Nepali political analysts are near obsessively locating Nepali politics at center stage of global strategy. The fact is otherwise. It is at the peripheries of the centers of the fast paced global strategies being evolved by major powers. For global strategists to take upon themselves the roles of the center is as natural perhaps as Nepali analysts to assume for their country the center of global strategy since the peripheries matter. The difference is that the global strategists appear to have so little to count on Nepali strategists since a national strategy for Nepal for the scheme of things determined globally has yet to emerge. Nepali politics is not reflecting its own national strategy but appears openly to be merely echoing global ones. This is the problem.
For the country, democratic processes have facilitated this end for global strategists. When an organization of Christian organizers in the country blatantly tells its church goers to vote UML the incompatibility of such injunctions with secular Christian values is hardly pointed out by global strategists. The anomaly lies in the virtual lack of official Nepali response. That Nepali response would mean a Nepali strategy is lost on Nepali strategists. This is not the first time that we and many others have doubted whether there is a Nepali strategy after all. Suggestions are that there are none. Nepal, all too familiar with British colonial strategy to enter Tibet and Afghanistan because of the ‘Russian bear’ bore the brunt of our special relations with Tibet after Chandra Shumsher, in contradiction to our treaty with Tibet overseen by the Chinese acceded to British demands for the Younghusband expedition to Tibet. Mrs Indira Gandhi of India lost for her country its non-aligned leadership position when her regional ambitions facilitated the entry of the now defunct Soviet empire into Afghanistan which facilitated, in turn the presence of American forces in that South Asian country.
If there were a national strategy for Nepal to meet global challenges, the country would have dropped the idea of a constituent assembly like a hot potato, as it had previously, given the fact that elections to such in neighboring India created Pakistan and also that such elections championed by India in Kashmir is at the roots of what is still the ‘Kashmir Problem’. At this particular juncture in Nepal, the past decade of somber soul searching has allowed most political analysts to conclude that the coming elections will only entrench the mal-effects on the country of our politicians serving the causes floated by global strategists. This entrenchment of foreign interests, lucrative as it is, can only be reversed by circumstances compelling the lone beneficiaries which hold the people at ransom. It is not for nothing now that even India is discussing the advantages of separate strategies for separate relations.