| Username |
Post |
| tick |
Posted
on 07-Aug-03 09:05 AM
Nepali Congress openly asking for more Indian intervention. Please read the article and decide for yourself. This article also proves that India does not support the 5 party movement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://in.news.yahoo.com/030805/58/26mfr.html
Wednesday August 6, 2:40 AM
Nepal Congress call to brother Delhi
By Bharat Bhushan
New Delhi, Aug. 5: India must have a "people-friendly policy" towards Nepal and not back any individual, former Nepalese foreign minister Chakra Prasad Bastola said here today.
Bastola said he recognised that India did not want a "big-brother" image in the neighbourhood. "But as an alternative what you are justifying is not being a brother at all. Democracy and good neighbourliness do not grow without careful nurturing," he argued.
The Nepali Congress and other democratic parties in Nepal are stung by the fact that India is not backing the legitimate representatives of the people but a government appointed by a king they see as "activist".
Nobody in Nepal wants India to be very direct in espousing the cause of democracy in that country. But Bastola felt: "Recognising the peoples' aspirations can be the bottom line defining the Indian policy towards Nepal. The alternative to a bad democracy can only be a better democracy not an active monarchy. And we expect India to recognise that."
However, he said the media talk in Kathmandu was that India was backing the Surya Bahadur Thapa government appointed by the king. "We in the Nepali Congress consider this as supporting a non-democratic dispensation. Why should individuals be backed? India should have a people-friendly and a democracy-friendly policy towards Nepal. An active monarchy is only going to disturb the political and emotional foundations of India-Nepal relations in both the countries," Bastola said.
Bastola, among the top Nepali Congress leaders, lamented the ineffectiveness of Indian foreign policy towards Nepal. "Whether it is the split in the Nepali Congress, responding to the Maoist movement or to the expansion of the role of the king, I feel that India could have reacted much more effectively. To put it bluntly, helping stop the split in the Nepali Congress would have been more productive than New Delhi expecting us to back Surya Bahadur Thapa now," he felt.
What should India be doing, in his opinion? "I can only say what India should not do. It should not rely overly on foreign office bureaucracy to formulate its Nepal policy by giving up on a more direct, more political and more personal policy formulation. It should not give the impression that it is supporting Surya Bahadur Thapa. It should not give the impression that it is encouraging the Maoists to invite the political parties to the negotiating table. The legitimate representatives of the people should be inviting the Maoists for the talks," Bastola said.
"Sometimes when India does something it overdoes it and when it decides not to act it does absolutely nothing," Bastola quipped. The Nepalese leader, however, clarified that he was not arguing a case for a greater Indian role in Nepal. "All that I am urging is to recognise that there are issues which affect both the countries equally and therefore, we need to have a practical and balanced approach to our relationship," he said.
Bastola traced what he called India's relative indifference to Nepal to a larger malaise. "My feeling is that India is losing sight of its neighbourhood for distant and greener pastures. Perhaps that is important for India but its own backyard should not be any less important," he said.
The Nepalese leader said India was giving the impression that its policy in the neighbourhood was a hands-off policy "almost a policy of non-concern". But he asked: "Is this the way to conduct the foreign policy of a country as important as India? In the coming days, India will play a bigger role globally and in the region. Can it then afford to forget or neglect its own backyard?"
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 07-Aug-03 11:12 AM
Tickjyu,
Very nice story you brought here. What the hijacker of RNAC plane is saying is that India should intervene like in 1950 and 1990 to get the Nepali Congress in power. This is the same argument one heard from the likes of Lendup Dorje just before India annexed Sikkim in 1975.
Bastola's bottom line is: India's foreign policy is best when it helps to get Nepali Congress in power...under the guise of democracy. But why should India be promoting democracy in Nepal when it is entrenching autocratic rule in Bhutan? The only way India promotes 'democracy' is by incorporating them in its territory such as Kashmir, Hydrabad, Sikkim and many other cases. And the problem with Nepali Congress is that it is willing to make Nepal into another state of the Indian union if it can gain assurance from New Delhi that Nepali Congress will be given the chief minister's portfolio in the new state!
It is an interesting fact of history that the 'democratic' political party responsible for the annexation of Sikkim into India was called the 'Sikkim Congress.' Here we have the 'Nepali Congress'...both of them function like the branch units of the great 'Indian Congress'!
Yes, we need democracy (but not the Indian marka), but our need for national sovereignty and independence is even greater. Only after nations have fully secured their national sovereignty can they have democracy, otherwise it is just another fancy name for old style colonization.
SC, for free and independent Nepal
|
| yogi |
Posted
on 07-Aug-03 03:36 PM
BJP government will always support the Monarchy in Nepal because they also have to do their politics and amass Hindu vote in next election. BJP government will always support king as a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu not because it is true but because it is easier for them this way.
Moreover, India never wants stability in Nepal. On the one hand India provides safe heaven for Maoist and on the other hand provides night vision helicopter and other military supplies to the Nepali government. If India wants, they can solve this problem.
India always backs its financial interest in the region. India is making a huge profit in its investment in Bhutan. So India does not want to piss Jigme off. So, Nepal is deeply suffering from the Bhutanese Refugee Problem.
Bush administration is not going to intervene in Nepal. Bush wants India to maintain stability in the region so whatever India does to its Neighbors, US is going to turn their blind eyes and ears.
Nepali government should find a mutually beneficial term of trade to bargain with India. May be they can threat to dismantle the Koshi Damn so that half of the state of Bihar will be drowned. Or something else..................
Yogi
|
| bijaya.m |
Posted
on 10-Aug-03 08:06 PM
Mr. Yogi ji and SC ji,
As you have said that India is playing in Nepalese internal politics with the Maoists only. But the history proves otherwise. NC is the main factor in fulfilling Indian interest. They (NC) were born to fulfill Indian imperialist design in 1947, at Calcutta with the blessings of Indian leaders. NCs declaration of their initial motto was a clear indication that Nepal is a greater part and partial of India. The then nominated acting president BP Koirala clearly stated in his initial speech that Nepal is a part and partial of India, its sovereignty is artificial and only created to nourish British Empire and the Rana regime. The first official publication of NC published in 1947 clearly states the intention in formation of Nepali Congress. The NC goal and aims was published at that time (of which I have a copy). They have tried to conceal their historical document from the nation and people. Why? KP Bhattrai the founder member of NC is still alive, ask him.
After 1950 so called revolution when MP Koirala, the step brother of BP Koirala became the first NC prime minister, fight between two brothers started for power. They not only invited Indian army but deputed Indian army in our northern borders. Indian ambassador started presiding in the national cabinet meetings and entire governance was done by the embassy, even the then personal private secretary of the king was appointed by Delhi. He an ICS officer in Indian government service this was seconded, never opposed by any of the koirala brothers at any time, instead they were the medium for this change and acceptance of direct Indian rule. Initially, King Tribhuvan was ignorant of the Indian design gradually came to know what they wanted and due to his illness he handed his powers to the crown prince MBBS. At that time the crown prince appointed Tanka Prasad Acharya, the first elected president of Nepali Congress (in 1947 in Calcutta) elected while he was in jail at Kathmandu. He became the prime minister and then only Nepal established its diplomatic relations with China, Russia and other countries of the world. Due to his nationalist feeling TPA was ousted from the congress and even jailed after so called democratic movement, once again by Koirala brothers (MP & GP). Indians started representing Nepal after MP Koirala became the prime minister. Its entire foreign policy as well as the internal governance of the country was controlled by Indian embassy and Indian secretaries appointed by the Indian government. Do you call this a democratic revolution or an invasion of Indian Empire?
Nehru, due to international pressure was not able to annex Nepal immediately, but before the treaty of 1950 with the then Rana rulers, Nehru sent three copies of same treaties to Sikkim, Bhutan and Nepal. But Nepal refused to sign, Bhutan and Sikkim signed that treaty in 1948 (which Nepal signed another treaty of semi equality in 1950 when Nehru clearly promised not to intervene in Nepalese internal affairs and they have shown the threat of Chinese communism.) With all sort of "grand-design" and intention Nehru even proposed his daughter Indira Gandhi to Bijaya Sumsher JBR, son of Prime Minister Mohan SJBR. Later Bijaya SJBR was electrocuted inside his bathroom in Delhi no one knows how it could have happened (?).
In 2015 BS NC owned absolute majority, after one year of prolonged election and in the absence of equal rival or opposition, misusing the power and the government money. A party having absolute majority made KP Bharttrai, speaker of the house after he was DEFEATED in the election from Gorkha and SP Upadhaya the then General Secretary of NC also LOST from both constituencies and became home, agriculture and education minister. This is the democracy of NC and BP from the very beginning (?). When king ousted NC out of power in 2017 BS Paush, SB Rana the then deputy PM was in Calcutta. Nehru advised him to declare war on Nepal again in the name of Nepali Congress from India. This announcement was proclaimed by SBR from all India radio (Indian government owned media). Was it not a naked aggression from Indian side? Fortunately, next day of that announcement Indo-China war started and Nepal was saved from a bloody battle. These are the pages of history of greater Indian design against its small and poor neighbor.
India was badly defeated and was forced back by the Chinese announcement that any attack on Nepal, China will consider that attack on itself, though the Nepali people are capable of defending their sovereignty but China is always with the people of Nepal. This blocked Indian direct and naked invasion of Nepal. With these historical facts and realities what political system and leadership you anticipate for the future of Nepal?
|
| Rastafariya |
Posted
on 10-Aug-03 08:11 PM
Birader Bijaya! all you is read is history of them and not I and I. You is not know why them India treat Nepal like that. You is only read what happened but you is not know why and how happened. You is needs to do some thinkin birader Bijaya.
|
| bijaya.m |
Posted
on 13-Aug-03 06:13 PM
Renewed Indian intervention news!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EH13Df02.html
This news clearly indicates what India wants. Please read it.
Here's more info
http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=11410#36032
|
