{"id":19746,"date":"2026-07-05T23:09:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-05T17:24:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=19746"},"modified":"2026-07-05T23:09:26","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T17:24:26","slug":"state-approval-for-dalai-lama-birthday-celebration-raises-serious-questions-about-nepals-diplomatic-credibility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=19746","title":{"rendered":"State Approval for Dalai Lama Birthday Celebration Raises Serious Questions About Nepal\u2019s Diplomatic Credibility<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

# Pu Yu Hai<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reports that the Kathmandu District Security Committee formally approved a programme at Namgyal School in Swayambhu to celebrate the Dalai Lama\u2019s birthday cannot be understood merely as an administrative arrangement for an ordinary religious event. If reports that around 30 diplomatic representatives from the United States, Europe and other countries were invited are accurate, the issue extends beyond religious observance and directly concerns Nepal\u2019s foreign policy, diplomatic consistency and institutional credibility.<\/p>\n

Nepal is a multi-religious, multicultural and open society. Individuals naturally have the right to practise their faith peacefully, express reverence for religious figures and organise cultural programmes. International human rights law also protects freedom of religion and peaceful assembly. However, religious freedom does not mean that foreign political interests, exile-based campaigns or sensitive internal matters concerning a friendly country may be transformed into diplomatic spectacles. The state must clearly distinguish between the exercise of legitimate rights and the pursuit of political objectives.<\/p>\n

The Dalai Lama cannot be presented solely as a religious leader. Although he is a revered figure for millions of Buddhists worldwide, he has also long been associated with Tibet-related political structures in exile, international campaigns and strategic narratives directed against China. There is therefore a fundamental distinction between private prayer or cultural ritual and a public ceremony organised with the coordinated participation of foreign diplomatic representatives. The former may represent an exercise of religious freedom. The latter may convey a clear diplomatic message beyond the organisers\u2019 stated purpose.<\/p>\n

For this reason, the presence of foreign ambassadors, charg\u00e9s d\u2019affaires or representatives of diplomatic missions at such an event in Kathmandu cannot be regarded as ordinary guest participation. Diplomats are not present merely as private citizens. Their public appearances, photographs, statements and official identities may be interpreted as political signals from the governments they represent. When diplomats from third countries collectively participate in an event involving an issue that a friendly state regards as connected to its sovereignty and internal affairs, the gathering may naturally be understood as an attempt to internationalise that issue.<\/p>\n

For decades, Nepal has treated the One-China principle as an important foundation of its declared foreign policy. Official policy statements issued by Nepal\u2019s Ministry of Foreign Affairs have repeatedly affirmed the country\u2019s commitment to the One-China principle and its pledge not to allow Nepali territory to be used for activities directed against China. In the 2023 Nepal\u2013China joint statement, Nepal once again affirmed that Tibet-related affairs are China\u2019s internal matter and that it would not permit any separatist activity against China from its territory.<\/p>\n

This commitment is not a temporary statement made by one government, party or prime minister. It is a state policy maintained by Nepal across different political systems, governments and leaderships. A decision taken by a district-level security committee that creates an apparent contradiction with the central government\u2019s stated foreign policy therefore represents a serious institutional weakness.<\/p>\n

The principal responsibilities of a district security committee are public security, law and order, local risk assessment and administrative coordination. It may assess whether a proposed gathering presents an immediate security challenge. However, when an event involves foreign diplomatic representatives, matters related to China\u2019s core interests and Nepal\u2019s long-term foreign policy, clear coordination among the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Office of the Prime Minister is essential.<\/p>\n

If district authorities begin making decisions that produce foreign-policy consequences under the label of security approval, Nepal\u2019s diplomacy risks becoming event-driven, fragmented and administratively inconsistent rather than institutional.<\/p>\n

For small and geopolitically sensitive states, policy consistency is no less important than military or economic strength. For a country such as Nepal, situated between two major neighbours, the most important assurance it can offer friendly states is consistency between declared policy and practical conduct.<\/p>\n

A pattern in which Kathmandu states one position, makes another commitment in a joint declaration and then permits local administrative decisions that appear to carry a different meaning would not strengthen Nepal\u2019s diplomatic independence. It would instead make the country appear inconsistent and difficult to predict as a partner.<\/p>\n

It would be a mistake to view this issue only through the narrow question of whether Nepal should please China. The central issue is Nepal\u2019s own credibility as a state. When Nepal signs onto a policy, formally reiterates it and presents it internationally as its position, implementing that policy becomes Nepal\u2019s own responsibility.<\/p>\n

Respecting the sensitivities of a neighbouring country is not an act of surrender. Likewise, preventing a third party from using Nepali territory to generate symbolic pressure against another neighbour is an exercise of national sovereignty.<\/p>\n

Some may attempt to frame the issue as a confrontation between religious freedom and authoritarian control. Such a presentation is incomplete. A total prohibition on peaceful religious observance may not be consistent with international human rights standards. Yet treating an event involving political messaging, foreign diplomatic participation and coordinated international publicity as merely a religious activity, without careful examination, would also represent an abdication of state responsibility.<\/p>\n

The proper policy is neither total prohibition nor unrestricted permission. It is to create transparent, lawful and uniform rules that protect religious and cultural practices while preventing such programmes from being converted into political campaigns.<\/p>\n

Authorities could have imposed clear conditions that no separatist slogans, political flags, statements by exile-based political organisations, activities questioning China\u2019s sovereignty or political sponsorship by foreign missions would be permitted. Prior coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could also have been made mandatory for the participation of foreign diplomatic representatives.<\/p>\n

If the event is genuinely religious, remaining within religious boundaries should not create difficulty for the organisers. However, when political statements, diplomatic displays of influence or international campaigns are advanced under the label of a religious programme, the state should not treat the gathering as an ordinary act of worship. State tolerance must not become permission for political ambiguity.<\/p>\n

Foreign diplomatic missions also have a responsibility to respect the foreign policy and sensitivities of the host country. The role of an ambassador is to strengthen relations, not to participate in symbolic activities that risk drawing the host country into controversy with a friendly state.<\/p>\n

Even when a diplomat claims to be attending out of personal religious respect, it is difficult to separate that individual\u2019s official position, public identity and representation of a diplomatic mission. Clear diplomatic restraint and procedural discipline are therefore necessary.<\/p>\n

The issue becomes more sensitive because exile-based Tibetan organisations are active in India and Dharamshala has long served as a centre for international activities concerning Tibet. Nepal must not become an extension of the Tibet policies of India, China, the United States or European powers.<\/p>\n

An independent foreign policy requires Nepal to prevent its territory from becoming a testing ground for strategic competition, influence operations or the construction of political symbolism by any external power.<\/p>\n

At the same time, it would not be prudent to present United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 as the direct legal basis for managing such an event. The principal purpose of that resolution was to restore the lawful representation of the People\u2019s Republic of China at the United Nations.<\/p>\n

It does not directly determine how a religious programme in Kathmandu should be administered. Nepal\u2019s stronger foundation lies not in an exaggerated interpretation of that resolution, but in its own publicly declared One-China policy, bilateral joint statements and formal commitment not to allow its territory to be used for separatist activities.<\/p>\n

The government should review the decision of the District Security Committee. It should publicly clarify whether the programme was restricted entirely to religious and cultural observance, what form foreign diplomatic participation was expected to take, whether any political statement or campaign was attached to it, and whether the responsibilities of the organising institution were clearly defined.<\/p>\n

Allowing the event to proceed under continuing ambiguity would not resolve the issue. It could establish an administrative precedent for similar programmes in the future.<\/p>\n

A precedent created today in the name of a birthday celebration could tomorrow be invoked for events associated with another country\u2019s separatist movement, an exile-based political group or a disputed territory.<\/p>\n

Any standard Nepal creates for one case must be applicable to others. Foreign policy is not an emotional response that changes from one incident to the next. It is an institutional practice grounded in sovereignty, law, national interest and long-term credibility.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2013China relations are not limited to trade, infrastructure or official visits. They are founded on mutual respect for sovereignty, border stability, security confidence and recognition of each other\u2019s core concerns.<\/p>\n

If Nepal\u2019s commitments to China appear weak in practice, the effect will not remain confined to a single ceremony. It could generate unnecessary doubts regarding political trust, administrative coordination and long-term partnership.<\/p>\n

A democratic and responsible state must respect religious faith while preventing its political instrumentalisation. Yet the decision attributed to the Kathmandu District Security Committee does not appear to have established a sufficiently clear boundary between religious freedom and foreign policy. It therefore cannot simply be dismissed as an ordinary administrative approval.<\/p>\n

Nepal must not allow its foreign policy to be shaped by sudden decisions at the local administrative level, pressure from foreign diplomatic actors or temporary debates on social media.<\/p>\n

If commitment to the One-China principle is more than a phrase repeated in joint statements, its meaning must be reflected in practical conduct. Diplomatic independence does not mean ambiguity. It requires clear policy, equal standards, institutional discipline and the determination not to allow national territory to be used for the strategic objectives of others.<\/p>\n

Photo: Created.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t