Diplomatic experts in Nepal have raised concerns after the government’s draft of a new national commitment document described the country as a “buffer state” between India and China. The draft, made public on Monday by the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, has triggered debate over how Nepal defines its geopolitical position.
The document outlines a plan to transform Nepal from a buffer state into a “vibrant bridge” through connectivity and possible trilateral cooperation. It also mentions a policy of maintaining balanced relations with all countries. However, analysts say the language used in the draft does not reflect Nepal’s current diplomatic reality.
Experts argue that the term “buffer state” is outdated and carries historical baggage from colonial-era geopolitics. They say using such terminology could weaken Nepal’s image as a sovereign and independent nation. Several foreign policy analysts have pointed out that Nepal has never formally identified itself as a buffer state, nor have its neighbours consistently used that label in official discourse.
Concerns have also been raised over the use of terms like “equidistance” and “equiproximity” in describing Nepal’s foreign policy. Analysts say relationships with neighbouring countries are shaped by context, interests, and specific issues, rather than a fixed balance.
Many experts suggest Nepal should instead position itself as a connector between regions and civilisations, reflecting its long cultural and political history. The idea of Nepal as a bridge rather than a buffer has been discussed in policy circles for years, including in past research and political proposals.
The debate highlights a broader question about how Nepal wants to project itself internationally. As the government moves forward with the document, experts are calling for more careful use of language in defining the country’s foreign policy direction.