{"id":21385,"date":"2026-08-02T07:46:11","date_gmt":"2026-08-02T02:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=21385"},"modified":"2026-08-02T07:47:49","modified_gmt":"2026-08-02T02:02:49","slug":"a-strategic-partnership-for-peace-himalayan-civilizational-familial-relations-and-a-shared-nepal-china-future","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=21385","title":{"rendered":"From Nanchang to Kankrebihar<\/strong><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

# Prem Sagar Poudel<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conceptual Note<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The term \u201cHimalayan civilizational\u2013familial relations,\u201d as used in this essay, refers to the integrated historical structure of royal, marital, political, religious, cultural, artistic, intellectual and commercial relations between Nepal and China that predates the establishment of modern diplomatic relations by centuries.<\/p>\n

This concept does not view the Himalayas merely as a fixed frontier separating two civilizations or as a rigid geographical constraint. Rather, it interprets the mountain region as a historical bridge connecting families, systems of governance, politics, knowledge, religion, art, trade and everyday human life.<\/p>\n

Two Anniversaries, One Historical Thread<\/strong><\/h3>\n

August 1, 2026, brings two significant historical journeys onto a common analytical plane. The Chinese People\u2019s Liberation Army, born from the Nanchang Uprising of 1927, has completed 99 years since its founding. On the same day, Nepal and the People\u2019s Republic of China mark the 71st anniversary of the establishment of formal diplomatic relations.<\/p>\n

The origins, character and institutional roles of these two journeys are distinct. The history of the People\u2019s Liberation Army is associated with national liberation, political unification, the defence of sovereignty and the development of modern national defence capabilities. The modern history of Nepal\u2013China relations is rooted in a strategic partnership based on peaceful coexistence, sovereign equality, non-interference and mutual respect.<\/p>\n

Yet the shared political thread connecting these two histories is clear: the defence of national independence, the security of the people, peaceful development and a long-term responsibility toward the future.<\/p>\n

This historical convergence reveals an important truth. Peace and power are not mutually contradictory concepts. Power guided by responsible political leadership, legitimate national objectives and the interests of the people can become the foundation of credible peace.<\/p>\n

Power for Peace and the Foundations of Strategic Partnership<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The 99-year history of the Chinese People\u2019s Liberation Army cannot be adequately understood merely through an inventory of missiles, aircraft carriers, unmanned systems, cyber capabilities or modern military technologies. Its deeper historical significance lies in the institutional protection it provides for China\u2019s national unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and development achievements.<\/p>\n

No country\u2019s economic and social development can be separated from its external security environment. A credible defence capability is essential for the stability of industry, infrastructure, science, technology, trade and civilian life. Yet credible defence and expansionist militarism are not the same.<\/p>\n

Credible defence enables a nation to determine its political system, development path and foreign policy independently. Expansionist militarism weakens the sovereignty and political autonomy of other countries. The distinction between the two lies not in the size of military power, but in the political objectives that guide its use.<\/p>\n

China has consistently described its national defence policy as defensive in nature. The centenary goal of the People\u2019s Liberation Army, to be achieved in 2027, should not be understood merely as a programme of weapons expansion. It is a broad national project aimed at advancing Chinese modernization, strengthening scientific and technological self-reliance, preserving national unity, safeguarding development achievements and reinforcing strategic autonomy in the face of external pressure.<\/p>\n

Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, China\u2019s defence modernization has emphasized technology, information systems, joint operations, defensive surveillance, security patrols and comprehensive national security capabilities. In this process, the armed forces are not simply an institution prepared for war. They are also a structure that contributes to national stability, disaster response, humanitarian assistance, United Nations peacekeeping and the maintenance of a secure environment for development.<\/p>\n

A powerful military is not a celebration of war. Under a responsible national policy, it can deter aggression, prevent conflict and provide credible security for peaceful development.<\/p>\n

The international order is undergoing a profound transition. The expansion of military alliances, unilateral sanctions, restrictions on technology, maritime disputes, the Ukraine crisis, instability in West Asia and a new arms race have made the relationship between security and development increasingly complex.<\/p>\n

In this context, the central question regarding China\u2019s military modernization is not simply how powerful China will become. The more important question is which principles, political objectives and forms of international conduct will guide that power.<\/p>\n

National power can serve as a guardian of peace when it is used for the security of the people, the continuity of development, sovereign decision-making and shared security. It produces insecurity only when it is used for domination, encirclement, intervention or the political control of another nation.<\/p>\n

A Familial and Political History Older Than Diplomacy<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Nepal\u2013China relations must be understood within this broader theoretical framework. This is not merely a formal diplomatic relationship between a large country and a smaller one. It is a multilayered structure shaped by history, geography, political respect, cultural exchange and human interaction across the Himalayas.<\/p>\n

Relations between Nepal and China were not created on August 1, 1955. That date gave the formal structure of modern nation-state diplomacy to civilizational, religious, commercial, political and familial relations that had evolved over centuries.<\/p>\n

Before the establishment of modern political boundaries, the Himalayas were neither a fixed frontier nor a rigid geographical barrier. They formed an extensive civilizational space linking highlands and valleys, royal courts and religious centres, trade routes and pilgrimage sites, and diverse human communities.<\/p>\n

To understand the Khasa Empire of western Nepal merely as a medieval kingdom confined to the territory of present-day Nepal would be to diminish its true historical influence. Khasa power was not restricted to the southern side of the Himalayas. Its political, commercial, cultural and religious relations extended across the mountains to western Xizang, Kumaon, Garhwal and the trading and religious centres of the highlands.<\/p>\n

Vasudha Pande\u2019s study, \u201cBorders in the Age of Empire and Nation-States: The Honeycomb of Borderlands: Kumaun, Western Tibet and Far Western Nepal,\u201d examines western Nepal, Kumaon and western Xizang as historically interconnected Himalayan regions. Published on pages 44\u201379 of South Asian Borderlands, edited by Farhana Ibrahim and Tanuja Kothiyal and published by Cambridge University Press in 2021, the study helps explain how societies across the Himalayas were linked through complex networks of trade, taxation, local governance, religious practice and human mobility before the emergence of modern nation-states.<\/p>\n

It is within this broader historical context that the familial and political relationship between the Khasa royal family and the Tibetan royal family in what is now the Xizang region should be examined.<\/p>\n

The Significance of the Dullu and Sinja Inscriptions<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Through her study of inscriptions, linguistic evidence and Khasa\u2013Malla history in Dullu of Dailekh and Sinja of Jumla, Dr Subhadra Subba Dahal has provided an important foundation for understanding the political and cultural connections between western Nepal and the trans-Himalayan world.<\/p>\n

The Dullu inscription of 1354 records the genealogy of the Khasa\u2013Malla kings. Within the epigraphic tradition studied by Dr Dahal, some inscriptions begin with the Buddhist mantra \u201cOm Mani Padme Hum,\u201d written in Tibetan script, before continuing in Sanskrit and the Sinjali language.<\/p>\n

The presence of Tibetan script, a Buddhist mantra, Sanskrit and Sinjali within a single epigraphic tradition clearly indicates the multilingual, multicultural and trans-Himalayan character of the Khasa state. This is not merely evidence of linguistic diversity. It also reflects the political structure, religious influences, human contacts and north\u2013south civilizational relations of that period.<\/p>\n

It would not be academically appropriate to claim that Dr Dahal\u2019s study directly records every detail of the events of 1295 and 1305. Her epigraphic research, however, provides an essential basis for understanding the Khasa Empire\u2019s genealogy, linguistic character and trans-Himalayan connections. This historical framework can be combined with other genealogies, local traditions and previously published studies to re-examine the relationship between the Khasa and Tibetan royal families.<\/p>\n

1295: From Familial Relations to Political Responsibility<\/strong><\/h3>\n

According to my previously published historical study, the elder of the Khasa king\u2019s two daughters was married to the brother of a Tibetan king in Xizang.<\/p>\n

This was not merely a ceremonial marriage between two royal families. It created a structure of trust, succession, governance and familial partnership between two political traditions on opposite sides of the Himalayas.<\/p>\n

Historical accounts indicate that in 1295, because the Khasa king had no son, he entrusted the responsibility of administering the kingdom to his eldest daughter and his son-in-law from the Tibetan royal family.<\/p>\n

Medieval world politics contains numerous examples of marriages used to establish friendly relations. Royal marriages were frequently employed to prevent war, secure territorial understandings or create temporary alliances. Yet it is exceedingly rare to find an example in which a daughter and son-in-law were also entrusted with the actual responsibility of governance, thereby integrating two Himalayan royal families within a single political structure.<\/p>\n

This demonstrates that the historical relationship between Nepal and China was not confined to trade, religious pilgrimage or cultural exchange. It developed from familial trust into political responsibility and the administration of the state.<\/p>\n

The creation of a system in which members of an extended royal family jointly assumed responsibility for governance represents a distinctive example in the history of Nepal\u2013China relations and, indeed, in world history.<\/p>\n

Marriage connected two royal families. The responsibility of governance connected two political traditions. The enduring memory of that relationship gave rise to a civilizational monument such as Kankrebihar.<\/p>\n

1305: A Monument to Familial and Political Relations<\/strong><\/h3>\n

According to the historical account presented in my previously published study, Kankrebihar was constructed in Surkhet in 1305 to give enduring physical expression to that familial and political relationship. It was later destroyed by a major earthquake, and its ruins have remained preserved. Several years ago, the vihara was reconstructed on the basis of available studies and architectural reconstruction.<\/p>\n

The research, however, remains incomplete because some components of the vihara were taken without authorization to various countries under the pretext of study and research.<\/p>\n

From this perspective, Kankrebihar is not merely a religious site, an artistic structure or an archaeological heritage complex. It is a material monument to the marital, political and familial relationship established between the Khasa and Tibetan royal families.<\/p>\n

There are differing views regarding the builder of Kankrebihar, its original date of construction and the political events associated with it. The date of 1305 and the account of its royal connection therefore require further comparative study using the inscriptions of Dullu and Sinja, local genealogies, Tibetan records and archaeological evidence.<\/p>\n

The Buddhist\u2013Hindu Artistic Synthesis of Kankrebihar<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The coexistence of Buddhist and Hindu artistic elements at Kankrebihar should not be presented merely as a general claim. Its physical expression is visible in sculptures, symbols and carved narrative scenes.<\/p>\n

Artistic remains discovered at Kankrebihar include scenes associated with the life of the Buddha, images of the Buddha, lotus motifs and figures associated with Buddhist traditions, including Tara and Jambhala. The same complex has also yielded images and symbols of deities prominently worshipped within Hindu traditions, including Saraswati, Ganesh and Vishnu.<\/p>\n

The presence of Tara and Jambhala is associated with Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist traditions. Narrative scenes carved in stone depicting episodes from the life of the Buddha reinforce the Buddhist religious foundations of Kankrebihar. At the same time, figures of Ganesh, Vishnu and Saraswati demonstrate the influence and acceptance of Hindu traditions within the artistic environment of the period.<\/p>\n

Because deities such as Saraswati are worshipped in both Hindu and Buddhist traditions, it would also be inadequate to divide the art of Kankrebihar into two rigid religious categories. Its sculptures reflect dialogue, mutual influence and a shared Himalayan artistic language across religious traditions.<\/p>\n

The Buddhist\u2013Hindu synthesis at Kankrebihar is therefore not simply a matter of two categories of images being placed at a single site. It represents a civilizational process in which religious philosophy, symbolism, architecture and local social life evolved through sustained interaction.<\/p>\n

Kankrebihar brings family, governance, religion, art and political trust into a single historical structure. Each stone is more than an architectural component. It is a silent archive of trans-Himalayan familial relations, political cooperation and shared civilization.<\/p>\n

The Need for Joint Research<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Scholars from Nepal and China should undertake joint research into the construction period of Kankrebihar, its patron royal family, the marital relationship, the transfer of governing responsibility and the political geography of the time.<\/p>\n

The inscriptions of Dullu and Sinja, local genealogies, Tibetan records, archaeological objects, religious traditions and linguistic evidence can be brought together within a single comparative research framework.<\/p>\n

Three issues require particularly systematic investigation. The first is the genealogical and epigraphic basis of the transfer of governing responsibility in 1295. The second is the relationship between the construction of Kankrebihar in 1305 and the Khasa and Tibetan royal families. The third is the comparative relationship between the sculptures discovered at Kankrebihar and contemporary artistic traditions that developed in Xizang and western Nepal.<\/p>\n

Universities, historians, archaeologists, epigraphists, linguists, Buddhist studies centres and Xizang studies specialists in Nepal and China should initiate such joint research.<\/p>\n

This would not be merely an emotional exercise in celebrating the glory of the past. It would provide a credible body of knowledge for understanding the historical and civilizational foundations of modern Nepal\u2013China relations.<\/p>\n

When the historical memory associated with Bhrikuti and Songtsen Gampo, Arniko\u2019s journey to China, Beijing\u2019s White Stupa, the inscriptions of Dullu and Sinja, the trans-Himalayan marriage of the Khasa royal family, the transfer of governing responsibility in 1295 and the construction of Kankrebihar in 1305 are examined as parts of one historical continuum, the true depth of Nepal\u2013China relations becomes visible.<\/p>\n

It is not sufficient to describe this simply as cultural exchange. It represented one of the highest forms of ancient familial diplomacy. Royal marriage created political trust. That trust led to the transfer of governing responsibility. The relationship then produced an enduring civilizational monument in the form of Kankrebihar.<\/p>\n

The concept of \u201cHimalayan civilizational\u2013familial relations\u201d is therefore neither ornamental nor merely emotional. It is an analytical concept that explains royal marriage, familial governance, political trust, religious coexistence, artistic creation and trans-Himalayan relations as historically interconnected phenomena.<\/p>\n

The Ethical Foundation of the Modern Strategic Partnership<\/strong><\/h3>\n

This historical foundation gives deeper meaning to the ethical structure of the modern Nepal\u2013China strategic partnership. Since 1955, the two countries have based their relations on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Respect for each other\u2019s sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference, equality, mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence remain the enduring pillars of this relationship.<\/p>\n

Nepal and China have demonstrated that two countries with a considerable difference in size and power can still develop a respectful relationship based on sovereign equality. The absence of any fundamental political conflict between them over more than seven decades of modern diplomatic relations is not an ordinary achievement.<\/p>\n

China has consistently expressed respect for Nepal\u2019s independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and the development path chosen by the Nepali people. Nepal, for its part, has maintained a clear commitment to the one-China principle and recognizes the People\u2019s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of the whole of China.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s policy of not allowing its territory to be used against China\u2019s sovereignty, security and national interests is not merely a formal expression of friendship toward China. It is a matter of Nepal\u2019s independent foreign policy, its responsibility toward a neighbouring country and its moral consistency regarding sovereign equality.<\/p>\n

A country that demands respect for its own national unity, sovereignty and freedom from external interference must apply the same principle when considering the legitimate concerns of another country regarding national reunification. For this reason, the one-China principle cannot be treated by Nepal as an external request or a diplomatic formality.<\/p>\n

Taiwan and the Peaceful Reunification of the Motherland<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Taiwan is an inseparable part of China. The people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are members of one Chinese family, linked by a shared history, culture, language, civilization and ancestry.<\/p>\n

Turning the Taiwan question into an instrument of external military and strategic pressure against China does not serve the interests of regional peace. Taiwan\u2019s historical, political and social complexities are real. But their resolution cannot be achieved through external military encirclement, the encouragement of separatism or major-power competition.<\/p>\n

The Taiwan question is an internal matter concerning the national unity of the Chinese people and the complete reunification of the motherland. Its long-term and just resolution should be pursued through dialogue, historical bonds, the interests of the Chinese people on both sides of the Strait and a peaceful process free from external interference.<\/p>\n

China has consistently presented peaceful reunification as its first priority. This path concerns not only China\u2019s national interests, but also the economic prosperity, social stability and long-term security of the people of Taiwan.<\/p>\n

As a Nepali scholar and a supporter of Nepal\u2013China friendship, I wish to see Taiwan peacefully reunified with the Chinese motherland at the earliest possible time. This is an aspiration to see national reunification achieved through dialogue, historical truth, the shared decision of the Chinese people and a process free from external interference.<\/p>\n

The peaceful reunification of Taiwan would not be limited to an achievement of China\u2019s national rejuvenation. It could also represent the triumph of Asian political autonomy over external military intervention, civilizational unity over division and dialogue over confrontation.<\/p>\n

Not a Buffer, but a Sovereign Bridge State<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Nepal should not view China merely as a source of economic assistance, a donor or a northern alternative. Nor should China view Nepal merely as a geopolitical buffer or as a route toward South Asia. Both perspectives are incomplete.<\/p>\n

A buffer is geography interpreted through fear. A bridge is geography transformed through confidence, infrastructure, productive capacity and national purpose.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s future does not lie in a passive buffer mentality. It lies in becoming an active, sovereign and self-confident bridge state connecting China and South Asia. Nepal can become a centre for trade, culture, knowledge, tourism, energy, digital connectivity and humanitarian cooperation.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s geography is not a weakness. With a clear national strategy, diplomatic competence, modern infrastructure, productive capacity and political confidence, Himalayan geography can become the basis of an exceptional opportunity.<\/p>\n

The Trans-Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity Network is the modern institutional expression of this vision. Roads, railways, air connectivity, electricity transmission, digital networks, trade infrastructure, tourism and cultural routes can connect Nepal with China\u2019s market and development capacity.<\/p>\n

The success of connectivity, however, should not be measured merely by kilometres of road, the number of bridges or signed memoranda. It should be judged by how much Nepal\u2019s productive capacity has increased, how widely Nepali goods have entered the Chinese market, how many local jobs have been created, how much technology has been transferred and how significantly citizens\u2019 lives have improved.<\/p>\n

Connectivity should not mean merely expanding routes through which goods flow from China into Nepal. A genuine strategic partnership should build mechanisms through which Nepali agricultural products, medicinal herbs, handicrafts, clean energy, tourism, cultural products, information technology and services can reach the Chinese market.<\/p>\n

This requires investment in quality certification, storage facilities, cold-chain systems, language skills, customs capacity, digital trade, professional training and export-oriented production.<\/p>\n

Nepal should assess the Belt and Road Initiative not through geopolitical propaganda or external pressure, but through the lens of its own long-term national interests. Economic feasibility, transparency, appropriate financial terms, environmental protection, local participation, technology transfer and Nepal\u2019s sovereign decision-making authority must be essential criteria for every project.<\/p>\n

Developing a strategic partnership with China does not mean standing against any other country. Nepal can develop independent, balanced and mutually beneficial relations with China, India, the United States, Russia, Europe and the rest of the world.<\/p>\n

Balance, however, does not mean accepting every form of external pressure. Genuine balance must be based on strategic autonomy, clear national priorities and independent decision-making.<\/p>\n

A Strategic Partnership for Himalayan Human Security<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Another important dimension of the Nepal\u2013China strategic partnership is Himalayan human security. Earthquakes, landslides, floods, glacial lake outburst floods, extreme weather and climate change affect both countries. These risks do not remain confined within political boundaries.<\/p>\n

Nepal and China can develop long-term institutional cooperation in satellite information, meteorology, glacial lake monitoring, early-warning systems, search and rescue, emergency medical services and post-disaster reconstruction.<\/p>\n

Professional cooperation between the technological capabilities of the Chinese People\u2019s Liberation Army and the local experience of Nepal\u2019s security institutions, including the Nepali Army, could be valuable in disaster management, medical rescue, joint training and humanitarian assistance.<\/p>\n

Such cooperation would not constitute a military alliance. It would be a practical strategic partnership aimed at saving human lives, exchanging emergency-response skills and strengthening the collective security capacity of the Himalayan region.<\/p>\n

The modern concept of security is not limited to preventing military threats. Food security, public health, climate, energy, cyber systems, information and disaster management are also integral dimensions of national security. The next phase of the Nepal\u2013China strategic partnership should give priority to these non-traditional security challenges.<\/p>\n

Knowledge Diplomacy and the Re-reading of History<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The durability of the Nepal\u2013China strategic partnership should not depend on the temporary closeness of any government, political party or ideology. Governments change, political priorities shift and global power equations evolve. Relations become enduring when historical memory, people-to-people trust, cultural respect and mutual interests are institutionalized.<\/p>\n

This requires knowledge diplomacy and public diplomacy that extend beyond official state relations. Journalists, universities, research institutions, think tanks, students, artists, business communities, local governments and social organizations should engage in regular and structured dialogue.<\/p>\n

Chinese scholars should not study Nepal\u2019s history, politics and civilization exclusively through India-centred or Western academic frameworks. Nepali scholars should likewise not understand China solely through the political narratives of Western media.<\/p>\n

Direct language study, primary-source research, joint scholarship, archaeological exploration and a re-reading of trans-Himalayan history are essential. Nepali sources should be systematically translated into Chinese, and Chinese sources into Nepali.<\/p>\n

Joint research on the Khasa Empire, the royal responsibility transferred in 1295, the construction of Kankrebihar in 1305, Bhrikuti, Songtsen Gampo, Arniko, the White Stupa and ancient trans-Himalayan routes would do more than celebrate past achievements. It would give the Nepal\u2013China strategic partnership a deeper civilizational, political and familial foundation beyond the immediate requirements of modern geopolitics.<\/p>\n

What Strategic Partnership Means<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In this essay, the term \u201cstrategic partnership\u201d does not refer to a military alliance, alignment against a third country or an unequal relationship of power.<\/p>\n

The Nepal\u2013China strategic partnership refers to a relationship founded on sovereign equality, respect for each other\u2019s core interests, non-interference, long-term policy coordination, mutual benefit, infrastructure and production-oriented connectivity, human security, knowledge diplomacy and people-to-people trust.<\/p>\n

Within this partnership, China\u2019s power should not become a source of pressure on Nepal\u2019s independence, and Nepal\u2019s geography should not be used as a strategic instrument against China. China\u2019s development capacity should be linked with Nepal\u2019s economic transformation, while Nepal\u2019s sovereign stability should be connected with China\u2019s interest in maintaining a secure and friendly neighbourhood.<\/p>\n

From History to a Shared Future<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Nanchang represents a history of national power, sacrifice and political resolve in defence of sovereignty. Kankrebihar preserves the memory of royal, cultural, political and familial relations developed across the Himalayas. The modern Kathmandu\u2013Beijing strategic partnership can bring these two historical currents together within an institutional framework of sovereign equality, peaceful development and a shared future.<\/p>\n

Nepal and China are not merely neighbours connected by mountains. They are two ancient civilizations made family by history, linked by political trust and brought together as partners through sovereign respect.<\/p>\n

This is the deeper meaning of the journey from Nanchang to Kankrebihar, and from Kankrebihar toward a shared Kathmandu\u2013Beijing future.<\/p>\n

About the Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has conducted in-depth studies on Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

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