I enjoyed reading this thread. Thank you
@Viva for explaining your side of the story. Being one of the only posters in this thread to speak up from a Nepali side I can only imagine how tough it is to reply to a majority opinion that is different than yours. (The sense of being 'ganged up on' can quickly stigmatize or ruin a good discussion on the internet, as we all know.)
I lurk, but rarely post. But in my opinion it would be better for the region if Nepal and India can mend their relationship. That does not mean that one side has to adhere to the strategic goals of the other nation. But consistency of behavior on both sides by the governing bodies would lead to a more unified international position upon agreed upon boundaries. (Intervention vs. Support)
Perhaps cooler heads will prevail and the massive history and cultural diffusion between the two nations will mean something. As always, it appears as though the main conflict either stems from specific governments trying to play a game, or non-state agitators who ruin it for the peaceful, co-operative citizens of both nations.
South Asia already has enough lines on the map dividing people on political, economic, military, educational, etc lines. Many parts of the world learn to work together despite the differences because with time the similarities are more meaningful. France and England fought countless wars. Germany was a unifier and aggressor at times. Polish people were constantly made fun of, Italians were criminals, Iberians lazy, and Slavs untrustworthy. Europe is strong even if they continue to fight among themselves.
South Asia will never be collectively strong if they don't move forward -- and this means the biggest nations playing nicely with the smallest ones. And vice versa. I'm an idealist and it took Europe thousands of years to figure things out. It would be silly of me to expect our region to figure it out faster than them. After all, many of the lines were made by them in the first place . . .
