Geopolitical Dimension of Nepal and its Impact in South Asia

International security and its relevancy to nation’s stability are heavily influenced by the geo-political situation of a country. By geo-politics, it is a relationship among politics, geography, demography, and economics–especially in respect to foreign policy adopted by a nation within the region. It dictates the overall governmental policies. In other words, the power relationship is dictated by the geographic location of the country. Geo-politics is the study of the political and strategic relevance of geography in a pursuit to national and international power (Khanal, 2011). So, the location and the physical environment are important factors to decide international power structure of a nation in the global as well as in regional context. Geo-strategy is a branch of geo-politics that deals with strategy. It characterizes a certain geographic area that affects the analysis of a region (Dahal, 2009). In order to understand the importance of geo-strategy of Nepal, we need to understand geographical context of the Indian subcontinent as a whole. It is a self-contained region that includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. We may call the subcontinent “self-contained” because it is a region that is isolated on all sides by difficult terrain or by ocean. In geopolitical terms it is– an island (Friedman, 2008) ‘Nationalism’ within the State of Nepal The rebellion is not a new subject in the Nepali history since the integration of present Nepal by king Prithvi Narayan Shah. The conspiracy and struggle for power are common. During royal regime– the palace was the center of gravity for power politics and the elites used to revolve in and around the palace. These elites misguided the royalty and exploited the poor Nepali. The deep-rooted differences within the Nepali society surfaced at the spontaneous process of development have later transformed into the conflict. The scarcity of the resources, illiteracy, poverty and unequal distribution of opportunity have created a catastrophic effect to burn conflict. At the state level– discrimination based on tribe, language and the religion was distinct in all sectors of social life (Subedi, 2010: 72). 64 Journal of International Affairs Vol. 1, No. 1, 2016 The Maoist rebellion, in a decade time–geared-up so fast that almost 242 year’s old royal regime trembled. The very reason for this down fall was nothing other than the inability to meet the popular aspiration of the people, lack of willingness of the old structure to reform the outdated feudalistic mode of society and suffocation of normal people from elite ruling system. In addition, the inequality in access to resources and opportunities, inadequate service delivery, injustice to the identities and political ideological beliefs, ineffective governance, inept transparency and accountability, intolerant bureaucracy and technocracy as well as insipid diplomacy can be blamed for instability in Nepal. It is believed that King Prithvi Narayan Shah could integrate Nepal geographically to one state but he failed to unite the country on the basis of ethnicity, religion, language, class, and culture. Nepal could become a state but it could not become a nation even from the days of its integration. Hence, emotional attachment of its citizen in the form of nation-state remained fragmented. Crisis is an event that measures human endurance to tackle it. The endurance differs from person to person, society to society and nation to nation based on its survivability and past experiences. History of any nation depicts its ability to cope up such crisis and also to measuring the ‘nationalism’ among its people. The feeling of ‘nationalism’ can be felt and gauged at the time of national crisis. The people generally tend to unite when they feel insecure from outside. In normal situation, the feeling of ‘nationalism’ remains dormant. Nepalis are relatively passive, shy, humble and poor but self-esteemed, independent and hard-working. The crisis of last Mega-Earthquake of April 25, 2015 was the acid test for all Nepali leaders to reconstruct the damaged infrastructures and support to the victimsbut they failed to garner consensus and mobilize the resources. Due to severe politicization, they not only loosed the trust of Nepali peoplebut also they are discredited in the international community. Regional Power Balance The Indian subcontinent, on its northern side of the mountain wall–there is two countries, Nepal and Bhutan, which pose no threat to India. On the other side lies China which can be considered threat to India, and in simplistic word may be a potential rival. Their entire frontier runs through the highest elevations of the Himalayas and both are walled off from each other. The only major direct clash between Indian and Chinese forces, which occurred in 1962, was an inconclusive battle over border territories high in the mountains–both in the northeast Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and the Kashmir region. The relation over the 65 Geopolitical Dimension of Nepaland Its Impact in South Asia territorial dispute is still active as Chinese authority opposed the recent visit of PM NarendraModi to Arunachal Pradesh capital Tawangclaiming that it belongs to their territory. A potential geopolitical shift would be there if the situation in Tibet is changed. China’s main population centers are surrounded by buffer states–Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet. As long as all these states are in Chinese hands, the core of China is invulnerable to land attack. If, Tibet becomes independent, and if it allies with India, so as it permits India to base substantial forces in its territory and to build major supply infrastructure there, then–and only then–India could be a threat to China. This is why India for a long time advocated for Dalai Lama and Tibetan independence movements. If a pro-Indian, independent government be installed in Tibet–the threat to China would be significant. Similarly, China may develop equivalent threats to India–particularly in the form of Maoist communist insurgencies. Indian as well as Nepali Maoists has been suspected on getting support by Beijing though China has lost interest in aggressive Maoism. But it does have an interest in maintaining influence in Nepal. This may be China’s counter to India’s Tibet policy. Using Nepal as a base from which to invade India would be similarly difficult and pointless for Beijing. At the moment, there is no Indo-Chinese geopolitical hostility. However, these would be points of friction if such hostility were to occur in the distant future. The present development in US-India relations to provide logistics base to the US, lobbying India for membership in NSG and support to acquire MTCR will definitely annoy China and Pakistan. Perhaps, the USA might be encouraged to counter China’s assertive military posture in South China Sea and Indian Ocean through India that is why it is supporting India for NSG although it has not signed Non Proliferation Treaty as well. The justification for membership in NSG for clean energy may be acceptable but acquiring MTCR is different. Logistics base to the US is also matter of debate to the neighbors. A cordial relation between regional power and super power is much appreciable but collaboration against neighboring global power will possibly encourage hostilities. In retaliation, if China adopts assertive position through military presence in any of the neighboring South Asian country to Indiait will be devastating to security and stability for the entire region. So, India as well as China must restraint and careful when they opt for any decision that may destabilize the region. 66 Journal of International Affairs Vol. 1, No. 1, 2016 Equally, Nepal should also realize its pivotal position in the Himalayas between the Central and South Asian Region. Its geographical position forms a critical geo-strategic setting for the security of India especially to its Gangatic belt; and to the North–existence of the sensitive Tibet–Autonomous Region of China; which has made Nepal’s position more strategic (Khanal, 2011). In view of this, Nepal needs to formulate its foreign policy satisfying both the neighbors’ interest carefully. At the same time, promoting own interest from growing economies of both the countries will be a wise part to use geo-strategic setting for Nepal. Nepal-Compounded by Three Nuclear Powers The global focus on South Asia and the Indian Ocean has increased over the years due to India and the emerging world power China. In spite of this, another world power has its stakes in the region that is USA. It is the dominant world power for the past century which is an active partner waging an unfinished war on terror in the AfghanistanPakistan region and now in Middle-East. Despite of its continued dominance in the Pacific-it is continuously exerting pressure on South Asia equally so as to balance China in this region. In fact, being buffer between two nuclear powers directly under Indo-China domain and Pakistan in near distance–Nepal is getting priority on foreign aid from regional as well as global powers. This is basically to influence in formulating public policies and setting priorities. The weaknesses of the executive authority, the poverty of homegrown ideas and heavy reliance on donors for financing development has made government prone to donors. It has crippled both the democratic authority of the government and the bureaucracy, thereby weakening the ability of the state to work in the public interest. The Nepali state has failed to assert itself over the donors’ interests. It is a sensitive issue on the part of Nepali side to remain in balance for not to compromise on its own national interest at any cost. The balance of power is very important to maintain stability. The deterrence effect itself controls one to another. The consequences of war are devastating for the nations–so the power equilibrium itself is the in