Realities of Civil Military Ralation and Impact on National Security of Nepal

Dr. Prem Singh Basnyat 

Prior to the national unification by Prithvi Narayan Shah, the king of Gorkha, Nepal was divided into 51-52 small principalities in spite of the evidence that Nepal was a big state. If we analyze the then practices, the kings were considered all in all in accordance with the Divine Right Theory ignoring the national welfare and interest. King's wills were nation's will. The then kings were least interested in national security. At a time when British, French, Portuguese Military powers had already come, and waged war and defeated the local principalities and the local territories were colonized by these foreign troops, the entire Nepal including the Baise and Chaubise estates were quite ignorant about security awareness. In this context, nothing was done concerning effective management of standing army, weapon and security strategy with the exception of construction of castles and forts in the capital and its suburbs.

In the event of rebel's attack, the people were hired as army personnel, who fought against the rebels and returned home; though it was like a people's war. It seems that even Jumla had kept a troop of 2200 army at that time. However, when we come to know that a small armed force of Gorkha defeated Jumla, it is necessary to reanalyze whether Jumla really had that number of army troops or not. In fact, the people laid importance to the king as an individual rather than nationality. Even in the event of the defeat of their king, the people nearly accepted the emergence of subsequent king in the spirit of Divine Rights Theory. Nobody except the king's courtiers was concerned with politics and security. The then principalities did not pay any attention even to the entry of British army on the border of Nepal. It seems before 1768 the then kings wanted to extend their reign by pleasing the king of Delhi, the emperor of China, and the power of Tibet rather than fighting for and ensuring nationality. It seems that we Nepalese sought the protection of the external forces which made us parasite concerning security matters. Consequently, Nepal lagged behind in matters of security evolution. This fact cannot be denied.

It is through the personal ambition of Prithvi Narayan Shah that Nepal started developing military strength and the importance of Nationality, National Security and Security troops were increased significantly. His unification campaign created a sense of security awareness in all the principalities of Nepal including Baise and Chaubise estates. However, standing army was not given priority. Instead security was arranged through hiring mercenary troops from India. For example, Jaya Prakash Malla, the king of Kantipur commissioned a group of mercenary troops which was mainly composed of the Nagarkoties who were brought from the Indian states of Kumaon and Garhwal. The Nagarkotis belonged to the warrior clan like the Rajputs. The mercenary troops lacked nationality feeling and the nation could not take due benefit though they were used as security tools and the good will sentiment of the public could not increase.

King Prithvi Narayan Shah and his younger brother prince Bahadur Shah brought about substantial evolution in security awareness. It is essential that king Prithvi Narayan Shah should be regarded as a pioneer of Nepalese national security. The present security arrangement is the legacy of king Prithvi Narayan Shah who was a supreme security strategist. Furthermore, he was more a soldier than a king. He was successful in strategy and diplomacy because of his sharp soldier like quality.

If we turn the pages of Nepalese history of security evolution, we find that Prithvi Narayan Shah though a security strategist remained isolated from security module adopted in the neighboring countries. China was quite far off and the concept adopted by Prithvi Narayan that the Birtisher in the south who were approaching Nepal should not be allowed to touch the border of Nepal in the name of Christianity made Prithvi Narayan Shah partially successful, still Nepal remained far behind in receiving benefits from improved security strategy, war materials and security tools used in Europe after industrial revolution. Each and every development demands an interaction, sharing of opinions and sense of brotherhood between one to another civilization.

A significant change could have occurred in the Nepal's education and security aspect if Nepal had maintained relationship with the civilized and developed western countries instead of getting isolated from these countries during the military leadership of Prithivi Narayan Shah and Bahadur Shah. In fact, the main reason behind our backward stage in various components was that we closed western civilization on our international borders and got stuck-up in our tradition and deep rooted culture until the halt of Nepal's unification a great deal of militarization was practiced. Nepal's boundary was extended up to the Tista in the East and Alkanda in the west and military respect enhanced considerably among the public. Then though the public considered the military forces as salaried personnel however it could not bring about social revolution for national security with the feeling of "my country, my pride". Consequently, Anglo Nepal war (also called Nepal Company War) was only a military war instead people's war. Nepal was compelled to remain in the boundary of the Mechi-Mahakali river losing a big territory. In whatever way we may write our history we had a very adverse setback and the outcome was too much painful. The main gist is that if we had a sense of security awareness, Nepal fighting in the people's war spirit could overthrow the then strong enemies as the Afgans out-marched the Russians. Hence, we cannot believe that militarization begets security evolution. It is an outcome of public awareness and civil-military relation.

In the course of Nepalese security evolution, Kazi and General Bhimsen Thapa attempted to establish barracks, introduced uniform, developed weapons and bomb shells and developed war materials by inviting French army technicians. He introduced western rank and file in the army cadre. He made himself the first general and the second level general colonel posts were assigned to his father, brother and nephews. Nevertheless, the sense of security awareness could not be aroused in the public. The social norms that security and security forces are the pride of the country was not realized. He distributed the general, colonel ranks to himself, his father, brother and nephews and invented a family security module to carry out orders of his family members rather than that of the state. Bhimsen Thapa had strong grip in the then security arrangement of Nepal and the security agencies acted as tools for the governance and the army was regarded as a fearful element in the minds of the general public. Due to the violation of the merit based promotion system and keeping provision of army under the king as adopted by Prithvi Narayan Shah was violated and keeping them under certain families, meant that the higher posts were created not for professionalism but for social prestige and fashion, the army was taken as a fearful element in the society and the respect towards the army started decreasing and the people opted to remain aloof from the security agencies and security concerns. This situation deteriorated security evolution and awareness which led to the initiation of family rule in the army. With the adherence of this culture Subedar Jung Bahadur Kunwar rose to the post of General and Prime-minister, Shree Teen Maharaj and his family became a defacto ruler for a period of hundred and four years.

The Kot Massacre incident brought about significant changes in the Nepalese politics. Since an army troop was sent to India at the initiative of Jung Bahadur to support the sepoy mutiny of 1857 to please the British ruler, Nepal definitely acquired some knowledge on security and security awareness. Jung Bahadur and his brothers participated in the military action and had also watched closely the divide and rule strategy of the Britishers that smashed the concept of national unity and security will. Besides, after his visit to England, Jung Bahadur and his team might have known about military management, war materials, and security strategy of Sri Lanka, UAR, France and England. Reform measures were introduced in various sectors after this visit, and highest positions, crowns and splendid dresses were introduced in the army security related intelligence, collection, denial of own intelligence physical security of man and material, defense diplomacy with the then super powers, development of military affairs were introduced in his tenure. However, it was during his tenure that the Rana family occupied the officer level posts and the low posts were entitled to others. This system prevailed over the Rana regime. Other castes and clans have occupied officer level posts in a very insignificant number. This sort of army cadre system brought social disparity with a split-up of higher and lower class instead of furthering civil military relations and the officers were considered as masters and other hierarchies as the servants. It aroused the feeling of high and low. The army worked under certain caste/family and higher position was considered in-born gift rather merit oriented system. The high level army officials were 'God', 'fate maker' and were treated as incarnation of god to the general public. They became the speaking God of Nepal. Only a single caste became an authority in the garden of multi caste people as envisaged by Prithivi Narayan Shah. Thus the army system had made a very wide gap in the Nepalese society. Family militarization got introduced, the country was ruled with the strength of the army and the army was an intimidating force to the people since the tenure of Bhimsen Thapa. Moreover, military massacre executed by Bhimsen Thapa, the Kot massacre and Bhandarkhal plot implemented by Jung Bahadur, the murder of Ranodip, 38 sal incident, expulsion of Khadga Shamsher, Badrinarshing Rana and Rudra Shamsher from the Kathmandu valley made the public overwhelmingly frightened and they feared the army. In this way there was no sense of brotherhood between the army and the people. In the case of the Ranas, militarization was there but it totally lacked security awareness in the absence of civil military relation. In the annals of defense diplomacy during the Rana regime, high level military officers visited a lot of counties, considerable Nepalese army personnel were sent to India to suppress sepoy mutiny, and similarly the Nepalese troops were sent to fight in the First and Second Great War to provide cooperation to the British. The Nepalese acquired considerable knowledge and experiences concerning security. In fact, the Rana regime was a fertile period in enhancing security awareness. The Rana rulers did not show any concern in this matter for various reasons and the gap between the army and the general people widened all the more.

Democracy was introduced in 1950 in Nepal. The leaders took it for a high sounding incident. Immediate change for better was not possible in all the sectors because of illiteracy and poverty. The leaders who fought for democracy, instead of realizing the wretched condition of the country, remembered the crown worn by the Ranas, the splendid dress, power, pelf and pride. They were badly involved in power games instead of bringing about motivation and social unity among the people. Still Army was considered as a baby of the Ranas and a fearful element to the people. After the introduction of democracy, one of the Rana family members from anti-Rana group was appointed for a new leadership to bring about reform in the military rank and file. The appointed Rana was an ousted and expelled person by the Ranas in power, and he himself had a thirst for power and luxury. They had ardent desire for wearing crown. To cite an example, Toran Samsher Rana who was promoted to Lieutenant General (topping 3 posts in between) wanted to wear the crown when he became Commander-in-chief. But he was not allowed to wear the crown and he never wore other caps and stayed bareheaded throughout his life. All his photos are without any cap during his tenure as a Commander-in-chief. Though appointment in high military posts was made by King Tribhuvan, there was no warm and good-will relationship between the military and political leadership. Due to the fact that the political leaders were common people and military leadership was handled by so-called high class family. As the proverb goes 'birds of the same feather flock together' there was no close relationship between the birds of the different feathers. The military power did not obey the prime minister. To cite an example, Matrika Prasad Koirala who was the first prime minister from the commoner reported to king Tribhuvan that his orders were not followed by the then military leadership. Then the prime minister requested the king to allow him wear uniform and along with the use of Four Star General. His intention was to keep the Generals, under his control and make them bow their heads in his presence. King Tribhuvan granted him the title of Honorary General. Prime-minister Matrika reached the Kharikobot of Royal pavilion Kathmandu in the army uniform. Still he was not obeyed by the Generals. Since then he never wore the army uniform in his life. Democracy should take care of defense. The democratic government could not fulfill its duties and responsibilities rather it considered defense a hard nut to crack. When democracy started remaining aloof the army taking tradition into consideration, became loyal to the king rather than to the Head of the government. The relation between the king and the army was close whereas the distance was on the increase in the case of army and political party. The political party governments instead of democratizing the army, considered the army anti-democratic. In this way, the political change introduced in 1950, could not bring about reform nor it has any grip in the military concerns. It was a blunder Bhimsen Thapa and Jung Bahadur culture, could not be terminated. This is the tradition of the army and it cannot be discontinued. Democracy was introduced but defense could not fit into democratic market based society. King Tribhuvan was of the opinion that army should fit in democracy.

However, the political parties that emerged from low strata feared the military leadership and instead of improving the military culture they started sidelining and criticizing the army. The word 'Rana' itself frightened the general public. People used to get frightened even to talk to the Ranas openly. Moreover, the Prime-minister and the minister while discussing with the Generals in uniform could not possess reasoning ability and ability to influence the military authority. When the weak leadership known as the ardent supporter of democracy started criticizing, instead of supporting the army, the army established relationship with the king. It is a universal fact that the army prefers to remain under strong leadership. Thus even with the advent of democracy there was no close relationship between democracy defense and civil military. In the absence of good civil military relationship democracy cannot bring security awareness. Democracy is an evolution of national security though there was no significant impact in case of Nepal.

Scores of reform measures were introduced in the organization structure of the army during 1950 - 1960. Access to military service from top to bottom was made available to everybody. The army determined to dedicate themselves to the cause of patriotism and loyalty by introducing timely changes. The advocates of democracy could not maintain self-discipline. Their crippled leadership made an adverse impact upon the personnel structure and social discipline.

The leaders made the democracy useless as per the proverb goes 'First impression lasts longest'. Thus democracy could not hold administration tool in its grip due to the in competencies of the leaders. The power which overthrew the Ranaoligarchy lost integrity while in power and could not influence military organization, which maintained strong discipline. The army did not sideline democracy rather the leaders themselves did not want to establish a close relationship with the army. Hence, the democratic power is responsible for the lack of civil military relationship. It is unjust to blame the army and the king. For god's sake, Nepal's kings have not spoken a single word which may inhibit national security, sovereignty and security organs or he has done anything in this connection. The ruling Head of the State and the Head of the government should clearly comprehend the sensibility of the security organ, its fundamentals, limitation and proper handling. The army should get involved in national interest wholeheartedly. If the army gets motivated towards political interest, the country goes astray and like a milk monger cat it starts grabbing power through coup. Everyone should understand this fact. To cite an example, the frequent military coups in the African countries are the result of the deeds by such milk monger cats. The king of Nepal has always fixed a demarcation under the military ethics to the army. Like a typhoid fever, military coup could have happened several times, if we read the political history of Nepal. It is sherry because of the proper instruction given to the Army by the king of Nepal - as a Supreme Commander-in-chief; there has been no military coup in the country. The proper handling of the army has established a status-quo relation between the army and the king. Our political culture which seems self-centered, cares too much for neighbor's interest, and seeks shelter in the security system of the neighbors, the political parties (not all) could not create warm relations with the security organs. Many attempts were made and are being made to discontinue relationships between the king and the army. Attempts are being made to demoralize security mechanism of the country by the political leadership which believes in 'no roots no branches' principles. The king has used army to control over chaos and abnormal political situation of the country. However, the army has not taken any action at its own sweet-will. It has carried out its duties as per the instruction of the authorized agency. Is it not cowardice on the part of our so-called great leaders and scholars in the eyes of the foreigners to criticize army who is loyal to its master? In case of hindrances and weaknesses owing to the army in governing the country it should be remedied through constitution, Act rules and regulations. The army leadership should assist the government. It is a must. As per this saying, if you spit in the sky you get it back in your mouth, backbiting of defense by democracy and lack of democratization in the defense is the result of complete lack of security awareness in the political leadership. This helps raise the morale of the opponents creating a great loss to the country.

In whatever way we evaluate from the political view point one cannot deny the fact that there has been an improvement in social discipline and internal security after the sixties. After the king started governing the country, the king and the political parties remained at a far off distance and the army was taken as the army of the king. The underground political parties and the political parties in exile did not take the army positively. It was disseminated that the main tool for royal takeover was the army and king Mahendra made a military coup in 1960. Even the personalizes like the ex-prime minister was of the opinion that there is no need of standing army, army should be party-wise, it was my mistake to allow army in an organizational structure. It was the expression of ex-prime minister Bishwosar Pd. Koirala in the opening section of his book Jail Journal. The opinion that the Standing Army is not required and political party-wise army is needed, how far such statement is compatible to the patriotic citizens, this is a subject to analysis by the intelligentsia and civic societies. In other words, that was main weapon used in protesting the Nepalese army. It seems that a few political parties have intend to follow that ideology as yet. Due to the royal leadership during 1960-1990, the king was very much worried about the security strategy and the army developed professionalism. On the other hand, army had also favorable relationship with the government. There was peace in the country and the Head of the State and Head of the Government were aware towards the sensibility of the army. This period could be quite effective in enhancing civil military relation but it could not happen for the following reasons.

Not a single curriculum as to what is security, why is security important, why are security organs required, what sort of relationship should be there between security organ and civic society, between defense and democracy was adopted in an appropriate manner right from primary to higher level education at the initiative of Defense Ministry in coordination with the Ministry of Education.
This is practiced in other countries. Above all security awareness is required in the civic society. If one realizes the importance of security, civil military relation is enhanced. If we ask questions relating to army, security, security related matters, most of them reply that this subject has not concerned with them at all. Thus there is a great deal of loss between security and civic society because of socio educational factor. No progress has been achieved in this component yet. The 1960-90 period was quite favorable for this component however nothing was done that time as well.
During this period, no initiative was taken for ensuring closeness between security organs and civic society. Especially the army was made totally isolated from the civil contact. The concept that army should be solely confined to the perimeter of barrack made the defense system remain in such a situation. The society took it for granted that the army meant to be a gang of terrible, not to be spoken, not to be befriended, agent of spoiling women, high-tempered and a simpleton. Thus the society itself preferred to be aloof from the army. This has helped military organization lessen the danger of leak aging intelligence institutionally. But, if the army is not inspired to intermingle with the public and the indifferent attitude to promote contacts with the public on 'need to know basis' should be regarded the weakness of the Defense System, which could be fairly improved and accomplished during the 1960-90 period.
Higher academic education may not be so essential for making army professional. It is not necessarily true that the highly genius will be fit in the army. Army has its own parameter in the world. Nevertheless, it is equally true that academic education plays a significant role between military organization and civil military relation outside military barrack. Heavy pre-occupation in one's professional work may not provide opportunities for upgrading Academic Education. While fixing minimum qualification for recruitment of army officers, highly professional but with minimal academically qualified high-level Army officers could not move ahead along with the intellectuals, employees, politicians and civil society in enhancing the importance of security and Civil-Military Relation through interaction, lectures and experience sharing programs on need to know basis. This seems to be the main reason in creating communication-gap between defense and civil authority. Thus no improvement measures were adopted in the army while minimum educational qualification was graduate for the officer-posts in case of non-military service. This made the army to be more traditional instead of initiating reforms in the civil/military relation. There were adequate chances for reforms during 1960-1990.
Unlike the present, the then mass media used to ventilate the public within the perimeter of a specific track. Opinion relating to nation's security, security organs and matters adversely affecting sovereignty were not made public. The then mass media played an important role in keeping people in social discipline and maintaining national unity.


It does not mean that media policy under a single party system was totally right, the only intention is to highlight pros and cons of media and its impact on the society. The communication gap that prevailed between the two sides at that time could have been narrowed down at the initiative of His Majesty's Government, Ministry of Defense and Security Organs, through providing information to the media concerning access and limitations of the security organs. Such efforts would help increase the number of conscious citizens through media highlighting the importance of security and security organs for the country. If Israel could create security cautious society, Nepal also could have developed the same culture. Even a big country like India with multi-ethnic groups and a large number of parties, holds unanimous opinion concerning national interest, national sovereignty and national security. They think of national unity and security first, politics, power prowess and chair are placed in the second priority. Thus, this is the biggest strength of India. They learnt this culture during the British colonial period. This security culture existed in Nepal too during the Rana regime. The Rana oligarchy last for hundred and four years due to this culture though civil military relation was not good. An effective security system is a must for Ram Rajya. In general, an effective security system demands a strong infantry, naval and air force system. Then comes the media. That is why media is called a fourth dimension of national security. During 1960-1990, it is evident that military media relations could successfully ensure National Security Enhancement but this could not happen.

Democracy was restored after 1990. There is no doubt that democracy is the best system in the world. The governments formed after the restoration of democracy wanted to introduce big changes. No doubt they were good scholars of political ideology. Everyone should accept that democracy was the outcome of their political will and determination. But they were misfit as regards the governance of the nation. In fact there was political change without any change in social structure. The government wanted sweeping changes in bureaucracy through party-wise political rivalry without introducing social change and making the realities of the society transparent. The government employees were considered partisan of the previous governments and the experienced and high level officials were ousted and the vacancy was filled with immature and sycophants. This change was a political terrorism against bureaucracy. The sycophants who were chiefs of the organizations totally ignored bureaucratic ethic and inspired political government and their leaders towards corruption. This created disappointment to the 'forgotten social beings'. Social unity and discipline stumbled at anti-voice started coming up which ultimately adversely affected national security. National Security is strong in a country where there is efficient and strong bureaucracy. This fact was ignored by the government formed after 1990.

The army was considered quite indifferently among the government employees after the restoration of democracy. The reason was the army was the puppet of the king. In plain words, Nepalese army was viewed as a hurdle to democracy. The national security and the security organizations are two sides of the same coin.

The National Standing Army with a history of 261 years was sidelined and was not involved in state affairs and is made a 'scape goat' for showing king's anger. This was a political blunder mistake of the leaders. This mistake begot social indiscipline ultimately leading to social break-ups. While formulating plans by the National Planning Commission concerning development works, foreign relations and internal security it needs to be analyzed first of all from security view point. This matter was not taken into consideration by the democratic governments. The government took the side of the general police to lessen the power of the army and created the armed police force to belittle the strength of the army. The army was kept barely alive in an indifferent and disdainful manner. The general police and the armed police force are the sister organizations of the army. The writer has no indignation against these institutions and the institutions should be created to assist the standing army. It is a sheer foolishness to seek political benefit from the vengeance point of view; ignoring national interest without analyzing national security and interaction with the security experts. The security expenses relating to gun, shots, and war equipment are surely unproductive and it does not yield economic returns. Army forces are very expensive tools. Thus, while creating such institutions it is better to stick to "cut your coat according to your cloth principle". The institutions created at whims and revenge begets unethical competition and self-ego. It creates risk at the national security. If national plan is formulated neglecting the advice and cooperation of conventional army of the country in working out policy guidelines and institutional placement concerning conventional and non-conventional security affairs, it will benefits to the opponents only.

Even after 1990, Nepal Police was the strong security organ after the army. The overnight hire and fire of the IGP to fulfill political interest made a great loss to national security. If the morale of the institution was lost, the police force was made as political party office. This helped political parties win elections, facilitated politicians to groom corruption but the security situation was worst like that Nepal is now becoming Rawanda. The firing of the IGP due to politicians' personal grudge and anger was a political terrorism and it was an act of raping the national security.

The existing Maoist insurgency should be considered a political issue of the dissidents. It is a political and intellectual uprising. International law accommodates such flexibility. At the initial period, the army was ignored and the police was assigned to contend and react where Nepal Police had not undergone any training on counter insurgency. The army had undergone this training and thousands of army cadres were trained. Insurgency means a revolt against the political and social cause with an ideology adopted by a group. Hence to contend and counter this group, counter insurgency operation is needed in the form of services rendered by the midwives to pregnant women to give birth to a baby. Unfortunately initial insurgency operation was like a police dacoit operation which was quite contrary to the principle of counter insurgency. This resulted in a great loss to security components and the country is left in such a critical situation. The army was mobilized in a worst situation where the mother goes operation when the infant is already dead. It was too late. If Maoist insurgency counters were carried out with the joint efforts of counter insurgency specialists, psychologists and security strategists at the initial stage the present situation would not have occurred. The political business has left the country in such a grieving situation as per the proverb "wife seeks vengeance upon her own husband out of co-wife's anger". However, the relation between government and security forces has been improving in these days. Unfortunately civil military relation has not been improved and still feels cool.

The post 1990 political leaders have read and seen about civil military relations of the big democratic countries. It is true that defense should be always under democratic government and defense must help to enhance democracy. This is well understood by the Nepalese Army and has repeatedly committed itself to perform its duty accordingly. However, the political leaders are showing 1950-60 political culture, why not change the aptitude towards army? The 1990 constitution was drafted by the political parties and the army is in line with the constitution. What hurdles they have encountered in making defense fit in democracy? If the army is, viewed in pre-1960 perspective and no effort is made to overcome the shortcoming felt in army and democracy, and if the army did not support the political parties in line with the views and opinion, who is to be blamed? If the army above the government, what are the shortcomings of the army? Democracy should implement the security arrangement. Why the political parties who believe in democratic government, do not talk directly with army and backbite later. Who is to be blamed if the government has no control over government machinery. The so-called pro-democrats can manage defense in democracy in consultation with intellectuals, civil personnel, experts, army personnel, police and foreign security experts if required. In which form is the Nepalese army undemocratic? If the Nepalese army who are loyal to the masters, who toil for the mother Nepal are treated cold heartedly by the intellectuals, media people, civic societies and the political parties which country army will come forward to save nationality? If the armies are considered king's army the relation between the people and army remains cold, the country will be Sikkim in line with the old intention of any powerful country. We, the intellectuals, experienced well versed in debates remain involved in dirty games to bring social fragmentation, Nepal will be Baise and Choubise principalities which make our potential rivals' dream come true. If we are true Nepalese who have sucked Nepal mother's milk, we must strengthen civil military relation and defense for democratic society concept, and realize this aspect. Otherwise our national security is at stake all the time.

Looking at the Geopolitics reality of Nepal, one realizes that Nepal is a weak country sandwiched between two big powers. Our friendly counties India and China are rising super powers. Monetary might and military might are the base plate of super powers. Our friendly nations' military modernization has been enhanced due to their own inherent realities. Moreover, there is no difference of opinion among the people in matters of national security and the security awareness concept is widely spread among the political leaders at the local level if not at the grassroots level. There exists a good civil military relation. The moral, physical, financial and social support rendered by the Indians to army during India-Kargil war fought between India and Pakistan is a clear example of civil military relation.

China's security awareness and civil military relation can be put as a model in the world. Hence, we who remain in close neighborhood of the countries that have achieved development in every sector, go on boasting that we were very brave in our forefathers' days by blowing our own trumpets we incur a great loss. If we cannot remain at par with our neighbors, we should go on improving the concept of national security by releasing their achievements. Moreover, we need to take geo and cultural realities into consideration that Nepal is locked to the three sides by India and the northern Himalaya by China, we should give priority to neighboring friends rather to trans-national friends, by not forgetting the balanced political strategy which remained since the days of history. Nepal can benefit a lot from friendly countries India and China by taking initiatives for strengthening national security. Nepal should seek transnational support by diplomatically convincing these two neighbors. It does not mean that Nepal should remain puppet of the neighbors. Our main motive is to derive maximum benefits by mobilizing the neighboring counties. If we do not get along well with the neighboring countries, even the salt needs to be imported from overseas in the days to come. The latest example is the blockade imposed on Nepal by India in 1990 which put Nepal in difficulties. This part cannot be covered up by Nepali politics. No super power in the world will be ready to love and help Nepal hurting national interests of China and India. If we follow other nations by ignoring our neighbors, Nepal's national security will be at stake all the more. Even if it is felt that the national security of the neighbors is impaired, the UN's anticipatory self defense right will endanger Nepal. The previous chapters has clearly mentioned anticipatory self defense right which provides while legitimacy, while using black military mite owned by the powerful nations against weaker nations. Hence, it is believed if Nepal moves ahead with the good-will of the neighbors, national security can remain favorable maintaining national sovereignty in security matters.

Due to the increasing number of intra state conflict, murder is on the increase within the country. It has become a problem to everybody to get control over the in-country invisible enemies which will be increasing at an alarming rate. This is a new threat in the twenty-first century. Hence Nepal can attain sustainable peace if the root causes of conflict are solved rather than using military might in order to root out internal conflict. The extermination of insurgency by using force is possible only at the initial stage. After the use of the insurgents tactics in the gorilla war, the military/security might can only demoralize the insurgents and carry out contend and deterrence activities. It is solved only through political, psychological ways and through dialogue interactions. On top of it, the other root causes are poverty, hunger, unbalanced development, corruption, illiteracy, wanton politics, foreign conspiracy, the mass-density of immigration from the south, year-wise border encroachment, youth brain drain, keeping mum of the realities by the intellectuals and the civic societies, widening gap between the rich and the poor, male's exploitation over females, lack of social unity due to non-existence of improvement in the distinction between the traditional low and high caste. Unless and until social evolution is attained there is always a threat to national security. There will be no unity in efforts unless the brothers and sisters are single-minded.

To conclude, Nepal cannot remain isolated as a poor nation in the global context. Globalization has prevailed in every sector including security matters. In this context, we have to approach the external world for help and cooperation, only after improving our domestic front. It is only a daydream to bring about improvement in other sectors unless the security matters are well maintained. Security is not a contract undertaken by the security force in uniform. The security mechanism can be handled well only with the cooperation of the civic society, mass media, intellectuals, politicians and the government employees. Security organ is only an executive tool. This tool cannot be effective unless it receives support and ignition from all sectors and the society will hold negative attitude towards it. Hence internal peace and security is energy to the society. Everyone should render support. Otherwise, we along with an increase in conflict and conspiracy among our own brothers and sisters will have to wage a war for an indefinite period in which nobody is a winner. The existing conflict between the government and Maoists can come to an end with social improvement measures and political solution devoid of conspiracy. Likewise, security awareness programs should be initiated immediately to strengthen security affairs.

A single group of the involvement of the king, people, government, mass media, army, police, foreign donor agencies and diplomacy for enhancing the civil military relation helps to establish a stable National Security in Nepal.