Monday, December 21, 2009

Srruggle against Indian hegemony

Thousands of Maoist protesters in Nepal enforced the second day of their nationwide general strike on Monday, shouting anti-government slogans and paralyzing much of the country as businesses remained shuttered and vehicle traffic was almost nonexistent in the capital, Katmandu.

The quieter protests Monday contrasted with the violent clashes that erupted a day earlier between the police and demonstrators in Katmandu. On Sunday, the police arrested at least 70 people as officers used batons and tear gas to break up protesters, who were blocking roads and preventing Nepal’s prime minister from reaching his residence after returning from the international climate change talks in Copenhagen.

“The situation is quite normal compared to yesterday,” said Jaya Mukunda Khanal, spokesman for the Nepal Home Ministry. “People are in the streets. There is no transportation, but people can walk around.”

The general strike is the latest development in Nepal’s mounting political crisis. Three years after Maoist rebels agreed to end their decade-old armed revolt and participate in politics, the peace process is under a severe strain. In the streets of Katmandu on Monday, thousands of Maoists blocked intersections near ministerial buildings, shouting slogans and demanding the resignation of the current government.

Last year, the Maoists won enough seats in national elections to lead a coalition government and elect their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, as prime minister. But Prachanda resigned in May to protest a constitutional dispute with the president over the Nepalese military. Since then, the Maoists have staged demonstrations and even declared certain areas, including Katmandu, as symbolic “autonomous zones” beyond governmental authority.

The clash on Sunday occurred around 2:30 p.m. Bigyan Sharma, deputy inspector general of the Nepal police, said officers approached protesters, who were blocking a main road leading from the airport into the city. He said officers wanted to clear the road to allow the prime minister, Madhav Kumar Nepal, to reach his residence after returning from the talks in Copenhagen.

Officer Sharma said the protesters refused to move and then hurled stones at officers, badly injuring a police commander, who was taken to the hospital. Officer Sharma said the police then turned water cannons on the demonstrators while other officers used batons and tear gas. Ultimately, the authorities transported the prime minister by an alternate route, Officer Sharma said.

“The police were not too aggressive,” said Mr. Khanal, the home ministry spokesman. “The police had to clear the road.”

But Dinanath Sharma, a spokesman for the Maoists, disputed that account and accused the police of overzealousness. He said officers attacked peaceful protesters and that two Maoist parliamentarians were badly injured. “Our protest program is peaceful,” Mr. Sharma said. “It was not from our side. The police forcefully tried to suppress us.”

On Monday, a relative calm settled over Katmandu, witnesses said. Demonstrators were holding sit-down protests in groups of 100 or 200, according to the police, calling for the “people’s supremacy.”

The strike is schedule to end Tuesday. The police estimated that 4,000 protesters were on the streets of the capital, while other demonstrations were underway in other cities in Nepal.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

A Sample Focus Piece from International Boundary Monitor

A Sample Focus Piece from International Boundary Monitor (15 May 1998),
by International Boundary Consultants

India's Boundary Disputes with China, Nepal, and Pakistan

The recent detonation of a series of nuclear devices by India and Pakistan has increased tension in South Asia and threatens to inflame long-standing boundary disputes that India has with China, Nepal, and Pakistan. The disputes with China and Pakistan have already triggered several wars. The new Hindu-nationalist government in New Delhi has reversed movement toward détente with Beijing and Islamabad. The areas in contention with China and Pakistan are among the largest land-boundary disputes in the world. The Indo-Nepali dispute over Kalapani is more recent and involves a small area.

India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh)

In the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China seized a Switzerland-sized area, Aksai Chin (Aksayqin), and overran Arunachal Pradesh (an Indian state the size of Austria). There are also other, smaller pockets of disputed area.[1] The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which approximates the McMahon Line that is found in a 1914 agreement initialed by British, Tibetan, and Chinese representatives.[2] Chinese and Indian forces clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh in 1986-87. Relations began to thaw in 1988.

On 7 September 1993, China and India signed an accord to reduce tensions along their border and to respect the LAC. During November 1996, China and India agreed to delimit the LAC and institute confidence-building measures (CBMs) along the frontier. The agreement pledged nonaggression, prior notification of large troop movements, a 10-km no-fly zone for combat aircraft, and exchange of maps to resolve disagreements about the precise location of the LAC. In August 1997 the sides ratified the CBM agreement. There seems to have been little substantive progress, except for a series of high-level visits.[3] The most recent, on 27 April, was the first visit by a PRC Chief of Staff to India. However, two weeks before the visit the new Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandes, accused the PRC of repeated violations of Indian territory, including the construction of a helipad on "Indian" territory in the disputed zone, and of aiding Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. On 3 May he publicly labeled China as India's number one threat and alleged that the PRC was stockpiling nuclear weapons in Tibet, expanding naval activity off the Burmese coast, and conducting surveillance against India from Burma's Coco Islands.[4] After the visit of General Fu Quanyou and PRC protests, Fernandes said that his characterization of China as India's principal threat was a personal view, but he went on to pledge that the number of Indian troops along the frontier with China would not be reduced. Such a statement calls into question part of the agreed CBMs. (To view a map of this area click here.)

China and India have yet to address their fundamental and very large land boundary disputes. Moreover, their bilateral relations are complicated by the issues of Tibet (Xizang), Sikkim, and Kashmir. India plays host to the Dalai Lama and a large number of Tibetan refugees. They present an implicit threat to Chinese control of Tibet, which it invaded in 1950. On its maps, the PRC continues to portray Sikkim, which was absorbed by India in 1974, as an independent country. In addition to the Aksai Chin, China and India dispute another section of Kashmir (the area west of Aksai Chin).

India-Pakistan-China (Kashmir)

When India and Pakistan became independent of Great Britain in 1947, the various princely states, including that of Jammu and Kashmir, could accede to either country. An armed revolt of Muslim peasantry against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir prompted the Maharaja to accede to India in order to gain military aid. Pakistan objected and the countries went to war. The matter was taken up by the UN Security Council in 1948, which adopted a resolution calling for the restoration of order, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces and reduction of Indian forces, and a UN plebiscite. India and Pakistan objected to various of these provisions. They went to war over Kashmir again in 1965. In 1971 India intervened in Pakistan's civil war that led to the independence of Bangladesh. India and Pakistan came close to war over Kashmir in 1990. (To view a map of this area click here.)

UN observers monitor part of the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire line. The current line was established by the 1972 Simla accord and approximately follows the 1949 Cease-fire Line. The coordinates of the Simla line have not been published, and the line was never delimited in the forbidding Siachin Glacier, near the Chinese frontier, where India and Pakistan frequently trade artillery rounds. Firing incidents and allegations of infiltration are chronic along the entire cease-fire line.

The Indian-controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir became a state in 1974. The parts of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, have anomalous status as administered territories. In 1963 China and Pakistan delimited a boundary that India claims illegally gave part of Kashmir to China. In 1987 a Sino-Pakistani protocol formalized demarcation of their boundary. The termination of this boundary at the Karakoram Pass on the Chinese line of control suggests that Pakistan recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin, which is part of the former Princely State of Kashmir.

India and Pakistan have held sporadic talks. In June 1997, they agreed to eight issues for discussion, including the issue of Kashmir and their maritime boundary. Pakistan wants to set-up a separate task force on Kashmir; India has resisted the idea. Talks have made little progress due to changes in the respective governments. The recent efforts by US Ambassador Richardson to resolve the dispute seem to have been blown out of the water by Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests.

India-Nepal (Kalapani)

The dispute between India and Nepal involves about 75 sq km of area in Kalapani, where China, India, and Nepal meet. Indian forces occupied the area in 1962 after China and India fought their border war.[5] Three villages are located in the disputed zone: Kuti [Kuthi, 30°19'N, 80°46'E], Gunji, and Knabe. India and Nepal disagree about how to interpret the 1816 Sugauli treaty between the British East India Company and Nepal, which delimited the boundary along the Maha Kali River (Sarda River in India). The dispute intensified in 1997 as the Nepali parliament considered a treaty on hydro-electric development of the river. India and Nepal differ as to which stream constitutes the source of the river. Nepal regards the Limpiyadhura as the source; India claims the Lipu Lekh. Nepal has reportedly tabled an 1856 map from the British India Office to support its position. The countries have held several meetings about the dispute and discussed jointly surveying to resolve the issue.[6] Although the Indo-Nepali dispute appears to be minor, it was aggravated in 1962 by tensions between China and India. Because the disputed area lies near the Sino-Indian frontier, it gains strategic value.

Like most boundary dispute, those of India with its neighbors are symptomatic of wider bilateral relations. Boundaries are manifestations of national identity. They can be trip-wires of war. Recent developments in South Asia suggest that peaceful resolution of these disputes is receding from reach.

1. The author wishes to thank the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues, US Department of State for providing information used in the preparation of the accompanying maps. However, the views expressed are those of the author and do not represent United States policy.
2. Although the US government has a general policy of staying neutral in foreign boundary disputes, the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict prompted the US President and Secretary of State publicly to affirm India's claim line in Arunachal Pradesh.
3. The Pioneer (Delhi, 7 May 1998), p. 8.
4. AFP (Hong Kong) 3 May 1998; Jansatta (Delhi, 5 May 1998), p. 6; Associated Press (Beijing) 5 May 1998.
5. Kyodo (Tokyo) 9 September 1997.
6. The Kathmandu Post, 16 July 1997, 2 July 1997, 31 May 1996; The Hindustan Times (Delhi), 9 June 1997, p. 13; Xinhua 11 April 1997.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Height of an Indian's hegemony over Nepal

"Ashok Mehta's commentary "Nepal needs a make over" is totally biased, prejudiced irresponsive and cunning in nature."

Ashok Mehta's commentary "Nepal needs a make over" placed at web site is totally biased, prejudiced, irresponsive and cunning in nature. With what dignity and authority an Indian Army retired red tape dared to comment over the personal issues of an independent and sovereign nation, Nepal?

Contents of Mehta's this spinning script demonstrates that he holds a latent conspiracy and has several ploys against the peace and prosperity of Nepal. Mehta's conspiracy might derail the ongoing peace process in Nepal and affect the safety and security of entire regions in South Asia. Who is to blame for these repercussions?

No doubts, why this retired Indian Army General had faced several disciplinary actions including serious Military charges like Court martial in his midterm Army career. It is not enough of him. All the Nepalese responsive citizens remember the black days of Mehata's past stay in Nepal.
One can still identify those innocent Nepalese village girls who were sexually exploited and harassed by this unethical and irresponsive General. So, Mr. Mehta is advised that instead of spitting venom and throwing provocative comments over Nepal's fate he should better regret himself for his crooked mentality and inhuman acts over innocent and ignorant Nepalese souls.

Mehta's identity can never be abolished in this entire South Asian region. It is an open secret that Mehta is the key actor of Indian intelligence Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) being activated in SAARC region? Ask any innocent SIKKIMESE or BHUTANESE citizen about the cunningness and conspiracy of this crooked personality.

It is true that this fox is plugging a thrilling conspiracy against the aspirations and quest of Nepalese people. Nepalese Patriots! Beware!! What concern does he have with the freedom and rights of Nepalese citizens? How will he feel if a Nepalese citizens fiddle with the policy of his country, India?

Mehta has no rights and authority to interrupt over the personal matters of Nepal. We Nepalese people also have sound brains to handle our internal problems. We are conscious about Mehta's grand design of "SIKKIMIZATION" of Nepal. So, honorable court martial experienced General! Instead of advocating for your puppet political party (CPN Maoists), you should advise Nepalese policy makers for the better solutions of bringing peace and stability in your neighborhood.

You must realize that you live in this region too. Mehta should better stop acting over smart. He should better be a good neighbor and survive in safe neighborhood. Remember every action has always equal and opposite reaction. Never dream of reincarnating LENDUP DORJE in Nepal. Why not you scan your biography and seek apology from the sober Nepalese people for your inhuman past behavior in Nepal.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

90 per cent of Interference in Nepal comes from India: Mahara

In an exclusive interview with the Kantipur Daily dated September 20, 2009, Mr. Krishna Bahadur Mahara of the Unified Maoists’ party accepts that in the fresh visit of party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to Hong Kong, the Maoists’ team had met with some high placed China's leadership.

Say experts, the Maoist’s Party of Nepal that is sharing worst relations with India after the fall of the Maoists’ led government on May 4, 2009, the increasing hobnob with the Chinese regime of the Maoists’ leadership thereafter, and, of late Prachanda’s secret meeting with the Chinese leadership in Hong Kong has sent (it has already been sent) spine chilling waves to the coercive New Delhi leadership which unfortunately provided shelter to the leaders of the Maoists’ Party, including Mr. Mahara for over a decade. What an unjust world? Bear with it!

Mahara replying to a query posed by Kantipur says that Mrs. Nirupama Rao, the Indian Foreign Secretary while in Kathmandu had met with Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, the Maoists’ party vice chairman and her meet with Bhattarai meant that the Maoists party still accorded priority to the Indian establishment.

“What could show our respect to her than our vice chairman meeting her” Mahara asks.

Mahara, the international bureau chief of the Maoists party however, rejects the idea that the Maoists’ want enhanced relations with China at the cost of India.

“We have good relations with various political forces of India as well”, Mahara thus politely rubs ointment in the Indian wound.

“We feel that we must share enhanced relations with China as well, we are in the process of developing such relations with the northern neighbor...the practice has already begun", adds Mahara.

“Not just India and China, we must build cordial and friendly relations with other countries, beyond the countries in the neighborhood.”

“We are positive towards relations that Nepal shares with India”, he says adding, “But, we will never tolerate the Indian interference in Nepali politics.”

“Yes, our relations with India are slightly strained but not at that level as that could not be corrected", he continues.

Some Indian citizens are worried in having concluded that the Nepali Maoists did not come to their fold”, Mahara says forwarding a suggestion that “such mindset must be changed.”

“There is absolutely no space to criticize Chinese political interference in Nepal”, he says “as far as interference of India and China is concerned in Nepal affairs, the fact is that of the total, 90 per cent of political interference in Nepal originate from the Indian side”.

A daring declaration indeed.

Mahara honestly tells the Kantipur that “Chinese interference may only account to 10 per cent”.

“China is clear on its Nepal policy”, Mahara says, “The Chinese support is clear in that it comes through the proper channel of the Nepal Government.”

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Why has India invited Jhalnath Khanal

Why has India invited Jhalnath Khanal to India. Its not a surprise because India wants to tame Jhalnath Khanal like KP OLI and Madhav Kumar Nepal.
The Terai-based parties are quite and not protesting beacuse in Terai India is exposed. The RAW has been very active in Terai for long but the problem started when the Americans and West powers including China told India not to meddle the Terai and create unrest.
But Indian has started new policy of cosying CPN (UML) as it has invited party chairman Jhalnatha Khanal.
The power bloc in , created in 1947, does not sincerely recognize Nepal as an independent country. It talks about Nepal’s independence in only those times when it diplomatically needs to avoid bad consequences of its “doings” in Nepal. It treats Nepal as territory for playing out its power games. And it plays these games “internally” by promising each “big” leader of every Nepali political party the post of Nepal’s prime ministership/presidency. The memoirs/books by BP Koirala, GM Singh, KP Bhattarai, MP Koirala, Bharat Mohan Adhikari eloquently record the way the power bloc of India plays in Nepal.
This also explains the rationale for short term tenure of government leadership in Nepal (10 prime ministers in the last 10 years) and the incentive this (short term tenure of the government leadership) holds for the Indian power bloc.
Just compare the size (territory) of India had when it was created in 1947 and the one it claims now. One may visit a good library for the yearly Almanac of the Statesman (Calcutta) and pick up it for 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 (this is an example for yearly sample and interval). This will very clearly establish not only the fact about the up- scaling “elasticity” of TROI territory in Trans-Himalayan Asia but also the unilaterally imposed so-called open border on the innocent people of Nepal.
India is manipulative enough to work “internally” in Nepal as its formal takeover or annexation of Nepal will bring it directly over to Tibet Autonomous Region of China; and the security and economic costs of such doing will be simply infinite for India.
Sensing this China has started the campaign in Kashmir treating it as a separate country.
The Chinese are more watchful of Indian activities in Nepal and now India feels it should have its pseudo-Nepali voice. So, India's RAW started The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post to start their propaganda in Nepal against its neighbours.
If one reads The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post, the news aganist China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan are always front page. The editors of both the newspapers are not journalists but the Indian-paid dogs who can only bark in front of other Nepali collegues but lick the Indians boot.
There is no difference between Rishi Dhamala and these editors, who are RAW agents. They should be arrested and put behind the bars for the security of the country and its sovereignty.
by Upendra Gautam

Friday, October 30, 2009

Why Nepal hates India:-Delhi’s Maoist headache

Bharat (aka India) has problems with all the countries surrounding it. No other country on the planet has had war with all her neighbors. Bharati attempts at taking over Nepal have backfired. Even though Nepal is Hindu majority country, it does not want to be part of Bharat. Delhi has been interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal for the past six decades–at one point imposing a trade embargo on the land locked country. It’s impossible to imagine that Delhi can be convinced to play a creative and helpful role in Nepal’s peace process. Bharat is aflame, from the tip of Nepal down to the depths of Andhara Pradesh in a rebellion that control about 40% of the land mass of Bharat. The flaring Maoist insurgency within Bharat and the emotional kinship that Nepali Maoists want to share with their Chinese brethren is a huge impediment to Nepali-Bharati relations.
The mountain Hindu kingdom of Nepal; India wants to take it over. The Maoists more freindly with China then Delhi want to keep Nepal independent

The Maoists recently quit the government protesting Indian interference. Peace is in jeopardy in the Himalayan state. The issue–getting rid of a pro-Indian general who had refused to listen to the Pro-Chinese Maoist rime Minister. The Maoists are a huge migraine headache for Delhi. The Maoists support the Naxaliteswhich control 40% of the Indian landmass. Once in power the Maoists continue their links with the Naxalites. Red Nepal: Clear and present danger to India

The Maoists are mad at Delhi for the interference. If India continues its diktat, the Maoists could retreat to the mountains and begin the war once again. China has a lot of influence in Napal.

The Bharati establishment has to stop interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs, which is making Delhi’s relations bad with her neighbros to the North, West, East and South. Looking at the countries which surround Bharat, one can see that all are unfriendly. Delhi needs deep introspection, and take measures to make neighboring countries more friendly rather than alienating them. Nepal wants to scrap much hated “Treaty of Friendship” with India

The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal allows for free movement of people and goods between the two nations and a close relationship and collaboration on defence and foreign affairs. For New Delhi, the treaty is a tool to lessen Beijing’s influence on Kathmandu. But it has been drawing flak in Nepal, with the Maoists who now outnumber others in the Himalayan country’s Constituent Assembly demanding revision of the treaty.

Bharat can continue to view the North with suspicion. Delh can let the Maoists be the over-riding objective of its Nepal policy or be a good neighor. The choice is for Delhi to make. It can continue to pro-actively interfere in Nepal as it has been doing since 2005 or it can learn to appreciate the growing communists in Nepal and deal with them. Interference has been counterproductive for Delhi.

Naxalite insurgency spreading like wildfire in Bharat. Hindustan's Maoist insurgency map. There are secessionist movements in almost every state in "India" encompasisng more than 200 districts. The Naxals have been supported by the Maoists in Nepal. With the Maoist victory in Nepal the Naxals and Maoists of Bharat are increasingly more assertive

India seems to have lost the battle for influence in Nepal. Once the Big Brother that controlled every aspect of of Nepali life, Delhi has little influence on decision making in Kathmandu. When Delhi tries to force its will, the Nepalis don’t listen. Nepali Maoists fouhgt a long and protracted war of independence from Indian interference. The people of Nepal won, and put the Pro-Chinese Maoists in power.

The Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao arrives in Kathmandu on her first visit to its Norhtern neighbor. Bharati interference has brought the peace process to the brink. Nepal is grappling with its most serious political crisis since the king abdicated power to parliament. Nuclear flashpoint: How India lost Nepal to China

India has to make certain difficult policy choices, reconcile the contradictions between its stated aims and actions, determine whether it remains committed to the process it helped facilitate, and use its leverage accordingly.

The fragile Madhav Nepal-led ruling coalition faces a severe crisis of legitimacy and a belligerent Maoist opposition. The Maoists have boycotted the legislature-parliament, paralysing government business to the extent that the budget has not yet been passed. They have demanded a house discussion on President Ram Baran Yadav’s “unconstitutional action” over-riding the Maoist government’s decision to sack the then Army Chief General Rukmangad Katawal in early May — a demand rejected by the other parties in government who see no wrong in what the President did. The Maoists have also launched a street movement, with the slogan of instituting “civilian supremacy” and a “Maoist-led national government.”

The Constitution-writing process is in limbo, with the Constituent Assembly changing its timeline for the sixth time, raising serious doubts whether the statute can be prepared by May 2010. The peace process lies dormant, with little progress on the integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army, presently in United Nations-supervised cantonments. The political polarisation in Kathmandu has left the state weak and unreformed, further fuelling semi-militant ethnic movements of Tharus in western Tarai, Madhesis in eastern Tarai, and Limbus in eastern hills. The Hindu. (Prashant Jha is a Kathmandu-based journalist.)

Maoists insurgents in Nepal and Naxalites in India. The Naxals control 40% of the land

This ever growing enmity will not allow Indian policymakers to make any concessions to the Nepali Maoists. Indian policymakers want the Maoists to kneel down, come to its terms of reference, and to hand them the job of running the country. The Nepali Maoists seem to have ditched that traditional style of ruling if their public rhetoric is anything to go by. There is no military solution to the problem. Delhi has tried it and failed. The Maoists took over Nepal and are gaining in strength in Bharat. Delhi finds itself in a fix. Given such a precarious situation, the question about who will blink first and how is important. If Maoists indeed succeed in toppling this government either by playing within the contradictions of colourful partners of the coalition or through a mass revolt, it’s not convincing that they may be able to run the country without India’s support. If they do have something of this sort in their mind, they must have done sufficient homework to rope in China into the country as never before.

Domestic roots

The present crisis, result of the ouster of the Maoists from the government in May, has domestic roots.

There is a deep trust deficit between Nepal’s older political parties and the Maoists. The former feel that the Maoists have not changed the ultimate aim of “state capture” and are not committed to multiparty democracy. The inability of these parties, both the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), to challenge the Maoists politically has added to their insecurity. The Maoists see the others as “stooges of feudals and reactionaries,” unable to reconcile themselves with the popular aspirations of change, and to accept that Maoists are legitimately the strongest political force in Nepal.

Add to this the trust deficit between the Maoists and the Nepal Army, especially under the previous chief, General Katawal, who the Maoists had sought to dismiss. The top brass of the army sees the Maoist intentions to integrate the PLA as an attempt to “politicise” and “take over” the army. Maoist dogmatists see the army as the final pillar of the old state that has to be reoriented drastically. The more moderate politicians, across the spectrum, recognise the need to “democratise the army” as stated by the peace accord, and “integrate” a part of the PLA — but then develop cold feet, fearing this would mean one less balancing force against the Maoists. The elevation of the more sober and restrained Chhatraman Singh Gurung as the first Janajati Chief of the Army this week has had a positive effect though, reducing tension levels.

It was this alliance of the parties and the army that led to the ouster of the Maoist government and the resulting stalemate. But India was at the centre of the crisis in May — actively opposing the Maoist move to dismiss the chief, backing the army, and then helping Madhav Nepal cobble together a majority in the house. The Indians had warned the Maoists not to “touch the army” and felt this was a Maoist move to take over all state institutions. New Delhi was increasingly uncomfortable with the Maoists’ increased engagement with China, the anti-India rhetoric of top Maoist leaders, and developed doubts about their commitment to democracy.

Since then, New Delhi has actively backed the present Madhav Nepal government — hosting him during a five-day India visit, telling interlocutors not to destabilise the present arrangement, and helping to smoothen intra-coalition differences.

New Delhi’s role

India has a choice. It can continue to let its suspicion of the Maoists be the over-riding objective of its Nepal policy, and see the country slide into confrontational politics and greater anarchy. Or it can seek to build bridges, and play a pro-active role in engineering the kind of consensus it has done since 2005 to veer Nepal back towards a stable trajectory. But for that, policymakers have to ask themselves difficult questions.

Is India still committed to Nepal’s Constitution-writing and peace process? If yes, how does it reconcile that with the opposition of powerful sections in the Indian establishment to the integration of even a part of the PLA in the Nepal Army, as stated in peace accords? Would they prefer the present drift where the country has two armies? Or are they banking on the PLA splintering off into lower level extremist groups, which looks unlikely given the strong chain of command and party discipline?

How does sustaining the present government aid the process? Does India recognise that as long as this government is in place, Maoists may not cooperate in drafting the Constitution, and without their numbers, no statute can be passed? What are the implications, for Nepal and for India, if the Constitution does not get written on time? In fact, how does encouraging a Kathmandu power structure that excludes the Maoists square up with the political reality on the ground where they are immensely strong?

How does fragmentation of the Madhesi mainstream political parties — recent moves by Delhi have added to their divisions — help the cause of stability in the Tarai? Does India still believe in using the Tarai and the Madhes movement as a counter to the Maoists and a strategic lever? Is there a recognition that continued semi-anarchy in the Tarai and a weak state right across the border could imperil India’s own security interests?

The point is not to place the onus on all that is happening in Nepal on India. Of course, domestic actors have been irresponsible. There is a deep disconnect between Maoist intentions, actions and rhetoric, and dogmatists within still dream of a communist republic. There is lack of clarity within the Nepali Congress and the UML. Factionalism is rampant. Short-term interest based politics has trumped the larger commitment to the process. And no solution can be imposed from outside.

Nirupama Rao will get acquainted with political actors, make the right noises, and back the present government during her Nepal stay. But her visit would be truly successful if she uses the trip to publicly reiterate New Delhi’s commitment and support to past political and peace agreements; tell all actors that no form of authoritarianism, right or left, is acceptable to India; build bridges with the Maoists; privately reassess India’s approach to the present power alignment; and encourage a creative roadmap to get the Nepali process back on track.

India is now trying to put in place a pro-Indian government and keep the Maoists out of power. This could be very dangerous, because it could lead of widespread Anti-Indian riots. Already the Indian companies working Nepal face an uphill battle. Various project have been put on hold and trade is in jeopardy.

Gen Hossain Mohammed Ershad, the first host of Saarc in 1985, said bluntly in a TV documentary sponsored by India’s foreign ministry that one of the main reasons for creating the grouping was that India’s smaller neighbours were ‘allergic’ to the big neighbour. ‘So we decided to bring everyone together to deal with the problem.’ Former US Senator and ex-ambassador to New Delhi Daniel Patrick Moynihan proclaimed that India is a big country, which behaves small.

I have yet to come across a serious, objective discussion in any of the newspapers why India’s neighbours are allergic to it. Instead of blaming Pakistan’s ISI sleuths who probably play a hand whenever they find an opening in determining or undermining India’s ties with its neighbours, would it not be useful for Indian intellectuals and analysts to have a meaningful discussion as to why India’s RAW or IB are unable to neutralise the damage? India helped create Bangladesh out of Pakistan, but Dhaka today has better ties with Islamabad than with New Delhi. Is it because of ISI alone? Buddhist Sri Lanka, Hindu Nepal, they all seem to have better ties with Pakistan than with India. Shouldn’t there be a commission of inquiry set up by India to investigate the lapses by its ministers, officials and sleuths that have brought the country to a pass that bewildered Moynihan? Dawn. Is India really a big nation, which behaves small? By Jawed Naqvi. Monday, 14 Sep, 2009 | 07:12 AM PST.

Delhi is surrounded by problems of its own making. It is hated in South Asia for good reason. The “Indian Union” has had wars with all her neighbors, and it constantly interferes in the affairs of all of them. It calls all of them “failed states” proposing a raison d’etre under which it can absorb them into this huge behemoth called “Akhand Bharat“–an land mass which encompasses most of Asia– from Kabul in the West to a mystical land called Raj Kilhani, which is east of Bali in Indonesia. This is the “Bharat” that religious Bharatis dream of.

The ongoing political strife in nearby Nepal threatens to affect Indian companies working out of Nepal while India Inc continues to fight the global downturn. Hindustan Times

The Sri Lankans hate the Indians for supporting th the LTTE terrorists. The Bangladeshis are fed up with the “Rakhi Bahni” which tried to rule Bangladesh under an Indian general. The Burmese would rather be isolated than deal with a Delhi bent upon making it a protectorate, The Maldives almost drowning don’t want a lifeboat from Bharat. The Chinese have huge boundary disputes with Delhi. In the early days of independence Delhi thought that it could grab Tibet and thus bifurcate China into small pieces, perpetuating the colonial division of China. Mao Zedung would have none of that and took over Tibet, Aksai Chin and told Delhi to lay off Tibet. Then of course there are the Pakistanis, a huge impediment to Bharati hegemonistic designs in West Asia.

India is walking a diplomatic tightrope as Nepal tries to form a new government, aware that excessive meddling in its traditional “backyard” could risk pushing the fragile Himalayan democracy closer to China.

India has always seen Nepal as part of its strategic sphere of influence, but that has been challenged in the past year since the election of Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda, who before he resigned last week had edged closer to Beijing. India treads fine line in Nepal’s political crisis

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Summary of the Book “India Doctrine” written by Barrister MBI Munshi

In India Doctrine, the writer Mr. Munshi has tried to lay emphasis on the point that India from the very beginning has been pursuing a policy of establishing hegemony in the region.

Mr. Munshi through evidences, arguments and her practices has tried to prove that the intentions of India are nothing short of this. To materialize India’s objective the EU and the USA have also joined hands with her. The USA has concluded a treaty for cooperation in the nuclear field with India although it (USA) propagates non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

This nuclear agreement she did to contain the Chinese influence in the South Asian region. This is a direct threat to peace in the region. Besides the propaganda onslaught against Bangladesh and other countries here through some persons and media is on. The visit of Shaikh Hasina to India in 2003 and again in 2005, were of considerable significance. The 2007 election was also important for them since it was the desire of India that Awami League should come into power. The insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts was creation of India. In brief India has been instrumental in destabilizing situation in Bangladesh as well as in other countries of the South Asian region like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka etc.

The book says India was partitioned in 1947 but India followed the undeclared policy of re-unification or Akhand Bharat since then. The skirmishes along the borders, the unabated killing of innocent civilians of Bangladesh, insurgencies in Nepal, Pakistan (Baluchistan) Sri Lanka are pointer towards this.

India does not believe in two nation theory since they consider that there are other common cultural, ethnic grounds for forming a nation. India viewed emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state which negates the division on the basis of religion.

Nehru’s ideology centred round non-partition of India or the Akhand Bharat as detailed in his book, “The discovery of India” (1947). And this policy has been followed subsequently even after partition in 1947. Nehru/ruled from 1947 to 1964 and his successors were no different from him. The situation of Sikkim in 1973-75 was similar to that of Nepal’s in 2006. In both cases the rulers were over thrown. The former became a constituent part of India while the latter (Nepal) began to be ruled by the persons of choice of India.

As regard Pakistan, Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.

The book says that, keeping the above in view it could be said that India’s role in 1971 war to help Bangladesh was according to her own policy consideration of Akhand Bharat. The later events like looting and taking away of military equipments after Pakistanis were defeated, unequal distribution of Farraka water, killing of Bangladeshis at the borders, inciting insurgencies within Bangladesh territories, indirect interference in shaping Bangladesh foreign policy, creating problem for garment industries etc. loudly speak of the Indian intentions.

The book says that, Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Advisor and Secretary of State thought that India’s help for the then East Pakistanis in their struggle for liberation was purely motivated by self-interest guided by the dream of claiming of all territories ruled by the former British colonial power. J. N. Dixit, the vet-ran diplomat in his book, “Liberation and beyond”, gives the impression that it was Pakistan which wanted to break India and created condition in the former East Pakistan to make a cause to attack India. This is an absurd proposition for it was India which impeded the return of refugees when a political settlement was in the offing in the later part of 1971. Further, after 9/11, there were sufficient reasons to believe that India instigated insurgences through JMB out-fit as the confessional statement of its deceased leader proved. This was done to tarnish the image of Bangladesh as a terrorist state.

After liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, India started propaganda offensive both within and out side India against Bangladesh. Noted left leaning writers are on their pay rolls in Bangladesh. This is done to materialize their goal of Akhand Bharat. Hence it is felt necessary that against their propaganda offensive, RAW’s clandestine activities, counter offensive both through media measures and active intelligence surveillance are must.

The book says that the six points became a great plea for going into a tougher movement. Had that been accepted, it was presumed that Pakistan would not have broken and nor independent Bangladesh emerged in 1971. After 1971, India became more active to make the newly emerged state its part. For this she appointed Chittarangan Sutar as Shaikh Saheb’s representative in India. Sutar had direct access to Indian Prime Minister and other high officials there. His plans however failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb in August 1975.

India entered into a 7 point agreement with the then Bangladesh government in exile (located in Calcutta) which contained provisions like no standing army for Bangladesh, Joint forces for Bangladesh with the command lying with the Indian Army Chief, identical foreign policy etc. The defeat of Pakistani army and its surrender to the Indian General, (Sans Bangladesh Army Chief) and the terms having never been shown to Bangladesh, apparently spoke that virtually Bangladesh belonged to India since India won the war with Pakistan and took its soldiers captive. The Mujib Bahini, the Rakhi Bahini etc. were created to seek their assistance in consolidating the Indian Government’s authority in Bangladesh and also to use them when the appropriate time had come as thought by India. Their authority was further strengthened by the 25 years treaty of friendship which also fortified the 7 point agreement made by the government in exile. As said before the plan of subordinating Bangladesh failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb. India could have walked over but restrained itself for fear of international condemnation etc. It however continued its effort to destabilize it and others by harboring insurgencies through RAW and other agencies in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka Nepal and Pakistan. The insurgencies in Chittagong Hill Tracts are worth mentioning.

The book has been further enriched by the valuable contributions from the eminent writers of both home and abroad. Professor Khodeja Begum in her article laid emphasis on the India’s concept of Akhand Bharat or united India quoting authentic references like the 7 point agreement made between Indian government and Bangladesh government in exile. She also quoted the Ananda Bazar Patrika’s observation following 1991 election. The Patrika said that the people in Bangladesh should raise their voice for merger with India. Brig Gen (Retd) Shakhawat laid emphasis on geopolitical condition of Bangladesh and suggested for careful move for making relationship with USA, China and more importantly India.

Other Nepalese and Sri Lanka writers have also blamed India for inciting insurgencies and instability in the neighboring countries. Maoists in Nepal and LTTE in Sri Lanka are the beneficiaries of the Indian government.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Why is India worrired?

Why are Indians worried about Chinese role in Nepal. Aren't they pushing China to play active role in Nepal? If they keep quite and do not interfare in Nepal they Nepal can also tel China not to interfare. The Indian interference is encouraging the Chinese and others to interfare in Nepal.
The government should strictly tell India not to interfare. So, that China will also not interfare otherwise Nepal will be play ground for Indian bastards and chinese and Americans.
Stop foreign interferance.
Stop Indian terrorists from encroaching Nepali land and request CIA to issue red corner notice against India, Indian prime minister and the Indian ambassodar in Nepal.
India is evil and a terrorist country and it is spreading terrorism in the whle South Asia. The RAW sponser terrorism has to be stopped, the interfarence has to be stopped and they should be exposed to the whole world that India is not a democratic country it is a terrorist country.
Declare India a terrorist country and issue red corner notice against the Indian leaders and Indian ambassodar in Nepal.
Indians killed the King Birendra and his family after he refused to pass the citizenship bill that would make the Biharis Nepalese. The Indian RAW kicked Gynandra after he also refused to give citizenship to Bihari in Tarai. The parties gave citizenship to lakhs of Biharis after Indian forced them. The Nepalese will be in minority in Nepal if the move continues as according to RAW plan. Thus the RAW propaganda machine The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post and journalists like Rishi Dhamala and Ajaya Khanal and Jeewendra Simkhada should be immediately closed and arrested.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

India’s chessboard politics is no longer relevant in Nepal

S D Muni, considered to be one of the India’s foremost experts on Nepal, is a familiar figure in political circles here. Having completed his PhD on Nepal’s foreign policy in 1972, he taught for over 30 years at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and published a number of books on Nepal, including one on the Maoist insurgency in 2003. He is currently Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the National University of Singapore (NUS). He was recently in Kathmandu on a research visit, during which Aditya Adhikari and Pranab Kharel of The Kathmandu Post met him to solicit his views on Nepal’s current political crisis, India’s policy regarding Nepal, and his views on perceptions towards him in Kathmandu.
(Muni is here in Kathmandu and Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao also arrived to force Nepal to sign controversial India-Nepal strip map that has nothing about Kaalapani and Susta and a huge portion of Nepal's land is shown in India. The other treaty that Rao is forcing is handing over all the people whom the terrorists and rapist Indians say they are criminal. first of all the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Rakesh Sood should be handed over to Interpol for their crime and rape against Nepalese on the borders and terrorizing the whole South Asia. The third issue oi Indian priests who loot the Nepalese and have been running hotels in India from the money of Nepal. Their loot should be immediately stopped and they should be kicked out of Nepal.)

Q: What are causes of the current problems in the peace process?
Muni: What has gone wrong is that once the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections took place, the basic consensus eroded. The elections were seen more as one for Parliament than for a CA. It was seen as a power exercise; the question was who would get to lead. Very unfortunately, the power sharing arrangement couldn’t be worked out. I still don’t buy that the principles [of the peace process] have been thrown out; people still talk about them, at least. What has really driven the parties apart from each other is the differences over power sharing. This happened because nobody expected the Maoists to get the number of seats that they did. Unfortunately the numbers they got were large, but not large enough to get an absolute majority. The interim Prime Minister G.P. Koirala refused to hand over power for four months or so, largely because he was thinking of ways to keep the Maoists out of power or under control. The Nepali Congress, in particular, was sure that it would remain in power. If the Maoists had gotten 50 seats less than they did, perhaps they would have managed to keep the Maoists on the fringe. The power arrangements still haven’t been settled since then.

Q: Do you feel that the process can’t move forward unless this arrangement is settled?
Muni: This is my fear. Politicians being politicians are wedded more to power and patronage, than to changing societies. In any case, the NC and the UML are not committed to an agenda to change society. And the Maoists are unduly, seriously committed to one. They don’t want to compromise on what they think should be the vision for the country. They have been very inept in understanding the reality that their emergence has not been digested, nor been reconciled to by the others. It is as much their responsibility to take others along, as much as the others responsibility to see that the Maoists get their feel in the politics of Nepal. Mainstreaming is not simply laying down arms. The Maoists need to feel a stake in the new system, which the other parties aren’t allowing them. Unless you have a stake, you can’t care less.
We have all been saying that the Maoists shouldn’t have opened all the fronts. They are total novices in managing the power components of a democratic political structure. They have never done it before. The vision that they developed in 10 years, they wanted to complete in a year. They antagonised the judiciary, the media, and the Army; that doesn’t work in a democratic structure. And I think they’ve gotten the shock of their lives.

Q: So you think the Maoists made a mistake in trying to sack (former) Chief of Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal?
Muni: Whatever General Katawal did was not all right. He needed to be put in his place. On the three or four counts on which he was asked to provide an explanation, he did not do it in a proper way. More than that, he went around town making political statements. If the same situation had arisen in India, the Army chief would go, not the cabinet. A very undemocratic precedent has been set. The political parties argue that if they hadn’t stopped the Maoists, they would have taken over power, but that is frankly all bullshit. If you’re saying that by integrating 5,000 people into an armed force of 100,000, the 5,000 will take over the entire Army, you’re talking rubbish.

Q: Do you have views on how the peace process could be brought back on track?
Muni: Today you have a very unfortunate situation. I am very worried about it. Anybody who is concerned about Nepal’s stability, security and progress should be worried about it. This situation is almost akin to the situation of 1994, when the Maoists had a minority group of 9 in parliament, but were nonetheless the third largest party after the NC and UML. These two parties united to suppress the Maoists and keep them on the margins, which drove them to 1996. If elections had taken place in 1994, and the Maoists had contested them and won some seats in parliament, at least the people’s war resolution would have been delayed. This situation exists today: the two mainstream parties have joined hands to marginalise them. But they cannot repeat the old story. There are solid reasons for that.

Q: What are the reasons?
Muni: Everybody is talking of two options. First, drive the Maoists to the wall. If need be, unleash the Army on them, with the help of India or the US. To my mind, this is a non-option. If India thinks the Maoists can be eliminated, then they should have been eliminated by 2005. What India or the US can do at best is provide arms, training, and political support. The fighting will have to be done by General Gurung’s men. In this situation, the Maoists would go to the international community as the people bring wronged, not as people wronging others. On the other hand, the Maoists say that they can go back to war and take over. But if they could, they would have taken over. Why did they talk to the political parties? Because they knew that the gun was not succeed in capturing the state and retaining it.
The other option is to evolve and recreate the consensus that is broken down. This is the only option left if Nepal is to be stable. Nepal must finish the task which it has taken. Many political leaders here are saying that we made a mistake in bringing the Maoists along. That is nonsense. Look at the Maoist organisation. It is an elite, educated Brahmin leadership, leading the marginalized Janajati, Madhesi, Tharu, and Dalit people. The bulk of the Maoists are a group of people who have felt that the Nepali state has been exploitative for years. This leadership has given them hope. You can throw this leadership out. You can eliminate Baburam and Prachanda either politically or physically. But these groups, which consist of over 40% of your population, have risen. Can you address this militarily?

Q: How is the Indian foreign policy establishment looking at Nepal right now?
Muni: There are two things I want to say. One, this India factor, which everyone is obsessed with, is exaggerated and is a result of the lack of unity in the political centre in Nepal. To give an example, King Mahendra was very clear about what he wanted to do. He couldn’t care less about India. For ten long years, there was no Indian interference, except for supporting what the King was doing. This was possible because the political centre in Nepal was united and focused. Also, the political centre was united on April 21, 2006, when Mr. Karan Singh came here and King Gyanendra passed the first declaration, which the political parties refused to accept. India wanted the declaration to be accepted by all the parties, tried its best to have it accepted. But it could not. After that, India did not want UNMIN in Nepal. But UNMIN came to Nepal. The real problem is not in India; it is here. India, as well as China and the US, will have their own strategic objectives here. They can become successful only because you are porous. If you are not porous, it won’t work.
Second, India is a huge country. On Nepal itself, there are diverse stakeholders. Many people don’t know this, but I will tell you a story that I saw unfold very closely. In 1989, Rajiv Gandhi took a certain decision and said that the trade treaty had not been renewed, therefore only two outlets [at the Nepal-India border] would be kept open. This created lots of problems here. In India, there were four sets of people that I know of that went to Rajiv Gandhi to say that what you’re doing is wrong. These groups included the Shankaracharyas, who said don’t do this because Nepal has a Hindu monarchy; old princely houses, who have matrimonial relations with the Shahs and Ranas here; the Army chief, General Sharma, who said that his Gurkha soldiers were suffering; and the business community, who went and said they were being affected.
So the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has a Nepal policy. The Defence Ministry has a Nepal policy. The parties in which these old princely houses have good representation - the Congress, the BJP - have a Nepal policy. The actual policy that emerges is a synthesis depending on who is strong at what point in time. In addition, a major concern overriding all this is India’s security interest.
I have been writing that there is a new Nepal in transition. India, because of these various players, has been playing a kind of chessboard politics - placing people in different positions who can serve its interests. This chessboard politics is no longer relevant in Nepal. I think India should reorient its policy to the larger people’s interest. If you do this, then you will have a Nepal that is stable and progressing, and in the long run would cater to all Indian interests.

Q: Some people here accuse you of being prejudiced in favour of the Maoists.
Muni: I am very angry at these accusations. People here do not know my background. I heard yesterday that they still call me a RAW agent. I started working on Nepal in 1967. I have written four books on Nepal. I first came here in 1968, when B.P Koirala was being released. Girija Koirala took me to the Koirala niwas in Biratnagar; we flew together. That established our first relationship. Many people in Nepal don’t know this. They only know that Baburam Bhattarai was a student in JNU. They do not know that I was Sujata Koirala’s local guardian in Delhi. They don’t know that we were about to admit Prakash Koirala into JNU as a student. They don’t know that B.P. Koirala visited my house in JNU three or four times, and I must have visited him half a dozen times. They don’t know that Pushpalal and Sahana Pradhan - at that time she was not a politician, she was a teacher - visited my house for dinner in the 1970s. They don’t know that Rishikesh Shah and I were great friends. They don’t know that in 1990, Rishikesh Shah and I were at the forefront of articulating the views of the first Jana Andolan. I was not a politician, so we didn’t come into the movement like Yechury or D.P. Tripathy or Chandrasekhar, but we intellectually tried to challenge the monarchy. I was committed to democracy. It is because of this that the palace started to call me a RAW agent. They wanted to discredit my academic credentials.
Yes, I have been a republican. I was one in 1968, in 1991 and in 2005. If by that, you derive only the conclusion that I am a Maoist, please go ahead.

Q: What are your current academic focuses?
Muni: I have just finished a book India’s Foreign Policy: The Democracy Dimension. India has joined the International League for Democracy. We have been at the forefront of promoting democracy all over the world since 2002, since the Community for Democracy was established. I thought we should analyse how India’s policy on the ground has worked in favour of democracy or against it in other countries. The only area where India has been very active is in the immediate neighbourhood, from Afghanistan to Myanmar. That’s what the book is about. There is a lot about Nepal in it. The book will come out next month. The book is being published by Cambridge University Press, India.
The other book I have finished is SAARC: The Emerging Dimensions. This is an edited volume. The third book that is in progress in Singapore is on South Asian perceptions of Rising China.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

RAW, terrorist and rapist Rakesh Sood, Pashupatinath row, Himalayan Times, Annapurnal Post

The Pashupatinath priests row and Hindi language row in Nepal is a RAW agenda and it is propagated by some RAW paid journalists and the RAW propaganda machine Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post.
These are not the newspapers and as we have from the very begining maintained that they are directed by the RAW staff in Indian embassy.
On Wednesday, RAW staff from Indian Embassy and Himalayan Times RAW-supported journalists had meeting. Ajay Bhadra Khanal, Rajan Pokhrel, Kamal Acharya, Arjun Bhandari and the RAW agent Dhrub Painley were in the meeting on how to take the Hindi language row and Pashupatinath's Indian priest issue and highlight it to create divide in the Nepali society.
The analysis of the meeting was that the Indian game plan in Nepal is heading to success. The newspaper succeeded to create divide in the Madheshi and Pahade issue now the major issue is Hindu versus non-Hindu so that it would be easy for the Indian army to enter Nepal to maintain security.
They have been suceeded in creating more arms outfit in Terai with monetary and arms support from the Birgunj counsulate. Similar, they are now in the mission to have more journalists on their side to support their game plan.
They have started massive recruitment plan for the nepali journalists to write the news on their support.
The Indian ambassodar Rakesh Sood's threatening to Minendra Rijal and other ministers is another indication what is India planning in Nepal. The terrorist and rapist Sood's grand design is to turn Nepal into Adghanistan. He has to be expelled immediately for the security of the country.
According to the Indian agency's report also the armed outfits operating in Terai are supported by the Indian leaders and states, but the RAW and Indian central government has engineered it from the back.
Government should shut down Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post and arrest the RAW agents immediately for the security and sovereignty of Nepal.

Expel terrosist and rapist Rakesh Sood and all Indian Priests from Pashupati temple for the sovereignty of the country. It is the religious and linguistic colonialism, throw it.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

What do Madheshi parties want?

What do Madheshi parties want?
Do they want to divide this country like LETTE wanted in Sri Lanka, Then they are a gone case. Nepal will remain united and they will be finished like LETTE. Otherwise Nepali is the official language of Nepal and every citizen has to respect it. The mother, motherland and mother tongue is same. The Madheshi parties want to sell their mother for a few IC? or They think that Indian will let them to power by raising Hindi issue.
They should know that Hindi is discarded even in India. Hindi is not the issue madhesh parties are raising they are trying to appease the Indian establishment and sell their motherland for few ICs but tomorrow what answer do they give o their children, if there is no Nepal, there will be no Madhesh and no Mahanta Thakur and no Parmananda and Hridayeash or any one there will be only bihari yadavs and their dadagiri.

Save Nepal save Nepali. Lets remain united and don't fal in trap of the RAW trap that wants to divide Nepal.

Those five Madhesi parties that have jointly asked Vice President Parmananda Jha not to retake oath as ordered by the Supreme Court and not to quit from the post are and cannot be the sons of their fathers.

How can they ask Jha to wait until the Interim Constitution is amended to allow oath-taking in a preferred language. Tomorrow if anyone takes oath in Chinese how will you take it? Aren't you giving room for every foreigner to paly in this land? Why preferred language why not mother tongue?
You all matherchod..why do you want to fuck your mother and leek the boot of Indian bastards, they are blody rapist and terrorists. Theie SSB, police and Army have raped your daughters and wives and still your are leeking their boot instead of fucking their ass. Wake up and be Nepali and united.
The RAW propaganda machine Himalayan Times and annapurma Post is supporting te Hindi campaign because they are in Nepal to spy not to do journalism. They are here to keep record of every bureaucrats and politicians and their children so that they can be sent to scholarships to India and buy information.
These RAW propaganda machine should be banned and closed otherwise they will start disctribute money like the Indian consulate does in Birgunj and start protesting in kathmandu for Hindi and make this country another Bhutan.
Beware Madhesh leaders don't be fool.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

India’s Hand in Nepalese Royal Palace Massacre

ESSAY: India’s Hand in Nepalese Royal Palace Massacre- (II), 2001
Posted by barunroy on August 23, 2009


‘A little leak will sink a great ship.’ To much involving on Nepal’s internal issues is the big mistake of India. Since 1950 South Asia is in turmoil that India is taking the policy of aggressive intervention against the surrounding countries like Nepal, Bangaladesh, Srilanka and Pakistan. First of all, I request to judge the intention of India on Sikkim in 1974-1975. According to the hint of RAW, Sikkim’s Prime Minister the traitor Lendub Dorje, “appealed” to the Indian Parliament for representation and change of Sikkim’s status to a state of India. In April 1975 the Indian army moved into Sikkim, seizing the capital city of Gangtok, disarming the Palace Guards and putting the King Chogyal under forceful house arrest. The King Chogyal never renounced his throne and hoped till the end that justice would win. The Kingdom which had defended its independence for 300 years against powerful neighbors was annexed by India in April 1975 and became the 22nd state of the Indian Union. The misty was that in 10th April 1975 India annexed Sikkim by staging a dramatic statute assembly election by keeping the Sikkim King separate from sovereignty.

Similarly, Indian maintains its wish to keep Nepal under its security umbrella. India knows- Nepal could remain an independent and sovereign country only because of monarchy. Indian interest is not in favor of the Nepalese monarchy. So, everybody suspect the mysterious conspiracy on Royal Palace Massacre by RAW of India. Actually, We, Nepalese people regard Indian people, culture and traditions but not the intervention of Indian leaders. I am not bias and never minimizing the facts. We have to maintain friendly relations with India due to our similar cultural and religious traditions. But sadly, Indian Government ( Congress I) is going to destabilize Nepal through its Nepalese culprits leaders.

In Nepal, four years ago (2005), India had laden the Maoist rebellion along with Nepali Congress, UML and others with the 12-point agreement for so-called full democracy. That movement that ensued after the 12-point agreement was not for a republic state. In fact, the movement had stopped only with an agreement between the king and the political parties with the internal consent of the Maoists. After the agreement the king handed the power to the people, then, India committed to capture Nepal after declaring it republic (unconstitutionally, forcefully) through the so-called 601-members Constituent Assembly. Robbers, murderers and those wanted by the law were elected to the constituent assembly. There are some questions. How an election forced upon the country and done on the behest of foreigners can gain validity? As the party leaders and politicians do whatever the South Block and the RAW tell them? Yes, they are doing.

Even while walking on the path directed by RAW, Narayan Man Bijukchhe of Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, one among the seven parties, said India was exerting its influence on Nepal’s political, diplomatic, economic and social sectors. RAW is the main liaison to do this. Saroj Raj Adhikary has written in Nepal Saptahik, a weekly magazine, that ‘India, through RAW, is taking the disgruntled groups of the Terai as a medium to serve its political and economic interest in Nepal. RAW is active in Nepal for the last 40 years’. Jan Aastha, another Left weekly, writes: former Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula is a man who has close contacts with the Indian intelligence network’. Similarly, whatever he says to former Prime Minister GP Koirala, Dr. Shekhar Koirala exports agents of Indian intelligence agency (26 Dec 2007). When the country is seized by these traitors how can there be peace? The traitors smashed the statues of late King Prithvi Narayan Shah (who unified Nepal before 250 years ago) and the greatest nationalist King Mahendra. Nepal is in a precarious juncture. Indian from the very beginning wants Nepalese industries to be closed. It desires to fail the state. The Delhi 12 points agreement 2005 has been the major cause to disintegrate Nepal. So, Nepalese people are ready to fight against the traitors & foreigner’s conspiracy.

Late His Majesty King Birendra strongly believed that “Nepal’s history and tradition have bound her people and Monarchy in an enduring and intimate relationship, injecting in the Institution an inherent feature of honoring and being guided by popular will and aspiration of the people”. Throughout his reign, the welfare of the people was always uppermost in his mind. He always endeavored to live up to their expectations and ensure a balanced all-round development. During his coronation in 1975, he declared free primary education throughout the country and also proposed that Nepal be declared a Zone of Peace. Including USA, 116 nations support the declaration of Zone of Peace but India denied. Nepal has ties with India since the Muslim rule there, but Nepal always faced threat from India. In the name of democracy (Indocracy), India always plays the Drama with the Nepalese agents.

The Nepalese people had to bear the sudden loss of their beloved ‘Monarch’ in a dreadful and unanticipated incident that occurred in the Narayanhity Royal Palace on 1st June 2001. His Royal Highness Crown Prince Dipendra (born 1971) was in a coma in hospital, was declared king. His Royal Highness Prince Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah, brother of His late Majesty King Birendra was proclaimed regent in accordance with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal – 1990. King Dipendra (at the age of 29) passed away the next day. According to the constitution, then, His Royal Highness Prince Gyanendra was proclaimed king of the Kingdom of Nepal.

The Crown prince Dipendra was fallen in love with Devyani. Being Devyani’s mother birth-place India (Gwaliyar) and her mother’s mother was lower Rana family, so the King & queen denied him to marry with Devyani. Then, Dependra became aggressive to his parents. In such condition, RAW penetrated in the story. RAW agents convinced Devyani to hypnotize Prince Dipendra so that he would kill his father and become the King himself. The Queen had proposed him to bring as a kept-wife. The mother of Devyani was also furious because she herself wanted to marry King Birendra in past. She was jealous to Queen Aiswarya and wanted her daughter to be queen of Nepal.

After the misfortune incident Dependra puzzled out and he was nervous. And he shouted himself by his left hand, because his eating & writing practice was by left hand. In that black night Prince Gyanendra was at Pokhara for the meeting of King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation.

This is open-secret that Prince Dipendra and Devyani were used by RAW in the Royal massacre. In massacre night (7-9 PM), she was in Dugad Niwas near by the Indian-Embassy at Lajimpat, and was asking the activities of Prince Dipendra to his ADC, Raju Karki, now he is in America. First of all, the PM Girija Prasad sent the message to Indian PM from the Army Hospital by telephone. But, just after the massacre, the next day, Devyani departed to Delhi when Girija was the powerful Prime minister. Mr. B. Dixit has commented – ‘The unsolved murder mystery of Indian PM Lal Bahadur Shastri (PM of India who was poisoned in Masco) and mystery of Royal Palace massacre may be hatched by RAW.’ (Janabhawana, Nepali weekly-10thAug.2009)

After publishing my article in News Blaze, Namrata Dongel comments in News Blaze, Newsletter- USA – 17th Aug 2009- ‘I saw a documentary on Discovery Channel on 16th august 2009 at around 6 pm, which was about the Royal Massascre. It has presented the story as recited by the eye witnesses and so called Relatives. The actors used in the story are Indians. It presented the views of some of the foreigners closely associated with Nepal, but it didn’t include any of the Nepali people except the King’s relatives. That’s why I thought it must be a work of some Indians to humiliate Nepal in front of the world.’ Similarly, Dibakar Pant (M.N. USA) comments in News Blaze -’I found his (D.R. Prasai) recent published article titled “India’s Hand in Nepal Royal Palace Massacre-2001 article based on historical and factual reality. Indeed, because of factual positions, dealings and doings, rapprochements and existing policy that India is seen playing with its neighbors, it itself is creating enough ground for a doubt on the issue raised by the writer.’

After the Massacre, Madhab Nepal, the leader of UML suggested to form an inquiry commission. But, after tomorrow he twisted his word, may be, according to the advice of RAW. This is to remember that Madhab nepal was nominated as member of then investigation team (on the leadership of Chief Justice), but he denied to take part. To create confusion in the Royal massacre phenomenon, the former PM and Maoist leader Prachanda, and the PM and UML leader Madhab nepal, have been making empty noises about the investigating of Royal massacre. Recently, a prominent Journalist Devprakash Tripathi has written in Ghatana Ra Bichar, Nepali weekly newspaper, all about the reality and conspiracy of the Royal Palace Massacre, pointing the another madness Tul Prasad Sherchan who was taking responsibility for the Palace Massacre. (12th Aug.2009)

After the Royal Palace Massacre, to diverse the blame to RAW, the Moaist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai wrote, according to the hint of P. Harmij (Nepal-Chief of RAW) that the King Gyanendra was responsible to create the Palace massacre, 2001. (Kantipur Nepali daily Nepali- 6th June 2001 (Bs 2058 Jestha 24) it is notable that after Royal Massacre P. Harmij appointed the Chief of RAW in India. Then, the demure start that the Palace massacre was created by King Gyanendra to capture regime. After the Royal Massacre-2001, the so-called People’s movement 2005, which was guided by RAW, was two vital agendas- one Republic and another Secular state. Then, RAW’s the Drama starts to disintegrate unity of the country.

It is necessary to quote S. D. Muni (Professor of J. N. U. and the policymaker of south block & the strategist of RAW ) in his article ‘Dealing with a new Nepal’ in ‘The Hindu’ Daily on 15th September 2008 has conceded that India had provided one billion rupees for running the agitation. ‘With those resources along with the guidelines of south-block, they could forge the mass movement. Recently (29 Jun 2009, The Kathmandu Post), then Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukharjee accepted that the Maoist party which was an extremist party and chose violence, was convinced by India and compelled to join mainstream politics. According to him, they also convinced other mainstream political parties (Nepali Congress, UML) to form government by including Maoist party also. Till then Maoist was protected and armed by Indians. Within a month of the conclusion of the people’s uprising on 19 May, 2005, Jug Suraiya (columnist) of ‘The Times of India’ (a newspaper run by RAW) had described, “India and China must divide and share Nepal as it has now become a failed state”. The culprit leaders (Congress, UML & Maoist) remained silent against the concerning game of the RAW strategy.

History says and everybody knows the monarchy is a symbol of Nepalese unity and nationality. In between the two big neighbors- China and India, the monarchy has been playing a balanced role. So, Nepalese monarchy is the most convincing identity of Nepal’s independence and democracy. King Gyanendra is also a most nationalist who can stand with cause and effect on national scenarios. But, the culprit’s leaders are going to support ethnicism based Federal structure in Nepal. Now, in Tarai, the Indian immigrants are active for caste-based Federal states- ‘one Madhesis one state with total autonomy’ to upset Nepalese unity.

The Indian Congress should not forget that due to RAW’s naked conspiracy angry-Panjabi and Sri Lankan people killed Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Why were Indian agents and Mujibar Rahaman (who was made the Bangladeshi president by ‘RAW’ after creation of Bangladesh by separating Pakistan in 1975) killed? The Indian Congress should also not forget the act of nationalist Bengalese against the disgusting conspiracy by ‘RAW’. Nepalese people within country or abroad will not keep on tolerating the continued intervention.

The 1 June 2001 incident had shocked the nation, besides their Majesties King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya, Their Royal Highnesses Prince Nirajan and Princess Sruti Rana along with five other Royal Family members and relatives lost their lives after being fatally wounded during a family gathering at the Narayanhity Royal Palace.
After ascending the throne on June 4, 2001, His Majesty King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev had, through a Royal Proclamation, constituted a two-member high-level investigation committee comprising Chief Justice Keshav Prasad Upadhyaya and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tara Nath Ranabhat. In the report made public on June 14, 2001 after extensive investigations, the committee concluded that bullet injuries were the cause of death of all killed in the incident.
Summarizing the report at a press conference organized to make the report public, Speaker Ranabhat said the committee had found that gunshots fired by the then Crown Prince Dipendra caused the deaths of their late Majesties King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya and seven others. The heart-rending tragic incident underscored, once again, the unique bond that has always bound the institution of Monarchy and the Nepalese people. That is the reality and evidence of Palace massacre of Nepal -2001.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Madhav Kumar Nepal returns, Indians thrash Nepalese

The day Madhav Kumar Nepal returned, the Indians thrashed Nepalese in the Nepal border. It is the present Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal brought to Nepal.
Jai Ho Nepal.
The terrorists Indian will never learn. They repeate such incidents on Nepal border all the time and show their terrorists mentality.
Issue red corner notice for terrorists' leader Man Mohan Singh for terrorising the Nepales in bordering cities in Nepal and encroaching the Nepali land.

Madhav Nepal failed to warn terrorist Man Mohan Singh 'Stop speading terror in Nepal borders, 'behave well'

Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal has said one of the major concerns India has with Nepal is the flow of fake Indian currency to India through Nepal.
The other two concerns are Nepal’s being used for terrorist activities directed at India and the use of madrasas for anti-India activities. But Nepal failed to tell the terrorists and rapist Manmohan Singh that the Indian SSB and his chelas are terrorising the Nepalese in the border and helping criminal gangs by supplying arms to destabilize Nepal in the Terai.
All the Terai outfits are supported by India and Madhav Kumar Nepal failed to warn terrorist leader Man Mohan Singh that he better stop the arms supply to Terai criminals and direct their SSb to behave well with Nepalese.
According to estimates, four out of every thousand Indian Rs. 1,000 denomination notes are fake and Nepal is a major conduit for them. Indians themselves are involved in fake note trading.
Nepal also failed to warn terrorist Singh to stop RAW activities in Nepal and close Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post that is lobbying for Hindi in Nepal as their Game plan. The RAW officials in these supposedly newspapers are starting another operation in Terai. They are planning to publish newspaper in Hindi from Biratnagar to divide Nepal according to RAW's Game Plan.
Down with Indian hegemony. Nepal will always remain united and strong. The RAW conspirators will be arerested and sent back to India, if they donot stop their criminal activities under the cover of newspapers and journalism, the Nepalese will padlock these RAW agencies and arrest bloody Indians.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Indian Embassy don't meddle in nepali affair

With the backing of Indian embassy and Rakesh Sood, Paramananda Jha is still disobeying the Supreme COurt and the government. It shows that Jha is mad and how can a mentally sick person be a vice-president?
He has to pay back all teh salaries and benefits he took during his illegal and unconstitutional stay in the post. It proves that he is not nepali he doesnot obey Nepal's constitution and law.
Therefore he is Indian son of a bitch like Rakesh Sood and mad. all Indian are mad and Jha is also mad. He knows only money and if he gets money he will sell his daughter, wife and even mother like Rakesh Sood and all Indians daughter seller, wife seller and mother sellers terrorists.
Down with criminal and terrorist Jha.
Down with Indian terrorists.
The terrorist Indian have run newspapers funded by RAW. and that has not published this news because they are planning to publish a hindi newspaper in Nepal from Terai to fuel the Madheshi pahade politics that was not heard before the RAW-propaganda machine Himalayan times and Annapurna Post came to Nepal in 2002.
Jha is every day in contact with the RAW personal in Himalayan Times in Anamnagar for next move because his moves is directed from the apca house and the RAw personal working in apca in the name of journalists.

Read the sample of Jha's madness:

Taking oath in Nepali a must for Jha: Govt

(Updated with details)

KATHMANDU, Aug 17: Following a long-standing row over oath-taking by Vice President Paramananda Jha, a cabinet meeting on Monday requested Jha to take his oath of office and secrecy as vice president in the Nepali language as ordered by the Supreme Court.
The cabinet meeting took a decision to this effect with a view to respecting the SC ruling and urged Jha to abide by that ruling.
Minister for Law and Justice Prem Bahadur Singh said Monday´s cabinet meeting took three key decisions concerning the oath row. First, it decided to ask Jha in writing to respect the court´s verdict and take the oath in Nepali while also urging him to forward his consent over the issue to the government.
The cabinet likewise sought his consent on a time schedule for oath-taking in Nepali.
Secondly, the cabinet decided to furnish the government´s reply to the apex court regarding preparations for administering oath to Jha in Nepali as required by the SC. Thirdly, the cabinet decided to table a bill to amend the interim constitution and ensure the right to take one´s oath in one´s mother tongue if and when needed.
The SC had last week ordered the government, President Ram Baran Yadav and Vice President Jha to furnish their replies to the apex court on preparations being made for administering the oath to Jha in Nepali as per the provision of the interim constitution and the ruling of the court.
“The cabinet meeting reached the conclusion that everybody should respect the court´s ruling and decided to resolve the controversy over Jha´s oath-taking accordingly,” Law Minister Singh said, adding, “As per the cabinet decision, the government on Monday sent a letter to Jha seeking his reply whether he is ready to act according to that decision.”
Minister Singh informed that the government also sent a letter to President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav, attached to a copy of the government decision regarding the issue.
The letter was sent to President Yadav in reply to the letter sent earlier to the government seeking information on the latter´s preparations.
Meanwhile, the cabinet also decided to furnish a reply to the SC through the Office of the Attorney General. “The government is committed to respecting and following the SC verdict and administer oath to Jha in Nepali and preparations are going on accordingly,” Singh said quoting the reply sent to the court.
The Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers sent the reply to the SC immediately after the cabinet decision Monday. In its reply to the court the prime minister´s office has also enclosed a copy of the decision sent to Jha.
Meanwhile Jha said that he will decide whether or not to take oath in Nepali after formally receiving the cabinet´s decision. "Let the government decide what it wants; I will take my own decision later", Jha told
Seventh amendment to constitution. Why do we need amendmend now, aren't we goping to write constitution.
The best solution and to make Madheshi Gaddhars why not make rakesh sood vice-president. Hridayesh Tripathi and all yadavs will be very happy but will a country run like this. Where were these Madheshi right vocalists when King was in power and they were also in government and looting Nepalese money.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

RAW report on Parmananda Jha

The government of a Indian stoog Madha Kumar Nepal is ready to compromise with Gushananda the son of a bitch Parmananda Jha because it is anti-Nepal and an agent of India. Madhav Kumar Nepal and his cabinet is not obeying the Supreme Court Order and is trying to find the illegal and unconstitutional day to save Jha. WHY?
How much money Parmananda Jha paid tyo Madhav Kumar Nepal to keep him as vice-president?
How much Indian embassy and the rapist, terrororist and murderer Rakesh Sood forced Madhav Kumar Nepal?
Is Madhav Kumar Nepal a real son of his father or is he an Indian's illegal son?
Why is the government likely to move Supreme Court on veep oath row as reported by the RAW propaganda machine Himalayan times,
Shut down such RAW machinary to save Nepal.
here is what RAW reports in HImalayan Times,,

An informal meeting of nine ruling parties today discussed the possibility of requesting the Supreme Court to review its latest decision on Vice President Parmananda Jha’s oath taken in Hindi last year.
The meeting also explored the possibility of amending the interim constitution to ensure that a person holding a constitutional position could take the oath of office and secrecy in a language of his/her choice.
The meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal at the PMO in Singha Durbar and attended by the ruling partners, mainly focussed on the political crisis resulting from the apex court’s latest verdict on Jha’s oath. According to the interim constitution, the President and Vice-President should take oath in Nepali. The apex court termed Jha’s oath unconstitutional.
Sadbhavana Party chief Rajendra Mahato, who is also the Minister for Commerce and Industries, told mediapersons at the end of the meeting that the Supreme Court could be asked to review its verdict against the vice-president and the interim constitution could be amended to make sure that a person holding such a high post could take the oath of office and secrecy in the language of his/her choice. He claimed that the parties had reached a theoretical understanding to pursue both the options.
CP Mainlai, general secretary of the ruling CPN-ML, however, said nothing was discussed on that lines. He said a 22-party meeting scheduled for Friday morning might discuss the issue. Mainali added that the Madhes-based parties could come up with a proposal to this effect. But the parties, other than NC nad UML, are believed to have opposed amending the interim constitution and have objected to the idea of asking the apex court to review its decision.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Works and Physical Planning Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar also said there were only options for the government to settle the row between the Supreme Court and the Vice-President. A UML source said it was Vice President Jha who should appeal to the apex court for reviewing its verdict against him.

SC wants govt to explain its inaction

KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court today directed the government to explain why fresh ceremony to administer the oath of office and secrecy to Vice President Parmananda Jha had not been held.
The apex court also told the government authorities ‘ the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice-President and the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ‘ to explain within seven days whether the Vice President is ready to take fresh oath in Nepali or not. The bench has scheduled the final hearing on August 23.
A full bench of Justices Top Bahadur Magar, Ram Kumar Prasad Saha, Kalyan Shrestha, Prem Sharma and Bharat Raj Uprety directed the government to explain why its verdict issued
on July 24 had not been implemented.
The apex court asked the government what initiatives it had taken in order to implement the verdict.
The bench added that the Vice President had to take oath in Nepali before assuming office as per Article 36 (I) (2) Schedule 1A of the interim constitution.
Jha could not be contacted for comments. However, his legal counsel Mithilesh Kumar Singh said Jha was not ready to take oath in Nepali.

Monday, August 10, 2009

India's Hand in Nepal Royal Palace Massacre

By Dirgha Raj Prasai

South Asia is in turmoil over India taking the policy of aggressive intervention against surrounding countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
The task to destabilize these countries has been assigned to the notorious intelligence agency, RAW. A scholar Dr. Shreen M Mazari says "In Nepal, India has been intervening in the politics of the Hindu Kingdom by promoting pro-Indian politicians".
The Indian government is making it difficult for Nepal to assert her sovereignty. The Indian intelligence service Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has been fomenting violent deterioration in Nepal. In Nepal, Indian leaders especially the government of Congress (I) have been playing an active role to diffuse the democratic aspirations of the Nepalese people. In 1989, India imposed an economic blockade on Nepal.
The reason was the expiring of the Trade and Transit Treaty. After the blockade, India had asked King Birendra to remain under the Indian security umbrella by enjoying the same status as the Bhutani King. But the sovereign Nepalese King Birendra rejected the Indian interest. Then, India started the conspiracy against Nepal.
Some Indian leaders & RAW have been instigating the Madhesi people (some puppets of India) of the Tarai - southern belt. The Indian ambassador has been offering large sums of money for schools, hospitals, roads etc in order to wean the masses away from the influence of Kathmandu.
The Tarai belt is burning with murders, kidnappings, lootings that is mounting day by day in the name of so-called 'Madhesi supremacy'. Since 2000 AD, India wanted to abolish the Nepalese monarchy any way it could. The Nepalese monarchy is the convincing factor of Nepalese unity & sovereignty. But India does not like peaceful unity and an inseparable Nepal. So, Indian Congress (I) leaders and RAW chief came to Nepal and used pressure to get rid of the monarchy. At that point, the grand design started with the Royal massacre.
The main cause is the conspiracy of RAW (Research and Analysis Wing). RAW has been destabilizing Nepalese unity since 2005. Professor Wang Hongwei of the Chinese Academy of Social sciences is a veteran Nepal watcher made these remarks. 'I firmly believe that Birendra's affiliation with China finally became the prime reason for his ghastly murder, some power centers did not want late King Birendra to have good relations with China'. 'Birendra was committed to serve his country, he had brought new ideas of cooperation with China, King Birendra believed that if Nepal is linked to the Silk Route, the country can have direct links to Europe and other countries mainly to import petroleum products'. 'That is the prime reason why those alien power centers did not want him to survive'.
'We had told him to remain careful while he was attending the BAO Summit held in China some years back'. 'We had saved his life earlier as well; one of our Military attaché had informed him of such ill motives. It was since then he had friendly relations with China, however, we came to know at a later stage that some diplomats stationed in Kathmandu and leaders of some political parties too acted as accomplices in the murder'. Professor Wang confirmed that RAW was responsible for the Royal massacre.
How mysterious it is? In my analysis, Prince Dipendra & Devyani (Daughter of Pashupati Shamshre) were used by RAW in the Royal massacre. On the night of the massacre (7-9 PM), she was in Dugad Niwas near by the Indian-Embassy at Lajimpat, and was asking about the activities of Prince Dipendra to his ADC.
This is an open-secret. But, just after the Royal massacre, the next day, Devyani departed to Delhi when Girija was the powerful Prime minister. That is the suspicious reality. The former PM and Maoist leader Prachanda, and the PM and UML leader Madhab Nepal, have been making empty noises about the investigating of Royal massacre. Remember that Madhab Nepal was nominated as a member of the investigation team (on the leadership of Chief Justice), but he refused to take part. Why is that? Because the culprit party leaders would not undergo an exercise in futility?

Royal Palace of Nepal
A prominent editor of Peoples Review (24 July 2009) Mr. Pushpa Raj Pradhan writes - 'The Royal Palace bloodbath on 1 June, 2001 will remain as a black-day for Nepalis in history. The entire family members of King Birendra along with many members of the Royal Family were killed in that incident.'
According to the noted scholar Dr Upendra Gautam, King Birendra was killed 19 days after signing an agreement for the Rasuwagadhi-Safrubeshi road, an access road linking Tibet with Nepal. Furthermore, he was killed immediately after his official visit to China. King Birendra, during those last days, was very unhappy with the increasing Indian intervention in Nepal.
According to Janadharana weekly, who had been closely monitoring the developments in Nepal, the Royal Palace bloodbath was carried out by those elements who didn't want Nepal remaining as a sovereign nation. The late king Birendra had strong relations with China. He was assassinated immediately after his return from China. He had participated in the international summit at the Bao Forum, Hainan, China in 2001.
India had become further suspicious of King Birendra's visit to China. Just before the bloodbath, Indian intelligence had made public a report in which a fake allegation was made that Queen Aishwarya had provided 100 million Indian rupees to the Tamil Tigers to assassinate Indian Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi. It can be assumed that from such a serious accusation made against the Royal Family, how much the Indians were annoyed with the Royal Palace? This can be taken as evidence that Indians were trying to abolish the respected institution of a neighbouring country.
India was demanding that Nepal should provide citizenship certificates to all Indians residing in Nepal. India had already bought all the parliament members to fulfill this cause. A bill on the amendment of the citizenship law was also passed by the Parliament. But King Birendra had rejected the bill which made India more angry with the monarchy in Nepal.
That is the reality of the massacre of King Birendra and his family. Who can avoid the degrees of fate? The history of Indian conspiracy is the destruction of sovereign nations of south Asia. India should understand that the Nepalese people will never accept Indian interference.
According to former Prime Minister Marichman Singh, at the time of the movement of 1990, RAW brought together one dozen left parties who never used to see eye to eye, just like the seven parties during 2005 and of course, forged a working alliance with the Nepali Congress. Thinking that the Nepalese people would not hit the streets, India even brought 6,000 Bhutanese of Nepalese origin to Kathmandu to show Nepali faces in the movement. It is already published that after the movement of 1990 gained momentum, the then Indian Foreign Secretary, showing the scare of the people's movement, came to Kathmandu in April 1990 with a draft agreement under which Nepal's defense and foreign policy would be under the Indian domain. But King Birendra rejected the agreement outright. Many people believe that this was another step towards his untimely demise.
The reality is that India still maintains its wish to keep Nepal under its security umbrella. Now it is well established that India, after 2005, is stepping towards Bhutanisation, Sikkimisation and Fijisation of Nepal by using Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai of Maoist, Girija of NC, Madhab Nepal of UML. All the conspiracy is being done in the name of abolition of monarchy. Therefore, in the absence of a leader who can take a stance, India conspires to make Nepal a failed state.
The Nepalese monarchy is the pillar of Nepalese identity and sovereignty. The Royal institution of Nepal is for its people and a force that fought against the imperialists. India had been investing to establish a republic in Nepal with the help of our corrupt party leaders as well as the palace's corrupt cronies and sycophants. So, everybody can understand the story of Royal massacre.

(Dirgha Raj Prasai is a former Member of Parliament, who writes from Kathmandu, Nepal.)

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Air India to have own security check at TIA

Air India to have own security check at TIA
Maoist minister gave permission

KATHMANDU, Aug 8: The government has given permission to Air India (AI) to operate its own security checking at the tarmac of Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA).

The government is currently working on the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for such security checks by officials of a foreign airline at the country´s only international airport. Once the procedures are ready, AI will be allowed to basically second-screen passengers and luggage with portable x-ray machines in the sterilized zone of the tarmac. Currently, officials of the Indian airline are only allowed to carry out manual-frisking of passengers at the ladder of the airplane.

The decision to grant such permission was taken by then Minister for Tourism and Civil Aviation Hisila Yami under a written request from the government of India despite stiff opposition by then secretary at the ministry, Lila Mani Poudel. Secretary Poudel was transferred to another ministry before Yami took the final decision.

Talking to, Yami admitted that she had taken such a decision. “Yes, I granted such permission to AI during my tenure," she said.

Though such a practice is not new, aviation experts have opposed the permission on three grounds. First, it somehow undermines the sovereignty of the nation. Second, it may compromise the security sensitivity of other airlines since it provides "unrestricted mobility" to the security officials of IA. And third, this could prompt other international airlines to demand such permission also, thereby creating a logistical problem of space. Jet Airways has already applied for a similar facility.

But both Yami and current secretary at the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation Nagendra Ghimire defend the decision.

“I don´t think it undermines our sovereignty and national security,” said Yami. She, however, expressed unawareness of the unrestricted mobility for AI´s security officials or the other technical details of such a system. “I agreed to allow such a facility based on information provided by ministry staff,” she said, adding, “I could have been misled but still I don´t think I made a wrong decision.”

Secretary Ghimire said the mobility of airline officials in sensitive zones at airports is not a new thing in international aviation. “Such provisions exist in other countries too,” he argued.

However, there is a serious difference of opinion at the National Aviation Security Committee (NASC), which finalizes the SOP, on the implications of providing such a facility to a foreign airline. A meeting of the NASC held last Saturday could not finalize the procedures due to serious differences.

NASC, a body under the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN), is headed by the line minister and includes the Nepal Army´s second-in-command, the chiefs of the Nepal Police, the Armed Police Force and the National Investigation Department (NID), the secretaries from the Home, Defense, Law and Finance Ministries, the Attorney General and the Director General of CAAN.

India had long been asking Nepal for such a facility, arguing that India-bound flights from Kathmandu were under serious security threat, especially since the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814 on December 24, 1999.