| Username |
Post |
| Biswo |
Posted
on 06-Jan-02 01:51 PM
Granted, India was hit hard by terrorists. But the sanctimonious posture of India is
just unacceptable.India herself in the past harbored a lot of international terrorists, and is not ready to give up her iniquitous method of using the terrorists
against her small neighbors yet. But in the just concluded SAARC in Nepal, India
acted as if she is a saint hit unfairly by an evil, and blocked all attempts by
Pakistani officials to soothe the taut environment.
In another related note, in 1988, Indian papers pointed out the snub by King
Birendra in Pakistan SAARC summit when Rajiv Gandhi invited him to a party in their assault against King Birendra in the embargo-against-Nepal era. King's
point was that since SAARC had more serious business to do, the leaders shouldn't
fritter away their time partying and sent his party-guy Shailendra Kumar
Upadhyay instead.This time, Bajpayee did the same in this SAARC retreat. He sent
his foreign minister to the retreat.
I don't see why can't he talk with Musharraf. If one has problem, one should
talk to solve. We know India has a strong case in her hand. That's why she
needs to talk.
----
In another note, in Nepal, UML and NC has got a new mean to earn money.
Reportedly, those Maoists who want to surrender now pay money to local NC and
UML guys to own them, and allow surrender.Otherwise, as NC president Girija
guided, NC and UML are not gonna take the surrendering comrades back.
Is this a good tactic? If someone wants to give up arms, why shouldn't he be
taken back? Why should they be made desperate to kill others? And the venal
attitude shown by NC and UML people at this time is plainly reprehensible.These
days, btw, even Talibans are being allowed to surrender and their ammos are being bought back.
To solve the Maoists problem, we need to dry up the swamps that produce
Maoists cadres. We shouldn't just fight and kill them. Sabailaai Chetanaa Bhayaa..
|
| villageVoice |
Posted
on 06-Jan-02 05:11 PM
Biswoji:
I have never been a great fan of Indian hegemone. However, I can't help having deep sympathies for India this time round, especially after the December attack on Indian parliament. The Indian public wants its government to take decisive military action against terrorists--freedom fighters, if you may--in Pakistan, but world powers (US, no less!) are saying, "Hold back!"
Never mind that US didn't, when pushed to a similar situation. But then Talibans didn't have any nuclear arsenals to keep Washington guessing.
Gen. M. seems to have pulled off a diplomatic coup of sorts at SAARC with that handshake with Vajpayee (extending olive branch to an intractable enemy!) but that really doesn't mean much as far as Pakistan's long-term commitment to crack down on terrorism is concerned.
Vajpayee may not have looked really attractive--and magnanimous--rebuffing M.'s peace overtures, but such diplomatic snubs are to be interpreted in larger scheme of things. Leaders from the democratic world have been coldshouldering the likes of Gaddafi and Castro at international meets. And why not.
Gen. M. with his youthful looks (as against an ageing Vajpayee) and peace overtures is no hero. He's a dictator, who owes his position to military coup and seems all set to renege his promise - that Pakistan will soon hold a demcocratic election. Let's not get too carried away by rhetoric. Substance is what matters.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 06-Jan-02 08:06 PM
VVji:
Yes, General M. is no saint. There is no comparison between popularly elected
prime minister Bajpayee and a dictator. And India is hit hard this time, the attack
against her two parliaments (one in Kashmir, another in Delhi) was a sinistrous
attempt to sabotage her democratic ideals in which the terrorists failed.I support
India in her current brawl with Pak, but why no talk?
My point is another, is India not doing the same thing? Is India not helping MQM?
Given opportunities, India used the same method to ruin smaller countries and their
state foundations in the past. LTTE, and Maoist harborings are but only small
examples. India's repugnance against so called dictators is also no more farcical
than US's. It welcomes Castro and Wangchuk, but refuses to cooperate with its
smaller neighbors(barring Gujaral era).I mean, how can the racist dictator of
Bhutan, whose ethnical cleansing is wellknown, be more sacred than Musharraf?
So, to assuage the apprehenseive south asian public mood, and to test readiness
of General Musharraf to cooperate, India should have reciprocated Pakistani
gesture. In fact, being a bigger country, it should have been more proactive in
maintaining amity. Btw, the speech of Sri Lankan president in this SAARC probably
echoes our interest most: there should be no double standard.
As for US case with Taliban, Karl Inderfurth once said he did present the evidence
of Osama's involvement in embassy bombings to Taliban. The US government
tried to talk to Talibans, talked with them couple of times, even at a point provided
4 million dollars assistantship to them (to destroy poppy fields) [summary: dealt
with them]. I think Pakistan is also showing willingness to hand over the terrorists
it is harboring(provided India does the same, and Pak is said to have handed over
its own terrorist list to India), and a reciprocation from India at the SAARC of that
handshake could have been a welcoming sign given the adaptability of Pak leaders
now.
|
| villageVoice |
Posted
on 06-Jan-02 09:26 PM
Biswoji:
If I am with India on this, it's in part bcause I think India's newfound thrust against terrorism serves Nepal's long-term national interest. In part, I am increasingly inclined to believe that a nuclear-armed Pakistan, ruled by a military constantly trying to appease fundamentalists (many of them in the military), poses a serious threat to world peace.
1. Let's face it, Nepal can never flush out any terrorists/Maoists without Indian support. Like it or not, we can't afford a hostile India. Period.
2. What if madrassas in Rautahat, Sarlahi, and Banke start preaching Muslim fundamentalism? Some of these districts are already infested by the worst campaign violence during elections. Whether we accept it or not, ISI/Muslim fundamentalists see Nepal has a soft underbelly. In hindsight, the world failed to read the 1999 IC hajack as a precursor to something bigger, nastier. Wasn't it enough that the Delhi-bound flight from Kathmandu ended in Taliban-ruled Kandahar? But then Kathmandu and Kandahar were both obscure places, far away from DC and New York, before 9/11.
3. Though there are indications that Nepal's Maoists have made most of Indian indifference (Prachanda's Siliguri meet with Nepal's communist heavyweights, for example, is a case in point), I am not sure that New Delhi has given outright support to the insurgents.
4. Pakistan has a genuine case in arguing that the Muslim-majority Kashmir should be asked to decide its fate, but as a Nepali I care more for Nepal's interest than the moral stand. First and foremost, I don't want Pakistan -- and a more powerful India in turn -- to wage a proxy war in Nepal.
I realize Sept 11 has given India a definite edge in its dimplomatic war against Pakistan. At least for some time to come, India has effectively silenced its arcenemy. Much of west now perceives Pakistan a serious threat to world peace, and Gen. Musharraf is under intense pressure to crack down on terrorists.
Nepal's own Maoists realize this. US, the world's only superpower, and India, the regional power, are (at least in principle!!) against terrorism of any form. It wasn't at all surprising that all world powers -- US, EU, Japan, including the communist China - have given a whole-hearted support to Kathmandu's strong-armed tactics against Maoists. India, which supplied two Chettah (?) helicopters, is willing to provide more. It's time to trap the world powers in their own rhetoric, just as India has put US in a bind.
I think India, hit by Maoist insugencies in the states of Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, has finally decided that a trans-border Maoist movement can prove dangerous to its own national security. That works all right for me.
|
| villageVoice |
Posted
on 06-Jan-02 09:28 PM
Pls read "ruled by a military dictator..."
|
| what's in a name |
Posted
on 07-Jan-02 05:16 PM
Bishowji,
This was a very interesting conversation you started and I find my self agreeing with your points. India has always used covert/proxy and terror groups to unsettle and destabalize its neighbors (Tamils, MQM, Tibetan khampas, Nepali Maobadis). But when it tastes some of its own medicine, it cries foul like some it has been a saint all along. Folks always mention the Indian Airlines hijack from Kathmandu as Nepal's complicity in some terror game against India,but why don't these same folks remember that RNAC plane hijacked and taken taken to India with Indian government's tacit approval thirty years ago? Is that not state sponsored terrorism? Come on!
The usual rona dhona that India is super power, that it has us by the balls, that we can not afford to antagonise it, so just be silent and tolerate the big neighbor is too much from the Indain apologists who come in many guises. Yes, it is a powerful country, but that does not mean we keep our critical minds shut and fail to point out contradictions and double standards when we see it.
On this point, I found the Sri Lankan president Kumaratunga's Kathmandu wgutsy and honest: she said that to fight terrorism in South Asia we can't have double standards - feeding friendly terrorists to be used against others while claiming to eliminate who are hostile. People should have seen the face of the Indain delegation as she said this.
In his last interview in Kathmandu Bihari denied that Maoists were using Indian territory, even after Sigudi episode, number of maobadis being arrested in India transporting weapons and other evidence! They sure have thick skins, our outhern neighbors!
jai desh!
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 08-Jan-02 10:13 PM
What's in a nameji:
I was very impressed with Srilankan president's speech. She was pointed in her
remark about India's use of 'friendly terrorists'.Here we agree with you!
I think VillageVoiceji has answer to some of your genuine questions, though! and I
disagree in one of your points: that we can freely antagonize India. I think
we can't, sorry to respectfully differ with you. We need diplomatic opposition,
rather than such a blunt one. They are jerk, but afterall, are our southern
neighbor, and potentially, our southern business partner.
I talked to some of our northern neighbor's diplomats in one party in KTM. They
frankly told me China can't be alternative to India for Nepal. I later knew why! The
whole Tibet is nothing but a buffer zone, from where only two major paths go to
rest of China. One of such paths goes at the height of 5,200 meters, and prone
to snowfalls in winter. Another path is treacherous, somewhat like Thankot-
Naubise in a lot of places, and no reliable transportation is conducted from there.
Until the proposed Kunming-Lhasa railway is completed, and the major rennovation
of Friendship Highway(Khasa-Tibet) undergoes, we are at the mercy of Indian
caprice in terms of our communication with the rest of the world.
|
| Whats in a name |
Posted
on 09-Jan-02 02:57 PM
Bishowji,
Just a comment on your last posting. I by no means intended to say that we should go on antagonising India for the heck of it, India is a big reality we have to live with. But does not mean we silent to everything India does to us, with the logic that we are at its mercy and nothing can be done about it. Pointing out contradictions and injustice does not amount to "antagonising", me thinks. Of course there is always a little risk involved in talking back to power, whether it is internal despots or external imperialists.
The idea that we should only be critical of those people/countires/institutions because we are not "at their mercy" and avoid talking about those who do hold power over us seems like the old practice of appeasing the powerful while chastising those whom we can get away with. I don't know if people would call this double standard.
We must also realize that there might be some Indians who might be enlightened by how their neighbors think abot their country. I don't think a lot of honest Indian intellectuals would mind telling them how their policies affect us and what the smaller nations in the region think about all this.
After all, what would all that special 'people to people' relation between the two countries be if people could not even discuss that relationship without feeling scared or disloyal?
Jai Nepal and Jai Hind! Nepali, Bharati Bhai Bhai!
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 10-Jan-02 02:04 PM
While I am impressed by quite sophisticated and intelligent views of all posters in this thread, I am troubled by the implications of Bishow’s view that Nepal is doomed to be at mercy of India. In this, I am with ‘What’s in a name’s view.
>I by no means intended to say that we should
>go on antagonising India for the heck of it, India
>is a big reality we have to live with. But does not
>mean we silent to everything India does to us,
>with the logic that we are at its mercy and nothing
>can be done about it. Pointing out contradictions
>and injustice does not amount to "antagonising",
>me thinks. Of course there is always a little risk
>involved in talking back to power, whether it is
>internal despots or external imperialists.
>The idea that we should only be critical of those
>people/countires/institutions because we are
>not "at their mercy" and avoid talking about those
>who do hold power over us seems like the old
>practice of appeasing the powerful while
>chastising those whom we can get away with.
>I don't know if people would call this double standard.
It is not a double standard. It is a lack of standards. It is self-defeat, demoralization and suicide. It is a clinical depression of a nation. It is an illness large section of our society, notably some intellectuals and all political leaders, (exclude Maoists) are ailing with. Note that Khum Bahadur Khadka (?) recently said the same words in public, ‘every government of Nepal has to be at the mercy of the cooperation of India’ (accurate wording ?). Was he telling the reality ? Yes. Was he telling the eternal truth ? No. He was telling about the state of his mind and the mind of the state he runs.
Indophobia is an illness of mind. It has two forms 1. hating India in everything, 2. fearing India in everything. In any form, it is harmful. It inhibits Nepal’s progress.
Intellectual Indophobia is armed with a deceptively undefined fear factor called ‘geopolitic reality’. The later ignores dynamism of relationship, undermines the power of diplomacy and grows on the semi-myth of ‘soil’. Therefore it is essentially an illness of mind. We need therapy.
Let me show you how it is an psychological illness. When people state that Nepal is at the mercy of India, they just state the statement as a generalized fear. They do not/ can not think of a specific case (existing or imagined) where Nepal would/ could have acted differently, were she not at the mercy. They do not go case by case. They just think what’s the point, in any case we are surrounded by large India, it MUST MEAN it has superiority or advantage in some thing, somewhere, some time. See ? a generalized fear.
Is/should there be a therapy for this illness ? Yes.
I hope more people will come to this thread and contribute their ideas for/against such matter of vital importance to our country’s future. I leave saying that India does not give us free lunch. We pay this or that way. India would not give us more just because our posture is of a demoralized nation. On the contrary, we shall get more if we stand as a nation with awareness, resolve and no intention to hurt anyone.
Nepe
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 10-Jan-02 10:39 PM
Nepeji:
I don't think you can call the syndrome Indophobia.
One of Mao's martial tactics dictates that those who underestimate the might of
their opponent are bound to succumb. When I say our opposition should
be a 'diplomatic one' rather than emotional one (enough examples abound: which I
will discuss shortly), I am pointing to a successful form of confrontation that most
benefits us.
Emotional anti-Indian clamor(Madhuri Dixit case, Rhitik Roshan case etc) didn't
yield anything to us. Shailendra Upadhyaya once recalled they were trying to
dig a tunnel from Shighatze(Rikaze) in Tibet for our petrolium supply.That was
a ludicrous claim. They didn't even make a good road from Lhasa to KTM all their
life.
My point is voilent confrontation and rhetorics against India won't yield anything
for us.India is ,yes, a geopolitical reality.We have to deal with her. We are not
satisfied with her hegemonic attitude. I am not a coward when I say we need to
deal with India diplomatically rather than with hysteria and emotion. Even when we
talk about case by case thing, let's see the case of 1988. When senators of US
spoke for us, Beijing Review and other Chinese newspapers were filled with pro-
Nepal reports, and some people started talking about bringing gas from plane, did
we win? Were we likely to win then?
India always relished dealing with dictators of Nepal. Our dictators gave away our
rights in 1950 (Mohan Shamsher) and 1965(Mahendra). Girija, another of our
dictators, had no scruple signing off Tanakpur. Here lies irony of our
confrontational nationalists: Ranas who always barred British from coming to
Nepal, and always considered themselves superior to the princes of India in British
Raj, Mahendra whose sole claim to martyrdom still hinges on his patriotic agenda
were the one to give up our equal status. And here is why I can't believe with your
favorite patriotic Maoists. Maoists, afterall, are trained in AP and Bihar, and their
leaders live there, and they have already forwarded South Asian federation idea
which they think will obscure nationalist border. If there is borderless South Asia,
I think it won't adopt Nepali view!
Unless it is absolutely necessary, our having truculent political posture with India
is counter productive. I don't doubt the patriotic intent of intellectuals like Nepeji,
but to me it sounds a lot like jingoism.
|
| tarbani |
Posted
on 10-Jan-02 11:27 PM
What a excellent debate on Nepali geopolitics!
My cents on this: I am with Bishoji that we can't wish away Indian position in South Asia. We have to learn to play our cards (if we have any) smartly that will benefit Nepal (and not only a family or faction consolidate power in Nepal).
But I don't think Nepeji is saying that we should go to war with India either. Discussing the all aspects of Nepal India relations in a critical manner can not be construed as anti-India jinjoism or wild nationalism. Then we would have agree that all good scholarship and intellectual work would be jingoistic, by its nature it takes a critical stand.
We would be jingoistic and stupid if we said unfounded arguments against India in with a ill intention. We should remember what Gandhi said of the British (even though they were powerful), we criticize their deeds not only to get our independence but also to educate and enlighten them about what wrong they are doing. The power to reform the oppressors is the biggest power.
The tendency with Nepali intellectuals to dismiss everything by blaiming the past leaders whether they were the Ranas, Shahas, Koiralas, GM,Bhattrai, Nepal, Bamdev, Prachanda ete and then dismiss everything is another kind of defeatist 'pathology' that Nepeji rightly points out. We all know how previous leaders compromised to save their power, but that does not mean this generation has to repeat it, we can begin anew! Make a new start and we can do that by clearly knowing what is wrong with the existing relationship.
And isn't the argument that becaue China can't give us gas we have to endure the Indian reality rather questionable? We have to deal the two separetely in their own contexts. The idea that India gives so we have to keep silent about it is emasculating. Just think about what it takes from Nepal: hundred of thousands of men to fight its dirty wars, our resources, turns us into a captive market, denies us our rightful access to the ocean, decides who will be boss in Nepal. So is India giving us all that much to the extent that we should be silenced?
The psychological angle brought in by Nepeji is fruitful.
|
| krishna |
Posted
on 11-Jan-02 10:54 AM
What will Nepal do if India and Pakistan really go at it this time? What if nukes are used? Even if they are not, what if China jumps in on Pakistan's side? What role would Nepali diplomacy play in such scenarios?
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 11-Jan-02 02:34 PM
Bishow writes:
>My point is voilent confrontation and rhetorics
>against India won't yield anything for us.India is
>yes, a geopolitical reality.We have to deal with
>her. We are not satisfied with her hegemonic
>attitude. I am not a coward when I say we need
>to deal with India diplomatically rather than with
>hysteria and emotion
I do not have a pinch of doubt in my mind about Bishowji’s guts and goodwill when it comes to defend the interest of our country. And I totally agree that we have to deal with India diplomatically rather than with hysteria and emotion. Actually, that’s my whole point, as Tarbaniji rightly noticed. No hysteria. Not only when hating India but also when fearing India, or loving India for that matter. Critical thinking, good diplomacy, wise play of cards (both available and that can be gotten), but no hysteria.
We should keep in mind the geography or whatever dimension of our relationship just to get the best deal. But whatever we do we should do without panicking, without making ourselves obsessed with geopolitics.
Geopolitics should be knowledge, not an obsession. We can not afford putting a billboard of geopolitics on the highway of our progress.
>Even when we talk about case by case thing,
>let's see the case of 1988. When senators of
>US spoke for us, Beijing Review and other
>Chinese newspapers were filled with
>pro-Nepal reports, and some people
>started talking about bringing gas from
>plane, did we win? Were we likely to win then?
Depends on how you look at. I can not make judgement here, but I think we should have gained something by playing those cards with India. After all the blockade was lifted afterwards. Whatever is, my assertion is that the question should be how wisely we played the cards to maximize the deal we get. Obsession of geoplitics could have made us a poor player.
>Unless it is absolutely necessary, our having
>truculent political posture with India is counter
>productive
Exactly, no truculent political posture unless it is absolutely necessary. But also no fallen flat posture unless it is absolutely necessary, for example, to play tricks (lets use our imagination here). Just a pleasant and amicable posture all the time.
>And here is why I can't believe with your
>favorite patriotic Maoists.
You got me wrong. I think Maoists are very weak when it comes to diplomacy. Their obsession with international imperialism and hegemonism is too costly.
>Maoists, afterall, are trained in AP and Bihar,
>and their leaders live there, and they have
>already forwarded South Asian federation idea
>which they think will obscure nationalist border.
>If there is borderless South Asia, I think it won't
>adopt Nepali view!
If some day the whole world becomes a single boarderless nation and I live till then to see it, I will be the most happy person in the world even if I have to give up my Nepalitwa. But that is a far away dream. While there is a trend of disintegration of forcefully and artificially integrated nations in the world, there is also an encouraging unification of common interests, economy and currency (Euro in the case). I was harboring this dream of South Asia Economic Union. Thanks to the SAARC summit in Kathmandu, something is happening. If I am not robbed of freedom and democracy, I don’t mind South Asian Federation either.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 11-Jan-02 03:00 PM
krishna wrote:
>What will Nepal do if India and Pakistan really go at it this time?
>What if nukes are used? Even if they are not, what if China
> jumps in on Pakistan's side? What role would Nepali
>diplomacy play in such scenarios?
Honest broker of peace. Because honesty is the best policy. I think honesty and neutrality should give us more edge in future. If we know anything about Indian and Pak mind by now, it won't be a bad idea to collect something useful for future too, but without harming our credibility. It seems a tough challenge. I am not sure how good we have sharpened our diplomatic skill. I heard somewhere that Bhutan's diplomacy was much superior than Nepal's as shown in the case of refugees. And it is no secret that 'source-force' but not qualification is the qualification of Nepal's diplomats. So I am not so sure about our performance, if that ever required.
Nepe
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 11-Jan-02 03:11 PM
Hamle yata gaf chuta chutai kati kila (demarcation poles) hami bhitra sari sakyo sare jahan se achha le.....gbnc ma tatera matrai ke garne....chhimeki le dhurukka pari sakyo....tadako deuta bhanda chhimek ko rachhes ramro bhanthe...yo ukhan pani tyahi jana gana mana le de ko ho ki kya ho?
baneko chha pahara le yo chhati mero....
rastriya geet ghankinchha radio ma chhoyeko buhari kada (lajjawati) jasta Nepali lai jagauna...
khoseko rotile mero pet bharinna
mageko dhotile mero laj chhopinna
roti khosa khos ma din bitirahe chha nepaliko maile dekhta ta..khutta tanera..
kinna lai paisa chhaina, utpadan garna alchhi lagchha..chhopnu paryo namagera ke garne?
ghotiyera hath pau jharijaun aaula(?)
tara kohi agadi e hath jodinna
ghotne haruko hath pau ghotiyera sakina lagisakyo dui chhak khan pugdai na..
Agadi pare jati sabai lai hath jodna matra baki chha..Nepali ko hath ta namaste nai matra garna banya jasto chha...donation pai halchha ki yaso dui char...
ma ago sahanchhu anyaya sahanna
ma trisna sahanchhu tiraskar sahanna
Nyaya bhanya kun chara ko nam ho jasto bhai sakyo..anyaya ko aago sahanu pari ra chha...
Tiraskar ta nepal ma samudra ma machha jastsai chha..byapta...aba khola nala sukna thali hale..rukh jungle pani masi hale...trisna pani sahane din aaudai chhan
mero sir udaau baru tyo sahanchhu
tara koi paraya le teke sahanna
hindustanle hamra daju bhaiko dherai udai sakeko chha. sir..tyo kram ajhai kayam nai chha...nasahera ke garne...desh ma kam chhaina...
paraya le tekera runu na hasnu pari sake....paraya pani rachhesai parera..asadhye pida diyi rahechha
baneko chha paharale..
tyahi pahara mattai baki hune bho aba chhati ta dhwasta huna lai sakyo...
Bagh ra kharayo ko katha jasto tyo thulo bagh lai katai jwamma fal halna lagaidena paye pani hune ni!
Yati lekhda lekhdai uta feri kila sari sakyo hola.
|
