Spread the love

By Shambhu Prasad Deo

Nepal’s security expenditure is often discussed narrowly—reduced to a debate on military size, arms procurement, or regional comparison. Yet for a landlocked Himalayan state located between two global powers, security is not merely about soldiers or weapons. It is fundamentally about resilience: the capacity of the state and society to protect sovereignty, manage crises, and make independent political and economic choices without coercion.

At present, Nepal spends roughly 1.0 percent of its GDP on security, placing it among the lowest spenders in South Asia. This figure, while fiscally cautious, demands reassessment in light of intensifying regional geopolitics, rising disaster risks, cyber vulnerabilities, and the complex demands of federal governance.

The question is not whether Nepal should militarize—but whether its current security posture is sufficient to safeguard sovereignty and social stability in the twenty-first century.

Security as State Resilience

For small states like Nepal, security is rarely achieved through military parity with larger neighbors. Instead, sovereignty is preserved through institutional strength, disaster preparedness, border governance, and internal cohesion. Security expenditure, therefore, must be understood as an investment in resilience rather than war-fighting capability.

Nepal’s experience offers sobering lessons. The 2015 Gorkha earthquake exposed severe gaps in emergency response capacity, coordination, and logistics, resulting in over 9,000 deaths and long-term economic losses. Climate-induced floods and landslides now displace hundreds of thousands of people annually, while cyber vulnerabilities and misinformation increasingly threaten democratic processes. Underinvestment weakens institutions; overinvestment risks crowding out critical social sectors such as health and education. The challenge lies in striking a principled balance.

Nepal’s Strategic Environment

Nepal’s security concerns are unique. The country pursues a defensive, non-aligned foreign policy, yet must constantly navigate the strategic competition between India and China. Unresolved border issues, including Lipulekh–Kalapani, require vigilance and a credible state presence without provocation. At the same time, non-traditional threats dominate the security landscape: earthquakes, floods, pandemics, cyber risks, and governance strains following federal restructuring.

The Nepal Army (NA) plays an unusually broad role—ranging from disaster response and infrastructure support to peacekeeping. Nepal is among the world’s leading contributors to UN peacekeeping missions, deploying around 5,000 personnel annually and generating substantial foreign exchange inflows. This international role enhances diplomatic standing but also demands sustained professional capacity at home.

How Much Is Enough?

Regional comparisons are instructive. Bangladesh spends approximately 1.3 percent of GDP on security, India over 2 percent, and China around 1.7 percent. Nepal’s current level leaves critical gaps, including grounded air assets, limited disaster-response mobility, and underdeveloped cyber infrastructure.

A phased increase to 1.2–1.5 percent of GDP—equivalent to an additional NPR 20–40 billion annually—would remain fiscally manageable while significantly enhancing national resilience.

Importantly, this is not an argument for arms accumulation. Priority areas should include disaster-response capabilities, transport and logistics, cyber defense, border monitoring, enhanced inclusiveness, people’s participation, and human capital development within the security forces.

Youth as a National Security Asset

One of the most innovative proposals emerging from current security thinking is universal, non-militarized youth civic security training. Targeting citizens aged 16–25, this “blanket” program would provide short, civilian-led modules on disaster preparedness, civic responsibility, cyber hygiene, social harmony, and federal governance—explicitly excluding weapons training, military drills, or command hierarchies.

Such an approach recognizes that security in Nepal is deeply societal. With over four million youths nationwide, even basic training in early warning, emergency response, and community mediation could transform national resilience. Implemented through schools, local governments, and civil society organizations—with strong inclusion of women, Dalits, Madheshis, Janajatis, and marginalized communities—this model strengthens democracy rather than militarizing society.

Democracy, Federalism, and Oversight

Expanded security investment must be matched with robust civilian oversight. Parliamentary review, transparency in procurement, diversity, and strengthened institutional audit capacities within security institutions, as well as provincial coordination mechanisms, are essential safeguards. Security policy must reinforce federalism, not centralize authority. Provincial disaster commands and local youth security committees can ensure responsiveness while maintaining democratic accountability.

Fiscal Realism and Preventive Investment

Critics often argue that increased security spending diverts resources from development. Yet Nepal loses an estimated two percent of GDP annually to disasters alone—far exceeding the proposed incremental security outlay. When peacekeeping revenues and avoided disaster losses are considered, resilience-oriented security spending emerges as preventive investment rather than a fiscal burden.

A Peaceful Path to Sovereignty

Nepal does not need a larger army—it needs a smarter security doctrine rooted in resilience, inclusivity, and strategic autonomy. A modest increase in security expenditure, carefully directed toward disaster readiness, cyber defense, mobility, and youth civic capacity, aligns with Nepal’s non-aligned tradition and democratic values.

In an era of climate uncertainty and geopolitical flux, the true measure of national security is not how much a country can threaten others—but how well it can protect its people, institutions, and independent voice. For Nepal, investing in resilience is the most peaceful—and pragmatic—path to sovereignty.