Nepal and Bhutan: Two Identical Small States with Different Strategies in South Asian Sub System
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Department of International Relations and Diplomacy
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