Phanindra Nepal
Last Thursday afternoon (29 January), Jonang Gyeltsab Rinpoche—a Tibetan-origin Buddhist religious leader and head of the Jonang school, where Tibetan Buddhist philosophy is taught—arrived in Kathmandu from New Delhi. He was welcomed at Tribhuvan International Airport by hundreds of people opposing China’s territorial integrity. This was not merely an isolated incident; even Tashi Phoncho Gurung, the chairperson of a so-called non-governmental organization named “Dolpo Society,” which invited Rinpoche, is alleged to have sponsored activities that have polluted Nepal–China relations. This cannot be taken lightly under any circumstances. If Rinpoche’s very arrival on Nepali soil falls within the category of undesirable activities, then his participation as the main speaker in a ten-day Buddhist discourse program is even more objectionable. The most serious mistake shown by the government in this episode is that it granted permission to the Dolpo Society to extend an unofficial invitation for Rinpoche to visit Nepal, despite the fact that he has been residing in India and is involved in separatist activities against China, a friendly and neighboring country of Nepal. Although neighboring friendly nation China has reportedly expressed its dissatisfaction through diplomatic channels regarding this incident, the Nepal government’s silence is even more mysterious. Such stubbornness on the part of the Nepal government is certain to prove very costly for it.
Rinpoche’s arrival in Kathmandu is an unexpected and frightening storm in Nepal–China relations—one that could sweep away the long-standing friendship and trust between the two countries. It has played a significant role in shaking the strong wall of Nepal–China relations. Because of this incident, Nepal has come to be viewed by the People’s Republic of China as unreliable, treacherous, and deceitful. Some anti-China voices may argue that Rinpoche’s arrival alone will not cause a catastrophe in Nepal–China relations. That may be said in the case of Rinpoche as an individual, but the question of what forces stand behind him cannot simply be brushed aside.
The Rinpoche episode has turned Nepal’s “One China” policy into a riddle of hollow lip service coated with duplicity and evasiveness—something for which Nepal will not be able to easily compensate China, and it no longer appears that China can be reassured through the kind of patchwork diplomacy used in the past. Although Nepal and China are both sovereign nations, Nepal cannot realistically stand upright in comparison to China’s great-power stature. If one enters the water and provokes a crocodile, the inevitable consequence of such folly is to become the crocodile’s prey. And anyone who lives in a glass house and throws stones at another’s home cannot prevent their own house from being shattered.
Those who wish to weaken Nepal geographically and physically fear neither the Nepal government nor its security agencies. If they fear anyone, it is the People’s Republic of China, because only China possesses the power to crush the backbone of such separatism into dust. Yet, unfortunately, just as a jackal that tries to entrap a lion in a web of conspiracy ends up being devoured by the lion’s attack, Nepal—under someone else’s pressure and provocation—is playing with China’s sovereignty. If this is so, Nepal is almost certain to suffer the same fate as that jackal. Nepal must not knowingly commit the grave mistake of becoming a tool of a third country’s interests aimed at the disintegration of its friendly and neighboring nation, China. Nepal’s leaders must always remember that signing pledges of commitment to the One China policy and repeating the same refrain in bilateral meetings, only to shamelessly erase their own footsteps when the opportunity arises, is a sly approach that could place Nepal’s very existence in grave danger.
Nepal’s geographical position has placed its government under an obligation to proceed with extreme caution. With no possibility of breaking out of its landlocked borders—and in light of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s motivating remark that Nepal is not a landlocked but a land-linked country—Nepal should be maintaining strong trust with China and developing open and transparent relations. Instead, the Rinpoche episode has arrived like a stone between the teeth, becoming a serious obstacle.
In the past, Nepal preserved its independence through its own strength, but today circumstances have changed. Without China’s support and backing, Nepal’s independence could fall into crisis. Nepal–China relations are tied to Nepal’s very existence. To put it even more plainly: because China exists, an independent Nepal exists. Had China not provided strong support, Nepal’s independence might have been abducted long ago. The example of Sikkim’s deceptive annexation in India in 1975 offers a painful reminder of how distressing China’s silence toward small neighbors can be. In that sense, Nepal is a very fortunate country, because China’s protective hand rests over its head. To pretend not to understand this reality and attempt to introduce deviation into relations with China would certainly be highly counterproductive. Given that Nepal’s entire border with China is connected only to China’s autonomous region of Tibet, drifting into an anti-China camp would be tantamount to handing Nepal over to its enemies. Allowing anti-China activities to be carried out from Nepali soil amounts to extreme betrayal of China. More than merely a mistake, this is an unforgivable crime—and how China chooses to determine the punishment for such a crime is something Nepal can only await anxiously.
Whether the Nepal government became enthusiastic or was forced to permit such activities against China at the instigation of others will not take very long to become clear, but Nepal itself will bear responsibility for whatever damage results from this. Ordinary citizens never expected such behavior from their own government. Nepal must understand the spirit of the One China slogan even more deeply than China itself does, because a powerful China is the shield of Nepal’s independence. In this context, the remark by Julia Chang Bloch—who served as the United States ambassador to Nepal from 1989 to 1993—appears highly objective and truthful:
“Till there is China at one end of Nepal, it can never be annexed by any other nation .”
Finally, if we look at Article 33 of a law titled “The Law on Foreign Relations of the PRC,” which came into force in China on July 1, 2023, it states: “Where conduct endangers China’s sovereignty, security, or development interests in violation of fundamental norms of international law and international relations, China may adopt appropriate countermeasures and restrictive measures.” This provision clearly signals that China will not tolerate in the slightest any harm to its sovereignty, national integrity, security, and other sensitive matters from any quarter. It should also be understood that this law targets, among other things, the growing Free Tibet campaigns and anti-China activities in Nepal since 2006. Such countermeasures that China might take could, in various forms, include military and physical actions as well. And if anyone thinks that Nepal would be an exception to this, that would prove to be an irreparable mistake.
The author is an advocate of Greater Nepal and an analyst of Nepal–China and Nepal–India relations.
