| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| ashu | Posted
on 13-May-04 03:11 AM
Looks like despite much hype, BJP-led NDA is about to be voted out of power in India. What are the implications for Nepal, or more precisely, for Hindu Nepal with its Hindu monarch? Interesting times!! oohi "surprised to see Chandra Babu Naidoo of Andhra Pradesh voted out too" ashu ktm,nepal |
| An Indun Poet | Posted
on 13-May-04 05:06 AM
Hopefully our Hindu King will enjoy similar fate |
| thaag | Posted
on 13-May-04 07:16 AM
Wish we can vote out Gyane |
| DWI | Posted
on 13-May-04 07:59 AM
I don’t think it speaks anything about the Hindu-Muslim trend in India. How much nfluence the Shiv Sena had in the election, I don’t know (don’t think there was any) but sure think that Rahul’s candidacy was a big plus to the Congress Party. It seems all major actors running on BJP ticket won. Boy, you guys have a big bone to pick on the King. I just wish that King and other parties agree upon sitting together (might include Baburam as well) and resolving the ssue instead of just rioting in the street. |
| jaya_nepal | Posted
on 13-May-04 08:13 AM
In a way its true that the BJP govt did not include rural population in their policy but definitley accelerated India's development. Vajpayees government identified India in the world. Congress would defnitely consider the rural population but I am hoping they do not stop the development race. Talking about Nepal, why always blame King G. It is not important that the next PM has to be from the five parties. It can be from any political party that represents the Nepali people. Yeah but he has to be clean. I guess the parties are fighting for that reason coz they lack any such leader. Whatever it is, I hope peace is restored in Nepal. That is all that matters to everyone. jaya_nepal...!!! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 08:17 AM
What are the implications for Nepal, or more precisely, for Hindu Nepal with its Hindu monarch? Ashu dai, Having worked on Indo-Nepal relations for a while, let me say this: No matter what govt. India has, it will no affect Nepal in any way. Unlike our Nepali politicians/parties on India, the Indian leaders/parties are consistent when it comes to Nepal. So, whether its the Congress or the BJP, the Indian policy on Nepal will remain unchanged. Why? Unlike Nepal, the Indian leadership is not free to formulate its Nepal policies, its the bureucracy that comes up with the policies, and the leaders approve of it (they have no other choice). I K Gujaral once tried to go against the "rigid" bureucracy and the result: he had to resign. So, no matter what, no matter who forms the govt. in India, the Indian policy will remain the same i.e, the policy/legacy left by the British. Regarding Hidu nationalism: Its all in rhetorics. When it comes to practice, the BJP leaders don't care about the Hindu nationalism and the Hindu Monarch. DWI, I totally agree with you. Why can't all just come together and come up with a national plan? Breats me, dude. Anyways, looking forward to reading your expert opinion on the China thread. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 08:20 AM
it will no = it will not |
| AP | Posted
on 13-May-04 08:33 AM
The Rise of Congress I may be helpful for the democratic movement in Nepal as it did in 1990 movement. Late King Mahendra had donated chunk of money to BJP and Mandal (mandale) was established as a sister organization. That's what people say. Let us hope the down fall of possible Republican Party in US and BjP may bring the end of durbari and bhardari in Nepal. Just to remind you Senior Bush did support Monarch in 1990 movement. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 08:36 AM
end of durbari and bhardari in Nepal. Just to remind you Senior Bush did support Monarch in 1990 movement. Ap, not necessarily. Senator Bush, as far as I know, didn't support the Monarch "completely" during the 90s. Just my views, I can be wrong. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 08:39 AM
also, if I may add: The royal family in Nepal is much closer to the Congress (I) than the BJP. |
| AP | Posted
on 13-May-04 08:57 AM
If my recollection is right? senior President Bush did not support the democratic movement in Nepal in the begining and he had made some positive comments about Monarchy doing fine. I don't think Royal palace have good relations with Congress in India. Should we forget so easily about 9 months long Economic Embargo against Nepal by India when Rajib Gandhi was in Power. |
| Lalupate*Joban | Posted
on 13-May-04 09:22 AM
It's a hung parliament. And the Indian Left has done quite well this time. Harkishen Singh Surjeet, the grand old man of the Indian Left, is poised to play kingmaker. In all likelihood, he will support the Congress, as the NDA is anathema to the Indian left. But Surjeet & Co. will definitely enjoy some clout in certain aspects of policymaking, and I have a feeling that Nepal-policy might be one of them in light of the fact that West Bengal - India's pink fort - is Nepal's neighbor and happenings in Nepal can and do affect WB. Mulayam will also be an important player in the new scenario. Given UP's geographical proximity to Nepal, he probably thinks that he should have a certain degree of say in India's Nepal policy. Freak is right to a certain extent, it's generally the South Block mandarins who formulate the Nepal policy, but I am pretty sure the Indian cabinet itself will be more closely involved in Nepal policy in the coming days, given the increasing gravity of the "Nepal problem." After all, the Maoist chain is a force to reckon with not only in Nepal but also in Andhra Pradesh and a few other Indian states. While BJP has a tendency to be obsessed with Indo-Pak relations, Congress has a tendency to spread its attention a bit more widely in South Asia. (after all, remeber, Sonia's hunk was blown to pieces because he had the audacity to meddle in Sri Lanka's internal matters.) Well, Rajiv's doctrine of active intervention in neighbors' internal matters has been kind of dormant in the Indian policy establishment since his death, but I would still think that Congress will be more attentive to happenings in other neighboring countries besides Pakistan than Vajpayee, Advani & Co.. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 09:25 AM
I am not questioning your statement, AP. I can be very wrong. But as far as my own impression goes, the Royal family of Nepal is much closer to the Congress (I) than with the BJP. Also, I am not so sure about Sr. Bush being "completely" supportive of the King in the 90s. So, please help me udnerstand the whole thing by corroborating on your excellent points. It will be great to learn from you. namaste. Everyday is a new learning experience, isn't it? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 09:31 AM
but I am pretty sure the Indian cabinet itself will be more closely involved in Nepal policy in the coming days, given the increasing gravity of the "Nepal problem." Not necesasrily. The Nepal problem is not a problem for India. So, the cabinet made up of people from varying political ideologies will not be taking the nepal problem "seriously". They will be just following what the MoEA tells them, they won't be in any position to challenge the sacred institutuion. Plus, India will definatley push for its interests agressively given Nepal's political instability and all that's been going on in Nepal. Also, let's not forget, our MoFA does not have capable people who can deal with India. So, we will end up worse than we already are. |
| AP | Posted
on 13-May-04 10:48 AM
Let us accept the fact that all the Congressi and Communist leaders were taking shelters in India when they were called Terrorist in Panchayat time. Late B.P Koirala and his followers were asked to leave India after they supported Janata dal lead by Jaya Prakash Naraya during Emergency Period. It is belived that Late king Birendra had had persoanlity clash with Rajib Gandhi and Benijir Bhutto. At the end of Trade and Commerce treaty between India & Nepal (around 1989-1990 ) Nepal had to face 9 months long economic embargo. Late king Birendra really wanted to take stand with India but could not, as democratic movement was at the peak. Some people say that Rajib Gandhi was mad beacuse Sonia Gandhi was not allowed to enter into Pashupati Nath Temple during their SARC meeting visit. I am pretty sure that in the begining of 1990's movement in Nepal Senior President Bush was asked by the Journalist about the Nepali movement. His answer was "Monarch is doing fine overe there". I do not recall the name of the journalist and the magazine. Generally Rep.party supports the Royal families and the Rich people. Let us take the example of Saudi Arabia even though there were so many high jackers from that country, no one brings the issues of Autocracy. But there must be some good reasoning too. Let us hope the gas price will fall littlebit.. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 13-May-04 11:13 AM
Ashu, I think the direct implication for Nepal is enormous: we are always likely to be better off when our neighbors vote the moderates rather than religiously fanatic parties.I am always glad to see peaceful change of power in our neighboring country, and I know we often learn a lot from them, despite our love-hate relationship with them. I mean think about the introduction of Shiv Sena Nepal, the Singhal shenanigans regarding king's coronation as Hindu samrat, and jogis directly or indirectly trying to intimidate us to stick to Hindu kingdom thing. They won't go away immediately, but with the BJP and shivsena out of power in India, things may get a little easier. Naidu was suave, was popular with media and Bill Gates like people. But it seems he was inconsiderate to the farmers of the state. When someone tries to polish his image in the outside world, it is equally important for him to stick to his own base also. Farmers in AP felt there was always conflict of interest in their state, between rich urbanites and poor farmers, and the state was too much cozy to the rich urbanites. They wielded their power on the election day. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 13-May-04 03:41 PM
Vive les politicienes a gauche!! Good riddens. Less the right wing fanatics governing the world, the better it is! :-) |
| jivman | Posted
on 13-May-04 04:39 PM
Isolated Freak: Yeah bro, India has a solid bureacrcy left by British legacy which functions well even if there is changes in PMship. I guess we need something like that. No wonder they are going ahead while we are ging backward. |
| jivman | Posted
on 13-May-04 04:46 PM
Some people say that Rajib Gandhi was mad beacuse Sonia Gandhi was not allowed to enter into Pashupati Nath Temple during their SARC meeting visit. If above statement is true, this must be one of the gravest mistake our leadership has made not knowing how to handle the issue diplomatically for the sake of nation. You cannot treat head of state in such a manner in a case like India who can make or brake us. I remember 9 month was a painful one in terms of having to wait for petrol for the motorbike and etc. |
| Badmash | Posted
on 13-May-04 07:22 PM
It is probably true that Sonia Gandhi wasn’t allowed to enter Pashupati. I don’t think they allow any non-hindu in Pashupati even today. If this rule was and is followed consistently, then it is understandable that Gandhi was certainly no exception. However, there were rumors that Gandhi had already converted to Hinduism at the time. When she arrived at the threshold of Pashupati as a hindu woman, she was denied entry by the priests because she wasn’t a born hindu. That might have seriously ticked off Gandhi, for apparent reason. Besides, there were other frictions between Gandhi and qeeen Aishwarya during SAARC summit. The book ‘palace massacre’ has a good description. If Gandhi is to be next prime minister of India, it is questionable that she will have a soft corner for Nepal. |
| jivman | Posted
on 15-May-04 09:07 AM
Badmash: So what do we learn from this icnident? Just because of mistake of pujari the whole nation of 22 million people have to suffer. DONT YOU THINK WE HAVE TOO MUCH EGO which brings all of us down. Just curious to learn so that we dont have to suffer again. |
| Badmash | Posted
on 15-May-04 10:24 AM
Jivman, what I said is completely based on rumors. These are not factoids. Like I said, if the denial of entry to non born hindus is something that is consistently followed in pashupati, then it understandable why Gandhi was denied entry. However, there is something to think about. I have not heard of any other religions, such as islam or christanity, denying entry to people with other religions to their religious venues. Religion is a very deep subject, and I don't want to into it. We may or may not have anythig to learn from it. I don't know. |
| Badmash | Posted
on 15-May-04 10:25 AM
want to into it = want to get into it |
| confused | Posted
on 15-May-04 05:11 PM
woRLD'S CRAZY!!! IN PHILLIPines, a high school drop out, an actor , is running for president.. World's most powerful man is a COnservative stubburn ASSS ( BUSH ) India is going to be ruled by an Italian :) Nepal, lets not even go there, we are already a MESS :) World's gone Crazy |
| Lalupate*Joban | Posted
on 21-May-04 01:19 PM
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/may/19spec1.htm |