Movement of RAW in Nepal

At the time when local newspapers, political leaders, intellectuals, among others, are talking about the active presence of Indians while destabilizing our politics as well as the economy, thus making defunct one after another institutions, Pant has brought out the publication “Nepalma RAW Ko Chalkhel (Movement of RAW in Nepal).

There are many questions yet to be answered. Just look at the current issues: Why the Royal Palace massacre took place immediately after the late King’s China visit? Why the parliament passed the finance bill in a disguised manner? Was King Birendra’s decision to consult the Supreme Court before giving Royal assent on a controversial bill the reason for the Royal Palace bloodbath? Why Indian political leaders put pressure on the marriage of the then Crown Prince Dipendra? How could the Maoists get safe shelter in
Indian territory? How did they get arms from India? Why the five political parties are launching a “joint-movement” at the time when the Maoists have announced cease fire? Why the political parties are trying to limit the Royal Palace role as well as the Army affairs? Why KV Rajans are here at the time of change of the government? After all, who are running such games from behind the scene?

One may get some answers to the above questions while reading the book “Movement of RAW in Nepal”.It is strongly assumed that the Indian intelligence unit is actively involved in manipulating newspapers, intellectuals, political leaders making them supporters of India. The fact is that leaders of major political
parties do not speak about the Kalapani issue, the India constructed embankments inundating Nepalese fertile soil, border encroachment by the Indians, among others.

It is very much interesting to note that Nepal has no problem with our neighbouring country China whereas we are facing countless problems with India, either it is in the operation of the dry-port in Birgunj or export of ghee, beer etc..While giving the background, the publication explains about RAW activities
while creating Bangladesh from Pakistan, RAW activities in Bhutan, Maldives, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Sikkim annexation.

The main objective of the RAW is to create internal trouble in neighbouring countries and take benefit from the trouble that the neighbouring countries face. That apart, their present interest towards Nepal is to fail the Nepalese economy and create monopoly in the Nepalese market. India is showing double-standards towards Nepal. On the one hand the Indian government is supporting our government with arms on the other the RAW is supporting the Maoists.

RAW, a powerful Indian intelligence – Research Analysis Wing – ultimately aims to defunct Nepal.The publication has cited on Nepal-India government level relations,relations of political parties and people of the two countries, and Nepal’s relations with RAW.The publication has also referred to the RAW intention and expectations in Nepal.

RAW involvement in border encroachment and intervention, water politics of RAW, security concern of RAW have been described in the publication.The author has referred different books as well as a series of articles
published in different newspapers, magazines.It is essential for the Nepalese to know about the RAW activities and understand the origin of current problems by reading the publication.

At the time when it has become difficult to search out intellectuals dedicated towards the motherland, Dr. Pant appears as a personality who has the courage to unmask the RAW grand design in Nepal.
By bringing out the publication, the author has done a commendable job.Concerned sectors need to be timely alerted from the RAW design upon Nepal as described by Dr. Pant.

Authored and published by: Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant, Institute of Rural
Development:
First edition: April 2003
Printed by: United Graphics Printers P. Ltd., New Plaza, Ramshah Path,
Kathmandu.
Price: Rs. 194.00.

Source:[http://www.yomari.com/p-review/2003/06/19062003/book.html]

WikiLeaks: India accepts funding Nepal Maoists to gain favor

At a meeting held between the Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and a high ranking US official, Richard Holbrooke January 18, 2010, the Indian foreign secretary during a two hour long working breakfast had accepted that Indian establishment had funded the Maoists’ rebellion in Nepal and that eventually became counterproductive to India.

WikiLeaks has revealed that the US special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke was told by the Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao that the strategy to fund Taliban Militants to gain their favor would see similar fate to that of India’s strategy in having funded the Maoists in Nepal.

The detail of the Rao-Holbrooke conversation was later forwarded by the US ambassador in New Delhi to the US government that the WikiLeaks has made public.

India thus stands exposed.

More such revelations are awaited which will shed light on how Nepal-India relations took a nose dive during the Royal regime.

In the meantime, the Unified Maoists’ Party spokesperson Dina Nath Sharma talking to Kantipur Daily dated December 4, 2010, refuting the allegation says, “There is no truth that we had received financial support from India.”

“We held discussions on political matters…they asked us to reject the presence of UNMIN….they said they will support us…but, we favored the UN, thus UNMIN is right here”.

“Yes, to lure others by making various lucrative offers has become the hallmark of Indian tradition”, he says and adds “We rejected their offer.”

Sharma also advises the Indian establishment to seek political solution-not technical solutions, to problems in Jammu/Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal.

However, Sharma doesn’t deny that they were not having intimate contacts with the Indian regime.

WikiLeaks first jolt. The earth is yet to shake.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts of the Document follows:

Thursday, 28 January 2010, 13:20

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 NEW DELHI 000163

SIPDIS

EO 12958 DECL: 01/18/2020

TAGS PREL, PGOV, PK, AF, IN

SUBJECT: SRAP HOLBROOKE DISCUSSES AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN WITH INDIAN FOREIGN SECRETARY RAO

Classified By: Ambassador Timothy J. Roemer. Reasons: 1.4(B, D).

9. (C) Rao and Sinha raised grave concerns about Taliban reintegration plans currently under discussion. Sinha argued that no amount of monetary incentives would induce the Taliban to alter its core beliefs of intolerance and militancy. He was particularly troubled by the British plan which, in his view, takes Afghanistan back to the pre-1990s. Rao expressed skepticism that such a plan would work unless Pakistan changes its policy on supporting the Quetta Shura and other Taliban elements. She observed that it had failed to bring in the Maoists in Nepal and was likely to fail for similar reasons in Afghanistan.
@Telegraph Nepal
UNCP Maoist Secretary C. P. Gajurel already challenged India to give proof its funding Nepal Maoist.

Book claims Indian role in Nepal palace massacre

Kathmandu: A former senior military officer at Nepal's royal palace, who drew flak for the massacre of King Birendra and nine others in 2001, is now rattling new skeletons with his memoir.




Gen. Bibek Shah, who rose from being the aide de camp of the king to becoming military secretary in the Narayanhity royal palace in Kathmandu, has opened a can of worms with his book, "Maile dekheko darbar" (The court as I saw it).




The 599-page book, the author says, is based on his dairy and observations, especially during the nearly four years that he served as military secretary, first to King Birendra and then, to his successor, King Gyanendra.

Shah says King Birendra, though a constitutional king, wanted to modernise the army and was seeking to buy "ultra modern" firearms. The king, who was also the supreme commander of the army, had reached an agreement with German gun manufacturer Heckler and Koch to procure their G36 assault rifles.




Plans had also been made to assemble the weapons in Nepal and sell them in South Asia.




But Shah says the plan was anathema to India, since the bigger neighbour did not want Nepal to possess better arms and was pressuring it to buy its indigenous Insas group of firearms that were inferior in quality.




"I think the arms politics could be one of the major reasons behind the palace massacre," Shah says.




The other reason, he writes, could be the issue of granting citizenship to residents of the Terai plains, many of whom are of Indian origin.




Parliament was ready to confer citizenship on the community and had forwarded the bill to the king for his seal of approval.




However, King Birendra, instead of passing the bill, sent it to the Supreme Court for consideration and the apex court nixed it.




"Had the king put his seal of approval, within a few years Nepalis could have become a minority in Nepal," the former aide writes. "After the bill was scrapped, a few senior Indian government officials expressed concern to the king."
Shah says that he was given a top secret file by the king, outlining Operation Eagle, a plan to resolve the growing Maoist insurgency.

Apparently, King Birendra was planning to seize power, start talks with the underground Maoists, concede some of their demands and bring them back to mainstream politics. For that, he had been sending his younger brother, Prince Dhirendra, and a senior army official as his emissaries to talk with the Maoist leadership.
"At a time such a serious plan was being developed to resolve the crisis gripping the state, the palace massacre occurred mysteriously," he writes. "My analysis and conclusion is that internal as well as foreign forces were involved."

Though Shah asserted during a televised interview that the actual killings were done by Birendra's son Dipendra, he says the crown prince, already smarting under his mother's tight rein, was incited by foreign forces.
While the government formed a commission to investigate the actual shooting June 1, 2001, it did not go beyond that to investigate the motive or the abettors.
As a democracy, India wanted monarchy in Nepal to end and so joined forces with Nepal's Maoist guerrillas, who also wanted the abolition of the crown.
Shah says given the meetings held between Nepal's political party leaders and the Maoists in India, it was inconceivable that the Indian intelligence agencies did not know about them.
Besides supporting these meets, he says India actively trained Nepal's Maoist guerrillas. He claims the cat was let out of the bag when an armed police force team went to Chakrata in India's Uttarakhand state to receive arms training from the Indian authorities and learned that an earlier group, apparently Maoists, had also been trained there.
When he tried to investigate, Shah claims he was told by then King Gyanendra to resign under Indian pressure.
I strongly object to the use of word 'Harmad', it's a word used by TMC, you can't use the word without knowing the meaning
Expressed shock that HM's letter reached media first. 32 TMC workers killed, CPM has lost 69 cadres.

All parties except TMC have helped us in tackling TMCV.

Indian double-dealing in Nepal: Reveals Wikileaks

The fresh set of classified US Embassy diplomatic cable put out by Wikileaks, reveals conversation between the then US ambassador Michael Malinowski and Indian Ambassador Shyam Saran.

The cable dates back to December 4, 2003.

During the conversation between the two, US ambassador complains that intelligence operatives at the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu have been characterizing the US government policy and motives in Nepal as malevolently aimed at undermining Nepal’s sovereignty.

Malinowski says that the US Embassy had been passed the information by several Nepali political sources, who claimed to have had such conversations in the recent past with Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) agents based at the Indian Embassy.

After the conversation providing his comments Malinowski writes, “We cannot discount the possibility that our Nepali sources, many of whom resent India’s influence in their country, may have their own motives in conveying to us reports of Indian double-dealing...we have always found Saran professional, collegial, and cooperative, and believe that he does not sanction–and may probably not be aware of–all of RAW’s activities in Nepal”.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text Follows:

Created: 2003-12-04 02:02

Released: 2011-03-15 00:12

Classification: SECRET//NOFORN

Origin: Embassy Kathmandu

Wikileaks notice: This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

S E C R E T KATHMANDU 002366

SIPDIS

NOFORN

STATE FOR SA/INS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/03/2013
TAGS: PREL PTER NP IN
SUBJECT: NEPAL: AMBASSADOR RELAYS CONCERNS ABOUT
ACTIVITIES OF INDIAN INTELLIGENCE AGENTS

REF: A. REF: KATHMANDU 2282
B. KATHMANDU 2298

Classified By: AMB. MICHAEL E. MALINOWSKI. REASON: 1.5 (B,D).

1. (S/NF) On December 3 the Ambassador raised with Indian Ambassador Shyam Saran reports that intelligence agents assigned to the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu have been characterizing USG policy and motives in Nepal as malevolently aimed at undermining Nepal’s sovereignty. The Ambassador told Saran that the reports had been passed to us by several Nepali political sources, who claimed to have had such conversations in the recent past with Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) agents based at the Indian Embassy. He also briefed Saran about unsubstantiated reports suggesting that some Nepali Maoist women may have received training at a security facility in Dehra Dun in northern India (Ref A). Noting that Nepalis, both within the government and in the opposition, sometimes attempt to play off Indian and American interests, he stressed that the information passed on by these sources had not been verified. He noted that the reports predated the meeting between Nepali Maoists and Communist Party of Nepal – United Marxist Leninist General Secretary Madhav Nepal in Lucknow (Ref B)–an event that has SIPDIS set Nepali nationalists teeth on edge against India. The Ambassador emphasized that he was communicating these concerns to Saran as a friend and ally.

2. (S/NF) Ambassador Saran thanked him and expressed concern, describing the reports as ”unfortunate” and not an accurate reflection of official GOI policy–a point confirmed in his recent policy discussions in New Delhi (see para 3). The GOI is committed to ensuring Nepal’s stability, he said, adding that he has obtained unprecedented levels of development and security assistance for the kingdom. Nonetheless, sometimes people in different branches of the GOI “go off on their own,”" he acknowledged, and promised to look into the reports.

3. (S/NF) In a separate meeting on November 30, Saran briefed the Ambassador on the just-concluded policy deliberations in New Delhi. He stressed that his interlocutors had expressed concern about possible spill-over of the insurgency onto Indian Territory. According to Saran, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes told him that “the fight against the Maoists is also India’s fight.” Saran noted, however, that certain quarters within the GOI had argued that India should maintain contact with the Maoists in order to influence them and to keep open communication channels in the event of a worst-case scenario in which the Maoists ultimately gain power.

4. (S/NF) We cannot discount the possibility that our Nepali sources, many of whom resent India’s influence in their country, may have their own motives in conveying to us reports of Indian double-dealing. We have always found Saran professional, collegial, and cooperative, and believe that he does not sanction–and may probably not be aware of–all of RAW’s activities in Nepal. His acknowledgement that some in the GOI ”go off on their own” and that some advocate maintaining contact and influence with the Maoists is his first admission to us that some elements within his Embassy may be working at cross-purposes to official GOI policy.

India’s strategic role in Nepal

March 18, 2011 9:34:11 AM

Ashok K Mehta

Madhav Kumar Nepal, when general secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) was invited to Delhi in 2007 by the Ministry of External Affairs as part of its outreach diplomacy. He told a Delhi-based newspaper that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had counselled strengthening unity among democratic forces, adding “you have the Maoists on board now, that’s a big advantage”. Mr Nepal, back as Prime Minister, will ask Mr Singh to help get the Maoists to join his Government.

India’s backing for his Government is crucial to its strategy of buying time to tame the Maoists as it made a colossal error of judgement in writing off the Maoists in the elections to the Constituent Assembly in which they won more seats than the Nepali Congress and CPN(UML) put together. Worse, National Security Adviser MK Narayanan said that India was “used to working with the Nepali Congress”. Their electoral performance was the decisive turning point in the peace process.

Emboldened by their success and confident of leading the Government till the new Constitution was drafted, the Maoists bungled when their charismatic leader, Mr Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better known as Prachanda, egged on by party hardliners, dismissed the Chief of Army Staff, Gen Rukmangad Katwal, who was seen to be blocking the Maoist grand plan of dominating all state institutions, including the Army, by resisting the integration of Maoist combatants with the forces, the only organisation not under its domination. President Ram Baran Yadav restoring the COAS was seen by the Maoists as violation of civilian supremacy and reason for Prachanda to resign. In their book, civilian supremacy is tight party control of the Army, the power flowing from the barrel of the gun.

Prachanda’s plans for a ‘new’ Nepal and a socioeconomic revolution went awry when the Maoists crossed the ‘Lakshman Rekha’. How can they change ‘old’ Nepal into ‘new’ Nepal without first changing themselves, is the common refrain. Sacking Gen Katwal, a monumental miscalculation which cost them the Government, was the second turning point of the peace process, ending the period of consensus. Maoist relations with other political parties, the Army and India are the worst ever.

Shock and insecurity at losing power in the name of civilian supremacy has spilled on to the streets and in the Constituent Assembly. Prachanda has vowed that the Maoists will soon return to lead a new national unity Government. It is against this skewed balance of power where the Maoists, the single largest party, are on the streets instead of in the House, that Mr Nepal is in Delhi.

Mr Nepal’s Government requires India’s demonstrable support for its legitimacy and restoring the peace process. In his book, Raj Lives On — India in Nepal, Sanjay Upadhyaya has observed that no one can rule in Nepal without India’s nod and recognising its legitimate security interests. The Maoists apparently don’t think so. They are advocating ‘Looking Beyond India’, accommodating a more assertive China to balance India. Chinese political, military, economic and diplomatic activities and people-to-people contact in Nepal have increased dramatically during the Maoist interregnum.

Through one of their key military leaders, Barsaman Pun (Ananta), the Maoists have indicated that the present standoff can be resolved only on their terms. He says Mr Yadav’s action restoring the sacked Chief of Army Staff is only part of the problem. The Pun panacea prescribes correction of the President’s action through a debate in the House, a new comprehensive peace agreement followed by a Maoist-led national Government.

The longevity of the Nepal Government is irrelevant to the peace process unless there is improvement in the law and order situation, progress in drafting the Constitution and integrating the armies. The new Government has to demonstrate it can govern better than the inexperienced guerrillas-turned-politicians. The Army Integration Special Committee is stuck over the question of its chairmanship — Prachanda, Maoists say, was replaced by Mr Nepal without consulting them. Constitution-drafting is marking time.

The Maoists are sulking and still cannot be trusted over their commitment to rule of law, multi-party democracy and human rights — in short, they have failed to transform from a guerrilla force into a political outfit. They remain on the US Terrorist Exclusion List and according to former US Ambassador Nancy Powell, the Young Communist League has obstructed Constitution-writing. India, the architect of the historic 2005 Delhi Accord which axed monarchy, is following the US way: Judge the Maoists by their deeds and not words.

Maoist-India relations have plummeted with Prachanda accusing India of installing a puppet regime, even plotting with the US to attack China. High-decibel anti-India sentiment draped in nationalism is being whipped up which is nothing new for Delhi.

Charges of Indian interference and anti-Indianism have to be managed, sometimes ignored.

Clearly, things will get worse before they get better. Mr Nepal cannot perform effectively without the Maoists on board the peace process which is linked with the United Nations Mission in Nepal on its fourth extension, overseeing the integration of armies. India has lost ground in Nepal and Sri Lanka by neglect of the neighbourhood. Given Nepal’s location, it is crucial to the security of the strategic Indo-Gangetic plains. Equally, reaching out to the Maoists and reducing the trust deficit are pivotal.

While Mr Nepal can be lavished with all the political confidence, economic goodies and assurances of cooperation, these will not operationalise the peace process. Nepalis feel India has a moral duty to break the political impasse. The Maoists require to be placated over civilian supremacy — though CPN(UML) leader KP Oli says their civilian supremacy is with YCL — integration, including restoring Prachanda’s chairmanship of AISC, and other inducements. New red lines have to be drawn over Chinese penetration into Nepal and activities of the YCL as part of a new Delhi Accord.

The Maoists have outlined two options: A Prachanda-led Government or revolt, and have discounted a third option. But there is one: Maoists joining the current Government. This requires to be worked out.

A high-level India-Maoist back-channel dialogue addressing issues holding up the peace process is urgently needed. Another mechanism is required to fix a disturbed Madhes which has around 109 armed groups, many of which simply comprise criminals. Mr Nepal must go back reassured that India has Nepal’s core interests at heart while facilitating a restart of the peace process.



http://www.dailypioneer.com/196694/India%E2%80%99s-strategic-role-in-Nepal.html

Wikileaks Reveals: U.S. Intrigue Against Maoists & Nepal Peace Process

Posted by Alastair Reith on March 15, 2011


US Ambassador James F. Moriarty

“A Maoist victory would energize leftist insurgencies and threaten stability in the region. It thus behooves us to continue to do everything possible to block such an outcome.”




by Alastair Reith

Diplomatic cables released today show that former US Ambassador James F. Moriarty was actively trying to destabilise Nepal’s peace process in order to prevent a Maoist rise to power. It reveals a bitter man, utterly convinced that the peace process endorsed by the Maoists in 2006 was a temporary ploy to help them advance their revolutionary agenda… and it shows how determined he was to block that process.

This article looks at just one of the cables released today.

On September 22, 2006, the date of this cable, the monarchy had just been toppled in a massive popular uprising, during which the Maoist revolutionaries and the more mainstream and conservative political parties formed an alliance against the dictatorial King and brought him down together. They did not enter this alliance willingly, but when the King banned those mainstream parties and seized absolute power these conservative politicians were forced to turn to the radical communist movement for help.

A deal was struck – the Maoists and the political parties would fight the King together, and after he fell they would form an Interim Government with equal representation for all parties before holding elections for a Constituent Assembly with a mandate to radically transform Nepal. The Maoists agreed to end their armed struggle, signed Peace Accords in November 2006 and put their army on cease fire, and the conservative parties agreed to open the floodgates and begin the restructuring of Nepali society.

At the time of this cable Nepal was locked in a political stalemate and a political vacuum. The King had been defeated on the streets by his own people, and the Maoists were openly walking the streets of Kathmandu for the first time in over a decade. However, it took almost another year of negotiations before an Interim Government could be formed with Maoist participation. We now know at least part of the story behind why this took as long as it did – US imperialism was interfering in Nepal’s political process to try and prevent the Maoists, the most popular political movement in the country, from being included in a government.

U.S. Fear of a Maoist “Path to Power”

Moriarty begins the secret cable by describing the situation as he sees it. He writes;

“It looks like we’re getting to crunch time here in Nepal… the Maoists appear intent on organizing during the month of October massive public demonstrations designed to pressure the GON into putting the Maoists on the path to power. If the government still refuses to cave, the Maoists, according to a number of pretty good sources, seem ready to move in November to a campaign of urban violence, using the demonstrations as cover.”

As the Maoists entered the peace process (and started open political work in Nepal’s urban areas) some leftist forces internationally claimed that by setting aside the armed struggle they were abandoning the goal of revolution. Now we know that the U.S. officials (at least) saw these events through an opposite lens — and feared that a Maoist “path to power” might emerge from the overthrow of the king, the advances to toward democratic political rights and the political mobilization of the people.

In the five years since these cables were written, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN-M) has remained committed to the peace process it initiated and continued to push for radical change and a people’s constitution using peaceful mobilization of the people. To the frustration of everyone, this process has been locked in a stalemate, where any significant social change and national progress for the people is prevented by the parliamentary parties. And at each point, as the cables note: the Maoists have threatened to move outside the process, to press forward with popular revolutionary demands.

Ambassador Moriarty goes on to analayse the balance of forces;

“The good news is that the Maoists are doing much of this through bluff. They have relatively little popular support, and they have nowhere near the military capability to take on the government’s security services in an open fight.”

This is a somewhat amusing statement to read in retrospect. At the time of the Constituent Assembly elections, the mainstream media and Western governments were all repeating this view over and over again – the Maoists have little popular support, the success of their revolutionary movement has been gained through intimidation and coercion, etc etc. The constant prediction was that the Maoists would come a distant third behind the UML party and the Nepali Congress. As it turns out, these predictions were wrong. The Maoists quickly proved to be the single most popular party in the country to the shock of all reactionary observers, winning a plurality in the popular elections.

At the same time, there is a significant assessment here of relative military capacity: Part of the reason the Maoists decided to participate in the peace process is their difficulty in taking on the Nepal Army “in an open fight” — and their hope to build political support in new ways for future confrontations.

U.S. Intrigue: “What We Need to Do”

The most important part of the cable is without a doubt a section entitled “What We Need to Do”. In this, Ambassador Moriarty outlines a strategy for the USA to prevent the Maoist revolution from succeeding.

The first step in his counter-revolutionary plan is what he calls “brow-beating”.

Moriarty declares;

“Ultimately, decisions made by Nepalis will determine whether this country goes down the path toward becoming a People’s Republic over the next couple of months. That said, we need to increase the possibility that the leaders here will make the right decisions. I’ve been meeting regularly with the Prime Minister, urging him (so far unsuccessfully) to use the police to enforce law and order and bucking him up to stick to his bottom line of not letting gun-toting Maoists into the government (with greater success so far). We’ve also been pushing the other major parties of the Seven Party alliance to support the Prime Minister on arms management and to push him to use the police against Maoist excesses. I’ve also created a firestorm of controversy by visiting a couple of military bases (as well as a lot of civilians) out West and publicly condemning Maoist violence. Leftist MP’s have called for my expulsion, but at least some of the people here are beginning to debate Maoist intentions.”

Here we have proof that the US ambassador was pushing not only for the Maoists to be excluded from government, but also that he was pushing for the police to be mobilised to crack down on the Maoist movement. Such crude intervention in the internal affairs of Nepal is outrageous — and doubly so because it is clearly for the purpose of suppressing the people and their just demands. Behind the scenes, the U.S. was opposing democratic change in Nepal, and wanting to find political forces that could continue the King’s fascistic repression.

The police are hated in Nepali society – systematically corrupt, routinely violent, they stand accused of torture, rape and assassination. In a country where the state completely neglected the people in the rural areas, the local police station was often the only state presence in the area – no hospitals, no schools, just corrupt thugs protecting the landlords and money lenders. During the People’s War of the 1990s one of the first actions taken during a peasant uprising was to attack and destroy the local police station, and by the early 2000s the police had been entirely driven out of huge swathes of the Nepali countryside. To call for them to move against ‘Maoist excesses’ is a call for a continuation of the government’s wartime brutalities.

Continuing in this aggressive theme, Ambassador Moriarty goes on to urge the US government to prepare another massive arms shipment to Nepal. During the period of the People’s War, the US and other Western nations donated weapons to the Royal Nepal Army, even as stories of its brutality leaked out. It shows how the U.S. quickly came to see the Nepal Army as their most reliable instrument and ally in suppressing the revolutionary movement.

Moriarty writes;

“We need to be prepared for the possibility of a Maoist return to violence in November. The key will be to condemn as quickly as possible Maoist violence, while shipping as quickly as possible some 4,500 more weapons that we have in storage for the Nepali Army. Those weapons would have an immediate tactical impact but more importantly would shore up a government that will be under tremendous pressure to capitulate.”

If a violent and repressive force is willing to obey orders, the U.S. is prepared to give them all the guns they need to crush any attempts by their own people to rise up.

The Maoists are not just agrarian reformers

A particularly fascinating section of the cable is one the ambassador entitles “the Diplomatic Game”, in which he details the different approaches taken by the various foreign powers;

“The diplomacy here is getting complicated. The Europeans are all over the map with respect to recent developments. The Danes and Norwegians (who have some clout here because of their aid programs) are convinced that lasting peace is just about ready to break out and push the GON [Government of Nepal] to be as accommodating as possible. The Brits, in contrast, seem convinced that the Maoists will soon be coming into power and are trying to convince themselves that that might not be so bad. The Chinese seem primarily interested in pushing Tibet issues with the weak, frequently ineffectual GON. The local World Bank rep is so fed up with the corruption in the system that he has become a frequent lunch pal of the Maoist supremo. I’m trying to push back here on some of this, but it would help if the Department could have a serious, high-level discussion with the Brits on Nepal. We might also want to look at a demarche to the Europeans and others (reminding them that the Maoists are not just agrarian reformers and seem to want power rather than peace).”

There appear to have been serious divisions between the Americans and their European counterparts both in terms of their analysis of the situation and their proposals on how to deal with it, and it is interesting to note how much more accurate the predictions of the British and the Scandinavians were compared to those of Moriarty and the Americans.

This paragraph clearly reveals that even as the Maoists were engaging with European governments, even as a genuine peace process was beginning to take shape, the American Embassy was doing everything in its power to sabotage the process and find the ways to crush the Maoists and their popular base — even at the cost of reigniting the civil war.

If Nepal’s peace process does fail and some form of conflict or popular revolt does take place in the future, the fault will not lie with the Maoists. They have demonstrated great patience and compromise within this peace process, making great sacrifices – and what we now know is that from the very beginning the USA was trying to derail this.

Hypocrisy lies heaped upon hypocrisy.

The Role of India

This cable, along with the others released today, also sheds light on the role of India in Nepal. Nepal has long been a defacto colony of India, with its politicians, its economy, its military and countless other aspects of its society under near-total Indian domination. A major demand of the Maoist movement is to change this unequal relationship and forge a new one based on equality, Nepali sovereignty and self-determination. The Maoists have long accused India of interfering in Nepal’s political process, and specifically attempting to undermine and sabotage the Maoists. It’s an open secret, but one with very little evidence… until now.

Our site will analyse the other cables soon, which deal in much greater detail with India’s role in stalling the peace process.

For now, we have this excerpt from Moriarty’s cable, in which he reveals the Indian ambassador’s role in preventing the timely formation of an Interim Government and in pushing for a return to police violence;

“From my perspective, we need to do more to keep the Indians in lock-step with us. I coordinate closely with my Indian counterpart here and in private he pushes the exact same message I do: that the police need to enforce law and order and that the GON should not let armed Maoists into an interim government.”

Ambassador Moriarty finishes his cable with a warning. It is, ironically, a statement that this site and the people involved in it fully support and endorse! As popular rebellions and communist insurgencies explode out of an ocean of discontent in South Asia, it is quite understandable that the ruling elites across the world feel concerned and nervous about what a communist revolution in Nepal would lead to. This was weighing on Moriarty’s mind in 2006 as it still surely weighs on the mind of his successor. He declares;

“A Maoist victory would energize leftist insurgencies and threaten stability in the region. It thus behooves us to continue to do everything possible to block such an outcome.”

A Maoist victory would do all of this an more.

In a period of capitalist economic crisis, with falling living standards, rising prices, imperialist war and restriction of civil liberties a reality across the globe, a liberated Nepal entering a process of radical social transformation would be a beacon of hope in the darkness. And in 2011, as the people take to the streets across Africa and the Middle East, all of a sudden the word ‘revolution’ does not seem outdated and idealistic, but modern, concrete, immediate and real. A Maoist victory in Nepal will send shockwaves across the entire globe, and ‘threaten stability’ for the ruling elite in more than just South Asia. However hard the US Embassy tries, it can do nothing to change that.

India strikes again in Nepal, RAW contract killer shoots, injures Yunus Ansari

SUNDAR KHANAL

KATHMANDU, March 10: In a major breach of security at the country´s largest jail, an Indian man entered with a firearm and shot Yunus Ansari, the controversial 41-year-old media magnate who is in jail on fake currency and drugs charges, on Thursday.

Jasjeet Singh, 42, a self-proclaimed contract killer from Lucknow, India, fired twice with his revolver at point blank range on meeting Ansari at the visitor´s lounge of the Central Jail. One bullet hit Ansari.

Ansari was injured in the left arm and is out of danger after undergoing immediate surgery at Norvic Hospital. Dramatic intervention by security guards prevented further injury.

The incident

Jasajeet Singh entered the Central Jail at around 11:30 a.m., purportedly to meet Charles Sobhraj, the notorious criminal who has been confined to the golghar (special cell with muliple restrictions).

As Singh made his way into the visiting lounge, Ansari was just about to part from his brother Amin Ansari and the latter´s wife. Investigative officials said that Singh fired at Ansari on seeing him, all in a flash.

Singh´s first shot missed. As he was aiming the second shot, a security guard, Bir Bahadur, who was standing with Ansari across the iron bar partition of the visiting room promptly pushed Ansari aside to save him while anther cop, Parmod Chaurasiya, struck Singh´s hand to foil him.

"The second bullet could have struck Ansari´s head but for the timely blow to the hand holding the revolver," said officials.

Cops took Singh under control after a brief struggle.
Ansari was rushed to Norvic Hospital at Thapathali where he was operated on for half-an-hour to extract the bullet.

Month-long plan

According to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner´s Office (MPCO), which contacted media a few hours after the incident, Singh had arrived in Kathmandu on February 5 to execute a contract killing for Indian Rs 1.5 million, in a deal with two Indian nationals Suresh Dwivedi and Ramu Dwivedi, both from Lucknow. He had already received half the contract money and was to get the rest on completion of the mission.

The Dwivedi duo had met Singh at Kalanki and lodged him in a rented flat at Bode, Bhaktapur. During the past 35 days, Singh visited the Central Jail regularly to study Ansari´s movements.

Singh has stated during preliminary interrogations that he would meet only Shovraj when he visited the jail.

Singh has claimed to be a professional contract killer and to have shot five individuals in India in the past, killing two and injuring three.

Officials said that Singh hid his revolver in his groin to elude the security check at the jail entrance. The brawny, arrogant-looking gunman had pulled out his revolver through a hole in the pocket of his long jacket.

According to investigating officials, Singh did not show any remorse during interrogations. "He rather looked happy to be made public through media as he thought his own life was now not under threat in custody," officials said.

"I took up this mission because I was told that I would not be killed by police even after being arrested and would be released soon because of Nepal´s poor legal system," officials quoted him as saying.

Probe panels

In the wake of the incident worthy of becoming a prestige issue for the government, Nepal Police has formed two separate panels headed by Additional Inspector General (AIG) Rabindra Pratap Shah and SSP Hemanta Malla, chief of Metropolitan Police Crime Division (MPCO), respectively.

Meanwhile, Nepal Police has suspended Sub-inspector Laxman Bhandari and two constables--Manoj Karki and Tilak Ram Chaudhary--as immediate departmental action in connection with the incident.

“We are in the initial phase of investigations that show utter negligence on the part of the security officials concerned. This is not a security lapse as such,” said AIG Arjun Jung Shahi, MPCO chief.

Ansari family´s outcry

Salim Miya Ansari, father of Yunus Ansari and a former minister, has publicly alleged that the Indian intelligence organization RAW carried out this attack in a plan to "finish off a promising Muslim youth". He told reporters at the premises of Norvic Hospital that his family had not been allowed to meet Yunus for a month. “We were not even allowed to meet him while a gunman could freely enter and shoot him,” he said.

“Yunus had told me that he was under threat. He informed the authorities, who did not pay any attention,” Salim said and even alleged that Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Rajendra Singh Bhandari also assisted RAW in carrying out the attack.

Mystery intensifies

The incident has taken place a year after Ansari told the police in the wake of Jamim Shah´s murder that he would have been murdered instead had he not been arrested on fake currency and drugs charges.

Ansari was arrested on January 2010 for allegedly trading in fake Indian currency notes and brown sugar in collusion with two Pakistani nationals. He has been serving time in judicial custody.

Police sources, meanwhile, said that investigations might bring to light the possible link of this incident to the Jamim Shah murder. Nepal Police has concluded that Bablu Srivastav, an Indian underworld kingpin who has been in a Lunknow jail for a few years, had ordered one Deepak Shahi alias Babbu Chhetri to kill Shah. Shah was shot dead in the capital in broad daylight.

Though Singh has said that he only met Shovraj while spying on Ansari´s movements, some jail sources have informed that he would meet other Indian criminals in the Central jail. But this is not corroborated by investigative officials.

India's `hegemony' is a threat to its neighbours

India's "hegemony" poses a threat to its neighbours, says a premier Chinese daily, citing India's "recent provocation on border issues with China" as proof.

In an opinion piece, the People's Daily says, "In recent years, Indians have become more narrow minded and intolerable of outside criticism as nationalism sentiment rises, with some of them even turning to hegemony.

"It can be proved by India's recent provocation on border issues with China.''

The newspaper, which is the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party, says that India's hegemony "is a hundred per cent result of British colonialism. Dating back to the era of British India, the country covered a vast territory including present-day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh as well as Nepal.''

A previous victim of colonialism and hegemony, it said, India started dreaming about developing its own hegemony after the British left.

"Obsessed with such mentality, India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues, and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbours like Pakistan.''

To bolster its argument, the newspaper says that even Jawaharlal Nehru had once said that "India could not play an inferior role in the world, and it should either be a superpower or disappear.'

Calling the dream of being a superpower held by Indians "impetuous", the daily says, "The dream of superpower is mingled with the thought of hegemony, which places the South Asian giant in an awkward situation and results in repeated failure.

Since India has constantly been under foreign rule, the newspaper said, "the essence for the rise of India lies in how to be an independent country, to learn to solve the complicated ethnic and religious issues, to protect the country from terrorist attacks, to boost economic development as well as to put more efforts on poverty alleviation.''

But India's hegemonic designs face geopolitical limitation. "It has the Himalaya mountain to its north, a natural barrier for northward expansion; it has Pakistan to the west, a neighbour it is always at odds over the disputed border issues,'' the article says.

Blaming India for pursuing a foreign policy of "befriend the far and attack the near", it said, "It engaged in the war separately with China and Pakistan and the resentment still simmers. If India really wants to be a superpower, such a policy is shortsighted and immature.''

If India wants to be a superpower, the daily said, it needs to have "its eyes on relations with neighbours and abandon the recklessness and arrogance as the world is undergoing earthshaking changes.

"For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower.''

It said China is "proactively engaging in negotiations with India for the early settlement of border dispute and India should give a positive response".

http://nepalnow.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-and-nepal-part-i.html

http://nepalnow.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-and-nepal-part-i.html




India has always wanted a somewhat unstable Nepal. It helps to reinforce and maintain Nepal's dependence on its big brother to the south. --blogdai, "The Big Difference" December 2006

...blogdai sees India throwing support behind the 7-party alliance and yes, the Maoists. It's an open secret anyway, but look for more Indian arms to find their way into party hands in the future. India has always used the Maoists to keep Nepal unstable and dependent ......--blogdai "" A Tangible Shift" September 2005

This leads one to the conclusion that India, through Girija, is now allied with the Maoists. This is a typically sneaky and autocratic way for India to deal with an uppity King so no surprises here from the "worlds largest democracy." ---blogdai "I Don't Even Want to Think About It." June 2005

Indian hegemony

http://reformistani.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/indian-hegemony-over-bangladesh-by-shah-mohammed-saifuddin/

Indian hegemony

http://northeastindiadiary.blogspot.com/2008/08/indias-hegemony-unmasked-case-of.html


(Dear Readers, we are giving final touches to the website MERO NEPAL-MA NEPALI and this site wil be linked to the new website.)

The embassy men

As always Indian embassy gifted ambulances to Nepal. Why does the terrorist India like ambulance, is there any pshycological reason. Yes, there is it is their guilt feeling that they are behind the murder and killings of Nepalese people and they gift ambulances.
After Rishi Dhamala being exposed very badly to the media for being Indian embasy man this time the Indian embassy is planning a big media gaging campaign soon.
In a meeting with the embassy paid editors from APCA house and others in Lainchour the Indian terrorist Sood has told his henchmen that they are planning something big and will help the media that help embassy to curtail the press freedom in Nepal that is very dangerous for the so-called democratic India and its expansionary interests. Indian could not fulfill its wish to grab the MRP due to his dadagiri style and it is now trying to gag the media so that it can do anything it wants against Nepal and Nepali people in future. Sood has to be immediately sent back but the India sponsored government of Madhav Kumar Nepal and RAW and emabssy-backed media is silent on the issue of press freedom. The RAW is also planning something big for Kailash Sirohiya and Our kantipur Publications. The embassy people are publicly saying that they can murder Kailash sirohiya like Jamim Shah in Kathmandu in broad daylight. Th Jamim Shah case was also planned by RAW and Indian embassy have supported logistics. In the similar fashion, the RAW has send one journalist to the jamim Shah's publication before making the murder plan. It has again sent its one paid journalist, who is now back to RAW-funded himlayan times after collection informations from Kantipur publications, like he earlier went to Space time and returned back to himalayan times and reporte to RAW. His daughter is studying in Delhi sponsored by the RAW and his masters.
Like the east india company entered in India in the name of business and captured India, the RAW-funded APCA is planning to weaken all the nationalist forces and make puppet government like Madhav Kumar Nepal. Any one who is ationalist and stands for Nepal will be marked for murder and the Indianstate funded terrorist organization RAW and Indian embassy excute the murder in Kathmandu.
According to the terrorist Sood's ola those media persons who oppose his master plan will be sidelined by either murdering or charging them with some fake cases.
Dear media friends, be aware and remain vigilant, anyone who works in himalayantimes and APCA may be spying on you and your daily activities and selling the informations to the India embassy.

MRP from India to Nepal: At What cost?

TGW
Nepal’s Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal appearing before the Special Hearing of the Public Account Committee (PAC) on Monday declared that the government had awarded the printing rights of Machine Readable Passports (MRP) to India due to the excessive political and diplomatic pressure.

“Under pressing circumstances, government had decided to award the printing rights to India because that the MRP should have been issued by April 1, 2010”, he stated.

It was earlier reported by the Nagarik Daily, February 24, 2010 that Foreign Minister Sujata Koriala had forwarded the proposal to purchase some 40 Lakh (Four million) Machine Readable Passports (MRP) from Indian company summarily ignoring the Global bidding process. She was excessively pressurized by the Indian Government to make the decision, the report had also revealed.

“At the last minute when we were in sheer trouble, we found friend in the Indian establishment and thus we decided to award the printing rights to India”, the Prime Minister replied to queries posed by the PAC members.

“Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna (during his last trip here) and Ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood had been requesting Nepal to purchase the MRPs from India”, The Nagarik vernacular daily dated February 24, 2010 had reported.

“We could not take any decision against India because of the political pressure and our sound diplomatic relations with India that exists”, the Prime Minister told the PAC.

“The government was being pressurized by various political parties to quickly take a decision”, he also said.

“We had to cancel the global tender due to some reason”, the PM said but did not reveal as to what were the reasons to cancel it?

“The Indian ambassador in a formal letter sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated December 4, 2009, while referring to Nepal-India close ties and expressing security concerns due to the open border had expressed India’s “inner” intent to support Nepal in arranging the MRPs on time”, writes Nagarik adding, “In the letter, the ambassador also assured that the MRPs would be made available to Nepal at a cheaper price.”

However, Nagarik wrote further that the price quoted by Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India, company owned by the Indian Government, is much higher than those quoted by the French and Indonesian companies.

PM Nepal was also of the opinion that since a company owned by Indian government is going to print the MRPs, vital information would not be leaked.

On March 23, 2010, Nepal and India formally exchanged confirmation letters regarding the MRP deal and it is expected that India will supply MRPs within 10 weeks.

The Global Civil Aviation authority, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) had officially informed the government that it cannot extend the April 1, 2010 deadline for introducing the high-tech machine readable passports (MRP).

On the other hand, the members of PAC expressed deep dissatisfaction over the subdued response of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal.

Prakash Chandra Lohani, leader of Rastriya Shakti Janshakti Party and a member of the committee was of the opinion that the government had ridiculed Public Procurement Policies and the decision to award printing rights to India has not been transparent.

He also said that the government’s decision to cancel the global tender was fraudulent and mysterious. He also alleged the prime minister for lying before the committee.

Deep Kumar Upadhyaya of the Nepali Congress Party said that it was due to the unlawful act of the ministry of foreign affairs the country stands insulted and humiliated. How the prime minister can claim that there was political and diplomatic pressure to take the decision in India’s favor when we are not getting the MRPs for free, Upadhyaya questioned.

Sujata-India nexus this…
This also speaks as to how much pressure at times the Indian establishment exerts on Nepal.
But yet, Sujata by awarding this MRP contract to the Indian regime has proved that the family of the Koiralas' will ever remain subservient to the Indian Union.
Her fresh proximity with India may elevate her ranks in the Nepali Congress party, let's presume it to be so for the time being.
Old familial habits die hard.
MP, BP and later GP all served the Indian Union to the best of their abilities (and in the process cheated their own country men at different intervals of time) when they were alive and kicking and now SUJI-Jost is in queue to provide an extension to the "Koirala tradition".
By extension, it does mean that the incumbent Mr. Nepal's government will have some more days in office thanks the MRP deal.
The favor "shamelessly" awarded to the Indian company is a slap on the face of those Nepalese who claim to be nationalists as Chakra Prasad Bastola recently claimed.

Indian RAW strikes again on Nepali soil

Terrorists Indian srriked again as they killed a media boss Jamim Shah in broad day light at Lazimpat of Kathmandu.
The sharp shooters who followed him from hotel Yak and Yeti shot him dead at a traffic jam at Lazimpat. They came from The indian embassy and ran back to indian embassy, according to the eye-witnesses.
Immediately after the murder the Indian channels are active and broadcasting the news of murder as brave incident of criminals which was as expected as they Indians arte terrotists and criminals.

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.

'India Must Show Genuine Respect to Nepal'

Indian movie star Hrithik Roshan sparked riots in Nepal last month after he allegedly expressed dislike for the country and its people in an interview. He later denied making the remarks, but five people had already died in the violence, several Indian businesses in Kathmandu were destroyed, and relations between the two countries took a turn for the worse. India's former foreign secretary, Salman Haidar, who has been involved in important negotiations with Nepal in the past, spoke recently to TIME contributor Maseeh Rahman about the peculiar nature of relations between the two South Asian nations. Edited excerpts:

TIME: Did the intensity of the violence in Nepal surprise you?
Haidar: It came out of a clear blue sky, so it was bound to be a surprise. But it does illustrate the touchiness of Nepalese opinion over any sense of big brotherly treatment from India, any expression of disdain or a lack of regard and respect. It shows how easily a situation can heat up even when the evidence [of Indian disregard] is so shaky.


TIME: How does one try and understand such a reaction from the Nepalese?
Haidar: Our neighbors see us more clearly than we see them. This is natural, since India is a very large country, and our neighbors are much smaller. A great deal of Nepal's day-to-day activity, economic or otherwise, is tied up with India. Given the disproportionate sizes of the two countries, they have to keep a constant focus on what's going on in India. Nepal is very close to us -- it is closer culturally than any other neighbor. But it is also a very proud country with its own tradition of independence, which is older than India's. They feel that India is not sufficiently mindful of their feelings and their interests.

TIME: India has supported Nepal's pro-democracy movement in the past. But despite the historic links, there are strong anti-Indian lobbyists within Nepalese political parties.
Haidar: It's a curious matter, but democratization of politics in Nepal has increased the possibility of misunderstanding. There are a number of political parties in Nepal, and quite a few groups within these parties, all of which have ample scope to air their views and mobilize public opinion in their favor.

TIME: India and Nepal have a special relationship. With millions of Nepalese working in India, and Indians active in business in Nepal, shouldn't ordinary Nepalese feel less suspicion and hostility toward India?
Haidar: For exactly this reason the suspicion has increased. The inequality of size and capacity gets emphasized because of these realities [of dependence], and increases the Nepalese sense of vulnerability. You use the word "special." I recall more than 30 years ago an Indian delegation that had gone to Nepal, and came back empty-handed because of this word "special." The Indian delegation felt some reference to a "special" relationship had to be included in the final communique. For Nepal, this was unacceptable. Sovereign equals have normal relations. A special relationship implies a certain inequality. That's not acceptable as a concept for Nepal.

TIME: But wouldn't Nepal lose a lot if the two countries had a "normal relationship?"
Haidar: Their perception is that certain realities are irreversible. For example, there are so many Nepalese living in India that you cannot suddenly clamp down on them and say you can't live here anymore. [Nepalese are free to live and work in India without visas or permits, and around four million do so.]

TIME: For decades India and Nepal have been in negotiations over the use of their common boundary river, the Mahakali. You were involved in the 1996 Mahakali River agreement, but it still has not been implemented. What's happening?
Haidar: Natural resources by their very nature are a very sensitive matter politically. We agreed to help develop the area, and we envisage there will be more such agreements allowing both countries to jointly exploit the tremendous hydroelectric and water resources that Nepal has.

TIME: Yet Nepal's parliament has still not ratified the agreement.
Haidar: The issue was deliberately politicized by a group within the UML [United Marxists-Leninists] party that felt uneasy with this kind of linkage between India and Nepal. The UML supported the Mahakali agreement when it was in the ruling coalition, but by the time the agreement came up for ratification before parliament, the party was in opposition. And under the influence of a group within the party, the UML took a contrary view. This demonstrates how in a democracy, groups that are very much a part of the political system are capable of having a disproportionate impact on events. It's not very different from what you see in India, where quite often, small pressure groups can have a huge impact. The agreement is not dead though and may well get implemented.

TIME: Historically, New Delhi has been wary of China's influence in Kathmandu. How far does that account for problems in India-Nepal relations?
Haidar: After the India-China border war in 1962, there was extreme sensitivity on India's part and great reluctance to see Nepal as just another neighbor with whom normal relations could develop. We felt that for India's security, a special relationship needed to be affirmed. This provided an opening for China, and Beijing made a determined attempt to wean Nepal away from a dependence on India for its economic growth and political structures. But as relations between India and China have taken on a different character, the sense of Nepal being able to play one against the other has faded. Today, I don't think that Beijing is a decisive factor in India-Nepal relations.

TIME: There's a lot of talk about Pakistan, especially its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, fishing in Nepal's troubled waters.
Haidar: Let's not lose perspective. On the whole relations between India and Nepal are very good. Communication between the two governments is excellent. But problems are bound to crop up due to the imbalance [between the two countries]. Organizations like the ISI can fish in the troubled parts of Nepal's waters -- there will be groups that are susceptible to ISI influence, but these are not groups that dominate or control Nepalese policy. They can and do make trouble for India, and we know that some politicians are very close to the ISI and are ready to do their bidding. But let that not be seen as evidence of the ISI dominating Nepalese policy.

TIME: So it would be simplistic to say that the latest anti-India riots were organized, as some commentators insist, by either the Bombay underworld or the ISI?
Haidar: The match could have been lit by anyone, but what is more significant is that the tinder is there. There is uneasiness among various Nepalese over how India can dominate them, and violate their sentiments and their rights.

TIME: So what can India do to try and improve this "big brother" image it has in Nepal?
Haidar: India has to tread with care and show some genuine respect. It has to understand that Nepal is a sovereign country that will not move at India's bidding, even in matters where India will be touchy. Nepal may not want to get absorbed into an Indian pattern of economic growth, and may want to pursue a different path. A greater respect on India's side for Nepalese sentiment and independence, for autonomous processes of growth and development, would be helpful. But even if India adopts a sensitive policy, the risk of an accident remains due to the imbalance in size and capacity of the two neighbors.

TIME: Around 100,000 people of Nepali origin who were thrown out of Bhutan continue to live in refugee camps in Nepal without much hope of going home. Can't India do more to help Nepal overcome this problem?
Haidar: Nepal and Bhutan are friendly neighbors, and if we get involved, we'd be blamed by both. President Clinton expressed hope recently that this issue would be settled. And there have been some high-level American visitors [to South Asia] also trying to find a solution. There's an expectation now that the stalled process of identifying those refugees eligible for repatriation back to Bhutan will be resumed. This is a matter in which India's good offices should be made available to both sides, but so far New Delhi has chosen not to intervene.

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.

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.”

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

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.