A research activist remarked that inspite of all the chaos and imperfections of Nepal, its sovereign status and ownership is what gives it a refreshing lease of life; especially for struggling people yearning for sovereignty. Indeed, this insight rings true and the spirit of the sovereign-feel-good factor is evidently echoed through the streets of Nepal. Yet, it is also fair to say that despite its sovereign status, there is a stifling aura of suffocation at not being able to collectively manifest and express its maximum potential and the richness of its life.
This viewpoint assumed some merit when an editor of a Kathmandu weekly publication sometime ago remarked: Nepal in the context of the broader South-Asian context was not an independent state. He went on to say that ‘Nepal is sovereign, but not independent.’ The cause of such a perception perhaps has been construed through generations of overwhelming historical experiences, geo-political realities and external conditions which obstruct its inherent right to determine the course of its own destiny.
It does make one wonder what it means to be sovereign, but not independent. Surely to have the status and yet still be unable to exercise all that comes along with it must be a frustrating place to be in; and with time it tears away the self-confidence and self-worth of a people. This dilemma is indeed heart wrenching and it provides critical learning for struggling nations seeking sovereignty. It does imply that a sovereign status by itself is not sufficient nor is it the end. In fact, more than the status, it demands that a people should be in a position to exercise the right endowed to a sovereign entity.
The extent to which a people exercise its sovereign rights is dependent on how it is able to negotiate relations with other sovereign entities while maintaining ownership of its rights. With the fast increasing homogenizing nature of globalism and world politics, it has become extremely challenging for countries and nations in the ‘south’ to fiercely maintain its independence. Consequently, the counter measure has been to make a focal shift away from sovereign status to practical real politik, which focuses on the degree to which a political community is able to exercise its sovereign rights.
The onus is central for the vibrant and sustainable existence of movements; otherwise it will result in too many sovereign people being sovereign without actually being independent. It is therefore essential that any negotiation process must center itself on negotiating ownership with the ability to exercise its right without any external hindrance. Such negotiating processes will have to be issue-based and must cover a wide range of issues such as territory, natural resources, self-governance, security, foreign affairs, international recognition, economic, constitution and law, and so on. At the end, it is not only important to be sovereign, but equally importantly to be independent.
This viewpoint assumed some merit when an editor of a Kathmandu weekly publication sometime ago remarked: Nepal in the context of the broader South-Asian context was not an independent state. He went on to say that ‘Nepal is sovereign, but not independent.’ The cause of such a perception perhaps has been construed through generations of overwhelming historical experiences, geo-political realities and external conditions which obstruct its inherent right to determine the course of its own destiny.
It does make one wonder what it means to be sovereign, but not independent. Surely to have the status and yet still be unable to exercise all that comes along with it must be a frustrating place to be in; and with time it tears away the self-confidence and self-worth of a people. This dilemma is indeed heart wrenching and it provides critical learning for struggling nations seeking sovereignty. It does imply that a sovereign status by itself is not sufficient nor is it the end. In fact, more than the status, it demands that a people should be in a position to exercise the right endowed to a sovereign entity.
The extent to which a people exercise its sovereign rights is dependent on how it is able to negotiate relations with other sovereign entities while maintaining ownership of its rights. With the fast increasing homogenizing nature of globalism and world politics, it has become extremely challenging for countries and nations in the ‘south’ to fiercely maintain its independence. Consequently, the counter measure has been to make a focal shift away from sovereign status to practical real politik, which focuses on the degree to which a political community is able to exercise its sovereign rights.
The onus is central for the vibrant and sustainable existence of movements; otherwise it will result in too many sovereign people being sovereign without actually being independent. It is therefore essential that any negotiation process must center itself on negotiating ownership with the ability to exercise its right without any external hindrance. Such negotiating processes will have to be issue-based and must cover a wide range of issues such as territory, natural resources, self-governance, security, foreign affairs, international recognition, economic, constitution and law, and so on. At the end, it is not only important to be sovereign, but equally importantly to be independent.
