Bhim Nath Baral,

Associate Professor,

Department of Political Science, PN Campus, Pokhara, Nepal

Behavioral Pattern of Nepalese Foreign Policy:

The evolution of Nepalese foreign policy dates back to Asian civilization. Ancient Hindu and Buddhist civilization have made significant contribution in shaping Nepalese foreign policy and its behavior. Nepal has always been guided by the ancient concept of “Basudhaiva kutumbakam”, calling the world as a single family. The holy epics like Mahabharata and Ramayan have put enormous influence in its foreign policy behavior and Chanakya’s Arthashastra still remains the important text on statecraft (Acharya, 2019, p. 80). In the Medieval period Nepal involved in many wars along with making treaties with neighbors.

Foreign policy behavior of modern Nepal begins with the emergence of Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of modern Nepal, in 1769. Awaring about the geostrategic position of Nepal he suggested the succeeding rulers to exhibit independent behavior with the aliens, mainly the two immediate neighbors.

It is the fact that is focused on his teaching (Divya Upadesh). According to him, “Nepal is a yam between two boulders”. This ‘Yam Theory’ is still popular as fundamental principle of Nepal’s foreign Policy. He adds, “this country is like a gourd between two rocks. Maintain a treaty of friendship with the emperor of China. Keep also a treaty of friendship with the emperor of southern sea (the company)” (Stiller, 2017, p.42). His additional focus was that great friendship should be maintained with the northern ally, the Chinese emperor. It is equally essential to maintain friendship with the southern seas (The British). He advised not to engage in an offensive attack, fighting should be done in a defensive basis. If it is found difficult to resist in the fight then even means of persuasion, tact and deceit should be employed (Baral, 2020, pp.1-22).

But despite its declared policy of maintaining friendship with China and British, Nepal witnessed her diplomatic failure when she was involved in war with Tibet and British India in 1792 and 1814 respectively (Manandhar, 2018, pp.1-31). Nepal’s defeat in the war with British (popularly known as Anglo-Nepal War, 1814-1816) resulted losing one-third territory and limited external behavior.

Nepal’s foreign policy behavior took U-turned mode after signing on Sugauli Treaty in 1816. Internal rivalry in royal palace continued hindering in showing adequate behavior in foreign policy matter. When Jung Bahadur came in power after Kot Parva on the night of September 14, 1846, he introduced Rana regime. That incident brought new turn in Nepal’s foreign policy (Lamsal, 2017, p. 4). According to Rose, a practical politician like Jung Bahadur adopted British -centric foreign policy because he was aware of the decline of Chinese power and it was not in a position or willing to challenge the British power in the Himalayan area (Rose, 1971, p. 106). The Ranas introduced Pro-British behavior mainly to protect their dynastic rule in Nepal.

Jung Bahadur helped the British to suppress Sipoy Mutiny of 1857, and prime ministers Chandra Shumsher and Judda Shumsher rendered valuable services to the British during the first and second world wars (Manandhar, 2018, pp.1-31). Since Nepal had adopted independent foreign policy and it had no war policy. But Nepalese armies were involved in both world wars supporting Britain. It is because Britain was the only ally in South Asia (Adhikari, 2018). According to Sharma, all these incidents forced Nepal to remain in isolation from the rest of the world. The policy of isolation as adopted by Rana rulers contributed in the continuation of Rana regime and to serve the country from British usurpation as well (2006, p. 15).

Nepal’s foreign policy behavior turned toward India-centric in the form of “Special Relations” after the departure of British from Indian sub-continent. Nepal also experienced political change in 1950. Democracy had introduced by ending 104 years old Rana regime. The newly introduced democratic system adopted new pattern in foreign policy matter. However, Indian domination continued in Nepal’s external relation during king Tribhuwan’s rule.

The two countries were described as having had “special relation” with each other (Muni, 2016, p. 59). Less importance was given in Nepal’s relation with northern neighbor, China. There were various factors that accounted for “Special Relations” between Nepal and India. Nepal had very close relations with British-India. Nepal also signed tripartite agreement providing for the British recurrent of the Gurkha soldiers in India. Besides this Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950, extradition treaty with India in 1953 etc. were the major events to have special relation with India (K.C. 2072, pp. 1-22). Indian diplomat, Shyam Saran also opines that both India and were suspicious with Chinese occupation over Tibet and came to conclude Peace and Friendship Treaty in 1950 (Saran, 2017, p. 153).

Indian domination prevailed in Nepal in the name of special relation. Govinda Narayan, the then home secretary of Uttar Pradesh, was appointed as the special secretary of king Tribhuwan. The relation seemed special that Indian ambassador to Nepal used to involve in cabinet meeting (K. C., 2072, p.14). In addition to these, many Nepali freedom fighters involved in India’s independent movement and they were familiar with Indian politicians. This tie turned to the close relation after the independence of India.

Buffer position of Nepal signifies certain behavior in foreign policy matter. A buffer state is a small state situated between two rival powers with an independent foreign policy (Jesse &Dreyer, 2016). Such state generally displays the tendency to balance against or bandwagon with a belligerent. In the past, Tibet, very close neighbor to Nepal, was free from Chinese control. The British had their influence beyond the Himalayas and Tibet served as a buffer state. But after the annexation of Tibet on China, Nepal is seen as a buffer state between rising Asian powers-China and India (Jaiswal, 2016).

Adoption of non-align foreign policy is the common behavior of small power. The devastating Second World War brought sea changes in global relations. The significant number of small powers arose in world politics. The rivalry between two super powers developed after the Second World War compelled the small powers to find out new ways in their foreign policy dealing. The Bandung Conference of 1955 coined the idea of non-alignment as the guiding principle of their foreign policy behavior. Nepal’s involvement in the conference was equally fruitful. Being inspired from the ideals of the movement Nepal has full adherence to the established principles of Panchasheel. Since then it became the guidelines in Nepal’s foreign policy behaviour. (Baral, 2018, pp.25-45).

Highlighting the importance of following non-align principles Yadu Nath Khanal, eminent Nepali diplomat, opines that adopting the policy based on non-align principles was a historic necessity for Nepal and as well as others which would create opportunities for the peaceful political development of nations and their survival (Khanal, 2000, p. 425). The countries adopted the movement as the useful tool for their survival and stability. It was also compulsive necessity for small powers as they had no more effective option than that of it.

Introducing the Zone of Peace proposal is considered as the most original and important innovation of Nepalese foreign policy behavior. Declaring Nepal as ‘Zone of Peace’ was the important foreign policy innovation of the then king Birendra. The concept was first introduced in 1973 at the non-align Summit held at Algiers. The principal objective of declaring Nepal as ‘Zone of Peace’ was to maintain neutrality in all possible regional conflicts and also ensure domestic political stability and economic development. It was the concept introduced as the result of the events developed in the neighborhood. Annexation to Tibet, a tiny Himalayan state close to Nepal, nuclear test by India in 1974 and India’s tilt to Soviet Union by signing 20years peace and friendship treaty inspired Nepal to introduce a new policy initiative to be declared Nepal as a ‘Zone of Peace’ (Dahal, 2011: 41).

The Khampa incident in the northern border was equally responsible behind the emergence of this proposal. The king expressly referred to the potency of the establishment of a peace zone as an effective means to remove the problem of regional, bilateral and multilateral alliances. This proposal got overwhelming support from 116 countries but could not be materialized as India has yet not welcomed.

Nepal’s foreign policy behavior is more vital in dealing with immediate neighbors. It is obligatory for Nepal to exhibit balance behavior with them because of its geopolitical and geostrategic location. It was basically after the arrival of king Mahendra at the throne, Nepal tried to adopt an equidistance policy with the two immediate neighbors and non-align behavior with outside world.

The behavior shifted after 1990. Nepal adopted equi-proximity policy in dealing with immediate neighbours. But Nepal’s foreign policy behavior in dealing with its immediate neighbours is not free from criticism. Several Indian scholars are of the opinion that Nepal’s policy of balance relation is impractical because of cultural, economic, geographic and social ties with India (Singh and Shah, 2016, p. 56). However, Nepal’s foreign policy behaviour has been remained neutral in the conflict between India and China. Nepal strongly put its opinion to remain neutral in Doklam issue, in June 2017. Nepal also made it clear that it will stay neutral in the latest India China conflict and also requested to make peaceful settlement of the issue. Nepal continued to exhibit neutral behavior in the subsequent conflicts between two immediate neighbors. It was also evident that Nepal remained neutral in Indo-China war of 1962.

According to Hey, involvement in regional and global organizations can best serve small state’s interest. Their focus remains on the implementation of international law (Hey, 2003). Accordingly, Nepal’s foreign policy behaviour appeared into new form after its entry into international community. It became a member of the UNO in 1955. Since the admission to the United Nations, Nepal has been firm in the commitment to the charter of the UNO.

Its active involvement in various activities of the UN has won international admiration. Further, Nepal also served the UNO twice (1969-1970 and 1988- 1989) as the temporary member of Security Council. Despite of small strength, Nepal’s active involvement in non-alignment movement, role played in the establishment of SAARC in 1985 and involvement in various specialized agencies of the UN serve in the protection of national interest.

SAARC secretariat stationed at Kathmandu, capital city of the country, and its engagement with BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) are taken as vital efforts towards exhibiting its behavior in global community (Baral, 2018, pp.25-45). Its participation in both peacekeeping and peacemaking operation launched by the UNO, supports to various resolutions aimed at promoting global peace and fraternity are some notable behaviors in the way to attain its foreign policy objective. Beside these, Nepal has established diplomatic relations with 171 countries of the world, 30 embassies, three permanent missions and six consular offices. SAARC secretariat is stationed at Kathmandu. Nepal has labour agreement with 110 countries of the world. Regular exchange of visits by different foreign and national dignitaries to each other’s countries and similar other behaviors have been contributing in consolidating Nepal’s foreign policy.

Constitutional arrangement has remained the fundamental principle in guiding Nepal’s foreign policy behaviour. The post- Loktantric constitution has made clear provision regarding Nepalese foreign policy through which its external behavior is directed. It is the constitution, under part four part four, has made the provision of directive principles, policies and obligation of state. According to this provision, the state shall direct its international relations towards enhancing the dignity of the nation in the world community.

It is also mentioned that international relations will be conducted on the basis of sovereign equality, while safeguarding the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence and national interest of Nepal (article, 50 (4)). In the same manner, article 50(m) of the constitution tells about policies relating to international relations. Sub-article 1 is about conducting the independent foreign policy based on the Charter of United Nations, principles of panchasheel, international law and the norms of world peace. Constitution is also committed towards safeguarding the national interest i. e. protection of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. Adding more provision in the constitution than to previous constitutions, article 51(m) (2) tells about the pursuing the policy to review the treaties concluded in the past. All these agreements and treaties should be based on equality and mutual interest.

After the adoption of new constitution, India felt reluctant which resulted undeclared blockade of critical goods and supplies across the border with Nepal. Anti-Indian sentiment gradually grown in the country India claimed that it was not blockade rather the problem was created by the Madhesis on the part of Nepal obstructing the movement of goods. For the purpose of managing the deteriorating relation between two historical allies, EPG, a team of foreign policy experts from both countries had formed.

The EPG was assigned with the task to make recommendations in the way to consolidate relations between two countries. But foreign policy behavior of both countries could not address each other’s sentiment. After the annexation of Jammu-Kashmir on November 1019, India published a new map including Nepalese territory-Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh. Nepal strongly opposed and as a counter it also issued new map of Nepal on 20 May 2020 including the territory which were missing in the previous map. Further it was on 14 July 2020, prime minister K. P, Oli gave a speech regarding religious site- Ayodhya. His strong claim was that Ayodhya lies in Thori village of Nepal and Ram, the historical king, was a Nepali. Frequent demonstrations are also occurring in the country opposing the matter related to border encroachment from the south. The issue of border encroachment in the north is also raised. There is dilemma in Nepal’s dealing with MCC and BRI projects. The governments are also criticized for their foreign policy being tilted to China and India. Our country is struggling hard to find balance in its relations with immediate neighbors and overseas ally. Paradoxical behaviour always leads to deterioration of relations in upcoming days.

Conclusion:

Small powers in world politics are always worried about their survival. They usually lack material power and are often threatened by greater powers. The case is more serious for a small and weak power located at a buffer zone. Some states lost their identity and many others disappeared from the globe in the history of civilization. However, twenty first century is more hospitable for small powers than any other time in the history. Their role in international relations cannot be minimized. By taking the matter of survival into consideration, the small powers have used various options and behaved accordingly as per the global trend and internal determinants. In course of history, Nepal has never been colonized by any world power.

However, it has been facing critical modes throughout the history. The incidents developed in neighborhood and global scenario inspired Nepal to choose different policy options in its foreign policy behavior. However, Nepal’s geostrategic position between two emerging global powers gives few options to maintain balance relations. But policy makers are not found aware of the reality as their behaviour seems tilting either towards south or the north or sometimes beyond the sea. Party line still matters in foreign policy behaviour.

To sum up, it cannot be denied that small powers exist in international system and their foreign policy interest, behavior and roles in international relations are different from the super, great and middle powers. Mostly, external behaviour is determined by national interest and survival remains the fundamental concern of small power. Their behaviour changes in accordance with changes in their domestic politics as also changes in the existing external environment. The role of ruling elites is equally influencing in their behaviour. Thus, it seems hard to examine the multi-dimensional behavior exhibited by small powers in their external dealings. It is for this very reason small powers are deserving of continuous research and development of a theory that better explains their foreign policy behaviour.

# Concluded: Upadhyaya. 

References:

Acharya, M. R. (2019). Nepal world view. Vol. I, Adroit Publishers.

Adhikari, B. (2018). Successive constitutions and geopolitical pinches. Dwarika
Nath Dhungel &Madan Kumar Dahal (eds.). Nepal: A country in transition. Rupa “““““Publications India Pvt. Ltd., 63-105.

Baral, B. N. (2020). Dibya upadesh:Pragmatic guidelines to Nepalese diplomacy. Journal of Political Science, Vol. XX, 25-45.

Baral, B. N. (2018). Changing dynamics of Nepalese foreign policy: Patterns and
trends. Journal of Political Science, Vol. XVII, 1-22.

Dahal, D. (2011). The art of survival: policy choices for Nepal. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology. Vol. 5, 31-48.
Dahal, R. K. (2009). Challenges in the formulation of foreign policy for Nepal. S. R. Pandey and P. Adhikari (eds). Nepalese foreign policy at the crossroads. Sangam Institute, 19-50.
Donnelly, J. (2008). The ethics of realism. Christian Reus-Smit & Duncan Snidal (eds). The oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press, 150-162.
East, M. (1973). Size and foreign policy behavior: A test for two models. World Politics. Volume 25(4), July 1973, pp. 556 – 576. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009952.
Goldstein, J. S. & Pevehouse, J. C. (2009). International relations (eighth edition). Pearson.
Hey, J., A. K. (2003). Small states in world Politics: Explaining foreign policy Behavior. Lynne Rienner Publications, Inc.
Hudson, V. M. (2012). The history and evolution of foreign policy analysis. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield & Tim Dunne (eds). Foreign policy: Theories, actors, cases (second edition). Oxford University press,13-34.
Hurd, I. (2008). Constructivism. C, Reus- Smit and D. Snidal (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of International relations. Oxford University Press, 289-316.
Jackson, R. & Sorensen, G. (2013), Introduction to intentional relations: Theories and approaches (5th edition). Oxford University Press.
Jaiswal, P. (2016). Nepal’s foreign Policy and strategic Significance. P. Jaiswal and G. Kochhar (eds). Nepal’s foreign policy and her neighbours. GB Books Publishers and Distributers, 1-32.
Jesse, N. G. & Dreyer, J. R. (2016). Small states in the international system: At peace and at war. Lexington Books.
K., C., S. (2072 B. S.). Nepalko bharat niti tatha sandhi-samjhautaharu. Aman Shrestha et. al. (eds.). Nepal-Bharat Ra Chin Sandhi: Samikshyatmak Vivechana. Madhuvan Prakashan, 1-22.
Khanal, Y. N. (2000). Nepal’s non- isolationist foreign policy. Satyal Publications.

Lamsal, Y. (2017). Jung Bahadur’s Foreign Policy. The Rising Nepal, March 7, 2017.
Long, T. (2017). Small states, great powers? gaining influence through intrinsic, derivative and collective power. International studies review, 185-205.
Malhotra, V. K. (2014). International relations (fourth revised edition). Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Manandhar, T. R. (2018). Historical perspective. Dwarika Nath Dhungel &Madan Kumar Dahal (eds.). Nepal: A country in transition. Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd., 1-31.

Mingst, K. A. (2004). Essentials of International Relations (third edition). W.W. Norton and Company, Inc
Modelski, G. (1962). A theory of foreign policy. Pall Mall Press.
Moravcsik, A. (2008). The new liberalism. In C. Smit & D. Snidal (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International relations. Oxford University Press. 234-254.
Morganthau, H. J. (1997). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (sixth edition). Kalyani Publishers.
Muni, S. D. (2016). Foreign policy of Nepal. Adroit Publishers.

Price, R. (2008). The ethics of Constructivism. Christian Reus- Smit and Ducan Snidal (eds.). The oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press, 317-326.
Rose, L. E. (1971). Nepal: strategy for survival. Mandala Book Point (South Asian Edition).
Saran, S. (2017). How India sees the world. Juggernaut Books.
Sharma, J. (2006). Nepal: Struggle for existence. comminc ICT Private Limited.
Singh, B. & Shah, S. H. (2016). Nepal’s equidistance policy towards India and China: Exploring the shifting paradigm in the post-monarchial era. P. Jaiswal and G. Kochhar (eds). Nepal’s foreign policy and her neighbours. GB Books Publishers and Distributors, 49-66.
Stein, A. A. (2008). Neoliberal institutionalism. C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (eds.). The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press, 201-221.
Stiller, L. F. (2017). The rise of the house of Gorkha (revised edition). Educational Publishing House.
The Constitution of Nepal (2072 B.S.). Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law, Justice, Constituent Assembly and Parliamentary Affairs. Law Book Management Committee.
Thorhallsson, B. (2018). Studying small state: A review. Small states and territories, vol.1. No. 1, 17-34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication 327074818.
Wohlforth, W. (2008). Realism. C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (eds.), The oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press, 131-149.