(This memorial article has been prepared with heartfelt tribute to all the immortal young martyrs who sacrificed their precious lives in the historic Jenji rebellion of Bhadra 23 and 24 for Nepal’s self-respect, good governance, and bright future, and to all the Nepali brothers and sisters who have lost their lives prematurely due to natural disasters like the recent devastating floods.)
The great sage of Eastern philosophy and diplomatic thinker, Bidur, uttered a timeless verse in the Udyog Parva of the Mahabharata.
‘Anahutah pravishati aprishto bahu bashate, avishvaste vishvasiti mudhacheta naradhamah.’
This means that a ruler or representative who enters without invitation, speaks excessively without being asked or immaturely, and trusts the unworthy, loses their dignity and the seriousness of the state. On the other hand, Chanakya, the pioneer of diplomacy, in his world-famous treatise ‘Arthashastra’, propounded the principle of ‘Mantrarakshanam’, considering diplomatic secrecy and policy stability as the backbone of state governance.
According to Chanakya, the foreign policy of any country should not be based on the ruler’s personal impulses, momentary ego, or populist sentiments, but rather it should be based on the serious principles of national interest and long-term power balance.
Hans Morgenthau, considered the father of modern international relations, also considered national interest and power balance as the main goal of diplomacy in his famous treatise ‘Politics Among Nations’, explaining classical realism. However, looking at Nepal’s politics and the chaotic style of the Balen government over the past year, it is clear how ‘diplomacy’ has been turned into ‘disorder’.
Exactly one year ago today, on Bhadra 23 and 24, an immature rebellion took place in the country. On the first day, the 23rd, thousands of youths and students of Nepal took to the streets. They raised the historic cry of ‘Jenji rebellion’ against corruption and political syndicate. The state fired indiscriminately on unarmed youths and students on the streets, killing dozens of promising youths and injuring hundreds.
On the second day, Bhadra 24, in retaliation, government and political party offices, leaders’ residences, and many industries across the country were set on fire and destroyed, including the Parliament, Supreme Court, Singha Durbar, and the Presidential Palace. Ultimately, the then power structure completely collapsed.
At that time, a strange silence prevailed in diplomatic circles. International diplomatic missions in Kathmandu were stunned following the movement. Some countries appeared concerned about the increasing internal instability in Nepal, while neighboring countries were in a dilemma. India and China seemed completely confused about the true nature of the Jenji rebellion and its direction. While they were studying, the government fell. In such a state of confusion and diplomatic vacuum, a civilian government was formed under the leadership of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki for six months. However, from the perspective of the constitutional system, Sushila Karki’s appointment was completely unconstitutional.
In the initial phase of the rebellion, the name of the then Mayor of Kathmandu, Balendra Shah (Balen), was also rapidly put forward for the leadership of the interim government. But the game behind the scenes was different. Balen was not only a key organizer of the Jenji rebellion, but later events revealed that he was also one of its internal conspirators.
Balen was and is indeed a shrewd player. He did not want to risk his future political career by becoming the Prime Minister of a short-term, six-month unconstitutional interim government. He made a strategic plan to capture the entire state power in the long run. As a result, even without forming his own strong party structure while being the Mayor of Kathmandu, he shrewdly joined hands with Rabi Lamichhane. Ultimately, using the Rastriya Swatantra Party as per his plan, he succeeded in becoming the Prime Minister of the country after the elections.
But, the situation today is before everyone. One year has passed since the Jenji rebellion. Six months have also passed since the government was formed under the leadership of Balen Shah. The country, however, stands in a more confused, dire, and wounded state. The dreams of the young martyrs killed in the Jenji rebellion are left in limbo, and a flag of misgovernance is waving under the slogan of good governance.
On the other hand, the country has once again fallen prey to another devastating natural disaster. More than 1300 Nepali citizens have lost their lives due to the recent devastating floods in the Bhote Koshi-Trishuli and floods and landslides across the country. The government, formed on the dreams of the martyrs, has neither been able to provide good governance internally nor has it been able to show strategic maturity in disaster management and diplomatic forums.
This article focuses on the one-year anniversary of the Jenji rebellion and the foreign policy of Prime Minister Balen, appointed in the wake of the rebellion.
- Jenji Rebellion and Diplomatic Vacuum
In the transitional period after the Jenji rebellion, Nepal had a great opportunity to establish itself in the international arena and attract foreign investment. However, as soon as the new government was formed, a series of diplomatic disorders began.
Hugo Grotius, the founder of international jurisprudence, and Kenneth Waltz, a modern neorealist thinker, have stated that small and geopolitically sensitive nations must use institutional diplomacy for their survival. To compensate for the economic shock caused by the Jenji rebellion, it was necessary to reassure foreign investors and attract foreign direct investment (FDI). However, Balen Shah did not show diplomatic acumen. He presented a populist slogan of breaking diplomatic norms by stating that he would not visit any country for a year and would not meet foreign ambassadors.
The spirit of the Vienna Convention of 1961 states that heads of state must maintain continuous dialogue and certain diplomatic courtesies with foreign missions. The Prime Minister’s decision to break this norm was not diplomatically mature. It appears to be merely a product of escapism and deceptive propaganda. As a result, Nepal has lost significant opportunities for bilateral economic, strategic, and development assistance.
Continuing his populist stance, Balen made another extremely short-sighted decision. He collectively recalled ambassadors to various countries appointed by previous governments in one go. The government also issued a popular advertisement stating that new ambassadors would be appointed through open competition.
Thousands of experts and aspirants filled out online forms. However, even after months, the appointment process remains in limbo. The result is that Nepali embassies and missions abroad have been without leadership for a long time. All diplomacy is being run by staff. The new government formed after the Jenji rebellion has missed the opportunity to receive the priority and diplomatic goodwill it should have received from the international community, as there are no ambassadors, and high-level dialogues with friendly nations have come to a complete standstill.
On one hand, Prime Minister Balen was pretending not to meet foreigners publicly. On the other hand, the chairman of his party, Rabi Lamichhane, was pursuing a different strategy. He began to aggressively dominate diplomatic forums. While Balen intended not to continue the tradition of the Prime Minister’s first visit being to India, Rabi Lamichhane visited New Delhi at the formal invitation of the President of India’s ruling party, the BJP.
That was no ordinary visit. At the BJP headquarters in New Delhi, Rabi Lamichhane was not only given a red carpet welcome but was also given an unprecedented reception with a shower of flowers in the presence of high-level Indian political leadership.
That scene caused a great stir within Singha Durbar in Kathmandu. Balen was alarmed when a neighboring country’s ruling party welcomed an alternative party leader from Nepal with such a flower shower. Realizing that his stature in diplomatic forums had diminished and Rabi’s influence had grown, Prime Minister Balen Shah appeared to be consumed by deep envy and political restlessness.
The behavioral model of international relations and Robert Jervis’s famous theory ‘Perception and Misperception in International Politics’ states that when a ruler’s personal ego, misperceptions, and fears dominate diplomacy, the state makes irreparable strategic mistakes. It is due to this envy and misperception that the internal friction between Balen and Rabi has intensified, and Balen appears to have forgotten diplomatic decorum and taken hasty, immature retaliatory steps.
Chronologically, it was the day before Rabi Lamichhane flew to India at the invitation of the BJP. Prime Minister Balen Shah, without any prior notice, appeared in Parliament in a surprise raid style and prepared to face the questions of the MPs. There was no diplomatic seriousness or national interest behind it. He wanted to overshadow the news of Rabi’s visit to India the next day.
He was dominated by the impulse to show that he himself was the sole center of power in the country. In the same parliamentary session, MP Padma Aryal of the CPN (UML) and MP Arhan Rai of the Labor Culture Party asked similar questions about the border dispute. They demanded the government’s future plan regarding Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, and Lipulekh.
At a time when the Parliament of Nepal had unanimously amended the constitution and passed a new map, the executive head of the country should have taken a strong stance based on historical documents and the Sugauli Treaty of 1816. However, Balen, lacking diplomatic knowledge, stood at the rostrum and said that this treaty was from the British India era, and they would involve the British in it. Going further, he said, ‘Only after becoming Prime Minister did I realize that Nepal has also encroached upon Indian territory.’
This statement of his was extremely childish, irresponsible, and anti-national.
The story behind this is even more serious. Before giving that statement in Parliament, a representative of a Western diplomatic mission had instigated the Prime Minister, saying, ‘If you also admit to encroaching on small territories, it will be easier to resolve the border dispute with India.’ Balen could not understand that diplomatic trap. Instigated by foreign diplomats, he spoke against the country’s sovereignty and historical stance in Parliament.
The strange thing is that the foreign diplomat who instigated the Prime Minister immediately took a long leave and disappeared. It seems to me that this was a strategic snare designed to weaken Nepal’s national stance.
According to international legal standards and established precedents of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), statements made by a sitting head of state or foreign minister on a formal platform are considered ‘sovereign admission’.
When Balen stood at the parliamentary rostrum and said, ‘We have also encroached,’ it created a diplomatic and legal estoppel. This has seriously undermined Nepal’s decades-old historical map based on the Sugauli Treaty and the consensus of the constitutional amendment.
According to Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Defensive Realism’, small nations must always prepare a strong legal and historical basis in sensitive security matters like borders. However, Balen’s statement became an excellent example of Robert Jervis’s cognitive manipulation model, where foreign powers strategically instigate immature rulers through informal cocktail meetings to speak against their own country, with numerous examples of this occurring.
Balen’s irresponsible statement proved to be an unexpected diplomatic gift for India. With the incumbent Prime Minister of Nepal stating on a formal rostrum, ‘Nepal has also encroached upon Indian territory,’ India gained a strong legal weapon to prove Nepal’s claim in the bilateral talks table regarding Kalapani, Limpiyadhura, and Lipulekh as controversial and weak. Delhi must have understood Balen as a ruler who revels in populist slogans but is diplomatically immature, lacks legal seriousness, and can be easily misled strategically.
Similarly, China must have analyzed Balen’s move as a direct result of the ‘soft influential trap’ of Western and Israeli diplomatic missions. In Beijing’s understanding, Balen is a diplomatically immature leader who can easily fall under Western influence. This has created an atmosphere of deep mistrust and suspicion within Beijing regarding Nepal’s ‘One China policy’ and the security sensitivities of its northern borders.
On the other hand, this was a great success in diplomatic skill and influence for the Western missions. They have assessed Balen as someone who can be molded to their advantage but is geopolitically very uncertain and unstable.
After Rabi Lamichhane’s successful visit to India, he also began preparations to visit the northern neighbor, China. However, on the eve of Rabi’s China visit, a dramatic incident occurred in Kathmandu. Senior journalist Kishore Shrestha, known to be close to China, was suddenly arrested by the police. It was suspected that the ruling coalition and the establishment, alarmed by Rabi Lamichhane’s visit to India, hastily arranged the arrest to prevent Rabi’s trip to China.
The arrest of senior journalist Shrestha and the subsequent diplomatic ripples led to the cancellation of Rabi’s China visit. Although the arrest was not officially stated as the sole and direct reason for the cancellation, it brought significant doubt and coldness to relations with China. Even more serious is that Beijing was already suspicious due to the government’s weak control over activities like celebrating the Tibetan Original Blood (TOB) and the Dalai Lama’s birthday in Kathmandu.
This move to prevent Rabi’s China visit further weakened diplomatic trust between Nepal and China.
Meanwhile, Balen appeared even more suspicious internally. Some time later, another stir occurred in India. There, a youth and Jenji movement led by the Croach Janata Party intensified. To counter Rabi’s growing closeness with the Indian establishment, Balen made another major diplomatic blunder. He decided to send his chief political advisor, Kumar Ben, to India. He did not use air travel, where immigration records are formally kept. Instead, he secretly sent Kumar Ben to India via land route.
Balen’s move to send Kumar Ben by land and have him meet with the youth leaders of the CJP movement became an immature breach of Chanakya’s policy. Interfering in the internal movement of any neighboring country in such an opaque manner is akin to diplomatic suicide. Indian mechanisms took this seriously and considered that the rulers of Nepal were trying to meddle in India’s internal politics.
Realizing his mistake and geopolitical encirclement, Balen hastily tried to change his policy. He lacked policy continuity. He suddenly summoned ambassadors from both India and China to his office and met them separately. However, this was not diplomatic balance. It was merely a hasty defensive move to cover up his mistrust and mistakes. Thus, Nepal’s diplomatic mistrust and disorder with both neighboring countries seem to have reached their peak.
- Deepening Diplomatic Chasm
Today marks one year since the Jenji rebellion. It has also been six months since the government was formed under the leadership of Balen Shah. However, the country has neither achieved good governance nor responsible diplomatic leadership. Currently, all of Nepal is immersed in mourning due to floods and disasters. At such a time, the government is entangled in diplomatic disorder and internal power struggles.
After these devastating floods and landslides, Prime Minister Balen Shah is now preparing to go to New York to attend the UN General Assembly. Although he has faced diplomatic failures before, this UN General Assembly and the United Nations platform can be a great diplomatic opportunity for Nepal. Nepal is a Himalayan nation directly affected by climate change.
Therefore, the Prime Minister must claim substantial compensation from the Green Climate Fund and the Loss and Damage Fund at the UN General Assembly. If he uses this UN platform merely as coverage for his internal failures or as a populist stunt, it will be another great loss for Nepal. However, if he can use this as an opportunity to bring financial assistance to Nepal from international climate funds, he can save his diplomatic credibility.
Overall, the past year has clearly exposed the current chasm in Nepal’s diplomacy. The first reason for this chasm is institutional emptiness. The main weakness is the operation of opaque envoys while keeping ambassadorial posts vacant, bypassing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and missions. Second, impulsiveness and cocktail traps. Speaking against the country’s stance in Parliament without studying serious foreign policy issues, at the instigation of foreign diplomats.
Third, internal envy and disorder with both neighbors. Instead of using relations with both India and China for national interest, creating and causing serious mistrust due to internal political competition, suspicion, and immature maneuvers.
If Balen Shah’s immature, impulsive, and unbalanced style of functioning continues for the next five years, Nepal’s future will be in serious crisis. If personal ego and whims are allowed to dominate diplomacy, bypassing institutional maturity, the country may fall into geopolitical conflict.
The reason for discussing Balen and his government’s ‘diplomacy’ in such detail here is that he is the main actor in both the Jenji movement and the government. The next five years are very important in the context of relations with both neighbors, India and China. Nepal’s diplomatic performance cannot be good by spoiling relations with the two neighbors. If the government, formed on the sacrifice of the martyrs of the Jenji rebellion, continues to create disorder diplomatically and internally, the danger of Nepal being established as a populist but failed nation in the international arena cannot be denied.
(Dr. Kushwaha, who holds a doctorate from Jawaharlal Nehru University, India, is the Director of Research at the Good Governance School.)