Introduction
The relations between South Asian countries are laden with historical complexities and shifting strategic concerns. India’s Agnipath scheme is a drastic change in military recruitment policy on the domestic and international levels. In this article, we will analyse the effects of the Agnipath scheme on Indo-Nepal relations, discuss the change in Nepal’s inclination towards China, and also consider the future implications and way ahead for India.
Indo-Nepal Relations and the Agnipath Scheme
India and Nepal share complex and diverse relations based on cultural and historical ties, and geographical connectivity. One of the main components of this relationship has been the Nepali Gurkhas serving in the Indian Army. This practice officially started in 1947, after the conclusion of the tripartite treaty between India, Nepal, and the United Kingdom. This arrangement has helped bring about 1,400 Nepali citizens to join the Indian Army annually, which translates into a better standard of living through socio-economic benefits for many Nepali families, especially in the hill districts (BBC News, 2023).
It must be noted that the Indian Government has recently changed this traditional recruitment policy with the launch of India’s Agnipath scheme. Beginning from June 2022, the scheme is a dramatic shift in military recruiting policies as it embraces a short-term contract-based system. In Agnipath, youths aged 17.5 to 21 years are on four-year fixed tenure contracts, with only the top 25 percent being taken back for permanent employment (Observer Research Foundation, 2024). The model differs from the previous longer service terms that offered Gurkha families extended financial security. The Agnipath scheme has stirred fear in Nepal because of its social and economic consequences. The cause of diplomatic tension is that the policy change was carried out suddenly, and without any consultation with Nepali authorities (Bhattarai & Aryal, 2024). The Nepali foreign minister and political leaders have raised their voices about the matter, wherever the policy has been implemented, and have demanded a reconsideration of the recruitment policy (Poudel, 2022). The contractual period of service under the Agnipath model disrupts the economic sustainability and security of the Gurkha families. Hence, there are protests against it, demanding exemption (Observer Research Foundation, 2024). Said policy change poses a challenge to the favorable relations that had prevailed in the past between the two nations and has implications that transcend simple relations between the two nations.
India must engage in a diplomatic discussion with Nepal and seek other compromises that would meet the intents of the original shareholders of the tripartite agreement. By revisiting historical agreements and considering the socio-economic welfare of Nepali recruits, India can potentially mitigate tensions and preserve the strength of its relationship with Nepal, ensuring that mutual trust and cooperation are maintained in the long run.
Nepal’s Alignment Towards China
The changes in Nepal’s geopolitical orientation to China can be attributed to several political, economic, and historical imperatives, and thus, it is worth depicting a new balance of power. Nepal has historically been divided between two Asian giants, India and China, due to its geographical location and position, which also greatly determined Nepalese foreign policy. However, this balance has undergone significant readjustment recently, as Nepal shifts towards Beijing. One of the reasons why China has become involved with Nepal is that Nepal has synchronised with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s flagship foreign economic diplomacy, given extensive infrastructure and developmental projects. It is not only financial in its purpose, but is also a tool of soft power that reinforces Chinese penetration into Nepal and, effectively, Southern Asia (Asia Society, 2024). This movement is in sync with China’s strategic goals, including territorial integrity and increasing international influence, especially in the areas near Tibet, which, politically and culturally, is a sore point for Beijing. Besides, China has strategic interests in Nepal in consideration of reforms that threaten the ‘communist party authoritarianism’ rather than India or Western powers. These dynamics are further conditioned by the historical interaction between India and Nepal on issues such as hosting the Tibetan Government-in-Exile and patronage of the Dalai Lama, which Beijing perceives as adverse (Asia Society, 2024). China has been particularly vocal in checking India’s dominance in Nepal through diplomatic trips, friendly relations, and investment. As the closeness between Nepal and China continues to develop, it may present diverse problems for India, as we have enjoyed cultural, economic, and defense ties with Nepal for years. The raw material of a China Navy base, military, or intelligence infrastructure close to Indian borders is an implied threat that defines the strategic significance for New Delhi. Meanwhile, Nepal’s pursuit of diversifying its alliances reflects an attempt to safeguard its sovereignty by balancing the power dynamics, and hints at aspirations for leveraging economic growth through diversified foreign investments. Nepal’s growing alignment with China also highlights its strategic efforts to reduce dependency on India, promoting balanced foreign partnerships and autonomy.
Way Forward for India
To overcome the issues caused by the ‘Agnipath’ scheme and Nepal’s tilt towards China, India needs a strategic approach that is consolidated and cohesive. At the core of this engagement strategy is strengthening diplomatic relations with Nepal, which is best underpinned by open and cooperative negotiation. Encouraging dialogue on future outcomes may aid the search of a solution regarding the Nepali recruits’ issue with the Agnipath scheme, which can prevent the escalation of tensions and protect the interests at stake. Creating a bilateral committee to reconsider and monitor transitional policies can strengthen confidence while guaranteeing each nation’s concerns. Furthermore, India must develop bilateral and trilateral ties with Nepal and prominent partners like the USA to improve its strategic relationships. These partnerships could offset China’s perceived dominance and foster more friendly diplomacies, especially in infrastructure and economic upgrading (Asia Society, 2024). Such collaborations would also provide options for China-led development propositions, strengthening the Nepalese development framework while preserving balance in the region. Furthermore, India needs to provide socio-economic support to Nepali recruits turned Gurkhali through practical vocation, education, and employability programs. Through these measures, India can offset the social and economic impacts of the short-term model of the Agnipath scheme to create goodwill and maintain cultural relationships. Measures to enhance cooperation in the security sphere can complement the development of trust between partner countries in view of their regional threats, including insurgent forces and trafficking. Through a balanced amalgamation of diplomatic, strategic, and socio-economic initiatives, India can effectively navigate the complexities of its relationship with Nepal while addressing regional geopolitical challenges.
Conclusion
India has to strategically deal with the consequences of the Agnipath scheme and Nepal’s realignment of relationships. Appreciating the linkage and its strategic relevance in the past and present, India needs to come forward and employ active diplomacy, build social and economic aid, and strengthen partnership to maintain a healthy relationship between the two countries. If these actions are balanced, they will strengthen India in addressing the complex realities of South Asia and promote sustainable peace and development for all.
