Nepal Needs New Security Strategy

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Even though it is still in the state of fluid, Nepal is in the process of transformation. All old and obsolete concepts of nation state, its structure and political system have taken a paradigm shift with the systemic change brought about by the 19-day Jana Andolan II (popular movement) and a decade long Maoist insurgency. We have witnessed a phenomenal change in all spheres of country’s political life over the last six years since the peace accord was signed between the state and the UCPN-Maoist. The monarchy that had been in the helms of power for centuries based on feudal values was permanently trashed into the heap of history and Nepal was declared a republican state therein heralding a new era in which people have become masters of their own destiny.

The phenomenal political change has also brought about changes in the national perception on varied issues of public concerns including the national security. It has been widely felt that Nepal now needs a new national security doctrine clearly defining security concepts and possible threats to our national security emanating from various sources and sectors ( internal and external) and determining the ways and approach to deter and counter the threats. Based on these dynamics and parameters, a national security strategy and policy can be framed and executed along with clearly defined tools.

There is no uniformed definition of national security. But widely accepted definition of the national security is the strategy and action to maintain survival of the state as an independent physical entity defined by a fixed boundary followed by demographic and economic viability. A country has to first survive physically—for that matter it has to remain as an independent and sovereign country. Its prosperity is another component of national security. Every country has its own security strategy and priorities. Accordingly, security perceptions differ from one country to another depending upon the geo-political situation, military and economic strength.

The old concept and definition of security is to defend its territory and territorial integrity. Under this concept, there are external and internal dynamics and threats to one’s national security. The external threat emanates from a hostile neighbor in the form of military attack or interference. Military and physical attack does not always comes from the external forces but domestic separatist or terrorist/militant groups also sometimes pose serious threat to national unity and territorial integrity of a country, which is dealt by the use of force. In such a circumstance, military or hard security is needed. However, with the change of time and situation at both national and global level, the concept of security now encompasses wide arrays of issues. In the present modern world, the security is defined as a freedom from fear and freedom from want. In other words, it is defined state security and people’s security. Freedom from fear covers the issues that ensure physical safety of the state and its citizens. The state security mainly seeks to secure its border and maintain national independence and territorial integrity as well as protection of its people from all kinds of external encroachment and intrusion into its territory as well as internal physical attack and assault on the state or its citizens. Apart from defending its border, the state has to guarantee its citizens of their protection and security from any kind of physical assault. This is also related with the issue concerning the law and order. The state security is thus ensured by creating strong armed force and different security organs.

The other aspect of security is the people’s security or freedom from want. The people’s security basically means public good, which is maintained by guaranteeing people with their basic needs like food, housing, clothes, basic education, basic health care facilities and access to justice.  The concept of human security is relatively a new and recent phenomenon. This concept came into prominence in 1994 with the publication of the UNDP Human Development Report, which encompasses seven different dimensions including economic, food, health environmental, personal, community and political security. These concepts were later developed into the form of Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations and most of the countries in the world have agreed to meet these goals within the set timeline.

The developed countries in the North that have most of the basic needs of the people already fulfilled often tend to focus more on state security, which they link with the broader security of the people and their national interest both at home and abroad. But the poor countries of the South which are mired in poverty and backwardness have vague and blurred views and perception on security. They have twin challenges as far as security is concerned. The developing countries have to allocate their scarce resources for military or hard security to defend their national boundary and maintain territorial integrity, which often bleeds their national exchequer, as it was their prime responsibility to defend country’s independent and sovereign status. On the other, they have even bigger challenge to maintain people’s security by ensuring the access to minimum basic needs requiring huge fund which they often lack . This situation has often created security dilemma in the most of the developing countries.

As far as Nepal’s security strategy is concerned, survival is the key. Ever since Nepal emerged as a nation state, survival has been the uppermost strategy. Various tactics and tricks were applied to maintain its sovereign status. In the beginning, Nepal was in the expansionist spree which came to an end following its headlong collision with the British imperialist power in South Asia. In the war with British India in 1814-16, Nepal lost sizable portion of its territory and was forced to sign a victor-imposed accord called the Sugauli Treaty, which defined Nepal’s boundary. Prior to the Sugauli Treaty, Nepal’s sole strategy was to expand its territory and maintain control over the newly conquered areas, which can also be its security strategy. In other words, the pre-war security strategy of Nepal had been the expansionist one.

After the Sugauli Treaty, Nepal’s scope of expansion of its territory as well as its influence came to a halt, following which Nepal strictly adopted survival strategy by appeasing the British colonial rulers in India.  The rulers defined Nepal’s geo-political situation as the ‘yam between the two boulders’ and they are repeating the same old rhetoric even today as far as the definition and concept of Nepal’s security is concerned. This implies that Nepal does not have any scope for widening its influence and reaching out beyond its border defined by the Sugauli Treaty. Similarly, Nepal has officially declared ‘eqi-distance policy’ for its survival, which means Nepal should keep both the neighbors in the South and the north at certain but equal distance. But this quasi equi-distance policy remained only in theory but never translated into practice. After the Sugauli Treaty till this date, Nepal’s policy has been, rightly or wrongly, India-centric in practice.

Nepal’s rulers always adopted ingratiating and sycophantic policy with India just to keep hold on power.  Nepal never adopted national security doctrine as such. As a result, Nepal’s national interests and its sovereign status have sometimes come under threat. With the epochal change taken place after the Jana Andolan II in 2006, many have realized the necessity of a new national security doctrine and its sincere execution. However, the government has not been able to come up with such a national security doctrine in a unanimous way.

Now it is high time that Nepal adopts national security strategy and defines the necessary tools to execute it in clearer and specific manner. There is no shade of doubt that survival and prosperity should be the paramount basis and priority of the national security doctrine of Nepal. Based on broad but specific analysis of threats, both perceived and real threats including physical threat to its sovereignty, independence, national unity and territorial integrity as well as the security of the people including freedom from fear and freedom from want, Nepal needs to frame a national security strategy and policy to cope with the modern security complexities in the changed national and international situation. There are multiple threats to Nepal’s overall security emanating both from outside and from within the country. While determining security, all aspects and possible threats must be taken into consideration and strategy should accordingly be adopted in order to counter such threat. These threats could be physical and military; economic, cultural and political. The security strategy of a country depends upon the nature, behavior, economic and military strength of the neighbor. If the neighbor is hostile, one has to be prepared militarily. But in the present globalized world, military alone is not a threat. Economic and cultural invasions are more powerful than military onslaught, against which countries especially the smaller, weaker and poorer ones must be cautious. In the case of Nepal, these issues must be taken into serious consideration and accordingly its security threat should be determined and a national security strategy devised in order to maintain security of the state as well as its citizens.