As the process of ending the unipolar world order continues to accelerate, conflict, instability, confusion, and unrest have escalated globally. Almost all countries in the world are experiencing the impact and repercussions of conflict in one way or another, including Nepal.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communist governments in Eastern Europe, Francis Fukuyama wrote ‘The End of History’. He said, ‘There will be only liberal democracy in the world, and no others will exist.’ His gist was that Western capitalism is now out of the question. However, that did not happen and conflict did not end. The emergence of new forms of conflict has become the destiny of human civilization. It is through continuous conflict and changing forms of conflict that human civilization has reached its current state. The direct impact of the current global polarization and conflict has naturally also been felt in Nepal. The latest example of such an impact can be seen with pleasure in the protests and destruction of Bhadra 23 and 24.

Here As global polarization continues to increase, its impact may lead to instability in small and poor countries. It is possible to suspect that Nepal has come under the strategic radar of powerful nations. In situations other than direct conflict and war, foreign intervention and role in the internal politics of any country occurs from behind the scenes. Therefore, such a role is not formally proven, nor is it likely to happen. The fact that there was a foreign role in the destruction of Bhadra 23 and 24 is no longer new. Some attributed those events to India, some to America, and some to Europe. There were also those who saw the role of China. It seems that many agree that ‘Bhadra 23 and 24 could not have been staged without a foreign role.’ Now the question arises, whose role was it? It seems that everyone is now trying to find an answer to who played the foreign role in the destruction, and this effort will continue for decades.

What was the foreign role in Bhadra 23 and 24? This is a question. A more important question is – what will be the foreign role now? In today's world, the external role and influence in the internal affairs of any country has become a bitter truth. Foreign influence is also being openly exercised in Nepal. Such a role and influence is what Nepali society nowadays calls geopolitics. The movement of 23 and 24 is just one aspect of geopolitical influence. The dimensions of geopolitics are vast. When we say geopolitics, we understand the role of India, China, America and Europe. There needs to be a debate and discussion about what their interests, interests and concerns are in Nepal. Geopolitical influence is a reality, but this reality is not discussed much in Nepal, and even if it is discussed, it is not objective.

The country that influences Nepal the most in the geopolitical context is India. India's interests in Nepal's politics are an open truth. India has been changing its foreign policy over time. Its such changes have affected its relations with Nepal. India's policy as the main power in South Asia affects the entire South Asia. There is a growing debate within India that 'India's foreign policy, which has been changing over time, has failed.' Outside India, intellectuals from all South Asian countries have said that 'Indian foreign policy has failed.' South Asian countries could not consider themselves safe in the past due to Indian policy. The failure to create a friendly neighborly environment has become a tragedy of Indian foreign policy.

The blockade of Nepal in 2072 was another big mistake of Indian foreign policy. The Indian establishment has already accepted this directly or indirectly. We can feel that India has changed its Nepal policy with the failure of the blockade. After that, India adopted a policy of not directly interfering in Nepali politics, in other words, it seemed to have retreated from 'micromanagement'. India has also been caught in the crossfire of the rapid polarization taking place in world politics. India has come under immense pressure, due to which its foreign policy is in a state of transition. India has reached a point where it needs to rethink its overall foreign policy. In the process, its neighborhood policy may also change.

India's neighborhood policy has been under pressure due to the changes in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. It is gradually becoming visible that the dark cloud of war is looming over South Asia. It seems that India is also facing strategic pressure through the peripheral areas of Northeast India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. Therefore, it is having to make strategic reserves and activities towards Eastern India.

The most important strategic point in Eastern India is the 'Chicken Neck', i.e. the 22-kilometer stretch of land from the Kakkadbhitta Mechi River to Bangladesh. India seems to be worried about the possible upheaval in the territory beyond Eastern Nepal. We should assess the seriousness of that region by looking at India's concerns. As India has assessed, if that region becomes unstable in the coming days, it will affect Nepal. Nepal is an important front for India's security. What Nepal should understand, frankly and simply, is that India's interests are in Nepal's peace and stability, and it will be safe. However, international politics is very ruthless.

There is not much discussion about China's presence in Nepali politics. We can hear a lot of talk from outside Nepal about China's increasing influence in Nepal. It seems that India and the Western media are concerned about China's role in development and construction in Nepal, contracts awarded to Chinese companies in Nepal, etc. It is a different matter if Chinese influence in Nepali politics is in some secret form, but it does not seem that China can cause any stir in Nepali politics by informing or wanting to. By saying this, it cannot be said that China, which has become a world power, does not have influence in Nepal or not. China's influence and role in the daily ups and downs of internal politics is not visible, but it may not be easy for the entire state power of Nepal to reject Chinese requests or pressure.

Yes, the Chinese view that the communists of Nepal should be united is open. Its such view cannot be called interference in Nepal. Because its view is guided by the global slogan and idea that the communists should be united. In many contexts, the idea that the communists should be united is only for formality.

The conflict between China and India is a matter of great concern for South Asia. This conflict will greatly affect Nepal. It is Nepal's duty to remain neutral in their conflict. Any mistake in this matter can be costly for Nepal. It is an open truth that India is worried about whether China's influence will increase in Nepal. It seems that India wants China to be free from involvement in development work in Nepal. This cannot be accepted, nor can it be imagined that Nepal will show any strategic interest against India or China. Nepali public opinion cannot accept this. Most political parties in Nepal do not accept the issue of Nepal taking the side of China or India. In other words, Nepal's policy of neutrality has been internalized by the mainstream parties in Nepal. India should understand this.

The interests of China and India in Nepal can be easily understood. Security is their main concern, Nepal can address their interests by remaining neutral. But, what are American interests? This is not clear. It is necessary to find out American interests by looking at the context of world politics. It may be the American interest to influence Nepal and put pressure on both India and China, and to use Nepal as a proxy. There is ample room for suspicion that America has the intention of destabilizing Nepal under this desire. There are widespread questions being raised about the role of US embassy programs and US-inspired NGOs/INGOs in the recent Gen-G movement.

One side of global polarization is the US and the other side is China. It is America's declared policy to surround China. The US has passed various laws on the Tibet issue. It can be suspected that the US being active on the Tibet issue means making Nepal a base area for it. The role of Tibetan refugees in the recent Gen-G movement and the relationship of the Dalai Lama group with the Sushila Karki government that was formed later have become a matter of controversy.