The promulgation of the much-awaited constitution by the Constituent Assembly in September and the subsequent Madhes movement have revealed some complicated and sensitive security threats for Nepal as a nation-state. Ensuring national unity, territorial integrity, people’s sovereignty and citizens’ security have always been highly sensitive issues for Nepal. But the Madhes movement and subsequent ‘unofficial’ blockade by India have demonstrated some critical internal as well as external security threats for Nepal, undermining its sovereignty, independence and citizens’ security. Therefore, taking into consideration the emerging global, regional and domestic security and political contexts, Nepal needs to objectively identify its internal and external threats and should draft a comprehensive national security policy sooner than later, if Nepal is to survive as a nation-state and ensure security of its citizens.

External threats

Following the end of the Cold War and the successive wave of democracy and globalisation, the theoretical concept of security has significantly changed. There has been a redefinition of the traditional notions of security, threat perspectives and role of security agencies. Despite the changing definition of security, the principle external threats remain unchanged. Although Nepal has not fought a war with any country after the Sugauli Treaty excluding a brief war with Tibet in 1856, it is not an external threat-free country. The recent coercive diplomacy and blockade by India have proved it. The global and regional powers’ strategic rivalry vis-à-vis Nepal has significant internal and external security implications that have, to some extent, undermined Nepal’s sovereignty and independence.

External military intervention is less likely in the 21st century. But according to the realist school of thought, for powerful countries everything is fair to achieve their national interests against weak and developing countries; hence they can go to any extent. Protecting national interests, territorial integrity and people’s sovereignty are crucial issues for a buffer state like Nepal sandwiched between two emerging global powers —India and China. Nepal should take into account its geo-political sensitivity and geo-strategic importance while drafting national security and foreign policy without hurting their fundamental strategic and diplomatic interests. Therefore, Nepal should maintain diplomatic and strategic balance with both its neighbours and with other global powers. Otherwise, it may transform into a battleground for regional and global powerhouses.

Like military intervention and economic blockade, border encroachment, international terrorism, religious fundamentalism, refugee flows, migration, trans-border crimes, arms smuggling and climate change are equally serious external threats to Nepal. Nepal also has border disputes and a trade deficit with India, which  are not conducive to cordial Nepal-India relations. Therefore, Nepal needs to develop commercial as well as strategic physical infrastructure with both neighbours in line with its national interests and national security to achieve its strategic objectives.   

Internal threats

Nepal is not an external threat-free country, but analysing the emerging threats, internal threats seem more sensitive, complicated and challenging, as more than 17,000 Nepali people lost their lives in a decade-long internal conflict, and the ongoing violent Madhes movement has created some crucial threats. However, the current Madhes movement is a political movement; hence, the government should not suppress it. Instead, the government should resolve the problem through dialogue addressing the movement’s legitimate demands. But the movement has exemplified some critical security threats that the government needs to address urgently. If it fails to do so,  there is a high possibility of instigating another kind of conflict that may turn into a multidimensional (ideological, religious, communal, ethnic, regional) one sooner or later. The potential multidimensional conflict may weaken the centuries-old social, cultural and religious harmony of Nepal. If the government and political parties cannot deal with these very sensitive issues appropriately, there might be a turn towards religious and ethnic conflicts and secessionist movements.  

Violence and crime seem to be a legacy of the decade-long conflict, and they seem to have become an integral part of society, destroying the very Nepali identity of peace and harmonious existence. Analysing the facts and figures, there are some conventional threats like poverty, unemployment, economic disparity, armed-conflict, criminal groups, arms infiltration, impunity and domestic violence. But some threats like environmental degradation, climate change, natural disaster, food insecurity, migration, etc., are unconventional. Likewise, non-state actors have been weakening and paralysing the state agencies and causing threats that may well emerge as the most serious ones in the future.

Redefining security policy

National security and people’s security are very serious, challenging and complicated issues for Nepal. But, unfortunately, Nepal does not have a comprehensive written national security policy, and it has been following ad-hoc and outdated approaches even after the historic change of 2006. The successive governments and political parties did not pay heed to national as well as people’s security policy; they merely beat the drum of ultranationalism and national independence for public consumption. Following the promulgation of the constitution, it is high time Nepal drafted a comprehensive national security policy. The new policy should be redefined in line with the changed political and security contexts for three reasons.

First, Nepal is in the process of transforming into a federal republic state from a feudal and unitary kingdom, and the security threats for these two types of regimes are fundamentally different. Second, the new constitution has defined human security as a guiding principle of national security, according to which, the role of the state is not only limited to defending its territory, but also to ensure freedom, human rights, peace and security of its citizens. The concept of security, therefore, has shifted focus  from state to human-centric approaches. Third, the internal and external threats to Nepal seem to be more complicated and challenging than before, so the new policy should clearly identify both threats and outline strategies to  address them.

To conclude, the new government needs to draft and implement a national security policy to safeguard national unity, territorial integrity, people’s sovereignty and national interests based on national consensus. Moreover, the policy should embrace the fundamental principles of democracy, rule of law, human rights, and protect the long cherished identity, values and cultures of Nepal. The policy should also recognise the diversity and plurality of Nepali society, but it should not be used as a tool to suppress the people on the pretext of national security.

Wagle is a research fellow of Birmingham University, UK