Today I read that the 50th anniversary of Nepal-China diplomatic relationship is going to be celebrated with big festivities. The current regime is giving its official backing by involving the Mandale ministers in various programs. Yesterday King G's pro-China sidekick Tulsi Giri met the Chinese ambassador. And a week before the Feb 1st royal coup, Nepal closed the Tibetan center in Lumbini. China had been demanding for the closure for a long time and it must be surprised/glad that it happened so fast. It looks like King G is trying to play the Chinese card vis-a-vis India.

Indian defense-foreign policy establishment figures, base on their published articles, are confused about their government's response to the current crisis. They give a sense that India is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand [the rock] they do not like King G's moves because they say it?s undemocratic. That's a bull. India had a very cordial relationship with the Panchayat regime. Moreover, when it comes to the feudal regime of King B of Bhutan, India seems to have a memory lapse. So I am at a loss to it explain India's motives for its strong reaction to the Feb 1 event. It is conceivable that the Congress party that's in power wants to help its pro-Indian brethren, i.e. Girija and his corrupt cohorts. If BJP had been in power things could have turned differently. BJP's sister organization, the World Hindu Parisad strongly endorsed the King G's coup. But I beg to differ. Although personalities and parochial issues are important in international relations, they only make an impact on the margin - as you can guess I am fond of Kissinger?s ideas if not himself (I detest that fascist ? kind of ironic since he left Germany when he was 12 or 13 because of the Nazis). Ultimately, a country's national interests determine its foreign policy. So what's the stake for India? It is possible that India wants to keep a good relationship with the established parties because it believes that eventually they are going to come to power. Having a good relationship with them now would be advantageous in the long run. I think the more likely reason is that India believes that Nepal's political stability is ensured by the King and the parties forming a strong alliance against the Maoists. In the short run, however, there is the Maoist insurgency. That's the "hard place". India's foreign policy establishment has always viewed Nepal from a national security prism. In that respect, they don't want to weaken King's G's brutal army so that another even more brutal army of Maoist gain the upper hand and destabilize their northern border, or as they call it, the arch of insurgency from Nepal all the way to Andra Pradesh. The national security dilemma for India has now been elevated with Nepal actively playing the China-Pakistan card.

We know what India wants i.e. the King and the parties joining together in its fight against the Maoists. Obviously King G is not too keen on that because I don't think this dude is a democrat at heart. I have many reasons to believe that. He played a big role [with that chor Surya Bdr Thapa] in ballot-stuffing during 2036 Janamat Sagraha. He was also rumored to have played a role in the bomb explosions during the Satya Graha, around 2040-2 [people wrongly credit Babu Ram]. It is a fact that he opposed the introduction of multi-party system in 1990, and when he could not stop it, he conspired to destroy it. In that endeavor the dim-witted Sher Bdr Deuba and [what's this guy's name that broke from UML to form ML] became handy. I am sure he has hand in the royal massacre of 2001. After doing all this [sure some of them are conspiracy theories], only an insane or an inane person will believe his intention of relinquishing the power in 3 years. This dude is implementing Musharraf's strategy of incremental authoritarianism. I won't be surprised if he makes an announcement [much like Musharraf did] for a new constitution in not too distant future.

Obviously, India will not get what it wants. So what are its options? Will India continue to alienate the current powerbrokers of Kathmandu, let them cozy up with the communist dictators of China and the military dictators of Pakistan? Or will India tone down its rhetoric and starts to cozy up the feudal dictators of Nepal? Could it even try to make a deal with the Maoists so that they don't become a national security issue for them, and then try to broker a deal between them and the political parties to unseat the King? I would be very curious to see how things unfold going forward. In my view, Nepal's events will be largely determined not by the army or the Maoists but by the actions and policies of greater powers around it. It's sad and disheartening but that's the fact and the reality. Remember we live in a Hobbesian world.

I bet Isolated Freak, the poster here at sajha who is pro absolute monarchy and pro China, is giddy with joy.

GK,

Get a life..don't try to post wrong info..

"He was also rumored to have played a role in the bomb explosions during the Satya Graha, around 2040-2 [people wrongly credit Babu Ram]..."

..babu ram was never in scenario..it was a different 'Ram'.......

Even though India is emerging as a world power, China is way ahead in that competition. So I would rather have King allign Nepal with China than with India for Nepal's own good. India will never want Nepal to progress. Even if it does, it will always want Nepal to be two steps behind it, never ahead. Look at Srilanka; it was about to join ASEAN, and see what happened.

Gham Pani
i totally agree with your view's.

Manish 321, why you so favorable to China. Because China is supporting your Mandale Raja.

In 10 years, India will be better in shape than China, you know why because India is a democratic country. In India, democracy is already rooted, but in China when democracy prevails (which is inevitable) , it will end up like Russia, with broken Proviences in the west, south and the east. Xin Jiang (sp) in the west is almost not China, the people there have to use Beijing Time although they are 4 hrs behind China Time. Xi Zhang (Tibet) in the South. And Tai Wan and Xiang Gang (Hong Kong) in the east.

Xin Jiang and Xi Zhang are probably half of China.

Mailaadai
I told u i am not a supporter of king , as ur of makune and girija ji. I am a supporter of Nepal, what ever is good for my country i am for that.
Now the question comes of supporting India i will support them if they support my country, but i am sorry to say they don't. isn't it india where the maoist are being taken care of , who is responsible for bhutanese refugees.? why doesn't india hand over all the maoist leaders? why does the india who is so concern about terroism is n't concern about maoist? i can ask u 100 of questions tell me one incidence where china has acted the similar way?

one more thing mailadai, I have been in india for 14 years and don't tell me how is it?

I don't think Manish_123 is supporting the King. Like he said he is merely thinking about what is good for Nepal, India or China. I think it is you who is againts the King, no matter whether his action or diplomacy brings good to Nepal.
In other words, Manish_123 supports the place holder, but you hate the variable.

GK,

you are confused, you are talking without sense... i guess you wrote this post after taking few shots down or few puffs down..

anyway first make a decision do you support maoist or king or leaders. do you support india or china.

you seem to be lost some where in middle.... and do not try to put rumors as facts...

China now has an entirely different set of tools to expand its influence in Nepal. These are economic and relate to trade and transport infrastructure.

Gyanendra?s need for Chinese support and Beijing?s desire for Tibet?s economic integration with the southern side of the Himalayas opens up the space for a range of new agreements between Nepal and its northern neighbour.

These include the construction of additional highways linking Nepal and China. Beijing is already building a second road link between Kathmandu and Tibet through Rasuwagadhi and Kerung pass. The present road between Kathmandu and Lhasa, through the Kodari pass, was based on an agreement in the early 1960s. The new road will shorten Nepal?s access to Mount Kailash and Lake Manasarovar.

Beijing also wants to start construction of other roads linking Tibet with eastern and western parts of Nepal. These include the development of the Koshi-Kimathanka corridor in the east and the Jomsom-Lumanthang link in the west.

China hopes that some of these new transport corridors can be extended further south to link up with India?s Gangetic plain. China hopes to connect Tibet and Nepal through optic fibre links and energy pipelines.

There is also some talk about bringing the rail line between mainland China and Tibet closer to the Nepal border. Nepal has been pressing China to sign a free trade agreement similar to the one it has with India. As a growing number of Chinese tourists arrive in Nepal, Beijing is pressing for equal treatment with visitors from India.

Asia I am excited to hear about Rasuwagadhi and Kerung coming into picture atleast. I had been there and was a very beautiful place with wonderful villagers. I went there during early 1997 and road from Duncha to Sybrubesi was under construction. I started walking from Dunche all the way to Rasuwagadhi.
IVery prosperous and hard working people used to live in that area but I am wondering if they exist now.

Can someone please explain to me what India has done for Nepal? I'm not trying to be rude, I simply don't know... I'm kinda an ABC Nepali

Thank you!

MAILAADAI, I'm Surprised to see that you are comparing China with India.
"""In 10 years, India will be better in shape than China, you know why because India is a democratic country. In India, democracy is already rooted, but in China when democracy prevails (which is inevitable), it will end up like Russia""""

Boy, you should visit china. Stop worshiping India. And ya stop dreaming that China Will end Up like Russia. "Democracy" every country has its own kind of democracy don't forget that.. Go and do some research about china and India.


About India
Chennai, February 10: Despite being ?star performer? in terms of economic growth, India will take at least another 34 years to achieve the 1950s' GDP level of the United States, a senior World Bank economist said in Chennai on Thursday.
((((( http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=41812 )))))

About China
For India, they are earlier still. Not only has its convergence on US GDP per head been slower than China's but it remains far behind. Relative to US GDP per head, India is today where China was in 1986. Even in absolute terms it is only where China was in 1993
((((( http://zhongwen.ft.com/cms/bea92dec-850e-11d9-a172-00000e2511c8.html ))))))

Every country has its own internal problem don?t you think India has its own.

I've been seeing your posting here in sajha since long time and now I know you are just bullshitting here in sajha without any research that?s why you write so much shit.

Thanks
Cao Ni

ajsab01 ji -

I agree that some of the facts I posted may have been incorrect. I also said some of my contentions were based on conspiracy theories. But that's the reality there - Nepal is not the world's most open society. But that's not the point. The point is that you don't get the point :)

Humor aside, my point was that India looks at Nepal from a national security vantage and what India does will matter to the outcome of the current Maoist insurgency. India's top priority is political stability in Nepal because the last thing India wants to deal with is a failed state on its northern border where Indian Maoists and Pakistani ISI's reign free. In my view, as long as Nepal does not pose a security threat to Indian stability, India does not give a hoot about whether Nepal is a democracy or a dictator. The current Indian thinking is that the king alone cannot win over the Maoists. He needs the help of the political parties - after all more than two-thirds of Nepalese are affiliated with one of the mainstream parties - and hence Indian's insistence for a cooperation between them. But King G is not too keen on that and I have given you my reasons. He has spent the past 14 years conspiring to foil the democratic experiment, and he will not give that up just because India/UK say so. India probably doesn't share my views and thinks that it can nudge the King to form a pact with the parties and go full-strength - politically, militarily, diplomatically - against the Maoists, thus its strong reaction to the Feb 1 coup. With the King not obliging to Indian demand, India is confronted with two bad choices (1) continue the standoff with the Nepali regime which is becoming counter productive in strategic sense without furthering its national security goals or (2) mellow its rhetoric, support the King knowing fully that even with full Indian support the King may not be able to win the war. Remember of 70,000 RNA troops, over 30,000 are protecting Kathmandu and I don't how many more are deployed to keep the political parties quite and to "protect" town and district headquarters. That does not leave too many bodies to fight the Maoists whose strength range from 20,000-35,000. If you go with the U.S. military doctrine that says something like (1) to win an offensive war you need 3-1 troops advantage and (2) to keep peace, you need 1 troop for every 100 people [thus General Shinseki's contention that based on his Bosnian experience, Iraq with a population of 25 million needed couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops], the King does not have the manpower at his disposal to win the war. Case in point, in my village in western Nepal there is a battalion of 40-60 troops protecting a wide swath of very mountainous area.

So what will India do and how'll that affect Nepal? I think Indian policy will depend on the situation on the ground. If, despite my misgivings, the King is able to bring more areas of Nepal under his control, then India will ditch the political parties and support the King. I will then say adieu to democracy and prepare a life under the feudal monarchy. If on the other hand the stalemate continues and Nepal become as important a strategic issue as Kashmir then India will try to deal with the Maoists. I will then say adieu to democracy and prepare a life under reactionary communists. I don't think there will be Sri Lanka like intervention from India.

Now my views on China?s strategic position. In strategic terms Nepal is not as important to China as it is to India. In foreign relations, China has two main objectives (1) that countries do not recognize or support Taiwan (2) that whenever U.S. sponsors resolutions in the U.N. bodies about China's human right record, that countries vote against those resolutions. Tibet is not the central strategic issue for China (that's why the Tibetan center in Lumbini was open for so long despite Chinese objections). China's helping of Nepal now is probably related to objective (2) and so is China providing aid to many small African dictators. At this point India and China do not see eye-to-eye vis-a-vis Nepal but if India thinks that China is hampering in attaining its strategic objective, it might be able to push China to at least acquiesce to [if not support] its position. In case there is an Indian blockage similar to 1989-90 I doubt there is going to be a Berlin style airlift from Beijing. Remember China's strategic position is becoming very tenuous nowadays especially because of its deteriorating relationship with Japan [the submarine incident, recent U.S.-Japan position on Taiwan and the perennial confrontation about Japanese PMs visits to Yasakuni war dead shrine]. If push comes to shove, the last thing China wants is another hostile front in its southern border. I don't think King G has the full appreciation of the Chinese strategic position.

Whether democracy or dictatorship, Nepal cannot ditch India and totally depend on China. Simple reason, its geography. Despite rapid growth in China, most of the growth is in the eastern seaboard. The hinterlands like Tibet are not much better than Bihar. May be in 10-20 years things there will be better but that does not change the fact that you have to cross the Himalayas to get to Tibet while you can just slip into India. Also, in 10-20 years I know what India is going to be like - not much different politically but much developed economically. I can't predict what's going to happen in China in 10-20 years. It can go either the South Korean/Taiwan way or it can go the Indonesian way. Given the heterogeneity of its population especially in the hinterlands, I can't be too optimistic. We all have our misgivings about India and its policies, but we also know that Nepal is very very dependent on India. We have to find accommodation with that giant. Sure we have fewer chips on our hand but leverage those chips to get the best deal.


Lastly about your contention that I don't have a life. Of course I do. Sure I come from a village in Nepal and had to struggle a lot but that does not mean that I don't have a life.

MeriNepalAma ji

I may sound confused because the topic I dealt with vis-?-vis international dimension to the current crisis in Nepal is not straightforward. But be that as it may, I will try to answer your questions regarding by stance on the Maoist/Monarchy issue. And btw I don?t smoke or drink, thank you very much.

Ideally I would prefer a Democratic Republic of Nepal as per Paramendra's idea. I don't like the concept of monarchy (even a constitutional one) because I believe in a meritocractic society. Personally I think it is boring, if you are a prince, and unjust, if you are a pauper, to have a life pre-determined by the vagaries of birth. Of course there is no ideal meritocratic society but some are better than others. Despite what people say about America and despite the current Bush regime, it is probably the most meritocratic society on the planet. American foreign policy is a different matter, and in that subject, I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's views. A meritocractic society means a democratic form of government i.e. the highest post in the country should be open to anyone from that country. Of course democracy is not the perfect system but as Churchill said "it is better than all other system of government." Nepal's experiment with democracy in the 1990s was much to be desired for [was not there in the 50s see how it was back then] but one has to remember that mature democracies have passed the test of time - in the case of UK the civil war of the 1680s(?) and in America, civil war of 1861-65. You can't expect Nepal to achieve in 10 years what other countries achieved in generations.

But politics is not about the ideal but it is about the art of possible. In the context of Nepal I am willing to accept constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. I want monarchy just to be a symbol of the country, period - no executive power in any circumstances - much like Thailand's King B. I have a great respect for him btw.

It would be a nightmare if I have to choose between absolute monarchy and communist reactionaries. I would choose NEITHER. I can't accept absolute monarchy because (1) I can't imagine having King Paras as the absolute monarch. I can?t have a mob boss running the country. If you like Uday Hussein, you'd love Paras Shah. (2) An absolute monarch whose position is determined by the vagaries of birth reminds me of the Roman Empire during the reign of Caligula i.e. who can guarantee that you won?t have an insane dude ruling the country. Maoists are not much better either. Although one can argue that monarchy, or more appropriately, the Shan-Rana nexus ruled the country for 200+ years, the mainstream for 10+ years, and Maoists none, and so they should be given the benefit of doubt, I say no. Some (not all) of their rhetoric is laudable, but their actions on the ground are not. Moreover, listening and reading the views of Prachanda and his cohorts, I think the country under them will head towards the direction of North Korea and/or Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

Maoist insurgency is not an academic topic for me. I have relatives and acquaintances who have been (1) killed, kidnapped and extorted by the Maoists, (1) killed on the spot without asking questions and imprisoned without charges by the army.

Playing the Chinese Card re?

I do that almost every weekend!

Sometimes it's the "BYCYCLE" brand, other times it's the "BEE" brand...both made in China!

Firrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaa firkini laayera...fat-fat-fat fitni...ani syat-syat-syat baandhni...5 jana lai 21-21 patti...MAAL PARE TIWARI, NATTRA GOTAAME!

Haamro Raja lai ni paryo ki parena chha ta MAAL? Paplu, tiplu, alter-salter, MAN, marriage, tanela...tannai pare ta bhasakkai ghichibaksane bho ni mousuf sarkar le!

:p