Forums
Nepal News & Discussion - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Strategic Security of India (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Nepal News & Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=757)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Nepal News & Discussion - Guest - 03-08-2007

More on Madheshis. It's BBC, so don't know how reliable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6425663.stm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wednesday, 7 March 2007, 08:16 GMT 
<b>S Nepal strike enters second day</b>
The Madheshi are made up mainly of Hindus and Muslims and many prefer speaking one of a number of local languages rather than Nepali.
Madheshis make up 33-45% of Nepal's population of 27 million but are vastly under-represented in government and the army, which tend to be dominated by hill-dwellers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Their main campaigning group, the Madheshi People's Rights Forum, wants greater rights for its people and an end to what it calls upper-caste discrimination.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Either BBC is making this up as they go along or the Madheshi movement has already been taken over by the usual.

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 03-24-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Madhesi rising

The Pioneer Edit Desk

For a change, Maoists on the run

The Government of Prime Minister GP Koirala is fast losing whatever control it had over the internal security situation of Nepal. Last Wednesday's violence at Gaur in the Terai region, during which members of the Madhesi People's Rights Forum, who have been agitating for equal rights and opportunities in post-monarchy Nepal, shot dead at least 29 Maoists and wounded scores of Prachanda's thugs, shows how tenuous is Kathmandu's hold over the rest of the country. Prachanda and his Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have sworn vengeance against the Madhesis for daring to take on their cadre and giving them a clobbering that they never expected in the new political scenario. Such a response is only to be expected from those who neither believe in democracy nor subscribe to political and social pluralism. With hundreds of Maoists deserting the UN-monitored camps to avenge the Gaur killings, we can look forward to a bloodbath in the near future that will, at least, serve the purpose of exposing the real face of those who profess faith in republican ideals but practice Maoist brutality. That apart, Wednesday's violence has once again highlighted the simmering dissent in the Terai and the mounting anger among a vast section of Nepali people who are feeling increasingly insecure with the Maoists dictating policy.<b> The Madhesis have been virtually reduced to the status of second class citizens in the draft Constitution that denies them equal rights and opportunities, apart from depriving them of proportionate political representation</b>. It is no secret that Prachanda, who has forced Mr Koirala to tailor the draft Constitution to meet his immediate political objectives, nourishes a grudge against the Madhesis for three reasons. First, the Madhesis are loath to subscribe to the Maoists' hate-India agenda; second, the Madhesis form a separate ethnic community; and, third, the Madhesis are not shy of flaunting their faith - Hinduism - and do not subscribe to the view that abolishing the monarchy is a good idea.<b> For Prachanda, the last bit is as bad as blasphemy; he has once again blamed "Hindu fundamentalists" for fomenting anti-Maoist sentiments in the Madhesi-dominated areas.</b>

Of course, that's bunkum. The fact of the matter is that the Madhesis want, and justifiably so, a fair share in the new political arrangement that is being plotted in distant Kathmandu. And since the Madhesis have numbers on their side, the Maoists cannot use their usual terror tactics to force them into submission, unless they marshal a large number of murderous cadre.<b> The Maoists tried to flex their muscles by gathering under the bogus banner of 'Madhesi Mukti Morcha' on Wednesday and came a cropper. Mr Koirala must now act swiftly to stall retaliatory violence and prevent the Madhesi issue from snowballing into a separatist movement</b>. For that, he needs to send out a clear political signal to the Madhesis that they will get their due share by enshrining it in the draft Constitution. He must also deploy the police, and if necessary the Army, to tame Prachanda's men who are once again on the prowl, attacking businesses, indulging in extortion and running, it would seem, a parallel administration. If he fails to do so, Nepalis elsewhere will take a lead from what happened on Wednesday and do unto the Maoists what they have been doing unto others for more than a decade.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 03-24-2007

Madheshis have tried to put up an open resistance against Maoists now. A recent show off at Gaur town resulted in killing of 35, mostly armed maoists. As a result Maoists are on the run, but may (and I am afraid will, see below Jagran news) retailate in more violence in areas of their stronghold. In the meanwhile, exploring the political leverage that maoists have gained over the government, they are making hue and cry over the issue and demanding absurd things.

GOI must do something. It can not and should not sit quietly seeing another Sri Lanka or Bangladesh type situation on its borders.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->KATHMANDU, March 23 -
Maoist lawmakers on Friday demanded the formation of the interim government at the earliest and gheraoed the rostrum during today's sitting of the Interim Legislature-Parliament.

Chanting such slogans as 'corrupt government, step down', among others, the Maoist legislators demanded the government declare those killed in Gaur incident national martyrs.

Maoist leader in parliament Krishna Bahadur Mahara demanded that the <b>open border with India should be sealed </b>and the government confiscate the arms distributed by the government to retaliate against the Maoists.

Accusing the government of remaining silent during the Gaur incident, Mahara said that the government had a hand in sending those involved in criminal activities across the border.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=104443
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

In the meanwhile perception from Indian-side of the border:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->नेपाल में मृतक संख्या हुई 35, कफ्र्यू जारी

रक्सौल, जागरण संवाददाता : नेपाल में नेकपा (माओवादी) व मधेसी जनाधिकार फोरम के कार्यकर्ताओं के बीच जिला मुख्यालय गौर बुधवार की सभा के दौरान हुई गोलीबारी में मरने वालों की संख्या 35 हो गई है। इसकी पुष्टि करते हुए जिला प्रशासन ने बताया कि बुधवार देर रात तक 25 शव मिले थे जबकि बृहस्पतिवार की सुबह 7 और शव मिले हैं। तीन घायलों की मौत मकवानपुर अस्पताल में हुई है। घटनास्थल पर मिले 22 शवों की पहचान हो गई है। 40 घायलों की स्थिति अब भी चिंताजनक बताई गई है। उनका इलाज विभिन्न अस्पतालों में चल रहा है।

  इस बीच गौर नगरपालिका क्षेत्र में सिंधुली बैरक से माओवादियों की लाल सेना के पहुंचने की खबर से पूरे इलाके में भगदड़ मची है। हजारों गौरवासी भारतीय क्षेत्र में शरण लिए हुए हैं।
http://epaper.jagran.com/main.aspx?edate=3...de=10&pageno=1#
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

"Red Army" from Sindhuli "barrack" has reached Gaur. Hering this, thousands of Madheshis have fled the region and entered India to seek shelter.

So if there is a "Red Army" which is freely moving to crush these people in their own lands, what is Nepal police or Army doing? And what is India doing?

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 03-29-2007

Interesting discussion on a Nepali/Madheshi forum:

Indo-Nepal Border and the state of Bihari Nepali
January 1st, 2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->News involving Indo-Nepal border often meet the headlines of the newspapers and the magazines in Nepal, more so frequent in the recent months due to the “Kalapani crisis (in which Nepal has accused India for encroaching a piece of her border-land).” Unfortunately, a very few articles make any attempt to put the issues of Indo-Nepal border in a historical perspective. Below is an article by the title of “Indo-Nepal Border and the state of Bihari Nepali” which I have written as a response to the letter to the editor entitled “A typical Bihari town in Nepal” published in the July 4th issue of “The Kathmandu Post,” an English daily from Nepal. My article attempts to put both Indo-Nepal border and the people residing around it (i.e., the Terai people) in a historical perspective and makes a critical approach to their evolution, the patterns of settlement & migration, and the confusion surrounding them. The article aims to increase the awareness of the history of the evolution of Indo-Nepal border, highlight the plights of the Indian origined Terai people as well as pacify the growing anti-Indian sentiments in Nepal.

The letter to the editor appears first and is followed by my response.

A typical Bihari town in Nepal (The Letter to the Editor, “The Kathmandu Post,” July 4, 1998)

Your news “Residents of Morang afflicted with influx of Indian migrants” (June 6, 1998), made me remember my first visit to Biratnagar. Anyone visiting Biratnagar feels that we are somewhere in a typical Indian Bihari town.

The number of Biharis and some other Indians over there outnumber genuine Nepali citizens. One can’t but feel ‘a foreigner in his own country.’ The no man’s land between Sima VDC of Morang district and Jogbani of India has virtually become Indian land.

The day is not far off when India will begin to claim almost all border towns as their own as they are doing to Kalapani at present. It is all because of the lack of political will and strong power at the centre, highly corrupt nature of our people and la ck of the sense of love for our motherland.

Go to a rickshaw stand in Biratnagar and you will find 8 Indian rickshaw-pullers out of 10 giving tough competition to native rickshaw-pullers throwing them out their jobs. In the market, shops, cinema halls and almost all business are owned by Indians.

The minibus that took us up to the border check post was owned and even driven by an Indian driver and a khalasi speaking Hindi. When he asked for the fare from Nepali passengers he would speak Hindi only. I was alarmed and saddened to find this state of affairs in this border town of Morang district.

During my visit there, one of my friends told me that even skilled and non-skilled labourers come to work in factories from across the border of the Indian side in the morning and go back to their homes in the evening as if Nepal lacks manpower.

Here we must not forget that most of the key industries, factories and business houses belong to Indians. It’s high time Nepali citizens started asserting their rights firmly concerning the unity, integrity and Here we must not forget that most of the key industries, factories and business houses belong to Indians. It’s high time Nepali citizens started asserting their rights firmly concerning the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the country.

Political sovereignty alone is not enough. What is the use of political sovereignty when we are socially, academically, and culturally conquered by others? But who cares a fig about such things when we are mad about Hindi songs and films. We are blindly aping western culture and trying to speak English as though we are ashamed to disclose our identity. Worse, there is no dearth of such politicians in our country who make merry when India or Pakistan blasts a nuke bomb. What can we expect o f them regarding the border issues and our own sovereignty.

Karna Lama Karki, Birtamode, Jhapa, Nepal
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


RESPONSE :

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indo-Nepal Border and the state of Bihari Nepali

This is a response to the letter to the editor “A typical Bihari town in Nepal” (July 4, 1998). The author appears to be startled on his first visit to Biratnagar, a border-town, which he symbolizes as a “typical Indian Bihari town.” He further agonizes over his feeling as “a foreigner in his own country” where, according to him, Biharis and other Indians outnumber “genuine Nepali citizens.”

Let me begin with a few comments on some of the phrases the author has used to convey his reactions. His feeling as “a foreigner in his own country” on his visit to the border-town of Biratnagar, first of all, signifies his ignorance of the geographical and ethnic diversity of Nepal. His sense of his country appears to me of what many westerners imagine how Nepal looks like — a mountainous country with high-peaked Himalayas and fair-skin people mostly of Mongoloid as well as Aryan races. Like westerners, the author seems to be unaware of the vast fertile plain lands of Terai where many dark-skin Indian origined Nepali live. He, like most of the other “hilly” Nepali, seems to perceive these dark-skin Indian origined Nepali (most of which are ethnically Biharis, i.e., their ancestors were from the Indian state of Bihar) as “foreigners,” absolutely ignoring their centuries old history and legal Nepalese citizenship. His notion of the “genuine Nepali citizens” therefore inadvertently fails to encompass the one fifth of the Nepalese population which is of Indian origin.

When the author talks about his feeling as a “foreigner” in Biratnagar, it reminds me of one of my friends who hailed from a village in Terai, himself a Bihari by ethnicity, and whose ancestors migrated to Terai from Bihar for over a couple of centuries ago when the most of Terai was still a forest and heavily infested with malaria. A very few “hilly” Nepali then dared to settle in the plains of Terai. My friend enrolled in a school in Kathmandu as a child. His experiences in Kathmandu were horrible. Over the duration of ten years of his schooling in Kathmandu, he had to endure countless encounters of racism and harassment from his colleagues, general public and even his teachers, often by the use of such popular derogatory and racist remarks as “dhoti,” “Madhise,” “Kaale,” etc. Not only he, but also his parents on their trips to Kathmandu had to face similar occasions of harassment by general public in the bus parks and other places around Kathmandu. It is hard to imagine what psychological impacts these events might have had on the young mind of my friend. However, it is evident now that his bitter experiences in Kathmandu have left him wondering about his “identity.” He still questions himself, who really is he — a Nepali or an Indian? I am sure he felt more of a “foreigner in his own country” than the author felt in Biratnagar.

Let me now present a brief history of Terai and its Indian origined inhabitants. I think the lack of an adequate historical knowledge of this area and its people have mainly led to the current state of confusion.
>From what I have read and been told, just a couple of centuries ago the
most of Terai was occupied with dense forests, wild animals and was heavily infested with deadly malaria. The only people who dwelled in Terai were the native “Tharus.” They are still dominant in certain districts of Terai. The Biharis and other Indians, pushed by the dearth of farm-land in their home states, started inhabiting Terai by heavily deforesting it. Most of these Indian origined Nepali were from the neighboring Indian states, majority of which were from Bihar. The Marwadis, the inhabitants of the Indian state of Rajashthan, didn’t appear on the Nepalese scene until about the middle of this century. Unlike Biharis and other Indian origined Nepalese who own farm lands and came here relatively earlier, Marwadis are business people and therefore dwell mostly in the cities.

The majority of “hilly” Nepali didn’t migrate down to the plains of Terai until malaria was fully under control. Again, this happened primarily during King Mahendra’s tenure (the father of the present King whose tenure began around the middle of this century). Favored by the eradication of malaria and “special privileges” by King Mahendra’s administration, many “hilly” Nepali started inhabiting the plains of Terai, several of which became the noted “landlords” possessing even more land than the traditional Bihari landlords of Terai. During the last couple of centuries, many people both from the neighboring Indian states and the hills of Nepal have settled in Terai heightening the rate of deforestation. The present day Terai represents a blending of “hilly” and “Bihari” people as well as other Indian origined immigrants. Given the open border of Nepal, migration of Indians to Nepal in search of economic opportunities is still rapid, unchecked and uncontrolled.

What should be noted in this process of settlement and migration of Indians to Terai are the context and the timeline. When the first migration of Indians took place, there was nothing like the present day “border.” Although the Kingdom of Nepal was recognized by the British, the then rulers of India, there was no distinct and rigid demarcation of the border that separated Nepal from India. For the British as well as for most of the Nepali, the consciousness of a nation-state was limited primarily to Kathmandu and other hilly parts ( Note that until recently for many village dwellers Kathmandu was synonymous to Nepal). The British and the then rulers of Kathmandu (or Nepal) cared less of Terai which they thought was hardly habitable. Since there was no distinct border, there were no custom-posts between Terai and Indian states and people could move easily in-between them. The only custom-post or similar entity, I recall, was at the entrance of the capital valley Kathmandu, i.e., at Thankot (and may be at Dhulikhel too) whose function was to regulate or keep track of the people who entered into then Nepal, i.e., Kathmandu. I think the custom-office at Thankot existed until recently and issued sort of visa to them who entered into Kathmandu!

It’s been not that long when the “official” demarcation of the border between India and Terai took place and the Indian origined citizens of Terai were persuaded as well as required to have Nepali citizenship. It should be noted that though the “Sughauli Sandhi (a treaty signed after a series of war between the Gurkhas and the British way back in the 19th century)” defined the territories of Nepal, the implementation of the present day border was not rigid until the middle of this century. Further, the area of Terai expanded after the British rewarded then Rana rulers of Nepal for their assistance in the suppression of the “Indian Mutiny” of 1857. This expansion certainly put a segment of Indian population into the Nepalese territory that otherwise would have been in India. This certainly explains the close ties of the Terai people with the people of the neighboring Indian states that I’ll explain little later.

Again, the requirement of Nepalese citizenship is such a recent phenomenon that the grandmother of my above mentioned friend obtained her citizenship just ten years ago at the age of eighty! According to him, there are numerous poor and illiterate old people in his village who were unable to obtain citizenship due to lack of money (to take a photograph or to go to the district headquarters in some cases) or awareness. It surprised my friend when he found out that those old people were barred from the social security or elderly benefits granted by the Communist Government a few years ago because they didn’t have their citizenship! I pity on those old people who were born in Nepal, probably their parents might also have been born here, and yet they were not recognized as Nepali citizens just because they didn’t have the piece of paper called citizenship. They are not Nepali because they don’t look like the so-called “genuine Nepali.” Had they been from the hills, few people would have doubted their Nepali nationality. Obviously, millions of Indian origined Nepali are facing an identity crisis!

Now let me shed some light on the close ties of the Indian origined Terai people with the people of the neighboring Indian states. Like the author of the letter to the editor who was shocked by the Indianness of Biratnagar to such an extent that he symbolized Biratnagar as a “typical Bihari” town, anybody visiting the border towns and villages will experience similar Indianness in them. In fact the whole of Terai, which is just 17% of the total area of Nepal, appears as a “natural” extension of the neighboring Indian states of Bihar, U.P., and West Bengal with common ethnic origins, religions, culture and languages, separated rather clumsily by an artificial line of national boundary. For example, the people of Janakpur area are dominantly Maithili speaking whose cultural origins spring from the ancient Mithila Kingdom located just on the other side of the border at the present day Bihar. In fact, Janakpur, the town, is supposed to be the birth place of the Sita, the heroine of the Hindu epic “Ramayana” . Similarly, Bhojpuri speaking Biharis are found on the either side of the border of Birgunj area. Likewise, the Muslims of Krishnanagar represent an extension of Muslims of the neighboring U.P. In fact, all border towns and villages of Terai represent the similar traits. These people have so intricate ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural ties with the people of the corresponding Indian states that they feel more close to them than to other “hilly” Nepali people. It is evident, for instance, from a high number of matrimonial ties between the people on each side of the border.

The only differences in the culture and polity of Terai were brought by “hilly” Nepali who later migrated to these areas. These “hilly” Nepali don’t differ much from Indian origined Terai people with respect to religion, culture or traditions. The only things they differ at, though slightly, are language and ethnic origins as well as race. The Nepali language (which itself is a daughter of the Sanskrit language along with Hindi, Maithili, or Bhojpuri) has been increasingly popular in Terai due to the contacts of the “hilly” Nepali with the Indian origined Nepali coupled with the state policy of compulsory teaching of Nepali language in the schools (This was one of the major administrative policies of King Mahendra populalry referred as the process of “Nepalization” of Terai people). Prior to these contacts, the Indian Terai people didn’t understand or speak Nepali. Even today, only those who go to schools in Nepal or are in close contacts with Nepali speaking population can understand or speak Nepali. Thus, the dominance of Hindi or other Indian languages shouldn’t surprise anyone as it surprised the author in Biratnagar where he found bus conductors and other people speaking Hindi.

Further, the Mongoloid race of some “hilly” Nepali and their slightly distinct culture and ethnicity have brought diversity in the polity of Terai. It should be noted here that many so-called “genuine” Nepali blame India and Indian origined Nepali for “encroaching” their culture. Their blame is true to a certain extent given the huge popularity of Indian movies and songs in Nepal. However, it should not be referred as an “encroachment” because the popularity of Indian songs and movies as well as TV serial such as “Ramayana” and “Mahabharata” is due to the essential similarities between Indian and Nepali culture and language, both of which have origins in the ancient Indo-Aryan Hindu culture and language. Although the majority of the polity of Nepal living in the higher hills and Himalayas are rather different from Hindu Indo-Aryans since they belong to the Tibetan-Buddhist culture (many of them migrated to Nepal after the Chinese occupation of Tibet in the 1950’s) as well as are of Mongoloid race, they are in a smaller number in Terai. The only group of people therefore should worry about the cultural “encroachment,” if any, is this Mongoloid-Tibetan group and not the Indo-Aryans. Talking strictly about cultural “encroachment,” it appears to me that it is the “hilly” Nepali, who though inhabited Terai only after Indians, have “encroached” the culture of Indian origined Terai people by forcing them to the compulsory education of Nepali language and making Nepali as the only official language!

Now let me comment on the current problem of rapid and unchecked Indian migration to Nepal. Before wondering why Indians come to Nepal for work, it should be remembered that it is legal for a Nepali to work in any part of India without obtaining a work permit and the vice versa. The author of the letter to the editor was amazed by the influx of Indian workers pouring through the border into Biratnagar for employment opportunities. What he failed to mention was the similar influx of Nepali workers, both so-called “genuine Nepali” and Indian origined Nepali, who occasionally (sometimes seasonally) go to India for the employment opportunities. In fact, just the number of Non-Resident Nepali in India (Nepali in India who were born in Nepal or are descendents of them), excluding the Nepali seasonal workers in India, surpasses the combined number of Non-Resident Indians in Nepal, seasonal Indian workers and Indian origined Terai people! Have we ever thanked Indians and the government of India for providing employment opportunities for such a larger population of our country? Again, Non-Resident Nepali are treated as equal citizens in India. Shouldn’t the Indian origined Terai people, who are in fact born in Nepal, deserve the similar treatment?

Whatever the so-called “genuine” Nepali feel or say about India and the Indians, it is obvious that Nepal cannot develop unless the neighboring border states of India — Bihar, U.P., West Bengal, and Sikkim — first develop. Even if Nepal develops independently, the development will naturally be diluted by the huge influx of Indian immigrants from the neighboring states. In short, Nepal cannot develop unless India develops. India must take the lead in development and Nepal should follow the lead. As for the current problem of the influx of immigrants from Indian border towns to Nepal, no simple solution exist to this complex problem. The rapid Indian immigration may be regulated by “tightening” the border, i.e., by requiring passport and visas, or the whole notion of immigrants can be eliminated by “eliminating” the border between Nepal and India, i.e., by the political unification of Nepal to the Indian Union (in the manner similar to all other distinct and different states of India which have united under one federation thereby preserving their uniqe “state” identity while adding a separate “national” identity to them). Which course should Nepal follow or which is viable, I leave that for further debate.

Bijay Raut
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://madhesi.wordpress.com/2007/01/01/in...-bihari-nepali/

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 03-29-2007

Bodhi,
Thank you for posting that discussion. It inspired me to read about Mithila and the Mythili language/dialect.

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 04-11-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Cheap charges</b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Madhesi anger is Koirala's problem
It is regrettable that Nepal's Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala should have used his visit to New Delhi for the SAARC Summit to lodge complaints against "Hindu organisations" for fanning the Madhesi agitation in his country's southern districts. Mr Koirala's petulance has only exposed him to the criticism that by pointing fingers at the RSS and the VHP for playing the role of agents provocateur in Nepal's Terai region, he has chosen to ignore the real reasons behind Madhesi disquiet. That may gladden the Maoists, with whom he now shares power in an interim Government struggling to cope with inner contradictions, but it is unlikely to convince others, least of all the Madhesis. It is possible that Mr Koirala, by accusing the RSS and the VHP for a problem that owes its origins in the Maoists dictating the terms of Nepal's engagement with politics in the post-monarchy era, is trying to cosy up to the CPI(M), which at the moment is piloting India's Nepal policy with disastrous consequences and cannot but be displeased with the Madhesis for two reasons: They have shown the Maoists that they are not easily intimidated and they have refused to go along with Prachanda's hate India campaign. Whatever the motive behind Mr Koirala's complaint, it does not minimise the fact that the Madhesis, despite constituting half that country's population, have been denied their due share of power and it speaks volumes about his command over the situation that he has abysmally failed in convincing them that their identity and rights shall not be trampled upon even if the Maoists were to come to power. It is no less a comment on his leadership that the Maoists continue to violate the peace accord with increasing impunity.

In any event, there are gross inconsistencies in Mr Koirala's tale. First, neither the RSS nor VHP has any base in Nepal. Second, the confusion that is deliberately being sought to be created is over the Vishwa Hindu Mahasangha, a palace-promoted entity and which, apart from lacking formal or informal links with the RSS-VHP, is largely irrelevant in today's Nepal. If there are suggestions that the Gorakhpur Mutt is involved in instigating Madhesis, that too would be an exaggeration. All this apart, it is amusing to note the distinct anti-Hindu flavour of Mr Koirala's plaint: It would seem that along with the abandonment of Nepal's unique identity as the world's only Hindu kingdom, he and his colleagues have also decided to repudiate that country's historical and cultural linkages with India, anchored in a shared faith. Even if we were to assume that "Hindu organisations" are active in Nepal, more so in the Terai where the Madhesis are loath to disown their cultural, social and religious linkages with India, why should Mr Koirala feel so upset about it? Are we then to believe that at the fag end of his political career, this veteran politician has fallen prey to wily Maoists towards whom he has, in the past, rarely made an effort to hide his contempt? Or are there other players behind the scene who are trying to discredit pro-India elements in Nepal? It's not difficult to seek answers to these questions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 04-11-2007

Status of Social inclusion of madheshis in Nepal

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 04-11-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->काठमांडो। जबरन वसूली का निशाना बन रहे मारवाडि़यों के लिए सुरक्षा कड़ी करने के सरकार के दावे के बावजूद नेपाल की राजधानी में एक और मारवाड़ी का अपहरण कर लिया गया है।
   खानपान की एक अग्रणी कंपनी में वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक शिव कुमार सारबजी का रविवार को अनामनगर में उनके आवास से अपहरण कर लिया गया। उनके परिवार के सदस्यों ने बताया कि अपहर्ताओं ने फिरौती में 50 लाख रुपये की मांग की है। सारबजी की यहां भारतीय मिठाइयों की सबसे बड़ी दुकान भी है।
   इस बीच, काठमांडो के मेट्रोपोलिटन मजिस्ट्रेट ने कहा है कि इस प्रमुख व्यावसायिक समुदाय के सदस्यों के अपहरण और इनको धमकियां मिलने की घटनाएं बढ़ने को देखते हुए मारवाडि़यों की सुरक्षा कड़ी कर दी गई है। ये मारवाड़ी लगभग 50 से 100 साल पहले मुख्यत: हरियाणा और राजस्थान से काठमांडो आए थे।
   नेपाल भारत मैत्री समाज के अध्यक्ष प्रेम लश्करी ने कहा कि सुरक्षा कड़ी किए जाने की खबरें उन्हें पढ़ी तो हैं लेकिन स्थिति में कोई सुधार नहीं हुआ है। उन्होंने कहा कि पिछले दो महीनों में अपहरण की 21 घटनाएं सामने आई हैं और पुलिस एक भी अपराधी को गिरफ्तार नहीं कर सकी है।
http://www.jagran.com/news/details.aspx?id=3271560
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

A top Marwari businessman kidnapped in Kathmandu for ransom. Sarabji family owns a large processed food, restaurants, and sweets shop chain in Nepal. Marwaris are the economic backbone of modern Nepal.

Indian-origin (migrated > 100 years back from Rajasthan and Haryana) Marwari community has been harassed over last few years, but this has reached a peak over last couple of months.

This is 22nd case of kidnapping in last 2 months, and no arrests.

I am ready to bet ISI+Maoists behind this ethnic cleansing.

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 04-11-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am ready to bet ISI+Maoists behind this ethnic cleansing. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Add missionaries also.

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - dhu - 04-14-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nepal: Cultural whirlwind
By Sandhya Jain

Nepal Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala will go down in modern history as the leader who brought ruination upon his nation. Mr. Koirala has negated a political career spanning 60-year to work out a Neville Chamberlain style of ‘peace’ with the Maoists, bringing them into the government without even the formality of a UN-certified arms surrender.

The Maoists have entered the interim Parliament, and now the government, and it is clear that Mr. Koirala and his colleagues in the Seven-Party Alliance were unequal to the invisible pressures exerted by the forces that paid for the rent-a-crowd mobs that brought down King Gyanendra.

It is now virtually certain that the forthcoming elections to the constituent assembly are unlikely to be free or fair or non-violent. The plains people, Madhesis, are increasingly involved in physical fights with the Maoists, who are still armed and resorting to violence and intimidation. An increasing number of Indian businessmen in Nepal are reporting sorry experiences with the Maoists and returning home in disgust.

This trend is likely to accelerate in coming weeks and months, <b>especially as the Royal Nepal Army has been confined to the barracks under a scandalous (and now violated) agreement whereby the royal government arms were kept under sole UN custody </b>and the token arms surrendered by Maoists kept under joint custody. This gives Maoists the opportunity to retrieve their arms at any point, though it is well known that all arms have not been surrendered. Even UN does not claim a complete surrender.

The western-Christian agenda in Kathmandu is meanwhile becoming increasingly apparent. <b>Buoyed by the success in making Nepal a secular state, thereby improving the climate for conversions under the Christian leadership of the Maoists, the Vatican has moved swiftly to appoint a Bishop for the country. </b>Last month, <b>Pope Benedict XVI not only elevated Nepal from a Prefecture to a Vicariate, </b>he appointed Father Anthony Francis Sharma, 69, as the former Hindu kingdom’s first bishop.

Sharma’s widowed mother converted to Christianity while living in Assam, and got the four year old boy baptized. He will be ordained as Bishop in Kathmandu on May 5 by the Pope’s representative, Papal Nuncio Pedro Lopez Quintana. Nepal is now likely to face intensified evangelical pressures, driven explicitly by the West. Father Sharma has already <b>declared his mission to concentrate upon the conversion of the country’s ethnic communities, </b>a development that is likely to increase internal stress in the Himalayan state as the traditional culture of the people is displaced by west-funded religion and an open assault upon the old way of life.

It is interesting to recall that King Prithvi Narayan Shah had expelled Christian missionaries from his kingdom on the ground that they were spying for the British government. Modern day evangelists too, are likely to play a similarly disruptive role in the country, and the impact of evangelisation upon India ’s security environment will also have to be assessed, especially if the Maoists provide their western-backers with military bases to spy on China and Tibet, not to mention India.

Little wonder that the Maoist entry into government has met with silence from India, where there is growing realisation that <b>Ms. Sonia Gandhi’s domination over the UPA has sacrificed crucial national interests. Yet, it has been welcomed enthusiastically by the international community. </b>Maoist pressure has assured the retention of the highly unpopular Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula.

The Maoists have managed to make spokesman and chief of the parliamentary party Krishna Bahadur Mahara the Information and Communications Minister. The wife of Prachand’s deputy Baburam Bhattarai, Ms. Hisila Yami, has been given the Physical Planning and Infrastructure portfolio. Mr. Khadga Bahadur Bishwakorma has been given charge of women, children and social development; Mr. Dev Gurung has been given Local Development, while Mr. Matrika Prasad Yadav from the Terai has got the Forest and Soil Conservation portfolio.

Maoist ascendancy has already begun to impact upon the cultural environment in Nepal. Fringe groups like homosexuals and lesbians are being encouraged by unknown forces to come out of their privacy and take centre-stage of the country’s socio-cultural landscape. In an open assault of the kingdom’s natural conservatism, the first same-sex marriage has already been held along with a beauty pageant of trans-genders. The country is slated to hold its first ever gay film festival next month, and this will be crowned by a beauty pageant of homosexuals dressed as women.

There can be no doubt that this is part of a larger conspiracy to culturally disarm and demoralise the Nepali people. If the sexual activity of marginal social groups is all that a society has to offer or demand in the name of secularism, the Nepali people would do well to ponder if the loss of the kingdom’s Hindu status is worth it.

<b>If Nepal is to be saved from becoming a cultural wasteland like Thailand (best known for casinos and child prostitution), </b>the Nepali people and non-Maoist political parties would do well to ensure that elections to the constituent assembly are preceded by a fair delimitation of seats, with the Terai getting its legitimate share in proportion to its population. They should also scrutinise the activities of the evangelicals closely, particularly the drastic and often deleterious cultural changes introduced in the lives of communities where missionaries are active. Above all, they should ensure that Maoist terrorising tactics during and prior to the elections are met with fierce resistance. The bells are tolling, not just for the Nepalese monarchy, but also for the Hindu culture and civilisation of the nation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 04-25-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Yechury to be chief guest of Nepal Democracy Day celebrations</b>
[24 Apr, 2007 l 1942 hrs ISTlPTI]

NEW DELHI: CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury on Tuesday left for Nepal to attend the restoration of democracy celebrations, the first visit by a senior Indian politician to that country after the formation of the interim government.

During the two-day visit, the CPI(M) Polit Bureau member will hold discussions with Maoist leader Prachanda and senior government officials besides meeting top leaders of the Communist Party of Nepal and other parties.

Yechury had played a key role in restoration of democracy in the Himalayan country by conceiving the idea of forming an united platform in the struggle against monarchy and was instrumental in roping in the Maoist rebels.

He was invited by Nepal's Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to attend the restoration of democracy celebrations as the chief guest. Nepal on Tuesday observed Democracy Day as part of the celebrations.

Yechury will meet Madhav Kumar Nepal, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) as part of the efforts to strengthen the party-to-party ties.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Yechury...how/1950200.cms
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Koirala has gone mad. After such a wonderful career, he is becoming the Nehru of Nepal.

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 05-01-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Madhesis seek Indian role </b>
Pioneer.com
Akhilesh Suman | New Delhi
After suppression at hands of Maoists in Terai
Fighting Maoists' oppression and indifference of the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), the Madhesis are now seeking India's intervention for an equitable share in power and in autonomy or the statehood for Terai region.

The Chairman of the Madheshi People's Rights Forum (Madhesi Jandhikar Manch) Upendra Yadav will meet leaders of various political parties in New Delhi on Monday onwards to create a favourable opinion on Madhesi movement in Nepal.

This is his first formal meeting with Indian leaders on issues plaguing the erstwhile Himalayan Kingdom in the wake of people's revolt against the kingdom.

According to sources, Yadav will meet a cross section of Indian political leadership, including CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechuri, CPI general secretary AB Bardhan, Janata Dal(U) president Sharad Yadav and Nationalist Congress party general secretary DP Tripathi.

These four leaders were instrumental in initiating talks between the Maoists in Nepal and the SPA.

<b>"We want federal structure of Nepal and statehood for Madhesi population under the new constitution that is going to be formed,"</b> Upendra Yadav told The Pioneer.

On his meeting with the Indian leaders, he said that the biggest democracy like India could help much in getting rid of the age-old exploitation of the Madhesis.

Yadav said that while Madhesis were almost half of the Nepalese population, there had been little representation in the bureaucracy, military, police and other wings of Nepal.

"We want proportionate representation for Madhesis in Nepal's mainstream activities," he said.

While accepting that there is a fight between the Maoists in Nepal and the Madhesi organisations, Yadav said that he has accepted the talk invitation from the Government, which has nominated Ram Chandra Poudel, a Cabinet Minister to head the talk team from the Government side. However the dates of the talks are not yet finalised.

In the present Nepal Assembly Madheshis have only 38 members out of the total of 205.

"This does not represent out demography and population, we should get half of the Assembly representation," he asserted adding that monarchy in Nepal had carved constituencies in manner that hardly Madheshis could win the election.

While the Nepal Constituent Assembly polls may be postponed which was slated for June, the meeting of MPRF leaders in India assumes significance as they may broker some kind of arrangement for the agitating Madheshis.

Condemning Maoists, Yadav said, "What they speak, they don't follow." Maoists in Nepal favour some kind of arrangement for Madheshis in new Nepal Constitution, but the irony is that the fight in Nepal is mainly centered between the Maoists and Madheshis.

<b>Madheshi in Nepal are migrant population from various parts if India, especially from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. They form almost 48 per cent of in total 23.6 million Nepal's population. </b>

During Kingdom rule of Nepal these people were neither properly represented in political bodies, and they were looked down to be non-Nepalese, even when they are living there since centuries.

Madheshi movement was in limelight last months for triggering a violence in which more than 20 people were killed in clash with the Maoists in Nepal. Most of those killed were Maoists themselves.

Nepalese Assembly saw uproarious scenes after that and consequently the Nepalese Government led by Girija Prasad Koirala has agreed to talks with the Madheshi leadership on their demands.

Though Yadav kept the names of the leaders he is meeting, close to his chest, he said that India could help get justice to the people living in Tarai of Nepal, who are the sons and daughters of the Nepalese soil for more than 238 years. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 05-01-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Madhesis oppose Prachanda's presidential plan

Akhilesh Suman | New Delhi

The Madhesi uprising in Nepal may not be limited to seeking an equitable share of political power but it also clamours to influence the nature of future Government to ward off any possibility of complete takeover by the CPN (Maoist).

The Delhi visit of the Madhesi leader and the Chairman of the Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF) Upendra Yadav is aimed at seeking support from the Indian leadership for the twin objectives of achieving Statehood for the Madhesis and a parliamentary form of democracy to pre-empt the Maoists' bid to capture absolute power after the formation of the Constituent Assembly.

Opposing Maoist leader Prachanda's advocacy for Presidential form of Government, Yadav said that Nepal should adopt a parliamentary system of Government to thwart any chance of monopoly in future. Incidentally, Prachanda is not opposed to becoming the President.

"There should be Parliamentary system of governance in Nepal like the one that exists in India and the Constitution should be supreme," Yadav told mediapersons on Monday.

He was addressing the media along with NCP general secretary DP Tripathy, Nepali Congress (Democratic) leader Pradeep Giri and central committee member of MPRF Jitendra Sonal.

The NCP had supported the anti-monarchy movement in Nepal and also in taking the Maoist on the dialogue table with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA).

Backing the MPRF line of argument, Tripathy said, "Yadav is for complete democracy and democracy with socialism."

Yadav is against violence, Tripathy said, and added that it was a tactical mistake by Maoists in Nepal to fight against the Madhesis.

Yadav also tried to clarify his position vis-a-vis RSS and VHP in India.

"I am neither a member of the RSS nor its follower," Yadav asserted. Later, Giri said that Yadav is an old member of CPN(M) and he believed in secular principles.

It was evident that Giri and Tripathy were trying to broker peace between Maoists and Madhesis and also dispel doubts that the Madhesi movement is aided by some right-wing Indian groups.

Yadav will meet other Indian leaders like <b>Sitaram Yechuri, AB Bardhan, Sharad Yadav, including some Congress leaders</b> during his Delhi stay.

The stand of the Madhesi leadership assumes significance as it comes at a time when Nepal is all set to frame a new Constitution this year. It underlines growing restlessness in the Madhesis for proportionate representation in the Constituent Assembly.

Madhesis and Maoists are engaged in bitter tussle after the monarchy was dethroned. Madhesis form almost half of Nepal's total population and, according to Yadav, their representation in the existing Assembly is not more than 17-18 per cent.

"We demand fresh delimitation of the constituencies," he said, adding that the constituencies in Nepal are discriminatory against the Madhesis.

"Some constituencies are formed on five thousand population while some of them (mostly Madhesi-dominated) cover a lakh of people," Yadav said. He underlined that because of this manipulation, the Madhesis have less representation in the Assembly.

Alleging that the Girija Prasad Koirala was hand in glove with the Maoists in subjugation of the Madhesis, Yadav demanded a high level judicial inquiry with the UNO representatives on the panel. :Maoists are attacking us, we are just defending ourselves," Yadav said.

He pointed out that the Maoists had not deposited all their arms in the containers. "The Maoists tell that they have strength of 37,000 cadre, but they had deposited only 3,500 arms," he said.

Dispelling doubts about his association with King Gyanendra, he said, "Gyanendra should be removed immediately from the palace and he should be tried under law in connection with the murder of King Virendra.

"Gyanendra had made false statement about the incident and he should be tried in the criminal charge," he added.

Claiming that Madhesis were not fighting against any group or party, he sought federal structure for Nepal and Statehood for Madhesi dominated region.

He justified his demand citing the historical fact that 238 years ago former Nepal King Prithvi Raj Shah forcibly captured Madhesh areas and still 40 lakh of Madhesis have not been given citizenship of the country.

"We were treated like slaves and still discriminated against," he said, seeking equal rights for all in Nepal. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 05-27-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India's Himalayan Blunder-II </b>
Pioneer.com
Udayan Namboodiri
Allowing Maoists to control Nepal would be a dangerous idea for India
The fault lines that run through Nepal's body politic have caused the country much distress since 1990. Up to a certain point, the main debating point was whether democracy would have a ghost of a chance in Nepal. But today, the fragmentation of the political class and the ethnic tensions that have erupted in the Terai region, have an altogether different meaning for the Indian observer. No longer is this just an internal problem for Nepal. The growing clout of the Maoists in Kathmandu could have a wide range of effects on India's domestic political landscape. Besides, it could lead to questions hanging over regional security.

In many ways, Nepal externally resembles the opposite of the Italy of the 1860s. Back then, there was a civil war to unite the country under a King. In early 21st century Nepal, an unified country is sought to be atomised with the help of spurious republicanism. Multi-ethnic Nepal today sits on a tinder box, whose fuse has already been lit.

Internally, Nepal's experience with Anglo-Saxon democracy is just about as deep as 1950s India. Apart from a conscious lack of morality, there is also vast ignorance of the true nature of political currents. In the long run, the collective inability to see through the fundamentals of the Communist ideology that shapes the programme of the Maoists - the most dominant force in Nepalese politics - will cost this nation dear.

At another level, Nepal could be likened to a moderate Afghanistan of the 1990s. Though there is a rump Parliament, its writ seldom travels beyond the national capital territory. If western Nepal is Maoist territory, the vast stretch from Nepalgunj to Jaffa is now under the influence of the Madhesis. Warlords have great influence over local societies.

The contribution of the Madhesi movement, a much-fragmented struggle already, to the boiling pit of Nepal is also quite considerable. People are marvelling at the momentum acquired by this struggle. It grew so fast that all the characteristic ups and downs that go with a South Asian political outfit has accompanied it. It has been infiltrated by the Maoists, broken up into factions and often degenerated into a mob.

It is time to worry about how New Delhi's interference in Nepal's domestic affairs is exacerbating the country's crisis. The manner in which the CPI(M)'s Politburo and Rajya Sabha member, Sitaram Yechury, is leveraging his old friendship with former JNU batchmates, Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai, to dictate his views on how Nepal should be run, raises grave questions about the role of India in the region's affairs.

In the past, dispensations in New Delhi have often burn their fingers meddling in the internal affairs of the smaller neighbours. If history always makes its visitations riding recognisable horses, then the monotonous iteration of the Congress' 'hand' in disastrous interventions makes for pathetic reading.

This time, there is a new element - the search by Indian Communists for strategic space. Much like the Afghanistan policy of Pakistani generals in the 1980s, the denizens of AKG Bhavan in New Delhi are on the lookout for spheres of influence beyond India's borders. Yehchury is keen to see Nepal's Constitution being shaped by the aspirations of the CPI(M). He is encouraging the Maoists to speak with a forked tongue on virtually everything from foreign investment to the contours of the future Constitution.

When Young Communist League members terrorise the citizens and loot property, the Maoists profess with all solemnity that there won't be any more trouble. But they make no effort to implement prime minister Girija Koirala's order to redistribute the looted lands among the original owners.

With each passing day, the unpopularity of the Maoists is growing. Their atrocities extortion, abduction and outright attacks on innocent people are facets of everyday life. The fact that they have joined the so-called "interim government" which began its career on April 1, has made no difference to their plan of action - which is to terrorise the population into submission. Moreover, they are refusing outright to start the second phase of registration of their arms and combatants. They claim that arms management was a part of the "political package" and since that political process remains is stalled for the moment, arms management cannot move forward.

The Nepali Congress and the Maoists are strange bedfellows in the present arrangement. It strikes as strange that New Delhi should be seen as backing a criminal enterprise. Not only does this run counter to India's regional interest, the policy also compromises India's own fight against the Maoist insurgents who are hell bent on establishing the "red corridor" between Bihar and Andhra Pradesh.

What most Indians don't know - or don't care to know - is that the planetary positions are just right for Yehchury to implement his expansionist agenda. The Prime Minister of India, who is supposed to be the main direction-giver of the country's foreign policy, is like putty in the grasp of the CPI(M). There is an External Affairs Minister who owes his political career to the munificence of the Marxists.

The Opposition BJP is too involved in planning its next rebound in some corner of India to take notice of the implications of the world's only Hindu state becoming "secular". There is little public articulation in India of the need to preserve the monarchy, in a constitutional form at the very least, in order to secure Nepal's integrity.

Fragmenting Nepal would be a dangerous idea for India. How a handful of Communist leaders are allowed to get away by pushing the Indian government down a dangerous road is a big mystery. This week, elections to the Constituent Assembly was put off till November.

A lot of Nepalese people are unaware why the Maoists decided to take the democratic route to establish itself in power. They have little idea how impossible it would be to dislodge them if they come to power even once. The technical knowhow to rig the election - whenever it is held next in Nepal - will most likely be supplied by the CPI(M). And once ensconced in power, the Maoists will transform every institution of the state into an extension of their party and make Nepal into another West Bengal.

Today, it is amusing to see a lot of Nepalese intellectuals striving to rationalise the crimes of the Maoists. In the 1950s, Bengal's men and women of letters oozed similar affection for the Communists and performed great intellectual gymnastics to justify the "historic inevitability" of their crimes.

There is a lot of talk in Nepal now about the "unpopularity" of King Gyanendra. But little do the votaries of Republicans realise how the Russians came to regret the disappearance of the Romanovs and, with them, the entire aristocracy. It all adds up to a blunder of Himalayan proportions.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - dhu - 06-08-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India caught in a ring of fire
By Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Reflecting growing anxiety in New Delhi about ongoing conflicts in the neighborhood, a leading Indian publication, India Today, led its May 28 edition with a cover report headlined "Neighbors on fire". Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal are four countries covered by the magazine.

Although they are very much part of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the publication has conspicuously left out three countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan and Maldives.

Perhaps New Delhi thinks these three can't afford to antagonize the rulers of India.

Political instability of an unprecedented kind has gripped the South Asia region, and the reasons for this range from armed insurgency to communal animosity and political obduracy thereof. Fears are being expressed that rapidly unfolding events and trends might place the basic principle of - and popular faith in - democracy at risk. Does India, the world's largest democracy, stand to gain from such a scenario? How will it be useful to India, not very far from China, to watch transparent political systems turning into opaque regimes in countries in its vicinity? Anyhow, when its immediate neighborhood is on fire, what should be India's reaction?

New Delhi, of course, could take some pleasure if it were discreetly assisting those responsible for setting the fires in the neighborhood. The other alternative, as the publication suggests, is to start worrying about the fallout for South Asia, where India is a dominant power. "India must ensure," said Aroon Purie, the chief editor of India Today, "that it plays a part in making sure its neighbors are able to put out their fires."

In other words, India should help neighbors to help themselves - confine its role to that of a facilitator. It should play the role of mother India, not that of a big brother. But it seems unlikely the Indian establishment will do this, and New Delhi is sensitive whenever issues in public debate involve the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Defense.

This is explained in a book, Making News, published in 2006. In a chapter contributed by Rajdeep Sardesai, a noted television journalist, there is a description of how journalists who do not want to toe the official line have to run the risk of being called anti-nationals. He tells how journalists are expected to "follow hook, line and sinker what the ministry is saying".

Unlike other issues, matters involving foreign relations are not regularly discussed in Parliament. Officials find it expedient to convince their political masters that it is beneficial to keep issues in the domain of external relations and diplomacy secret, in effect taking the agenda away from the public on whose behalf the government is expected to be working. This is what India is today, decades after renowned American scholar John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) said India was a functioning anarchy. (He also served as US envoy in New Delhi under president John F Kennedy.)

India Today has culled the opinions of experts criticizing the authorities for "ad hoc-ism". One is Brahma Chellaney, a strategic analyst, who said, "It is odd that Delhi does not have a clear neighborhood policy." It means that India has conducted its relations in the neighborhood in a haphazard manner without any coordinated, clear-cut policy since it ceased be a British colony in 1947. These include the wars with Pakistan, the clash with China, support to the movement to "liberate" Bangladesh, the annexation of Sikkim, and the landing of Indian troops in Sri Lanka to protect the Tamil population. And, in a more recent case, pitting Maoists, democratic parties and the monarchy against one other - thereby destabilizing Nepal.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon admitted, in front of a New Delhi audience on April 10, that South Asia "remains one of the least integrated regions in the world".

Should not India, the largest country in the region - and currently the chair of the SAARC - do some introspection where its measures have failed to create a conducive atmosphere to build "interdependencies", as Menon alluded to in his speech at the Observer Research Foundation?

There is a need for dispassionate study to find out why India's relations with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal have remained less than cordial. Surely, India alone cannot be right and others all wrong.

As has been pointed out by experts - and tacitly admitted by authorities - New Delhi is working without a policy on its neighborhood. It ostensibly is guided by assumptions, presumptions, perceptions and intelligence reports that are inherently flawed because of preconceived motivations. Menon, as quoted by India Today, said diplomacy "is to get other people to do what I want but get them to think that I am doing what they want".

Since Menon is the head of India's diplomatic service, it would be fair to assume that the country's envoys - be they in South Asian capitals or elsewhere - perform their roles on this basis. This leads one to consider what Indian Ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee in Kathmandu - and in the border town of Birgunj - has been doing.

In earlier times, the Maoist leadership waging a war against the Nepali government was led to a believe that Delhi was acting for their benefit. Once the Maoists decided to join mainstream politics and become a part of Parliament as well as the government, Indian diplomats found it expedient to entice one or two breakaway Maoist factions and extend them support, on the basis of which they have launched a separatist movement in the southern plains called Terai. One of the leaders at the forefront of this "Madhesi" movement, Upendra Yadav, is a Maoist renegade who in 2004 was arrested on Indian territory with two of his comrades.

New Delhi quietly handed over the two to Nepali authorities but set Yadav free while he was still in Indian territory. There is a widely held perception that Yadav, who physically resembles the people of the nearby (to Nepal) Indian state of Bihar, is being used to sustain a hate campaign against Nepalis of "hills" origin.

This is presumed to be based on an Indian interpretation that most Maoists are of "hills" origin, and that by getting them evicted from the plains India can keep its porous borders safe and also prevent the Maoist movement from spreading to adjoining Indian states. Clearly, it is an attempt to create a buffer within a buffer - which is Nepal. It is becoming clear that Yadav is being groomed to take a role akin to that of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran's in Sri Lanka.

If Prabhakaran can obtain Indian support for his fight for a separate Tamil state, Yadav's expectations for similar support from New Delhi for a "Madheshland" look logical. Some analysts tend to see these initiatives as an example of the double standards that India has applied for decades, citing military repression in Kashmir, the northeast and elsewhere to quell separatist movements.

The Indian stand on the Maoists has been inconsistent. When the Indian Foreign Office was led by Jaswant Singh, New Delhi labeled the Maoists as terrorists. Later, it reversed this approach and started to assist them, despite their violent methods. More than 13,000 lives have been lost in the decade-long insurgency that began in 1996.

Yet New Delhi was instrumental in making them a party to a 12-point agreement with the Nepali Congress-led front of seven political parties. One agreement led to another, and eventually the Maoists fully joined the constitutional process, finally becoming a part of the interim government on April 1 this year.

But now India sees them as a deadly menace, a sort of Frankenstein's monster. But the stinging question is: Who supported them so that they could be where they are now? The Maoists have ambition, as is evident from this observation of top Maoist leader Pushpa Kamala Dahal, aka Prachanda, reproduced in the May 18 report of the International Crisis Group: "Even if we are a small country in South Asia, we think our revolution can have impact all over the world."

Prachanda stresses the "great" experiment Nepal is about to undertake, saying that the country will be a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Communism may have died elsewhere, and the Shinning Path movement in Peru isn't there to provide them inspiration any longer, but Nepali Maoists claim that they have become a force to be reckoned with.

In a broader context, Indian is jittery over possible Chinese inroads into Nepal through the Maoists; here the interests of New Delhi and Washington converge. That the United States and India consult on Nepal has been made public by their officials on numerous occasions. In response to a US Congress committee query on March 22, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded that "our closest international partner in working on affairs in Nepal is India".

She also described Nepal's conditions as "somewhat tenuous", at the same praising her ambassador, James Francis Moriarty, for his performance in Nepal. Rice's remarks serve as an indicator that Moriarty and his Indian counterpart Mukherjee are working in tandem.

Their frequency of visits, conducted separately, to the residence of interim Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala create enough room for conjecture that the external influence on crucial decisions he makes is pervasive.

Apparently, Delhi has argued with Washington as well as with countries in the European Union that they should remain in touch with the Indians whenever the West intends to make substantive offers to Nepal. The reason: it is India that has to face the resulting consequences, pick up the pieces.

Moriarty and Mukherjee could, if they wanted, have met Koirala and the chief of the Nepal Army, General Rookmangud Katawal, at the same time. Analysts say Mukherjee wants to protect himself from embarrassment because the government in India is based on a coalition to which communist parties provide important support.

This leaves the task of condemning Maoist violence to Moriarty, who receives condemnation for being the meddlesome ambassador of an "imperialist power". Maoist leaders no longer publicly denounce India, which used to be seen as an "expansionist power". (In private conversations, the Maoists, like any other political leaders, resent New Delhi's growing interference in Nepali politics.)

In the words of analyst Upendra Gautam, the Americans' approach to issues is usually direct and straightforward - they say what they accept and what they reject. The Indian style is different, and it is often difficult to fathom what New Delhi means or wants.

"There is a visible lack of sincerity as well," Gautam said, referring to the usual Indian hesitation in implementing various agreements on trade, transit and water resources with Nepal. Gautam also agreed with those who think that while the Indians and Americans may be working jointly to contain China, India often goes further and goads the US to do things for which it has to face public anger.

One recent incident in eastern Nepal provides an example. Outside a Bhutanese refugee camp, Moriarty faced a stone-throwing crowd he had gone to meet to make an offer for resettlement of about 60,000 refugees. Mukherjee, on the other hand, has not encountered any hostility, although it is his country, India, which has assisted the Bhutanese royal regime in evicting the more than 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese nationals who have taken shelter in United Nations-run camps since the early 1990s. (The diplomatic corps in Kathmandu issued a statement last weekend expressing concern for the safety of diplomats accredited to Nepal.)

A news report published in The Australian newspaper on April 12 said the central plank of India's impatience and concern stems from a perception that the Chinese influence on Nepal is on the rise - not only through the Maoists, who have joined the government, but also by China's reported interest to extend its Tibetan railway to Nepal. Since India enjoys a close and improved relationship with China, especially after Beijing recognized Sikkim as a part of India, there is apparently no ground for New Delhi to be over-sensitive.

Meanwhile, Nepal remains politically unstable as interim government leaders and feuding political parties work overtime to find a date for proposed November elections for a constitution-making assembly.

There are rumors that New Delhi is contemplating sending in troops, as it did in Sri Lanka in the 1980s. Speculation also includes a possible bid to dispatch Indian soldiers under UN command. But there are hurdles. How will, for instance, the 50,000-plus Nepalis currently employed by the Indian Army react when they know that their motherland is being invaded by Indian forces?

Observers mention such aspects to discount fears of direct military intervention by India, also because the mission to Sri Lanka turned out to be a fiasco (and led to the assassination of prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991). The other important deterrent is China, which obviously does not want to see undesirable activities in a country bordering Tibet.

Beijing's concerns of instability in Nepal may not be found in the daily media, but it would be wrong to presume that the Chinese are indifferent toward happenings in the vicinity of Tibet. Unlike India, China does not take too much interest in who comes to power in Nepal; its policy has been to deal with whoever has been accepted by the people of Nepal.

In the past, China maintained contacts with the monarchy; since April 2006 it has worked with first the caretaker and then the interim government headed by Koirala. In a concomitant gesture, China changed its ambassador after Nepal's interim constitution in effect suspended King Gyanendra by way of transferring his official responsibilities to the prime minister.

By directing its new ambassador, Zheng Xianglin, to present his credentials to Koirala (April 19), Beijing issued a pithy message that its past linkage with the monarchy was not a permanent one, or that it would go against the wishes of the Nepali people. Zheng became the first ambassador accredited to Nepal to break the tradition of seeking an audience with the king for the said purpose.

In addition, Beijing has invited Koirala to pay an official visit to China, this is likely to be next month. Meanwhile, a number of delegations, including official ones, have arrived from China in the past few months.

And a senior member in the Maoist hierarchy, Barshaman Pun (aka Ananta), has been to China twice in the past six months. Media reports said in recent weeks that if approached by Nepal, China could make arrangements for a limited supply of petroleum products for Nepali consumers who have to date been fully dependent on supplies from India. Some of these developments seem to have set off jitters in New Delhi, prompting it to look for alternatives.

What could these be? First, India has to develop an integrated foreign policy for the neighborhood with a specific pledge to support democratic processes in all countries. Second, it needs to stop getting involved in internal political competitions, and develop friendly and transparent relations with governments elected by the people. Third, it could lift all restrictions on trade and transit facilities and begin treating neighbors on the basis of equality and respect.

By taking such measures, India would win the goodwill required to project itself as a genuine regional power. This is preferable to entertaining the idea of coups to install "friendly" regimes.

Dhruba Adhikary, who has been a Dag Hammarskjold fellow, is a Kathmandu-based journalist.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 06-16-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Tribes Try to Out-Mao the Maoists June 7, 2007</b>:

The success of the Maoists in
getting the government to enact reforms, has encouraged the tribes and ethnic
minorities to do the same. Over the last few months, several new, armed, and
aggressive, militias have appeared in the countryside. <b>These groups appear to be trying to outdo the Maoists, which would be ironic, as the Maoists are now
part of the government</b>. Meanwhile, the Maoists and traditional political parties
appear to be maneuvering to ease each other out of the government. <b>The Maoists have always wanted to establish a communist dictatorship, and the
political parties believe the Maoists have not really changed their political goals</b>.

June 7, 2007: <b>Maoist groups are now offering, or selling, refuge to tribal
separatist groups (like the ULFA) from across the border in India. </b>ULFA is also
a criminal gang, involved in all manner of scams. Buying sanctuary in Nepal
appears to be a good business move. Indian is in the process of improving its
border security in this area. But on the Nepalese side, there is not much border
patrol at all. The Maoists also appear to be supplying the ULFA with supplies
and weapons.

June 1, 2007: A coalition of tribal groups called a general strike that
basically shut down commerce in the capital. The government has long insisted
that Nepali be the only language for dealing with the government, thus making it
difficult for many ethnic (and tribal) minorities to deal with the government.

May 30, 2007: In the southeast, there is growing unrest at refugee camps for
100,000 ethnic Nepalis who were forced out of neighboring Bhutan over a decade
ago. <b>Bhutan expelled the Nepalis because they were Hindu, and Bhutan wanted to get rid of anyone who was not Buddhist.</b> Nepal does not want to accept the
refugees, and many of the refugees want to go back to Bhutan. Now the U.S. has
offered to accept 60,000 of the refugees, and this has caused violence between
factions who want to go to America, versus those who believe everyone should
return to Bhutan. This has led to violence with Nepali police, and Indian border
guards, as a group of refugees tried to cross the nearby Indian border, to use
the bridge and road leading to Bhutan. That's
the same road used to bring the refugees to Nepal. Some people have been killed,
and dozens injured.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/nepal/articles/20070607.aspx<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 06-17-2007

<span style='color:red'>Once, there was a Hindu nation - Tarun Vijay</span>


Nepal used to be the only constitutionally declared Hindu nation on this planet. Last year in a quick change in the state´s governance, it removed the word Hindu and became secular.

This beautiful country, Shangri-La of the East, and in many ways as charming and scintillating as Kashmir or even better than Switzerland, lost more than 12 thousand lives under a bloody 10-year long ´Maoist peoples´ war´ which culminated in a joint interim government last May. The first thing that this new set of governors did was to remove the celebrative tag of a constitutional Hindu nation from her name. Very soon after the formation of the new constitutional assembly, they may get rid of the constitutional monarchy system too.

With a population of 27.1 million and a life expectancy rate of 62, Nepal´s only 46.8 per cent population above the age of 15 can claim some literacy. And all this happened when the constitutional monarchy was in saddle firmly and a democratic movement had taken shape to have 14 Prime Ministers in last 16 years. Still it seemed working better than a direct and dictatorial regime of the King.

But the development issues remained mired in growing corruption, nepotism and unfocussed policies with continuous brickbatting within the political parties leading to the growth of a violent Maoist movement that promised a ´revolutionary rule of the proletariat´ . It did garner support amongst the rural masses, through selling dreams, guns and a systematic annihilation of the Opposition, thus creating an atmosphere where to be with them was life and to remain aloof meant a bullet.

Now they are running the show in Kathmandu.

Nobody questions that if there can be a hundred Islamic and Christian nations with their ´Christian or Muslim only´ constitutional provisions for their head of the states, and democracy and pluralism can still flourish in a royal Britain with a Church of England taking care of the faith officially and a US president taking oath on Bible without murmurs from citizens belonging to other denominations, why on earth, a lonely Hindu nation was looked up as a threat to democracy and egalitarian values, while it ensured full freedom to all for propagation and practice of whatever they believed in?

One can´t even imagine a temple in front of the presidential house in Pakistan; leave aside Saudi Arabia, where passengers are not allowed to carry a copy of Gita with them. In its previous avatar as a Hindu nation, Nepal saw the construction of a highrise Jama Mosque facing the Narayan Hitti palace, the abode of the King, traditionally equated with Vishnu. There were madarssas , a regular flow of religious Tablighs from India and Pakistan and always a Muslim cabinet minister in the Hindu kingdom.

But the Maoists and their shadow democrats felt that the Hindu nation tag is obscurantist, hence they got rid of it. The key point is whether removing such innocuous labels as Hindu Nation has helped the new regime to move ahead in development and providing security and stability to its people?

Has it helped Nepal´s ranking amongst the comity of the nations go up as a more progressive, forward-looking and futuristic nation? Or on the other hand, has it demoralised its own majority and demonstrated that to show the Hindu tag means being less progressive? Can a deeply religious Hindu majority land claim this flagellantism as a path to neo nirvana? Known and respected world over for their valour, brilliance and dynamism, Nepalese never felt this low in their glorious history.

Everything Maoists and their cohorts have done carries an inseparable and often an overriding hue- hatred for Hindus. They attack Hindu sensibilities and icons freely in the name of ´reforms´, ´revolution´, ´progress´ etc. Their reformist zeal, read changing Hindu traditions through a declared atheist methods, knows no bound only for Hindus, while other religious communities are untouched by it, as if they need no reform. Or are they afraid of their foreign fund-raisers?

So Hindus being a soft target and Indian Hindus proving themselves incapable of helping neighbours, Maoists had enough courage to stop age-old Sanskrit schools in the villages, prohibit Brahmins having shikha (small tuft), targeted only one community –Hindus in their ´war ´, desecrated Hindu temples and prescribed beef and buffalo meat to their recruits in the Maoist ´guerilla army´. This has enraged the deeply religious and pious Nepali people but the fear of the gun and a change in the regime, with no organisation willing to take on the violent Maoists, nothing much has come to the fore.

Having been a regular to Kathmandu and other distanced areas, this time I found people resigning hopelessly to their fate. They don´t talk about the great future any more but lament that perhaps in coming days, relations with India will further sour. The new generation is no more interested in India. They yearn to go to US or Australia and China provides cheaper and easier access to its educational facilities.

Previously, India was the hub of Nepal´s education and religious instructions. The older generation had received education in Indian colleges and universities and the Nepalese democratic movement got inspiration and strength from Indian friends and connections.

No Hindu can complete his essential pilgrimage cycle without visiting Pashupatinath and the temple priest comes from Kerala´s Nambudiri community. Nepal´s trading and enterprising community overwhelmingly belongs to India´s original Marwaris and even the royals trace their lineage to the Rajputana´s Shishodia blue blood. Such is the strong cultural relationship between the two nations.

Apart from this, the security aspect is too significant to be ignored. It´s the most important buffer between India and China. With Nepal´s more than ninety per cent population being Hindu, India has a natural bond with this tiny state that is now to be severed by the Maoists for reasons not unknown.

Foreign powers see destabilising Nepal as another step to over-stress India -an emerging world power. The first step towards this can be achieved by reinforcing disaffection and hate against India amongst the common people and leaders. Today, thanks to Indian negligence, it pays to speak against India in contemporary Nepal. The younger ones, having no India connection like their forefathers, love to criticise Delhi for everything bad that has happened there. Obviously the Pakistanis and the western Christian donors reap the hate -harvest to their benefit in a war of influence.

There was a time when marrying in India was a matter of pride and status. No more now. Recently, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala´s granddaughter married a Bangladeshi Muslim in Kathmandu with such lavish fanfare that it invited a wide-ranging criticism with Maoists boycotting the ceremony and winning further public applause.

But as Vivekananda said you can´t worship God or save dharma with empty bellies. The malnourished, underdeveloped people cannot be fed on culture and great traditions of the past too long. It´s the failure of the monarchists and the democrats both who remained Kathmandu-centric and ignored the pains and anguish of the Nepalese people and their burning issues for too long.

The democratic parties do not have charismatic leadership, and hence had to agree on an octogenarian Koirala to head the interim government. Most of the political parties do not dare to reach the rural population for fear of the Maoist attacks and have lost touch with the ground-level workers, who have shifted their loyalties too.

After one year of the ´revolutionary change over´ in Kathmandu, the people have got only new slogans, clichés and Young Communist League (YCL), whom Koirala described as the Young Criminals League, inviting the wrath of the Maoists in harsh language and burning his effigies. In the last one year, the Royal Nepalese Army had to be rechristened as the National Army, the King´s powers were taken away and there was a public scramble for lucrative postings and ministerial berths between Maoists and the other seven-party democratic alliance.

Nepal has not been able to depute a single ambassador in any country, including India, in the last twelve months. The formation of the new constituent assembly has been delayed, the Prime Minister is asked to perform the duties of a head of the state (like administering oath, receiving credentials from ambassadors etc).

Even as the ´extortion Raj´ of the Maoists continues unabated, their youth wing, Communist Youth League, has become a law unto itself. It ´resolves´ citizen´s problems, arrests and hands over the ´corrupt´ officials and leaders to the police in public meetings, removes illegal encroachments with bulldozers and enforces a ´moral , lawful, honest ´ behaviour on the citizens.

Maoists want their own old time guerrillas to be incorporated in the Nepalese army, in a move to ´purge´ it from the erstwhile royal and hence ´anti-people´ influence. The Koirala government has resisted so far because that may create a clash within the army. But the Maoists don´t care. In any case, they know that Koirala is a passing phase and after him, they may project Madhav Nepal, the youthful and energetic general secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal, which had earlier been in opposition to the Maoists´ violent methods and has a wide acceptance in India too.

Last week he was in India and got virtually a welcome from treasury as well as opposition leaders befitting a ´would-be Prime Minister.´ He is seen as the future hope for Nepal by South Block and even BJP leaders accorded him an affectionate welcome, loaded with trust. There are leaders in Nepalese Congress like Chakra Bastola and Deuba, who are promising but have not been given a chance to prove the mettle. The lack of non-political intellectual leadership, immature polity, misplaced revolutionary zeal and a corrupt officialdom have contributed to this mess that offers lucrative market to the foreign vultures with strategic goals.

The Terai belt, Madhesh, is burning under a fierce people´s movement on the pattern of Bihar´s JP movement against the injustices and discriminatory attitude of the ruling hill elite of Kathmandu. This has emerged cutting across all party lines and has claimed more than forty live in clashes with the police.

Madheshi leaders demand development and have threatened to form their own Madhesh parliament and retain revenue within Madhesh boundary. Maoists were quick to sense the mood of the people and one of their leaders, Matrika Yadav, who holds the forest portfolio in the interim government publicly declared that a ´people´s´ war ´ would be unleashed if Madhesh´s problems were not addressed by the Kathmandu government. To whom was he sounding ´revolutionary´, people wondered, as he is presently a part and the controller of the governance in Kathmandu.

Such hysterical dramas unfold in Nepal every day making the commoner more depressed and disillusioned. The first signs of the decay began appearing long back in the mushrooming number of foreign-funded NGOs. Like Bangladesh, Nepal, too, is fast moving to become an NGC country.

Madhav Nepal accepted the inherent dangers in this trend in a talk with me in Delhi and said once their republic gets going; they shall ensure NGOs do not change the character of Nepal taking advantage of poverty and backwardness. He was clearly hinting at the concerns of the Hindu organisations who fear a big harvest ´for Christian proselytizers who have made their presence felt n a big way in rural and less developed areas.

Said Rameh Pokhrel, an engineer, who had come from a stint in a US-based firm, "We have fallen from the anarchy of monarchy to Maoist megalomania, with hardly any future. We are angry at India because we had high hopes from you. You did nothing to help us stem the rot, neither your government nor your great Hindu organisations that were seen as clapper boys of the Raja rather than representing the Hindu people´s desire for a change´"

From an anarchic Royal rule to another anarchic Maoist regime, that seems to be the fate of this lonely planet once identified as the Hindu kingdom.

http://www.panchjanya.com/dynamic/modules....howpage&pid=211


Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 07-07-2007

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070707/15/13wzj.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday July 7, 08:57 PM
<b>Maoist protests mark Nepal king's low-key birthday</b>
KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Nepal's unpopular King Gyanendra marked his 61st birthday on Saturday as former Maoist rebels organized rallies demanding an end to the monarchy and a clash between the monarch's supporters and Maoists left 10 people injured.
(Who invited communists to a birthday party the reds didn't care for anyway? Let me guess which side was forced to sustain injuries. Who are the known hooligans?)

About a thousand of the king's supporters, led by five small girls wearing traditional red gold-embroidered costumes, waited for hours in scorching sun outside the king's pink palace to offer the monarch bouquets and gifts.

Some beat cymbals, blew copper pipes and chanted "long live the king" and "our king is dearer to us than our hearts."

A short distance away, about 5,000 youth and student supporters of the Maoists, who joined the government in April, protested by demanding the monarch leave the country.

"Down with the monarchy... and down with Gyanendra," read some of the placards carried by members of the <b>Young Communist League, the Maoist youth wing.</b>

Mainstream politicians including cabinet ministers and some foreign ambassadors did not attend the king's celebrations. Hundreds of riot police in blue camouflage guarded both rallies but did not intervene.

<b>At least 10 people, including two police personnel, were injured when the Maoist activists clashed with supporters of the king elsewhere in the capital, a police officer said.</b>

Some protesters, including 26-year-old hotel worker Hem Lal Gautam, thought public celebrations by the king, who faces a vote in November to decide his future, were uncalled for.

"This is a waste. He is trying to use his birthday for political purpose and sabotage the vote," said Gautam who carried a placard showing Gyanendra fleeing in an airplane. "He has no popular support and must go."

Gyanendra ascended the throne in 2001 after a palace massacre in which the then crown prince is reported to have killed his parents and most members of the royal family before turning the gun on himself in a drink-and-drug-fuelled shooting spree.

Gyanendra, who was not present in the palace during the shooting, sacked the government and took over absolute power in 2005 only to bow to street protests and hand power back to political parties last year.

The new government stripped the monarch of almost all his powers including the control over the army, taxed his property and income.

National elections are due in November to draw up a political road map for Nepal and decide whether to turn the impoverished nation into a republic or retain the monarchy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't believe western media is reporting the communist side so respectably when it comes to Nepal. I guess from their POV communism is desirable when it explodes onto heathen countries but is regarded the worst possible plague if it struck a christian nation.

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 09-26-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Nepal Cong for resolution to abolish monarchy </b>
Pioneer.com
Binaj Gurubacharya | Kathmandu 
Leaders of Nepal's largest political party Nepali Congress will likely adopt a resolution this week favouring the abolition of the country's centuries-old monarchy, a key demand of former rebels, officials said on Tuesday.

The Maoists waged a decade-long armed rebellion to try to turn Nepal into a republic before joining the Government this year. Last week they withdrew from the ruling coalition over the monarchy issue.

The Maoists have also threatened to disrupt an election, scheduled for November, if the monarchy is not abolished immediately.

The Nepali Congress and other parties in the ruling coalition want to wait for a special Assembly to be elected in November before deciding the country's political future.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

All because of Sonia, Moron Singh and COmmies in India.

Nepal News &amp; Discussion - Guest - 09-28-2007

Secularization / deculturing in process. in name of removing the royal signs from the nepal currency, reserve bank of nepal issued new currency. i have not seen it or any reports of what exactly is removed, but i do presume the words which have graced all nepal govt docs for two centuries incl the currency - ma bhawani and sri sri sri gorakhnath -would have been gotten rid of. Devi bhawani is the protector of nepal and had blessed prithvi narayan shah with invincibility and gorakhnath was the royal guru and patron of nepal this far.