Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founding monarch of modern Nepal, in his seminal treatise “Divyopadesh” famously described Nepal as “a yam between two boulders.” This metaphor, simple yet profound, encapsulates the geopolitical reality of Nepal’s existence between two powerful neighbours: India to the south and China to the north. Shah was referring to imperial powers East India Company in the south and Qing China in the north at that time.
The analogy conveys the precariousness of Nepal’s position, akin to a vulnerable yam that must skilfully navigate its space between two massive and potentially crushing forces. International Relations Scholar Manish Pulami in his journal article “Discursive Analysis of ‘Yam Theory’: Mapping King Prithvi Narayan Shah’s Essence to Contemporary Geopolitics” explains it “as a theory [that] comprises the elements of cautiousness, gradualism, peaceful co-existence, and friendliness in foreign policy.” This scenario is not just about surviving. It is about thriving amidst giants.
Shah’s comparison of Nepal to a yam implies both vulnerability and resilience. A small nation situated between two of the world’s most populous and powerful countries, Nepal’s geographical setup makes it inherently susceptible. Landlocked, with no direct access to sea routes, its economy and security are inevitably influenced by its neighbors. Historically, Nepal has faced challenges in maintaining its sovereignty, whether through military confrontations, economic dependencies, or diplomatic maneuvering.
The yam’s survival depends on its ability to remain intact without provoking undue force from either boulder. Similarly, Nepal’s approach to its neighbours must be tactful and diplomatic, avoiding actions that could provoke hostility or excessive interference. The 2015 blockade following the adoption of Nepal’s new constitution is a stark reminder of how quickly the nation can feel the squeeze when relations with a neighbor sour. Three similar blockades had preceded when India expressed its displeasure with Nepal flexing its strategic autonomy.
The metaphor of yam has not only endured in Nepal’s national consciousness but has also served as a guiding principle for its foreign policy.
Nepal’s approach to navigating its relationships with its neighbours can be understood through the dimension of non-alignment and neutrality. The country’s historical commitment to non-alignment, enshrined in the Constitution, reflects its desire to avoid becoming entangled in the geopolitical rivalries of its neighbours. As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Nepal has consistently championed neutrality, striving to maintain a balanced approach in its dealings with India and China.
For instance, Nepal often refrains from taking sides in contentious issues involving its neighbours. This policy allows Nepal to safeguard its interests without overtly antagonizing either power. Such neutrality has also enabled Nepal to engage with other international players, fostering broader diplomatic and economic relationships. King Mahendra’s role in maintaining Nepal’s neutrality during the Sino-Indian War in 1962 and his diplomatic charm offensive to court the superpowers during that period serves as a shining example. Nepal’s strategy here is clear: Diversify to survive, engage to thrive.
Nepal’s foreign policy emphasizes maintaining close ties with both India and China. Each relationship carries distinct historical, cultural, and economic dimensions. Nepal shares deep-rooted cultural and historical connections with India, including an open border, shared religious traditions, and extensive trade ties. India has traditionally been Nepal’s largest trading partner and a significant source of development aid.
In recent decades, Nepal has expanded its engagement with China, seeking economic development, trade opportunities, and infrastructure investments. Initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) have positioned China as a key partner in Nepal’s development aspirations. Engaging with both the neighbours equally has helped Nepal survive but the country has felt the squeeze when the relationship between these two giants thaw. For instance, India and China agreed to augment border trade through the Nepali territory of Lipulekh pass without taking Nepal’s concerns on board.
Being located at a sensitive geographical position, Nepal has consistently prioritized its sovereignty and resisted external interference in its domestic affairs. Historical events underscore this commitment. King Birendra’s proposal of Nepal as a “zone of peace” was an aspiration for strategic autonomy and a rebuff of foreign interference. To provide a recent example, following Nepal’s promulgation of a new constitution, India imposed an unofficial blockade, severely disrupting the supply of essential goods. This incident highlighted Nepal’s vulnerability to external pressure but also showed Nepali people’s mettle in resisting interference in the country’s internal affairs.
The Indian blockade reinforced the importance of diversifying its economic and logistical dependencies. This situation prompted the KP Oli-led government of that time to sign the Trade and Transition Agreement with China, thus taking a step towards economic diversification. As John Whelpton in The Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture 2024, titled “Revisiting the Yam and the Rocks: Nepal Between India and China,” puts it, “Whatever India’s motivation, the failure of the ‘blockade’ to force major concessions and the agreement signed with China to provide one-third of Nepal’s oil needs might suggest that a major shift in the balance of power has occurred.”
While Chinese investments in Nepal have grown significantly, there is also caution about potential over-dependence on China, particularly regarding large-scale infrastructure projects. China’s insistence in announcing all projects in Nepal under the rubric of the BRI has aroused India’s suspicion. This has resulted in India’s pressure on the Nepal government, causing infrastructure built with the Chinese aid turning into white elephants. The international airports in Pokhara and Bhairahawa serve as the glaring examples. On the political front, Nepali people have not taken China’s role in cobbling a coalition of communist parties and actively promoting Xi Jinping Thought to the communist leaders in Nepal positively and this Chinese move has alarmed Indians and Americans.
These experiences illustrate Nepal’s determination to maintain its independence while encountering difficulties due to the competing interests of its neighbours.
Nepal’s geographic position offers both challenges and opportunities. Strategically located between South Asia and East Asia, Nepal has the potential to serve as a bridge connecting these regions. Nepal’s participation in regional groups or engaging with global platforms underscores its commitment to a form of strategic autonomy that does not isolate but integrates.
Nepal actively participates in initiatives like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), and the BRI, advocating for regional cooperation and connectivity. Although the former two initiatives have not taken off due to India dragging its feet, Nepal aspires to leverage the regional mechanisms to serve its national interests.
In today’s interconnected world, Nepal’s ability to navigate its position as a “yam” depends on its strategic foresight, diplomatic acumen, and resilience. By adhering to Shah’s vision, Nepal can transform its geographical challenges into opportunities, serving as a bridge between civilizations and a model of peaceful coexistence.
The “yam” metaphor continues to guide Nepal’s policymakers in addressing contemporary challenges. As global geopolitics evolve, Nepal faces new pressures in the form of Indo-Pacific rivalry. The increasing competition between the United States and China has heightened Nepal’s strategic significance. Recently, Nepal has faced enormous pressure in dealing with the competing narratives of America’s MCC grant and China’s BRI. The country’s foreign policy implementers need to navigate these dynamics carefully to avoid being drawn into larger power struggles. Nepal’s vulnerability to climate change adds another layer of complexity to its foreign policy. As one of the countries most vulnerable to climate impacts, Nepal’s foreign policy now also includes a plea for international cooperation on sustainability and disaster resilience. Being located next to the world’s most polluted cities of the southern neighbour has augmented Nepal’s climate worries.
Prithvi Narayan Shah’s description of Nepal as “a yam between two boulders” is more than a historical metaphor. It is a timeless reminder of the complexities of Nepal’s geopolitical reality. The metaphor underscores the need for Nepal to adopt a balanced, pragmatic, and cautious foreign policy, ensuring that its sovereignty and national interests are safeguarded while fostering harmonious relations with its powerful neighbours.
In today’s interconnected world, Nepal’s ability to navigate its position as a “yam” depends on its strategic foresight, diplomatic acumen, and resilience. By adhering to Shah’s vision, Nepal can transform its geographical challenges into opportunities, serving as a bridge between civilizations and a model of peaceful coexistence.
Comment