A National Flag Must Never Be an Afterthought in Diplomacy

Editorial

The high-level meeting in New Delhi between Nepal’s Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle and Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman addressed matters of considerable importance, including economic cooperation, post-disaster reconstruction, trade, investment and connectivity. Yet the publicly circulated images from the meeting have raised an uncomfortable question of diplomatic protocol and national dignity. India’s national flag was clearly visible on the Indian side, while Nepal’s national flag was not visible beside the Nepali minister. In a formal engagement between two sovereign states, such an image deserves an explanation rather than being dismissed as a minor matter of decoration.

A national flag is not merely a piece of fabric placed in a conference room. It represents sovereignty, independence, national identity and equality between states. However close Nepal–India relations may be, an official bilateral meeting takes place between two sovereign countries. The central issue, therefore, should not be turned into an anti-India narrative. The more important question concerns Nepal’s own diplomatic preparedness and the seriousness with which its institutions safeguard the country’s symbols and protocol.

This brings the role of the Embassy of Nepal in New Delhi and the officials accompanying the delegation directly into question. Who inspected the meeting venue beforehand? Who was responsible for coordinating seating arrangements, flags, nameplates and other protocol requirements with the Indian hosts? If Nepal’s flag had not been arranged, why was the matter not raised before the ministers entered the room? If necessary, why could the embassy not ensure that an appropriate Nepali flag was available? These are legitimate institutional questions, not accusations, and the responsible authorities should provide factual answers.

Diplomacy does not begin when ministers sit across the table. For high-level engagements, advance coordination and protocol preparation are basic responsibilities of diplomatic missions and designated officials. A minister should be concentrating on negotiations and national interests, not checking whether the national flag, nameplate or seating arrangement is correct. Nepal maintains embassies, diplomatic officers and protocol mechanisms precisely to handle such matters. If an advance inspection took place, it is reasonable to ask how the apparent discrepancy escaped attention. If no inspection took place, the question is why such a basic precaution was omitted.

The composition of the delegation raises a separate issue. The publicly reported list of Nepali officials did not indicate female representation, while women were visibly represented on the Indian side. There is no diplomatic rule requiring every bilateral delegation to maintain a particular gender ratio, and the matter should therefore not be misrepresented as a protocol violation. Nevertheless, Nepal has made inclusion and participation important principles of its state institutions. High-level delegations provide an opportunity to examine whether those principles are being meaningfully reflected in institutional representation.

The lesson extends far beyond India. Whether a Nepali minister travels to India, China, the United States, Russia or any other country, Nepal’s standard for protecting its diplomatic dignity should remain the same. Friendship between states is strengthened by mutual respect and sovereign equality. The relative size of a country’s territory, economy or population does not diminish its sovereign status, nor should it determine the attention paid to its national symbols.

The government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should therefore treat episodes of this kind as an opportunity for institutional correction. Before every high-level overseas engagement, the responsible embassy and protocol officials should verify the venue, national symbols, seating arrangements, nameplates and other elements carrying diplomatic significance. Any discrepancy should be addressed with the host before the meeting begins. In this particular case, the authorities should also establish what actually happened and where, if anywhere, the coordination failed.

National dignity is not protected by rhetoric alone. It is protected through disciplined preparation, professional diplomacy and consistent attention to detail. Nepal should conduct its foreign relations with confidence, courtesy and equality. In any future high-level bilateral meeting, there should be no reason for Nepalis looking at the official photographs to have to search for their national flag.