Here goes China's Nepal dream up in flames

[johnee]

Nepalis are fiercely independent. I don't think they will let go of their sovereignty. I would rather prefer a pro india buffer state between us and china than have our border with the Chinese. No take over will be without problems. There will be fringe elements always who will be against it even if the larger majority is willing for being taken over. That fringe will start an insurgency which will surely be supported by the Chinese.

I don't think we should covet that land. Just make sure we do enough to keep them pro india.

In reality, Nepal does not share a border with China but with Tibet. China has annexed Tibet forcefully and is upto cultural genocide. It has also come into Nepal-India equation. China is on the offensive and envisages a day when it can break India into smaller pieces under its patronage. India, on the other hand, is always on the defensive. This attitude has done us no good.

Opposition will be always there. Not only from some Nepalese, but also within India. And these elements will be funded and fueled by those who stand to gain by keeping India boxed in sub-continent. Such opposition must not frighten us into accepting the status quo. We must stretch our influence and perpetuate it. The best part is that this will do good to common Nepalese(or Sinhalese or Bangladeshis...etc). Yet, the only reason these supposedly nations are allowed to exist is to keep India at tenterhooks.

I dont see any gain in having a buffer, if we have to constantly look over our shoulders to make sure that it has not jumped into opposite camp.

 

[LurkerBaba]

What is the use of having a buffer state?

'Neutral' land between India and China reduces the number of border incidents and eases tensions to an extent

Without it, we'd be eye to eye with the Chinese. Plus, we'd spend much more money/resources policing the border.

 

[johnee]

'Neutral' land between India and China reduces the number of border incidents and eases tensions to an extent

Without it, we'd be eye to eye with the Chinese. Plus, we'd spend much more money/resources policing the border.

What will we do if China takes over Nepal? Will be give up UP to have a buffer zone?
The point is that China was never a neibhour of Nepal but it forced its way in. Now, because of this arrangement, we should be afraid to take over Nepal? What is the problem if we have a border with China or more precisely Tibet? Larger resources of policing? Is that the only reason we should not take over Nepal?

If we take over Nepal, we manage Nepal. Its army becomes part of our army or subsidiary of it and does the policing according to our requirements.

Anyway, the whole attitude of 'we will have to face Chinese, so lets keep quiet' seems defeatist.

 

[Yusuf]

No the question is not of not facing the Chinese. Its the question of taking over another country and the problems that cone with it. China in spite of what it has done for 50 years in Tibet is still scared of them though the Tibetans have not carried out any insurgency. Nepalese will not take it lying down.

The only way possible is having an absolute puppet govt there. Then work on it using propaganda. May be use the Chinese threat itself and send a "protection force" in there to "help" Nepal. That could be the beginning of a formal indian annexation of Nepal.

 

[Param]

What will we do if China takes over Nepal? Will be give up UP to have a buffer zone?
.

Why leave out Bihar? An enormous buffer zone!


I am reminded of Chidu's remark about India becoming developed country very soon if it was only West and South.

 

[johnee]

No the question is not of not facing the Chinese. Its the question of taking over another country and the problems that cone with it. China in spite of what it has done for 50 years in Tibet is still scared of them though the Tibetans have not carried out any insurgency. Nepalese will not take it lying down.

The only way possible is having an absolute puppet govt there. Then work on it using propaganda. May be use the Chinese threat itself and send a "protection force" in there to "help" Nepal. That could be the beginning of a formal indian annexation of Nepal.

Having a puppet Govt brings more problems and requires constant money and vigilance. More importantly, it breeds hatred from public. It is better to take over the nation, give it generous autonomy and develop the people, share power with elite and integrate them with us. As for the moral part, I dont think Nepal deserved to be a free country in the first place, it became so due to certain circumstance in which India attained independence. A free India would have integrated Nepal, without violence.

I agree with your suggestion, to the extent that it is a short term arrangement and will herald a formal annexation of Nepal. In the long run, the Nepalese themselves maynot be averse to joining India...

 

[johnee]

Why leave out Bihar? An enormous buffer zone!


I am reminded of Chidu's remark about India becoming developed country very soon if it was only West and South.

I say, give up, everything north of Hyd. So, we can have enough buffer...

 

[Param]

Even though I am against this now, I wonder why India did not annexe that Nepal soon after independence. Afterall we had annexed the Nizam,Junagadh and everyone knows how Kashmir become ours despite a war with Pak.
All this despite the fact that China did not occupy Tibet till 1950.

 

[johnee]

Even though I am against this now, I wonder why India did not annexe that Nepal soon after independence. Afterall we had annexed the Nizam,Junagadh and everyone knows how Kashmir become ours despite a war with Pak.
All this despite the fact that China did not occupy Tibet till 1950.

Why not now? People always try to postpone things or rue that it must have done earlier. Maybe our first independent rulers also postponed Nepal for a time when India was considerably powerful...

 

[amitkriit]

Having a puppet Govt brings more problems and requires constant money and vigilance. More importantly, it breeds hatred from public. It is better to take over the nation, give it generous autonomy and develop the people, share power with elite and integrate them with us. As for the moral part, I dont think Nepal deserved to be a free country in the first place, it became so due to certain circumstance in which India attained independence. A free India would have integrated Nepal, without violence.

I agree with your suggestion, to the extent that it is a short term arrangement and will herald a formal annexation of Nepal. In the long run, the Nepalese themselves maynot be averse to joining India...

Tarai and Madhesi people are Pro-India, my idea is to create a North-South divide in Nepal and annex the Southern parts which are culturally and otherwise closer to India than the Tribal North Nepal. Let China take the rest and have fun with them.

 

[Neil]

Even though I am against this now, I wonder why India did not annexe that Nepal soon after independence. Afterall we had annexed the Nizam,Junagadh and everyone knows how Kashmir become ours despite a war with Pak.
All this despite the fact that China did not occupy Tibet till 1950.

hey bro...we have never annexed any country or any part of other country...it has been handed over to us by either the rulers of that country or by the people of that state...

coming to the topic...NEPAL is too much divided right now...any wrong doing by us means losing out even where we have won..i think we can play the HINDU card against the atheist moist...this is one of the most sensitive areas to every nepali and we can win many hearts by emotional influence...!!

 

[Param]

hey bro...we have never annexed any country or any part of other country...it has been handed over to us by either the rulers of that country or by the people of that state...

coming to the topic...NEPAL is too much divided right now...any wrong doing by us means losing out even where we have won..i think we can play the HINDU card against the atheist moist...this is one of the most sensitive areas to every nepali and we can win many hearts by emotional influence...!!

Even before August15 1947 it was clear that the British had given the princely states the choice to remain independent our join either of the two new Dominions to be formed.
Junagadh's muslim ruler had ideas of joining Pak. At that time Junagadh was not yet a part of the Dominion of India. Thankfully because of leader's like Vallabbhai Patel such Princely states were made a part of the Dominion of India.

How do you think these Princely states were merged with our country? There is no other word to use other than annexation. And all these annexations were completely justified.

Nothing was completely handed over to us.
When we were granted independence we were not even a Republic. We were merely a dominion consisting of various provinces. Patel made sure that the country is made a democratic Republic by 1950.
Many of those Princely states and Principalities wanted to remain independent. We ensured that they are merged with India. And on some occasions we had to use force.

Now the question is why did we not do the same thing wrt Kingdom of Nepal that was land locked between India and independent Tibet?

 

[Neil]

Even before August15 1947 it was clear that the British had given the princely states the choice to remain independent our join either of the two new Dominions to be formed.
Junagadh's muslim ruler had ideas of joining Pak. At that time Junagadh was not yet a part of the Dominion of India. Thankfully because of leader's like Vallabbhai Patel such Princely states were made a part of the Dominion of India.

How do you think these Princely states were merged with our country? There is no other word to use other than annexation. And all these annexations were completely justified.

Nothing was completely handed over to us.
When we were granted independence we were not even a Republic. We were merely a dominion consisting of various provinces. Patel made sure that the country is made a democratic Republic by 1950.
Many of those Princely states and Principalities wanted to remain independent. We ensured that they are merged with India. And on some occasions we had to use force.

Now the question is why did we not do the same thing wrt Kingdom of Nepal that was land locked between India and independent Tibet?

bro...have never said we didnt use force...but just opposed to your word annexation...one thing that made us unique was we never forced any one to join us...i mean we had approval of either the ruler- kashmir and many princely states or by the people- junagadh or hydrabad so its kind of harsh words you using there mate...rest is your choice...

 

[Param]

bro...have never said we didnt use force...but just opposed to your word annexation...one thing that made us unique was we never forced any one to join us...i mean we had approval of either the ruler- kashmir and many princely states or by the people- junagadh or hydrabad so its kind of harsh words you using there mate...rest is your choice...

I used the same word that I came across in school books. The same word is used in our History books at the college level. And the same word is used in Wikipedia. No offence intended mate.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

when will india annex nepal?

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

i think india can use the hindu card to its advantage.

 

[Yusuf]

when will india annex nepal?

We are just waiting for your command

 

[nimo_cn]

Any member from Nepal? I really want to know how they feel when they read about Indian members blatantly talking about taking them over.

 

[Yusuf]

Any member from Nepal? I really want to know how they feel when they read about Indian members blatantly talking about taking them over.

I am sure it will not be the same as what Tibetans feel.

 

[KS]

It wouldd be the most unfortunate not mention a weak bond, if belonging to the same religion is the only reason for our alliance

I'm not saying this is the only reason to maintain a bond. But this is one major reason.

By being staunchly Hindu they oppose the Maoists (who are outspokenly anti-Hindu) and by being anti-Maoist they remain pro-India.