Indian foreign policy vis-a-vis Nepal was pathetic

We are still a long way off from seeing the votes being cast, leave alone their being counted and legislators sworn in, but one thing seems to be reasonably clear: the Communists have seized control of three vital territories. All three are on the periphery of the Indian heartland -- West Bengal, Kerala, and Nepal. And, to a lesser or a greater extent, they have been deliberately gifted away by Sonia Gandhi and her hand-picked nominee as prime minister. To start with West Bengal, this is -- or soon shall be -- the site of a legitimate Left Front victory. Was there ever a hope of the Marxists losing power? Well, only a very faint one, and that would have depended on the Congress forming a 'Mahajot' with the Trinamool Congress.

The Trinamool Congress won 30.66% of the votes in 2001, the Congress got 7.98%, and the Bharatiya Janata Party managed 5.19%. That adds up to a very healthy 43.83%, especially so when the CPI-M totted up 36.59%. But the CPI-M had allies; add the the CPI votes (1.79%), the Forward Bloc (5.65%), and the Revolutionary Socialist Party (3.43%), and you get 47.46%. (How the CPI managed to win fewer votes than the BJP is something only the comrades can explain!)

To be fair, the BJP, the Congress, and the Trinamool Congress had almost zero coordination. The BJP contested 266 seats and the Trinamool Congress put up 226 candidates -- all for a House with a strength of 294. Who can say what might have happened had the three parties not fought each other as ferociously as they fought the CPI-M? But, at the end of the day, politics is at least much about chemistry as it is about arithmetic, and asking the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, and the BJP to come together was to demand the moon.

Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is able to present a coherent vision. The chief minister of West Bengal has openly voiced his concerns about unchecked migration from Bangladesh; when was the last time you heard those sentiments from a Congressman? The Marxist leader invites foreign direct investment; the Trinamool Congress can only mumble shopworn formulae about businessmen coming to Bengal to make money. (Why else would they be there?) Given such an opposition, voting for Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is the only rational choice.

I am sure Sonia Gandhi knows that. Assured of a Left Front victory, she is free to make fiery speeches against the Communists. But there wasn't a peep about the disastrous policies still officially espoused by the Left in Kerala when she went down south to campaign. CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat had given an interview, in which the words 'withdraw support' were prominent. These still echoed when the Congress president and the prime minister came to Kerala to 'campaign' -- and neither dared to utter a word directly condemning the Left.

If anything, the Congress high command has gone out of its way to sabotage the party's chances. It was the party bosses in Delhi -- urged on, to be sure, by A K Antony -- who chose to embrace K Karunakaran once again. This one move succeeded in demoralising loyalists and angering voters (many of whom are put off by the veteran's dynastic ambitions).

The weird bit is that the Congress-led United Democratic Front still has an outside chance. Chief Minister Oomen Chandy and his lieutenants have chosen to on the single issue of development. The policies of the Left in Kerala -- unlike its counterpart in West Bengal -- have not moved an inch beyond theories in vogue decades ago. V S Achuthanandan is a fine individual but I shudder for Kerala should he be at the helm. The best bet for Kerala is Oomen Chandy's return to power.

'A week,' the late British prime minister Harold Wilson said, 'is a long time in politics.' On my last trip to Kerala, everyone was talking in terms of an absolute sweep for the Left Democratic Front. Today, the chatter is about a smaller majority. That is thanks both to the chief minister's talk of development and to the CPI-M's infighting. (Rumours abound that Achuthanandan is going to be stabbed in the back by his comrades. Again!)

But the CPI-M still holds the ace, namely the power to tumble the Congress ministers in Delhi out of their chairs. I agree that potential American intervention in Iran has become an election issue in Kerala, but is that important enough for Comrade Karat to issue not-so-veiled warnings about withdrawing support? Not really, I believe he was just reminding the Congress that the price of support in Delhi must be paid in hard coin in Kerala.

What about Nepal? I know this is a deeply unpopular thing to say but I believe India's security has taken a battering due to the last dramatic week in the Himalayan kingdom. We are still twittering away about 'absolute monarchy' and 'parliamentary democracy.' Those are not the real options any longer.

Forget all the talk of that grand seven party alliance in Nepal. Do you remember what Lenin said of the socialists in western Europe? They were, he said, 'useful idiots.' (Or, to quote Sardar Patel, the socialists were 'the miners and sappers of Communism.') The Maoists already control vast swathes of Nepal. How long shall it be before they stop whispering sweet nothings and begin to demand an ever greater role in Kathmandu? And who is to stop them?

King Gyanendra may not be the smartest man in Nepal, but he still possessed two qualities that still escape the seven party alliance (as well as scores of bureaucrats in Delhi). He could see that the Maoists were the single greatest threat to Nepal. And he had the loyalty of the Royal Nepal Army. The pygmy politicians possess neither the wisdom nor the allegiance.

Let us assume that the seven party alliance chases the monarch from his throne. What will happen when the Maoists resume their bloody operations. (I write 'when', not 'if'!) Can a demoralised Royal Nepal Army fight back? Or are we going to see a repetition of pre-war Germany, when a dictatorship came to power thanks to a weak-kneed republic that had replaced an absolute monarchy?

Indian foreign policy vis-a-vis Nepal was pathetic. We could either have supported King Gyanendra in his battle against the Maoists, or we could have backed the democratic parties with all our might. The Manmohan Singh ministry chose to do neither. The result is that the monarchy has been weakened (perhaps fatally) while the seven party alliance is ready to spit in India's face.

Given the ministerial vacuum in South Block, it seems CPI-M Politburo member Sitaram Yechury was allowed to act as India's external affairs minister. It was at his dictates that decisions were taken in Delhi to dishearten India's remaining friends in the mountain kingdom. The Maoists -- already a menace stretching from Bihar to Andhra Pradesh -- are now assured of a sanctuary in Nepal. Did anyone in Delhi think through the security implications of Maoists running riot?

The Left Front victory in West Bengal will be well deserved. But both Kerala and Nepal deserved better.

"In any case the institution of Monarchy was always anti-India."

It wasn't "anti-India" in past kings' part to resist the Indian attempts to make Nepal another puppet satellite state... like, oh, Bhutan! Remember, our past Kings and their Gorkha army were organizing the fight against British-Indian occupation, while Indians were busy surrendering to a CORPORATION.

Toay, India totally controls Bhutan and its monarch is a puppet. And it ain't a democracy. Instead, it is a REAL dictatorship where Nepalese and other minorities are openly discriminated against and aren't even counted as citizens.

But, I wouldn't hold my breath for "the agent of democracy in South Asia" trying to bring justice and democracy in Bhutan. Instead, they are siding with their slave regime in the Dragon country. They want Nepalis who have lived in Bhutan for centuries kicked out of the country.

Even Genghis Khan here said that Nepalese deserved to be kicked out of Bhutan because they didn't belong there anyway(they were migrants). How about Nepal kicks out all Indians, too? Oh, but that would be dictatorship.

Just usual BS and hypocrisy coming out of the likes such as Genghis Khan.

"It wasn't "anti-India" in past kings' part to resist the Indian attempts to make Nepal another puppet satellite state"

Ah just the usual rhetoric one would expect from you. Like it or not Nepal is already India's puppet state. Your King decided to go on air to announce the return of a democratic system just one day after the Indian envoy Dr. Karan Singh "paid him a visit". You keep forgetting Nepal even exists because of India.

" while Indians were busy surrendering to a CORPORATION."

I though it was the Gorkha mercenaries who fought on the side of British East India Company during the Sepoy Mutiny. Read your history.

"Toay, India totally controls Bhutan and its monarch is a puppet. And it ain't a democracy. Instead, it is a REAL dictatorship where Nepalese and other minorities are openly discriminated against and aren't even counted as citizens. But, I wouldn't hold my breath for "the agent of democracy in South Asia" trying to bring justice and democracy in Bhutan."

The demand for democracy in Nepal is not just an Indian or US demand but most importantly its the demand of the Nepalese people themselves. I am surprised you are actually rooting for dictatorship. In any case Bhutan's problems arent spiraling out of control unlike Nepal. Moreover Bhutan and India managed to stamp out terrorists through an effective joint operation. Nepali obstinateness is legendary and that kind of an attitude among its ruling establishment makes it difficult to jointly cooperate on many issues including WOT.

A lot of Nepalis have blood feuds and simmering anger against Bhutanese, Tibetans and Indians with whom they have to share space and mostly it manifests into a broader collective national psyche where all your domestic problems and failures are blamed on the Bhutanese, Tibetans and Indians. Nepalese should be wary of walking into this kind of trap. This is what has turned Muslim countries into failed states.

"Even Genghis Khan here said that Nepalese deserved to be kicked out of Bhutan because they didn't belong there anyway(they were migrants). How about Nepal kicks out all Indians, too?"

I am sorry I never said that. You are trying to twist my words. India does not dictate or intervene into Bhutan's internal policy matters. And in fact even India is trying to sent back illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Consider yourself lucky India does not consider Hindu Nepal a security threat as it does in case of Bangladesh although Nepal is practically a safe heaven for the Pakistani ISI.

"Like it or not Nepal is already India's puppet state. Your King decided to go on air to announce the return of a democratic system just one day after the Indian envoy Dr. Karan Singh "paid him a visit"."

Coincidence. Gyanendra was saving his own hide once he figured there was no way the protests were going to stop. A puppet state is that which dances around its master to please it.

"You keep forgetting Nepal even exists because of India."

Nepal existed before India ever existed. Nice try.

"I though it was the Gorkha mercenaries who fought on the side of British East India Company during the Sepoy Mutiny. Read your history."

Who is talking about Sepoy Mutiny or the mercenaries? And how is that relevant to the argument? Nepal fought the British while India surrendered peacefully.

"In any case Bhutan's problems arent spiraling out of control unlike Nepal."

Thats because the king there has kept everything under control, right?

"Moreover Bhutan and India managed to stamp out terrorists through an effective joint operation. Nepali obstinateness is legendary and that kind of an attitude among its ruling establishment makes it difficult to jointly cooperate on many issues including WOT."

We have our own WOT and that is war against Maoists. India seems to give sanctuary to them.

"A lot of Nepalis have blood feuds and simmering anger against Bhutanese, Tibetans and Indians with whom they have to share space and mostly it manifests into a broader collective national psyche where all your domestic problems and failures are blamed on the Bhutanese, Tibetans and Indians."

Well, India harbors the Maoists. Bhutan kicks out Nepalese living in that country for centuries, with India's blessings. I don't know whether to blame them or praise them. /sarcasm

"Nepalese should be wary of walking into this kind of trap. This is what has turned Muslim countries into failed states."

Now this is rhetorical BS.

"I am sorry I never said that. You are trying to twist my words."

Liar. I remember clearly you saying Nepalese shouldn't be in Bhutan in the first place, so they don't get all mad when Bhutan kicks them out.

"India does not dictate or intervene into Bhutan's internal policy matters."

Who are you kidding? Indian puppet, the king, runs the place with an iron fist... but since he is a friend of yours, he is all right!

"Consider yourself lucky India does not consider Hindu Nepal a security threat as it does in case of Bangladesh although Nepal is practically a safe heaven for the Pakistani ISI."

A lot of unsubstantiated claims and BS coming out of your mouth. Any evidence for that?

Coincidence. Gyanendra was saving his own hide once he figured there was no way the protests were going to stop. A puppet state is that which dances around its master to please it.

You may want to believe its a coincidence. Fact is India held him by the scruff of the neck. The Nepal Monarchy has large amount of assets in India. India was considering a freez on his assets. Gyanendra wont have been on air so quickly had Karan Singh not been there the earlier day to read him the riot act.

BTW Bhutan is India's "puppet"............but not Nepal eh? LOL.

Nepal existed before India ever existed. Nice try.

India always existed. Nepal was earlier protectorate of British India. Today you exist because of independent India or else you would have long been part of the great "Peoples Republic". Nice try to you.

Nepal fought the British while India surrendered peacefully.

You dont know your own history. Nepal signed a peace treaty with the British which made then a protectorate of British Empire (while they would still function as an independent Kingdom) and in return Nepal provided mercinary soldiers to fight on the side of the British. These soldiers were used to fight Indians during the Sepoy Mutiney (or the First war of Independence). The Gorkhas fought on the side of the British not against them.

"Thats because the king there has kept everything under control, right?"

Whatever.

"We have our own WOT and that is war against Maoists. India seems to give sanctuary to them."

And so does Nepal. Nepal has too much of an attitude problem to have a joint cooperation with India to fight the Maoists and neither do they have it in them to take care of it on their own. They have only themselves to blame.

Well, India harbors the Maoists. Bhutan kicks out Nepalese living in that country for centuries, with India's blessings. I don't know whether to blame them or praise them.

India is arming and sending in the Maoists to kill Nepalese. India telling Bhutan to kick out all the Nepalese. What else? India is planning on invading and annexing Nepal............

Yeah right. Keep living in your own paranoia and keep nursing your national collective chip against India.

I remember clearly you saying Nepalese shouldn't be in Bhutan in the first place, so they don't get all mad when Bhutan kicks them out.

If those Nepalese are illegal migrants and Bhutan is taking action against them then India is nobody to advise them against it, especially when India is also sending back illegal immigrants. Any diplomatic row between Nepal and Bhutan isnt India's fault.

Indian puppet, the king, runs the place with an iron fist... but since he is a friend of yours, he is all right!

Rules with an iron fist? And what does your King do? Rules with kid gloves eh?

A lot of unsubstantiated claims and BS coming out of your mouth. Any evidence for that?

According to Indian Intelligence there are plenty of evidence to link ISI nexus with Nepal. Remember Kathmandu hijacking. It was alleged that many Nepali politicians were involved in anti-India activities. And this is alleged by the Hindu BJP not the "socialist Congress" or the "Maoist supporting" CPIM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1498706.cms

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20000619/neighbours.html

http://www.media-watch.org/articles/1299/73.html

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0197/0012.html

http://www.indiamonitor.com/news/readCatFullNews.jsp?ni=10515&ct=Terrorism%20and%20Militancy

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0197/0017.html

"You may want to believe its a coincidence. Fact is India held him by the scruff of the neck. The Nepal Monarchy has large amount of assets in India. India was considering a freez on his assets. Gyanendra wont have been on air so quickly had Karan Singh not been there the earlier day to read him the riot act."

I didn't say India had no impact... they certainly do. But the king is not a puppet... otherwise, he would have wagged his tail in compliance when India was pressuring him.

"BTW Bhutan is India's "puppet"............but not Nepal eh? LOL."

Why laugh? Bhutan is a puppet and looks to India for directions. When the masters in Delhi give a nod, they comply.

"India always existed. Nepal was earlier protectorate of British India."

India, in its present form, never existed. That's the whole point. Nepal was founded by a Gorkha raja when he annexed several "Indian hills" and nationalities to form a country ruled from Kathmandu. At one time, Nepal existed from Sikkim to all the way to Himachal Pradesh(now India). And then the fight with the British ensued where Nepal lost most of its territory and signed the treaty. The lost territory became Indian Pahad region such as Uttarakand, Himachal Pradesh, Darjeeling, etc.

"Today you exist because of independent India or else you would have long been part of the great "Peoples Republic". Nice try to you."

Nepal existed before India became independent. So I don't see your point. And China is far too off culturally and geographically to annex Nepal. Nepal isn't Tibet where population is sparse. Nepal fought China, too, and signed treaty with them long before India existed. They want Nepal as a buffer zone.

"You dont know your own history. Nepal signed a peace treaty with the British"

That's because we fought them and eventually lost the territory of Western and Eastern Nepal(that are now part of India). To minimize further loss, the peace treaty was signed. That still means Nepal fought the British, while India surrendered peacefully.

"The Gorkhas fought on the side of the British not against them."

That is far later in history. As I said, Gorkhas fought the British and defended core Nepalese territory from British annexation. Although territories were lost(Pahari zone), the country was secured through treaty. What happened later was pure economics as soldiers needed to make a living in an isolated country. And British were more than willing to have Gorkhas in their regiments.

"Nepal has too much of an attitude problem to have a joint cooperation with India to fight the Maoists"

What? It is India that is unwilling to fight the Maoists with full force. Some Indian states are even willing protecting the Maoists because of the communist pressure. Nepal is fighting Maoists with all it has.

"They have only themselves to blame."

Would have been true if Nepalese Maoists hadn't find sanctuary in DELHI.

"India is arming and sending in the Maoists to kill Nepalese. India telling Bhutan to kick out all the Nepalese. What else? India is planning on invading and annexing Nepal............"

I don't know about annexing. But India's plan is to invade Nepal and clean up the house(destroy supposed anti-Indian activities).

"If those Nepalese are illegal migrants and Bhutan is taking action against them then India is nobody to advise them against it, especially when India is also sending back illegal immigrants. Any diplomatic row between Nepal and Bhutan isnt India's fault."

They are not illegal immigrants. They migrated there centuries ago when Nepal spanned from Himachal Pradesh all the way to Bhutan. When British won the Nepalese east, it became part of British-India. The eastern Nepalese scattered to Bhutan and other places. It was before India even existed as a country.

"Rules with an iron fist? And what does your King do? Rules with kid gloves eh?"

Nepal's king has no say in the politics or the media or the society. Bhutan's king oversees the clerical overlords in his country and has iron grip over daily life, including the lives of Nepalese living in Bhutan for centuries.

"According to Indian Intelligence there are plenty of evidence to link ISI nexus with Nepal. Remember Kathmandu hijacking."

It had to do with improper security rather than an organized anti-India Pakistani ISI ring operating in Nepal. True, there could be ISI rings in Nepal, just like there are in Delhi itself. Remember the parliament assult? Do Indians blame India for harboring ISI? Lol.

"It was alleged that many Nepali politicians were involved in anti-India activities."

The COMMUNISTS themselves! Don't you get it? And India is supporting them and calling them pro-democracy!

Just wait until Koirala dies and all hell breaks loose. The Maoists are simply regrouping and plotting their next move. The international community thinks it is all over.

But the king is not a puppet... otherwise, he would have wagged his tail in compliance when India was pressuring him.

Ultimately thats what he did after all the initial histerionics postureing and grand standing. Only you are finding it hard to digest that the King got an attitude adjustment from India.

Bhutan is a puppet and looks to India for directions. When the masters in Delhi give a nod, they comply.

Bhutan is "officially" Indian protectorate. Nepal is the same only unofficially. Nepalese may want to pretend they are a soverign independent country. And to assert there independence they like to play the China card against India every now and then to reassure themselves of their pride as an sovereign independent country. Deep inside they all know the truth that they are part of India just like Bhutan. While Bhutan is openly a protectorate of India while Nepal would like to keep thing under wraps.

Nepal existed before India became independent. So I don't see your point. And China is far too off culturally and geographically to annex Nepal. Nepal isn't Tibet where population is sparse. Nepal fought China, too, and signed treaty with them long before India existed. They want Nepal as a buffer zone.

You missed the whole point. Regardless of who came first and in what form, Nepal today exists because of India. China invaded Tibet in 1952 and by then mainland China had reached your doorstep. Nepal thereafter remained a buffer between India and China. If not for India, Nepal would have long become part of China. The Hans would have been building railroads and bridges all across Nepal and populating Nepal with Han Chinese. Nepalese would have been running for refuge to India. There was no way Nepal could have held out against China, Gorkhas or no Gorkhas.

That's because we fought them and eventually lost the territory of Western and Eastern Nepal(that are now part of India). To minimize further loss, the peace treaty was signed. That still means Nepal fought the British, while India surrendered peacefully.

Yeah right! You fought and Indians surrendered peacefully.

The point is you fought, and lost and then signed peace treaty like many other Indian Princes in India. Nepal was part of India before the British rule. It was just another princely state like scores of other Indian Princely states. There were several other princely states that signed peace treaties and remained protectorates of the British Empire like Nepal. Incidently those Kingdoms were (in most cases forcibly) merged to India. Nepal was left alone. Had it not been for some turn of events, Kashmir would have remained independent, Hyderabad and Junagadh would have remained independent. even Jaipur would have remained independent.........(independent on paper) like Nepal.

And long before Indian "surrendered peacefully", Nepal which had by then already surrendered (the treaty was almost a surrender) agreed to send its own army to fight as mercinaries against Indian mutineering soldiers. Read about the Sepoy Mutiny 1848. It wasnt about making a living. According to the agreement Britain would halt further offensive into Nepali territory and in return the Nepalese army (their former enemies) would fight for them elsewhere in the subcontinent especially since the British were running short on pure British regiments and Indians British soldiers had started a rebellion. It not for a living that any army would join ranks under former enemies and be a cannon fodder for them because its "economics". The Nepalese were obliged by the tenets of the one sided treaty they signed with the British. It was akin to the Nepalese army surrendering and joining under the ranks of their British counterparts.

Would have been true if Nepalese Maoists hadn't find sanctuary in DELHI.

I didnt know they had Maoists sancturies in Delhi. Again pure rhetorics.

But India's plan is to invade Nepal.......

Yeah always the conspiracy theorist. Arn't you ever able to get out of your paranoid hole.

They are not illegal immigrants. They migrated there........

Thats your version of the story. I am sure there is a Bhutanese one as well.

You talk as if everyone has wronged you. Indians, Bhutanese, Tibetans........etc.

It had to do with improper security rather than an organized anti-India Pakistani ISI ring operating in Nepal. True, there could be ISI rings in Nepal, just like there are in Delhi itself. Remember the parliament assult? Do Indians blame India for harboring ISI? Lol.

Hmmmm in other words India should be blamed for harbouring both ISI and the Maoists. Nepal should not be blamed for harbouring either (ISI and the Maoists). Thats rich.

Hey btw the point of the article if at all you have read them is that the ISI activity goes unchecked in Nepal. It doesnt deny there is ISI operatives in India but in Nepal their activities are not seen as a security threat and so does not come under security radar.

The COMMUNISTS themselves! Don't you get it? And India is supporting them and calling them pro-democracy!

No I dont get it. You act as if everybody in Nepal outside the peremeter of the Palace is a "communist".

Just wait until Koirala dies and all hell breaks loose. The Maoists are simply regrouping and plotting their next move. The international community thinks it is all over.

You are just a heavily schizoid doomsday soothsayer.

"Ultimately thats what he did after all the initial histerionics postureing and grand standing. Only you are finding it hard to digest that the King got an attitude adjustment from India."

That "initial histerionics" lasted more than a year... and suddenly an Indian minister comes along and the king is put in his place. Superman to the rescue!

"Bhutan is "officially" Indian protectorate. Nepal is the same only unofficially. Nepalese may want to pretend they are a soverign independent country."

^^^ How typical! Just like China views Tibet.

"And to assert there independence they like to play the China card against India every now and then to reassure themselves of their pride as an sovereign independent country."

Playing China card how? By not becoming slaves to the marxists in Delhi?

"Deep inside they all know the truth that they are part of India just like Bhutan. While Bhutan is openly a protectorate of India while Nepal would like to keep thing under wraps."

Lol. Sure, whatever gives your orgasm.

"If not for India, Nepal would have long become part of China."

Perhaps you don't know the history/geography of Himalayas. The Chinese "under the sky" ends at the edge of Himalaya, so Nepal isn't involved. In Sino-Nepal war, Nepali troops could not hold Chinese troops and they marched into Kathmandu. They went back and Nepal signed a treaty with China. That alone leads to believe in China doesn't view Nepal as part of the Chinese motherland.

"The Hans would have been building railroads and bridges all across Nepal and populating Nepal with Han Chinese. Nepalese would have been running for refuge to India. There was no way Nepal could have held out against China, Gorkhas or no Gorkhas."

Chinese view of China stops at Tibet. It doesn't go south of the Himalaya.

"The point is you fought, and lost and then signed peace treaty like many other Indian Princes in India. Nepal was part of India before the British rule. It was just another princely state like scores of other Indian Princely states.

Wrong. Nepal was not founded as "part of India." Unlike Indian rajas, the visionary Gorkha king was clear that then Nepal Rajya would not be part of India(he foresaw British Corporations taking hold). His intention was to seperate Nepal from the politics of India(or British-India).

That "initial histerionics" lasted more than a year... and suddenly an Indian minister comes along and the king is put in his place.

The problem was India allowed his tantrums to continue for the whole year.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1680684,001300980002.htm

^^^ How typical! Just like China views Tibet.

Chinese dont "view" Tibet. China already has Tibet. China views, Taiwan, Spratly Islands, Siberia, Mongolia, parts of Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal and parts of India.

Playing China card how? By not becoming slaves to the marxists in Delhi?

You said it! See? The "realtionship" with China is only to spite India and to falsely pride yourself that you are not "slaves" of Delhi. You can rant against India all you like but dont forget Nepal gets an annual governmental aid of Rs 70 crores, plus another Rs 700 crores of military by far the largest military aid from any country to Nepal and India being a major developmental aid donor to Nepal and also its largest trad partner. Oh and another 1 Lakh Nepali refugees in India plus thousand of immigrant workers all across India.

While your King can cozy up with China and Pakistan and pretend he is excercising independent foreign policy.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports/1159

Perhaps you don't know the history/geography of Himalayas. The Chinese "under the sky" ends at the edge of Himalaya, so Nepal isn't involved. In Sino-Nepal war, Nepali troops could not hold Chinese troops and they marched into Kathmandu. They went back and Nepal signed a treaty with China. That alone leads to believe in China doesn't view Nepal as part of the Chinese motherland.

Yeah right. PRC has no malevolent territorial design over Nepal at all. (/sarc) At the height of cold war the Chinese were ready to even take on the Soviet Union over border disputes. You would trust the Chinese that trampled over Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjian, and Vietnam to honour an insignificant little treaty with a tiny himalayan kingdom without the might of India behind it.

Keep hallucinating!

Chinese view of China stops at Tibet. It doesn't go south of the Himalaya.

Thank India for that. Without India, the PLA will walk into Kathmandu, tear the treaty on your face, line up your royal family against the wall and will publicly execute them and make Nepal a part of China. Dont forget how PLA tried marching inside Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Ladak, Bhutan and also inside Nepal.

Wrong. Nepal was not founded as "part of India." Unlike Indian rajas, the visionary Gorkha king was clear that then Nepal Rajya would not be part of India(he foresaw British Corporations taking hold). His intention was to seperate Nepal from the politics of India(or British-India).

Dude. All King in the sub-contient considered themselves independent and seperate from the British India. All Kings claimed they were not "part of India". All Kingdoms claimed they were different and hence seperate from India-British India and Indian politics. All Kings dreamed of their own independence based on the same grounds. All Kings were against merger with India post independence. By some turn of events Nepal and Bhutan remained independent (as buffer between India and China). Or else Nepal would have very well become part of India.

BTW the "founder" of modern Nepal Prithvi Narayan Shah is of Indian descent belonging to the Rajputs from Mewar in western India. In fact the Gorkhas (the Gorkha Kingdom that he founded) are descendents of Kshatriya Rajputs and Brahmins of Northerv India. Even the Ranas were the descendents of the Maharanas of Rajputana. Historically, culturally and in almost every way Nepal was always part of India.

"The problem was India allowed his tantrums to continue for the whole year.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1680684,001300980002.htm"

Since Gyanendra is such a puppet, why would he throw tantrums in the first place?

"Dude. All King in the sub-contient considered themselves independent and seperate from the British India. All Kings claimed they were not "part of India". All Kingdoms claimed they were different and hence seperate from India-British India and Indian politics."

True. But, they all surrendered their authority. Nepal, due to its geography and also the stubbornness of the Gorkhas was never given up.

"All Kings dreamed of their own independence based on the same grounds."

Their dream never materialized. They eventually gave up to Delhi... some rightfully so(i.e. Kashmiri raja)

"By some turn of events Nepal and Bhutan remained independent (as buffer between India and China)."

Exactly! As buffer!! Let it be.

"BTW the "founder" of modern Nepal Prithvi Narayan Shah is of Indian descent belonging to the Rajputs from Mewar in western India. In fact the Gorkhas (the Gorkha Kingdom that he founded) are descendents of Kshatriya Rajputs and Brahmins of Northerv India. Even the Ranas were the descendents of the Maharanas of Rajputana."

Gorkhas being Rajput Kshatriya and Brahmins don't make them Indian politically or demographically. Rajputs and Brahmins make up less than 10% of India. In Nepal, they make up 35%! If you add Terai Brahmins/Kayasthas/Thakurs, their make up would be more than 50% of the country.

My point is that demographic of Rajput/Brahmins don't make Nepal like India at all. On the contrary, it makes it less like India!

"Historically, culturally and in almost every way Nepal was always part of India."

Not like the Republic of India, however. India in a vague sense, yes, but not politically!

"You said it! See? The "realtionship" with China is only to spite India and to falsely pride yourself that you are not "slaves" of Delhi."

No, the "relationship" with China is because Nepal shares long border with Tibet(owned by China). You have to realize that India is not the entire world for other countries in South Asia. India itself has relationship with China.

Indian motto: do as I say, not as I do.

"You can rant against India all you like but dont forget Nepal gets an annual governmental aid of Rs 70 crores, plus another Rs 700 crores of military by far the largest military aid from any country to Nepal and India being a major developmental aid donor to Nepal and also its largest trad partner."

Indeed. Part of the problem is the flow of foreign aid. Unearned money coming into the government and politicians is poison for the country. So called aid money don't help at all, instead it CORRUPTS the uneducated, elected bastards who have no other means of income except becoming politician and earn quick cash.

"Oh and another 1 Lakh Nepali refugees in India plus thousand of immigrant workers all across India."

So? There are millions of recent Indians in Nepal. Terai is filled with landless Biharis. And Kathmandu has a lot of Indian workers and vendors. It goes both ways because of open border.

"While your King can cozy up with China and Pakistan and pretend he is excercising independent foreign policy.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/1159"

What is wrong with a sovereign king having relationship with his country's neighbors? Does India like it when USA calls India to cease and desist its relationship with Burma and Iran?

"Yeah right. PRC has no malevolent territorial design over Nepal at all. (/sarc)"

PRC has no territorial design over Nepal. They probably have other malevolent designs, mostly political.

"At the height of cold war the Chinese were ready to even take on the Soviet Union over border disputes."

USSR is huge and runs from Europe to Asia almost to Alaska! And that country supposedly held Chinese influenced regions such as Mongolia, Siberia, etc. May be that is why China was taking on USSR?

"You would trust the Chinese that trampled over Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjian, and Vietnam"

I would not trust China on anything. But they don't have territorial design over Nepal. That is it.

"...without the might of India behind it.
Thank India for that. Without India, the PLA will walk into Kathmandu, tear the treaty on your face, line up your royal family against the wall and will publicly execute them and make Nepal a part of China. Dont forget how PLA tried marching inside Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Ladak, Bhutan and also inside Nepal. "

This has to be the most ridiculous and self-contradictary piece of crap I've ever read. If Indian might was keeping Nepal from being another Tibet, then why didn't the same Indian might prevent the Chinese from taking over parts of India itself??

If Indian might has kept the Chinese troops from marching into Nepal, then the same might certainly should have prevented Chinese troops from marching into Indian territories and taking over parts of Arunanchal Pradesh... and annexing it.

Why was it? Was it beacuse Indian might was irrelevant, or because China doesn't view Nepal in the same light as Arunanchal Pradesh, Taiwan, etc.

The problem with you is that you think you are America of South Asia. The only reason Taiwan isn't part of China is because of USA... so, you automatically assume that the only reason Nepal isn't part of China is because of India.

But that didn't stop Chinese from taking parts of India itself from India... why, oh, why!?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.