomacy. Helping the country overcome critical situations like the blockade along with the import of vaccines and health materials from neighboring and friendly countries during the pandemic are vivid examples of military diplomacy. Its important role in life and death situations like natural disasters and epidemics has not gone unnoticed. 

Internal or external crises are not something that can be predicted. That is why, the army must stand ready to deal with potential emergencies even during peacetime. Commendable work of the army during earthquakes, tornadoes, pandemics, floods, landslides, and fires demonstrates its significance in crisis situations. 

As underlined above, the army has different roles to play in different parts of Nepal and beyond. NA soldiers serve in the United Nations’ peacekeeping missions, provide security to infrastructure, guard national parks, conduct search and rescue missions during natural disasters and play different roles in development projects as per government directives. Therefore, before debating the number of soldiers required in Nepal, it is essential to understand the organizational structure of the army. On the other hand, while the situation of unemployment and youth migration is dire, young people are getting jobs and serving the country. Contrary to the expert MPs’ argument, the state’s investment in the army has not gone waste.

Of course, debates about the army are necessary. But such debates should not lower the morale of the army or weaken its structure. Rather, the debates should focus on making the army more and more capable by developing world-class military technologies and competing in the fields of information and technology. Policy-level discussions should explore the possibility of creating more jobs within the military structure so as to reduce the outmigration of young people. 

Summing up, those responsible for running the state should effectively mobilize available resources and explore sustainable resources for the future rather than advocating for the destruction of existing state structures in the pretext of an economic crisis.

The diminution of and deliberation on the Nepali Army is neither contemporary nor should it be a distressing aspect but it emanates as misinforming and inaccurate to the statecraft and to the broader audience. 

In particular, the field of defense is one of the essentials like economy, governance and diplomacy to the country. None of these fields are thriving at present. 

As an instrument of national power of Nepal, the army is the only unswerving and consistent institution in diplomacy, with national and international credibility in addition to remaining as a uniting establishment of the Nepalis.

Reading between the lines

While floating expenditure reduction measures in the federal parliament, Bimala Rai Paudyal, one of the three candidates that the then then President Bidya Devi Bhandari had appointed to the National Assembly in Feb 2018 and Swarim Wagle, a lawmaker elected under the first-past-the-post system, proposed downsizing the Nepali Army, among other measures, to reduce national expenditure. 

Paudyal underlined the lack of strategic coordination and cooperation amongst the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance and Defense, which is essential for border security. She added that the army had failed in its primary role—protecting the borders, pointing at repeated instances of border encroachment. 

“There’s no war going on within the country and there’s no possibility of either of the neighbors waging a war against the country. In the event of a war with either of the neighbors, there’s no possibility of us withstanding it,” Paudyal said, reasoning that there’s no need to keep a (roughly) 90000-strong army that cannot protect the country.  

Such remarks coming from a lawmaker have tremendously hurt the sentiments and self-esteem of servicemen and women, veterans as well as the citizenry. Soldiers and citizens fight with morale and self-confidence that wells up from their training, education and love for their respective countries. This is something that cannot be measured in monetary terms. 

There are many international examples about vested interests playing a major role in triggering wars. South Asia, for one, witnessed such wars during the 1970s. The recent Russian invasion of Ukraine followed challenges to the Kremlin’s sphere of influence. 

Nepal can face similar consequences, given its geopolitical and geostrategic location. Nepal’s vote as one of the 141 nations in the UN in March 2022 against the Russian aggression is also a visualization of a similar state of affairs along its own borders. 

Lawmaker Paudyal should keep in mind that border security comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs during peacetime and not under the Ministry Defence. So, border violations are the result of a lack of coordination between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs. 

The national budget for the coming fiscal 2023/24 (totaling 1.751trn) has allocated 14 percent to the security sector—for the defense ministry and the home ministry. 

On its part, the Nepali Army reimburses more than Rs1.7bn as tax to the government from its Welfare Fund apart from bringing in about $22m (Rs 25bn) to the country, which is approximately two percent of the national foreign income of $9.1bn (approx). The national army itself provides another five billion rupees for its educational, medical and welfare programs, which is borne by respective governments in almost all the countries. 

The government budget for the defense ministry appears paltry in comparison to the budget that the Nepali Army deserves for enhancing Nepal’s international prestige by helping maintain world peace through non-aggression and peaceful settlement of disputes as envisioned in the United Nations Charter.

Strategic interpretations

Nepal faces enormous challenges because it lies in the midst of three competing nations— China, India and the US—and one more bloc, the European Union.

History says that no government, no economic system, no currency, no empire lasts forever, yet almost everyone is surprised and ruined when they fall.

Given our physical location, we as a relatively small nation are likely to face serious challenges, contrary to the expectations of many of our political leaders. 

Marked by different political orders, security, economy and digital systems, the world is moving amid confrontations in the South Asian subcontinent and beyond. Cold War 2.0 is ongoing and the competition is palpable along Nepal’s borders unlike in a different continent with dissimilar technological capabilities during the Cold War. 

In this context, the Nepali Army can stand as a stimulating force for geostrategic balance of power in South Asia and beyond. 

Standing power

The Nepali Army is one of the instruments of national power that needs solidification with modernization, strengthening of its capabilities and digitalization, also in view of the fact that the Global Firepower Index 2023 has ranked Nepal 129th out of 145 countries.

The recent comments from political leaders have come without understanding of the unfolding geopolitical environment that may push small nations like Nepal toward deepening political uncertainty. 

In this context, a handful of political leaders making unsavory comments should not forget the role of the national army in upholding national honor and dignity. 

Deduction

At a time when Nepal’s dire prerequisite is to have a united strategic approach toward national interest, foreign policy and national security strategy, hollow comments from parliamentarians are most unwelcome. The Defense Minister has rightly expressed concern over such remarks, which show the lack of awareness on the part of the speakers on the importance of instruments of national power. 

It’s time state instruments like intelligence agencies paid attention to increasing geo-political influence. 

If you ask commoners questions about the role of the political parties and the Nepali Army, they will most definitely reply that the army has been acting as a far more responsible actor in service of the country and the people than the parties. 

National security and prestige cannot be compared with monetary value. Important individuals should bear in mind that impromptu remarks on sensitive topics at wrong places and wrong time do the country a great disservice. 

Downsizing the military is not a wise way to deal with national monetary challenges. 

A number of measures can be taken to manage the budget for national development. Doing away with a costly federal system can be an option. Downsizing the number of elected representatives, reducing the number of ministries and establishing strategic structures for addressing issues of national importance can help at a time of rampant corruption, political instability and loss of national credibility. These measures will bring in enough resources required for national development. 

All concerned must bear in mind that long transition adds up to challenges for national prosperity and stability. 

The author is a Strategic Analyst, Major General (Retd) of the Nepali Army, and is associated with Rangsit University, Thailand

What should be the size of the army in a country like Nepal?  Before the Maoist insurgency began in 1996, there were approximately 60,000 personnel in the Nepali Army. The number was significantly increased to fight the Maoist insurgents, and today the NA is 96,477 strong. In 2001, the government also founded the Armed Police Force, which acted as a paramilitary unit, to support counterinsurgency operations. 

Talks about resizing or ‘rightsizing’ the NA first found prominence after the Maoists joined the peace process with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006. At the time, it was the right thing to do, since the former Maoist fighters were also being integrated into the national army, which would have increased the troop numbers and the budget.  

The CPA says: “... This includes, among other things, rightsizing, democratic restructuring reflecting the national and inclusive character and imparting training to the Nepali Army on the values of democracy and human rights.”  While the inclusive component of the CPA has already been implemented by the NA, the parts about rightsizing and restructuring have not. 

The size of the military has once again entered the national debate, and the NA is not taking it lightly. Responding to some media reports and opinion pieces, Army chief Prabhu Ram Sharma in March blamed “outsiders” for making comments about the required NA troop numbers. He didn’t name any particular individual or institution, but hinted that these “outsiders” were acting on the behest of foreign countries.

A few days back, the issue about the size of the Army was brought up in the National Assembly by CPN-UML lawmaker Bimala Rai Paudyal. Addressing the assembly, she said that there must be a review on whether the Ministry of Defense needs the current size of the national army.
“There aren’t any internal conflicts and there aren’t any chances of war from our neighbors,” argued Paudyal, also a former foreign minister.
Her remarks didn’t go down well with the military circle, as well as some politicians. Paudyal faced strong criticism, including from former Army generals, for stoking an unnecessary debate. 

Those against the idea of revising the size of the NA are of the view that this is not the right time to be debating about the issue. 

But Paudyal remains firm on her position. “Shouldn’t we evaluate the current scenario?” she says. “It is not necessarily a call for downsizing the army, but rather a suggestion to review whether to downsize or upsize the army.”   

She asks why there should be a controversy whenever we raise military matters. “These issues warrant serious deliberations and extensive research, especially considering our transition to federalism and the emergence of heightened border security threats,” says Paudyal. “Perhaps, we may even require a stronger army.”

The debate on the size of the NA is not a new one; it is a part of the CPA signed between the government and the Maoist party. The Interim Constitution 2007 had also mentioned about the size and democratization of the national army. The part 20 of Interim Constitution states talks about determining the appropriate number of the Army, its democratic structuring and inclusivity.  

In 2009, the Ministry of Defense had formed a committee to suggest ways for the democratization of the NA, but the report was never made public.

In compliance to the Nepali law which states that 45 percent of all vacant government positions be reserved for excluded groups, the Army in 2006, amended its Army Act. As per the amendment, out of the 45 percent reserved position within the NA, 20 percent of the seats are reserved for women, 32 percent for Janajati, 28 percent for Madhesi, 15 percent for Dalit and 5 percent for remote regions. But as far as the issue of rightsizing is concerned, there have been discussions in the academic sector but not at the state-level.

The Maoist party, which vehemently raised the issue of resizing the NA during the time of peace process, seems to have abandoned the topic now. As per the Maoist party’s demand, the Nepali Congress and UML too had agreed to mention this issue in the CPA, much to the displeasure of the Army. 

Deepak Prakash Bhatta, a security expert, says there can be discussions on resizing the NA only if the political parties, not individual leaders, officially make the position on it.  “Some people have spoken about it, but what is the position of political parties?” says Bhatta.

Both incumbent and retired NA officials suspect that some “foreign powers” are fuelling the debate.
One retired NA official says the NA does not have any objection to such a debate, but the recent noise about reviewing the size of the national army lacks maturity. “This is a very sensitive and comprehensive issue which requires in-depth study and deliberations,” he says.  

Purna Chandra Silwal, retired major general of the NA, says in a precarious geopolitical scenario marked, among others, by the Ukraine war and increasing Sino-Indian hostilities, countries have become more serious than ever before about their existence as their ballooning defense spending shows. “But, paradoxically, some of our leaders and opinion-makers are calling for downsizing of the national army,” he adds.

Major political parties have so far chosen to steer clear from the debate. UML senior leader Shanker Pokhrel says this is “an ill-timed debate” because we are passing through a political instability, and anarchism is creeping into society. “The size of Nepali Army is not only related to security aspects but also the international peace mission,” says Pokhrel.  

The current debate on the sizing of NA itself is problematic because it is too focused on downsizing it, instead of holding discussions on determining the right size. There could be discussions about the size of the army, experts say, but it can be decided only after assessing the long-term internal and external threats. Of late, beyond providing security, NA is also engaged in big development projects as well. 

Krishna Prasad Bhandari, NA spokesperson, says the Army is aware and informed about the ongoing discussions about the national army.  “The Nepal Army has been effectively and successfully performing the tasks provided by the government and mentioned in the constitution,” he says. 

Defense Minister Purna Bahadur Khadka has also defended the current number of NA in Parliament.  Speaking in the meeting of National Assembly Khadka on Thursday, he said the number of the army is determined on the basis of the country's geographical location, national necessity and current international scenario. He also said it is the government who decides the number of military personnel based on the recommendation of the National Security Council. 

I observed that the Nepali Army allocates a significant portion of its budget toward salaries, allowances and training. This expenditure seems reasonable considering the army’s reputation and its crucial role in the country. However, prior to the Maoist insurgency, the army was smaller in size, necessitating an expansion due to the insurgency. The integration of the Maoist PLA into the NA further increased its current size to approximately 98,000 personnel.

In light of these circumstances, I have two perspectives. Firstly, shouldn’t we evaluate the current scenario? It is not necessarily a call for downsizing the army, but rather a suggestion to review and assess whether downsizing or upsizing is necessary.

Why do controversies arise when we raise military matters? These matters warrant serious deliberations and extensive research.

Considering our transition to federalism and the emergence of heightened border security threats, we may even require a stronger and larger army. 

The author is a member of National Assembly