• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nepal News & Discussion
This is serious
<b>14 Indian soldiers abducted in Nepal</b>
King complex - Relations are getting into a dangerous drift with Nepal.

This is freaking getting ridiculous. Send a bloody division. Heck send 5. BFD.. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Nepal's rebels planning to set up bases in India: Minister<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quoting intelligence reports, he said some of Nepal's Maoist leaders were in touch with the outlawed United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), a rebel group fighting for an independent homeland in Assam.

"We have put our soldiers on full alert along the border with Nepal and have decided to double the strength of border guards and increase the number of check posts to prevent infiltration of guerrillas from Nepal," Jaiswal said.

India and Nepal share a 1,800-km unfenced border.
Kathmandu under siege - G. Parthasarathy

Is this really a law and order problem ??
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Gyanendra's gambit against Maoists </b>
Agencies / Kathmandu
By sacking Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba's government for the second time in just over two years and taking full control of the state power, Nepal's King Gyanendra has taken an unprecedented risk.

He knows he will have to win a three-way power struggle involving the monarchy, a powerful Maoist rebel movement and Nepal's parliamentary parties. If he loses, his throne itself could be in danger. He has said he will form a new cabinet under his direct leadership.

But the Maoist rebels appear stronger by the day. No one knows whether the king will be able to deal with the civil war successfully where the politicians have failed.

Many analysts had been saying that direct rule was probably the last option left to the king to deal with the crisis. The Maoists have insisted on direct talks with the king. The alternative was the strong lobby in the country advocating the restoration of the dissolved House of Parliament.

That would have meant a return to full democracy after the king sacked the elected government of Mr Deuba in October 2002.

Mr Deuba was appointed again in June last year after the king's pro-royalist nominees, Mr Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Mr Surya Bahadur Thapa, failed to make progress in resolving the Maoist crisis.

When Mr Deuba was reappointed, he was asked by the king to form a government by trying to get into fold as many political parties as possible, restore peace in the country and start the process of holding general elections by March this year.

Many predicted it was an impossible task. Deuba got off to a bad start when the largest political party in the dissolved parliament, the Nepali Congress, refused to co-operate. Some other smaller parties also cold-shouldered him.

The idea of holding elections was mocked by all political parties because of the deteriorating security situation and the Maoist threat to disrupt any polls.

In theory, King Gyanendra should have been in favour of the elections as he had been insisting on them when he reappointed Mr Deuba as prime minister.

But Mr Deuba had been telling many journalists off the record that the king himself did not, in fact, want the elections to be held.

It is certainly true that if a date for elections had already been announced, it would have made it harder for the king to justify his decision to rule directly and impose a state of emergency.

Some in Nepal have always been suspicious of the king's democratic credentials.

He became the king in unexpected and dramatic circumstances after his brother and other members of his family were killed in a shoot-out at the royal palace in June 2001.

Political parties have campaigned for months for parliament to be restored Immediately after his enthronement, he said he would not be a quiet king like his brother and would play a more active role in Nepali life. His involvement in state affairs opened up the country's three way power struggle. Many had been calling for a united front between the king and Nepal's political parties. King Gyanendra never took up such an initiative and now looks to have decided to sideline the parties completely.

So his success now depends entirely on whether he will be able to bring the Maoist rebels back to the negotiating table and reach some sort of deal in restoring peace in the country. It is a tall order, not least because the basic aims of the Maoists has long been the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a communist republic.

However, if the king succeeds, he may gain some support. If he fails, there is a possibility that the political parties might establish some sort of working relationship with the Maoists and try to get rid of the king himself.

Whatever the future course, the state of Nepal has been plunged into further uncertainty.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont agree with this at all. At this point India has to act swiftly and get the king to agree to becoming India's protectorate. Nepal is too important for India to be flushed down the toilet like this.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India and the King

The Pioneer Edit Desk

India's Nepal policy just collapsed. Indian policy-makers now need to introspect because Nepal is vital to India's security interests. Nepal should have been a test case for India's ability to cultivate good relations with its neighbours, which it has signally failed to do with any, except Bhutan. Honest reflection is called for to understand why it has proven impossible to cultivate good relations with the one country, which shares so much with India culturally.

The first imperative for India now is self-restraint instead of piqued retaliation for King Gyanendra's abandonment of parliamentary democracy and virtual dismissal of the 1989 constitution. The second injunction, which, unfortunately, needs articulating, is the need to abjure personal frictions between Narayanhiti Palace and key Indian policy-makers. To put it baldly, India needs to engage with King Gyanendra, however painful it is for the pride of its world-weary statesman. His Majesty cannot avoid the issue of restoring parliamentary democracy, but India should not be more concerned about its fate than the people of Nepal.

If Indian policy-makers feel that the King cannot govern effectively, or indeed survive without their goodwill, they must then give up the pretence of wishing Nepal well and assert the primacy of India's legitimate security interests in Nepal above the former. However, Indian policy makers must surely be aware how perilous this option may be. Its other ill-disposed neighbours have every incentive to take advantage of any Indian miscalculation in Nepal. They may respond to upping the ante on their individual grievances in their respective geographical spheres. The King may be a lonely figure today, condemned across the world, but he is not entirely alone. He and Nepal may suffer intolerably from Indian anger at his vaulting ambition, but his demise may prove costly for India as well.

Indian policy went wrong in Nepal because Jawaharlal Nehru decided that it was akin to India's princely states, ready for democratisation. What was a noble sentiment in the general Indian context, first backfired in Kashmir because the Abdullah he sponsored turned Kashmir into a more serious headache for India than its monarch is likely to have done. India's historical demand for the democratisation of Nepal is the reason for the ire of its elite against India. It has intervened in Nepal on a scale that it would have deemed imperialist in any other Third World country. It wrongly imagines that a newly installed democratic elite in Nepal, courtesy GOI, would remain friendly, nay, duly craven, towards India. On the contrary, the dynamic of every national elite is to assert its autonomy. It was the fear of losing this autonomy that made many in Nepal unduly receptive to the PRC and diabolical Pakistani machinations.

A new policy towards Nepal is required. India should merely insist that it will not sit idly by if its legitimate security and other interests are compromised. But India must swallow its pride and let democracy take its own course in Nepal. The monarchy may delay its restoration, but cannot curb it indefinitely. Nepal's much-derided democracy, which was barely allowed to function for a decade, did improve its human development indices. As for the Maoists, decisive military action is unavoidable to coerce a settlement for the sake of Nepal's future. And further humiliation of King Gyanendra would be a mistake because New Delhi has not adequately grasped his sense of royal grandeur and pride. Judging by the appointments to his cabinet today, he may already be holding out an olive branch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
King gives India the royal ignore
Army chief turns down Nepal invite

Stupid move.
Time to sidestep a Himalayan blunder : Swapan Dasgupta

Very sensible article from Swapan. If anything we should use this oppurtunity to work with the king and find a long term solution or Nepal will become a banana republic (if it isnt one already). commies, islamists and missionaries will have a free run over there. Army chief must reconsider his decision to visit Nepal.
<b>Chinese hand behind Gyanendra’s coup</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4 February 2005: Behind King Gyanendra’s coup, the Chinese hand is becoming visible, and it ties to the king’s son, Paras’s two visits to Hong Kong since 24 December.

The Chinese were apparently putting pressure on Nepal to open trade and transit routes between Lhasa and Kathmandu, and to evict the followers of the Dalai Lama and shut down his missions.

In early January, after Paras’s first Hong Kong visit, Nepal ordered closure of the Tibetan cultural centre, and subsequently, King Gyanendra put pressure to arrest and deport the Dalai Lama’s followers to China.

Prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, since sacked, conveyed a cabinet meeting to discuss the deportations, but six prominent ministers protested, threatened to resign from the government and party, and launch public demonstrations.

So Deuba expressed his helplessness to Gyanendra, who was unhappy and complained to his aides about the “ineffectiveness” of the PM.

Also at China’s behest, <b>King Gyanendra put a proposal to hastily open the trade routes between Lhasa and Kathmandu, and rejected Deuba’s suggestion to consult India beforehand, </b>saying he was the head of state, but again, the Nepal cabinet opposed him.

Now, after assuming absolute powers through the coup, <b>the king said last night that the trade routes with China would be opened by May, and that Nepal would join the China, Tibet confederation of chambers of commerce.</b>

Officials said the <b>king had warned Deuba to reduce dependence on India, but the PM was not convinced.</b>

So far, China has not condemned the coup, but rather said it would extend all emergency assistance to Nepal. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Units alerted to refugees from Nepal</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->5 February 2005: Apprehending the influx of five-lakh refugees from Nepal, the Indian government has put units of the SSB, DRI and CRPF on the Indo-Nepal border on full alert, and threatened closure of border points and restrict country-to-country movement.

India has told Nepal it cannot handle such a large refugee influx, but Nepal has expressed equal helplessness, since the Royal Nepalese Army cannot patrol the border engaged in battling the Maoists, and Nepalese feel very insecure in district camps set up by the government because of the widening conflict. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
king gyanendra allied with china??? i don't think this could be true. he may be flirting with idea of foreign troops from britain, US, and china only because india has given no support against the maoists..... i think nepali congress of which former PM deuba was the leader is very similar to INC in that it covertly supports the maoists and uses them to prop up its militant student orgs and the corrupt govt leaders... similar to the way the CPi rules in bengal or YSR in AP. i also remember reading recently that it was the china-lover nehru himself who founded the nepali congress arrayed against the monarchy....

also wasn't the tibetan office closure announced by deuba himself, also the opening of the trade route with china- both seem to be nepali congress handiworks, not specifically thoseof king gyanendra..

also what to make of the reports that the maoists and their JNU-educated leaders are fleeing to india for shelter among their naxal-kangressi kin. Why would they do this if the king were actually on their side........
article in pioneer today.... it seems that congress in both countries is doing beijing's bidding............

Chinese held for illegal stay
Staff Reporter / New Delhi

A Chinese man was sentenced to eight months and fined Rs 1,000 by a <b>Delhi court</b> for illegally staying in the country.

Additional chief metropolitan magistrate Madhu Jain <b>ordered the deportation of Tenzing,</b> found guilty of violating the provisions of The Foreigners Act. However, the court set off the period of sentence against the term he has already spent in judicial custody during the trial.

Tenzing would be a free man once he pays the fine, in default of which he will have to be in jail for another 15 days.

Tenzing was arrested on March 26 from an ice factory near the Sabzi Mandi Police Station without a passport and visa.

Ttenzing claimed that he was from Tibet and has been falsely implicated.
The growing disconnect between Kathmandu and the rest of the country is evident here. Though even in Dhulikhel, the dismissed Deuba government finds no sympathy, <b>people are concerned as for the first time, the King is pitted directly against Maoists.</b> People here say the country will plunge into even more serious turmoil if the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) is not able to vanquish the extremists.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->king gyanendra allied with china???<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->UPA is playing dirty tricks with Nepal. Indian commies are directly involved in Maoist movement in India and Nepal.
Early on it was J.L .Nehru who lost Tibet. The question now will be who lost Nepal? And all fingers will point to UPA's Manmohan Singh and his coterie.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->UPA's Manmohan Singh and his coterie<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you have stupid fool Nutwar as Videsh mantari and visionary as Sonia and rubber stamp PM and commie as intellectuals, no surprise we may lose Nepal plus they can also offer "Buy one get one free" deal by giving Assam to Bangla Desh.

King's son's wife is related to Nutwar and Gyatari Devi of Jaipur.
From the Telegraph, 6 feb. 2005

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THE KING NEXT DOOR
- Nepal’s fate will be determined by its people 

The royal proclamation earlier this week adds yet another twist to the trials which have dogged the people of Nepal over the past years. The imposition of emergency and the suspension of political activity have been coupled with the ancillary suspension of constitutional provisions, which grant civic rights and liberties. As of now, communication links with the outside world also remain severed. There has been a uniform expression of dismay in India at the royal take-over, with concern about what impact the events will have on Indo-Nepal relations.

The almost exponential spread of the Maoist insurgency over the past few years was gradually squeezing the economy of Nepal and the Royal Nepal Army, despite considerable international assistance, has not been able to check its growth. The Maoists seem to be able to operate at will and have a substantial presence in a majority of Nepal’s districts. Meanwhile, in Kathmandu, there has been a game of musical chairs in the appointment of prime ministers since the dismissal of the elected government and dissolution of the elected lower house. Even before these exercises of the royal prerogative, the political parties of Nepal had not distinguished themselves in any worthy manner. Within a short period of the restoration of democracy in 1991, Nepali politics was characterized by inter- and intra-party feuding arising largely from personality conflicts and the desire for power.

In the context of this recent history of Nepali politics, some sympathetic chords could echo the dismissive tenor of the royal proclamation towards politics and politicians. There is, however, more to it, as the king also seems to have actively contributed to the disunity among politicians almost since his accession to the throne, instead of acting to bring them together to face a common challenge. He cannot, therefore, avoid his share of the responsibility for the sorry state which in which Nepali politics finds itself.

<b>It also needs to be recalled that unlike the rest of south Asia which had suffered a colonial yoke, Nepal has been independent for the past two hundred years. </b>This is a matter of understandable pride for the Nepali. At the same time, while British India could, and did, imbibe contemporary values, Nepal retained an essentially feudal structure where the concept of democracy was not defined, and certainly not encouraged. Nepal’s first tryst with democracy was summarily terminated by the late King Mahendra and could only resurface after thirty years in 1990 after a protracted struggle. What happened on February 1, 2005, is thus seen as not so much of a step compelled by the exigencies of the situation and the inability of the political parties to cope, but as a body blow to the nascent and struggling Nepali democracy.

But 2005 is not 1960, and it is unlikely that this step back into time would pass without let or hindrance, either nationally or internationally. Any attempt to return to the romantic Shangrila of yesterday with a placid people accepting the laws laid down by the palace would only create a stifling prison, as seems to be the case now with a Nepal bereft of communication with the outside world. What was unacceptable to the people of Nepal in the Fifties of the 20th century and what they successfully struggled against after 1960, is unlikely to be sustainable today. Unlike 1960 also, Nepal has tasted freedom, has enjoyed a vibrant and free press and has seen the emergence of a forward-looking, nationalist and educated middle class.

The calculation would seem to be that “terrorism” being the most reprehensible word in the international vocabulary today, and the Maobadis being termed terrorists (first by India), the world at large, including India, would fall in line with the regime’s avowed determination to resolve the Maobadi problem. Internationally, the idea could perhaps be persuasively promoted, as we have seen repeatedly, including in south Asia, where democracy takes a poor second place to firm action against terrorists. Where King Gyanendra may have been poorly advised is that his own standing in Nepal is not as strong as his forebears, particularly after the palace massacre of 2001. And even King Birendra, still enjoying the traditional religious halo, had been compelled to compromise fifteen years ago with the will of the people.

In a nation accustomed to revering the monarchy, talk of republicanism, even outside the confines of the Maobadis, is no longer taboo. <b>Above all, the king has placed the prestige, if not the future, of the monarchy on the line by removing the protective wall which the political parties provided. The monarchy as an institution has been an important binding force for Nepal as a state. Clearly, it can continue to be respected only if it is seen as a glue and not as a shroud, a guide and not a partisan. </b>As for dealing with the Maobadi threat, even if one were to believe that the palace once had links with them to settle scores with the mainstream political parties, much water has since flown down the Bagmati and they are now a force in their own right.

India would have to exercise her choices with caution. The founder of modern Nepal, Prithvi Narayan Shah, had pithily surmised the position of Nepal as a yam between two stones. Nepal has always displayed considerable diplomatic skill in dealing with her two giant neighbours. As times change, it is inevitable that there would be an increasingly assertive Nepal. <b>But the facts of geography, history and custom (including the much maligned treaty of 1950) need to be seen. The relations of Nepal and India are indeed unique. A Nepali citizen may rise to the highest ranks in the Indian armed forces, where over thirty thousand Nepalis serve in the army with more than one hundred thousand pensioners in the hills of Nepal. They are free to join the civil services in India. There is an open border permitting free movement of people with duty-free access to goods of Nepali origin. Millions of Nepali citizens earn their livelihood in India and there are innumerable family links at all levels of society. Any serious unrest in Nepal affects India, as we have recently seen with large-scale migration following Maobadi activities and army operations. It is important that India’s actions do not hurt a people already beleaguered.</b>

One question that may need early assessment is the assistance to the Royal Nepal Army. This has been most substantial over the past three years in an effort to raise the efficacy of the RNA against the Maobadi insurgency. But should the army be used to suppress the legitimate democratic aspirations of the people, then a reappraisal may be necessary.

The course of events in the coming days would be determined by the people of Nepal. The exercise of options by India would depend on how this develops. In the days of the raj, a senior official is said to have remarked, “We have no policy towards Nepal, only friendship.” This would be valid even today, and friendship has to be for the people at large.

The author is India’s former ambassador to Nepal

Be prepared to see the loss of the monarchy if UPA intervenes.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the days of the raj, a senior official is said to have remarked, “We have no policy towards Nepal, only friendship.” This would be valid even today, and friendship has to be for the people at large.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no direction in UPA. They are not sticking with long term policy or long term interest on India. Loss of friendly Nepal with same culture as a buffer state will effect long term security of India. We may see another partiton of India in our life time, where North east will go for China.
it is very difficult to get past the communist doublespeak on the monarchy...

i am pretty sure nepali congress was functioning much like YSR congress in playacting as peace negotiators with the maoists while using them to prop up their corrupt extortionist leaders....... there were also rumors floated by the press that Gyanendra had killed king Birendra, although it would more likely have been china or maoists, (Dipendra could not possibly have shot himself in the back with an assault rifle). are they purposely vilifying this king as a china stooge to take the lens off the corrupt congress.... communists were the biggest party in the dissolved assembly........... ordinary nepalis seem to be sympathetic to monarchy and view congress almost same as we view our congress.....

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India may have to deal with Gyanendra's China card option
The Indian Express

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 6 - The announcement in the Nepali media last week that a bus service will soon be launched between Kathmandu and Lhasa was not news to South Block. For, an agreement on this was signed between Nepal and China last November.

But the public focus on the Lhasa-Kathmandu bus service might be an attempt to highlight Gyanendra’s options on playing the China card to shore up his royal coup d’etat.

Gyanendra has every reason to be happy with the Chinese reaction, which described the coup as an ‘‘internal affair’’ of Nepal even as India condemned it.

Setting up India and China against each other has always been an option for Nepal and is dictated by geography.

No one did it more brazenly than King Mahendra, the father of the present monarch. If Mahendra trampled on Nepal’s first experiment with democracy in 1960, Gyanendra has now wiped out the second experiment, which began in 1990.

Gyanendra might also want to imitate his father in playing the China card against India. But Sino-Indian relations have moved a long way from the early 1960s. They never have been as good as they are today. (isn't it a peace of the graveyard!!!!)
...... .........<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)