Nepal and Bhutan: Two Identical Small States with Different Strategies in South Asian Sub System

Abstract

Small states are not all the same in terms of their weight in the international system; some have a lot of influence, while others don't. Some small states are significant because of their geopolitical and strategic positions in the international system, particularly among or between great powers. Bhutan and Nepal are two identical small state; landlocked, developing and weak economies, mountainous terrain, and located between India and China. However, the strategies pursued by these identical states in the South Asian Sub System exhibits many differences while few similarities. During the pre-colonial period, Bhutan’s strategic choice limited to self-imposed isolationism while Nepal's defensive balancing attribute turning to bandwagoning with the then British India which continued till colonial period. In the post-colonial period, the two Himalayan countries adopted the strategies of alliance with India in response to the threat perceived by China’s aggression in the north and expansion of communism. Later, Nepal's strategy shifted to counterbalance India’s hegemonic traits by its soft balancing which increased in subsequent years taking advantage of the external balancer role of China. However, Bhutan's strategy focused on strengthening its alliance with India ignoring China’s growing balancer role in the region. These two strategic choices; Alliance and Balancing of Bhutan and Nepal respectively are major different strategies adopted by these two identical states in the same geo-political environment. Moreover, the differences in strategic choices are the act of Neutrality by Nepal and norm entrepreneurship by Bhutan. The similar strategic choices of Nepal and Bhutan are multilateralism and diversification of relations but Nepal has relatively pursued the strategy quite earlier (1955 onwards) and on a massive scale while Bhutan adopted it later (the 1970s onwards) and on a small scale. The strategic choices of Nepal seem to have acquired dynamism and changes in response to the geopolitical environment responding to China’s engagement in countering India’s hegemonic traits while Bhutan has relatively acquired static behavior of supporting hegemonic traits of India and ignoring the balancer role of China in the region. Keywords- Small states, Nepal, Bhutan, Strategies