Wednesday , July 24 2019
Home / Commentary / Nepali Netbook / India: Friend or foe
Machhapuchre Bank

India: Friend or foe

When our leaders of the day give big speeches claiming that the 2006 April uprising was a grand victory of the Nepali people against a feudal rule, they even don’t feel any shame. Everybody knows, the 2006 April uprising was solely sponsored by the then Indian establishment. The Indians, on the one hand, had declared the then Nepali Maoists launching a bloody “people’s war” in Nepal terrorist elements, on the other hand, the very Indians were not only giving safe shelter but also had equipped them with sophisticated arms and necessary funds to disturb/spoil its neighbouring country Nepal.
India’s defeated war
May be, the then Indian bureaucrats – Shyam Saran, Dev Mukharjee, Ranjeet Rae in the South Block and also Christian lobby in RAW – believe that after declaration of Nepal as a federal, secular republic, they won a war over Nepal, however, the reality, if one reads the Indian leading newspapers, is that India has permanently lost Nepal. Except from those friends of India, such as Dr Baburam Bhattarai or some other else, there left no any other friend of India in Nepal. The latest general elections in Nepal could be taken as a referendum as the alliance of KP Sharma Oli led UML and Pushpakamal Dahal led Maoist Center were able to bag nearly two-thirds majority just by denouncing the Indian hegemony on Nepal.
Since Nepal has been declared as a secular nation, the country has fallen into the European Christianity domination.
The Shah kings always maintained a balanced relation with the two giant neighbours and always maintained strong stance in safeguarding sensitive security concerns of both the nations. Today, in the republic Nepal, we have been informed that every time, during the talks of the leaders from Nepal and India, the first concern that has been expressed by the Indian leaders is the anti-Indian activities taking place from the Nepali soil! If the Indians recall, until the direct rule of Monarchy in Nepal, the Nepali soil was restricted from being used against any of the neighbouring countries. The institution of monarchy was so sensitive that even the Chinese construction contractors were not allowed to work in the Tarai districts considering the rivalry of the two nations. Since monarchy became passive after the 1990 political change, Indians have started to complain about security lapses in Nepal-India border, terrorist activities taking place against India, trafficking of fake Indian currency from Nepal, among others. Meanwhile, India groomed the Nepali Maoist element at home to trouble Nepal. But what India gained even after doing so much against Nepal, this is the time to review things for the Indians. If India had utilized the covert funds spent for destabilization of a small neighbouring country, perhaps, India’s economic index could be higher than what it is at present!
With a great pride, Shyam Saran has explained how he had acted in the regime change in Nepal in 2006. In his book, “How India Sees the World: Kautilya to the Twenty First Century” former Indian foreign secretary and also former Indian ambassador to Nepal, Saran has claimed that he was the main character in replacing the Indian stance of two pillar system (constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy) by removing the institution of constitutional monarchy.
In Nepal, there is one school of thought that at the time when the India sponsored agitation was taking momentum in Kathmandu, Karan Singh had arrived here as the special envoy of the then Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh. The then external affairs secretary Saran was also included in the team. The then King Gyanendra and Karan Singh held one-on-one talks followed by a lunch at the Royal Palace. But Saran was excluded at the lunch meeting. It is thus said that Saran had become furious as he was unable to attend the lunch meeting, and thus, Saran had become a republican.
The other school of though predicts that during that time, the Manmohan Singh government was strongly dominated by the Indian communists plus professor SD Muni like anti-Nepal campaigner. Saran, Mukharjee, Rae and a section of RAW officers were closely associated with the Nepali Maoists sheltered in Delhi and thus, the Indian bureaucracy had played against the Nepali establishment.
On the eve of Indian PM Narendra Modi’s third visit to Nepal — what Modi prefers to say his pilgrimage to Janakpurdham and Muktinath —
the same gang in South Block, now former Indian diplomats had a trip to Muktinath but they also spent weeks in Kathmandu. During their stay in Kathmandu, it is learnt that they had a meeting with the then Maoist chairman Pushpakamal Dahal at his Khumaltar residence. They had learnt to have said to Dahal that Modijee may put pressure on him for restoration of Nepal as a Hindu nation, on which, they had expected a swift rejection of this proposal from Dahal.
This is an indication that the team of former diplomats are acting against the Indian establishment as well.
Be that as it may, Saran has wished to present Baburam Bhattarai as a nationalist, whereas, he has projected king Mahendra’s nationalism as anti-Indianism.
So far, just recently, Bhattarai, speaking at a book release programme, had claimed that on the eve of the promulgation of the new constitution, an Indian authority had arrived here and requested to the top leaders for removing the word “secular” from the draft of the constitution. This is why Nepal had to face the blockade later on, Bhattarai has claimed. On the background of such activities of Bhattarai, one can easily guess that Bhattarai is serving the SD Muni group and also anti-Hindu group in India.

Check Also

Two words that don’t go together well: My, my, what wrath hath two words wrought?

By Maila Baje In fairness, we must accept President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s repeated use of …