Given Nepal's lack of great geopolitical clout, we can say that the Nepal army, whether consciously or unconsciously, is disloyal to Nepal, in that, it lacks the incentive to be loyal (even though it searches for things to be loyal to). This 'lack of incentive to be loyal' is not just Nepal's problem: in other nations too there is disloyalty in the army. This lack of loyalty has an
implication for the nature of warfare: war has become very
disorganized, with major national and international laws continuously
breached, because disloyal soldiers do not partake in war through a higher cause, but they fight as if they are only responsible for their own selves; and more importantly, today soldiers fight for a variety of causes, out of anger at family, for instance, rather than just subscribing to the 'supreme' cause of the nation. This wild disorganization and uncalled for extra violence is going to characterize warfare in the future because
there is no fixed and established cause to be loyal to, there is no duty to the nation to
serve.
Given the lack of military, economic and political might in Nepal, there simply isn't much to be loyal to in Nepal (there aren't territories and people to romantically craft as vulnerable; everyone is already strong in the face of great difficulties). As Nepal army personnel may be disloyal to their own country, they can be taken to other nations to fight in wars that
Nepal has nothing to do with. We should ask: what is the political clout of the Nepali soldier who travels to other conflict-ridden places? What is so wrong about the situation where a developed nation inspires loyalty from the Nepal army personnel towards itself? Indeed, this new found loyalty would be the ideal scenario. But the political clout of the Nepal army in other nations is quite weak. The disloyalty to one's nation has given bigger nations the opportunity to use the soldiers just for their willingness to fight: they become better soldiers because they do not belong to the nation they are fighting for. Hence, the big nations maintain the Nepal army personnel as disloyal rather than helping them become loyal. To the big nations, this lack of loyalty to the nation also implies the lack of political will. In short, the Nepal army personnel become soldiers and nothing more.
But we cannot solely attribute the export of Nepali soldiers to the developed nations. The scenario of this export is
possible because of a deep failure in the Nepal army training system
with regards to emphasizing the connection between armed service and
loyalty to one's nation. But, it is time not to fix this failure, but to utilize it for
maximum benefit because disloyalty to the nation is a good
thing; it is loyalty to the nation which has caused warfare, conflicts and ethnic divisions...it is loyalty, as the army now understands, which can be produced, crafted, artificially made/inspired, and that this loyalty does not represent an innate and intimate relationship between army and territory. Given this realization of the army, perhaps it is time to approach the issue of universal and neutral peace from the perspective of the army, rather than being reliant on the actions of political agents. The army should be more involved in neutral peace-keeping having realized that political agents inevitably take sides in the conflict, exercising their loyalty strictly to one cause. While the army, in the battlegrounds, is confused as to his/her loyalties, is not trained, at the risk of losing life, to stand firm to one's nations. The army must simply declare: it is much too unsafe and dangerous for us to think of any sort of loyalty in the face of combat...
If
the army's role is neutral peace-keeping, then it cannot just be
involved when there is physical warfare, but rather, its mission must
be more prolonged because in order to keep and maintain peace,
deep-lying factors in the population must be changed. An interesting thing this suggests is that the army will be involved in the struggle to fix the army's own mistakes which are centuries old. For this
extensive role of the army in peace-keeping, the army needs a proper
line of communication with existing political agents, and the army must itself
become represented well in the political sphere, both of which do not seem to be the case yet in Nepal. The first message of a political Nepal army must be: Nepal army must be neutralized, because it is loyal to no entity, and as a way of making Nepal itself a neutral nation eventually...
