BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Shamsuddin Ahmed
Communist Party of Nepal UML leader Madhav Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) had refused the Indian offer of Arms in 1989 when the movement against the monarchy was at its height. The proposal for accepting the Indian arms was intended to end the institution of Monarchy. The history was revealed in a book that was released last Saturday.
The proposal was put forward at the party meeting. The party supremo questioned Madan Bhandary even if they give arms who were going to operate them. India said they are going to operate them. The Marxists had been informed that India was going to send those army personnel in the Indian Gorkha Regiment on leave and they would fight on behalf of the party and declare Nepal a republic.
Delhi’s generosity to Nepali Marxist
Sensing an evil motive UML rejected the Indian offer saying even if China comes up with similar proposal will not be accepted. The party viewed India’s motive aimed at ending centuries old Nepali monarchy.
Noted Communist leader Radha Krishna (RK) Mainali of Nepal, in his memoire “Nalekheka Itihas” (Unwritten History), has claimed that during the 1989 people’s movement, Madhav Nepal had brought a proposal from India for accepting the Indian military support to end the institution of monarchy.
In the book released on Saturday, writer RK Mainali has stated that at the then UCPN Marxist-Leninist Party’s central committee meeting, at a time when the people’s movement 1989 was gathering momentum, Madhab Nepal had brought the Indian proposal of active military support for the party to end the institution of monarchy.
When the then party supremo Madan Bhandary questioned even if they supply arms, who were going to operate them, Madhab Nepal had informed them that India was going to send those army personnel in the Indian Gorkha Regiment on leave and they would fight on behalf of the party to declare Nepal a republic.
However, Bhandary rejected to military support from India and said the party should not accept such offer. Such an offer was considered to be a big insult for the party.
Besides, the independence was of Bangladesh was fresh in the mind of the UML leaders. India’s involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi offered full support of her government to the Bangladeshi struggle for independence. The Bangladesh-India border was opened to allow the Bangladeshi refugees safe shelter in India. This was seen in Nepal as a motive of breaking up Pakistan.
Sikkim’s annexation
On February 10, 2017 the state-owned Rising Nepal in its’50 Years Ago’ column carried a RSS-AFP news item datelined Gangtok reminding that the Maharaja (Chogyal) of Sikkim, Palden Thondup Namgyal, at his monthly press conference, made public his intention of proceeding to New Delhi to meet with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Foreign Minister Swaran Singh to raise the issue of revising the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1950. That, of course, was in February 1967. It is to remind the readers (a) that the aforementioned Treaty confirmed Sikkim’s status as a protectorate of India in an embrace tighter than the one between India and Bhutan, whose relationship was defined, at the time, by the Indo-Bhutan Treaty of 1949; and (b) that the Chogyal, who married American socialite Hope Cooke shortly after meeting her in Darjeeling in 1959, was keen on acquiring for Sikkim a status similar to Bhutan’s vis-à-vis India.
While the geopolitical machinations that led to Sikkim’s ‘merger’ with India [or to India’s accession] have been densely documented, including in Sundanda K. Dutta-Ray’s riveting ‘Smash and Grab’ opus. Here we focus on facts/insights surrounding that climactic development that may not be equally well known to the people in this country.
Let us attention to this fact: that, despite the Chogyal’s bluster or naive optimism, Sikkim’s distinct identity was obliterated, a mere eight years later, following a sham or hurriedly organised referendum, sans international observers, and with Sikkim bristling with 70-80,000 Indian troops on the ground. One can only wonder what made the Chogyal believe he could successfully push for a separate political status outside Indira Gandhi’s India.
What awaits Nepal?
One would be remiss if one were not to recall the anti-India demonstrations that broke out in Kathmandu and elsewhere following the remote-controlled 1973 ‘uprising’ against the Chogyal, pitting the Nepali segment of the population against their Bhutia-Lepchas cousins in a cynical but effective execution of the ‘divide and rule’ dictum by India’s plenipotentiaries who had experienced its cold efficacy during the heyday of the British Raj.
There appears to be no doubt that Sikkim’s merger led to King Birendra’s enunciation of his Peace Zone proposal that by the year 1990 had secured the endorsement of 116 sovereign states but which was opposed, tooth and nail, by ‘peace-loving’ India. People are painfully aware that India not only never accepted it but sought through her Nepali surrogates to jettison it when drawing up their blueprints for a ‘naya’ republican Nepal. One can only speculate whether it contributed, if at all, to the enactment of the gory Narayanhitti Palace massacre of 2001.
Let us now share an interesting personal insight offered by a friend, a retired high-ranking Nepali official, who spent a few weeks in Sikkim, a couple of months ago. As he narrated, he was constantly reminded of how Sikkim’s ‘merger’ was orchestrated by external forces and cautioned against a similar fate for Nepal, setting the people of the hills against those of the Tarai. A sobering thought indeed!
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/Homepage/Pages/UserHome.aspx
Communist Party of Nepal UML leader Madhav Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) had refused the Indian offer of Arms in 1989 when the movement against the monarchy was at its height. The proposal for accepting the Indian arms was intended to end the institution of Monarchy. The history was revealed in a book that was released last Saturday.
The proposal was put forward at the party meeting. The party supremo questioned Madan Bhandary even if they give arms who were going to operate them. India said they are going to operate them. The Marxists had been informed that India was going to send those army personnel in the Indian Gorkha Regiment on leave and they would fight on behalf of the party and declare Nepal a republic.
Delhi’s generosity to Nepali Marxist
Sensing an evil motive UML rejected the Indian offer saying even if China comes up with similar proposal will not be accepted. The party viewed India’s motive aimed at ending centuries old Nepali monarchy.
Noted Communist leader Radha Krishna (RK) Mainali of Nepal, in his memoire “Nalekheka Itihas” (Unwritten History), has claimed that during the 1989 people’s movement, Madhav Nepal had brought a proposal from India for accepting the Indian military support to end the institution of monarchy.
In the book released on Saturday, writer RK Mainali has stated that at the then UCPN Marxist-Leninist Party’s central committee meeting, at a time when the people’s movement 1989 was gathering momentum, Madhab Nepal had brought the Indian proposal of active military support for the party to end the institution of monarchy.
When the then party supremo Madan Bhandary questioned even if they supply arms, who were going to operate them, Madhab Nepal had informed them that India was going to send those army personnel in the Indian Gorkha Regiment on leave and they would fight on behalf of the party to declare Nepal a republic.
However, Bhandary rejected to military support from India and said the party should not accept such offer. Such an offer was considered to be a big insult for the party.
Besides, the independence was of Bangladesh was fresh in the mind of the UML leaders. India’s involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi offered full support of her government to the Bangladeshi struggle for independence. The Bangladesh-India border was opened to allow the Bangladeshi refugees safe shelter in India. This was seen in Nepal as a motive of breaking up Pakistan.
Sikkim’s annexation
On February 10, 2017 the state-owned Rising Nepal in its’50 Years Ago’ column carried a RSS-AFP news item datelined Gangtok reminding that the Maharaja (Chogyal) of Sikkim, Palden Thondup Namgyal, at his monthly press conference, made public his intention of proceeding to New Delhi to meet with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Foreign Minister Swaran Singh to raise the issue of revising the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1950. That, of course, was in February 1967. It is to remind the readers (a) that the aforementioned Treaty confirmed Sikkim’s status as a protectorate of India in an embrace tighter than the one between India and Bhutan, whose relationship was defined, at the time, by the Indo-Bhutan Treaty of 1949; and (b) that the Chogyal, who married American socialite Hope Cooke shortly after meeting her in Darjeeling in 1959, was keen on acquiring for Sikkim a status similar to Bhutan’s vis-à-vis India.
While the geopolitical machinations that led to Sikkim’s ‘merger’ with India [or to India’s accession] have been densely documented, including in Sundanda K. Dutta-Ray’s riveting ‘Smash and Grab’ opus. Here we focus on facts/insights surrounding that climactic development that may not be equally well known to the people in this country.
Let us attention to this fact: that, despite the Chogyal’s bluster or naive optimism, Sikkim’s distinct identity was obliterated, a mere eight years later, following a sham or hurriedly organised referendum, sans international observers, and with Sikkim bristling with 70-80,000 Indian troops on the ground. One can only wonder what made the Chogyal believe he could successfully push for a separate political status outside Indira Gandhi’s India.
What awaits Nepal?
One would be remiss if one were not to recall the anti-India demonstrations that broke out in Kathmandu and elsewhere following the remote-controlled 1973 ‘uprising’ against the Chogyal, pitting the Nepali segment of the population against their Bhutia-Lepchas cousins in a cynical but effective execution of the ‘divide and rule’ dictum by India’s plenipotentiaries who had experienced its cold efficacy during the heyday of the British Raj.
There appears to be no doubt that Sikkim’s merger led to King Birendra’s enunciation of his Peace Zone proposal that by the year 1990 had secured the endorsement of 116 sovereign states but which was opposed, tooth and nail, by ‘peace-loving’ India. People are painfully aware that India not only never accepted it but sought through her Nepali surrogates to jettison it when drawing up their blueprints for a ‘naya’ republican Nepal. One can only speculate whether it contributed, if at all, to the enactment of the gory Narayanhitti Palace massacre of 2001.
Let us now share an interesting personal insight offered by a friend, a retired high-ranking Nepali official, who spent a few weeks in Sikkim, a couple of months ago. As he narrated, he was constantly reminded of how Sikkim’s ‘merger’ was orchestrated by external forces and cautioned against a similar fate for Nepal, setting the people of the hills against those of the Tarai. A sobering thought indeed!
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/Homepage/Pages/UserHome.aspx
