Booktalk: Tika Prasad Dhakal on the 1923 treaty, Nepal’s independence and the craft of diplomacy
The editor of the newly published book ‘State and Craft’ discusses the treaty’s place in Nepal’s diplomatic history and what it can teach Nepal about protecting its national interests.Courtesy of Tika Prasad Dhakal
In 1923, Nepal and Britain signed a treaty that formally reaffirmed Britain’s recognition of Nepal as an independent and sovereign state and marked a new phase in the two countries’ diplomatic relationship. More than a century later, the treaty continues to offer a window into Nepal’s place in a changing world and the ways a small state navigated its relationship with a global power.
‘State and Craft: Readings on the 1923 Nepal-Britain Friendship Treaty’, edited by Tika Prasad Dhakal, brings together essays that examine the treaty, the diplomacy behind it, and its place in Nepal’s modern history.
Dhakal has a PhD in political science. His work focuses on theoretical frameworks, international relations, Nepal’s foreign policy, and transitional justice. He has previously served in public offices as Nepal’s presidential advisor and as a transitional justice commissioner.
In this conversation with the Post’s Anish Ghimire, Dhakal discusses what the treaty tells us about Nepal’s diplomatic history, how its meaning has evolved over the past century, and what it can teach us about Nepal’s foreign relations today.
Let’s begin with the book itself. What prompted you to bring together ‘State and Craft: Readings on the 1923 Nepal-Britain Friendship Treaty’? Why did you feel this treaty needed to be revisited now?
When I read the historical texts of our country, and whenever there were discussions in Kathmandu about treaties, the 1923 treaty was often underdiscussed.
There are contexts that are often discussed, but this treaty, despite its importance, receives very little mention. That actually prompted me to start researching the treaty, its background, and the several characters who were associated with it. And the deeper I went into it, the more it appealed to me.
We needed to revisit the treaty at this particular moment because of its centenary. In 2023, there was a centenary conference on the treaty, organised by Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya and the Britain-Nepal Academy Council.
Because I had already been researching the treaty since 2019, I was asked to prepare a keynote for that conference. Several articles and papers were also presented, though in their raw, very early forms. That centenary conference was actually the moment when we thought it was appropriate to revisit the treaty.
The title uses the words ‘State and Craft’. What does ‘craft’ refer to here, and what does the book tell us about the craft of diplomacy at the time?
By ‘craft’, I mean the art of handling state affairs, particularly in relation to our conduct in the neighbourhood. In international relations, states are considered rational actors, but states are abstract. They need individuals to act on their behalf. So when we look at individuals—their demeanour, character and ways of presenting things—we are looking at the craft of diplomacy.
For example, when Chandra Shumsher proposed the treaty to the Prince of Wales, who later became King Edward VIII, we see a certain level of statecraft and presence of mind. Chandra Shumsher had a good command of English and was able to communicate directly. Other Nepali officials associated with the treaty, were also highly capable in language and diplomacy. Their letters and communications, including those to the League of Nations, demonstrate this.
So, ‘craft’ is not only about what the Nepali or British sides did, but how they did it—how they conducted themselves during difficult negotiations, dealt with hurdles and reached agreements. The Nepali side had to deal with powerful British officials who were opposed to the treaty, while Viceroy Lord Reading played an important role as a link between Chandra Shumsher and the British authorities.
The craft of diplomacy is therefore about the art, patience and perseverance displayed in conducting state affairs. Although these events took place about 100 years ago, they still tell us something about how diplomacy needs to be conducted today.
This brings me to my next question. The treaty we’re discussing is more than a century old now. Which parts of it continue to have relevance for Nepal’s foreign policy or its relationship with Britain today?
I think the first article is the most consequential because it explicitly recognises Nepal’s internal and external independence. This was an agreement with Britain, the only superpower and great power of the time, which had just emerged victorious from the First World War. Britain was the dominant power in the international system, so having it unequivocally recognise Nepal’s independence was significant.
The treaty also helped shape how Nepal was presented to the outside world. Through British newspapers and the British state narrative, Nepal was presented as a congenial place, and that narrative travelled across Europe and the wider Western world, generating greater interest in Nepal.
When states call a treaty a ‘friendship treaty’, what does that language do? Does it describe the relationship, or does it also help construct a particular story about the relationship?
The way the treaty was named ‘Treaty of Friendship’ is interesting. Since the Treaty of Sugauli, Nepal had considered that treaty unequal because Nepal had lost the war. And afterwards, British policy towards Nepal’s independence remained ambiguous, which the Nepali side objected to repeatedly. For example, Britain only began addressing the Nepali King as ‘His Majesty’ in 1920, placing him on an equal footing with the British monarch.
So why did we call the 1923 treaty a treaty of friendship? Chandra Shumsher was determined to end that ambiguity over Nepal’s independence once and for all. That is why he proposed the treaty to the Prince of Wales and himself called it the Treaty of Friendship. His argument was that once Britain unequivocally recognised Nepal’s internal and external independence, the two countries were dealing with each other as equals. The British press also described the 1923 treaty as an agreement between equals.
In 1953, a British journalist wrote about the Everest expedition and linked the expedition’s success and the good relationship between Nepal and Britain to the fact that the two countries had signed a treaty ‘between equals’ in 1923.
So, the term ‘friendship’ was not simply descriptive; it became part of the story both sides told about their relationship.
After spending so much time with the treaty and the history surrounding it, has your understanding of Nepal’s relationship with Britain changed?
I have come to appreciate Nepali history a little more than I used to. The Gorkha connection is certainly one of the major links between Nepal and Britain, and Britain has also stood by Nepal at some difficult and critical junctures.
For example, when Nepal’s independence was questioned in the 1950s, particularly when Nepal applied for United Nations membership, the British government supported Nepal in international forums and testified that Nepal was a free and independent country.
What does the treaty tell us about how small states like Nepal have historically navigated relationships with powerful countries and are there lessons in that for Nepal’s diplomacy today?
There are lessons, certainly. History tells us that durable partnerships and friendships are built through institutions. Foreign policy is a continuous, institutional process. It is a dedicated and disciplined defence of the national interest.
Also, instead of calling Nepal ‘small state’, I would use the word ‘non-dominant’.
For a non-dominant country like Nepal, we need to preserve our room for manoeuvre and maintain friendships. That is why we need to value the treaties we have signed in history, even when they were signed in very different contexts. Even the most complex issues with our neighbours—border management, trade, transit and water resources—demand continuous diplomatic engagement based on mutual trust.
Diplomatic noise and posturing might bring temporary applause from a domestic audience, but they are unhelpful in solving problems. We need quietness, discipline and a sober defence of our sovereign independence.
20.12°C Kathmandu
