Trust: The Indian Government had given employment, even in its Armed forces, to the Nepalese citizens.
Empathy: Under the various International Schemes/Plans the best Indian Universities had accommodated Nepalese students even when the latter did not qualify for admission on competitive merits.
Compassion:
The Nepalese small businessmen are permitted to run business in India--without paying any discriminative Tax like the '25% Tax on Profits', 'Tourist Tax' etc.
The Indian Tax-payers are financing the supply, 'on-credit', of petroleum products to the Nepalese economy even though Nepal has no money to pay for it in the foreseeable future.
Sovereignty: The Indian Government has, diplomatically & militarily, ensured that no lcountry violates the sovereignty of Nepal. Remember what happened to Tibet, and what is being done to Nepal's' peace by some disgruntled sections?
It is, therefore, painfu to find some misled and UNGRATEFUL individuals on the Internet abusing & hating ALL the Indian people.

Listen Creative GB,
NO SOVERGN COUNTRY WOULD WILLINGLY SUBMIT TO ANOTHER COUNTRY JUST LIKE THAT(you talk as if India did them a favor). TO SAY THAT INDIA IS NEAPL'S PROTECTOR ...HE HE IS FULL OF BULLSHIT. WHY THE FUGGING ECONOMIC BLOCADE EVERYTIME NEPALI GOVT DOES NOT SUBMIT TO INDIA"S WISHES ? WHY ARE THE NEPALI BUSINESSMEN ALWAYS HARRASED IN PORTS OF CALCUTTA ? WHY DID INDIAN GOVT EXILE NEPALIS THAT HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR CENTURIES OUT OF ASSAM ? WHY DID INDIA HARBOR WANTED TERRORISTS LIKE BABURAM when they were attacking and killing innocent people in NEPAL ?
At the same time I am not saying India has not helped us(like the things you mentioned above). But TO PORTRAY INDIA AS A PROTECTOR OF NEPAL IS FULL OF BULLSHIT. THEY ARE JUST PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS THATS ALL. WE ARE NOT BLIND thanks but no thanks . he he

Tibet was occupied militarily by China. On the other hand, it was the Legislature of Sikkim which passed a resolution to join India-- out of economic needs.
Now, like all other States, Sikkim, too, gets an annual grant from the Central Government. And the Sikkimese can compete for admission to IIMs/IITs, can win a JRF/SRF (scholarship worth Rs.3,000 per mensem--with no Bonds attached), and can also join IAS/IFS/IPS etc.

Creativeqb(no no you are distructive) Fuccck OFF from the sajha otherwise I will kick your ASSSSS.

Yeah Tibbet was militarily occupied YES. ITS WAS THE LEGISLATURE OF SIKKIM WHICH PASSED A RESOLUTION TO JOIN INDIA ? he he Lets not mislead people here. INDIA COERCED THE LEGISLATURE OF SKKIM TO JOIN INDIA. And with the help of corrupt Sikkim politicians like Bhandari ......India said .....SEE NO HANDS.... NO HANDS. managed to absorb Sikkim effortlessly.

OUT OF ECONOMIC NEEDS ? he he And EVERY TIME INDIA PUTS ECONOMIC BLOCADE AGAINST NEPAL.......NEPAL SLIPS INTO THAT ECONOMIC NEED TOOO. AND IF THEY SQUEEZE US A LIL TOO TIGHT NEPALI PEOPLE WILL BE FORCED TO BOW DOWN TO THE MIGHTY INDIA. AND WE HAVE PLENTY OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN NEPAL WHO LIKE MR BHANDARI WILL NOT HESITATE TO HAND THE AUTHORITY OF NEPALI SOVEREIGN TO INDIANS.

So lets not mislead people here. We are aware of the facts too just like you.

The original post by creativegb reminds me of a conversation between the Indian ambassador to Nepal at that time and a Nepali journalist. The Ambassadors asked almost philosophically "we do so much for you, why do you hate us ?" The answer of the journalist, who I think is a fairly objective person was "It is precisely because you do so much for us"

That in many ways sums up India's dilemma with Nepal : damned if you do, damned if you don't. Of late pragmatists seem to have the upper hand in India's foreign policy establishment, and the message appears to be that is still better to overdo than under do when it comes to assisting Nepal.I feel that is the right approach.

The thing people in Nepal are most sensitive about is their sovereignty - and by that I mean Indian encroachment of their sovereignty. Whether that is a justifiable concern or not is something that has been debated over and over on this and other forms and I don't see much sense in talking about it now. If India wants to win over the hearts and minds of Nepalese, they just need to be more understanding of this concern - bringing Sikkim into the conversation, for example, clearly shows a lack of such understanding.


Plus, Sikkim and Nepal are two very different countries. We are bigger, with more diversity, a stronger sense of nationhood and nationalism (which sometimes has been misguided I admit), and we are, overall, a society deeply conscious about our rights and freedom as 2 revolutions have shown. Good luck to anyone who tries to impose their will on us. In any event, I doubt India will want to annex us - they have enough problems of their own and it is unlikely, as long as common sense prevails in Delhi, that they will want to lord over almost 30 million unruly people and add to their already overflowing cup of woes.

Just my thoughts.

" Now, like all other States, Sikkim, too, gets an annual grant from the Central Government. And the Sikkimese can compete for admission to IIMs/IITs, can win a JRF/SRF (scholarship worth Rs.3,000 per mensem--with no Bonds attached), and can also join IAS/IFS/IPS etc."

If the purpose of the above example is to infeer that Sikkim has benefited from joining India, then that might be a fair case to make. But if you are implying through that example that Nepal might want to do the same, I think you are missing the forest for the trees. First of all, Nepalese can compete under a foreign quota for some of those admissions already. Besides, I don't think a nation of 30 million people is going to hand over the country to India just because they can now be part of full competition for what is it like 50 seats at AIIMs annually? On the contrary, a Nepali might have a better chance competing in the much smaller foreign quota pool than the huge general pool that encompasses hundreds of thousands of test takers.

I hope that is not what you were trying to say because it is a rather absurd argument.

Capn'
I dun think they want to lord over 30 million unruly Nepalis but they definately behave like they want to be landlords of Nepal someday. he he he I know they have enough problems of their own...but that has not stopped them from meddling in internal politics of its neighbours. Like in Sri Lanka and Nepal. They were harbouring Maoist Leaders just like the Tamil Tigers and tauting their respective government. Its like they wanto to mold us to their will.... and you know NEPALI PEOPLE WILL NEVER EVER EVER SUBMIT TO THAT.

CreativeGB nepli people can still get into IIT, AIIMS and all today too. And just like India Nepali government have given Indian citizens of freely trading in NEpal too(and they take that $$$ back to INDIA without any problem). More than half of the most prominet businessmen in NEPAL are of Indian Origin. So lets not make it look like India is doing us a big favor by doing this.

I dont know about IPS, but Nepalese dont even have to take the NDA exam - unlike the rest of most of India - to join the Indian Army if I remember correctly.

The more I think of this, the more your argument, if that is where you were getting with this, seems flawed - almost as flawed as those blind anti-Indians out there on the other end of the spectrum.

From what I hear, then Sikkimese government willingly, with full congnizance, made the decision to join Indian union. I still don't know why? Can somebody please explain?

For what it's worth, I also hear Sikkim nowadays has prospered quite a bit. I do not know if that is because of Indian money that poured in after the union or because Sikkimese kicked out that worthless Bhandari and put in the able Chamling as their Chief Minister.

Few bad people are enough to ruin a lot of good people. This is what exactly happens in conflicts between nations. For example, US invaded Iraq, but it was not because every US citizen wanted to go for that. There were few bad people, motivated by their vested interests, who plotted all the series of fake stories, who influenced intelligence, who argued aggressively before the whole world displaying the fake threat from WMD. They were successful to cross over the US barricade meant for stopping misuse of their military power and they were successful to win majority of their congress votes which allowed them to go for the war - now we are witnessing the result of their success.

Between India and Nepal, I think the same principal is working right now. India can/will never try to annex Nepal as it did with Sikkim. Whoever thinks and argues like that, I believe, they do not fully understand the dynamics of current world. Indians know better than us that by doing so it might put themselve into huge trouble. However, I do not expect indians will give up playing games in nepalese politics and economy, because there is a certain group of people in indian beaurocracy whose career is built up on Nepal. These people do not want to end their career or turn into a low profile officer by limiting the scope of their expertise and experience. Just notice how ShyamSharan was able to get big leap in his promotion immediately after his tenure as an ambassador to Nepal was over; how KV Rajan, SD Muni, Ashok Mehta etc. and company are getting high profile consultation jobs from indian foreign ministry based on their association with nepalese politics. These are the people trying always very hard to involve India into Nepal as much as possible, which must be for their vested interests. In turn of that, India would be making some benefits through treaties, mostly intended to milking from nepalese water resources and human resources. However, I think, India is not making a good judgement on chosing right approach to cultivate those benefits. For India, a prosperous, stable and sovereign Nepal would be much more helpful than a weak and troubled Nepal. Our unfortunate is that few of powerful guys in indian beaurocracy are not yet ready to recognize this positive swath. They will keep hindering Nepal for several years in future and nepalese will keep on having anti-Indian centiments stronger than before.

Chane...Waiyaat Bakwaas....baseless story.

randiii ko chhoro craetivegb, if u r nepali i would love to see u leave nepal and start living in india plz don't make my BP high.

.First, here's a saying for creativegb. I think Alexander Pope, the scientist, said: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Second, a little background history about annexation of Sikkim. Sikkim was a country that was older than Nepal. The dynasty ruling Sikkim at the time of its annexation by India was 1200 years old. The Indian Army dropped its soldiers at midnight from helicopters, surrounded the palace of Sikkimese King, and gave the King an ultimatum: submit to India as a state or go through a bloody coup. The King, who was unwilling to let any people die and who knew he had no options, agreed to give up the country.

P.S. King Birendra did warn the Sikkimese King of India's intentions days ahead of the coup by calling the King and letting him know that India was thinking of attacking and capturing Sikkim. The King of Sikkim disregarded Birendra's suggestions to be careful by saying that Jawaharlal Nehru, who was still alive, would never let such things happen.

P.P.S. Sikkim was captured by India in the 1970's. My question is: What was the United Nations doing when a sovereign country was attacked overnight, captured and declared a state by India?

that means if we have to attack india we have reason to attack

indian army only entered sikkim after the referendum in which majority of people decided to be part of india.

its not that sikkimis were not nationalist but they were outnumbered by indians who influxed rich state of sikkim.

same story with sri lanka. all the tamils are , if you remember, were labours(from india) in various tea estates. later when their number became significant they start demanding for their own separate country.

====================================================
as always
what do i know (O:

thats what they are doing now in terai

thopa is right.

if you think sikkim was obtain without force, read this from history:

In 1947, a popular vote rejected Sikkim's joining the Indian Union and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed to a special protectorate status for Sikkim. Sikkim was to be a tributary of India, in which India controlled its external defence, diplomacy and communication. A state council was established in 1955 to allow for constitutional government for the Chogyal. Meanwhile trouble was brewing in the state after the Sikkim National Congress demanded fresh elections and greater representation for the Nepalese. In 1973, riots in front of the palace led to a formal request for protection from India. The chogyal was proving to be extremely unpopular with the people. Sikkim was closed and little was known until American climber Caril Ridley happened into Gangtok and was able to smuggle photos and legal documentation out. When confirmed by China, India’s actions were brought into the spotlight of world awareness, However history had already been written and matters came to a head in 1975, when the Kazi (Prime Minister) appealed to the Indian Parliament for representation and change of Sikkim's status to a state of India. In April, the Indian Army moved in Sikkim, seizing the city of Gangtok, disarming the Palace Guards. Within two days the entire nation was in Indian hands. A referendum was held in which 97.5% of the people voted to join the Indian Union. A few weeks later on May 16, 1975, Sikkim officially became the 22nd state of the Indian Union, and monarchy was abolished.

China eventually recognised Sikkim as an Indian state in 2003, which led to a thaw in Sino-Indian relations. In return, India announced its official recognition of Tibet as an integrated part of China. [wiki]

United Nations did nothing because it was taken later with referendum. Those poor himali people were promised a lot of goodies but ultimately peace was what people wanted most and without India it was not possible. It shows how elected leader was able to sell the whole country when fighting over power was unleashed. Good thing that we were able to pass 1970s contemporary India. Now the condition of Nepal right now is in same as sikkim in 1973. Luck is with us that we are more nationalist and this is 2007. But if impasse continues and power equillibrium breaks nothing can be guranteed. We must have election as soon as possible. Remember, India as an animal who doesn't do its own hunting but is not ashamed to claim it later either.

captain, that journalist answer was tamed. This could have been the better answer:
" leave us alone. Leecher's cure for blood pressure cannot justify its presence."

we are to blame that we can't protect our own country, everday being invaded by india, and its ecomnomic and political intereferences has collapsed our country. i think it would be better for whole south Asia if india is wiped off the map of world.

A couple of points:

- It is hard to have a meaningful and sensible discussion about India-Nepal relations when Sikkim is brought into the picture. Doing so brings out the worst in both people. Even otherwise level headed people tend to get emotional - on both sides - as we are beginning to see here on this thread. The conversation that follows is then the same old one we have been having for the last 30 years and nothing concrete ever comes out of it in my opinion.

- Sikkim is about the past. While we cannot ignore history and its lessons, we cannot live with our heads buried in the past either. We have to move with the times. Sikkim was an exception in so many ways - it was not a member of the UN, if I am not mistaken, it was a small area to manage and had a population that thought India could provide them the freedom that the Chogyal could not. (And no Nehru was not alive in 1975 as someone mentioned - he died in 1964). Present day Nepal has less of that problem - we have put our Chogyal in place and might be getting rid of him soon. Nepalese already have the freedom and ability to choose their destiny in a way the people of Sikkim never had.

- India may have intervened in Sri Lanka but it got it's rear-end kicked pretty badly. Let's not forget the IPKF withdrew from Sri Lanka in the end. In the Maldives too, India paratroopers helped put down a coup but they did not occupy the country even when they had the means to do so. Perhaps the lessons of Lanka were hard to miss or they feared stretching their forces too thin might make them vulnerable elsewhere. Case in point: the 1965 war with Pakistan which many feel Pakistan instigated noticing India's vulnerability after the 1962 defeat at the hands of the Chinese. Both operations happened under Rajiv Gandhi's watch as did the infamous blockade of Nepal. Rajiv Gandhi had an ambitious and almost arrogant foreign policy in some ways. He paid for it with his life. Indian PM's have been much more accommodating of their neighbors since. And rightly so - why would any sensible leader want to put his finger into a bee-hive when they are already other fires to douse?

- What is another ambitious/ arrogant leader emerges who is not cognizant of the lessons of the IPKF misadventure in Sri Lanka? I'd argue, such a thing can surely happen, but if you look at the things that would encourage an Indian leader to follow Rajiv Gandhi's footsteps versus the things that would discourage them to do so - I'd say they latter carry much more wight in this day and age. For example, no occupying power has succeeded since second world war, with Britain in Malay in the 60's being an exception, in putting down an insurgency against occupation. With the lessons of Iraq fresh in the minds of military planners around the world, I am left to wonder if the Indians would so fool hardy as to attempt such a feat.

- " captain, that journalist answer was tamed. This could have been the better answer:
" leave us alone. Leecher's cure for blood pressure cannot justify its presence." "

Not everyone thinks that way and neither should they. India is neither a friend nor an enemy of Nepal in my opinion. They are a neighbor whom we need to live next to and business with. As with any business dealing, a cordial atmosphere is required to get effective results, and that should be the focus on both sides.

- Last but not least, we need to be strong economically to gain respect from India. Like it or not, for now, with India's economy booming, the way to grow ours is to work with them and get Indian and foreign investment in (and in the process gain access to their markets). Forward-moving politics is about pragmatism - unless we learn to deal with India and others in such a manner, we will continue to be left behind as the begging bowl of the world while our neighbors speed past us in every way.