The recent statement of C P Gajurel, the foreign affairs in-charge of the CPN-Maoists, concerning the equidistance of Nepal’s foreign policy vis-à-vis India and China has unleashed a series of debates. The concern for equidistance first arose after India and China fought a brief border war in October 1962. It had a significant impact on Nepal’s foreign policy with regard to India and China.

The question of equidistance gained eminence as long as the bilateral ties between India and China were chilly. But visible positive changes in their relationship are afoot. However, the border question remains to be settled amicably. The bilateral trade between the two countries is increasing. Cooperation between the two armies and navies, in order to create a conducive atmosphere for army contacts in the disputed border areas and to protect the shipping lines of both the countries on the high seas respectively, is contributing to warm the bilateral relationship.

In Nepal, these developments have to be seen in the larger context of our two big neighbours coming together for a better understanding. This will also make our political position clear and more predictable on sensitive matters relating to the two giant neighbours. We need to adopt a pragmatic approach, embracing new realities and balanced policies in all areas like security, politics and economics, in addition to the domain of trilateral relationship between Nepal, India and China. The supposed policy of equidistance following the spirit of non-aligned foreign policy is not without blemish. Nepali leaders in the past tilted, both overt and covertly, with one power or the other to prolong their stay in power, often ignoring even national interests.

Presently, the country faces no perceptible challenge or threat by the flagrant violation of territorial integrity. However, the threats from terrorists, separatists and extremists cannot be ruled out. Nepal has 1,818 km-long open and unregulated border with India.

With China, Nepal shares a 1,411 km-long border, subject to periodic reviews. Hence, if Nepal’s political situation remains volatile and chaotic, our territory may turn into a breeding ground for terrorism and extremism. India may increasingly be wary of the prospect of intrusion of hardcore terrorists into its territory. Similarly, China does not want any kind of disruptive activities regarding Tibet being carried out from the Nepali soil.

To eliminate these fears, Nepal needs to enter into closer understanding on political and security issues with both the countries. If needed, Nepal should not hesitate to assuring them with explicit and concrete actions as per the needs of the time and demands put forth by the prevailing situation. However, the two countries, too, should guarantee political neutrality and military non-intervention. But these conditions can only be realised if the country is politically stable and makes progress on development and democratisation.

On the question of socio-economic matters, it will be good to have more cooperation with India in accordance with its geographic proximity and cultural affinity. Similarly, in the light of technological and economic progress China has achieved and its effects fast spilling over Tibet, natural barriers and inaccessibility should not be hurdles for improved cooperation with China. Political divide and security concerns of yesteryears should now be put on the backburner. What matters more is economic advancement of Nepal and closer trade relations with immediate neighbours. Nepal must be equipped with the capability to transform itself from a land-locked country into a country with a land-linked status. This should be our political goal.

The Swiss neutrality in all wars since 1515 and its armed neutrality since the Vienna Congress of 1815 joined the United Nations in September 2002 with an eye on the changing global environment highlights its pragmatic approach. Although Switzerland was fully independent when the UN was established in 1945, it was reluctant to join the world body keeping in mind its strict neutrality on the question of arms use.

It is high time Nepal started afresh with a new mindset and fresh thinking regarding its relations with the two big neighbours in view of the warming ties between India and China in recent years. The policy of equidistance has become anachronistic and there remains little rational for non-alignment.

What is needed is good preparation for both short- and long-term plans, supported by well thought-out strategies based on a pragmatic approach. This will ensure Nepal’s good standing vis-à-vis political and economic proximity with the two nations. If given a serious consideration by those concerned, Nepal will definitely be able to benefit by adopting this practical approach.

Shrestha is ex-foreign ministry official