Abstract:The geopolitical variable alone is not sufficient to understand Nepal’s entry into NAM and its relevance. While very little literature has been produced on Nepal’s non-alignment, what exists is also limited to either speeches or statements delivered by Nepali leaders at the conferences Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Still, while scanning the perspective of Non-Nepali Cold War foreign policy analysts in the literature produced on Himalayan geopolitics, it can be clearly observed that Nepal’s voyage to non-alignment was driven by the Indian response to the bipolarity in Cold War. Such a perspective, however, dismisses the influence that MadhyamaPratipad (the concept of the middle path) had in the evolution of Nepal’s foreign policy priorities as a unified state in 1769. MadhyamaPratipad, here, should be understood as the cultural and civilizational philosophy, which Nepal has accommodated in its world view for centuries. Hence, Nepal’s shift to non-alignment was not abrupt and impulsive. Rather it was triggered by the MadhyamaPratipad, which was also realized by the founder of modern Nepal, Prithivi Narayan Shah. While non-alignment and MadhyamaPratipad differ in their approaches, their objectives remain the same: balancing. While non-alignment demands balancing by not being aligned to any security bloc, MadhyamaPratipad appeals to balancing by treading a middle path. Thus, this qualitative study argues how the historical experience of balancing made it easier for the Himalayan state to adapt to the non-aligned policy and posture. Accordingly, non-alignment to Nepal is not only a survival strategy but also a historical expression of its cultural and civilizational philosophy. Therefore, any attempt to understand Nepal’s foreign policy of non-alignment only from the grand narratives of geopolitics and changing dynamics in the regional and international security environment would not be sufficient to weigh the rationale and relevance of non-alignment for Nepal. Today, India’s perceptible shift to multi-alignment and China’s emphasis on the Xi Jinping Thought have already raised the question of the relevance of non-alignment for Nepal. The answers lie in Nepal’s historical experience of balancing.

India’s Non-Alignment Option in the Cold War Scenario

Central Asia in India's Foreign Policy Strategy

Madhyama Pratipad: Nepal’s Middle Path Ambition through Non-alignment

The Role of China in Influencing Indo-Pak Relations in Contemporary Era

Limits of India–US Relations: Balancing Through Strategic Autonomy and Multi-alignment

Foreign policy strategies of Nepal between China and India: bandwagon or hedging

India’s Foreign Policy toward China (2019 to 2024)

THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT AND PAKISTAN IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Contending Ideas on China's Non-Alliance Strategy

Non Align Foreign Policy Towards Great Powers And Regional Power- Case Study Sri Lanka

Managing Leadership in the Indo-Pacific the United States' South Asia Strategy Revisited

Active Non-alignment and Global Governance

China's Role in the Indo-US Strategic Interest in the Indian Ocean Region

A Study of Sino-Indian Relations after Cold War:An Analytical Framework

Global Nuclear Power System and India's Strategic Option

Assessing India - United States Security Agreements: A Critical Analysis

Active Non-alignment and Global Governance from Latin America to the Global South

India's Indo‐Pacific Strategy: A Pragmatic Balancing between the United States and China

Explaining the Change in India’s Foreign Policies Towards Russia (1947-2013): Constructing the Theory of Potential Ally’s Reliability and External Threat

Taking a side between the United States and the People’s Republic of China: Strategic hedging of South Korea and India

Changes and Features of Indian Diplomacy in the Context of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy