National insecurity

Throughout its 260-year history, Nepal has tried to keep an equilibrium between its two giant neighbours. Past rulers have tried to ensure friendly relations with India and China even if the two are not exactly friendly with each other. 

But just how delicate this balancing act can be was thrown into sharp relief last week in two events. 

A Nepali was among 25 killed in an attack in Kashmir last month, and at a seminar on regional terrorism this week in Kathmandu foreign policy wonks felt Nepal needlessly irritated India by not being more forthcoming in its condemnation of Pakistan.

Then, at the annual Kathmandu International Mountain Film Festival (Kimff) Chinese documentaries on Tibet were screened under a China-funded ‘Xizang Panorama’ showcase.

There was an immediate backlash against Kimff for accepting Chinese sponsorship and the use of ‘Xizang’, the Chinese name for Tibet. The films were said to be 'colonial propaganda', and Beijing’s attempt to erase Tibetan identity, independence, and self-determination. 

'The term "Xizang" is not merely a geographic designation—it represents China's calculated campaign to replace "Tibet" in international discourse, seeking to erase a distinct and vibrant artistic, literary and spiritual identity,' a collective  of Tibetan filmmakers and writers wrote to Nepali Times last week as Kimff was ongoing. 

The Nepal government in its diplomatic language has started using ‘Xizang’ to refer to Tibet, and there was speculation that the Chinese lobbied with the government to pressure Kimff to show the films on Tibet. Kimff did not respond to our request for comment. 

“While we can advocate for the rights and identity of the Tibetan community in activism and media, the reference to Tibet in our diplomacy will remain in line with our foreign policy with regards to China,” says international relations specialist Indra Adhikari.

The terrorism seminar and the film festival controversy were just the latest examples of how Nepal’s government and civil society are being increasingly squeezed by rival neighbours. 

The rollback of Pax Americana under Trump means that emerging powers China and India are filling the gap. The result: a politically-weakened Nepali state is now more subservient than ever before. 

Nepal’s strategy of equidistance is fraying at the edges as Kathmandu is buffeted by countervailing pressure from north and south.

“Nepal’s political leadership in recent times has changed the definition of ‘national interest’ to suit its own circumstance,” explains former SAARC General-Secretary Arjun Bahadur Thapa. “This means our foreign policy tilts towards one neighbour or the other depending on which party is in power.” 

To be sure, Nepal has asserted itself from time to time, eliciting Indian ire over the Limpiyadhura dispute, and Kathmandu’s refusal to directly condemn Pakistan on the Pahalgam attack even when one of its nationals was killed. 

Read also: Balochistan to Kashmir, Shyam Tekwani

New Delhi has never liked the term ‘equidistance’, and there are also some in Nepal who want it redefined, taking into account proximity,  cultural affinity, trade and economic relations with India. 

“Perhaps it is time that we move beyond equidistance to a more pragmatic approach,” says Adhikari. “Nepal’s relations with India and China are different in nature, and our policy could reflect that difference.”

Meanwhile, Thapa is not so sure that growing American and Western disinterest in the region is making India and China more assertive towards smaller nations.  

He says: “It is true there is declining Western interest in this region, but the US and Europe never really had more influence in Nepal than India and China.”

Speculation is also rife about how Nepal’s two neighbours regard the clamour on the streets and cyberspace for a restoration of a Hindu monarchy. The pro-monarchy RPP and RPP-N joined forces, but amidst shrinking turnout at their rallies decided to ‘decentralise’ protests to other parts of the country.

The Indian media has given wall-to-wall coverage to the royal rallies in Kathmandu, almost at the level of its reporting on the cricket IPL. China has not said much, and seems more interested in trying to unite Nepal’s disparate Communist parties.

India’s ruling BJP and China’s CCP have their preferences for how and who governs Nepal, but that may not mean they are working at cross purposes. Both New Delhi and Beijing would prefer the buffer state between them to be politically stable.

Indra Adhikari says that sections of the BJP could want Nepal to become a Hindu state. 

She adds: “Some in the BJP even want the reestablishment of a Hindu monarchy. But China wants a stable and amenable government, preferably led by a leftist alliance.”