Debates surrounding sovereignty and territorial integrity have long occupied a central place in Nepal’s political discourse. In particular, Nepal’s left political parties have consistently stressed the protection of national sovereignty, often portraying Nepal as vulnerable to external influence and geopolitical encroachment. Sovereignty has therefore emerged not only as a constitutional principle but also as a highly emotive political narrative. Yet, despite this persistent rhetoric, Nepal’s broader political establishment has demonstrated limited commitment toward strengthening the country’s national power, especially its military capacity, which remains one of the most essential pillars of sovereign statehood in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical environment.
Strategic contradictions and changing geopolitical realities
The contradiction between political rhetoric and strategic preparedness is becoming increasingly visible. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Military Expenditure Database 2026, Nepal’s military expenditure as a percentage of GDP stood at 1.4 percent in 2008, declined to 1.35 percent in 2018, and further dropped to only 0.97 percent in 2025. This steady decline reflects a broader lack of strategic prioritization toward national defense and security preparedness. At a time when South Asia is witnessing intensifying geopolitical competition, border tensions, technological transformations in warfare, and growing strategic rivalries among major powers, Nepal appears to be reducing investment in one of the core institutions responsible for safeguarding its sovereignty.
This trend raises important questions regarding Nepal’s understanding of sovereignty itself. Sovereignty cannot merely be defended through political slogans or diplomatic statements; it also requires credible state capacity. In the modern international system, national power is multidimensional, encompassing economic resilience, diplomatic influence, technological capability, and military preparedness. While Nepal’s limited economic resources are often cited as justification for low military expenditure, the issue is not necessarily about militarization, but rather about strategic preparedness and institutional strengthening. A state that repeatedly expresses concern about external vulnerabilities must simultaneously ensure that its institutions possess adequate capability to respond to emerging security challenges.
The geopolitical environment surrounding Nepal has changed significantly over the past two decades. Nepal today exists within a far more complex strategic landscape shaped by intensifying competition between India and China, the growing strategic presence of the United States in the Indo-Pacific, evolving regional connectivity initiatives, and new security concerns ranging from cyber threats to climate-induced instability. South Asia itself is experiencing heightened geopolitical polarization, military modernization, and strategic recalibration. In such a context, Nepal cannot rely solely on traditional assumptions of neutrality without strengthening the institutional foundations that support an independent foreign and security policy.
The Nepali Army: Institutional professionalism and expanding strategic engagement
Despite these structural limitations, one of the most remarkable aspects of Nepal’s security architecture has been the professionalism and institutional resilience of the Nepali Army. Unlike many other state institutions that have become heavily politicized over the years, the Nepali Army has largely managed to cocoon itself from direct partisan interference. This institutional neutrality has played a significant role in preserving public trust and maintaining national stability during the periods of political transition and uncertainty.
Importantly, the Nepali Army has also refrained from overt political involvement, even during some of the most turbulent moments in Nepal’s contemporary history. In many developing states, military institutions often emerge as political actors during crises, undermining democratic processes and civilian authority. Nepal’s experience has been different. The Nepali Army has largely maintained constitutional discipline, respected civilian supremacy, and avoided direct political confrontation. This restraint has enabled the institution to retain credibility and respect across political and social divisions.
Another important strength of the Nepali Army lies in its strategic clarity regarding evolving geopolitical realities. Among Nepal’s state institutions, the military has arguably demonstrated one of the most coherent understandings of regional and global strategic transformations. Through expanded international engagement, military diplomacy, training cooperation, and participation in international security forums, the Nepali Army has positioned itself as an institution capable of navigating complex geopolitical dynamics with professionalism and balance.
Nepal’s military diplomacy has also contributed significantly to the country’s international image and soft power projection. The Nepali Army’s longstanding participation in United Nations Peacekeeping operations has enhanced Nepal’s international reputation as a responsible contributor to global peace and security. Nepali peacekeepers have served in some of the world’s most difficult conflict zones, earning recognition for professionalism, discipline, and operational effectiveness. This engagement has not only elevated Nepal’s diplomatic profile but has also strengthened military expertise, international exposure, and institutional confidence.
In fact, peacekeeping has emerged as one of Nepal’s most effective instruments of soft power. In international relations, soft power refers to the ability of states to influence others through credibility, legitimacy, and cooperation rather than coercion alone. Nepal’s contribution to UN peacekeeping has enabled the country to project an image of responsibility and constructive global engagement despite its limited economic and military capabilities. The Nepali Army has therefore become not merely a security institution, but also an important diplomatic asset for the Nepali state.
Furthermore, the professionalism of the Nepali Army continues to distinguish it within Nepal’s broader institutional environment. Discipline, rigorous training, operational adaptability, and organizational cohesion have enabled the institution to maintain functionality and credibility even when many civilian institutions have faced severe governance challenges. The Army’s engagement in disaster response, infrastructure support, humanitarian assistance, and crisis management has also strengthened its domestic legitimacy and demonstrated its broader national role beyond conventional defense responsibilities.
State capacity and the future of sovereignty
Professionalism alone cannot substitute for adequate resources and long-term strategic planning. The declining allocation of defense expenditure raises concerns about the sustainability of institutional modernization and preparedness. Contemporary security challenges increasingly require investments in technology, intelligence, cyber capability, disaster preparedness, surveillance systems, logistics, and specialized training. If Nepal intends to maintain an independent and balanced foreign policy amid intensifying geopolitical competition, it must ensure that its security institutions are equipped to respond effectively to both conventional and non-conventional threats.
At present, the Prime Minister of Nepal, Balendra Shah, simultaneously holds the portfolio of Defense Minister. This concentration of responsibility provides an opportunity for stronger political attention toward national security priorities. It is, therefore, hoped that the government will recognize the strategic importance of investing in the institutional capacity of the Nepali Army and allocate a more respectable share of national resources toward defense preparedness and modernization.
Ultimately, sovereignty in the twenty-first century cannot be sustained solely through political narratives or symbolic nationalism. It requires capable institutions, strategic foresight, and national resilience. Strengthening the Nepali Army would not only reinforce Nepal’s commitment to peace but also enhance the state’s institutional capacity to safeguard its national interests in an increasingly uncertain regional and global order.
(Dr Jaiswal is a Research Director at the Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement (NIICE).
.
