Should India invade Nepal?
Published by Yazad Jal April 29th, 2005 in StimulantsAbheek Barman makes a bold suggestion in today’s Times
the only policy that makes sense for India is this: Export governance and institutions to Nepal. Run it as a protectorate.
I.e. invade Nepal, and rebuild it’s institutions, strenghthen democracy, rule of law, it’s economy (market based?), etc. On paper it sounds good. But leaving aside realpolitik hurdles (opposition from China, UN, etc), I have a problem of principle with it. Does the end (better quality of life for Nepalis) justify the means (war)? This is somewhat an extention of the Why Iraq War question.
It’ll be interesting to debate this here, with the following guidelines. I’m neither debating realpolitik (who supports India in the war, why, how, etc) nor the suitability of Indian institutions of governance to Nepal. So, I’m going to take as given that India will be able to successfully wage war and make Nepal a “protectorate” and that our institutions of governance are suitable and adequate to be transplanted into Nepal. Even with this is the war worth it? Coherent reasons for and against please, and leave the ad hominems home.
Firstly, the comparison with Iraq isn’t valid in this context, that was an entirely different case, for various different reasons.
We should only go to war with anyone if our national interests are imperilled by our not doing so. The only way the political situation in Nepal could harm our national interest is if the Maoists gain strength, and increase infiltrations along the Bihar border and help the naxalite movements in India. That can surely be prevented without going to war with them.
So, no war. But we should help Gyananedra put down the Maoists, and then put pressure on him to restore democracy. The latter task is far easier than the first, which is much more vital. We don’t want another Cambodia.
Yazad,
I think India must not rule out a 1971-style military intervention in Nepal. If Gyanendra and the Maoists take the country on a death-spiral (as they are on the verge of doing), then it makes a lot of sense for India to intervene.
There are two main (inter-related) reasons for this:
a) Prevent a humanitarian disaster in Nepal; the big mistake India made in 1971 was to move in after the genocide that wiped out Bangladeshi intellectuals.
b) To defend its own interests: A Maoist victory is undesirable; an inflow of refugees in a prolonged-bloody-civil war is undesirable; a two-hoots-to-India Gyanendra is undesirable; King Paras (god forbid) is undesirable. Only a sustained constitutional democracy will be in India’s long term interests.
Besides, the mere threat of military intervention can help restore some sense in Nepal. And for a threat to be effective, India must be prepared to carry it out.
Amit,
As days go by, I am getting less inclined to believe Gyanendra will come round.
If this is the case now; imagine how keen he will be to listen to India’s entreaties on democracy once he no longer has to fear the Maoists.
I think India has to be very tough on Gyanendra now. Very, very tough.
But Yazad, if you leave the realpolitic hurdles aside, then you are knocking the bottom out of any opposing argument. If we can assume that the invasion is successful and Nepal is left with a stable and democratic government and that it is for all practical purposes integrated with India, then there is no reason to oppose the war. It is not just in Nepal’s interest. Open borders are in India’s interests too. This would be a libertarian’s wet dream come true. The reason why we libertarians oppose an expansive foreign policy is realpolitik. We may not trust our government to stay the course. The course may be unpredictable and difficult. We do not know how other countries will react. Our citizens would probably not have the resolve to stay the course if things get difficult.
These are the things I would take into account if I were to oppose India “invading” Nepal. These would be the same factors I would take into account if I were an American mulling over whether to invade Iraq. Depending on those factors, my answers might be different.
But in any case, I don’t think an actual invasion of Nepal is being talked of here. There are ways to turn Nepal into a protectorate without actually fighting with its army. But that would involve fighting its Marxist insurrection with our army. My tentative answer to that question is no, but I am willing to be persuaded if someone explains to me what chances there are of the Marxists succeeding.
Nitin
I don’t think we can be tough on Gyanendra and the Maoists at the same time. I’m all for being “very, very tough” with Gyanendra, but the Maoists are a far greater danger right now, and must be handled first. Too many lives will be lost otherwise, and the consequences of India won’t be pleasant if that insuregency spreads here.
…rebuild it’s institutions, strenghthen democracy, rule of law, it’s economy (market based?) - errr…lets try that out in Bihar first. :)
Let’s assume for a second that Indian Govt. is an private protection agency and that we are subscribing to it. Or better yet, we are a part owner of it. How should that agency react if it sees millions of people getting crushed by dictatorship (and/or communism)? There may be solid reasons to believe that all the people want freedom but some of them are understandably reluctant to risk their live for freedom. Those who want freedom inspite of risk to their lives during an invasion may be even ready to subsribe to this private security agency later.
Now the question cuts both ways. Is it okay to sacrifice freedom of many because a few people are wary of risk to their lives? Or is it okay to risk the lives of a few unwilling souls in order to free multitudes who are willing to risk their lives? What would the security agency do? What about the employees of the security agency? Is it worth putting their lives on the line in order to increase security in the neighborhood and get more subscribers?
Concur with Amit’s fear of Nepal turning into another Cambodia. Also, concur that invasion is unnecessary.
India needs to cut off all logistical support the maoists get from our territory, then hit their infrastructure hard through targeted strikes. (The King will likely not object; China might — but hey, we have a new strategic understanding with them, don’t we?!)
Simultaneously, we need to play hardball with the King — so that democracy is restored ASAP, and institution re-building is also commenced.
Finally, we must not rule in or out any option. Hopefully, as we think, invasion is unnecessary. But, there is no reason not to be prepared for it, or to use the threat of invasion to our strategic advantage.
The one thing India must resist is the temptation of using the King to crush the Maoists. This is sheer folly. Reasons discussed on the linked blog.
Best regards.
Firstly, the TOI column is a joke and should be taken as seriously as all TOI materials should be. One does not know if any radicals paid for the publication of that article through Medianet! That’s my ad hominem in a deliberate attempt to defy your guidelines!
As for your question: the biggest reason why the invasion will not be worth it is because of the realpolitik that will emerge after that: India’s image as a bully in the minds of South Asian neigbours will be confirmed for the next few decades. The Kashmir insurgency, for instance, is a result of our 1971 follies.
Secondly, by taking over Nepal, as a prtoectorate or otherwise, our relations with China will be altered: instead of the mutual trust that has been building up very, very slowly, both India and China will again begin to see each other with suspicion and insecurity. There’s no reason why we would want the length of our border with China to increase!
Cheers
Shivam
http://mallroad.blogspot.com
Where in the article does the author suggest actually conducting military war against Nepal? The article seems to suggest an export of institutions and does not seem to suggest that we wage military war against Nepal as Yazad appears to suggest.
There are many ways to conduct a war or impose your will on other countries - using bombs and tanks is only one of those ways and to me the least desirable. YOu can wage an equally effective war using politics and economics as your weapons.
as an anarcho-capitalist, i see no reason why nepal cannot prosper without democratic government. it is just that the monarch should play the role of PROVIDER OF JUSTICE. that is, the monarch should enforce the decisions of the royal courts, based on the common law. remember, bihar and UP and many other indian states are far worse than nepal, and less free too.
a monarch is better able to handle the ship of state because it is his personal property which he hands down to his son. democrats think short-term to the extreme. we should not think of restoring democracy in nepal. rather, we should strengthen the king’s hand at fighting antisocials (like the maoists) and thereby restoring the rule of law. after that, with an open economy and justice, nepal will do better than any indian state with multiparty (socialist) democracy.
Yazad,
You say “I’m neither debating realpolitik (who supports India in the war, why, how, etc) nor the suitability of Indian institutions of governance to Nepal.”
While realpolitik moves away from the centrality of an ends versus means debate that I assume you are trying to spark here (and consequently it is justifiable to avoid realpolitik), the “suitability of Indian institutions of governance” is critical, and central to this debate, for this suitability determines whether the end of a “better quality of life” can be achieved by Indian interventionism in Nepal.
In most cases these ends are either confused or deliberately obfuscated. Case in point the Iraq War, what did America seek to achieve? WMD in Iraq/American oil interests in the Middle-East/getting rid of a tyrannical regime? Crucially, this obfuscation hinders the efficacy of the means sought to achieve those ends.
In Nepal’s case we need to be clear why we would want to intervene- is it to further Indian interests by suppressing Maoist insurgency in Nepal, or is it to overhaul an undemocratic setup (or possibly, both)?
The latter argument seems particularly silly. I’m from Singapore, and seeing the success of a benign-dictatorship that is Singapore, (oh yes, that’s what this country is- it comes closest to Plato’s descprition of the Republic, governed by a philosopher-king), I find the idea of democracy as a panacea for all evils, peculiar.
Democracy is desirable not because it is an end in itself, but that it engenders a setup of self-governance,private enterprise and individual freedoms. Therefore any debate arguing to institute democracy in a state, should be analysed to see if the benefits of democracy are indeed brought about.
Methinks that we often confuse means with ends.
Left confused by Mr. Chakraverti’s perspective.
The fundamental problem with monarchy (dictatorship) is the absence of any moral basis by which it exercises supreme power over other human beings.
Whether or not a monarchy/dictatorship is an efficient provider of justice, its own basis for power is unjust. Any “justice” that flows from a monarchy/dictatorship is, therefore, a fruit from a poisoned tree.
The notion that the monarch is governing his/her kingdom as personal property is absurd. Surely Mr. Chakraverti does not imply that the free will of the King’s involuntary subjects constitutes his property.
Democracy is valid because it has basis (even if imperfect) in the will of the people. Dictatorship is darkness because it lacks any comparable basis.
Best regards.
I missed out this sentence from my last comment
“Indian military intervention in Nepal is distinct from an invasion. The goal is not simply to establish a “protectorate” but to restore stability, order and democracy in Nepal”
Why? Because this is in India’s interests.
I think Amit has raised an important point — that it is important to prevail over the Maoists. I agree. But it is not impossible for India to squeeze both the King and the Maoists. At the rate at which they are going, apart from a label, there is little to differentiate them.
It will be challenging for India to pull this off successfully, but hey, if India cannot manage to solve one in its own backyard, all its aspirations to become a global power will only be the stuff for Mungeri Lal. We seem to be constrained by our own (weak) resolve.
Shivam - what’s wrong with being seen as a bully? Even with such mushy things like the Gujral doctrine, did any of our SAARC neighbours discard that impression? I’m surprised at your two points — on one hand you say that India should bully its neighbours, but on the other that India must allow itself to be bullied by China.
Sauvik and Venkat - It all is fine when the Absolute Monarch/Dictator conducts himself well and delivers the goods. But in case he does not then there’s no way to try an alternative. After Gyanendra comes his son Paras. Suggest you do a Google on Paras Shah of Nepal and then decide.
And that’s not counting the excellent argument Primary Red makes on the whole concept of a monarchy.
I find it slightly contradictory to take a free will position vis-a-vis democracy, but consider it all right to bulldoze democracy into Nepal, by waging a war on it.
Is it ok to say that when Indian interests are at stake, we undermine the sovereignty and free will of another populace?
Nitin:
“Indian military intervention in Nepal is distinct from an invasion. The goal is not simply to establish a “protectorate” but to restore stability, order and democracy in Nepal”. But doesn’t this fruit come from the same poisoned tree of Indian self-interest?
Primary Red: Good point.
However, the moral position that free will is sacrosanct needs to be qualified to be applicable to the real world. Ever heard of Maslow’s hierarchy? What the really disadvantaged need are food/clothing/shelter- the right to self-govern is only after that. Methinks that we should not to impose our moral standards onto them from our comfy chairs on our ivory towers. What I am trying to say is that free will is great, but is not the most fundamental human need.
And any system of governance that can fulfil these needs should be given a chance.
I know I’m playing the devil’s advocate here, as I want to approach this debate without any preconceived notion of moral superiority.
Venkat
I don’t think invading Nepal is neccessary, but having said that, I don’t see how we would “undermine the sovereignty and free will of another populace” when those guys don’t have sovereignty and free will to begin with, as things stand? Or even “food/clothing/shelter”, as you put it. Instead of presuming to speak for a suppressed people who cannot express themselves, it is surely preferable to give them the means to express themselves.
To repeat myself, I’m against invasion because I think our national interests can be well-served without it. But any argument on behalf of the people of Nepal is wrong, because right now, they’re caught between a rock and an explosive device. It can’t get much worse.
As Ravi said, though, if the Maoists look like taking over and a genocide is likely, I’d revise my stand, as that would be disastrous for the region. But I think the Maoists can be defeated without invading Nepal.
I’m always against the “holistic” aggressions where the attacking countries claim they’re doing it for the benefit of the countries being attacked. The idea in itself is not bad, but regarding such acts, there’s a very thin line that separates good from evil. For situations like Nepal, for that matter, even Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea (, US?) etc., there should be an international force constituting all democratic countries with an equal say and without the bullying of a few superpowers.
The biggest problem with the whole deal is managing the publicity.
India would have to convince the world that the military intrusion is merely to restore democracy. For this it would be very important to have the big powers like the US on our side - tacitly of course. This is not a far fetched solution - especially if Gyanendra leans towards China too much.
Creating a protectorate after that would almost be mandatory. If India comes out of Nepal unscathed on this occassion, what is to stop China from using some pretense on a future occassion, to enter Nepal and stay put instead?
All in all Nepal does serve as a strategic buffer between India and China and buffers are normally much respected and valued.
Nitin asks: what’s wrong with being seen as a bully?
A somewhat surprising question, seems to me. The answer is pure self-interest.
A bully will never find a measure of peace for its citizens. If such measure is seen as being in our self-interest, then we need to search for ways to change the perception that India is a bully. (On the other hand, if it is not in our self-interest, then by all means, let’s be a bully).
in response to PRIMARY RED’s point: the monarch is like a STATIONARY BANDIT. it is in his self interest to harmonise his rule with the moral principles of the common law (that is how england had the common law saved by conquering normans long before democracy).
as i have argued elsewhere, our socialist indian state is a PREDATORY STATE. a STATIONARY BANDIT like gyanendra could easily do a lee kwan yew to nepal without democracy, if he saw his self-interest, like lee kwan yew did.
do see hans-hermann hoppe’s DEMOCRACY: THE GOD THAT FAILED.
Dilip,
I urge you to take on the argument in its entiretywhat’s wrong with being seen as a bully? Even with such mushy things like the Gujral doctrine, did any of our SAARC neighbours discard that impression?Has not behaving like a bully resulted in not being perceived as a bully?
You contend that it is in India’s interests not to be perceived as a bully because a bully will never find a measure of peace for its citizens. But does not being perceived as a bully buy you peace?
China is regarded as a bully. Does that help it ? I don’t think so. Militarily, it means that practically every country that surrounds it (except its dependent North Korea) regards it with suspicion and has formed alliances to check it. Even Nepal and Bhutan.
In a similar fashion, Russia is perceived as a bully, so East Europe aligns with NATO or the US as a counterweight. Iraq was perceived as a bully in 1990 when it attacked a smaller country. Ireland sought friendship with the US in order to reduce English pressure.
So no, I don’t think being perceived as a bully helps at all unless you’re so powerful that there is no counterweight or perceived as so irrational that you can do anything (as in North Korea). That is assuredly not the case for India.
On the other hand, a willingness to defend your own soil vigorously does help to prevent invasion. Swizterland has managed to stay out of any war since Napoleon without ever being perceived as a bully because of its willingness to defend itself. Part of the reason that the Western powers did not attack Russia during the dawn of the cold war was the realization (from WW-II) that Russians would fight to the death to defend their country, even for an atrocious regime. The bullying nature of Stalin’s regime abroad didn’t help him in this
You can justify certain offensive strikes as a willingness to defend yourself, but it would be very hard to argue that in this case.
The point about Bihar is also apposite. Surely we have a lot of work to do internally to reform Bihar and some other states before taking on new responsibilities.
And it would be a PR disaster. India’s claims that it was doing so only to preserve democracy would not be believed, people would bring up the spectre of Sikkim. A perception of instability would badly hurt capital flows. The UK and the US would most definitely not go along unless an extreme human rights situation existed in Nepal.
Plus, how would the Gurkha units of the Indian army and in paramilitary groups like the ITBF react ?
The idea of military invasion is just amazingly silly. On the other hand, there are several non-military steps that could be taken.
Hello All,
I stumbled on to this post by a chance. And am happy to see such a heated discussion. Well I am from Nepal and on behalf of the Nepalese like to say that we do not and absolutely do not like interference in out internal affairs by any country especially India. When India was under the British Raj please do remember Nepal still was a sovereign state.
Now on the second note to bring the matter to a perspective terrorist in India are not a byproduct of Maoist in Nepal but Maoist in Nepal is the byproduct of Naxalits in India. Maoist are being trained and armed by Maoist and Naxalits from India and if India really wants to see a stable region it will have to clean up it’s acts first starting from UP and Bihar then on to Assam and Jammu/Kashmir.
The only way I think India has to clean up the governance in these states and then clean up the boarder of corrupt officials. This will suffocate the Maoists and that will lead to their demise which in turn will kill any reason for King Gyan to continue with the direct rule.
We all then live happily ever after.
http://hither2forlorn.blogspot.com/2005/04/just-another-clich.html
Hello Indians,
You are wasting you time discussing on invading Nepal. Are you willing to be the most demoralized enemy of the world?
As a matter of fact, this is totally Nepal’s internal affair. If you are indeed concerned about your neighboring county,Nepal, help Nepalese government to subside the insergency and urge to reform democracy. This will definitely bring a stability in India too at the face of fighting with Naxalites.
Independent
Hello everybody,
Very intresting to see the Indian perspective , I am Nepalese too and entirely agree with the person who wrote before me. I do NOT see our monarch as a bandit, on the contrary. I can understand that he is not too liked among Indians as he has a tendency of taking decisions without consluting New Delhi (..and why should he?).
Secondly, lets not forget that Nepal is India’s water reservoir, there are massive intrests that lie in Nepal. I am wondering whether the whole Maoist insurgency is not a part of an Indian political game plan to destablise the country and to do exactly what you re speaking of : invade it.Who is financing these insurgents? Their acts dont look very patriotic to me ; destroying the very little amount of infrastructure we have, terrorising their own compatriots.. Thank god that Nepal is a part of the UN and thank god that countries like Pakistan and China exist.
Lets cut out the imperialistic attitude towards smaller countries and keep away.
I agree with “Independent”. We should not forget the outcome of so called IPKF in Sri Lanka. Considering the historical perspective during the British raj and geographical situation of Nepal, end result may be more disastrous if India ever try any military adventure in Nepal. It would be better in the interest of India not to indulge in other’s internal affairs and first clean up own problems at home. Small country like Nepal never become a security threat to country like India. India’s image in world arena will be enhanced if India play a role of the good neighbour. Invading militarily to another soverign country will never be in favour of Indian interestwhile India is trying to get permanent membership in the Security Council.
How do you guys feel about your government secretly (well not so secret now) giving tour of New Delhi to the Maoist Baburam Bhattari, whom New Delhi had termed the terrorist.
Even if India is to invade Nepal, do you think it will be a happy end for you?
If India invades Nepal, u will see a reaction that will be ten times more violent than kashmir. Dont underestimate the anti-Indian feelings in Nepal…our king and our politics is our own business.
Indians should build institutions in Bihar and Jharkhand first
Just came to know of this site from an acquintance.
This whole thing is - at best - ridiculous, sick.
This Barman character is a joke.
So are these armchair grand strategists who populate this site.
Ah, the descendants of the colonized now want to turn colonizers! Of course, in the garb of liberators. A recycled, South-Asianized version of white man’s burden, huh!
Crap. Balderdash.
Just because India managed to get out of the Hindu rate of growth in the last two decades or so, the Indian bourgeoisie think they should become the new colonizers, huh! The inferiority complex deeply embedded in India’s institutional/historical psyche has now metamorphosed to some kind of superiority complex, huh!
Go, ask your grandpa and grandma in your dreams how it felt to live under the British. Nobody, however poor, likes to live under the boots of an alien regime. Nobody. Surely not the Nepalis.
And you call yourself libertarians! Wow! Scandalous!!!!
Somebody needs to teach these cocky
Indian burgeoisie a lesson. By, what else, splitting India into forty or fifty pieces! And, it’s also the RIGHT thing to do - after all, all those suppressed nationalities in India’s northeast and west do deserve to have their own nation-state in this day and age! I am pretty sure, the centrifugal forces in India will, in the not-so-distant future, triumph over the artificial Indian state that remains in place today!
The IPKF disaster in Sri Lanka was a piece of cake, compared to what awaits the Indian military if it embarks on the misadventure of invading Nepal. You underestimate the degree of nationalism that pervades almost every citizen of South Asia’s OLDEST existing state. And don’t forget the topography. My sound advice to you - shelve even the slightest thought of invading Nepal. If India invades Nepal, the security situation in India will be a total mess as Nepali freedom fighters unleash terror in the heart of India. What the LTTE did to Rajiv in 1991 and what the Kashmiris have been doing since 1989 are nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to the political tsunami that will hit the Indian heartland if India embarks on the misadvanture.
Stop all this bullshit. Hands off from Nepal, alright!
My generation will take care of Paras and the rest of the problems that bedevil the Nepali society. We will do it ourselves; we don’t need the descendants of the colonized to shove INSTITUTIONS (wow, what a cliche!) down our throat!
[I am a Nepali - currently a postgraduate student in an Ivy League university. And believe me, I won’t think twice about leaving the comfort of the ivory towers and going to Nepal to head a resistance movement if, by any chance, this whole stupid idea of invading Nepal materializes. And I am pretty sure I will have the support of a huge section of the ordinary Nepalis. No self-respecting Nepali will tolerate life under the boots of the Indian jawan; the ordinary Nepali already feels suffocated having to cope with India’s hegemony.
I am sure the South Block analysts have more sense than this Barman character and the self-absorbed, pseudo-intellectural buffoons in this site.)
In my mind, India has already invaded Nepal. Not only that there is not any neighbor country, India has not invaded. You Indian, just name any neighbouring country which you have a good realation. Nepali moist is India’s creation for instabality of Nepal.
Check this news.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/artha.php?&nid=41017
That was a terrible idea, though it is a thinking a of an individual sickhead, it does inflame hatred feeling. Who gives you the right to invade Nepal, is this with this mindset India is approaching for permanent place in the UN security council. So, power is to bully, right, dude you should have thought it does more harm to present Indian crediential for betterment of the region with such remarks. Mind you, Nepal was always an independent country while India was again and again under colonial domination. Pray, please spread the rumor of Indian invasion to Nepal, so that my bretherns back home will stop fighting against each other to face the bully. Are recent happennings of Indian dual role (God and Delhi Durbar only knows if they are dousing or fueling hatred in Nepal), that sickheads like you come out with blogs like this. Pray for peace and strive for it, mind you when neighborhood burns, your house is not safe anymore.
It is scandalous that you guys should debate about my country in such a flippant tongue. First ask your government to stop backing maoists and to stop fishing on murky water they thus create.
India - never ever of think of invading Nepal or making it protectorate! It will be a biggest mistake if you ever try. The day you invade Nepal physically, then disintegration of your own country wwill also start.
Well, Indian polititians are not that dumb or idiot. Why should they commit such a blunder when they have already invaded in to NC, UML, RPP, NCP (Maoists), NCD etc and made them dance in the music played by them. They are even trying to invade Royal palace.
Big talks from our “concerned” Indian “friends” (Insert sarcasm).
Now to hit the nail on its head let me first reassure our neighbors that Nepal is not a land where more than half a billion people were suppressed by few thousands foreigners for centuries. We fought, defended, and remained sovereign state. I agree, we could not make the most of what we have, or rather we failed to be what we could be; but that does not take away the pride that every Nepali feels about being a country of this size and still remain independent; whereas our “recently independent friend” wants to shove liberation down our throat. We need one, from our own people. Yes we do. But, we do not want you to shove your damn ass in our country. Literally.
P.S: lotsa typos. Correct em as you read.
Guys,
I came across this forum by pure chance. I am very disappointed at whoever started this thread. Either you are out of your mind or you have none. This is not fifteenth or the sixteenth century, where if you have the might you can go invade any country. Invading countries is extinct now. There is a huge difference between being concerned and trying to help by giving advice and invading the whole country.
p.s. deal with your own god damn issues first before worrying about us. India has more people living under the poverty line than the entire population of Nepal.
u a-ho……..just cos u a bigger country than nepal u think invading nepal is even an option??the british at the height of their power couldn’t invade us, who do u think u r? instead of constructive help and suggestion to nepal india’s ruling class has always tried to weaken nepal thinking they cna make it yet anothe sikkim. No thank u. Keep ur invasions to urself. If india wants to help nepal, they can start by being more supportive of the king and the current govt in their fight against the maoists. Indian governmetn knows the maoists operate from india and has allowed that to happen. India is always complaining of the open border and ISI operatives and all without much evidence. But there is evidence that the maoists have their operating headquarters in india. They have been allowed by the indian govt to do so with protection as nepali army or police can’t do anything abt them as long as indian security doesn’t acknowledge their existence in india.
What were u thinking talking abt invading nepal? instead of condemnig US’s invasion of iraq u think u can take the same route?
man i studied nad lived in india for 7 long years and i know most indians look down on us, but i didn’t care as in person they didn’t have the balls to say shit. Don’t underestimate the anti-india feeling in nepal. i personally have nothing against india and have good indian frens but this is taking things too far.
The person who started this thread would have already got the right answer and hope the comment posted by neplese fellow would have given the expextation they have want Indian friends.
Neplese friends, It is all your internal issue and you have full right to resolve your own issue.It will be biggest mistake in Indian history in Invade Nepal as India herself is undergoing internal problem.Even slightest neglegence could lead India disintegrate into inumnerable independent country like USSR.My all Indian friends know it very well.
We Indian people also know that Maoist insurengency is propogated by Indian in the begining and all top leader of maoist are still in Delhi,TN
(chennai),AP and kerala.If it realy want to help to fight terrorism,India can capture all these terrorist leader within 1 hr and bring into justice.
Because of this imperialistic attitude of Indian gov, we dont have good relation with anyone of our neighbouring country( Bladdesh,srilanka,Nepal,Mldives,Burma,
China,Pakistan)
I think there is a very successful business model in selling ‘YJ’ dart boards to the nepali blogger community:)We should explore it!
jokes apart.
The iraqi model doesn’t work for Nepal for more cynical reasons.
a) there is no oil in nepal. therefore no oil revenues
b) reconstruction of their systems will be paid with what? - your tax money or mine! I’m sure that there are better uses of for the same.
c) it is simpler to battle it out for influence in Nepal with China, than to extend our boundaries with China. Nepal serves Indian interests better by being a semi-buffer state, than it would as part of India. We already have a 2000 km border with China that engages troops in three different sectors. Adding 1200 more kilometers - without lot of oil being found in Nepal - doesn’t really make economic sense. If it doesn’t make economic sense, then it shouldn’t make political sense.
Finally,
The people of any nation get the government that they deserve. If the government gets too repressive - sooner or later the people will rebel. If the king is an ass, then regicide is an honourable and time proven method. If the maosits get too painful, then countires across the world have shown a way of getting rid of them. So all in all let the Nepali people make the call. Sooner or later they will!
All Nepalis, whether they be Maoists, Royalists, Politicians, or the very large proportion of the population disgusted with the groups above, WILL unite if India ever attempts overt hostilities. The hatred of indian politicians (not the population) in Nepali minds is very strong. If ever there is an “invasion” of Nepal, India will be broken down into many states during the subsequent 20 years. Of course, Indian policymakers are far too intelligent to suggest an invasion. Even now, the leftists are the only ones opposed in principle to Gyanendra. BJP and the Indian military are in support of Gyanendra. There is a large number of Nepali citizens in the Indian military, fighting in difficult areas like Kashmir, who would instantly cause a huge security threat for India if they were disenfranchised. Plus, do you honestly think random Indian soldiers from Maharastra and Gujarat will be able to tolerate the conditions in Kashmir if the people from the North do not chip in?
Hello everybody. I came up to this website while trying to learn more about Nepal through google search. I have been living in US since last six years and have two Nepali co-employees working with me who are absolutely wonderful. From what I have learned from them about Nepal and from what I have known about Nepal through media and television, one thing is sure that there is no significant difference in culture of Nepal and India. Both countries are hindu majority with other religions like budhists, muslims, and christians in minority. Being hindu countries, both have similar customs and traditions. Actually, India’s culture is more closer to Nepal than Pakistan’s. Nepal has people of tibetan race and features and so does India. If you compare Nepali and hindi languages, both are so similar. Only spoken form is different, but alphabets are similar. I am gujarati and have found many common words in gujarati and nepali. Even many people of Nepal have Indian ancestors. People from Nepal come to India and many have made great careers like Udit narayan and manisha koirala. Even Indian army has a special Gorkha regiment who are known and respected for their bravery. Nepalese might not like it, but Nepal can be easily seen as just another state in India because even in India every state has a different language, culture, and demography. Kingship like Nepal was also in every state of India before independance, but Sardar patel merged all of them to form one India. But after saying all these, I don’t mean that India has all authority over Nepal. Nepal being a neighboring hindu country does not give India a license to own it. For e.g., both Pakistan and Afghanistan are islamic countries, but that doesn’t mean that they should unite. Nepal has always remained an independent sovereign country. Nepalese have all right to solve their issues on their own and Indians don’t need to poke their noses in their affairs. Only thing India can do is to give a helping hand. However, Nepal should not forget that India is the only hindu dominant country and can guard both countries from the muslim and christian attacks. Also, Nepal should not trust China too much over India, because who knows that China might be interest secretely in taking over Nepal like they did in Tibet so that they can be in direct confrontation with India. India has already paid a huge price of trusting China. Expansionist and communist government of China cannot be fully trusted. Nepal also need to be wary of Pakistan’s intention in disturbing Nepal-India relationship through propaganda like Hrithik roshan issue which was a clever pakistani agent’s plot to arouse anti-India feelings in Nepal. Every small countries in the world that are surrounded by big and powerful countries feel that their powerful neighbors are exploiting them or being bossy on them. Same feeling is evident in few people in Nepal. Maoists and other political people take advantage of these feelings and use it for their own vested interests. Nepali people need not worry because India can’t dare or afford to make a blunder of invading Nepal. This can easily cause a disastrous situation and China also might take advantage of this situation and attack India. And frankly, I don’t think that invading Nepal is even in distant thoughts of any political leader in India. Besides, in one thousand years of India’s history, India has never invaded any country. On the contrary, Pakistan had invaded India in 1948 and taken over large part of kashmir and China had invaded India in 1962 and taken over large territories of India. Both of which India has never demanded back. India has never taken first initiative in any war. Need of the hour is more economic and military help should be given to Nepal from India and Nepal don’t need to be suspicious of India’s intention. People of Nepal and India have far healthier relationship than people of Pakistan and India. It’s all dirty politics that comes in the way of peace and harmony because that’s how politicians can keep their positions secure forever.
First of all I want to say “Thank You” to chirag chhaya for his views. I am a Nepal and I love Nepal and I also Love India (although most of the times India tries to meddle with our business and tries to screw things up) .
The person who started this thread should realize that Nepal is older as a country than India, and we Nepalese cherish our independence and we have never allowed it to be colonized by any other country (like the UK for example).
It would be a disaster for India to try to invade Nepal because although Maoists are fighting the government right now and the whole country is in chaos; if someone else meddled with Nepal all of the country WILL unite and fight the outsider till death.
Ever wondered why there is a Gorkha regiment from Nepal in the UK but no Indian regiment, although the UK ruled India for more than 200 years and it never ruled Nepal?
This should tell you that we WILL fight the evil that will try to invade us and cut them in a million pieces, be them our own brothers.
Leave us alone for your own sake. Go invade Pakistan and Bangladesh instead, after all they were a part of India till 1947.
I totally agree with Dronaraj. Let me assure you man, I don’t think that Indian people would support Indian government even if Indian government think of occupying Nepal. There will be massive protest against that in India if government even think about that. People in India see Nepal as a distinct country and I don’t think that anybody is interested in capturing Nepal. I blame the people like Mr. Barman who started this baseless discussion thread. People like him are responsible for instilling hatred in minds of people. Nepal pose no security threat to India unlike Bangladesh or Pakistan whose intentions India can never trust because both of these countries are breeding grounds for anti-India propaganda and terrorists. Also, I want to input my views regarding a comment made by Mr. Avash sharma, I believe who said that India is responsible for Nepal’s poverty and maoist problem. Well, Mr. Sharma I disagree with you in this stance. Nepal is a landlocked country and it’s main source of income is tourism and textile industry. Nepal’s terrain is largely covered with mountains and forests and being a small country it has very less agricultural land. Offcourse, it’s rich in water resources though. Nepal is getting a lot of economic aid from UN and different countries of the world every year including INDIA. People from India like marwadi, bihari, etc. have settled in Nepal and flourished the business. However, have you ever wondered that where does the money that comes to Nepal as economic aid goes? You will not like what I will say, but much of that money is swallowed by Nepal’s king who still wants to hold control over Nepal and is against democracy. Much of the money is also swallowed by Nepal’s corrupt politician. I am not saying that our politicians are any better, they are actually worse like Lalu prasad yadav, mayawati, etc. Though India is a big country and has many resources, but India too has huge problems of poverty, corruption, illiteracy, unemployement, terrorism, crime, communal riots, and billion mouths to feed. Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China’s hidden agenda is to increase problems in India to make sure India never becomes a major power in the world. However, we Indians don’t single-handedly blame only Pakistanis, chinese, or bangladeshis for all that happens wrong in India. Whenever something goes wrong in any country, the government and the people of that country are first responsible and then the neighboring country’s agendas. Thus, we Indians never blame only our neighbors for all poverty and lack of progress in India. Finally, any country will first think of the national interest and welfare of it’s people first before thinking of welfare of neighboring countries. Yes, I agree that India has adopted a snail’s pace on economic and business help to Nepal. Well, let me tell you that Indian government is adopting snail’s pace even for the welfare of it’s own people. Many projects like road building, bridges, railway improvement, etc. are incomplete for years and years in India. People have complained for years, but government has done nothing but promise. Even after suffering from all these problems of it’s own, India has always helped their friendly neighbors from time to time. Agreed that India cannot give billions of dollars like US because it’s not that rich a country, but it’s doing it’s best. Recently in tsunami time, India was also affected in Tamilnadu and Andhra pradesh, but still India not only helped Indonesia and Srilanka moniterily, but also sent it’s army for rescue and re-building work. When 911 happened in US, India was the first country to declare support to US on war over terrorism, even before president bush asked for help from other countries. Finally, India knows very well that a stable and progressive neighbouring country is better and safe for both countries rather than an unstable and aggresive neighboring country. Thus, India is trying to work out it’s differences even with her number one rival Pakistan. After saying all these things, I don’t blame Nepal for it’s complains and anger towards India. India is Nepal’s neighbor and a hindu dominant country also. Thus, it’s natural that Nepal feel left behind in the current economic progress and IT success that India has achieved. But, I truly believe that people of Nepal are capable of achieving progress and stability. It might take some time to tackle issues like maoist insurgency, but if small countries like Singapore and Taiwan can succeed then why can’t Nepal?
I think Nepal will benefit greatly by befriending India. Nepal is suffering and now king is playing the China card when he knows that that is in fact a joker’s card. China has no intention to flagellate the Tibet imbroglio. Nepal is too insignificant and may trigger rebellion in its muslim west. Nepal’s long term ally has to be India. Or it will destroy itself. India will never grab Nepal for many reasons. It will be too big a problem for its economy. Think of Gorkha Regiment of India fighting at the border areas with the communist extremists with India’s gun power. Think of screening each village with report card of each individual aged 15-45 and you know what to do.
People,
Before you debate the merits of whether India’s system of Justice (is it eqaully available to every Indian?), Governance (Does New Delhi Govern all of India?), etc. you may want to visit your archives and figure out what went wrong with India’s misadventure in Sri Lanka. Go figure.
The Maoists continually raise the issue of the Indian Army waiting to invade / intervene in Nepal and this is a popular recruitment theme. Have you considered that the Nepalese might fight back? Have you considered that the 50,000 elite Gorkha troops in the Indian Army may not wish to invade their motherland? Have you considered that given active service in three armies (British, Indian and Nepali) a sizeable chunk of the Nepalese population is war trained? And that given the motivation they will fight back? Have you considered that the Nepalese security forces, though poorly equipped, are a battle hardened force, some of them with 5 years of war under their belt? Finally how many of you really know the terrain and topography of Nepal? Also then consider the positions of countries like China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka on any misadventure the Indians may want to dream up.
So, for all you arm chair warriors it may be a better thing if you were to look closer to home and ask some very hard questions.
1) Who actually gave birth to the Maoists of Nepal? Remember the Moists meet regulary with Indian politicains including those of the present coalition Government.
2) Who is responsible for encouraging the politicians of Nepal to plunder the national exchequre, thereby destablilising the economy and then playing the part of hero.
3) If the Maoists were to ‘win’ in Nepal where would they next try to export their ideology? New Delhi, it seems to me, is a lot closer to any point in Nepal that Washington, Beijing or Islamabad.
4) When did the Indian Army last, decisively win a war? Memory fails me…
A time I trust for introspection.
A Nepali
This one goes to my friend who is anonymous and calls himself A Nepali. Man, you and few other folks from Nepal talk like Pakistanis talk against India. I can understand Pakistan’s hatred towards India and vice versa, but I didn’t expect this coming from Nepal. Find me a single person in India who geniunely hates Nepal or wants Nepal to be invaded by India, and I will bow down on you. If you carefully read my previous posts in this thread, you will realize that nowhere I have said anything insulting against Nepal or Nepalis, eventhough some folks from Nepal have said insulting thing against Indians and India. First of all, you got it entirely wrong by saying that Maoists are India’s invention. Wherever there is social injustice, continous neglect, and poverty, there is always a rebellion against the government. Same thing is going on in Northeast India and naxalite areas of Andhra pradesh. Even India has maoist problem in Bihar, West bengal, and Chattisgarh, although not severe as in Nepal. If you carefully examine the conditions of all these parts of India, you will realize how remote, neglected and underpriviliged these people are. Thus, they have raised a violent rebellion against the sleeping Indian government. Similarly Nepali politicians and especially kings, sorry but it is true, have done nothing for Nepalis. Besides, where did maoist idea came from? Who is Mao and where is he from? Is he from India? Certainly not. He was a bloody chinese communist dictator. Also, the weapons that Maoists are using are mostly Chinese made or few from Pakistan’s ISI operating in Bangladesh. Even the maoist leader Prachanda had said that eventually they will have to fight against Indian army. So does that make Maoists and Indian government friends who jointly plotted this insurgency in Nepal? One more thing you had said made me wonder. You said that India had never decisively won any war. Three times against Pakistan, even in difficult Kargil war, India had smashed Pakis. Remind you, it was Pakistan’s misadventure all three times that initiated the war. Eventhough, India has returned the pakistani territory everytime without any bargaining condition of returning the Pakistan occupied Kashmir to India. We are not interested in anybody’s land, but we are not chakkas who will clap and do nothing when any enemy occupies our land. The only war India had lost was against China, and that too was largely due to Nehru’s foolishness. His philosophy was too Gandhivadi and unrealistic. He trusted China till the last moment when they had already entered in significant India territories. He did not ordered our army to attack first, and as a result China had a big advantage and we lost a lot of lives and lot of land against China. As I had said before, India has never invaded any country in her last 1000 years of history. On the contrary, India was invaded, plundered, looted, and raped many times by Mughals, british, and europeans. So, be assured that India will never invade Nepal because we know the disastrous consequences of that misadventure. I agree that India sometimes is too nosy in the neighboring countries’ business because of our genuine care and the fear that the problem in neigboring countries might spill in India. If we are going to get hatred from Nepal inspite of being genuinely concerned about Nepal, then I think India should leave alone Nepal completely and let Nepal learn from her mistakes of trusting countries like China. India had already trusted China, and the result we all know. China is nobody’s friend and it’s only motto is to expand and occupy smaller himalayan states like bhutan, nepal, etc. They already have done that in Tibet. Even Taiwan had said that China is nobody’s friend. They have border problems even with Russia, Tajikistan, and argument with Taiwan. The hindi proverb completely fits the situation of India, “neki kar aur dariya mein daal”. We helped Bangladesh attain freedom from Pakistan and today bangladesh is the center of all anti-India activities and is happening under their government’s support. India trusted Pakistan many times and has shown friendly gestures to improve relations, but pakistan has backstabbed India many times. India is highly obliged to Nepal because thousands of brave Gorkhas are serving in Indian army for years. However, at the same time don’t forget that India has welcomed all Nepalis to settle in India and make a better life.
India invading Nepal is an outlandish suggestion in this day and age. Not going to happen. Instead the Indian private sector should fund the movement for democracy in Nepal.
Comments on this post are closed. I’m surprised that this minor piece received so much attention and vitriol. Needless to say, the abusive and ad hominem comments have been deleted. It was fun reading all the invective by those who missed the point of this post. But seven months later, it’s become a bit of a bore. Go home folks and get a life.