There has been a debate for a long time whether the big, developed and emerging powers India and China are an opportunity or a challenge for Nepal, which is relatively small, landlocked and underdeveloped from a geographical point of view. In terms of geopolitical dimension, there are two 'schools of thought' prevalent in Nepal. First, the traditional and defensive school of thought propounded by King Prithvi Narayan Shah in the eighteenth century, which has portrayed Nepal's geopolitics as a challenge rather than an opportunity.

This school of thought has been advocating a defensive policy to protect the geographical integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Nepal, naming it as 'Yam between two stones'. Another 'school of thought' has presented an alternative concept of a dynamic bridge between India and China, expressing the view that Nepal's geopolitics is an opportunity rather than a challenge. The first 'school of thought' that prioritizes strategic and military dimensions is traditional and defensive, while the second school of thought that prioritizes geo-economics and development is considered progressive and 'proactive'. 

On the other hand, neighboring powers including India and China have been defining Nepal as a 'buffer state' from a strategic and military perspective. It seems that neighboring and powerful countries want to keep Nepal as a buffer state and use it from a strategic and military perspective. Actually Nepal is a bridge between two stones or a dynamic bridge or a buffer state? Is geopolitics an opportunity or a challenge for Nepal? Is Nepal capable of addressing complex and sensitive geopolitical issues? Some burning questions have been raised. Therefore, it is inevitable to arrive at a concrete conclusion by objectively studying and debating the geopolitical dimension from the point of view of both long-term national interest and current self-interest. 

Independent foreign policy, balanced diplomacy

No country's geopolitics is an absolute opportunity or challenge, inherent in the policies it pursues. The foreign policy is to guide Nepal's relations with neighbors and the international community and the geopolitical dimension. Taking into consideration the national interest, geopolitical importance and strategic sensitivity of Nepal, such a policy should be followed, which ensures national unity, geographical integrity, sovereignty, and national security. Such a policy is - independent foreign policy and balanced diplomacy based on national interest. Panchsheel, non-alignment, neutrality and the UN Charter are the main mantras of Nepal's independent foreign policy and balanced diplomacy. Therefore, instead of a defensive and short-sighted policy like in the past, we should develop cordial and close diplomatic relations with all friendly countries, including neighbors, based on the principle of universal equality.

However, rulers in different periods of history have deviated from free and balanced policies by compromising the national interest. Especially the geopolitical and diplomatic balance with neighbors and Shaktishrastra is seen as the most challenging. With the change of government, the priorities of foreign policy also change and there is an inconsistent trend of maintaining unwanted closeness with some country and unnatural distance with some country for the purpose of getting and staying in power. Due to such suicidal tendency of the government and parties, not only the national interest has suffered a serious blow, but in some periods, unwanted foreign interference has also been happening in the internal affairs. 

Switzerland's reference to non-aligned and neutral foreign policy is relevant for Nepal. Like Nepal, Switzerland is also a landlocked country situated between France, Germany and Italy. However, it has been playing an exemplary role by following the policy of permanent non-alignment and neutrality for nearly two hundred years. Switzerland adopted a policy of neutrality and non-alignment even during the tainted periods of human history like the First and Second World Wars. Neither participated directly or indirectly in any war nor supported any country or alliance. Despite being a northern neighbor, Germany did not attack Switzerland. Switzerland became a member of the United Nations only in 2002 and is not yet a member of the European Union. Conflict management and peacekeeping are now an integral part of Switzerland's foreign policy. Conflict management and peace diplomacy have not only become fundamental identities, but have succeeded in developing into powerful soft power. Therefore, Nepal can learn from Switzerland in terms of non-alignment and neutrality. 

Since it has become challenging to maintain geopolitical balance, Mongolia, another landlocked country between China and Russia, has been following a policy of permanent neutrality since 2016. Similarly, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Northern Ireland and other countries have adopted non-alignment and neutrality as the basic principles of foreign policy. Therefore, non-alignment and neutrality is a suitable policy for relatively small and underdeveloped countries among the geographically large and emerging powers. Nepal followed the policy of non-alignment and neutrality and maintained a geopolitical, strategic and diplomatic balance even during the very complex and sensitive period when the Indo-China war and the Cold War reached its peak. So non-alignment and neutrality are the guiding principle of foreign policy and this principle should be followed literally in the future as well. 

In 2016, the first elected government under the leadership of BP Koirala formulated the cornerstone of an independent and balanced policy with all friendly countries including neighbors based on the promotion of sovereignty, national interest and national interest. Similarly, by expanding and diversifying diplomatic relations with the wider international community, it was established as a free, sovereign and independent country before the world community. Therefore, it is today's national need to follow the independent and balanced policy by giving the highest priority to the national interest and adopting the guiding principle of foreign policy which has been accepted since its inception by learning from BP's policy.

is not geopolitical, geo-economic priority

The geopolitical dimension of Nepal has been highly discussed. However, the geo-economic dimension is equally important. Emerging powers India and China can be challenging for Nepal from geopolitical and strategic point of view. But developed and prosperous neighborhoods are an economic opportunity. Therefore, Nepal's priority should be geo-economic, not geo-political. Because Nepal is not and cannot be a geopolitical player. Nepal should not do that audacity. If it dares to be a geopolitical player, it will have to pay a heavy price. 

Some parties and leaders of Nepal are trying to make large development and infrastructure construction projects fail by geopoliticizing them in an exaggerated manner under the cover of nationalism. Big infrastructure projects from Araniko to East-West Lokmarg, from Arun III to Budhigandaki, from Gautam Buddha to Pokhara Airport, from MCC to BRI have become victims of geopolitical propaganda. Large infrastructure projects have either been delayed or failed due to such unwanted disputes. Unfortunately, some parties and leaders of Nepal have become obstacles to development under the pretext of narrow nationalism and geopoliticization. If those parties and leaders are not freed from such a suicidal tendency, the possibility of building the project seems weak. 

Former US Secretary of State and writer Henry Kissinger has given a meaningful indication of Nepal's geopolitical landscape in world-famous books such as 'On China' and geopolitical case expert Robert Kaplan's 'The Revenge of Geography'. Kissinger projected an uncertain and complex geopolitical picture created by the rise of the Asian century, the economic and strategic ambitions of India and China, and America's Asia-centric policy. Kaplan also predicts a significant impact on the strategic dimensions of the Indian Ocean, the Himalayan range from the Karakoram to Myanmar, and the South China Sea, due to the geopolitical conflict between the US, China and India. Likewise, Joseph S. Ney, a scholar of international relations and the former Secretary of Defense of the United States, has declared in the book "The Future of Power" that power has "shifted" from the West to the East and from the Indian Ocean to the Indian Ocean. Therefore, Ney has assessed that the geopolitical conflict and strategic competition from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean will be more risky in the future.

As predicted by Kissinger, Ney and Kaplan, there appears to be a triangular geopolitical conflict between India, China and the US and deep strategic interests in Nepal. Because of their strategic interests, they have been giving high importance to diplomatic and strategic relations with Nepal. A careful study of the foreign policy, security policy and Nepal policy of that country shows that geopolitical conflicts and strategic interests will increase and become more multifaceted, complex and tangled in the future. It seems that they have been competing openly and undeclared to achieve their strategic interests by making Nepal a geopolitical playground. Due to their multifaceted competition and self-interest, not only the geopolitical importance of Nepal is increasing, but the strategic sensitivity seems to be becoming more risky. The geopolitical impact of such unwanted competition is more risky and dangerous than what the government and policy makers have estimated. 

is not a buffer state, pull doctrine 

According to Nepal's history and contemporary commentary, Prithvi Narayan Shah's 'Tarul' metaphor has been a permanent standard and 'Strategy for Survival' has become a permanent doctrine. From public discourse to policy-making, from school-university curriculum to popular commentary, it seems to be influenced and influenced by this doctrine and metaphor. Similarly, the international writers and researchers who study and research about Nepal, the international community, are also portraying it as a 'buffer state'. Considering this doctrine and metaphor as Gayatri Mantra, the government has been following a defensive policy until now. 

The concepts of Tarul and Buffer State may have been relevant to some extent during the First and Second World Wars and the colonial period. But in the changing geopolitical and strategic landscape of the twenty-first century, such traditional doctrines and metaphors are becoming irrelevant. Looking at it from the geopolitical, strategic and security lens, Nepal would be a buffer state. But from the lens of neighborhood, geo-economic and development partnership, the developed India and China are dynamic bridges with immense potential. Acknowledging this reality, in the changed context, it should be redefined from the broad dimension of the dynamic bridge, not in the traditional and narrow way like the yam and buffer state. Therefore, not a defensive and short-sighted policy like 'Strategy for Survival', but a dynamic and development-oriented policy like 'Strategy for Prosperity' should be followed. 

Academics and intellectuals like Leo E. Rose from America also studied and analyzed Nepal from strategic and geopolitical dimensions and published a book called 'Strategy for Survival' in 1971. It was also a document written with the aim of establishing that principle. Rose also theorized the doctrine of Prithvi Narayan Shah and established it in the international world as a tarul and buffer state. In 2012, the prestigious magazine "The Economist" published in Britain named "Yam Yesterday, Yam Today" (Yesterday Bhi Tarul, Aaj Bhi Tarul) and portrayed it as a geopolitical chess-board. This reality has been confirmed. In fact, Rose also devalued Nepal's sovereignty and independence by calling it a yam and a buffer state. Until now, like Rose, looking at it from the geopolitical, strategic and security lens, western powers including neighbors have been deciding the policy regarding Nepal accordingly.  Partnership in

development, unrelated to strategic matters 

Partnership with neighbors as well as all development partners for economic development is Nepal's top priority. India and China are huge empires with endless economic potential, accounting for 35 percent of the world's population, 27 percent of the world economy, 28 percent of the world trade, and 15 percent of the world's foreign direct investment. Being in the midst of an economic 'super power' with such a large population, economy, market and trade is a golden opportunity for Nepal from an economic point of view. However, Nepal has not been able to gain relatively economic benefits from the economic development of India and China. Therefore, it would be preferable to follow the policy of economic development by gaining maximum benefits from China and India, which are currently the second and fifth economies and the first and third economies in the near future. 

National capital and technology alone are not enough for the development of Nepal, foreign capital and technology are necessary. For this, it is necessary to develop close relations with donor countries and donor institutions and adopt a policy of economic development and infrastructure building by bringing in foreign capital and technology. Since the economy is becoming dependent on the ever-increasing trade deficit, a policy to reduce the trade deficit and develop a self-sustainable economy is the need of the day. Policy to develop Nepal's natural resources should be given to India and China by expanding additional connectivity on the basis of uninterrupted trade and transit and similar benefits. & Nbsp;

If China invests dollars in seven ocean anniversary, why does not do it? Why doesn't India do not allow in Nepal if India is increasing even for foreign assistance? However, for foreign cooperation and investment, Nepal needs to be equally necessary to create generous economy and investment-friendly environment for foreign cooperation and investment. If the investment friendly environment is created, all countries will invest only China and India only, not only China, UK, Europe, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, jungle will be killed. & Nbsp;

but immuneration, military and security sharing, cooperation or coalition partnerships are not priority for the country with the principle of foreign policy directly to the country. There should be no enclosal of direct collaborations to the stylistic collaboration, co-adoptration and competition between any of the world. Nepal should be completely inflated and neutrality towards such activities. The proposal of partnership or cooperation with gearicals, military, military, military, military, military, military, military, and security, has now come, and will continue to come. But unstable politics, vulgar foreign policies cannot take the risk of such two orbit countries. If there is an enclosure directly or indirectly, it will not be suicide directly or indirectly, if it is involved directly or indirectly, it will not be suicides for Nepal. & Nbsp;