Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Nepal Between China and India]( "Nepal Between China and India")
Nepal Between China and India81,99 €![South Africa¿China Relations]( "South Africa¿China Relations")
South Africa¿China Relations95,99 €![Theatre for Peacebuilding]( "Theatre for Peacebuilding")
Theatre for Peacebuilding103,99 €![Educational Strategies for Youth Empowerment in Conflict Zones]( "Educational Strategies for Youth Empowerment in Conflict Zones")
Educational Strategies for Youth Empowerment in Conflict Zones95,99 €![Order, Contestation and Ontological Security-Seeking in the South China Sea]( "Order, Contestation and Ontological Security-Seeking in the South China Sea")
Order, Contestation and Ontological Security-Seeking in the South China Sea63,99 €![Order, Contestation and Ontological Security-Seeking in the South China Sea]( "Order, Contestation and Ontological Security-Seeking in the South China Sea")
Order, Contestation and Ontological Security-Seeking in the South China Sea63,99 €![US-China Rivalry and Taiwan's Mainland Policy]( "US-China Rivalry and Taiwan's Mainland Policy")
US-China Rivalry and Taiwan's Mainland Policy22,99 €
Nepal has a non-neutral history. As an imperial and expansionist power in the Himalayas from the days of its unification in 1769 AD to the Anglo-Nepal war of 1815, Nepal never remained neutral. Also, during the period of Colonialism in South Asia, and particularly after losing the war with the British in 1816, Nepal never exercised the policy of neutrality. Rather, Nepal was raiding Tibet; assisting British India in Sepoy Mutiny; and stood by Britain in the two world wars. Besides, Nepal militarily backed independent India in 1948 over Hyderabad question. But why Nepal suddenly had to take a refuge in neutrality after the political change of 1950? Was it because of Nepal's internal politics, or an attempt to cope with new arrangements in regional security? Nepal's fascination with neutrality was so swifter and inadvertent that Kathmandu, hitherto, has never initiated any policy debates over the all-weather choice. Power elites in Nepal still misperceive neutrality as non-alignment. The aim of the book, however, is not only limited to distinguishing neutrality with non-alignment in the Nepali context but weighs Nepal's claim to neutrality through the Indian and Chinese perceptions to underline the presence of ambiguity and uncertainty in Nepal's claim to neutrality. Illustrating Nepal's attempt to neutrality as a mere survival strategy, this study is less hopeful about Nepal's foreign policy institutions abandoning their Cold War worldview by embracing the strategy of sustenance in today's interdependent and globalized world. Because, as the book suggests, power elites in Kathmandu are customarily lured by the ephemeral yet sporadic geopolitical ambitions, either through discourses or deeds.