| Username |
Post |
| buzz |
Posted
on 07-Dec-03 11:23 PM
I have an Indian roommate. Few weeks back while driving back from college, I told him how Madhav Nepal went and met our Mao Badi leaders in India (apparently my roommate is quite aware about the situation in Nepal). He was shocked when i told him that, and he asked me why the Nepali government does not ask the Indian government to hand over these terrorists to them? I replied curtly saying, "Indian government is actually supporting these Maobadis." He was kind of irritated by my accusation, and started asking me why would india do that? India has nothing to gain from small country like Nepal.. and so on.. i tried answering him but could not come up with any valid reason to satisfy him.. i am a science major so don't know the basics about political world....
so, now i am here, to ask for help. Is India just indifferent to the situation in Nepal? or is it helping Maobadis? Why would they do that though?? what are the advantages that India might have because of the political instability in Nepal? why can't nepali government ask the indian government to hand over the maobadis, do we need to have some kind of treaty regarding cross border criminals? if so, don't we have any?
someone please help a novice...
|
| acharya |
Posted
on 07-Dec-03 11:27 PM
>>Is India a Villian to Nepal?
No.
End of Discussion.
|
| Kalekrishna |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 01:28 AM
No Buzz brother,
najik to Bhoot pane tada ko deuta bhanda kam lagcha, May be it is adding fuel, but we are the one asking them to do so, ironically it is our very nature to blame our neighbours for our faults-starting from within a family (home), society and nation as a whole.
KK
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 06:35 AM
buzz bro,
Your hunch is right, India is behind Nepal's present problems because it is supporting and harboring the Maoists. If India does not shelter the Maoists on its terrority the Nepali security forces can destroy them within a year. But as long as they enjoy Indian government's blessing, they become invincible.
Now to set some records straight:
It is not that the Nepali government has not asked for the Maoists to be handed over to Nepal. They have asked for this several times, including during King G's last visit to India. But India just refuses to comply.
How does India benefit by promoting instability in Nepal?
India gains by making Nepal internally fragmented and weak. When the Nepali government is weak, it is willing to sign any kind of treaties with India. Recently the Nepali government signed a very injurious treaty with the Indian government for the management of inland dryport in Birgunj. This port was made with World Bank grant and the management of the dry port was to have been given through a porcess of global tender. But India forced our government to give the contract to an Indian party with out any tender!! Talk of free trade. This will cost Nepal so much more, economically and politically.
Similarly, another treaty was signed for Upper Karnali hydro project. It is to produce 300 MW of power: India will get 85 per cent, Nepal will receive 15 per cent! Do you think Nepal would have signed such treaties willingly if it had not been weakened by the Maoist war? These are short term gains for India by supporting the Maoists.
On the long run, India wants to turn Nepal into another Kashmir or Sikkim: first destabalize an independent kingdom by encouraging a force like the Maoists and then step into restore 'peace' and take over the country. This is also what the Indian government tried to do in Sri Lankna by supporting the Tamil Tigers in the 1980s. They didn't succeed there like in Sikkim, but now the Sri Lankan government can not take any significant decision without asking India. So in brief, India wants to annex, dominate, and control the whole region by playing the pawns like the Nepali Maoists.
So next time you meet your Indi friend, just tell him what happend to Kashmir, Sikkim, and the plans they are making for Nepal now.
Jai Nepal!
|
| thaag |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 07:12 AM
IS India Villian to nepal
NO
Big Brother?
Yes.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 07:22 AM
Dear SC dai,
Here's my version of India and the Nepali Maoists:
Yes, you are 100% right when you say that the Maoists in Nepal are created by India. There's no denying to this. I find it funny when our social scientists, to sound academic just attribute this problem to Nepal's history, economy and this and that. In coming with "socio-economical-political" theories on the Maoists, our so called experts fail to see or even recognize the Indian influence on the Maoist movement in Nepal. Even in Sajha, we have seen a zillion postings attributing the problem as our own "internal" problem, which does not make any sense.
Yes, the Maoists are India's creation. If it was our own internal problem, then why didn't the movement started earlier? It is hard tho believe that the people of Rolpa and Rukum realzied that they were oppressed during the Panchayat era and their only hope to liberation is by waging a war only after the 1990s. The biggest proof of Indian involvement comes from the weapons and explosives that are being used by the Maoists. How can you import explosives like RDX, TNT, RPG and rifles like Kalishnikov to Nepal? You can't use the air route or use the Chinese border. To import all these explosives and rifles, the Maoists had to and hae to use the Indian land. There's no way these weapons made it to Nepal via China. It is hard to believe that the Indian Police, CBI, RAW and the Military Intelligence didn't know and don't know anything about these explosives and weapons making their way into Nepal. If India was a friendly nation, it would have arrested arms dealers a long ago, making it virtually impossible for the Maoists to acquire all these weapons, which are either used by the terrorist organziations or the Armies. Furthermore, another million dollar question is: how could the Maoists afford all these weapons given that they were a party of poor farmers and Sarvaharas of Rolpa, Rukum? So, without a doubt, India is the financer/sponsor of this problem. It is not only feasible but almost impossible to import these weapons via China. So what's the source of the weapons? The weapons and explosives are probably purcahsed in India, Pakistan, Afganisthan and Central Asian States and enters freely via India to Nepal. India's objection to Nepal's proposal of regulating the borders only raise suspisions towards India. IF India didn't have anything fishy on its mind, then why would it object to the Border Regulation proposal that Nepal puts forth in every border related meeting with India?
Why would it do so?
I think the treaty issue SC dai raised is a valid one. Yes, India can benifit a lot from a weak Nepali state. Given the fact that India intervened in every SAARC country directly except Nepal makes Nepal even more of a likely target of the Indian State Sponsored terrorism. All the SAARC member countries have already DIRECTLY accepted the Indian hegemony-- Sri Lanka by inviting the Indian troops; Pakistan by signing the Shimla Pact; maldives by inviting the Indian troops to topple the Indian sponsored coup etc. The only SAARC country in the region that has DIRECTLY opposed the Indian hegemony in the region is NEPAL. Luckily, Nepal had some diplomats and politicans who always believed that we also share our border with China. However, those nationalist diplomats and pro-Nepal people were braned anti-Indian in the aftermath of the retoiration of multi party democracy.
To Be Continued:
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 07:41 AM
continued:
When KP BHattari went to India immediately follwing the change of politicdal system in Nepal, he was quoted saying- "Bharat hamara dushra ghar hai". With this quote, the modern Nepali state lost its Nationalism. Nationalim, as this Joe Bloggs who is neither a sociology or any hi-fi PHD student sees is: Everyone in Nepal connected by a common problem or a common goal. Following the Sughauli Sandhi, the Nepali state promoted its own unique brand of nationalism, and for better or worse, it worked. The whole of Nepal was united by an Indian invasion threat. We always had a threat from the south. This was one common agenda that brough Nepalis from all class/race together. However, when our Santa Mahanta PM uttered those aforementioned quotes, Nepali nationalism, or the common agenda of the poeple from Sagarmatha to Lumbin came crumbling down. Furthermore, the Nepali intellectuals, who by the way are for sale dime a dozen, to show their affiliation and attachment with the political parties, started to criticize everything Panchayati. KIng Mahendra was criticized; the brilliant zone of peace proposal was discarded from Nepal's foreign policy agenda just ebcause it was a King;'s concept. Had it been BP or GPs concept, it would have no doubt gotten more importance than it should have, however, just ebcause it was a ruling Monarch's concept, our intellectuals were quick in seeing its faults and discarding the proposal. Also, the most semior, experienced and traiend staff of the Foreign Ministry were removed to make ways for inexperienced, untrained and pan chewing congressi karyakartas. Nepal's foreign service, which had a pool of trained manpower with career diplomats trained in LSE and Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy suffered a heavy blow from GPKs prasasanik sudhar. The moarle of the staff went down because they now had bosses who did not even know how to spell DIPLOMACY. Furthermore, the appointment of ambassadors became a political decison rather than experience and seniority based. Nepal now neither had a good foreign policy nor nationalism. We were a country that could be divided anytime.
If this was what happening inside the bureacurcay, there was another crisis developing outside the bureucracy: Nepal now saw the sudden emergence of "seperatist" leaders. Although, some of them were present during the Panchayat Regime, they could not freely promote their movements. After the 90s, however, we saw either the mergence or regrouping of seperatist organziations such as Seta Magurali, Khumbuwan, Kirat Mukti morcha, Tharu Wan and Tarai Mukti Morcha.
To be continued:
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 07:50 AM
All of a sudden, Nepali nationalism which was promoted by Bhimsen Thapa and through out the Panchayat Regime that Nepal faced a threat from India was replaced with ethnic nationalism movements that asked the government to recognzie its existence. We started to see an unpreceedented diversity in unity. Some label it as our own internal problem that was unrecognized for many years, however there exists another viewpoint: This all was created by the outside forces to carry out their own covert operations in Nepal. And given the importacne of all these separtist movements to carry out covert operations, one cannot ouright dismiss this claim. Whatver the reasons, whoever behind all these, Nepali state was not as strong as it used to be before.
All this was happening at the people's level and at the political level, the leaders were making more and more mistakes. Although a creation of India, to secure their votebanks they started screaming their throats against the "unequal 1950" treaty between India and Nepal. This alarmed India. Could these people's be trusted? On the one hand, the Communists were against everything Indian in their rhetorics, on the other hand, they were, like their Congressi counterparts frequenting the delhi durbar for its blessings.
TBC
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 07:51 AM
recognzie its existence= recognize their
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 08:04 AM
Divide and Rule:
The Indian leaders soon realized that the new Nepali leaders, because of their inexperience and illegitimate favors, could not be trusted. Although, many people believe that the 1990 movement was a Nepali creation, I see it as India's design on Nepal. Anyways, this opens for a whole new discussion on India's role in Nepali politics since 2044 saal. To get back to the point: The Indians now realized that it was almost impossible to deal with the new Nepali leaders, and it is always easy to deal with one idiot at a time rather than 100 idiots. What option did they have? The only option was to follow what their Colnoial masters tauhght them: Divide and Rule. So, there needed to be divisions among the Nepali population; there needed to be divisions among the political parties; there needed to be divisions among and everything n Nepal. There needed a new radical force and the Maoists enetered the scene. With the Maoists entering the scene , India achieved its first goal: Division in Nepal. Although the seeds of division were already sowed, the Maoists acclerated the growth of division in the Nepali population.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 08:19 AM
With the Nepali state weak and divided in terms of political ideology and ethnicity, it wasn't hard for the Maoists to promote their new radical- all-changing philosophy to the ignorant masses. Some intellectuals too fell in the Maoists trap. The Maoists didn't have any troble preaching their new found theory to the masses. Suddenly the movement turned violent. The Nepali press, YES THE NEPALI PRESS is to be blamed along with India and our power hungry leaders for this sudden growth of the Maoists in Nepal. The Nepali press gave to practice its new found freedom of speech, gave unncecessary importance to the news related to the Maoists. Although, the Press might have thought it was its moral duty to inform the masses about what's happening in the country, it nonetheless promoted Maoism by doing so. More and more people became curious, more and moire people joined the party and this is when I quote the headlines from one of the 1940s issues of the economist: Is freedom to babble essential to demorcacy? This leads to 2 more questions:
1. How could the Maoists with no previos major political experience amass so many follwoers in such a short span of time?
2. Who controls the media in Nepal?
As for the answer to the first question goes: The Maoists in all likelyhood sought the Indian help in organziing the party. All the help with propoganda to money to weapons had to come from India. Although, I do not doubt Dr. Bhattari's academic credentials, I find it hard to believe that his and Prachanda's skills helped in the growth of the Party and spreading their movement all over Nepal. No way! There's got to be some experienced "chimeki" brains involved in this who knew everything from spreading terrors to using the media for its benifits.
aaru pachi.. ekaichin ma.. aunla dukhyo tyope garda garda
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 08:25 AM
gave to practice its new found freedom = gave unnecessary coverage...
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 08:35 AM
With the Nepali media and a majority of the people under it's sway, the Maoists didn't have any difficulty establishing a nationwide network. The media kept on making mistakes which in turn boosted the maoists' morale. This also led to people's total dis-satisfaction with the governmnet that could neither provide peace nor security. So, the governmnet started getting weaker everyday. Itw a slosing its people's trust which mdeant it was losing its legitimacy and there were rifts among the political parties and whoever was in the governmnet could be easily manupulated by India. India guaranted legitinmacy and power to the political leaders in exchange of some favors. The first favor Indians sought was to defame the Pakistani Embassy in Nepal saying that it was the main source of terrorism in India. Then came other demands: Indian market expansion; Changes in Nepal's foreign policy and domestic policy and the infamous citizenship bill.
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 08:49 AM
IF bhai, good to see you back after a while.
Great going, enjoyed your brilliant exposition on the India factor. What amazes me is that even after the recent Lucknow expose about Maoist-India connection, our netas and buddhijibis refuse to open their eyes to external conspiracy! In any other country such a clinching evidence - if it was ever needed - would have created an outrage and a furore. It appears to me that every Nepali has become a loyal chaukidar to Delhi Durbar, with no self respect or integrity, and no sense of national sovereignty. Quite depressing.
Oh, what the hell, let the sleeping dogs lie, I say!
How is the beautiful Beijing now? Must be getting quite cold there now. I suppose you did not hop down to Hainan Island to partake of the Miss World contest and celebrate the victory of the Irish lass? I thought she was a mighty fine, as were the runner ups. The Nepali thithi was cute in a sisterly way, but lacked the oomph to bowl over the judges. Maybe next time.
How fares Shunlitan? Do you manage to get there now are you swamped with papers and exams? Let us know how your trans-Siberian trip is shaping up...I would love to do it - were it not for this tandoori business I am struck in!
Ni hou,
SC
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 08:51 AM
Nepal was on the verge of turning into the Post-007 saal scenario with India trying to control everything in Nepal. However, India got its first lesson of true Nepali politics when his Late Majesty send the citizenship bill ratified by the both houses of the parliament to the supreme court rtaher than giving it his consent. The failure to get His Majesty's consent on the citizenship bill was a severe blow to India's long term agenda to annex Nepal peacefully, and if the bill would have made its way into Nepali law books, the Nepali parliament in 2030 would have passed a resolution favoring a peaceful integration with India. His Late Majesty saw waht was in the coming and refused to give it his consent. Now India angered both at the royal family and the political parties for their failure to push for the bill, started supporting the Maoists even more. This was to show "the ignorant leaders" of Nepal that there is another no-nonsense force which if not taken care of with the Indian help of course, will blow the whole country apart.
However, the priorities started to change after 9/11 attacks. Now, India could not openly support the Maoists because of the Pakistani threat. The Indian covert agencies feared that the Pakistani covert intelligence agency could blow its cover to the international world if it continues to help the Maoists of Nepal. Moreover, Nepal's only nationalist politician in the post 1990 era, Sher bahadur Deuba was the PM. Sher Bahadur was offered the Indian military help to curb the insurgency in Nepal but Sher Bahadur refused the help and instead of looki ng south, he looked north and saat samundra pari, America.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 09:09 AM
Deuba Sarkar and internationalization of the problem:
Deuba, although an amature (sp?) in politics, is a nationalist. And we should give him credits for that. He knew that if Nepal asks for the direct Indian help, the Indian troops would enter Nepal and stay here for a lonmg long time and he would go down in the Nepali history as the most hated PM of Nepal. This Deuba kid meeting the US President in White House, buying rifles from Belgium and internationalizing the maoist problem made it necessary for India to boot him out of the office. Furthermore, a major diplomatic offensive was launched against Nepal's internationalization of the issue by the Indian governmnet: When the US and the UK decided to help Nepal with military equipments, the Indian lobby in london was quick in influencing Tony Blair that the Maoists in Nepal could only be controlled with the Indian help. As a result, the British Governmnet issued a statement following Deuba's visit saying that, The british Governmnet will help the Nepali government by consulting with Nepal's immediate neighbor, and we all know who our immediate neighbor is, in case you don't know, its India. However, deuba was making progress with his arms deal in the US and Belgium. The US governmnet allowed the sale of M16 a2 rifles, which are better than the Kalishnikovs (ak 47) that the Maoists use or other forms of SLR that the Indian army uses. This deuba kid was doing something and was becoming an eysore to the Indian governmnet everyday. So, he had to be removed by the help of, who else but those murkha Girija and boliko thegaan nabhayeko, vague, principle less Madhav Kumar Nepal. Deuba fell in the elaborate trap and faced the most humiliating exit.
With Deuba out, the Indian governmnet thought that one of those jokers will be leading Nepal. However, the Indian governmnet like many so called nepali politican and legal experts failed to see one simple thing: The monarchy too had some constitutionally guaranted powers when it came to state affairs.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 09:32 AM
With the King directly involved in decision making and a growing international concern over Nepal's maoists, the Indian government asked the Maoists to declare a ceasefire. This was necessary because Deuba's internationalization of the issue was making the US donate arms and money, and the Indian governmnet, which always have a long term plan, realized that if those modern weapons manufactured in the US, which are 20000 times better than the ones produced in India fall in the Maoists hand? The Indian governmnet also became increasingly wary of the Maoist problem spreading in Bihar. Also, by killing Krishna Mohan Shrestha, the Maoists faced an all-out action in the hands of Nepal police, Army and the Armed Police Force. The government immediatley established a command that was trained by the US trainers and started the process to establish a commado batallion involving all se curity bodies. Furthermore, Nepal was preparing to take this issue to the UN.
The Indians realized that with all that was happening in Nepal and Nepal's further internationalization of the issue would make it follow the UN Resolution 1373, and India would have to pull the cords off the Maoists. The Maoists were too valuable of an asset to let go. So, the Indian governmet forced them to enter into negotiations, which was, by the way bound to be a failure from the very beginnning.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 09:37 AM
The Chand governmnet which was recieving heavy criticsims from the Palace and the people for its failure in handling the Maoist issue, was more than thrilled to recieve an offer from the Maoists. Narayan Singh Pun,a minister flew at night with his chooper to bring those maoist leaders to negotiations,w hich were still considered "terrorists" by the HMG statement issued earlier by the Deuba Government.
Although, talks are good and probably the only solution in resolving this problem, orchestrated talks with proper planning are just a sheer waste of time. The governmnet of Nepal wasted its time, where as the Maoists and the Indian government utlized their time. The government didn't internationalize the maoist issue although two days ago they had murdered the chief of police, India felt relieved that it had some time to hide the evidence and clear up the mess and come up with a new policy.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 09:51 AM
Negotiations?
Negotiation is a give and take process. Each side bargains to maximize its interests. Negotiations aren't a child's play or like bargaining for a pair of shoes in New Road. It requires trained people who know the norms of international, regional and major domestic negotiations. Furthermore, one needs a carefully planned and penned draft and fall back options when entering a major negotiation (for more on this, see Getting to Yes). However, our inexperienced governmnet sought help to draft the agnda from none other than Daman Dhungana and padma Ratna Tuladhar who had assumed the same role of facilitators and Human Rights activists ine arlier negotiations. As Ashu dai wrote here some time ago: Shouldn't the governmnet look for better alternatives when these two people have failed to facilitate anything during negotiations time and again? Anyways, these two people made the governmnet give up on everything where as the Maoists did not loose anything. The maoists got everything they wanted, where as the governmnet ended up losi ng everything. And this was one of the reasons for the Chand government's removal.
Thapa governmnet, Negotiations and resumption of skirmishes:
After Chand, we had Thapa as our PM. The Thapa government continued with the negotiations although it knew that it was not going to achieve anything. The Thapa government had one good point: IT had experienced members in its team like Kamal Thapa and Prakash Chandra Lohani, unlike the Chand Governmnet which had ministers like Kuber Sharma and politically amature Narayan Singh Pun.
With Kamal Thapa and Prakash Chandra Lohani in the scene, the Thapa governmnet could take a hard stand. OK, we agree on these things but we want something in return. Unlike the Chand government, the Thapa governmnet wanted something from the maoist side. One explanation for this could be: Both kamal Thapa and Prakash Chandra Lohani learned the nitty gritty of negotiations while negotiating with India durinfg the Panchayat Regime. Anyways, we now had experienced negotiators who expressed themselves clearly and stated their demands clearly. From ealrlier on, they refused to fall on the Maoist verbal trap.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 10:02 AM
Both Kamal Thapa and Prakash Chandra Lohani, although mastered their negotiation skills during the Panchayat Era, they proved their excellence only after the restoration of Multi-Party System: Thapa managed to push for the Gujaral Doctrine and Lohani managed to get the Mahakali treaty signed. The Indian governmnet knew this and it advised the Maoists that if they continue negotiations a bit longer, the Maoists would be limite dto another political party in a country that has probably has more parties than people! So, the Maoist leaders started to disappear one by one. First Badal disappeared, then Baburam, then Mahara and then everyone. The governmnet knew that the talks would be called off anyrtime so it was prepared. Speaking to the Bahas host, Indra Lohani, Kamal Thapa politely but clearly stated that the governmnet is ready to protect its citizens incase the Maoists resume their violent ways. He said, we will not give up on our duties to protect the rights of the innocent citizens just to appease the maoists. We will fight back and this time we are prepared.
Of course, the talks were called off after when the maoists issued a statement saying that they are resuming their violent activities. There is no mystery or chemistry here: The maoisst were forced to sit in talks by the Indian governmnet, and the Maoists were forced to withdraw from the talks by the Indian government because the negotiatiors on the governmnet side were not favorable to India.
|
| justwondering1 |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 10:06 AM
Yes, I believe every internal problem in Nepal has always started from India. Starting from the democracy riots in 2045(I believe that was the year). I feel that Prajatantra in Nepal didn't come out of people's sufferings and desire alone. The driving force was India, as Nepal was getting better socially, economically, and internationally at the time.
About Maobadis in Nepal, where do u think they get all their weapons from?INDIA
I think India's goal out of this is to turn Nepal into something like Bhutan! Where all the major decisions are made by India
Like SubhaChintak and Isolated freaks have said India benefits both in the long term and the short term by weakening Nepal by using the resources we have. I couldn't agree 100% or even more to what they have said so far. I am impressed that there are Nepalis who understand the core reason for the problems of our country. I hope someday you two can run the country and make it a better place for all of us.
Speaking of making it better, a couple of questions for you two.
Suvachintak and/or Isolated Freak:
As a novice in politics, why are we not closing the borders with India to prevent further smugglings of guns and other illegal materials supplied to maoist?
Any thoughts about that?
Also, what do you think can be done about the whole Maoist chaos in the Country?
I would appreciate your intelligent thoughts!
JAI NEPAL
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 10:26 AM
However, 6 months was long enough to come up with a new policy regarding the Maoists for India and the political protests were enough to shift the Nepali government's attention. For the Nepali governmnet, appeasing the agitating parties became the first priority. And its quite silly to say that the political parties waited for a year to protest the asoj move. Werte they sleeping all year long? No. They were waiting for their Master's oders and the master ordered them to start protests against something that happened a year ago. Such is Nepal and Nepali politics.
aaiya.... I diverted this topic from kaha bata kata. So accept my apologies. Now here's on true Indian intentions, all I wrote above was the history and nature of the Nepali politics in the post 1992 era. Now, let me write something on what India wants in the future:
Here, I disagree with SC dai. I don't think India wants Nepal to be another Sikkim or kashmir, but I agree with the latter part of his statement: India does want to make Nepal another Bhutan or S ri Lanka. More of a Bhutan than Sri Lanka.
Why:
Nepal has not DIRECTLY accepted India as a major regional power. India's major concern is to make Nepal accept that India is a regional power, just like Srilanka and Maldives did. Although, the process to make Nepal accept India's hegemony started as ear;ya s 2007 saal, and India was in some degree successful in doing so till 2017 saal but after the Panchayat system, Nepal cleaned up its Indian mess, and started to make its own stand in the International System. Whether by establishing diplomatic ties with as many nationas as possible or by sending its troops to various UN operations, Nepal wanted to be known, Nepal wanted a guaranty from the international world that inc ase of its invasion by India, the world community will back Nepal's independence. Since, Nepal under King Mahendra and Birendra achieved this goal, the indians couldnb't invade Nepal. Later, the Indian priorities changed too. They did not want to annex Nepal forcefully. Again, their priority changed, and now they just want Nepal accept its hegemony. India wanits troops in Nepal, just to prove than it has penetrated all the SAARC nations directly. Nepal is not letting that happen. And its only with the help of the Maoists and murkha leaders, India can achieve this. This is why we had 1990 and this is precisely why we have the Maoists.
aaba sakiyo!
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 10:36 AM
aaiya, aunla dukhyo SC dai, but its good to see you back too. Beijing is as you said, cold, very cold. Bitter Siberian wind penetrating my wind cheater and heart, making me miss my tato chiya.
I didn't go to Hainan. But, saw the Nepali beauty on TV. She is beautiful, too bad she didn't win anything.
Shanlintun or Shanlinturnrrrrrrrr with that heavy Beijing R sound, is doing quite well. Its bright, vibrant and as always amazing. making new friends and learning new words in Sanlintun has become my favorite past time.
About the trip: I am all prepared for it. Will probably leave Beijing sometimes in January.
Just wondering1,
Thanks for your words. I have no intentions to get into Nepali politics as of today though;-), I leave this responsibility to my senior dai, SC.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 11:07 AM
Now what's the solution:
Believe it or not, accept it or not, the only hope Nepal now has to have the UN declare Nepal as an UN Protectoriat (sp?). Let the Swedish, Finish, Danish, American and Korean soldiers come in as UN Peacekeepres. If not, the maoist problem in Nepal will result in a bloddy civil war followed by a gruesome ethnic war. And it will be us who will be suffering, not the Maoist leaders, Congrees/Communist leaders or India. k garney, Nepersingh deuta sarai risyaeko jasto cha!
|
| juhip |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 11:21 AM
Very illucidating discussion. But, in my opinion, back off from the conspiracy jargon and maybe you'll be more convincing. Seen too much of it here in the U.S., especially with the far left groups. Believe me, there's way more to foreign policy than meets the eye. I don't think we should make gross generalizations and infer causality to situations that do not lend themselves to this type of reasoning. In order to infer "effect" you must set up a counterfactual statement - that is, compare the current situation to one in which you remove the "cause" (a counterfactual). Since this counterfactual is counter to the truth, that is, it does not exist, you then look at situations that are comparable to this counterfactual situation to use in the contrast. Well, I am not convinced of your "evidence" that I am to use in making statements of cause and effect.
Honestly, I think we all would benefit from being more level-headed and stop emotion from getting into the discussion. It's hard for me to believe that your feelings against India don't seep into your supposedly scientific assessment of the situation. This is where I think Ashu would be a great addition to this discussion since I've found that he is more level-headed in his reasoning. Please don't take offense. Just my honest thoughts.
|
| juhip |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 11:26 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love Nepal. I just think that we cannot get emotional when talking about politics, especially when it comes to talking about India. I think you all will agree with me, we Nepalis are super-sensitive when it comes to anyting even remotely tied to India and tend to let our emotions get carried away. I think it's natural when you're a small country trying to assert yourself to a big one but we need to move beyond emotions at some point.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 11:36 AM
Juhip,
Very illucidating discussion. But, in my opinion, back off from the conspiracy jargon and maybe you'll be more convincing. Seen too much of it here in the U.S., especially with the far left groups. Believe me, there's way more to foreign policy than meets the eye. I don't think we should make gross generalizations and infer causality to situations that do not lend themselves to this type of reasoning.
Well dude, as a freshman in a small Chinese college studying something totally off, I have a very limited knowledge of foreign policy. I would appreciate it if you could tell me how are we supposed to analyze the Foreign Policy of any given nation. That help will be highly appreciated.
Conspiracy jargons: Conspiracy jargons at times mean the extreme form of what had happened or wjhat might happen or what's happening. So, I wouldn't totally disregard them. Maybe its the different backgrounds we share; maybe biases we have that somehow blocks us to see things clearly. We all have our biases.
Gross generalizations: Believe it or not, we all generalize. I mean, if we are not to generalzie things based on our past experiences, we are not learning from our mistakes. Say, the maoists are not trustworthy. Its a generalzied remark, I agree. But why aren't they trustworthy? Because they broke the talks many times. Genralziation, in a way helps to analzye things and reasons behind the genarlization, so I don't see it as a bad thing. Generalization becomes yoiur hypothesis, then you look at other things and either prove or refute your hypothesis.
aaru pachi on reasoning.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 11:41 AM
on't get me wrong, I love Nepal. I just think that we cannot get emotional when talking about politics, especially when it comes to talking about India. I think you all will agree with me, we Nepalis are super-sensitive when it comes to anyting even remotely tied to India and tend to let our emotions get carried away. I think it's natural when you're a small country trying to assert yourself to a big one but we need to move beyond emotions at some point.
Juhip,
Leyt me correct you on this one. Small nations tend to be ultra nationalists, I agree. But, India has more ULtra nationalism than nepal has. The strong defensive nationalism as a result of the colonial experience have made Indians very VERY sensteive when it comes to their nationalism. Indian actions/meddling in nepali politics is nothing new. It started from 2007 saal, however the degree of involvement seems to increase these days and that is bad. And as an ordinary nepali citizen, if I say, i don't want India to get increasingly involved in my country's internal matters, does that mean I am an ultra nationalist? See, there's the difference between you and me trying to analyze this discussion. Will probably get back to this thread in a day or two. Damn, took a lot of time!!! What started as a quick response to SC dai's remarks turned out to be an essay!
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 08-Dec-03 08:13 PM
justwondering bro!
Why doesn't Nepal close the border?
Nepal can not do this alone, it needs India's conset and cooperation on this project. Our government raised this issue with India on serveral times. One of them is related with Dr. Harka Gurung's famous report which recommended the regulation of the open border. But the Indians never allowed that to happen because the open, unregulated border suits their political, economic, and demographic objectives. So under various pretexts the Indian government and the powerful Indian lobby in Nepal continues to keep the border open and unregulated.
But on the other hand, India has unilaterally built a barbed wire fence along the entire Bangladeshi border! Here, it is beneficial for India to close this border that had been open for ages!
What is to be done about the Maoist chaos?
Like IF bhai said, the political leaders, intellectuals, and journalists have to realize the true objectives and inspirations of the Maoists. They are becoming India's tools to undo Nepal's political and territorial sovereignty. Once common people realize this, the rebels will be islolated from society and therefore considerably weakened, both morally and politically.
Nepal should further interntionalize the Maoist terrorism as India-inspired subersion and ask for global pressure on India to stop harboring and supporting the Maoists. If they have no bases or support in India, the rebels will have very little leverage left and will be forced to a negotiated settlement or face the possiblity of military defeat. Only then can Nepal come back to its normal state.
Juhip bro,
First of all thanks for loving Nepal, there are very few left. But I did not understand what you mean by being 'level-headed' and 'emotional'? What I commented or IF said don't come out of our imaginations: these are historical and political facts recorded in Nepali, Western, and even Indian scholarship! I suggest you read (or reread as the case might be) works of Leo Rose, Myrdal, B. Upreti, Laxman B. K.C., David Seddon, Dhurba Kumar, S.D. Muni, Chatterjee, Louise Brown, and numerous others. Instead of us being emotional, is it possible that you are being rather 'emotional' in supporting India? There was a global survey done by Time Magazing affiliate which said that Indians were the most nationalist people in the world. So you don't have to be from a small country to be nationalist...I am sure you are aware why the BJP continues to win landslide victories!
IF bhai,
Very very interesting facts and arguments, I am impressed! I especially like your analysis of Sher Bdr. Deuba, I think that is a vital aspect of contemporary political history that has not be adequately examined till now. He is indeed a very interesting character, a complex character. But New Delhi, and the pro-India lobby and pro-India media don't like him one bit. Maybe he did something right for the country after all!
Keep warm!
SC
|
| juhip |
Posted
on 09-Dec-03 10:34 AM
IF - thanks for the quick reply. I'll send you links to some really great readings on critical analysis of foreign policy, mostly coming out of RAND (policy think tank). BTW, there is a Nepali studying at their graduate school - that's something to be really excited and proud about.
SC - I really didn't want to even reply to your comments because they come across as quite confrontational. I went back and read your postings and noticed that India is something you've posted on multiple times and you seem to have quite strong feelings there. Well, your totally entitled to them and thank you for your comments. I've read Leo Rose's writings but haven't seen the others - I'll look into them.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 09-Dec-03 11:14 AM
Ok,
Here's a quick reply to both Juhip and SC dai,
Juhip bro,
Thanks much for the information. I very much want to learn about foreign policy and critical analysis of foreign policy. Since, its not my turf at all, I would be very happy to learn from you, but just don't send me Snyder's "critical analysis" essay, or awfully long Wallerstien essay on analyzing the American FP. :-)
Now to set things straight:
Foreign Policy cannot be analyzed in isolation. You need to look at the country's domestic policy, history, culture, government, economy, defense and its geographic location. Geographic location is one important part when it come sto analyzing foreign policy of any given nation. For example, why the US can afford adventurism and why Japan can't? The former has a strategic geographi location, the latter doesn't. What made Switzerland pursue a neutral FP ? Because, if it wouldn't have done so, it would have been annexed by either Germany or France. Why is the role of Syria important in resolving the Israel-Palestine crisis?
Then, we have economy based analysis: Economy absed analysis looks at any given country's wealth and its standing in the international system. The reason that America can go on adventures worldwide is because of the dollar power. The reason Switzerland can remain neutral is because it has money. The reason, a country liek Nepal has to support every US action everywhere is because we don't have MONEY.
Nepal is India Locked. So, India does influence our FP and DP. We have failed to come up with a good FP, I agree. So, is it our mistake/fault? No. As I said earlier, the geographic location, economy, history and culture are closely related with FP. And those are precisely the areas that lets Indians manipulate our policy makers.
As for SC getting confrontational: I don't think he is. As I wrote earlier, its just a difference in approach we have in seeing things. Nobody is totally correct or totally incorrect when you analyze issues in social sciences, because there exists multiple interpretations to an event/issue. Some social scientists have termed this “Kurasawan Approach”, named after the famous Japanese Director Kurasawa whose movie The Roshomon (gate) became the first Asian movie ever to win the Academy Award in the early 50s. In that movie, Kurasawa presents his viewers with 4 different explanations of the same event. In case if you haven’t seen it, see it. It’s a great movie. Anyway, getting back to the topic: We interpret things the way we deem fit and when we do that, of course, without any doubt, our economical, political and social backgrounds influence our thinking. It could be possible that you share a totally different social/economical/cultural/historical backgrounds than what the majority of the Nepali shares, and that's probably we have differences in opinions. But, as SC gave a list of readings that in a way corroborates the things he has been saying all along, I think its upto you to come up with evidence (whatever it emans in social science), and prove us otherwise than constantly politely saying you are wrong. Based on our limited thinking and a very limited exposure to the academia, we came up with what we came up with. Now, its your duty, the duty of someone who knows how things are to be done, to educate us with your version of the whole thing. I would welcome that very very much, and who knows, you might even persuade me in believeing what you believe in.
|
| gaz |
Posted
on 09-Dec-03 12:21 PM
ofcourse indian will be VILLIAN. coz our goverment help paki.
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 09-Dec-03 02:22 PM
Hello juhip jyu:
I am truly sorry if I appeared be 'confrontational' to you, that would never be my intention. In your earlier postings, you intimated that my views on this thread were somewhat 'emotional', lacking 'scientific evidence', and lacking 'level-headed' attitude. All I did in the next posting was to politely clarify that misconception by pointing out that what I was basing my opinion was not my personal bias but something based on the evidence and conclusions contained in a number of scholarly works.
I am suprised that my effort to clarify my position appears to be 'confrontational' to you. You could not pin me down with your original accusations of being 'emotional', lacking 'scientific evidence' or not being 'level-headed' after my clarification. But instead of conceding what had been sincerely explained to you, what do you do? You do a kind of background search on my Sajha postings and you see that I have made frequent postings about issues related with India. And from that, you conclude that I have 'quite strong feelings" about the issue. You are entitled to your views too. However, I would like to humbly request you to explain what you mean by 'quite strong feelings' according to the scientific norms you have alluded to in this discussion.
Truly hoping to engage in dialogue and understanding. I feel we should try to engage with the ideas people bring to the table (factual statements), rather than speculating on people's emotional motives or mental status (unknown variables).
Good day to you sir!
|
| mildseven |
Posted
on 10-Dec-03 06:47 AM
I think its more like India looking the other way rather than actively doing something to harm Nepal. It is not in anyones best interest to have instability in Nepal, esp. any south asian nations, it is however in indias best interest that Nepal remain separate from india but too weak to survive w/o her. Separate because that way india would NOT have the long direct boundary with china and weak for obvious reasons. As far as help is concernerd, There are more than enough groups in India to help the Maoists. All the way from Karnataka to the strongest ones in West Bengal. INdians themselves have unsuccessfully tried for years to take care of their own maoist and other extrtermist groups problems. and these groups are far better armed than the nepai maoists are. Much better bombs, no pressure cooker bomb bullshit, much better weapons and training camps and the whole nine yards. basically they have a lot more experience. i think these are the groups that are helping the maoists.
The last line on Marx's communist manifesto is also the first line on all other communist organizations' agendas, WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE.
We Nepalis have a habit of blaming shit on India. WHen all the Pakis were carrying out operations from Nepal, we looked the other way. No arrests, no news no nothing until they got so f***iing brave and bold that they hijacked a plane. so we get the bambu and then we arrest a few people send home a diplomats and foerget about it all. now its indias turn to leave us alone.
I dont blame India of HELPING maoists. I blame them for not helping us, but then they definitely have their reasons.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Dec-03 08:12 AM
midlseven,
Yes, India is a villian to Nepal. I apologize that i didn't include any theories in my posts to make it non-technical but seems like throwing some theory stuff on IR and FP will craete less confusion. The whole of my paper was based on these arguments:
1. Foreign Policy decisions are not the product of a rational calculation about what is good for the state; rather theya re a compromise -- and sometimes compromised product of the internal bargaining process.
2. This internal bargaining process and the influence of non-state actors such as terrorists etc. have been researched by John Herz. Please refer to his essay, " Terretorial State Revisited". If you are not that interested in reading theories, just skip the first part and move to the latter part: Intervention and non-allignmnet. This is where he says that terrorists can be used by country/countries as a tool to achieve their interests. Terrorits become a tool of nations that support and fund them. This is all done to intervene or blackmail or manipulate the states against whom those terrorists are trageted to come to the compromise or come up with the policies favorable to the nation/nations funding/supporting the terrorists. Also, ethnic nationalism movements and divisions are created by the powerful sattes in less powerful states to achieve their goals.
3. Every emerging power dreams of becoming a regional player and then a global hegemon. For this the emerging powers employ a number of tactics. Covert opeartions to toppling of regimes to funding terrorists to supporting civil wars because by doing these things they can intervene and prove that they are powerful. Every regional major power looks for a way to intervene militarily in oter nations. The emerging powers have to do this if they want to be a regional player or grow into a global hegemon, says John mershiemer in his book, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics".
4. Many books have been written already on coercive diplomacy.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Dec-03 08:23 AM
1. Foreign Policy decisions are not the product of a rational calculation about what is good for the state; rather theya re a compromise -- and sometimes compromised product of the internal bargaining process. -- Allsion, 1968/69.
John Herz- 1968
John Mershiemer- 2001
|
| pandu |
Posted
on 10-Dec-03 10:08 AM
Okay - IF - all countries are villains to all other countries since foreign policy is meant to serve a country's own self interest and undermine others to fulfill their own needs. So, I say that Nepal is a "villain" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) to its neighbors too. If they had the capacity, Nepal would also do the same shit, just that they're not as powerful as their neighbors. What's the big deal - all powerful countries are going to have self-serving policies as do the smaller ones - just that by very nature of being more powerful, they become deemed oppressors. Look at the U.S. and all other "powerful" nations prior to WWII. What do you want India to do? What exactly is the point of all the ghan-than? This situation is not unique, it's not like you're uncovering something new and profound that you willl now expose the world to. Really, if you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. Unless there is direct oppression (which I really don't think you've proven) that the global community agrees with, this is not a big deal and there's really nothing you can do but bitch on with your friends.
So, its up to our own people to be educated and not be bokas and be oppressed. How lame are our own people if they are so easily brainwashed? Dudes, are we that screwed up that we can't even think for our own god-dam selves? Focus on your own internal problems, educate and educate some more.
Okay, so then you're going to say our politicians are being controlled by the Indians too , right? And, that's why we can't get to the people (who, by the way, are also controlled by the Indians). So, why don't you and all your compatriots who are obviously not controlled by the Indians, do something about it? Let me know when you devise a plan...
|
| jesh |
Posted
on 10-Dec-03 10:23 AM
I have a very simple logic to add here, India will never let it neighbours rise. The reasoning is that, it wii start the insurgency in the states of India with border to that country. Look at the case of Sri Lank, if left alone it has potential to become the next Singapore or what not. But how India is messing up her. Same relates to Nepal. If Nepal become stable and economically sound, will not Bihar and UP try to be independent? So the only option for us to wait till BIhar and UP and other neighbouring staes become well off than us.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Dec-03 11:57 AM
Pandu,
Yes, you are right. Every nation state, whether large or small, looks for ways to maximize its own interests. And military intervention is the last resort to safeguard your interests or implement your foreign policy. This everyone knows, thanks to Realism for dummies.
Let me correct you on something you wrote: I didn't come up with anything new. There's already tons of work on the Maoists in Nepal, and it doesn't take a genius to know who is behind the Maoists. And I didn't just put the blame on India for supporting the Maoists. As a Realist fellow myself, I have refrained from criticizing India. I hae only said: The Maoists are an Indian creation and this is how the Indian governmnet is using the Maoists. But of course, I have my own biases and I don't claim to be free of biases on what I wrote, I think you are pushing it a lil too hard.
The kitchen is our country and the heat is the Indian hegemonic domination. I mean, if we were talkking about a pantry, yeah, get out of it, if you can't stand the head would work, but we are talking about a nation. So, getting out is not an option here. The only option here is to stay, whether you can stand the heat or not and find the ways to deal with the menace.
About people being lame: Not lame, but misguided. The whole point of propaganda is to mislead people and that's what the Maoists are doing, undoubtedly with the help of India.
OK, then I am going to say that all our politicians are controlled by India. Yes, they are. Even if they don't want to be controlled by India, they have to succumb to the Indian pressure because that's how things work. If not, your family members and my family members would be starving and dying in Nepal because India controls our supply of food and energy fuels and medicines . If this was not the case, if there existed no ways to blackmain Nepal, we would be in a better position. Furthermore, if India didn't harbor any geopolitcal ambitions, we would be much safer.
Again, the whole piece, if you read carefully is not a critique of the Indian foreign policy. It is just an informal-loosely based paper on how we ought to analyze the Maoist problem in Nepal.
I hope I made myself clear. I will be more than happy to read your well thought out analysis with a theoritical framework to support your claims. Until then, I remain firm on my beliefs.
|
| pandu |
Posted
on 10-Dec-03 12:14 PM
Ha! I don't have any well thought out analysis with a theoritical framework. I'm just here to push some buttons. A heckler, as you might call it.
I am certainly not trying to take you on and if you read my post, I'm not saying that you're wrong either (I think it's juhip who was worried about your reasoning). All I'm saying is that it's no new news that a powerful country is bound to have foreign policy that undermines its subordinates simply to maintain that power structure. Look around, it's everywhere. So, I don't see why we would call it a "villain" per say (unless you're really fond of Hindi movies - which I doubt some of our "bros" would like to admit).
Thanks for being such a good sport! I really like that and believe me, you don't see that often around these neck of the woods.
|
| mitra 2 |
Posted
on 11-Dec-03 12:22 PM
This conspiration theory of how India is using Nepal and its political leaders to benefit her is very interesting. It may not be possible to prove, but that's how I feel it works. I also strongly feel that one piece of the puzzle is missing. That is the role of our beloved Gynendra. Our history tells us that India provided shelter and other sort of help to our Kings from time and again. That means G also knows very well that he needs India's blessings to remain as a king. The tussle between King Birendra and Rajeev Gandhi was the root cause to flourish democracy in Nepal. India saw united Nepalis when they closed the border. And Nepalese were divided in the name of democracy. That's why we are suffering in democracy.
Nepal became a mess for the past 12 years. The situation didn't help India either. ISI activities and hijacking are some examples. There were too many changes in the government and India got tired of dealing with those inexperienced, untrustworthy leaders. To bring back the situation under control India wanted to establish a reliable point of contact in Nepal. Since India didn't like king Birendra, they chose Gynendra. (Let's say India played role in sacking of Deuba. And we know Gynendra directly sacked Deuba using article 127. So, it's safe to say Gynendra is working under influence of India.) He divided royal army, masterminded Maoist war and successfully wiped out king Birendra's family. The incomplete massacre report says it all. Moreover, then PM Girija is giving speeches to expose the royal massacre. He knows something he can't tell. So, we should not be asking for a videotape of massacre to believe it.
So what's next? I think there is no need for us to worry about India. India has been using Nepal to serve its interests and it is not going to change. Period. However, in return I see the restoration of peace and harmony in Nepal in the next 2-5 years. I believe that Maoists and Gynendra are nationalist forces. There will be a negotiation in the near future and Maoist guerillas would join police/army. All party government would be formed and election would be held under their umbrella. However, Police and army play role to elect nationalist forces, i.e. G makes the call for winners. Most of the current politicians would be history. Gynendra would guide the government as king Mahendra did in Panchyat era. The way he is fooling all politicians, it seems he is going to complete his mission. This process would have been much more smooth if his son was not suffering from mad cow disease. Nepalese people would accept them in exchange of peace.
|
| chordaku420 |
Posted
on 12-Dec-03 08:51 AM
Hello Iso Bro,
Tyo GRE ko kitab ke bho yaar. Please kya. I will pay you whatever it cost.
Thanks
|
