Nepalese
foreign policy is based on Panchsheel, which was formed by India’s prime
minister Jawaharlal Nehru to resolve a dispute with China over Tibet in 1954.
This was supported by various nations of the world, creating a non-aligned
movement during the conflict between two power blocs globally. This gave birth
to the third bloc known as “neutral” which was validated in the conference of
Bandung, Indonesia. Nepal also took part in this conference along with India, making
Panchsheel its main principal actor in foreign policy.
Landscape of diplomatic exercise
Understanding
Nepalese diplomacy has been a failure since the times of the Prithvi Narayan
Shah Unification period. A slight act of diplomacy was seen during his time. He
had addressed not to engage in war with the northern and southern sides. This
clearly showed, that “the Father of Modern Nepal” had a clear idea of what it
could lead to and the result. If Nepal could exercise diplomacy with time, it
might have prevented Greater Nepal's loss. Despite this, all Nepal failed to
exercise as addressed. Choosing war over a diplomatic act was the biggest
failure in Nepalese history during the conflict
between the East India Company and Nepal in
1814. This failure in diplomacy
resulted in heavy losses to Nepal ending with Sugauli Treaty on Dec 2nd,
1815. This treaty made Nepal’s foreign policy very rigid and transformed Nepal
under the British sphere of influence during the time of the East India
Company. However, it ended the conflict with East India Company preventing
future engagement in Nepal.
Looking
at historical dates and events, Nepal has tried its best to exercise its
diplomacy to settle and sort things out. During Rana’s rule, it was Junga
Bahadur Rana who had played very crafty diplomacy during his regime. He
developed a very good friendship with the East India Company and formed an
alliance during his time. This was very survival-effective. This however was a
knee-down policy in Nepalese diplomacy.
On
31st July 1950, Prime Minister and Supreme commander-in-chief of Nepal Mohan
Shamsher Rana signed the “Treaty of Peace and Friendship” with Shri
Chandreshwar Prasad Narain Singh Ambassador of India to Nepal. This treaty was
signed in a rush to prevent his regime's downfall, as rebellion acts were all
inspired by Indian revolutionary figures hoping to suppress it with Indian
help. The treaty signed with the ambassador by the Prime minister, unmatched
counterpart portfolio future made Nepalese diplomacy fail. This caused a
fatal blow to Nepalese independent foreign policy as it turned Nepal to act as
an Indian satellite, making India its caretaker. This made the Nepalese
government at times serve external power to save theirs. Nepalese attitude
and working mechanism had indirectly welcomed Indian intervention in Nepal. It
shows India has always been a key player in Nepalese politics.
How Indian diplomacy work
There is a huge
difference between India's and Nepal's working patterns on
Foreign policy and Diplomatic procedure. While Nepalese diplomacy has been a failure, India is using Diplomacy in its best
form. There are many different tools and procedures of Diplomacy varying in different nations. Analyzing India's
Diplomacy, they use cables for any issues
beforehand. If this method fails, they send a special envoy to visit and negotiate. High official members of the state
visit if it all fails followed by the release of a Statement by the head of
state. This shows Indians use different steps
of diplomatic procedure to counter issues, ultimately ending with war. In
the context of Nepal, our foreign official member
seems to be off the grid compared to their Indian counterpart. During
diplomatic procedures, Nepal does not follow any specific tools and procedures of diplomacy. Nepali heads
of state are likely to visit Indian representatives below their portfolio. On
the other hand, the working pattern and strategy of Indian foreign policies and embassies are more into promoting Indian national interest globally.
Nepalese foreign policies seem to be lost and
in limbo when talking about Nepal's national
interest. There seem to be multiple
national interests raised when
discussion is held. This has also affected our
embassies, as they are less inactive and less productive. Another major factor
for all this failure in policies is also due to the bureaucracy.
Why do leaders only go to India and not China?
Nepal
and India have very deep-rooted relations. Geographical connection and people
residing on each side have enclosed their relation. India has exercised both
soft and hard power in terms of Nepalese politics. Due to this Nepali
politicians do not have much option to choose for international support.
Another fact for Nepali leaders to prefer India over China is that most Nepali politicians are influenced by Indian political figures. It is also
easier for politicians to revolt via Indian soil. During the 1950s revolution,
N.C. used this tactic to collapse Rana’s regime. Nepali Congress was able to
execute due to the geographical position of Nepal with India. Major cities of
Nepal connect to India, compared to China. For a power struggle, one has to act
anti-Indian, and to rise in Nepalese politics, one must visit the Indian
government. This has worsened the foreign policy of Nepal, making Nepalese
diplomacy rigged and fragile.
Track-2 diplomacy possible
The
best thing Nepal can do is adapt track 2 diplomacy. Since, there are a
lot of intellectual, academician, civil societies and different organizations
present in Nepal. This can help us to build networks of governmental,
non-governmental, and individuals to work on common ground, promoting Nepalese
interest in the international arena. Creating think tanks, and NGOs, and using
other platforms can be used in Nepalese foreign policy and relations. It could
perform research, campaign, publish papers, and offer various ideas consulting
foreign policies and governance. It is not only the work of government but also
of people, IR students, professors Intellectuals, and academicians who can
write op-eds or hold discussions on international platforms. Indian academics
have seen hosting forums, attending international conferences, and writing
papers promoting Indian interests. Nepalese Think tanks could organize forums,
and conferences in the international arena to discuss issues related to Nepal
and its foreign policy. They can enhance our nation's interest and influence
citizens to work towards achieving it. On, the other hand Nepalese government
can open and operate virtual embassies in expensive countries to reduce its
costs. Moreover, the foremost thing Nepal can do is conduct evaluations of
Nepali embassies located in New Delhi, New York, Geneva, and Brussels. They are
the most influential cities on the globe currently.
Another
obstacle for Nepalese foreign policy is due to its strategic position
in-between two giants of Asia, India, and China. This geo-position has made it
difficult for foreign investors to invest in Nepal since both of these giants
are leading countries in the international arena. This makes the Nepalese
market become a sandwich in-between two giants. Nations' development and
Nations' foreign policy are parallel. An unstable government or weak foreign
policy could cause hindrance if one of them fails to move simultaneously. This
could be solved if Nepali residing out of the nation could invest in Nepal,
promoting Nepalese interest and economy.