The speech of His Excellency, the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal Chen Song delivered mainly in two parts at a programme organised in the capital City has generated political waves as if on a full moon day. The ambassador is recorded to have said that there is nothing worthy to import from Nepal to China due to lack of a suitable industrial area for which China had offered for its construction, which was unfortunately turned down by Nepal.

After all, Song is a diplomat, and diplomacy is, among others, also about saying the worst in the best of the language. In fact, this statement could be delivered more amicably by saying that China had offered for the construction of an Industrial Estate in order to enhance the quality of Nepali products for export to China, which is yet to be responded by Nepal. It would have conveyed the meaning very gently manifold times than the harsh oration of the ambassador.

The first part of the statement though not very pleasant is not that disastrous as it involved two countries China and Nepal. China can always air its views regarding the bilateral relation. Again what the ambassador said is not far from the truth. Our industrial products have to refine themselves in order to sell in China or other countries.

China had proposed establishing an industrial estate, but it has not been responded by Nepal. However, it is said that one should speak the truth, but it should be smooth. What the ambassador said was far from mild. It is against this backdrop that the ambassador's outburst was not taken well in the political circle here in Nepal.

The second part of his speech was certainly unacceptable and unfortunate. He kind of said that India was not a good friend of Nepal. Only Nepal has the right to say that India is not a good friend of Nepal or India can say that they are not a good friend of Nepal. This statement made by the Chinese ambassador was unwarranted because a country does not have the moral right to comment on the relations between two other countries, especially when the commentator does not have normal relation with one of those two countries.

This is more so when judged against the melodious relation existing between China and Nepal since mythic times. For example, the history of Nepal, in general, and that of Kathmandu, in particular, begins with the arrival of Manjushree Bodhisatva from China. Manjushree is said to have cut the embankment of the lake, which was Kathmandu, to create a gorge as one can see in Chobhar.

In the Licchavi period, corresponding to the Tang Period in China, a flurry of Chinese travellers came to Nepal. Fa Hsien came as far as Lumbini, but Huen Tsang came to Kathmandu. His memoir is very important to know about Licchavi Nepal. His description of Kailashkut Bhawan, the Licchavi palace, and of the architecture in Nepal as something that he had not seen anywhere indicates the uniqueness of Nepali architecture.

In the Licchavi period, in early seventh century, Udaya Dev is said to have fled to China after being chased by his uncle Dhruva Dev. The Tibetan Emperor, Strong Son Gompo, is believed to have helped in the accession of Narendra Dev, the son of Udaya Dev, on the throne of Nepal. Narendra Dev later helped to free the Chinese ambassador, Wang Huen Che, who was imprisoned by Arunaswa, then the ruler who had ascended the throne after Harshavardahan. These events indicate the warm relationship existing between Nepal and China.

But it has also taken a turn for the worse at certain times. During the reign of Rana Bahadur Shaha in the year 1782, Nepal-China relation deteriorated to the extent of going to war. The Chinese army is said to have come as near as Jitpur. The Nepali army foxed the advancing Chinese army by lighting lamps in the bushes, trees as well as the horns of domestic animals. It may sound hilarious, but the Chinese army retreated thinking that a large army was up against them agreedto a cease-fire.

A treaty was signed which necessitated the sending of gifts every year to China, giving the impression that Nepal was a lesser state. But China later treated Nepal at par with itself after it signed a Treaty of Friendship with Britain in 1923. It entered an amicable phase during the sixties when the popularly elected and charismatic Prime Minister BP Koirala paid a visit to China at the invitation of its leader, Mao Zedong.

Nepal is sandwiched between the two Asian giants, India in the south and China in the north. These countries have to understand the sensitivities of one another for peace to prevail in the region. India understandably wants to confine Chinese influence towards the north of Nepal because of the porosity of the Indo-Nepal border and the people-to-people relation existing since time immemorial. China on the other hand wants no anti-China activities to take place by the Tibetan refugees staying in Nepal, protesting against the annexation of Tibet into China in 1950.

The success of Nepali diplomacy lies in ensuring that these two sensitivities are not adversely affected. Nepal has to do this political tight rope walking very skillfully surpassing even Charles Blondin who crossed the Niagara Falls several times. This funambulism at times gets disturbed due to the offbeat statements made mainly by the politicians of India and China.

A similar situation had occurred when Indian General Manoj Mukunda Naravane's statement had indirectly stated that China was behind Nepal's Kalapani stand-off. The event died down after it was generally realised that the military personnel should not have made a political statement. So it will most probably be realised as unwarranted even in the Chinese political circle.

Pokharel is former Vice Chancellor, Nepal Academy of Science and Technology

A version of this article appears in the print on September 12, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.