What's new

India's fear of Chicken Neck and annexation plan of Nepal and Bhutan

India has been consistently working against any plan to set up a Greater Himalayan State /Confederation. To this end she has ensured a serious rift between Nepal and Bhutan regarding alien nationals /refugees.
 
India has been consistently working against any plan to set up a Greater Himalayan State /Confederation. To this end she has ensured a serious rift between Nepal and Bhutan regarding alien nationals /refugees.

Elaborate more on the refugee part. As far as i know it was Bhutan who drove out ethnic Nepalis from their country and many of them took refuge in India.
 
I honestly think Hasina is an atheist (maybe even Hindu) but disguised as a Muslim. Bangladesh needs to stop collaboration with India. She is laying the foundations for an eventual annexation of Bangladesh.

We would rather have our country to oblivion, sanctioned to hell, than to accept 150 million more of you.
 
Mate first of all,welcome to this forum:welcome:!Now let us talk about the Indo-Nepal bilateral relation.India and Nepal are two sister countries and we share our Dharmic roots with our Nepalese brethren.Majority of the Indian citizens have huge respect for Nepal due to the selfless service rendered by her brave Gurkha citizen to our country since our independence.India and Nepal have a open border and any Nepalese citizen can work and live in India just like a common Indian citizen.The same is also true about the Indian citizens in Nepal.We are both the proud descendants of the great Dharmic civilisation and i for one consider Nepalese people as my own brothers and sistors.India has always respected Nepal's sovereignty and territorial integrity and we will do the same in the future also.
So i would request you not to fall for the propaganda made by the enemies of India as their sole aim is to sour up the relation between two sisters(in this case India and Nepal).Rather we should stick together as a team and work for a better future for both of our countries:)


I figured there was a lot of "noisy" posters on this forum. Don't you worry. I'm a big proponent of free speech but much of what is being said here seems to be ramblings of disgruntled nationalists who fail to realize how the community of states operates. Perhaps I should migrate to another forum for a more fruitful discussion.
 
It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I apologize for my hasty words, which I have deleted after I read your other posts. I have met some Nepalis in real life and have good impression about them. I am also impressed by your posts. You seem like an educated man and have a good grasp of geopolitics. I look forward to more exchange of views with you.

Bangladesh as a larger state is not as vulnerable as Nepal or Bhutan, which is an order of magnitude smaller than either Nepal or Bangladesh. Being 90% Muslim makes us unwanted for India, which is not the case for Nepal or Bhutan. Also, we have sea access which gives us an escape route compared to land locked Nepal and Bhutan, both of which are sandwiched between India and China. So there is difference in geopolitics, between these 3 states.

But in terms of internal politics we have a tremendously polarized situation, which India takes full advantage of. For reasons unknown, Bangladeshi pro-China politicians were not able to bring in China to counter balance Indian aggressive interference via pro-India politicians. So currently Bangladesh is under an illegal Indian puppet regime. But that is the best they can do, annexation is beyond their scope.

Bhutan may already be a lost cause, unless China can do something about it soon. But for Nepal, Bangladesh as a state and people would like to see Nepal remain as an independent state. That is in our obvious national interest, which you can see just by looking at the map.

I do not hide my hope and wish to see the 8 Northeast states independent as well, which I believe is the will of the overwhelming majority of the people there (around 40 million). But steps must come from China to make that happen. If China can achieve that feat, it will then be possible for Bangladesh to provide alternate sea access to landlocked Nepal, Bhutan as well as North East states. Though unusual, I have at least one Indian friend who dislike "colonial"/"imperial" domination of this region by Indian govt. against the will of the local people. And he holds similar views on Kashmir. But this is a very rare person among Indians I guess.

There is around 230 million in Nepal, Bhutan, North East states and Bangladesh, all of whom I believe should remain free and independent and benefit from free flow of goods and services with both India, China and ASEAN states. Our experience with India have been bitter to say the least and you will see most Indians here abusing most Bangladeshi posters and calling some of us Al Qaeda terrorists (please visit the Bangladesh section):
Bangladesh Defence Forum
but nothing could be further from the truth, I can assure you. So I would urge you to use your own judgement and not be swayed by Indian opinions on us, their efforts to put some of us in a box and label us in a certain way, which fits their agenda.

Most of us Bangladeshi's wants to live in peace, in a live and let live environment and mind our own business. But Indian govt. policy of overt interference makes that impossible for us now. So we are in a virtual state of war, India and their agents in Bangladesh vs Bangladeshi people. Lets see how things turn out in the future.

Likewise. I'm more than willing to engage in civil discourse with my fellow cohorts in the neighborhood. I think South Asia needs a regional forum that meets regularly to foster academic exchanges on regional politics. Alas, it is unlikely due to regional animosities and a lack of willingness for regional integration.

Also, it is sad that there is "namecalling" amongst the posters here. I think it reflects immaturity on their part and a lack of ability to counter arguments based on rationality. Trust me when I say this, I'm here to provide my perspective on the issue and not to take anyone's side.

Unfortunately, in a world that is driven by national interests, it is unlikely that any single country will be able to free themselves from external influences. Going back to human history, you'll realize that bigger powers have always influenced smaller powers. It is the reality of human political life and we cannot escape it. What I'm saying here is we need to be critical of hegemonic attitudes of our neighbors but rather than namecalling, it is more prudent for smaller powers to make the most out of the options it has. Of course, it does not come easy as domestic political dynamics plays a role but in countries with weak political structures, political elites hark to bigger powers in the region to legitimize their own hold on power. I hope this makes sense and I'm looking forward to further discussion with you.

Cheers.
 
Nepal has a lot to fear from India :


Sikkimisation fears in Nepal; then and now : Kurakani in Kathmandu


Sikkimisation fears in Nepal; then and now

Thirty eight years have elapsed since Sikkim ceased to be a monarchy and became a state of the Indian union. But repercussions of the historic development are still felt in neighbouring Nepal.

Fears of Sikkimisation (yes, it’s a word used frequently in Nepal) of Nepal -meaning takeover of the sovereign nation by the bigger southern neighbour is still part of the discourse in political circles and media.

Political parties who see a grand Indian design in everything bad that happens in Nepal use this term frequently to rouse patriotic fervor. And many common Nepalis do believe in Nepal’s imminent Sikkimisation.

Last month Dev Gurung, secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, the faction which split from Pushpa Kamal Dahal led Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), said Sikkimisation has already begun and a violent uprising is the only way to prevent its spread.

This fear is not new. A section in Nepal has been wary of India’s so called Sikkimisation plans for close to four decades now as the recently released Kissinger Cables by whistleblower website WikiLeaks show.

The huge cache of US diplomatic documents circulated between 1973 and 1976 include quite a few cables which indicate how Nepal viewed events unfurling in Sikkim during that period.

A confidential cable sent from the US Embassy in Kathmandu in April 1973 mentions about the Nepal government’s “understandable and predictable” reaction of not making an official statement on disturbances in Sikkim for fear of offending either India or China.

The cable details how four Nepali foreign ministry officials expressed “intense interest” in the position of the great powers including China on the issue during a social gathering and showed feelings of fraternal sympathy for the Nepali majority population in Sikkim.

The officials were also anxious to get Soviet reaction to the developments and asserted that in view of close ties between New Delhi and Moscow, India would not “swallow” Sikkim without a “green light” from the Soviets.

Another cable sent the same month details US Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Rush’s meeting with King Birendra in Kathmandu in which the monarch opined that there were two points of view in Nepal regarding the events in Sikkim.

“One, that it was initiated by India, in which case it would affect others in area, and, two, that situation arose more or less out of internal problems” (in Sikkim),” the cable states.

The situation mentioned is the riots against his unpopular rule which led Palden Thondup Namgyal, the Chogyal (ruler), to seek protection from India.

Birendra told Rush that he was “inclined to believe that it was 50-50 proposition” and that Nepal was closely watching the outcome of events in Sikkim to determine its meaning.

In another meeting with US diplomats a month later Birendra said Indians held all cards in Sikkim and took advantage of the situation. “He (Birendra) said he did not know how (the) present arrangement will work out, but he thinks there will be future troubles in Sikkim,” said the cable.

A cable sent in July 1974 on ‘Nepali view of Sikkimese Events’ notes the total absence of reporting in Nepali press on developments in Sikkim and mentions it could be due to direct guidance from the palace to local journalists.

But common Nepalis were keen on happenings in Sikkim and avidly read reporting in Indian press on the subject. The cable speaks of Nepal government’s concern on how Sikkim could become a sanctuary for activities of Nepali Congress, which was plotting to usher democracy in Nepal.

“Most sophisticated Nepalese recognise that there is no direct connection between politics in Sikkim and Nepal. Nonetheless, there will be some concern that events in Gangtok represent direct Indian intervention in neighbouring Himalayan principality, and Nepalese are always quick to draw parallels between their own situation and those of other Himalayan states,” it said.

Another cable sent the same month mentions of “unhappiness” among Nepalis at various levels due to India’s 1974 nuclear explosion and intervention in Sikkim. “These events have revived fears of Indian hegemonistic designs raised at time of 1971 Bangladesh crisis”, the cable said.

But after remaining mum for over a year, Nepal gave its first official reaction to events in Sikkim when the country’s foreign minister said in August 1974 that it was Nepal’s “unshakable stand that there should be no outside interference in the internal affairs of any country”.

The cable noted that the minister’s statement after weeks of studied silence “had effect of letting genie out of the bottle”.

A month later reacting to news of Sikkim getting parliamentary representation in India, the same minister made a statement wishing for Sikkim to “continue to make progress through the preservation of its traditional entity,” said a September 1974 cable.

The same cable mentions of unanimous condemnation of Indian action in Nepali media and protests by students outside the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu. The cable noted the Sikkim issue could become a contentious one in Indo-Nepal bilateral relations.

A subsequent cable speaks of a 5000-strong student demonstration against India in Kathmandu where traffic was blocked at several places and shops closed in protest against happenings in Sikkim. The cable notes that the well organised campaign had approval from the Nepal government.

During a meeting with a senior US diplomat in New York in September 1974, Nepal’s foreign minister said Nepalis were worried by Indian absorption of Sikkim, which he described as “cleverly managed and deliberately staged”. He also stressed that “sentiments on Sikkim ran very deep in Nepal”.

But sensing New Delhi growing unhappiness at such statements and anti-India protests in Kathmandu, news on Sikkim slowly started disappearing from Kathmandu’s major dailies and protests by students also came down in subsequent months.

And when King Birendra met Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in New Delhi on September 30, 1975 neither sides raised the issue of Sikkim during the “frank and realistic” deliberations.


Posted by Utpal Parashar on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Filed under Nepal, South Asia · Tagged hindustan times, indira gandhi, Nepal, Nepal Maoist, Palden Thondup Namgyal, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, sikkim, sikkimisaton, Utpal Parashar
 
I honestly think Hasina is an atheist (maybe even Hindu) but disguised as a Muslim. Bangladesh needs to stop collaboration with India. She is laying the foundations for an eventual annexation of Bangladesh.

And what's the problem with being atheist or Hindu? @.@
 
Likewise. I'm more than willing to engage in civil discourse with my fellow cohorts in the neighborhood. I think South Asia needs a regional forum that meets regularly to foster academic exchanges on regional politics. Alas, it is unlikely due to regional animosities and a lack of willingness for regional integration.

Also, it is sad that there is "namecalling" amongst the posters here. I think it reflects immaturity on their part and a lack of ability to counter arguments based on rationality. Trust me when I say this, I'm here to provide my perspective on the issue and not to take anyone's side.

Unfortunately, in a world that is driven by national interests, it is unlikely that any single country will be able to free themselves from external influences. Going back to human history, you'll realize that bigger powers have always influenced smaller powers. It is the reality of human political life and we cannot escape it. What I'm saying here is we need to be critical of hegemonic attitudes of our neighbors but rather than namecalling, it is more prudent for smaller powers to make the most out of the options it has. Of course, it does not come easy as domestic political dynamics plays a role but in countries with weak political structures, political elites hark to bigger powers in the region to legitimize their own hold on power. I hope this makes sense and I'm looking forward to further discussion with you.

Cheers.



One of the most mature posts ever made on PDF :) !!! Applause
 
Likewise. I'm more than willing to engage in civil discourse with my fellow cohorts in the neighborhood. I think South Asia needs a regional forum that meets regularly to foster academic exchanges on regional politics. Alas, it is unlikely due to regional animosities and a lack of willingness for regional integration.

Also, it is sad that there is "namecalling" amongst the posters here. I think it reflects immaturity on their part and a lack of ability to counter arguments based on rationality. Trust me when I say this, I'm here to provide my perspective on the issue and not to take anyone's side.

Unfortunately, in a world that is driven by national interests, it is unlikely that any single country will be able to free themselves from external influences. Going back to human history, you'll realize that bigger powers have always influenced smaller powers. It is the reality of human political life and we cannot escape it. What I'm saying here is we need to be critical of hegemonic attitudes of our neighbors but rather than namecalling, it is more prudent for smaller powers to make the most out of the options it has. Of course, it does not come easy as domestic political dynamics plays a role but in countries with weak political structures, political elites hark to bigger powers in the region to legitimize their own hold on power. I hope this makes sense and I'm looking forward to further discussion with you.

Cheers.

One of the best post I have ever read.As an Indian I can tell you.Indian leadership is soft .I think if Narendra Modi form next govt he will also soft on foreign policy.Because it is created by our eminent think thanks and bureaucrats not by some politicans.
India always try to maintain good relationship with neighbours.And that is the main reason for direct people to people contact between Nepal and India without visa and other formalities.I think same also in BD case.We suffered a lot of due to this because terrorists from enemy countries consistently exploits this route for infiltration.But still we follow that goodwill.
But when i join in this forum,I saw a lot of BD members take a hostile attitude towards Indians even we helped them 1971 genocide.That is hell of gratitude.
Your are right.Because of our geographic location US ,the sole superpower also try to influence us.But now a days due to increasing of India they cant do that like they did it in past decades.
 
Elaborate more on the refugee part. As far as i know it was Bhutan who drove out ethnic Nepalis from their country and many of them took refuge in India.
Bhutan is a vassal state of India which looks after its foreign relations, defense and economic affairs among other matters. There are a lot of non-Bhutyas in Bhutan, but these Nepalese origin people -some with several generations stay in Bhutan, were singled out for expulsion and sent to refugee camps in Nepal.This was an Indian project to create animosity between these two nations.A unity would be a problem in the Himalayas for India.
 
Bhutan is a vassal state of India which looks after its foreign relations, defense and economic affairs among other matters. There are a lot of non-Bhutyas in Bhutan, but these Nepalese origin people -some with several generations stay in Bhutan, were singled out for expulsion and sent to refugee camps in Nepal.This was an Indian project to create animosity between these two nations.A unity would be a problem in the Himalayas for India.

That's an interesting perspective. The incumbent argument was that the Bhutanese King feared a "Sikkimization" of his country. The other argument is that he wanted to "preserve" Bhutanese culture in the face of a growing Nepalese population. It's sad that this issue is usually just swept under the rug.

Welcome. Seems like we have a dark horse in here :tup:

Keep an eye on Bangladeshi posters. Will give you some much needed entertainment. :)

I think I'll get a headache rather than be entertained. Haha!
 
Back
Top Bottom