A former presidential adviser and member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Dr. Tika Prasad Dhakal has authored and edited important works on Nepal’s diplomatic relations including the recent "State and Craft: Readings on the 1923 Nepal-Britain Treaty of Friendship" (Vajra Books, 2026). His "Contours of Change in Nepal: Power, Politics and Paradox” came last year. He regularly publishes in scientific journals too. Republica spoke with Dhakal about his recent book and what it means for Nepal’s foreign policy, as well as about the reading culture.
Let us begin with your latest book, State and Craft: Readings on the 1923 Nepal-Britain Treaty of Friendship. What makes the 1923 treaty relevant for modern statecraft, particularly when there are historians and commentators who say that the treaty has been replaced by later treaties?
The 1923 Treaty of Friendship—known as Mitratako Ahad—remains a living foundation of modern Himalayan sovereignty. When Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher and British Envoy William O'Connor signed that agreement at Singha Durbar some 103 years ago, they were not settling routine diplomatic business. They were formalizing a sovereign, equal relationship between the two countries. And this can never be replaced. The later treaties like the Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 have only carried this forward.
The treaty was important for, what I call, its preventive statecraft. Nepal secured explicit recognition of its independence. Sovereignty operationalizes in its internal and external forms. Nepal always had the internal sovereignty but exercised the external one under the constraints of Sugauli. The 1923 treaty gave us the possibility to emerge from Sugauli’s shadow. It shifted us from an ambiguous buffer into an externally recognized sovereign state. This enabled Nepal to expand its diplomatic footprint, including joining the United Nations later. When we study the negotiations behind, we are not looking at a passive history. We are observing the mechanics of small-state survival at play. And this can never be replaced. This treaty was proposed by Nepal, negotiated by Nepal and signed at Nepal’s leadership. This, I think, is never replaced.
You appear to bring native political vocabulary into scholarly work in one of your contributions in State and Craft. How does the concept of chinjan—the process of mutual recognition and acquaintance—help us understand diplomatic negotiations?
International relations scholarship relies too heavily on Western models. They often miss the rich normative languages embedded in local political tradition. In Himalayan statecraft, formal diplomacy has always operationalized alongside our cultural idioms of relationship-building.
Experts discuss historic Nepal-Britain 1923 Treaty
One of the essays in the book, which I have jointly written with the acclaimed author Mohan Mainali ji, uses the word chinjan, which goes beyond formal diplomatic contact.We have tried to elevate it to a deliberate process of establishing mutual recognition, reading intentions, and building trust before signing agreements. The path to 1923 was not just a series of legal drafts from Sugauli onwards. It was a decades-long exercise in chinjan, sometimes on the battlefield and other times through hard negotiations behind the scenes. Treaties do not appear out of nowhere. They endure when the parties to it establish trust. This journey to trust travels through decades of knowledge about one another, which we trace as the process of chinjan.
Edited volumes on treaty history can easily become dense collections of archival notes. How did you curate State and Craft to bridge detailed history and practical strategic insight?
My personal opinion is that an edited volume should keep itself from being a warehouse of disconnected essays. My goal was to build a clear narrative where archival research speaks directly to modern statecraft.We brought together political analysis, diplomatic history, and strategic inquiry. We have tried to offer a structured narrative on how small states build, exercise, and defend their sovereignty. This has not been an easy work for the Nepali state, which was built through the continuous wars over seven decades.
Modern diplomacy is defined by multipolarity and regional friction. What core principle from history remains most vital for nations like ours today?
States like ours must maintain strict policy discipline and strategic predictability. Diplomacy has no space for populism.It demands immense patience and broad understanding. Non-dominant states like ours lack the economic or military margin for error. Their greatest assets are policy clarity, diplomatic credibility, and principled balance.
We must understand that the international system has no formal hierarchy. It has no central global authority or higher power above individual sovereign states to enforce rules. It is the relative equilibrium of states that creates the norm. These norms today are being made around us because the polarity of the international system is being increasingly defined by the strength of India and China.Strategic balance does not work when the geographic balance of the state is determined in favor of one nation, which is the case of our relationship with India. It is more of a question of balance and norms than of proximity.Meaning, have we earned our say in writing the norms of relations between India and Nepal? If yes, good. If not, we must strive to achieve that and there are plenty of bases towards that end.
In a polarized world, a nation preserves its sovereign space by remaining a stable and reliable partner. Great leaders and diplomats understand this with equally great clarity.
How critical is internal consensus to maintaining an effective foreign policy abroad?
Foreign policy is only an extension of internal cohesion. A nation that speaks with multiple voices on core issues inevitably loses influence. That’s why diplomats are only as good as their governments. We should not expect miracles from our state representatives when our governments have remained fragile and weak domestically. To avoid anarchy in diplomatic space, we must shed the anarchy in diplomatic appointments and recalls that is seen in the last decade. True foreign policy strength always begins at home.
Turning to reading culture, public intellectual life relies on deep reading, yet rapid digital consumption dominates today. How do you view the current reading habits of young researchers?
I am barely in a position to comment on the reading habits of others. I respect the people who still read books. Digital sources are convenient, but convenience does not bring equal comprehension. What we read must have the intrinsic capacity to expand our intellectual horizons, and that expansion never happens overnight. Just one or two isolated readings will not break old paradigms or help build insights.
Regular reading and consistent engagement with serious, high-value content are absolutely critical. When young researchers substitute fast-paced digital browsing for sustained reading habits, they trade real analytical depth for superficial awareness. Protecting a strong reading culture is not about resisting technology. It is about protecting the long-term mental effort required to construct original thought.
What reading or writing habit has proven most transformative in your own career?
The most transformative work across both reading and writing is to practice patience and communicate ideas with absolute clarity. Writing, for me,is not a way to show knowledge. It is the primary tool I use to test and refine my thinking.
I try to read across multiple disciplines. Dive into puranic texts, literature,philosophy, social sciences,material science and much more. Broad reading prevents rigid thinking. I have learnt that intellectual authority is never earned through quick commentary. It comes from methodical, deliberate work.
