In the past one month, social media and some print and digital media in Nepal have been busy with various discussions, articles and speculations about Nepal-China, Nepal-India relations. When a story is made in the media, it is not unusual in an open society like Nepal to have a lot of interest in the streets, alleys and squares around it.

 With the formation of a government with Congress and UML led by KP Sharma Oli, there was curiosity as to what will happen to Nepal's neighborhood relations. With the arrival of Arju Rana in the charge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there was a general understanding that the Nepal government has now gone on the path of facilitation in the matter of neighborhood relations. Rana's visit to India last August reinforced that understanding. But this understanding did not last even four months. 

Four months after the first visit, Rana's choice or plan to return to Nepal from Europe via Delhi on a different topic and context is not being completed, and the same doubts and misgivings about Nepal's neighborhood relations seem to be taking place again. This commentary is so strong that, even if the Foreign Minister Rana or the Government of Nepal, not only the Government of India, gives a clarification on this, even if one drop within Nepal is not going to change the understanding immediately.  In terms of

projects, the BRI agreement seems more modest than the 2017 agreement due to the opening of different bargaining doors. There are various stories about neighbors in Kathmandu. Some people consider Nepal as 'a yam between two stones' citing Prithvi Narayan Shah. Some say 'buffer state', 'India surrounded country'. 

American professor Leo E. Rose, who is knowledgeable about Nepal, analyzed the neighborhood policy adopted by Nepal from the 18th century to the end of the 20th century, i.e. until the 1970s. He published the title of one of his books prepared on Nepal's foreign relations. 

The global environment has undergone extensive and rapid changes in recent decades. It can be said that after the end of those wars, Nepal, which represented itself by sending troops on the side of Britain in the First and Second World Wars, worked as a peace advocate in cooperation with the United Nations in world politics. Even in the complex environment of the Cold War, it has been successful in creating an identity as a supporter of non-alignment. At a glance, for a country like Nepal, the current world politics can be considered different from the situation described above, but comparatively much easier.

The main reason for this is that now it is not as easy and simple as in the past for one country to destroy another's territory and end its sovereignty based on force. Secondly, the previous situation of having neighbors only touched by the sea or the land, i.e. the land, has actually come to an end.

It is not just by walking, riding in a motor or on a boat that you can have a relationship and cooperation with your neighbor. Even with a country that is a little far away connected by ship or air route, it is possible to live like the closest neighbor, and to be involved and concerned, as in the olden times. Even today, the debates and discussions about Nepal and its neighborhood relations show that Nepal is not able to understand and present itself in that way. 

The last decade of neighborhood relations

One feature or aspect of the democratic parliamentary system adopted by Nepal is the occasional change of the head of government. Looking at the changing Prime Ministers in Nepal after 2048, the government is changing easily with the general majority in the House of Representatives. Since there are frequent changes of government, this is considered by some to be a weak or distorted aspect of the parliamentary system. But if a government goes against the will of the people, it can pave the way for another government in the midst of the mandate it has received by going through the parliamentary process.

If the MP is not ready, this work can be done through the constitutional process by creating general pressure on the people. In this sense, the argument that this is the strongest aspect of the system can also be heard. This is a separate topic for discussion. But in recent days, there has been an attempt to link Nepal's neighborhood relations with it knowingly or unknowingly.

Nepal's political parties decide whether to stay in the government or not based on their party concessions, convenience and the arithmetic of one house of parliament being the House of Representatives. As a result, in Nepal relatively faster than elsewhere or more than one prime minister has been changing during the same term of parliament. It is seen that the parties choose ministers based on the wishes and beliefs of the characters who influence it by looking at the parliamentary arithmetic rather than on the basis of expertise.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself is a sensitive place in the current perspective of having to balance two neighbors, world powers and other powers who are conducting diplomacy under the leadership of experienced and experienced people. But that too is often a victim of party practices. As a result, the country seems to be suffering the fate of the foreign affairs minister being a person who does not understand the neighborhood or does not want to understand it. Its impact is not only on the country's relations with its neighbors and the overall foreign policy and affairs, but also on the comments made by the media and the public about the government within the country. 

As soon as the new government is formed, it is an example of making rumors about the future of the government based on which country the new prime minister is going to visit first, where he has gone or not. 

As a whole, looking at the characters in the government, the topics of debate within the country and in the neighborhood, etc., this last decade cannot be considered as a new upheaval year in Nepal, India and China. Because although there is a change in the process of coming and going to the chair, after August 12, 2015, three people namely KP Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Sher Bahadur Deuba are being changed in the chair of the Prime Minister of Nepal.

Except for the Nepal Labor Farmers Party, all the parties present in the Parliament have got the chance to participate in the government. In the meantime, Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister of India and Xi Jinping is the President of China.

India, which was shocked when the constitution was being drafted during Sushil Koirala's tenure as Prime Minister, was followed by Oli's tenure as Prime Minister and later corrected his policy and adopted a policy of not questioning the Constitution made by Nepal. Another neighbor, China, was initially a little suspicious of the federalism adopted by Nepal, but there is no significant ups and downs, especially in the relationship between the two neighbors. Nor is the concept of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) new for the last ten years. 

It can be said that even in the situation where there is a formal and informal issue with the two neighbors in Mahakali and Humla area regarding the border relationship, and there is chaos in the government structure and even at the people's level, it can be said that other relations and concerns are still normal. Even from the point of view of high-level visits, this decade can be considered a very balanced decade in terms of Nepal and its neighbourhood.

Because the opportunity of the Chinese President to visit Nepal seems to have increased during this period, Indian Prime Minister Modi has also visited Nepal twice in 2018 and (after the Chuchhe map of Nepal) once in 2022 and three times. Meanwhile, all the heads of government of Nepal have visited India. Apart from Deuba, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and KP Sharma Oli have also visited China.

Chinese leadership was not new to Deuba, who did not go to China during this period as Prime Minister, because Xi Jinping came to Nepal during this period and met with him as the leader of the opposition party. In fact, this decade can be said to be a stable decade for these three countries. 

BRI's latest consensus is new? 

As mentioned above, the BRI concept is now outdated in the context of Nepal. The reference to the last agreement does not seem to be worth discussing as something new. In a way, this is a renewal of the 2017 agreement, except for a few crore projects. But in Nepal, every thing is tried to be disguised by drawing arguments that are/are not. Most of the analysis is guided by conspiracy theories, away from reality and facts. Apart from creating a sensation in such debates, there is hardly any seriousness and responsibility in the issue.

The framework agreement signed with a three-year term was automatically renewed for another three years and remained in abeyance after 2023. Due to the interest in this matter within Nepal, it seems that China made an agreement during the visit of the Prime Minister of Nepal to China last month, i.e. in December 2024, to show that there is at least an agreement. There is also a claim that, if Prime Minister Oli had not longed to visit China, China, which is suffering from economic recession due to ups and downs in trade relations with the West, would not have proposed renewing the BRI agreement with Nepal.

Next, whatever agreement was reached, procedurally speaking, it looks more modest than 2017 because it opened the door to different negotiations with respect to each project. But in a country like Nepal, which frequently changes its bureaucracy, it seems very complicated and difficult to reach an agreement on the creation and implementation of plans of this nature, with constant bargaining and tussle.

It seems that the entire bureaucracy, including the current Prime Minister and the ruling partner Congress, is not unanimous in the debate about grants or loans. In the state of mind to discuss further, even though Nepal is one of the parties to the agreement as before, there is a strong possibility of completing another round of the agreement without implementation. 

Nepali inferiority complex and exit 

The question can be raised here, if the relationship is not in ups and downs, why was the topic raised suddenly like the sky fell? Why is it said that this government is not liked by the Indian establishment? You don't have to go to India or China to find the answer. Because, this is the culmination of the sense of inferiority that has existed for a long time in Nepali, and is still expressed now.

That feeling of inferiority, every time the relations are normal, every time the neighborhood comes to the chair of the Prime Minister, on top of that, he must visit India, and the top leaders of other parties, including the Prime Minister, who have the idea that they should start from India, the media, who interpret the body language of Indians and start the countdown of the Prime Minister and the government formed by the parliament elected by him. And seen in public. 

must rise above this sense of inferiority. I want to improve the relationship by changing this issue that needs to be resolved with the neighborhood and for that, I will first discuss the issue internally within the country and prepare a consensus/national document with the support and cooperation of everyone.

and in the context of the same subject, I will propose a meeting with the neighboring counterpart and take the matter to an end. Today's need in the country is for a Prime Minister/leadership that keeps in mind that until the agenda to solve an issue with a new form is realized and the dimensions of the relationship remain normal, the essence and purpose of the invitational visit and meeting will not remain. 

Media and public opinion makers in the society also need to take the initiative in creating the same kind of commentary to guide the leadership towards it. Based on the visit that someone has made or failed to make, it should not be made and increase the inferiority complex that if one does not visit, one's own countrymen do not respect or trust the government leadership.