Could Nepal stand out in its Diplomatic Circle among Nations?

- Col. Jay Mehta

It is an intriguing question!  Well, “diplomacy” is practiced within nation states to commit its nation’s stance on its believes and politics of its home country with its host nation. Diplomacy is not a legal permit for interference in internal matters of any sovereign state. Could a diplomat interfere in any of his/her host nation’s politics? Could a diplomat (ambassadors, counselors, especial envoys) make a judgment of its host nations politics and suggest his/her analysis?  Such is never seen in other nations around the world, except in Nepal. Has Nepalese Ambassadors ever been suggested to give its suggestion in United States? Thailand? India? And so on?  This further validates Nepal’s reputation among diplomatic circle as a “foolish state”.

It is often a surprise to realize the magnitude of diplomatic interferences in Nepal’s political affairs.  In concept, diplomat is just a well wisher from his/ her government towards its host nation. But in Nepal, diplomatic circles are more active than anywhere in the world. Diplomats could suggest, act and even use their impunity status to get away with it. Nepal’s soft and weak stance is often looked upon as an opportunity for other nations to violently indulge in its internal affairs for its interests and personal gains.  If this would be a case in other nations, what would be the outcome of a diplomat’s status? It would simply be “Persona- Non- Grata”. Yes, it is true, simply the most embarrassment letter asking the diplomat to leave the nation.

But in case of Nepal, it is not so. If such is done, diplomats often threaten to cut off aids or other financial rewards. So, it further establishes Nepal as a “foolish state” allows the game of bullying to be open to all levels of degrading levels in diplomacy.  The recent incident happened in Foreign Ministry of Nepal, when Foreign Minister of Nepal, Mrs. Sahana Pradhan had called an Indian Ambassador to address the growing concern of Indian plans of building roads near Nepal boarder which would adversely affect the geographic terrain of the region during the rainy season. The Indian Ambassador in turn, gave a good diatribe to the Nepalese Foreign Minister and threatened her of the consequences, and walked out of the office of protocol without any haste. It was rather a very embarrassing scene for the Nepal’s Foreign Minister as she was left speechless at her own office with important people as audience.

So, what would you say of Nepal as State?  Could it really be a “foolish state”? How could ambassadors of a larger nations treat this tiny Himalayan Kingdom in a most degrading manner never been practiced or seen before? It further validates Nepal’s reputation among its diplomatic circles as a state without any reputation. Being a “soft state” is not a prized possession. It is simply linen wrapped around with holes that does not serve any purpose. Thus a rape of a Nation that have stood in history as a unique and culturally binded nation have thus begun. Nepal’s stance with its diplomatic circle is nothing more than a poor farmer with no harvest in offering!