By P.R. Pradhan
Nepal has historically demonstrated diplomatic resilience despite its sensitive geopolitical position between India and China. A major example was Nepal’s successful accession to the United Nations despite opposition reportedly influenced by India. At the time, the Soviet Union had opposed Nepal’s membership because of Indian lobbying, but Nepal later succeeded in securing USSR’s support. Nepal was also elected twice as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, achievements often linked to the country’s strong diplomatic standing during the monarchy.
The reigns of Kings Mahendra and Birendra are described as periods of active and strategic foreign policy. Recognizing Nepal’s vulnerable location, King Birendra proposed Nepal as a Zone of Peace (ZoP), an initiative that received support from 116 countries. However, the proposal was removed from Nepal’s 1990 Constitution without clear explanation. Many observers believe Indian influence, exercised through actors involved in drafting the constitution, contributed to its removal.
The article argues that Nepal’s diplomacy today appears weaker than in the past. It suggests that Prime Minister Balendra (Balen) Shah projects strong confidence, though some see it as arrogance. Diplomacy, however, is presented not as a matter of personal ego but as the art of safeguarding national interests.
A recent diplomatic concern is the joint decision by India and China to reopen the Lipulekh Pass for Indian pilgrims traveling to Kailash Mansarovar in Tibet. This is controversial because Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Limpiyadhura—territories east of the Mahakali River—as integral parts of its sovereign territory. Nepal has repeatedly informed both India and China of this claim.
The article notes that China is fully aware of Nepal’s concerns. After India’s defeat in the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Indian troops were temporarily stationed in the Nepali territory with Nepal’s consent as a gesture of goodwill. The dispute intensified in 2019 when India published a new political map unilaterally including Nepali territory. Nepal responded by amending its Constitution and releasing an updated national map incorporating Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura. China, though aware of these developments, continues to treat the matter as a bilateral dispute between Nepal and India.
Historical evidence supports Nepal’s claim over Kalapani, yet India has maintained control of the territory since 1962. China’s decision to reopen Lipulekh despite Nepal’s objections is viewed as a diplomatic setback and evidence of Nepal’s declining regional influence.
Another issue raised is Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s refusal to meet visiting US Special Envoy for South and Central Asia Sergio Gore. Officially, the Prime Minister’s Secretariat cited scheduling conflicts, but some interpret the refusal as an effort to maintain diplomatic protocol and dignity.
This is contrasted with past incidents in which Nepal’s leaders were seen as overly accommodating foreign officials. Former Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli welcoming the head of India’s intelligence agency, RAW, with a red-carpet reception, as well as Nepali leaders waiting in hotel lobbies to meet visiting Indian dignitaries were normal to witness in the past days.
At the same time, Prime Minister Shah is criticized for not formally engaging ambassadors from neighboring countries and envoys from SAARC and BIMSTEC member states, despite Nepal’s active role in both organizations.
In comparison, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is noted for launching his “Neighborhood First” policy immediately after taking office and visiting Kathmandu and other South Asian capitals.
To conclude, diplomacy is about tact, humility, and advancing national interests. While Prime Minister Balendra Shah may be attempting to establish new diplomatic norms, his limited experience in foreign affairs is portrayed as a weakness at a time of growing regional challenges.
Login to add a comment