 |
Kathmandu Friday June 30, 2000 Ahsad 16, 2057.
|
Invitation for
intervention ?
I encountered in your daily of
June 27, 2000, an article headlined "ISI gameplan and Nepal-India ties" by
Prakash A Raj. His write-up supports the Indian campaign to portray Nepal as a hotbed of
anti-Indian activity. This has been a constant theme of Indian propaganda aimed at
smearing Nepal's image as well as to tighten its stranglehold on Nepal. But it is hardly
credible against the backdrop of India's intransigence in not conceding the Nepalese
demand for regulating the open Nepal-India border. Prior to 1950, it will be recalled, a
type of visa (Rahadani) for foreigners was imperative to travel in and out from Nepal.
In his write up, Raj makes no
mention of Nehru's policy of annexing Nepal through demographic, economic and cultural
invasion, which to this day continues unabated. This has largely marginalized the role of
Nepalese in their own country. If the open border is not immediately regulated properly,
it is certain that Nepalese will be completely outnumbered by Indians and the situation
will be worse than it is in Fiji today.
That sinister gameplan of Nehru
has been simultaneously implemented in Darjeeling, Kumaon, Garwal, Dehradoon and Nainital.
In Darjeeling, for example, nearly half a million Indians (Bengalis) are settled. We are
all aware of how brutally the Indian authorities crushed the Gorkhaland movement for a
separate homeland.
When Nehru wrote Glimpses of
World History, on page 411 he happily acknowledged that Nainital, Kumaon, Garwal,
Dehradoon etc belonged to Nepal and was merged into the British Raj after the Anglo-Gorkha
war of 1816. However, after independence, the first thing Nehru did was to ensure that the
Nepalese were effectively outnumbered by Indians in those areas. Against such a backdrop,
Raj is attempting to divert attention from the above facts of history and, instead, blame
a country that neither borders Nepal nor has any plans to annex it, as Indian in fact did
to Sikkim. Besides, everyone knows that since Rana time to this day Nepal has been ruled
by puppets of the South.
The most objectionable part of
the write-up is a clear indication or virtually an open invitation for Indian military
intervention in Nepal-on security grounds. Such a lunatic idea, if India does entertain
one, had better be wrapped up because that could prove a misadventure. Nepal has a more
than 50,000 strong army and nearly one million ex-servicemen who can join in the
battlefront. In addition, Gorkha "mercenaries"-the backbone of the Indian
army-will undoubtedly turn their guns on the Indians, in such an eventuality. Raj has
attempted to suggest that China will maintain a hands-off policy if India were to
intervene in Nepal on the trumped up ground of security. While that will, of course, be
proved by time alone, it is extremely naive to believe that China which has a more than
1400 km long border with Nepal and has an unresolved border dispute with India will not
budge an inch to neutralize the Indian design. Moreover let it not be forgotten that India
continues to offer succour and assistance to the so-called Free Tibet elements in India
and Nepal-this too can hardly be ignored by China if there is to be an Indian military
intervention in Nepal.
Let me also me remind that Nepal
has a treaty with China under the provisions of which China will have to come to Nepal's
aid in case of foreign intervention.
Madan Regmi
Chun Devi, Kathmandu |
