Taking on new challenges is a time-consuming and never-ending process. National willpower is required for this cause. Nepal has various obstacles, the most significant of which being the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) reached in November 2006 between the government and the then-Maoists. So stated because it was most likely the first pact of its kind in the world, signed more with peace partners than conflict parties, with absolute contempt for the opposite side of the conflict. According to records and procedures around the world, no agreement is signed between peace partners. One reason why the peace pact remains a challenge is that it was agreed without regard for international norms and standards. Understandably, the warring parties of the time included His Majesty’s Government (HMG), the Police, the Army, and the National Investigation Bureau versus the eight political groups, including the Maoist. The GirijaKoirala-led administration signed the CPA with the Maoist party. However, Girija Prasad Koirala, Gopal Man Shrestha, Madhav Kumar Nepal, AmikSherchan, Bharat BimalYadev, Krishna Das Shrestha, PremSuwal, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ as representatives of their respective parties who signed the “12 points agreements” in Delhi, India on November 5, 2005 as a united front against then HMG has violated the very principle of the peace accord. If, however, the government’s discussion with the HMG, including the King, could be brought to a logical conclusion, factors like as the newly resurgent monarchy, secularism, federalism, and the incorporation of Maoist combatants into the Nepal Army would have been peacefully settled by now. Perhaps the peace settlement parties rejoiced in making peace with the partners already at peace rather than seriously considering the likely problems therein. This is one of the reasons for the continuance of difficulties.
The tactical paradigm must shift.
Nepalese security agencies must reconsider their tactical and logistical cultures in order to fight military difficulties. Suggestions are offered in the form of bullet points below.
“Conventional warfare is the use of conventional – traditional – means to fight war. On the battlefield, the two sides use weapons against each other, which normally do not include biological, chemical, or nuclear substances. In other words, when our security troops: army, Nepal armed police, and Nepal police are in the barracks, they should be severely indoctrinated from the start about our cultures, history, nationality, and Dharma as planned under unified leadership. In reality, based on our recent (before a decade and a half) experience, we can conclude that the Maoists we were battling were brainwashed to the point of brainwashing about Mao, Marxism, and so on, leading their army to fight strongly for a cause. As a result, an indoctrinated cohesive force will be tremendously effective in fighting for a cause that Nepal currently lacks. Learning from our adversary or opponent, as the former Maoists had Political Commissars at every level for indoctrination; Nepal may also require such elements and course materials to do the same.
“Unconventional Warfare: Unconventional warfare, on the other hand, employs unconventional weaponry, targets both civilians and armed troops, and employs unconventional tactics. In other words, our military threats come from both the south and the north, and they are armed with enormous conventional troops. Learning from history, such as the Vietnam War, the 2006 Israel – Hezbollah 34-day war, and the ongoing war in Yemen between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia and its coalition, Afghani Guerilla warfare against the US army 2001-21, it has been demonstrated that an unconventional weaker force can also strike a ‘Deadly Blow’ to a much larger, modern, conventional army if they are managed with adequate weapons and munitions.
Improving Intelligence Capability
Napoleon once observed, “One good insight is worth a thousand bayonets.” In this sense, considering the country’s current catastrophic condition, we don’t need to search outside for opponents because there are many of them within. They are in politics, bureaucracy, the security apparatus, colleges, NGOs, INGOs, and everywhere else. In my judgement, the security forces, especially the army, are experiencing ‘Policy Paralysis’ in identifying and exposing such anti-nationals. As a result, powerful intelligence and counterintelligence organisations are required. It is important to emphasise that one should not have high hopes for the current Nepal Police, National Investigation Department (NID), or Armed Police, as Nepalese are well aware of how politicians have turned these agencies into rotten apples. The senior brass is to fault, not the security agencies. All four institutions were extremely effective, efficient, and patriotic. The government, lawmakers, and top security officials have made the institutions contaminated, ineffectual, and unpopular. However, due to its history, the Nepalese Army (NA) has gained popularity among Nepalese. Instead of singing as “Order of Constitutional Government,” NA should give an eye to its culture, history, and customary values in order to defend Nepalese sovereignty with the Unified Command concept, even for the ordinary initiative.
In this regard, we strongly believe that it is up to the Nepal Army to covertly rebuild, even if that means restructuring the current formation, a strong intelligence and counterintelligence entity to look into not just human intelligence but cyber, electronic intelligence, and beyond to act against not only foreign but internal anti-nationals and expose them to the general public. This could assist the military in addressing its “Policy Paralysis” in dealing with contemporary concerns.
On the other hand, in order to modernise our military, we have primarily sought aid from India, the United States, China, or the United Kingdom over the years. This is when I come into the dilemma. These are the very forces that are threatening our culture, history, Dharma, customary value, and national integrity now. As a result, it has become critical to investigate alternatives to meet our current security concerns. People, culture, history, Dharma, customary value, and national integrity comprise security, not only guns, bullets, tactics, and uniforms.
The most important criteria for strengthening security organisations are logistical assistance and resources. It is entirely conceivable to have three alternates in this sense. For starters, Iran has effectively turned the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon into “Deadly Forces” that have proven to be “Unconventional in Nature” yet devastating in their ability to achieve one’s goals. However, because Iran is a Muslim country, and because we Hindus and Muslims see non-Muslims as “KAFIRS,” this union may not materialise. Furthermore, Iran does not yet have the power in the international arena to help us if the day comes when we need a lot of push and shove. Furthermore, because to their separate interests, the United States and India would oppose it.
The second country would be Israel. However, it believes that Nepal needs a three-tier diplomatic relationship: 1) with its neighbours, 2) with whom we can be militarily comfortable and who can also assist economically without interfering with our internal affairs. 3) with the remainder of the distant countries, i.e. the west In this sense, China may be dissatisfied with our tight ties with Israel (US), and India may exert influence over Israel, jeopardising our national security.
The third reason is that I have concluded that Russia may be the safest bet for increasing our military ties. Russia has taken the lead in establishing a multipolar world, as opposed to the unipolar world dominated by the West. Furthermore, Russia has long been an ally of India, and it is currently forming a strategic relationship with China. Taking this into consideration, both China and India may not object to our military outreach to Russia. Furthermore, this may dissuade India from intervening in our internal matters because it may harm India’s reputation in the “Russian Eye.”
At the conclusion
It is apparent that the army used the Royal Palace as a barrier until 2006. However, there is no entity now to speak on behalf of the institution. Political parties have their own organisations to present their views and defend their survival, even if it means arm twisting, as we have seen in recent days. Today’s Nepalese army veterans are a fractured group. In comparison to even SAARC countries, this is awful. However, if they could unify for a common purpose, from the Himalayas to the Terai, they could become a strong force to challenge antinational narratives, as well as a voice for the Nepalese army, Nepal Police, Nepal Armed Police, and Nepal Investigation Department. NA’s sibling groups are Polices and NID, and it is nearly difficult to be effective without their support for the national cause. Finally, this is a word of storytelling. Currently, the narratives of anti-nationals have the upper hand in Nepal. The NA should establish a distinct wing to develop a nationalist narrative and demolish it through all types of media, including social media, to the general people and the international community.