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.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Sample Focus Piece from International Boundary Monitor
A Sample Focus Piece from International Boundary Monitor (15 May 1998),
by International Boundary Consultants
India's Boundary Disputes with China, Nepal, and Pakistan
The recent detonation of a series of nuclear devices by India and Pakistan has increased tension in South Asia and threatens to inflame long-standing boundary disputes that India has with China, Nepal, and Pakistan. The disputes with China and Pakistan have already triggered several wars. The new Hindu-nationalist government in New Delhi has reversed movement toward détente with Beijing and Islamabad. The areas in contention with China and Pakistan are among the largest land-boundary disputes in the world. The Indo-Nepali dispute over Kalapani is more recent and involves a small area.
India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh)
In the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China seized a Switzerland-sized area, Aksai Chin (Aksayqin), and overran Arunachal Pradesh (an Indian state the size of Austria). There are also other, smaller pockets of disputed area.[1] The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which approximates the McMahon Line that is found in a 1914 agreement initialed by British, Tibetan, and Chinese representatives.[2] Chinese and Indian forces clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh in 1986-87. Relations began to thaw in 1988.
On 7 September 1993, China and India signed an accord to reduce tensions along their border and to respect the LAC. During November 1996, China and India agreed to delimit the LAC and institute confidence-building measures (CBMs) along the frontier. The agreement pledged nonaggression, prior notification of large troop movements, a 10-km no-fly zone for combat aircraft, and exchange of maps to resolve disagreements about the precise location of the LAC. In August 1997 the sides ratified the CBM agreement. There seems to have been little substantive progress, except for a series of high-level visits.[3] The most recent, on 27 April, was the first visit by a PRC Chief of Staff to India. However, two weeks before the visit the new Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandes, accused the PRC of repeated violations of Indian territory, including the construction of a helipad on "Indian" territory in the disputed zone, and of aiding Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. On 3 May he publicly labeled China as India's number one threat and alleged that the PRC was stockpiling nuclear weapons in Tibet, expanding naval activity off the Burmese coast, and conducting surveillance against India from Burma's Coco Islands.[4] After the visit of General Fu Quanyou and PRC protests, Fernandes said that his characterization of China as India's principal threat was a personal view, but he went on to pledge that the number of Indian troops along the frontier with China would not be reduced. Such a statement calls into question part of the agreed CBMs. (To view a map of this area click here.)
China and India have yet to address their fundamental and very large land boundary disputes. Moreover, their bilateral relations are complicated by the issues of Tibet (Xizang), Sikkim, and Kashmir. India plays host to the Dalai Lama and a large number of Tibetan refugees. They present an implicit threat to Chinese control of Tibet, which it invaded in 1950. On its maps, the PRC continues to portray Sikkim, which was absorbed by India in 1974, as an independent country. In addition to the Aksai Chin, China and India dispute another section of Kashmir (the area west of Aksai Chin).
India-Pakistan-China (Kashmir)
When India and Pakistan became independent of Great Britain in 1947, the various princely states, including that of Jammu and Kashmir, could accede to either country. An armed revolt of Muslim peasantry against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir prompted the Maharaja to accede to India in order to gain military aid. Pakistan objected and the countries went to war. The matter was taken up by the UN Security Council in 1948, which adopted a resolution calling for the restoration of order, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces and reduction of Indian forces, and a UN plebiscite. India and Pakistan objected to various of these provisions. They went to war over Kashmir again in 1965. In 1971 India intervened in Pakistan's civil war that led to the independence of Bangladesh. India and Pakistan came close to war over Kashmir in 1990. (To view a map of this area click here.)
UN observers monitor part of the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire line. The current line was established by the 1972 Simla accord and approximately follows the 1949 Cease-fire Line. The coordinates of the Simla line have not been published, and the line was never delimited in the forbidding Siachin Glacier, near the Chinese frontier, where India and Pakistan frequently trade artillery rounds. Firing incidents and allegations of infiltration are chronic along the entire cease-fire line.
The Indian-controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir became a state in 1974. The parts of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, have anomalous status as administered territories. In 1963 China and Pakistan delimited a boundary that India claims illegally gave part of Kashmir to China. In 1987 a Sino-Pakistani protocol formalized demarcation of their boundary. The termination of this boundary at the Karakoram Pass on the Chinese line of control suggests that Pakistan recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin, which is part of the former Princely State of Kashmir.
India and Pakistan have held sporadic talks. In June 1997, they agreed to eight issues for discussion, including the issue of Kashmir and their maritime boundary. Pakistan wants to set-up a separate task force on Kashmir; India has resisted the idea. Talks have made little progress due to changes in the respective governments. The recent efforts by US Ambassador Richardson to resolve the dispute seem to have been blown out of the water by Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests.
India-Nepal (Kalapani)
The dispute between India and Nepal involves about 75 sq km of area in Kalapani, where China, India, and Nepal meet. Indian forces occupied the area in 1962 after China and India fought their border war.[5] Three villages are located in the disputed zone: Kuti [Kuthi, 30°19'N, 80°46'E], Gunji, and Knabe. India and Nepal disagree about how to interpret the 1816 Sugauli treaty between the British East India Company and Nepal, which delimited the boundary along the Maha Kali River (Sarda River in India). The dispute intensified in 1997 as the Nepali parliament considered a treaty on hydro-electric development of the river. India and Nepal differ as to which stream constitutes the source of the river. Nepal regards the Limpiyadhura as the source; India claims the Lipu Lekh. Nepal has reportedly tabled an 1856 map from the British India Office to support its position. The countries have held several meetings about the dispute and discussed jointly surveying to resolve the issue.[6] Although the Indo-Nepali dispute appears to be minor, it was aggravated in 1962 by tensions between China and India. Because the disputed area lies near the Sino-Indian frontier, it gains strategic value.
Like most boundary dispute, those of India with its neighbors are symptomatic of wider bilateral relations. Boundaries are manifestations of national identity. They can be trip-wires of war. Recent developments in South Asia suggest that peaceful resolution of these disputes is receding from reach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The author wishes to thank the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues, US Department of State for providing information used in the preparation of the accompanying maps. However, the views expressed are those of the author and do not represent United States policy.
2. Although the US government has a general policy of staying neutral in foreign boundary disputes, the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict prompted the US President and Secretary of State publicly to affirm India's claim line in Arunachal Pradesh.
3. The Pioneer (Delhi, 7 May 1998), p. 8.
4. AFP (Hong Kong) 3 May 1998; Jansatta (Delhi, 5 May 1998), p. 6; Associated Press (Beijing) 5 May 1998.
5. Kyodo (Tokyo) 9 September 1997.
6. The Kathmandu Post, 16 July 1997, 2 July 1997, 31 May 1996; The Hindustan Times (Delhi), 9 June 1997, p. 13; Xinhua 11 April 1997.
by International Boundary Consultants
India's Boundary Disputes with China, Nepal, and Pakistan
The recent detonation of a series of nuclear devices by India and Pakistan has increased tension in South Asia and threatens to inflame long-standing boundary disputes that India has with China, Nepal, and Pakistan. The disputes with China and Pakistan have already triggered several wars. The new Hindu-nationalist government in New Delhi has reversed movement toward détente with Beijing and Islamabad. The areas in contention with China and Pakistan are among the largest land-boundary disputes in the world. The Indo-Nepali dispute over Kalapani is more recent and involves a small area.
India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh)
In the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China seized a Switzerland-sized area, Aksai Chin (Aksayqin), and overran Arunachal Pradesh (an Indian state the size of Austria). There are also other, smaller pockets of disputed area.[1] The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which approximates the McMahon Line that is found in a 1914 agreement initialed by British, Tibetan, and Chinese representatives.[2] Chinese and Indian forces clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh in 1986-87. Relations began to thaw in 1988.
On 7 September 1993, China and India signed an accord to reduce tensions along their border and to respect the LAC. During November 1996, China and India agreed to delimit the LAC and institute confidence-building measures (CBMs) along the frontier. The agreement pledged nonaggression, prior notification of large troop movements, a 10-km no-fly zone for combat aircraft, and exchange of maps to resolve disagreements about the precise location of the LAC. In August 1997 the sides ratified the CBM agreement. There seems to have been little substantive progress, except for a series of high-level visits.[3] The most recent, on 27 April, was the first visit by a PRC Chief of Staff to India. However, two weeks before the visit the new Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandes, accused the PRC of repeated violations of Indian territory, including the construction of a helipad on "Indian" territory in the disputed zone, and of aiding Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. On 3 May he publicly labeled China as India's number one threat and alleged that the PRC was stockpiling nuclear weapons in Tibet, expanding naval activity off the Burmese coast, and conducting surveillance against India from Burma's Coco Islands.[4] After the visit of General Fu Quanyou and PRC protests, Fernandes said that his characterization of China as India's principal threat was a personal view, but he went on to pledge that the number of Indian troops along the frontier with China would not be reduced. Such a statement calls into question part of the agreed CBMs. (To view a map of this area click here.)
China and India have yet to address their fundamental and very large land boundary disputes. Moreover, their bilateral relations are complicated by the issues of Tibet (Xizang), Sikkim, and Kashmir. India plays host to the Dalai Lama and a large number of Tibetan refugees. They present an implicit threat to Chinese control of Tibet, which it invaded in 1950. On its maps, the PRC continues to portray Sikkim, which was absorbed by India in 1974, as an independent country. In addition to the Aksai Chin, China and India dispute another section of Kashmir (the area west of Aksai Chin).
India-Pakistan-China (Kashmir)
When India and Pakistan became independent of Great Britain in 1947, the various princely states, including that of Jammu and Kashmir, could accede to either country. An armed revolt of Muslim peasantry against the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir prompted the Maharaja to accede to India in order to gain military aid. Pakistan objected and the countries went to war. The matter was taken up by the UN Security Council in 1948, which adopted a resolution calling for the restoration of order, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces and reduction of Indian forces, and a UN plebiscite. India and Pakistan objected to various of these provisions. They went to war over Kashmir again in 1965. In 1971 India intervened in Pakistan's civil war that led to the independence of Bangladesh. India and Pakistan came close to war over Kashmir in 1990. (To view a map of this area click here.)
UN observers monitor part of the Indo-Pakistani cease-fire line. The current line was established by the 1972 Simla accord and approximately follows the 1949 Cease-fire Line. The coordinates of the Simla line have not been published, and the line was never delimited in the forbidding Siachin Glacier, near the Chinese frontier, where India and Pakistan frequently trade artillery rounds. Firing incidents and allegations of infiltration are chronic along the entire cease-fire line.
The Indian-controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir became a state in 1974. The parts of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, have anomalous status as administered territories. In 1963 China and Pakistan delimited a boundary that India claims illegally gave part of Kashmir to China. In 1987 a Sino-Pakistani protocol formalized demarcation of their boundary. The termination of this boundary at the Karakoram Pass on the Chinese line of control suggests that Pakistan recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin, which is part of the former Princely State of Kashmir.
India and Pakistan have held sporadic talks. In June 1997, they agreed to eight issues for discussion, including the issue of Kashmir and their maritime boundary. Pakistan wants to set-up a separate task force on Kashmir; India has resisted the idea. Talks have made little progress due to changes in the respective governments. The recent efforts by US Ambassador Richardson to resolve the dispute seem to have been blown out of the water by Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests.
India-Nepal (Kalapani)
The dispute between India and Nepal involves about 75 sq km of area in Kalapani, where China, India, and Nepal meet. Indian forces occupied the area in 1962 after China and India fought their border war.[5] Three villages are located in the disputed zone: Kuti [Kuthi, 30°19'N, 80°46'E], Gunji, and Knabe. India and Nepal disagree about how to interpret the 1816 Sugauli treaty between the British East India Company and Nepal, which delimited the boundary along the Maha Kali River (Sarda River in India). The dispute intensified in 1997 as the Nepali parliament considered a treaty on hydro-electric development of the river. India and Nepal differ as to which stream constitutes the source of the river. Nepal regards the Limpiyadhura as the source; India claims the Lipu Lekh. Nepal has reportedly tabled an 1856 map from the British India Office to support its position. The countries have held several meetings about the dispute and discussed jointly surveying to resolve the issue.[6] Although the Indo-Nepali dispute appears to be minor, it was aggravated in 1962 by tensions between China and India. Because the disputed area lies near the Sino-Indian frontier, it gains strategic value.
Like most boundary dispute, those of India with its neighbors are symptomatic of wider bilateral relations. Boundaries are manifestations of national identity. They can be trip-wires of war. Recent developments in South Asia suggest that peaceful resolution of these disputes is receding from reach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The author wishes to thank the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues, US Department of State for providing information used in the preparation of the accompanying maps. However, the views expressed are those of the author and do not represent United States policy.
2. Although the US government has a general policy of staying neutral in foreign boundary disputes, the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict prompted the US President and Secretary of State publicly to affirm India's claim line in Arunachal Pradesh.
3. The Pioneer (Delhi, 7 May 1998), p. 8.
4. AFP (Hong Kong) 3 May 1998; Jansatta (Delhi, 5 May 1998), p. 6; Associated Press (Beijing) 5 May 1998.
5. Kyodo (Tokyo) 9 September 1997.
6. The Kathmandu Post, 16 July 1997, 2 July 1997, 31 May 1996; The Hindustan Times (Delhi), 9 June 1997, p. 13; Xinhua 11 April 1997.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Height of an Indian's hegemony over Nepal
"Ashok Mehta's commentary "Nepal needs a make over" is totally biased, prejudiced irresponsive and cunning in nature."
Ashok Mehta's commentary "Nepal needs a make over" placed at web site www.dailypioneer.com is totally biased, prejudiced, irresponsive and cunning in nature. With what dignity and authority an Indian Army retired red tape dared to comment over the personal issues of an independent and sovereign nation, Nepal?
Contents of Mehta's this spinning script demonstrates that he holds a latent conspiracy and has several ploys against the peace and prosperity of Nepal. Mehta's conspiracy might derail the ongoing peace process in Nepal and affect the safety and security of entire regions in South Asia. Who is to blame for these repercussions?
No doubts, why this retired Indian Army General had faced several disciplinary actions including serious Military charges like Court martial in his midterm Army career. It is not enough of him. All the Nepalese responsive citizens remember the black days of Mehata's past stay in Nepal.
"
One can still identify those innocent Nepalese village girls who were sexually exploited and harassed by this unethical and irresponsive General. So, Mr. Mehta is advised that instead of spitting venom and throwing provocative comments over Nepal's fate he should better regret himself for his crooked mentality and inhuman acts over innocent and ignorant Nepalese souls.
Mehta's identity can never be abolished in this entire South Asian region. It is an open secret that Mehta is the key actor of Indian intelligence Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) being activated in SAARC region? Ask any innocent SIKKIMESE or BHUTANESE citizen about the cunningness and conspiracy of this crooked personality.
It is true that this fox is plugging a thrilling conspiracy against the aspirations and quest of Nepalese people. Nepalese Patriots! Beware!! What concern does he have with the freedom and rights of Nepalese citizens? How will he feel if a Nepalese citizens fiddle with the policy of his country, India?
Mehta has no rights and authority to interrupt over the personal matters of Nepal. We Nepalese people also have sound brains to handle our internal problems. We are conscious about Mehta's grand design of "SIKKIMIZATION" of Nepal. So, honorable court martial experienced General! Instead of advocating for your puppet political party (CPN Maoists), you should advise Nepalese policy makers for the better solutions of bringing peace and stability in your neighborhood.
You must realize that you live in this region too. Mehta should better stop acting over smart. He should better be a good neighbor and survive in safe neighborhood. Remember every action has always equal and opposite reaction. Never dream of reincarnating LENDUP DORJE in Nepal. Why not you scan your biography and seek apology from the sober Nepalese people for your inhuman past behavior in Nepal.
Ashok Mehta's commentary "Nepal needs a make over" placed at web site www.dailypioneer.com is totally biased, prejudiced, irresponsive and cunning in nature. With what dignity and authority an Indian Army retired red tape dared to comment over the personal issues of an independent and sovereign nation, Nepal?
Contents of Mehta's this spinning script demonstrates that he holds a latent conspiracy and has several ploys against the peace and prosperity of Nepal. Mehta's conspiracy might derail the ongoing peace process in Nepal and affect the safety and security of entire regions in South Asia. Who is to blame for these repercussions?
No doubts, why this retired Indian Army General had faced several disciplinary actions including serious Military charges like Court martial in his midterm Army career. It is not enough of him. All the Nepalese responsive citizens remember the black days of Mehata's past stay in Nepal.
"
One can still identify those innocent Nepalese village girls who were sexually exploited and harassed by this unethical and irresponsive General. So, Mr. Mehta is advised that instead of spitting venom and throwing provocative comments over Nepal's fate he should better regret himself for his crooked mentality and inhuman acts over innocent and ignorant Nepalese souls.
Mehta's identity can never be abolished in this entire South Asian region. It is an open secret that Mehta is the key actor of Indian intelligence Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) being activated in SAARC region? Ask any innocent SIKKIMESE or BHUTANESE citizen about the cunningness and conspiracy of this crooked personality.
It is true that this fox is plugging a thrilling conspiracy against the aspirations and quest of Nepalese people. Nepalese Patriots! Beware!! What concern does he have with the freedom and rights of Nepalese citizens? How will he feel if a Nepalese citizens fiddle with the policy of his country, India?
Mehta has no rights and authority to interrupt over the personal matters of Nepal. We Nepalese people also have sound brains to handle our internal problems. We are conscious about Mehta's grand design of "SIKKIMIZATION" of Nepal. So, honorable court martial experienced General! Instead of advocating for your puppet political party (CPN Maoists), you should advise Nepalese policy makers for the better solutions of bringing peace and stability in your neighborhood.
You must realize that you live in this region too. Mehta should better stop acting over smart. He should better be a good neighbor and survive in safe neighborhood. Remember every action has always equal and opposite reaction. Never dream of reincarnating LENDUP DORJE in Nepal. Why not you scan your biography and seek apology from the sober Nepalese people for your inhuman past behavior in Nepal.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
90 per cent of Interference in Nepal comes from India: Mahara
In an exclusive interview with the Kantipur Daily dated September 20, 2009, Mr. Krishna Bahadur Mahara of the Unified Maoists’ party accepts that in the fresh visit of party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to Hong Kong, the Maoists’ team had met with some high placed China's leadership.
Say experts, the Maoist’s Party of Nepal that is sharing worst relations with India after the fall of the Maoists’ led government on May 4, 2009, the increasing hobnob with the Chinese regime of the Maoists’ leadership thereafter, and, of late Prachanda’s secret meeting with the Chinese leadership in Hong Kong has sent (it has already been sent) spine chilling waves to the coercive New Delhi leadership which unfortunately provided shelter to the leaders of the Maoists’ Party, including Mr. Mahara for over a decade. What an unjust world? Bear with it!
Mahara replying to a query posed by Kantipur says that Mrs. Nirupama Rao, the Indian Foreign Secretary while in Kathmandu had met with Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, the Maoists’ party vice chairman and her meet with Bhattarai meant that the Maoists party still accorded priority to the Indian establishment.
“What could show our respect to her than our vice chairman meeting her” Mahara asks.
Mahara, the international bureau chief of the Maoists party however, rejects the idea that the Maoists’ want enhanced relations with China at the cost of India.
“We have good relations with various political forces of India as well”, Mahara thus politely rubs ointment in the Indian wound.
“We feel that we must share enhanced relations with China as well, we are in the process of developing such relations with the northern neighbor...the practice has already begun", adds Mahara.
“Not just India and China, we must build cordial and friendly relations with other countries, beyond the countries in the neighborhood.”
“We are positive towards relations that Nepal shares with India”, he says adding, “But, we will never tolerate the Indian interference in Nepali politics.”
“Yes, our relations with India are slightly strained but not at that level as that could not be corrected", he continues.
Some Indian citizens are worried in having concluded that the Nepali Maoists did not come to their fold”, Mahara says forwarding a suggestion that “such mindset must be changed.”
“There is absolutely no space to criticize Chinese political interference in Nepal”, he says “as far as interference of India and China is concerned in Nepal affairs, the fact is that of the total, 90 per cent of political interference in Nepal originate from the Indian side”.
A daring declaration indeed.
Mahara honestly tells the Kantipur that “Chinese interference may only account to 10 per cent”.
“China is clear on its Nepal policy”, Mahara says, “The Chinese support is clear in that it comes through the proper channel of the Nepal Government.”
Say experts, the Maoist’s Party of Nepal that is sharing worst relations with India after the fall of the Maoists’ led government on May 4, 2009, the increasing hobnob with the Chinese regime of the Maoists’ leadership thereafter, and, of late Prachanda’s secret meeting with the Chinese leadership in Hong Kong has sent (it has already been sent) spine chilling waves to the coercive New Delhi leadership which unfortunately provided shelter to the leaders of the Maoists’ Party, including Mr. Mahara for over a decade. What an unjust world? Bear with it!
Mahara replying to a query posed by Kantipur says that Mrs. Nirupama Rao, the Indian Foreign Secretary while in Kathmandu had met with Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, the Maoists’ party vice chairman and her meet with Bhattarai meant that the Maoists party still accorded priority to the Indian establishment.
“What could show our respect to her than our vice chairman meeting her” Mahara asks.
Mahara, the international bureau chief of the Maoists party however, rejects the idea that the Maoists’ want enhanced relations with China at the cost of India.
“We have good relations with various political forces of India as well”, Mahara thus politely rubs ointment in the Indian wound.
“We feel that we must share enhanced relations with China as well, we are in the process of developing such relations with the northern neighbor...the practice has already begun", adds Mahara.
“Not just India and China, we must build cordial and friendly relations with other countries, beyond the countries in the neighborhood.”
“We are positive towards relations that Nepal shares with India”, he says adding, “But, we will never tolerate the Indian interference in Nepali politics.”
“Yes, our relations with India are slightly strained but not at that level as that could not be corrected", he continues.
Some Indian citizens are worried in having concluded that the Nepali Maoists did not come to their fold”, Mahara says forwarding a suggestion that “such mindset must be changed.”
“There is absolutely no space to criticize Chinese political interference in Nepal”, he says “as far as interference of India and China is concerned in Nepal affairs, the fact is that of the total, 90 per cent of political interference in Nepal originate from the Indian side”.
A daring declaration indeed.
Mahara honestly tells the Kantipur that “Chinese interference may only account to 10 per cent”.
“China is clear on its Nepal policy”, Mahara says, “The Chinese support is clear in that it comes through the proper channel of the Nepal Government.”
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Why has India invited Jhalnath Khanal
Why has India invited Jhalnath Khanal to India. Its not a surprise because India wants to tame Jhalnath Khanal like KP OLI and Madhav Kumar Nepal.
The Terai-based parties are quite and not protesting beacuse in Terai India is exposed. The RAW has been very active in Terai for long but the problem started when the Americans and West powers including China told India not to meddle the Terai and create unrest.
But Indian has started new policy of cosying CPN (UML) as it has invited party chairman Jhalnatha Khanal.
The power bloc in , created in 1947, does not sincerely recognize Nepal as an independent country. It talks about Nepal’s independence in only those times when it diplomatically needs to avoid bad consequences of its “doings” in Nepal. It treats Nepal as territory for playing out its power games. And it plays these games “internally” by promising each “big” leader of every Nepali political party the post of Nepal’s prime ministership/presidency. The memoirs/books by BP Koirala, GM Singh, KP Bhattarai, MP Koirala, Bharat Mohan Adhikari eloquently record the way the power bloc of India plays in Nepal.
This also explains the rationale for short term tenure of government leadership in Nepal (10 prime ministers in the last 10 years) and the incentive this (short term tenure of the government leadership) holds for the Indian power bloc.
Just compare the size (territory) of India had when it was created in 1947 and the one it claims now. One may visit a good library for the yearly Almanac of the Statesman (Calcutta) and pick up it for 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 (this is an example for yearly sample and interval). This will very clearly establish not only the fact about the up- scaling “elasticity” of TROI territory in Trans-Himalayan Asia but also the unilaterally imposed so-called open border on the innocent people of Nepal.
India is manipulative enough to work “internally” in Nepal as its formal takeover or annexation of Nepal will bring it directly over to Tibet Autonomous Region of China; and the security and economic costs of such doing will be simply infinite for India.
Sensing this China has started the campaign in Kashmir treating it as a separate country.
The Chinese are more watchful of Indian activities in Nepal and now India feels it should have its pseudo-Nepali voice. So, India's RAW started The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post to start their propaganda in Nepal against its neighbours.
If one reads The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post, the news aganist China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan are always front page. The editors of both the newspapers are not journalists but the Indian-paid dogs who can only bark in front of other Nepali collegues but lick the Indians boot.
There is no difference between Rishi Dhamala and these editors, who are RAW agents. They should be arrested and put behind the bars for the security of the country and its sovereignty.
by Upendra Gautam
The Terai-based parties are quite and not protesting beacuse in Terai India is exposed. The RAW has been very active in Terai for long but the problem started when the Americans and West powers including China told India not to meddle the Terai and create unrest.
But Indian has started new policy of cosying CPN (UML) as it has invited party chairman Jhalnatha Khanal.
The power bloc in , created in 1947, does not sincerely recognize Nepal as an independent country. It talks about Nepal’s independence in only those times when it diplomatically needs to avoid bad consequences of its “doings” in Nepal. It treats Nepal as territory for playing out its power games. And it plays these games “internally” by promising each “big” leader of every Nepali political party the post of Nepal’s prime ministership/presidency. The memoirs/books by BP Koirala, GM Singh, KP Bhattarai, MP Koirala, Bharat Mohan Adhikari eloquently record the way the power bloc of India plays in Nepal.
This also explains the rationale for short term tenure of government leadership in Nepal (10 prime ministers in the last 10 years) and the incentive this (short term tenure of the government leadership) holds for the Indian power bloc.
Just compare the size (territory) of India had when it was created in 1947 and the one it claims now. One may visit a good library for the yearly Almanac of the Statesman (Calcutta) and pick up it for 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 (this is an example for yearly sample and interval). This will very clearly establish not only the fact about the up- scaling “elasticity” of TROI territory in Trans-Himalayan Asia but also the unilaterally imposed so-called open border on the innocent people of Nepal.
India is manipulative enough to work “internally” in Nepal as its formal takeover or annexation of Nepal will bring it directly over to Tibet Autonomous Region of China; and the security and economic costs of such doing will be simply infinite for India.
Sensing this China has started the campaign in Kashmir treating it as a separate country.
The Chinese are more watchful of Indian activities in Nepal and now India feels it should have its pseudo-Nepali voice. So, India's RAW started The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post to start their propaganda in Nepal against its neighbours.
If one reads The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post, the news aganist China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan are always front page. The editors of both the newspapers are not journalists but the Indian-paid dogs who can only bark in front of other Nepali collegues but lick the Indians boot.
There is no difference between Rishi Dhamala and these editors, who are RAW agents. They should be arrested and put behind the bars for the security of the country and its sovereignty.
by Upendra Gautam
Friday, October 30, 2009
Why Nepal hates India:-Delhi’s Maoist headache
Bharat (aka India) has problems with all the countries surrounding it. No other country on the planet has had war with all her neighbors. Bharati attempts at taking over Nepal have backfired. Even though Nepal is Hindu majority country, it does not want to be part of Bharat. Delhi has been interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal for the past six decades–at one point imposing a trade embargo on the land locked country. It’s impossible to imagine that Delhi can be convinced to play a creative and helpful role in Nepal’s peace process. Bharat is aflame, from the tip of Nepal down to the depths of Andhara Pradesh in a rebellion that control about 40% of the land mass of Bharat. The flaring Maoist insurgency within Bharat and the emotional kinship that Nepali Maoists want to share with their Chinese brethren is a huge impediment to Nepali-Bharati relations.
The mountain Hindu kingdom of Nepal; India wants to take it over. The Maoists more freindly with China then Delhi want to keep Nepal independent
The Maoists recently quit the government protesting Indian interference. Peace is in jeopardy in the Himalayan state. The issue–getting rid of a pro-Indian general who had refused to listen to the Pro-Chinese Maoist rime Minister. The Maoists are a huge migraine headache for Delhi. The Maoists support the Naxaliteswhich control 40% of the Indian landmass. Once in power the Maoists continue their links with the Naxalites. Red Nepal: Clear and present danger to India
The Maoists are mad at Delhi for the interference. If India continues its diktat, the Maoists could retreat to the mountains and begin the war once again. China has a lot of influence in Napal.
The Bharati establishment has to stop interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs, which is making Delhi’s relations bad with her neighbros to the North, West, East and South. Looking at the countries which surround Bharat, one can see that all are unfriendly. Delhi needs deep introspection, and take measures to make neighboring countries more friendly rather than alienating them. Nepal wants to scrap much hated “Treaty of Friendship” with India
The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal allows for free movement of people and goods between the two nations and a close relationship and collaboration on defence and foreign affairs. For New Delhi, the treaty is a tool to lessen Beijing’s influence on Kathmandu. But it has been drawing flak in Nepal, with the Maoists who now outnumber others in the Himalayan country’s Constituent Assembly demanding revision of the treaty.
Bharat can continue to view the North with suspicion. Delh can let the Maoists be the over-riding objective of its Nepal policy or be a good neighor. The choice is for Delhi to make. It can continue to pro-actively interfere in Nepal as it has been doing since 2005 or it can learn to appreciate the growing communists in Nepal and deal with them. Interference has been counterproductive for Delhi.
Naxalite insurgency spreading like wildfire in Bharat. Hindustan's Maoist insurgency map. There are secessionist movements in almost every state in "India" encompasisng more than 200 districts. The Naxals have been supported by the Maoists in Nepal. With the Maoist victory in Nepal the Naxals and Maoists of Bharat are increasingly more assertive
India seems to have lost the battle for influence in Nepal. Once the Big Brother that controlled every aspect of of Nepali life, Delhi has little influence on decision making in Kathmandu. When Delhi tries to force its will, the Nepalis don’t listen. Nepali Maoists fouhgt a long and protracted war of independence from Indian interference. The people of Nepal won, and put the Pro-Chinese Maoists in power.
The Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao arrives in Kathmandu on her first visit to its Norhtern neighbor. Bharati interference has brought the peace process to the brink. Nepal is grappling with its most serious political crisis since the king abdicated power to parliament. Nuclear flashpoint: How India lost Nepal to China
India has to make certain difficult policy choices, reconcile the contradictions between its stated aims and actions, determine whether it remains committed to the process it helped facilitate, and use its leverage accordingly.
The fragile Madhav Nepal-led ruling coalition faces a severe crisis of legitimacy and a belligerent Maoist opposition. The Maoists have boycotted the legislature-parliament, paralysing government business to the extent that the budget has not yet been passed. They have demanded a house discussion on President Ram Baran Yadav’s “unconstitutional action” over-riding the Maoist government’s decision to sack the then Army Chief General Rukmangad Katawal in early May — a demand rejected by the other parties in government who see no wrong in what the President did. The Maoists have also launched a street movement, with the slogan of instituting “civilian supremacy” and a “Maoist-led national government.”
The Constitution-writing process is in limbo, with the Constituent Assembly changing its timeline for the sixth time, raising serious doubts whether the statute can be prepared by May 2010. The peace process lies dormant, with little progress on the integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army, presently in United Nations-supervised cantonments. The political polarisation in Kathmandu has left the state weak and unreformed, further fuelling semi-militant ethnic movements of Tharus in western Tarai, Madhesis in eastern Tarai, and Limbus in eastern hills. The Hindu. (Prashant Jha is a Kathmandu-based journalist.)
Maoists insurgents in Nepal and Naxalites in India. The Naxals control 40% of the land
This ever growing enmity will not allow Indian policymakers to make any concessions to the Nepali Maoists. Indian policymakers want the Maoists to kneel down, come to its terms of reference, and to hand them the job of running the country. The Nepali Maoists seem to have ditched that traditional style of ruling if their public rhetoric is anything to go by. There is no military solution to the problem. Delhi has tried it and failed. The Maoists took over Nepal and are gaining in strength in Bharat. Delhi finds itself in a fix. Given such a precarious situation, the question about who will blink first and how is important. If Maoists indeed succeed in toppling this government either by playing within the contradictions of colourful partners of the coalition or through a mass revolt, it’s not convincing that they may be able to run the country without India’s support. If they do have something of this sort in their mind, they must have done sufficient homework to rope in China into the country as never before.
Domestic roots
The present crisis, result of the ouster of the Maoists from the government in May, has domestic roots.
There is a deep trust deficit between Nepal’s older political parties and the Maoists. The former feel that the Maoists have not changed the ultimate aim of “state capture” and are not committed to multiparty democracy. The inability of these parties, both the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), to challenge the Maoists politically has added to their insecurity. The Maoists see the others as “stooges of feudals and reactionaries,” unable to reconcile themselves with the popular aspirations of change, and to accept that Maoists are legitimately the strongest political force in Nepal.
Add to this the trust deficit between the Maoists and the Nepal Army, especially under the previous chief, General Katawal, who the Maoists had sought to dismiss. The top brass of the army sees the Maoist intentions to integrate the PLA as an attempt to “politicise” and “take over” the army. Maoist dogmatists see the army as the final pillar of the old state that has to be reoriented drastically. The more moderate politicians, across the spectrum, recognise the need to “democratise the army” as stated by the peace accord, and “integrate” a part of the PLA — but then develop cold feet, fearing this would mean one less balancing force against the Maoists. The elevation of the more sober and restrained Chhatraman Singh Gurung as the first Janajati Chief of the Army this week has had a positive effect though, reducing tension levels.
It was this alliance of the parties and the army that led to the ouster of the Maoist government and the resulting stalemate. But India was at the centre of the crisis in May — actively opposing the Maoist move to dismiss the chief, backing the army, and then helping Madhav Nepal cobble together a majority in the house. The Indians had warned the Maoists not to “touch the army” and felt this was a Maoist move to take over all state institutions. New Delhi was increasingly uncomfortable with the Maoists’ increased engagement with China, the anti-India rhetoric of top Maoist leaders, and developed doubts about their commitment to democracy.
Since then, New Delhi has actively backed the present Madhav Nepal government — hosting him during a five-day India visit, telling interlocutors not to destabilise the present arrangement, and helping to smoothen intra-coalition differences.
New Delhi’s role
India has a choice. It can continue to let its suspicion of the Maoists be the over-riding objective of its Nepal policy, and see the country slide into confrontational politics and greater anarchy. Or it can seek to build bridges, and play a pro-active role in engineering the kind of consensus it has done since 2005 to veer Nepal back towards a stable trajectory. But for that, policymakers have to ask themselves difficult questions.
Is India still committed to Nepal’s Constitution-writing and peace process? If yes, how does it reconcile that with the opposition of powerful sections in the Indian establishment to the integration of even a part of the PLA in the Nepal Army, as stated in peace accords? Would they prefer the present drift where the country has two armies? Or are they banking on the PLA splintering off into lower level extremist groups, which looks unlikely given the strong chain of command and party discipline?
How does sustaining the present government aid the process? Does India recognise that as long as this government is in place, Maoists may not cooperate in drafting the Constitution, and without their numbers, no statute can be passed? What are the implications, for Nepal and for India, if the Constitution does not get written on time? In fact, how does encouraging a Kathmandu power structure that excludes the Maoists square up with the political reality on the ground where they are immensely strong?
How does fragmentation of the Madhesi mainstream political parties — recent moves by Delhi have added to their divisions — help the cause of stability in the Tarai? Does India still believe in using the Tarai and the Madhes movement as a counter to the Maoists and a strategic lever? Is there a recognition that continued semi-anarchy in the Tarai and a weak state right across the border could imperil India’s own security interests?
The point is not to place the onus on all that is happening in Nepal on India. Of course, domestic actors have been irresponsible. There is a deep disconnect between Maoist intentions, actions and rhetoric, and dogmatists within still dream of a communist republic. There is lack of clarity within the Nepali Congress and the UML. Factionalism is rampant. Short-term interest based politics has trumped the larger commitment to the process. And no solution can be imposed from outside.
Nirupama Rao will get acquainted with political actors, make the right noises, and back the present government during her Nepal stay. But her visit would be truly successful if she uses the trip to publicly reiterate New Delhi’s commitment and support to past political and peace agreements; tell all actors that no form of authoritarianism, right or left, is acceptable to India; build bridges with the Maoists; privately reassess India’s approach to the present power alignment; and encourage a creative roadmap to get the Nepali process back on track.
India is now trying to put in place a pro-Indian government and keep the Maoists out of power. This could be very dangerous, because it could lead of widespread Anti-Indian riots. Already the Indian companies working Nepal face an uphill battle. Various project have been put on hold and trade is in jeopardy.
Gen Hossain Mohammed Ershad, the first host of Saarc in 1985, said bluntly in a TV documentary sponsored by India’s foreign ministry that one of the main reasons for creating the grouping was that India’s smaller neighbours were ‘allergic’ to the big neighbour. ‘So we decided to bring everyone together to deal with the problem.’ Former US Senator and ex-ambassador to New Delhi Daniel Patrick Moynihan proclaimed that India is a big country, which behaves small.
I have yet to come across a serious, objective discussion in any of the newspapers why India’s neighbours are allergic to it. Instead of blaming Pakistan’s ISI sleuths who probably play a hand whenever they find an opening in determining or undermining India’s ties with its neighbours, would it not be useful for Indian intellectuals and analysts to have a meaningful discussion as to why India’s RAW or IB are unable to neutralise the damage? India helped create Bangladesh out of Pakistan, but Dhaka today has better ties with Islamabad than with New Delhi. Is it because of ISI alone? Buddhist Sri Lanka, Hindu Nepal, they all seem to have better ties with Pakistan than with India. Shouldn’t there be a commission of inquiry set up by India to investigate the lapses by its ministers, officials and sleuths that have brought the country to a pass that bewildered Moynihan? Dawn. Is India really a big nation, which behaves small? By Jawed Naqvi. Monday, 14 Sep, 2009 | 07:12 AM PST. jawednaqvi@gmail.com
Delhi is surrounded by problems of its own making. It is hated in South Asia for good reason. The “Indian Union” has had wars with all her neighbors, and it constantly interferes in the affairs of all of them. It calls all of them “failed states” proposing a raison d’etre under which it can absorb them into this huge behemoth called “Akhand Bharat“–an land mass which encompasses most of Asia– from Kabul in the West to a mystical land called Raj Kilhani, which is east of Bali in Indonesia. This is the “Bharat” that religious Bharatis dream of.
The ongoing political strife in nearby Nepal threatens to affect Indian companies working out of Nepal while India Inc continues to fight the global downturn. Hindustan Times
The Sri Lankans hate the Indians for supporting th the LTTE terrorists. The Bangladeshis are fed up with the “Rakhi Bahni” which tried to rule Bangladesh under an Indian general. The Burmese would rather be isolated than deal with a Delhi bent upon making it a protectorate, The Maldives almost drowning don’t want a lifeboat from Bharat. The Chinese have huge boundary disputes with Delhi. In the early days of independence Delhi thought that it could grab Tibet and thus bifurcate China into small pieces, perpetuating the colonial division of China. Mao Zedung would have none of that and took over Tibet, Aksai Chin and told Delhi to lay off Tibet. Then of course there are the Pakistanis, a huge impediment to Bharati hegemonistic designs in West Asia.
India is walking a diplomatic tightrope as Nepal tries to form a new government, aware that excessive meddling in its traditional “backyard” could risk pushing the fragile Himalayan democracy closer to China.
India has always seen Nepal as part of its strategic sphere of influence, but that has been challenged in the past year since the election of Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda, who before he resigned last week had edged closer to Beijing. India treads fine line in Nepal’s political crisis
The mountain Hindu kingdom of Nepal; India wants to take it over. The Maoists more freindly with China then Delhi want to keep Nepal independent
The Maoists recently quit the government protesting Indian interference. Peace is in jeopardy in the Himalayan state. The issue–getting rid of a pro-Indian general who had refused to listen to the Pro-Chinese Maoist rime Minister. The Maoists are a huge migraine headache for Delhi. The Maoists support the Naxaliteswhich control 40% of the Indian landmass. Once in power the Maoists continue their links with the Naxalites. Red Nepal: Clear and present danger to India
The Maoists are mad at Delhi for the interference. If India continues its diktat, the Maoists could retreat to the mountains and begin the war once again. China has a lot of influence in Napal.
The Bharati establishment has to stop interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs, which is making Delhi’s relations bad with her neighbros to the North, West, East and South. Looking at the countries which surround Bharat, one can see that all are unfriendly. Delhi needs deep introspection, and take measures to make neighboring countries more friendly rather than alienating them. Nepal wants to scrap much hated “Treaty of Friendship” with India
The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal allows for free movement of people and goods between the two nations and a close relationship and collaboration on defence and foreign affairs. For New Delhi, the treaty is a tool to lessen Beijing’s influence on Kathmandu. But it has been drawing flak in Nepal, with the Maoists who now outnumber others in the Himalayan country’s Constituent Assembly demanding revision of the treaty.
Bharat can continue to view the North with suspicion. Delh can let the Maoists be the over-riding objective of its Nepal policy or be a good neighor. The choice is for Delhi to make. It can continue to pro-actively interfere in Nepal as it has been doing since 2005 or it can learn to appreciate the growing communists in Nepal and deal with them. Interference has been counterproductive for Delhi.
Naxalite insurgency spreading like wildfire in Bharat. Hindustan's Maoist insurgency map. There are secessionist movements in almost every state in "India" encompasisng more than 200 districts. The Naxals have been supported by the Maoists in Nepal. With the Maoist victory in Nepal the Naxals and Maoists of Bharat are increasingly more assertive
India seems to have lost the battle for influence in Nepal. Once the Big Brother that controlled every aspect of of Nepali life, Delhi has little influence on decision making in Kathmandu. When Delhi tries to force its will, the Nepalis don’t listen. Nepali Maoists fouhgt a long and protracted war of independence from Indian interference. The people of Nepal won, and put the Pro-Chinese Maoists in power.
The Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao arrives in Kathmandu on her first visit to its Norhtern neighbor. Bharati interference has brought the peace process to the brink. Nepal is grappling with its most serious political crisis since the king abdicated power to parliament. Nuclear flashpoint: How India lost Nepal to China
India has to make certain difficult policy choices, reconcile the contradictions between its stated aims and actions, determine whether it remains committed to the process it helped facilitate, and use its leverage accordingly.
The fragile Madhav Nepal-led ruling coalition faces a severe crisis of legitimacy and a belligerent Maoist opposition. The Maoists have boycotted the legislature-parliament, paralysing government business to the extent that the budget has not yet been passed. They have demanded a house discussion on President Ram Baran Yadav’s “unconstitutional action” over-riding the Maoist government’s decision to sack the then Army Chief General Rukmangad Katawal in early May — a demand rejected by the other parties in government who see no wrong in what the President did. The Maoists have also launched a street movement, with the slogan of instituting “civilian supremacy” and a “Maoist-led national government.”
The Constitution-writing process is in limbo, with the Constituent Assembly changing its timeline for the sixth time, raising serious doubts whether the statute can be prepared by May 2010. The peace process lies dormant, with little progress on the integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army, presently in United Nations-supervised cantonments. The political polarisation in Kathmandu has left the state weak and unreformed, further fuelling semi-militant ethnic movements of Tharus in western Tarai, Madhesis in eastern Tarai, and Limbus in eastern hills. The Hindu. (Prashant Jha is a Kathmandu-based journalist.)
Maoists insurgents in Nepal and Naxalites in India. The Naxals control 40% of the land
This ever growing enmity will not allow Indian policymakers to make any concessions to the Nepali Maoists. Indian policymakers want the Maoists to kneel down, come to its terms of reference, and to hand them the job of running the country. The Nepali Maoists seem to have ditched that traditional style of ruling if their public rhetoric is anything to go by. There is no military solution to the problem. Delhi has tried it and failed. The Maoists took over Nepal and are gaining in strength in Bharat. Delhi finds itself in a fix. Given such a precarious situation, the question about who will blink first and how is important. If Maoists indeed succeed in toppling this government either by playing within the contradictions of colourful partners of the coalition or through a mass revolt, it’s not convincing that they may be able to run the country without India’s support. If they do have something of this sort in their mind, they must have done sufficient homework to rope in China into the country as never before.
Domestic roots
The present crisis, result of the ouster of the Maoists from the government in May, has domestic roots.
There is a deep trust deficit between Nepal’s older political parties and the Maoists. The former feel that the Maoists have not changed the ultimate aim of “state capture” and are not committed to multiparty democracy. The inability of these parties, both the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), to challenge the Maoists politically has added to their insecurity. The Maoists see the others as “stooges of feudals and reactionaries,” unable to reconcile themselves with the popular aspirations of change, and to accept that Maoists are legitimately the strongest political force in Nepal.
Add to this the trust deficit between the Maoists and the Nepal Army, especially under the previous chief, General Katawal, who the Maoists had sought to dismiss. The top brass of the army sees the Maoist intentions to integrate the PLA as an attempt to “politicise” and “take over” the army. Maoist dogmatists see the army as the final pillar of the old state that has to be reoriented drastically. The more moderate politicians, across the spectrum, recognise the need to “democratise the army” as stated by the peace accord, and “integrate” a part of the PLA — but then develop cold feet, fearing this would mean one less balancing force against the Maoists. The elevation of the more sober and restrained Chhatraman Singh Gurung as the first Janajati Chief of the Army this week has had a positive effect though, reducing tension levels.
It was this alliance of the parties and the army that led to the ouster of the Maoist government and the resulting stalemate. But India was at the centre of the crisis in May — actively opposing the Maoist move to dismiss the chief, backing the army, and then helping Madhav Nepal cobble together a majority in the house. The Indians had warned the Maoists not to “touch the army” and felt this was a Maoist move to take over all state institutions. New Delhi was increasingly uncomfortable with the Maoists’ increased engagement with China, the anti-India rhetoric of top Maoist leaders, and developed doubts about their commitment to democracy.
Since then, New Delhi has actively backed the present Madhav Nepal government — hosting him during a five-day India visit, telling interlocutors not to destabilise the present arrangement, and helping to smoothen intra-coalition differences.
New Delhi’s role
India has a choice. It can continue to let its suspicion of the Maoists be the over-riding objective of its Nepal policy, and see the country slide into confrontational politics and greater anarchy. Or it can seek to build bridges, and play a pro-active role in engineering the kind of consensus it has done since 2005 to veer Nepal back towards a stable trajectory. But for that, policymakers have to ask themselves difficult questions.
Is India still committed to Nepal’s Constitution-writing and peace process? If yes, how does it reconcile that with the opposition of powerful sections in the Indian establishment to the integration of even a part of the PLA in the Nepal Army, as stated in peace accords? Would they prefer the present drift where the country has two armies? Or are they banking on the PLA splintering off into lower level extremist groups, which looks unlikely given the strong chain of command and party discipline?
How does sustaining the present government aid the process? Does India recognise that as long as this government is in place, Maoists may not cooperate in drafting the Constitution, and without their numbers, no statute can be passed? What are the implications, for Nepal and for India, if the Constitution does not get written on time? In fact, how does encouraging a Kathmandu power structure that excludes the Maoists square up with the political reality on the ground where they are immensely strong?
How does fragmentation of the Madhesi mainstream political parties — recent moves by Delhi have added to their divisions — help the cause of stability in the Tarai? Does India still believe in using the Tarai and the Madhes movement as a counter to the Maoists and a strategic lever? Is there a recognition that continued semi-anarchy in the Tarai and a weak state right across the border could imperil India’s own security interests?
The point is not to place the onus on all that is happening in Nepal on India. Of course, domestic actors have been irresponsible. There is a deep disconnect between Maoist intentions, actions and rhetoric, and dogmatists within still dream of a communist republic. There is lack of clarity within the Nepali Congress and the UML. Factionalism is rampant. Short-term interest based politics has trumped the larger commitment to the process. And no solution can be imposed from outside.
Nirupama Rao will get acquainted with political actors, make the right noises, and back the present government during her Nepal stay. But her visit would be truly successful if she uses the trip to publicly reiterate New Delhi’s commitment and support to past political and peace agreements; tell all actors that no form of authoritarianism, right or left, is acceptable to India; build bridges with the Maoists; privately reassess India’s approach to the present power alignment; and encourage a creative roadmap to get the Nepali process back on track.
India is now trying to put in place a pro-Indian government and keep the Maoists out of power. This could be very dangerous, because it could lead of widespread Anti-Indian riots. Already the Indian companies working Nepal face an uphill battle. Various project have been put on hold and trade is in jeopardy.
Gen Hossain Mohammed Ershad, the first host of Saarc in 1985, said bluntly in a TV documentary sponsored by India’s foreign ministry that one of the main reasons for creating the grouping was that India’s smaller neighbours were ‘allergic’ to the big neighbour. ‘So we decided to bring everyone together to deal with the problem.’ Former US Senator and ex-ambassador to New Delhi Daniel Patrick Moynihan proclaimed that India is a big country, which behaves small.
I have yet to come across a serious, objective discussion in any of the newspapers why India’s neighbours are allergic to it. Instead of blaming Pakistan’s ISI sleuths who probably play a hand whenever they find an opening in determining or undermining India’s ties with its neighbours, would it not be useful for Indian intellectuals and analysts to have a meaningful discussion as to why India’s RAW or IB are unable to neutralise the damage? India helped create Bangladesh out of Pakistan, but Dhaka today has better ties with Islamabad than with New Delhi. Is it because of ISI alone? Buddhist Sri Lanka, Hindu Nepal, they all seem to have better ties with Pakistan than with India. Shouldn’t there be a commission of inquiry set up by India to investigate the lapses by its ministers, officials and sleuths that have brought the country to a pass that bewildered Moynihan? Dawn. Is India really a big nation, which behaves small? By Jawed Naqvi. Monday, 14 Sep, 2009 | 07:12 AM PST. jawednaqvi@gmail.com
Delhi is surrounded by problems of its own making. It is hated in South Asia for good reason. The “Indian Union” has had wars with all her neighbors, and it constantly interferes in the affairs of all of them. It calls all of them “failed states” proposing a raison d’etre under which it can absorb them into this huge behemoth called “Akhand Bharat“–an land mass which encompasses most of Asia– from Kabul in the West to a mystical land called Raj Kilhani, which is east of Bali in Indonesia. This is the “Bharat” that religious Bharatis dream of.
The ongoing political strife in nearby Nepal threatens to affect Indian companies working out of Nepal while India Inc continues to fight the global downturn. Hindustan Times
The Sri Lankans hate the Indians for supporting th the LTTE terrorists. The Bangladeshis are fed up with the “Rakhi Bahni” which tried to rule Bangladesh under an Indian general. The Burmese would rather be isolated than deal with a Delhi bent upon making it a protectorate, The Maldives almost drowning don’t want a lifeboat from Bharat. The Chinese have huge boundary disputes with Delhi. In the early days of independence Delhi thought that it could grab Tibet and thus bifurcate China into small pieces, perpetuating the colonial division of China. Mao Zedung would have none of that and took over Tibet, Aksai Chin and told Delhi to lay off Tibet. Then of course there are the Pakistanis, a huge impediment to Bharati hegemonistic designs in West Asia.
India is walking a diplomatic tightrope as Nepal tries to form a new government, aware that excessive meddling in its traditional “backyard” could risk pushing the fragile Himalayan democracy closer to China.
India has always seen Nepal as part of its strategic sphere of influence, but that has been challenged in the past year since the election of Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda, who before he resigned last week had edged closer to Beijing. India treads fine line in Nepal’s political crisis
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Summary of the Book “India Doctrine” written by Barrister MBI Munshi
In India Doctrine, the writer Mr. Munshi has tried to lay emphasis on the point that India from the very beginning has been pursuing a policy of establishing hegemony in the region.
Mr. Munshi through evidences, arguments and her practices has tried to prove that the intentions of India are nothing short of this. To materialize India’s objective the EU and the USA have also joined hands with her. The USA has concluded a treaty for cooperation in the nuclear field with India although it (USA) propagates non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This nuclear agreement she did to contain the Chinese influence in the South Asian region. This is a direct threat to peace in the region. Besides the propaganda onslaught against Bangladesh and other countries here through some persons and media is on. The visit of Shaikh Hasina to India in 2003 and again in 2005, were of considerable significance. The 2007 election was also important for them since it was the desire of India that Awami League should come into power. The insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts was creation of India. In brief India has been instrumental in destabilizing situation in Bangladesh as well as in other countries of the South Asian region like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka etc.
The book says India was partitioned in 1947 but India followed the undeclared policy of re-unification or Akhand Bharat since then. The skirmishes along the borders, the unabated killing of innocent civilians of Bangladesh, insurgencies in Nepal, Pakistan (Baluchistan) Sri Lanka are pointer towards this.
India does not believe in two nation theory since they consider that there are other common cultural, ethnic grounds for forming a nation. India viewed emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state which negates the division on the basis of religion.
Nehru’s ideology centred round non-partition of India or the Akhand Bharat as detailed in his book, “The discovery of India” (1947). And this policy has been followed subsequently even after partition in 1947. Nehru/ruled from 1947 to 1964 and his successors were no different from him. The situation of Sikkim in 1973-75 was similar to that of Nepal’s in 2006. In both cases the rulers were over thrown. The former became a constituent part of India while the latter (Nepal) began to be ruled by the persons of choice of India.
As regard Pakistan, Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.
The book says that, keeping the above in view it could be said that India’s role in 1971 war to help Bangladesh was according to her own policy consideration of Akhand Bharat. The later events like looting and taking away of military equipments after Pakistanis were defeated, unequal distribution of Farraka water, killing of Bangladeshis at the borders, inciting insurgencies within Bangladesh territories, indirect interference in shaping Bangladesh foreign policy, creating problem for garment industries etc. loudly speak of the Indian intentions.
The book says that, Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Advisor and Secretary of State thought that India’s help for the then East Pakistanis in their struggle for liberation was purely motivated by self-interest guided by the dream of claiming of all territories ruled by the former British colonial power. J. N. Dixit, the vet-ran diplomat in his book, “Liberation and beyond”, gives the impression that it was Pakistan which wanted to break India and created condition in the former East Pakistan to make a cause to attack India. This is an absurd proposition for it was India which impeded the return of refugees when a political settlement was in the offing in the later part of 1971. Further, after 9/11, there were sufficient reasons to believe that India instigated insurgences through JMB out-fit as the confessional statement of its deceased leader proved. This was done to tarnish the image of Bangladesh as a terrorist state.
After liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, India started propaganda offensive both within and out side India against Bangladesh. Noted left leaning writers are on their pay rolls in Bangladesh. This is done to materialize their goal of Akhand Bharat. Hence it is felt necessary that against their propaganda offensive, RAW’s clandestine activities, counter offensive both through media measures and active intelligence surveillance are must.
The book says that the six points became a great plea for going into a tougher movement. Had that been accepted, it was presumed that Pakistan would not have broken and nor independent Bangladesh emerged in 1971. After 1971, India became more active to make the newly emerged state its part. For this she appointed Chittarangan Sutar as Shaikh Saheb’s representative in India. Sutar had direct access to Indian Prime Minister and other high officials there. His plans however failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb in August 1975.
India entered into a 7 point agreement with the then Bangladesh government in exile (located in Calcutta) which contained provisions like no standing army for Bangladesh, Joint forces for Bangladesh with the command lying with the Indian Army Chief, identical foreign policy etc. The defeat of Pakistani army and its surrender to the Indian General, (Sans Bangladesh Army Chief) and the terms having never been shown to Bangladesh, apparently spoke that virtually Bangladesh belonged to India since India won the war with Pakistan and took its soldiers captive. The Mujib Bahini, the Rakhi Bahini etc. were created to seek their assistance in consolidating the Indian Government’s authority in Bangladesh and also to use them when the appropriate time had come as thought by India. Their authority was further strengthened by the 25 years treaty of friendship which also fortified the 7 point agreement made by the government in exile. As said before the plan of subordinating Bangladesh failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb. India could have walked over but restrained itself for fear of international condemnation etc. It however continued its effort to destabilize it and others by harboring insurgencies through RAW and other agencies in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka Nepal and Pakistan. The insurgencies in Chittagong Hill Tracts are worth mentioning.
The book has been further enriched by the valuable contributions from the eminent writers of both home and abroad. Professor Khodeja Begum in her article laid emphasis on the India’s concept of Akhand Bharat or united India quoting authentic references like the 7 point agreement made between Indian government and Bangladesh government in exile. She also quoted the Ananda Bazar Patrika’s observation following 1991 election. The Patrika said that the people in Bangladesh should raise their voice for merger with India. Brig Gen (Retd) Shakhawat laid emphasis on geopolitical condition of Bangladesh and suggested for careful move for making relationship with USA, China and more importantly India.
Other Nepalese and Sri Lanka writers have also blamed India for inciting insurgencies and instability in the neighboring countries. Maoists in Nepal and LTTE in Sri Lanka are the beneficiaries of the Indian government.
Mr. Munshi through evidences, arguments and her practices has tried to prove that the intentions of India are nothing short of this. To materialize India’s objective the EU and the USA have also joined hands with her. The USA has concluded a treaty for cooperation in the nuclear field with India although it (USA) propagates non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This nuclear agreement she did to contain the Chinese influence in the South Asian region. This is a direct threat to peace in the region. Besides the propaganda onslaught against Bangladesh and other countries here through some persons and media is on. The visit of Shaikh Hasina to India in 2003 and again in 2005, were of considerable significance. The 2007 election was also important for them since it was the desire of India that Awami League should come into power. The insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts was creation of India. In brief India has been instrumental in destabilizing situation in Bangladesh as well as in other countries of the South Asian region like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka etc.
The book says India was partitioned in 1947 but India followed the undeclared policy of re-unification or Akhand Bharat since then. The skirmishes along the borders, the unabated killing of innocent civilians of Bangladesh, insurgencies in Nepal, Pakistan (Baluchistan) Sri Lanka are pointer towards this.
India does not believe in two nation theory since they consider that there are other common cultural, ethnic grounds for forming a nation. India viewed emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state which negates the division on the basis of religion.
Nehru’s ideology centred round non-partition of India or the Akhand Bharat as detailed in his book, “The discovery of India” (1947). And this policy has been followed subsequently even after partition in 1947. Nehru/ruled from 1947 to 1964 and his successors were no different from him. The situation of Sikkim in 1973-75 was similar to that of Nepal’s in 2006. In both cases the rulers were over thrown. The former became a constituent part of India while the latter (Nepal) began to be ruled by the persons of choice of India.
As regard Pakistan, Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.
The book says that, keeping the above in view it could be said that India’s role in 1971 war to help Bangladesh was according to her own policy consideration of Akhand Bharat. The later events like looting and taking away of military equipments after Pakistanis were defeated, unequal distribution of Farraka water, killing of Bangladeshis at the borders, inciting insurgencies within Bangladesh territories, indirect interference in shaping Bangladesh foreign policy, creating problem for garment industries etc. loudly speak of the Indian intentions.
The book says that, Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Advisor and Secretary of State thought that India’s help for the then East Pakistanis in their struggle for liberation was purely motivated by self-interest guided by the dream of claiming of all territories ruled by the former British colonial power. J. N. Dixit, the vet-ran diplomat in his book, “Liberation and beyond”, gives the impression that it was Pakistan which wanted to break India and created condition in the former East Pakistan to make a cause to attack India. This is an absurd proposition for it was India which impeded the return of refugees when a political settlement was in the offing in the later part of 1971. Further, after 9/11, there were sufficient reasons to believe that India instigated insurgences through JMB out-fit as the confessional statement of its deceased leader proved. This was done to tarnish the image of Bangladesh as a terrorist state.
After liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, India started propaganda offensive both within and out side India against Bangladesh. Noted left leaning writers are on their pay rolls in Bangladesh. This is done to materialize their goal of Akhand Bharat. Hence it is felt necessary that against their propaganda offensive, RAW’s clandestine activities, counter offensive both through media measures and active intelligence surveillance are must.
The book says that the six points became a great plea for going into a tougher movement. Had that been accepted, it was presumed that Pakistan would not have broken and nor independent Bangladesh emerged in 1971. After 1971, India became more active to make the newly emerged state its part. For this she appointed Chittarangan Sutar as Shaikh Saheb’s representative in India. Sutar had direct access to Indian Prime Minister and other high officials there. His plans however failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb in August 1975.
India entered into a 7 point agreement with the then Bangladesh government in exile (located in Calcutta) which contained provisions like no standing army for Bangladesh, Joint forces for Bangladesh with the command lying with the Indian Army Chief, identical foreign policy etc. The defeat of Pakistani army and its surrender to the Indian General, (Sans Bangladesh Army Chief) and the terms having never been shown to Bangladesh, apparently spoke that virtually Bangladesh belonged to India since India won the war with Pakistan and took its soldiers captive. The Mujib Bahini, the Rakhi Bahini etc. were created to seek their assistance in consolidating the Indian Government’s authority in Bangladesh and also to use them when the appropriate time had come as thought by India. Their authority was further strengthened by the 25 years treaty of friendship which also fortified the 7 point agreement made by the government in exile. As said before the plan of subordinating Bangladesh failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb. India could have walked over but restrained itself for fear of international condemnation etc. It however continued its effort to destabilize it and others by harboring insurgencies through RAW and other agencies in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka Nepal and Pakistan. The insurgencies in Chittagong Hill Tracts are worth mentioning.
The book has been further enriched by the valuable contributions from the eminent writers of both home and abroad. Professor Khodeja Begum in her article laid emphasis on the India’s concept of Akhand Bharat or united India quoting authentic references like the 7 point agreement made between Indian government and Bangladesh government in exile. She also quoted the Ananda Bazar Patrika’s observation following 1991 election. The Patrika said that the people in Bangladesh should raise their voice for merger with India. Brig Gen (Retd) Shakhawat laid emphasis on geopolitical condition of Bangladesh and suggested for careful move for making relationship with USA, China and more importantly India.
Other Nepalese and Sri Lanka writers have also blamed India for inciting insurgencies and instability in the neighboring countries. Maoists in Nepal and LTTE in Sri Lanka are the beneficiaries of the Indian government.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Why is India worrired?
Why are Indians worried about Chinese role in Nepal. Aren't they pushing China to play active role in Nepal? If they keep quite and do not interfare in Nepal they Nepal can also tel China not to interfare. The Indian interference is encouraging the Chinese and others to interfare in Nepal.
The government should strictly tell India not to interfare. So, that China will also not interfare otherwise Nepal will be play ground for Indian bastards and chinese and Americans.
Stop foreign interferance.
Stop Indian terrorists from encroaching Nepali land and request CIA to issue red corner notice against India, Indian prime minister and the Indian ambassodar in Nepal.
India is evil and a terrorist country and it is spreading terrorism in the whle South Asia. The RAW sponser terrorism has to be stopped, the interfarence has to be stopped and they should be exposed to the whole world that India is not a democratic country it is a terrorist country.
Declare India a terrorist country and issue red corner notice against the Indian leaders and Indian ambassodar in Nepal.
Indians killed the King Birendra and his family after he refused to pass the citizenship bill that would make the Biharis Nepalese. The Indian RAW kicked Gynandra after he also refused to give citizenship to Bihari in Tarai. The parties gave citizenship to lakhs of Biharis after Indian forced them. The Nepalese will be in minority in Nepal if the move continues as according to RAW plan. Thus the RAW propaganda machine The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post and journalists like Rishi Dhamala and Ajaya Khanal and Jeewendra Simkhada should be immediately closed and arrested.
The government should strictly tell India not to interfare. So, that China will also not interfare otherwise Nepal will be play ground for Indian bastards and chinese and Americans.
Stop foreign interferance.
Stop Indian terrorists from encroaching Nepali land and request CIA to issue red corner notice against India, Indian prime minister and the Indian ambassodar in Nepal.
India is evil and a terrorist country and it is spreading terrorism in the whle South Asia. The RAW sponser terrorism has to be stopped, the interfarence has to be stopped and they should be exposed to the whole world that India is not a democratic country it is a terrorist country.
Declare India a terrorist country and issue red corner notice against the Indian leaders and Indian ambassodar in Nepal.
Indians killed the King Birendra and his family after he refused to pass the citizenship bill that would make the Biharis Nepalese. The Indian RAW kicked Gynandra after he also refused to give citizenship to Bihari in Tarai. The parties gave citizenship to lakhs of Biharis after Indian forced them. The Nepalese will be in minority in Nepal if the move continues as according to RAW plan. Thus the RAW propaganda machine The Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post and journalists like Rishi Dhamala and Ajaya Khanal and Jeewendra Simkhada should be immediately closed and arrested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
