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.

Active Non-alignment and Global Governance

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

Active Non-Alignment, the Sovereignty Paradox and the Russia-Ukraine War

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

Latin American Involvement in the 21st Century Geoeconomic Turn: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Latinoamérica: No Alineamiento Y La Segunda Guerra Fría

Neo-colonialism or De-colonialism? Chinas Economic Engagement in Africa and the Implications for World Order

The Asian-African Conference (Bandung) and Pan-Africanism: the challenge of reconciling continental solidarity with national sovereignty

Three Concepts of Internationalism in the Global South: Solidarism, Pluralism, and Developmentalism

Hard to Be Left: Foreign Policy Strategies of the New “Pink Tide” Governments in Latin America

The “Global South” and China

Brazilian Foreign Policy Discourses and the Quest for Ontological Security

Nigeria’s ‘Border Diplomacy’: Rhetoric or Substance for Regional Hegemonic Leadership?

The United States in a world of rising regional powers: farewell Lilliput, hello Shanghai

How Africa and China may shape UN peacekeeping beyond the liberal international order

The involvement of non-state actors in international relations: pros and cons for development processes in countries of the global south

China, Global Governance and the Future of Cuba

An Analysis on the New Changes of the Current Latin American Integration Process and Its Influence on the Relationship between China and Latin America

¿Nuevo imperio, viejo patio trasero? Los Estados Unidos, América Latina y la guerra en Irak

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

Balancing Against or Balancing With? The Spectrum of Alignment and the Endurance of American Hegemony