Chief of the army staff Prabhu Ram Sharma is embarking upon a four-day official visit to India beginning today. In addition to meeting his counterpart, MM Naravane, Sharma will hold substantial meetings with senior-level leadership in the Indian government. In an investiture ceremony, he will also be conferred upon the honorary rank of general of the Indian Army by Indian President Ram Nath Kovind. The conferring of honorary titles between the two armies is a long-held tradition, but the visit encompasses many other facets crucial for the relationship between the two countries.

The visit comes at a time when Nepal’s foreign policy is under duress due to the change in the global strategic environment. Nepal is struggling against the headwind created by growing fissures in the India-China relationship, opening way for a realignment of the traditional strategic orientation. Furthermore, the bilateral relationship between Nepal and India is also going through a period of change. Thus, this visit should not be viewed as a mere continuation of the symbolic tradition. Instead, it should be seized upon as an opportunity for constructive engagement to create a conducive environment for addressing bilateral issues.

Nepali Army is treating the visit as a cornerstone of its military diplomacy; the same, however, cannot be said of the foreign service community that has been reluctant to adopt the term. There is a dissonance among essential partners in the government in assessing the role and importance of military diplomacy. The problem is partly due to a lack of understanding of how states (should) optimise their national power through synergetic use of all instruments of national power and partly because of a faulty view of it being military exclusive. But for Nepal, it is a crucial instrument that must be taken as complementary to official diplomacy. It needs to be incorporated in policy processes and utilised fully because it has proven effective in the past and is increasingly becoming an essential part of a national effort for countries big and small.

A state applies its diplomatic, informational, military and economic instruments in a coordinated manner to pursue national strategic objectives. These instruments either enable, augment or complement each other as per their orchestration schemes. Regardless, military and diplomacy go hand in hand; after all, in the realms of strategic logic, diplomacy resumes once the military can create conditions for negotiation. This is why we increasingly see countries teaming up ambassadors and military leaders together in crucial visits, an example being the visit of Indian foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringala and Indian chief of the army staff MM Naravane to Myanmar post the military coup. Even Nepal has adopted this format, deliberately or otherwise. The Nepal-India Bilateral Consultative Group’s Meeting on Security Issues (BCG) is headed by a joint-secretary from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) with representation from the Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Nepali Army. This means that critics suffer from the ignorance of the nuances of strategic logic and the complementary roles of different instruments of national power.

Some make an excuse that recognition of military diplomacy is problematic since its definition is not universal. Definition and scope will be different for countries depending upon their capacities and strategic interests. In Nepal’s case, military diplomacy is focused on four key activities. First, training and student exchange programmes that build capacities, develop networks and improve interoperability. Second, purchase of military hardware which, besides fulfilling our defence requirement, also promotes bilateral economic objectives. Third, high level exchange of visits that are, in effect, a function of public diplomacy conducted by men and women in uniform. These visits can also be carried out by the minister of defence, who is not necessarily a man in uniform. Fourth, participation in peacekeeping missions, opening further access to the global community. All of these activities serve diplomatic functions and strengthen national power.

Others may ask as to how a small country like Nepal can pursue effective military diplomacy. The answer is, Nepal has been conducting military diplomacy for ages. Assistance to the British East India Company by sending soldiers to quell the Sepoy Mutiny in India and to fight in two great wars earned Nepal the British recognition as a sovereign country, a key foreign policy objective. The same can be said about deploying military contingents for peacekeeping operations which give our foreign service community the leverage they need to assert themselves in the global forum. It is the acumen and not the size or strength of the military that increases the effectiveness of military diplomacy.

Military diplomacy is not a military exclusive endeavour. Our ambassadors working in friendly countries regularly meet defence officials, attend seminars and defence expos, lobby for military grants and assistance and also facilitate the acquisition of new capabilities. Defence ministers and MoD officials are also involved in these functions accordingly. Defence ministerial visits and conferences provide opportunities to highlight the issues and challenges confronting our national security and garner support for our initiatives. The over 70,000 Nepalis serving in foreign armies are also conducting public diplomacy for Nepal.

Against this backdrop, army chief Sharma’s visit must be viewed from two perspectives. First, of providing continuity to a long-held military tradition between the two armies. Although symbolic, it plays a key role in building mutual trust and promoting communications useful for negotiation and mediation during crises. Second, it is a formal working visit of the chief of a national army. Although no defence cooperation instruments will be signed, Sharma will be holding discussions with personalities of one of the world’s largest militaries with a deep strategic outlook, the understanding and working of which could prove crucial to Nepal’s future peace and stability and prosperity. Since the two countries still have many unresolved issues and concerns, regular interaction and coordination is essential to avoid escalation, a function of diplomacy.

It will be in the broader national interest to recognise the importance of military diplomacy and give it due space in the public policy sphere. It can be done through inclusion in policy documents, training and education of the bureaucrats, and by developing mechanisms within and between MoD and MoFA that will ultimately lead to a synergy of national instruments of power in pursuit of national strategic objectives.