In Nepali society, people—from the youth to the elderly—harbour profound pride in the national army. Nepal’s military history has been written by brave hearts defending our indomitable terrain and peaceful homeland, instilling national spirit while resisting hegemonic powers. The hearts and minds of soldiers are shaped by unwavering dedication, an enduring sense of duty, extraordinary valour, and deep loyalty.
On the occasion of the glorious “Army Day – 2082,” we not only remember the legacy of historic victories and the soldiers’ role as the shield of the nation, but also acknowledge their present responsibilities—as UN peacekeepers saving lives abroad, disaster responders safeguarding citizens at home, silent deterrents along the borders, nation-builders, and first responders in moments of national exigency.
Historically, the Nepali Army has demonstrated extraordinary resilience, most prominently during the Anglo-Nepali War (1814–1816) and the Nepal–Tibet War (1856), preserving national sovereignty despite numerical inferiority and limited military resources.
The Constitution of Nepal (Article 267) mandates the Nepal Army to safeguard the country’s independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, autonomy, and national unity. To fulfil these constitutional obligations effectively, a robust, credible, and strategically structured military force is essential.
For small nations, a highly trained and specialised military is not a luxury but a necessity. Small armies cannot rival major powers in sheer manpower, but a modern, agile, and well-organised force can impose disproportionate costs on potential adversaries, thereby establishing credible deterrence and strengthening public confidence.
This article therefore examines Nepal’s military standing vis-à-vis its neighbours and highlights instructive examples of how small states optimise their armed forces to counter potential threats.
Militaries of the Neighbourhood
Military institutions of small nation-states must safeguard national security by deterring adversaries during peacetime and countering them decisively during war. Each nation in the region maintains its military with this principle in mind.
Five facts about Nepal's 'blue helmets' in UN-peacekeeping miss...
India and Pakistan share a long-standing rivalry, maintaining heavily fortified borders along the Line of Control. The Global Firepower Index 2026 ranks India fourth globally, with 1.45 million active personnel, modern weapons and aircraft, and ambitious modernisation initiatives supported by a defence budget of approximately USD 87 billion—an increase of 15 percent this year alone. Pakistan ranks twelfth, maintains around 660,000 active personnel, and operates with a defence budget of approximately USD 10.2 billion alongside a limited modernisation programme.
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives largely maintain defensive postures aligned with their national policies. Bangladesh’s defence expenditure exceeds USD 3.3 billion. Sri Lanka’s defence budget stands at approximately USD 1.5 billion in 2025, while the Maldives allocates roughly USD 181.5 million for 2026.
In contrast, Nepal’s standing appears comparatively modest, underscoring the need for measured capability enhancement.
Options for Small States
Small-state military strategies offer instructive lessons. Singapore’s “Poison Shrimp” doctrine is particularly notable. Lee Kuan Yew once remarked that although a shrimp may be small, its poison can threaten a big fish in international waters. Similarly, Israel’s strategy emphasises decisiveness, concentration of force, high-impact action, and highly trained conscripted forces.
Switzerland follows a Total Defence architecture, while Finland upholds the principle that national survival depends less on size than on resolve and the capacity to impose prohibitive costs on aggressors. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Singapore each demonstrate distinct yet effective models of Total Defence.
These examples are not meant to advocate direct replication but to emphasise the importance of redefining, modernising, and strengthening Nepal’s indigenous defence principles in line with our strategic realities.
Nepali Army – Today
Nepal’s National Security Policy, though meticulously prepared, remains unendorsed due to political instability. Ambiguities persist in defining national security within key policy documents.
The Nepali Army has identified both tangible and intangible threats and conducts rigorous training to address them in coordination with other security agencies. In fiscal year 2025, the Ministry of Defence received NRs 62.01 billion—a modest allocation compared to regional partners.
Despite ranking 104th in the Global Firepower Index, Nepal deploys nearly 95,000 troops and remains among the world’s leading contributors to UN peacekeeping operations. Revenue from these missions supports welfare initiatives such as military schools, hospitals, and stipends, complementing government efforts and boosting morale among serving personnel and veterans.
Some parliamentarians question the optimal size and capability of the army, debating whether the force structure should be threat-based or capability-based. Regardless of the framework adopted, the army must retain essential operational capabilities. Effectiveness is not determined by size alone. A capable force deters aggression by raising the cost of invasion, buying time for diplomacy or external support, and projecting influence through specialised capacities.
Strategically positioned deployments across regional headquarters can further strengthen sovereignty, enhance public trust, support internal security, and address non-traditional threats such as disaster response and environmental security.
Nepali Army – Tomorrow
The military institution must command trust and inspire confidence among citizens. There should be no unwarranted interference in its professional functioning, operational responsibilities, or capacity-building efforts. As demonstrated by neighbouring countries, political leadership must recognise and support modernisation efforts to enable the army to perform its assigned duties effectively.
Deterrence stems from deliberate preparedness, not rhetoric. A smaller army committed to internal security, disaster response, environmental protection, infrastructure development, and peacekeeping must align these roles with contemporary modernisation programmes. Resource constraints should not undermine operational readiness; defence budget allocations must therefore be logical and sustainable.
Sovereignty is preserved when aggression becomes strategically irrational. At least one core component of the force must remain unequivocally robust. As King Prithvi Narayan Shah advised: “Jai Katak Nagarnu, Jhiki Katak Garnu” (Do not initiate an offensive; seize the enemy’s weapons to fight). Our defence philosophy must embody this strategic wisdom.
The debate should move beyond questioning the army’s relevance and instead focus on cultivating a capable, resilient, and well-structured force—one that leverages terrain, specialises in denial and resilience, integrates society, and convinces any adversary that coercion would be prohibitively costly and strategically futile.
In today’s volatile security environment, a competent and well-structured army is not merely a policy choice—it is an existential necessity intrinsically linked to Nepal’s sovereignty, independence, and dignity.
(The author is a former spokesperson of the Nepali Army.)
