Brief Info about Annapurna Circuit

Brief Info about Annapurna Circuit:

First this route is not the original route 1 out of 1000 people travel this way. Most of the people do it the way around as that's easier and the right way.

Everyone should travel to Annapurna circuit as the real beauty of Nepal lies here. People sitting in home travelling around Kathmandu and city areas around luxury will know how beautiful our country actually is. Tilicho Lake being the highest lake in the world lies in the route. Foreigners pay rs 5000 each just to enter the route and we Nepali just have to walk spend a minimum amount. It's not even that hard and the view is just majestic. Eating a pizza at 4900m feels good and munching on a snickers at 5300m at Tho-Rong La Pass is very satisfying with the view surrounded my snow and mountains. Some parts will be difficulty Tilicho Lake would be your favorite place in the world as the water is so blue with snow capped mountains surrounding it. And you get Nepali discounts also at shops.

Route:
Day 1 Kathmandu to Pokhara: NRs 500 for bus lunch as choice 500 for room at night.
Day 2 Ticket in front of chilly bar, Pokhara to Jomsom: NRs. 1000
Lunch on choice.
Day 3 Jomsom to Muktinath: NRs 300 jeep/ bus or 6 hrs hike from there to Charmbu Duration: 1.5 hrs hike



Day 4 Charmbu to Thorong La Pass to height camp to Thorong La Fedi 12 hrs walk, There will be nothing on middle so take water and snickers.
Day 5 Thorong La Fedi to Shree Kharga: 6-7 hrs hike
Day 6 Shree Kharga to Tilicho Base Camp to Tilicho and back yo Tilicho Base Camp
Day 7 Tilicho Base Camp to Manang
Day 8 Take a jeep cost: NRs. 2000 till last stop and take a bus to Pokhara or Kathmandu from there if found in time.

Total budget: NRs. 17,000

A snickers will cost: NRs. 100
A bottel of water will cost: NRs. 200
Rice between NRs. 300-700 (will be discounted)
Room will cost NRs. 100-200 below manag if you eat there they won't charge you.

Nepal – Britain Friendship Treaty 21 December 1923

treaty of friendship among great britain and nepal signed at kathmandu, 21st december 1923, and be aware bearing the identical date respecting the importation of fingers and ammunition into nepal – 1923.
( change of ratifications happened at kathmandu at the 8th april 1925)

TREATY

Whereas space and friendship have now existed between the British Government and the Government of Nepal since the signing of the Treaty of Segowlie on the 2nd day of December 1815; and whereas since that date the Government of Nepal has ever displayed its true friendship for the British Government and the British Government has as constantly shown its good-will towards the Government of Nepal; and whereas the government of both the countries are now desirous of still further strengthening and cementing the good relations and friendship which have subsisted between them for more than a century; the two High Contracting Parties having resolved to conclude a new treaty of Friendship have agreed upon the following Article:-
Article I:
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the Governments of Great Britain and Nepal, and the two Governments agree mutually acknowledge and respect each other’s independence both internal and external.

Article II:
All previous treaties, agreements and engagements, since and including the Treaty of Segowlie of 1815, which have been concluded between the two Government are hereby conformed, except so far as they may be altered by the present Treaty.

Article III:
As the preservation of peace and friendly relations with the neighbouring States whose territories adjoin their common frontiers is to the mutual interests of both the High Contracting Parties, they hereby agree to inform each other of any rupture such friendly relations, and each to exert its good offices as far as may be possible to remove such friction and misunderstanding.
Article IV:
Each of the High Contracting Parties will use all such measure as it may deem practicable t prevent its territories being used for purpose inimical to the security of the other.

Article V:
In view of the longstanding friendship that has subsisted between the British Government and the Government of Nepal and for the sake of cordial neighbourly relations between them , the British Government agrees that the Nepal Government shall be free to import from or through British India into Nepal whatever arms, ammunition, machinery, warlike material or stores may be required or desired for the strength and welfare of Nepal, and that this arrangement shall hold good for all times as long as the British Government is satisfied that the intentions of the Nepal Government are friendly and that there is no immediate danger to India from such importations. The Nepal such arms, ammunition, etc., across the frontier of Nepal either by the Nepal Government or by private individuals.
If, however, any convention for the regulation of the Arms Traffic, to which the British Government may be a party, shall come into force, the right of importation of arms and ammunition by the Nepal Government shall be subject to the proviso that the Nepal Government shall first become a party to that Convention, and that such importation shall only be made in accordance with the provisions of that Convention.

Article VI:
No Customs duty shall be levied at British Indian ports on goods imported on behalf of the Nepal Government of immediate transport to that country provided that a certificate from such authority as may from time to time be determined by the two governments shall be presented at the time of importation to the Chief Customs Officer at the port of import setting forth that the goods are the property of the Nepal Government, are required for the public services of the Nepal Government are not for the purpose of any State monopoly or State trade, and are being to Nepal under orders of the Nepal Government, The British Government also agrees to the grant in respect of all trade goods, imported at British Indian ports for immediate transmission to Katmandu without breaking bulk en route, of a rebate of the full duty paid, provided that in accordance with arrangements already agreed to, between the two Governments, such goods may break bulk for repacking at the port of entry under Customs supervision in accordance with such rules as may from time to time be laid down in this behalf. The rebate may be claimed on the authority of a certificate signed by the said authority that the goods have arrive at Katmandu with Customs seals unbroken and otherwise untampered with.

Article VII:
This Treaty signed in the part of the British Government by Lieutenenat-Colonel W.F.T. O’Connor, C.I.E., C.V.O., British Envoy at the Court of Nepal and on the part of Nepal Government by General His Highness Maharaja Sir Chandra Shumsher Junga Bahadur Rana, G.C.B, G.C.S.I., G.D.M.G., G.C.V.O., D.C.I., Thong-lin Pimma Kokang- Wang-Syan, Prime Minister and Marshal of Nepal , shall be ratified and the ratification shall be exchanged at the Katmandu as soon as practicable.
Signed and sealed at Kathmandu this the twenty first day of December in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty three Anno Domini Corresponding with the Sixth Paush, Sambat Era one thousand nine hundred and eighty.
W.F.T O’Connor, LT.Col.           ( Under Vernacular Translation of Treaty )
British Envoy at the           Chandra Shumshere,
Court of Nepal           Prime Minister and Marshal of Nepal.
Note:- From the Prime Minister of Nepal, to the British Envoy at the Court of Nepal.
Nepal, December 21, 1923
My dear Colonel O’Connor, Regarding the purchase of arms and ammunitions which the Government of Nepal busy from time to time for the strength and welfare of Nepal, and imports to its own territory from and through British India in accordance with Article V of the Treaty between the two Governments, the Government of Nepal hereby agrees that it will, from time to time before the importation of arms and ammunition at British Indian Ports, furnish detailed lists of such arms and ammunitions to the British Envoy at the Court of Nepal in order that the British Government may be in a position to issue instructions to the port authorities to afford the necessary facilities for their importation in accordance with Article VI of this Treaty.
I am, etc.Chandra
To
Lieutenant-Colonel W.F.T. O’Connor, C.I.E., CVO,.
British Envoy at the Court of Nepal.

Nepal – India Peace And Friendship Treaty 31 July 1950

The government of india and the government of nepal spotting the historic ties which have happily eisted between the two international locations for cenuries.
needing nonetheless furthere to strengthen and expand these ties and to perpetuate peace between  international locations.

have resolved consequently to go into into a treaty of peace and friendship with each other, and have for this reason, appointed as their plenipotentiaries the following men and women, namely, the government of india, his excellency shri chandreshwar prasad narain singh, ambassador of india in nepal; the authorities of nepal, mohun shamsher, jang bahadur rana, maharaja, prim minister and supreme commander-in-leader of nepal, who having examined each different’s credentials and discovered them precise and in due form having agreed as follows:

Article I
There shall be everlasting peace and friendship between the Government of India and the Government of Nepal. The two Government agrees mutually to acknowledge and respect the complete sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of each other.
Article II
The two Governments hereby undertake to inform each other of any serious friction or misunderstanding with any neighbouring State likely to cause any breach in the friendly relations subsisting between the two Governments.
Article III
In order to establish and maintain the relations referred to in Article I the two Governments agree to continue diplomatic relations with each other by means of representatives with such staff as is necessary for the due performance of their functions. The representatives and such of these staff as may be agreed upon shall enjoy such diplomatic privileges and immunities as are customarily granted by international law of a reciprocal basis, provide that in no case shall these be less than those granted to persons of a similar status of any State having diplomatic relations with either Government.
Article IV
The two Government agree to appoint Consul-Generals, Consuls , Vice Consuls and other consular agents, who shall reside in towns, ports and other places in each other’s territory as may be agreed to Consul-Generals, Consul, Vice-Consuls and consular agents shall be provided with exequators or authorization of their appointment. Such exequator or authorization is liable to be withdrawn which issued to , if considered necessary. The reason for the withdrawal shall be indicated wherever possible.
The persons mentioned above shall enjoy on a reciprocal basis all the rights, privileges, exemptions and immunities that are accorded to persons of corresponding status of any other state.
Article V
The Government of Nepal shall be free to import, from or through the territory of India, arms, ammunitions or warlike materials and equipment necessary for this arrangement shall be worked out by the two Governments acting in consultation.
Article VI
Each Government undertakes, in token of the neighborly friendship between India and Nepal, to give to the nationals of the other, in its territory, national treatment with regard to participation in industrial and economic development of such territory and to the grant of concessions and contracts relating to such development.
Article VII
The Government of India and Nepal agree to grant, on reciprocal basis , to the nationals of one country in the territories of the other the same privileges in the matter of residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce, movement and privileges of a similar nature.
Article VIII
So far as matter dealt with herein are concerned, the Treaty cancels all previous treaties, agreements, and engagements entered into on behalf of India between the British Government and the Government of Nepal.
Article IX
This treaty shall come into force from the date of signature by both Governments.
Article X
The Treaty shall remain in force until it is terminated by either party by giving one year’s notice.
Done in duplicate in Kathmandu this 31st day of July 1950
SD
Chandreshwar Prasad Narain Singh
For The Government Of India
SD
Mohan Shamsher Jang Bhahadur Rana
For The Government Of Nepal

SIX REASONS WHY GREATER NEPAL IS POSSIBLE.

There is More reason why Greater Nepal is Possible. The sugauly treaty done by thereat not independently. And its not done by Authoress King of Nepal even  Treaty say. So there is most reason why Greater Nepal is Possible.   

1) According to international laws, if a treaty is signed under threat, it's is void. So, sugauli treaty is void.

2)International laws says that if there is the absence of any of the signatories, the treaty is void.

3) There is no british east india company now (after 1947). So the land is, legally, of Nepal.

4) Even if the Sugauli treaty exists, the land is still Nepal's, legally. Becozz the term "inperpetuity" means something is taken for a lease/rent and the same term is used for the territories of Nepal in the sugauli treaty.

5) The main aim of treaty of 1950 signed between U.K. and Nepal was to return back the land of nepal which the Ranas didn't bothered to listen to the British. And the last one

6) Next treaty signed in 1950 between nepal and india states that all the treaties signed between Nepal and East India before that day were nullified. S

o, sugauli treaty is also nullified. Hence, places like Nainital, kumaon, gadhwal, Darjeeling, Sikkim, teria parts upto Allahbad in the south must be returned to Nepal.

History of Nepal

Nepal has interesting history.let me tell you in details. 

Many dynasties ruled over nepal within the beyond.it is believed that the gopal dynasty changed into the first.in sanskrit cross way cow and pal approach gentle.as a result,the gopals came from mathura,india,with lord krishna inside the silver age(dwaper age).they established pashupatinath and worshipped him.with their arrival,            

Mahishpals who succeeded the Gopals ruled Nepal for 161 years.Mahish in sanskriti means buffalo and pal means tender.They also came from Mathura after the Gopals.They were also called Ahirs.They were engaged in agriculture and animal hudbandry.

The kirants came and overthrew the Mahishpals,and ruled Nepal for some 1,225 years.They occupy a prominent place among the indigenous people of Nepal.Many religious texts like the Mahabharata,Vedas,Ramayana,Puranas including other ancient literature like kautiliya’s Arthasatra have mentioned about the kirants.

the primary kirant king became yalambar.the kirants were of mongolian stock.they worshiped lord shiva inside the shape of kiranteswar mahadev.additionally they worshiped snakes,cats,monkeys,eagles,trees,rivers,stones and so forth.it indicates that they believed in nature worship.their holy book changed into known as mundhum.they performed their rites and rituals in step with their mundhum.language and script improvement during their rule.that they had their own script it.by the point of the kirant rule,a partriarchic society changed into hooked up in nepal though their ladies oldsters fought along guys in the course of the battle.

              After the kirants came the Lichhavis.Among the inhabitants of ancient Nepal,they were a civilized and cultured race.They are said to be the first Aryans to rule Nepal.Supashpa,the first Lichhavi ruler,founded the Lichchhavi dynasty.Many Lichchhavi kings ruled in their eight centuries of dynastic succession Mandev and Amshuverma were other famous rulers of the Lichchhavi period.In many stone and metals plates of the Lichhavi period,one finds the language of the kiranti period like hamhu,kumhu,sing,gu etc.in use.

             During the Lichhavi period,language ,script and culture were further refined.The lichhavi rulers took great interest in the welfare and prosperity of the people.The health of the people was given priority;health centers were built.The Lichhavi had a patriarchal society where women were respected.Women worked like men in the affairs of the state.They were also given full freedom in education and religion.In the Lichhavi period,joint family system was in practice.If any one was caught for theft,murder or seditious act,his entire family was penalized in those days.Amshuverma put a halt to this practice,and only the guilty was punished.

 

  Man behind Nepal unification and their history

    Prithvi Narayan Shah gave stability to the unification of Nepal.Prithvi Narayan Shah was born on 27^th of Poush,1779BS (7^th of jan 1723 AD) in Gorkha.Gorkha was quite powerful among the chaubise States of Gandaki region.He was enthroned after the demise of King Naraphupal Shah in 1799 BS.In a decicated efforts to fulfil the dreams of his father,King Prithvi Narayan Shah for the first attempt attacked Nuwakot in 1800 BS.However,he lost.On this account,he diverted his attention to empowering the military force.

                  He,with ammunitions,guns,gunpowder,etc.came back to Gorkha from Varanasi (Banaras).Then Nuwakot was under Kathmandu.It protection was monitored and supervised by Jayanta Rana.Jayanta Rana was previously the army head of Narabhupal Shah.After the first defeat of Gorkha with Nuwakot,he took asylum in Kathmandu and Jay Parkash Malla deputed him to govern over Nuwakot.Jayanta Rana had visited Kathmandu when Gorkha made an attack at Nuwakot for the second time.Jayanta Rana had handed the responsibility of the security of Nuwakot to his son Sankhami Rana before his visit to kathmandu.Meantime,Gorkhalis killed Sankhamani Rana during the conquest of Nuwakot.

                     An attack was made at Belkot after the conquest of Nuwakot.In this course of time,Jayanta Rana had returned to Belkot from Kathmandu.He was apprehended and dispatched in this Belkot fight.After triumph over Nuwakot,Prithvi Narayan Shah planned to attack Kathmandu Valley.He captured Farping,Pandey gawn,Sunagawn,Khokhna and other villages.Later,he attacked Kirtipur.The three Malla States combated with the Gorkhalis.Kalu Pandey was butchered in this battle.The Gorkhalis did not have any choice except for surrender.Prithvi Narayan Shah did not concede even after this defeat.Fight was rampant between the kingdoms of the Kathmandu Valley.In  the meantime Prithvi Narayan Shah seized Palanchowk,Shivapuri,Kavrekot and Kavilashpur taking advantage of the disunity of the valley kings.On account of existence of trail from Makwanpur to Kathmandu Valley to export goods Prithivi Narayan Shah began an attack at Makwanpur.King Digbandhan Sen of Makwanpur absconded from the raid.Makwanpur was by far captured.The military force of Nawab Mirkasim of Bengal,as a guard for defense of Makwanpur King,detailed in the supervision of Gurgin Khan,also submitted  Moreover,the Gorkhali troops took over Hariharpur.

                      King Digbandhan Sen of Makwanpur and his family were captured.Under the supervision of Sur Pratap, Shah the Gorkhali troops attacked Kritipur.However,they became unsuccessful again.After a huge military training,Prithivi Narayan Shah raided over Kritipur.He was able to capture Kritipur.Prithivi Narayan Shah cut off the facial parts of fifteen Kritipure for the death of few Gorkhalis caused by them.

                 King Jay Prakash Malla of Kathmandu sought assistance from the British India Company to defeat Gorkhali troops.The British came with the armed force to fight against Gorkhalis.After the British force went back,the Gorkhalis proceeded ahead to conquer Kathmandu valley.On the day of Indra Jatra,the Gorkhalis conquered Kathmandu.Finally,King Jay Prakash Malla went to King Tej Narsingh Malla of Patan.After the seize over patan by the Gorkhalis ,King Tej Narsingh Malla of Patan and King Jay Prakash Malla fo Kathmandu went to Bhaktapur for security.

Despite the letter sent by Prithivi Narayan Shah to King Ranjeet Malla asking him not give asylum to Jay Prakash Malla and Tej Narsingh,Ranjeet Malla refused for three consecutive days and this resulted in the slaughter of 1700 soldiers of Bhaktapur and 50 soldiers of the Gorkhali troops.In fact,King Ranjeet Malla was the blood brother(Meet Baa) of Prithivi Narayan Shah’s father.Finally,King of war in Laxmipur where he passed away.As per his wish,Prithivi Narayan Shah made arrangements for Tej Narsingh Malla to burn his dead body in Arya Ghat.the Gorkhalis after the conquest of three Malla States headed towards West to invade the Chaubise Rajyas,However in Tanahun battel the Gorkhalis had to suffer failure.

                           In the east,Bijaypur and Chaudandi States were powerful.Nevertheless,the Gorkhalis with remarkable gallantry subjugated Chaudandi.The Gorkhalis maintained the annexation to Bijaypur across Koshi,which resulted Nepal’s unification up to Tista River.

Thus, Prithivi Narayan Shah extended “Nepal to Mechi river in the east,Tibet in the North,Bihar(India) in the South”.Prithivi Narayan Shah passed away on Magh 1,1811 BS.

 After the death of King prithvi Narayan shah......

                The Regency of Queen Rajendra Laxmi

After the death of Prithivi Narayan Shah ,his descendants gave continuity to his unification campaign.His son Pratap Singh Shah became the king and he was successful to extend the territory of Nepal upto Kavilashpur,Upardand Gandhi,Sumeswor-Godhi and Chitwan .Pratap Singh Shah untimely passed away.After his death his small son Rana Bahadur Shah,two and half years old,was put into throne.He was too young to handle the political matters and govern of the country.So,his mother Rajendra Laxmi took over the power and became the regent.She also could not proceed on with the political efficiency herself.She asked a favour from her brother-in-law Bahadur Shah who was residing at Betia of India at that time.when Rajendra Laxmi called him back he came to Nepal and ruled the country jointly for five months.Later,he had a misunderstanding with Rajendra Laxmi in the matter of his intension to annex Tanahun state.Therefore he again returned to Betia.Having learned their misunderstanding Parbat,Lamjung and Tanahun states united together and attacked on Gorkha in January of 1780 AD.However,the Gorkhali troops under Amar Singh Thapa defeated them.During the region of Rajendra Laxmi,She was in the mission of western unification so,She sent Gorkhali troops to invade Tanahun under  the leadership of Amar Singh Thapa,Bansraj Pandey,Damodar Pandey and Balvadra Kunwar.The state of Kaski also suffered a heavy loss of Gorkhali’s attack over Tanahun.Because of the Kaski estates act of treachery,24 states were deafeated by the Gorkhali troops.Parbat did not digest the act of kaski,so declared war against kaski and made a fierce attack.In such a situation Kaski sought help from Gorkha.Both Kaski and Gorkhali  troops combinedly fought against Parbat.This was a devastating battle .Parbat suffered a heavy loss in this battle.After defeating Parbat the Gorkhali troop which was under the leadership of Bansraj Pandey withdrew from the battle field.After sometime Gorkhali troops were again heading to conquer Parbat and Palpa,meantime Kaski attacked Lamjung.Later the success was in the side of Gorkhali troops who kept on capturing pallo Nuwakot.Garhun,Rasing,Virkot,Satahun etc.Within a year all 24 states were annexed to Gorkha Kingdom.It was obivious that Rajendra Laxmi played a vital role under her regency in the unification campaign of 24 states.It was misfortune that Rajendra Laxmi passed away on 2^nd Shrawan,1842 BS.

                             After the demise of Rajendra Laxmi,Bahadur Shah returned to Nepal and acted as a regent on behalf of the minor King Rana Bahadur Shah.The annexation of Palpa and Parbat was still incomplete so he intended to conquere other states also including palpa and Parbat and make bigger Nepal.For this purpose he tied a matrimonial Knot with the daughter of King Mahadutta Sen.This relation became a significant gateway on the way to unification .In 1843 BS Bahadur Shah invaded Arghakhanchi,Durkot and Gulmi.Parbat was also annexed into Nepal in Ashwin the same year.Being encouraged with the annexation,Bahadur Shah wished to unify more states of western part so he sent Gorkhali troops to Pyuthan,Dang,Rolpa and were captured.At the same time Jajarkot came under the rule of Nepal.In this way Bahadur Shah was able to annex 24 and 22 states of Gandaki and Karnali region into greater Nepal.Then his attention was attracted to western Kumaoun and Godhawal beyond Mahakali river.Under the leadership of Amarshing  Thapa,being gallant,headed to invade kumaoun and Godhawal.

                     On account of Bahadur Shah’s successful Leadership,Nepali troops exceeded with their expectation.Under the leadership of Amar Singh Thapa,the Nepali troops seized Dailekh,Achham including Tarimghat and Surkhet.After the conquest over Almoda across Mahakali river Nepali troops captured Alanknanda region without armed attack.However,to conquer Alaknanda,Gorkhali troops had to fight with King Gadawali .Nepali troops reached up to Alaknanda after signing a treaty with the new government of Kumaun.Gorkhali troops took over Almoda;Kingdom of the new government of Kumaunon 11 th Chaitra,1847 BS and Kingdom of Gadhawal on 12 th Ashadh,1848 BS.

Thus,Bahadur Shah made great contributions in Nepal’s Unification Campaingn.Beginning from Prithivi Naraayna Shah,the Unification Campaign continued until Bahadur Shah’s regency or governance.It is natural for any Nepali to sympathize with the fact that along with the growth of Ran Bahadur shah,he imprisoned Bahadur Shah on the charge of treason.However,Bahadur Shah was farsighted,politician,efficient administrator,patriot and an able son.

Looking for Greater Nepal

The most connosieurs of south asian news and politics declare now not to trust that there's a motion afoot to create a "extra nepal" along the himalayan rim-land of south asia. like jyoti basu, the chief minister of west bengal, they hold that the idea is a "bogey" driven opportunisti¬cally by means of a handful of regional actors.

however there are a few diplomatic and media circles within the indian capital of recent delhi, who profess to lake seriously the idea of a greater nepal "conspiracy" or "gameplan". whether or not each person believes it or now not, consequently, "extra nepal" becomes an issue of geopo¬litical significance.
the ones who've g iven greater nepal a excessive media profile during the last two years, seemingly appearing independently of each different, are dawa tshering, foreign minister of bhutan, and subhas ghising, chairman of the darjeeling gorkha hill council.

Ghising has had ongoing spats with West Bengal´s Left Front government and Sikkim´s Chief Minister Nar Bahadur Bhandari. His method of confronting these challenges has been to raise a scare with issues relating to territory, language and national¬ism. Over the last coupleof years, Ghisinghas claimed that: Darjeeling is a no-man´s-land due to lacunae in the 1950 Indo-Nepal Friend¬ship Treaty; that Kalimpong is leased territory actually belonging to Bhutan; that ´Gorkhali´ rather than Nepali should have been the offi¬cially recognised language in India; and that there exists a conspiracy for Greater Nepal.

Ina26JuLy 1991 letter to the Prime Minister of India, Ghising asserted that the recognition of´Nepali´ rather than´Gorkhali´ helped stabilise the GreaterNepal movement, which was a communist plot clandestinely supported by  Indian leftists  and Bhandari. The Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist), Nepal´spowerfuloppositionin Parliamen t, Ghising warned, was demanding (he return of Nepali territories ceded to the British.

"That is why I am spending sleep¬less nights," Ghising confessed to The States¬man of Calcutta. "My sixth sense and political acumen have repeatedly alerted me of the grave danger that the manifestations of the Greater Nepal movement .pose to the Indian Union. Surprisingly, this danger iscompletely unknown to the rulers in Delhi and Calcutta..."

TheForeign Minister of Bhutan finds common cause with Ghising. In January 1992, Dawa Tshering told a visiting Amnesty Inter¬national delegation that Nepali-speaking south-em Bhutanese rebels were "supported by groups and individuals in India andNepal who support the concept of a greater Nepal, which is based on the premise that the Himalayas are die natural home of the Nepalese, a myth which is not supported by historical fact."
The concept had attracted Nepati politicians in India and Nepal because "the green hills of Bhutan have become a paradise for the land-hungry and job-hungry poor, illit¬erate Nepali peasants from across the border."

In Autumn 1992, as reported by the Kuensel weekly of Thimphu, theForeign Min¬ister informed the Tshongdu (National As* sembly) that thepolitical parties and people of Nepal were supporting the "anti-nationals" of soudiern Bhutan not merely because of ethnic affinity, "but more out of their deep-seated desire to promote the concept of a Greater Nepal". The plan envisaged "Nepalese domi¬nation over the entire Himalayas by bringing Bhutan, parts of the Duars in West Bengal and Assam and the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland under Nepalese control just as in the case of Sikkim and Darjeeling."

A Historical Yearning
Of course, there was once a Greater Nepal — an historical Greater Nepal — but it did not last for long.
Until the mid-1700s, the principali¬ties of the Central Himalayan region had been content at fighting each other for strategic advantage. But then, emerging from the mini-state of Gorkha, Prithvi Narayan Shah dev ised a method of mountain warfare, conquest and consolidation which extended his domain far beyond what earlier rajas had ever contem¬plated.

Within four decades, Prithvi Narayan and his immediate successors had incorpo¬rated the prize of Kathmandu Valley and pushed the Gorkhali frontiers from the Kirat regions eastwards to beyond the Karnali prin¬cipalities of the west. The Gorkhali empire-builders then lunged westwards across the Mahakaliriverinto Kumaon, taking it in 1790. Garhwal was conquered in 1804, and other cis-Sutlej principalities were taken until the Gorkhali forces were laying seige to the fort of Kangra. Beyond, and probably within reach, lay Kashmir.

In 1813, this historical Greater Nepal extended from the Sutlej to the Teesta, span¬ning 1500 kilometres. Rule over this expanse was brief, however, and the 1814-1815 war with the East India Company saw theGorkhali realm whittled down considerably. The real¬time Gorkhali presence in Garhwal was for a little over adecade; Kumaon for 25 years; and Sikkim for 33 years. The Treaty of Sugauli, between a chastened Gorkhali state and the Company, was ratified in 1816. It stripped Kathmandu´srulersofaboul 105,000 sq km of territory and left Nepal as she is today: a country of 142,000 sq km that has not shown extra-territorial ambitions since.

Even as the historical Greater Nepal went into eclipse, there began a process of migration out of the Central Himalaya which would lead to demographic conflicts more than acentury later. During what one historian has characterised as the "silent years" of 19th century Nepal, the pressuresof the State on the ethnic and other hill communities increased dramatically. Political repression, economic exploitation and, possibly, over-population, pushed peasants eastwards along hill and Duar towards the Indian Northeast, where the Brit¬ish needed Nepali brawn to harvest timber and to open up territories for settlement and tea gardens. Over the decades and well into the 1900s, Nepalis became heavily concentrated in the lower hills of Sikkim, Bhutan and in the Duars.Inlessernumbers, they extended them¬selves right across the Northeast and as far as today´s Myanmar.

Would this scattered community of Nepali labour/peasantry ever come together to form a Greater Nepal?
The Likely Conspirators
Under presentcircumstances,aGreaterNepal could emerge from one of three directions: the Nepali State, the Sikkimese state, or the Lhotshampa Nepali-speakers of southern Bhutan.
The Nepali State. After historical Qjeater Nepal was truncated by the Treaty of Sugauli, Nepal entered an insular era which lasted till 1951. Much of this period was under the Rana oligarchs, who understood well that they were not to eye the neighbouring territo¬ries of the Raj.



With the overthrow of the Ranas, Kathmandu´s middle class shook off its cen¬tury-old political shackles and was swept away by an upwelling of dated Gorkhali sentimen¬tality. Childhood textbooks harked back to the halycondays of expansion, andpatriotic songs extolled the Gorkhali prowess. However, while there was a yearning for a glorious past, there was no militancy.
One folk lyric, collected in the early 1950s by Dharma Raj Thapa, went like this:
What has happened to usNepalis?
Our own songs have alt been lost.
We did twice best the Germans in battle.
We did take the Sutlej and Kangra.
But today out own voice is heard no more. A pan-Nepali movement did not emerge because Nepalis realised that the new Indian rulers had merely supplanted the Brit¬ish Viceroy.
If Nepali politicians gave up the thought of incorporating Ka/igra"^ and Darjeelirig, it w^s not necessarily because they did not relish the prospect. It´Was more the impracticability of establishing a Greater Nepal on India´s front lawn. A Greater Nepal would have to include the takeover of Sikkim (now a state of the Indian Union) and Bhutan

(which falls squarely under New Delhi´s secu¬rity umbrella). Which government of Nepal, whether Nepali Congress or any Left com¬bine, would be willing to take such a dare!? As one diplomat in Kallunandu asked rhetori¬cally, "Would not any Greater Nepal move by Katlunandu bring it up against a certain insti¬tution called the Indian Amiy?"
The three decades of the autocratic Panchayat system might have provided lei¬surely occasions to push for a "Brihat Nepal", to be spearheaded by the King, a direct de-scendant of "Badamaharaj" PrilhviNarayan. Ho w ev er, the defining foreign p o I icy demarche during King Birendra´s years as unfettered monarch was actually the Zone of Peace pro¬posal which, far from being pan-Nepali in nature, was seen by some as an attempt by Nepal LO protect itself from a "Greater India".
With the second coming of democ¬racy in the spring of 1990, the freedom to speak out has once again provided a fillip to those few who continue to be obsessed with re-establishing the Gorkhali state´s lost land and glory.
A group calling itself the Greater Nepal Committee was formed in Katlunandu in July 1991. It senl a letter to some Kathmandu embassies, stating, "Since the Nepali people are now sovereign, it is but natural that they worry about their nation and the perpetual security of its territorial integrity." Under the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friend-ship, India should restore unconditionally to Nepal the territories east of the Mechi river and west of Mahakali. The Committee´s ob¬jective was "to create a world-wide public opinion in favour of the ´Greater Nepal´ and to achieve it."
The letter was signed by Surendra
Dhakal as member of the Committee. Dhakal,
till recently, was the editor of a two-year-old
Kalhmandu weekly, Rangamanch. Dhaka!
says that by campaigning for Greater Nepal,
he was fulfilling his moral and nationalistic
duty. But why is it that he seems to be crying
in the wilderness? He replies, "Right across
the political spectrum, Nepali leaders are
cowed down by fear of India, which is why
they were unwilling to speak out In support."
Dhakal said he did not know of any organisation
/"b´therthan his own that was pushing for a
. Greater Nepal.    <>..
Whatever might be the seriousness with which some individuals and groups re¬gard Greater Nepal, their enthusiasm might be dampened somewhat when they look within the nation-state of Nepal. Since the spring of 1990, there has been a surge of ethnic and regional assertion within Nepali boundaries. At a time when the Nepali State is looking inwards to resolve these challenges, it would hardly seek external adventures that would directly challenge the Indian State.
While Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala told Sikkimese journalists in Jiiapa that the Greater Nepal idea is "a product of unstable minds", Nepal´s mainstream Left seems to be just a bit ambivalent towards Greater Nepal — they like the concept but are unwilling to do anything about it.
As much is clear from the Rangamanch´s interview with Madan Bhandari, General Secretary of the CPN (UML). He said, "I do not want to make any political comment on Greater Nepal. But as far as it is a question of feeling, as a Nepali I can express the emotion that Nepali-speakers who are linked through their ancestry should be able to come together as one united family. If the Greater Nepal issue progresses ahead, then in a peaceful manner, taking into account the sentiments of alt people, this thing can be decided."
Asked about current CPN (UML) policy on the matter, however, Ishwor Pokhare!, Central Committee member of the CPN (UML), was unequivocal: "We have made no fonnal statements on the question of Greater Nepal and no leader of the party has endorsed this concept. We have decried un-


equal treaties between Nepal and India, but that is in the context of the 1947 Tripartite Agreement and subsequent treaties. We have not gone back to question the Sugauli Treaty of 1816, nor asked (or cession of land to Nepal. The party regards the Greater Nepal

proposals as neither relevant nor timely and we have not taken them seriously."
The Sikkimese state. Today´s Sikkim is dominated by Nepali-speakers and the Bhutia/Lepchas who were here first have been marginalised. Chief Minister Bhandari has ruled Sikkim for 12 years and emerged as the most powerful voice of Indians of Nepali-origin. A charis-matic and ambitious man, Bhandari must seek successes beyond his small state. Could a move for Greater Nepal come from him?
_ Under.presenL circumstances,
it is not realistic for Bhandari or any
other Nepali leader in India to have vi¬
sions of becoming a leader of Nepali-
speakers of South Asia as a whole.
"Greater Sikkim", however, seems a
more likely possibility. In a July 1991
press conference, as reported by the
Sikkim Observer, Bhandari himself did
indicate a preference for a Sikkim with
Darjeeling incorporated into it;    ~
Sikkim´s historical claims over the Darjeeling hills would not make untenable the demand for a united state. (The Darjeeling hills were gifted by the Chogyal to the British as late as 1835,) But the establishment of such a Nepali-speaking enlarged state within India would be complicated as ii would impinge upon the turf of Ghising and West Bengal.
B.S. Das, a former Indian envoy to Thimphu, is of the view that if Bhandari´s emergence as a spokesman for all the Nepalis settled in India remains within bounds, it does not become a problem. However, he writes, "if these forces are allowed to become stron¬ger by Indian neglect or Bhutanese mistakes, the concept of Maha Nepal will emerge under the garb of the so-called Greater Sikkim."
The Lhotshampa. The third cat-egory of possible conspirators would be the Lhotshampa of Bhutan, in particular the 85,000-plus refugees who today populate the camps of southeast Nepal.. However, it ap¬pears that the Lhotshampa^s most logical agenda would be to strive for greater power-sharing within Bhutan.
Says R.B. Basnet, President of the Bhutan National Democratic Party (BNDP), "There has been no document and no speech by any refugee leader which has spoken of Greater Nepal as our goal. This is something we have heard of only since we have come outside. It is a concept that is neither feasible nor desirable for Bhutan. It might have been brought up to create misunderstandings be-

tween Nepal and India and to undercut any Nepali support for the refugees."
Since the Thimphu Government seems firm on not wanting the refugees back,

´Greater Nepal´ Tshering. there is only one party that can ensure the refugees´ repatriation to their homesteads — the Government in New Delhi. And the one move that would guarantee immediate an¬tagonism from that quarter is for the refugees to agitate for a Greater Nepal. The refugee leaders perhaps realise this better than others.
Until the Lhotshampas emerged as refugees, there seems to have been very little political links between them and the Nepalis of Nepal. If there is any place where there is a feeling for being ´Nepali´ today, however, itis in the refugee camps of Jhapa. Said one camp resident, "This feeling arises because the very reason we have been made refugees is because we speak Nepali. I used to feel Bhutanese first and Nepali second. Now it is the other way around."
Their refugee status, thus, seems 10 have forced the Lhotshampas to feel more ´Nepali´ than before. By creating the conditions that have made Nepali-speakers into refugees on a mass scale, therefore, the Bhutanese Government might have unleashed a process of setf-identification that could be¬come uncontrollable. For the moment, how¬ever, this seems unlikely, and the refugee leadership seems little inclined to initiate or join a movement for a Greater Nepal.
Eyes on New Delhi

It is clear that "Greater Nepal" is used by both Thimphu and Darjeeling as a weapon in their separate battles. It is a means to make the powerful politicians and bureaucrats in New Delhi si t up and lake notice. But why is "Greater Nepal" such a convenient issue to catch New Delhi´s attention?
Both Ghising arid Tshering know well the sensitivity of India´s strategists to-wards the "northern frontier". They under-stand that New Delhi would not take kindly to the emergence of a Nepali-speaking super¬state in such a strategic region, most particu¬larly the Northeast.
Greater Nepal, at its geographical widest, would command the Himalayan rimland, controlling water resources, irriga-tion,, hydropower, tourism, and trade with Tibet. Added if such a state were to be foreign, under Kathmandu´s rule, this would give rise to attendant geopolitical complications that New Delhi could well do without.
. .^Among New Delhi strategists, there¬fore, a Greater Nepal state would be some¬thing to avoid. At the same time, astute diplo-macy could make effective use of the Greater Nepal scenario, even if it were not entirely believable, as a means to keep the Nepali Government forever on the defensive. Stok¬ing the Greater Nepal embers every now and then could serve a purpose.
What genuine concern there is in the plains about Greater Nepal probably refers back to the lurking fear that the martial Gorkhalis will one day arise and take over chunks of the Indian territory. This fear of the khukuri as a regional threat is quite dated to those who keep up with Nepali society. But many, some plains academics among them, continue to regard the "Gorkhas" as compris¬ing of one unified race with the ability to articulate a political agenda and achieve com¬plicated geopolitical designs.
Journalist Sunanda K. Datta-Ray wrote recently in The International Herald Tribune that the Indian Government "has long been wary of the Nepalis". The claim for official recognition of the Nepali language is seen "as the thin end of a wedge of political demands by a martial race entrenched in pock¬ets along India´s 1,500 mile Himalayan bor¬der..."
Tanka Subba, a sociologist and re¬searcher at the North Eastern Hill University in Shillong, says that there is also fear of Nepali expansion from the tens of thousands of demobilised and retired Gurkha soldiers. "With so much military experience, so the argument goes, it may be possible for Nepalis to take over areas where they dominate."
With the layers of worries and suspicion about the Nepali-speaking hills (sensi-tive northern frontier, a possible super-state, a supposedly homogeneous population, the martial legacy), a suggestion that the Nepal´s Left parties are planning a Greater Nepal putsch, or that Nar Bahadur Bhandari´s popu¬larity among Nepali-speakers of India shows the way to Greater Nepal, or a suggestion that Lhotshampas of Bhutan are the vanguards of a Greater Nepal campaign — all serve Ghising´s and Tshering´s purpose to get New Delhi to see things their way.
When Jyoti Basu was dismissive of the Greater Nepal issue, one Sunday Mail reporter responded in a column, "...there is more to the ´Greater Nepal´ issue than meets the eye... Jyoti Basu may dismiss the allega¬tion of a ´Greater Nepal´ movement as a ´bogey´forpolitical reasons, but the responsi¬bility of the Union government goes deeper than that."
The Nepali Psyche
Anirudha Gupta, political scientist at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, speaking on Greater Nepal, says, "There is no conspiracy, but there is an aspiration. Today, there is revival everywhere, and the Nepali-speaking middle class perhaps is no excep¬tion. Historical revivalism always brings up irredentist eruptions. In theNepali case, people may start looking back to Sugauli and the ceded territories. The middleclass intellectual aspirations have always been an easy ground to revive a feeling of past perceived wrongs. When ´we´ and ´they´ comes to the fore of discourse, history comes alive, to influence me future."
Under what conditions would a pan-Nepali ´ethnogenesis´ come about, which could then be expected to lead to a potent Greater Nepal movement?
There has been no wrenching inci¬dent in Nepali history, no trial by fire, that has led to the evolution of a collective national psyche. What has served to loosely bring the population together has been the force of Gorkhali expansion, the Kathmandu-based monarchy, a sense of being separate from the plains, and,´most significantly, the spread of the Nepali language.
While a sense of identity is there, nationalismnever settled deep. Prithvi Narayan Shah, unifier ofNepal, is nottheiconof choice among the Nepali-speakers outside Nepal. Even Nepalis of Nepal do not make pilgrim¬ages to spots of erstwhile military martydom, suchasthebattlefieldsofNalapaniandMalaun.

Instead, except in Ghising´s present-day Darjee ling, the accepted symbol of pan-Nepali cultural identity is Bhanu Bhakta Acharya, the adi kabi of Nepali literature.
And the Nepali language Ls travel¬ling along the hills. The economics of modern mass communications demands a dominant language, and along the central Himalayan rimland, Nepali has slipped into that role. Nepali is ascendant even as there is an unfor¬tunate loss of ethnic languages and cultures right across the Himalaya. In order to reach the largest audience, politicians, journalists, ad-vertisers, filmmakers; entertainers, educators, tradespeople and others are making increas¬ing use of Nepali.
While it is language that binds the Nepali-speakers of South Asia, it is a weak thread. The feeling of ´Nepaliness´ in the Nepali ´diaspora´ is culturally charged, but not politically so.
One explanation for this weak politicisation might be that, barring Sikkim, Darjeeling and the Duars, theconcentrationof Nepalis in India is relatively low. Another could be that Nepalis do not form an ethnicity or race. For a Bengali or Marathi, it is a quick step from language to cultural identification. For good percentage of Nepalis, however, the Nepali language is a second language. There is so much that sets apart even Nepali-speak¬ers from one another — tribe, caste, class, language, region, and so oa Political mass articulation is therefore harder to achieve among Nepali-speakers than it would be for a more homogeneous population.
A serious move towards Greater Nepal would have to have its origins in the targeting and humiliation of Nepali-speakers from all over, in an extreme scale, for being Nepali-speakers. Even then, the threshold of tolerance seems to be notched high for Nepali-speakers, bo thin and outside the mother coun¬try. Severe suffering inflicted upon Nepali-speakers over the last decades did not lead to a circling of wagons and die subsequent rise of region wide nationalism.
Ne ither the ev i ction of Nep al i -speak -ers from Burma in the 1960s, nor the expul¬sion of Nepali-speakers from Meghalaya in 1985-1986 resulted in organised pan-Nepali reaction. When border points were closed during the height of the Nepal-India trade and transit crisis of 1989-1990, sentiments were affected among Nepali-speakers of India, but there was no political surge. And today, even with the volume of media attention that has finally focused on the Lhotshampa refugees,

there is no political coming together of the larger Nepali-speaking world.
An Indian national daily recently presented with alarm the geographical extent of the Greater Nepal that is planned — it is to include large parts of Himachal Pradesh, Kumaon andGarhwal, Dehradun, all ofNepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and the Duars. The map pre¬sented by Dhakal of the Greater Nepal Com¬mittee covers more or less the same ground.
But a look at the rimland, from east to west, shows: a we 11-entrenched state of Himachal; the Uttarakhandregion which does want autonomy, but only from Lucknow; a Nepal whose political leaders remain preoc¬cupied withmyopic politics of the short-term; a Darjeeling dial wants emancipation, but only from Calcutta; a Sikkim that wants Darjeeling, if it could have it; and a Bhutan that is every day shedding more of its Nepali identity.
The vested interests, the administra¬tion and the politics of the region are all well-entrenched, and only a Subcontinental wrench¬ing that goes far beyond the Himalayan region would dislocate them and lead to, among other things, a Greater Nepal. While a large portion of the population of the region is able to appreciate the cultural attributes of the Nepaliness, the feel does not go deep enough to emerge as a movement for Greater Nepal anytime soon.
This article is adapted from a paper presented at a conference on Bhutan organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 22-23 March 1993.

BOUNDARY TREATY – 1st November 1860

Throughout the disturbances which followed the mutiny of the native army of bengal in 1857, the maharajah of nepal now not only faithfully maintained the members of the family of peace and friendship set up between the british government and the country of nepal by way of the treaty of sugaulee, but freely positioned troops on the disposal of the british government for the preservation of order in the frontier districts, and in the end despatched a force to co-operate with the british army in re-seize of lucknow and the very last defeat of the rebels.

On the conclusion of these operations, the Viceroy and Governor-General in recognition of the eminent services rendered to the British Government by the Stated of Nepal, decleard his intention to restore to the Maharajah the whole of the lowlands lying between the River Kali and the district of Goruckpore, which belonged to the State of Nepal in 1815, and were cede to the British Government in that year by the aforesaid Treaty. These lands have now been indentified by Commissioners appointed for the purpose by the British Government, in the presence of Commissioners duputed by the Nepal Darbar; masonry pillars have been erected to mark the future boundary of the two States, and the territory has been formally delivered over to the Nepalese Authorities. In order the more firmly delivered over to the Nepal in the perpetual possession of this territory, and to mark in a solemn way the occasion of its restoration, the following Treay has concluded between the two states:

Article 1st
All Treaties and Engagement now in force between the British Government and the Maharajah of Nepal, except in so far as they may be altered by this Treaty, are hereby confirmed.

Article 2nd
The British Government hereby bestows on the Maharajah of Nepal in full sovereignty, the whole of the lowlands between the Rivers Kali and Raptee, and athe whole of the lowlands lying between the River Rapti and the districts of Goruckpore, which were in the possession of the Nepal State in the year 1815, and were cede to the British Government by Article III of the Treaty concluded at Sugaulee on the 2nd of December in that year.

Article 3rd
The boundary line surveyed by the British Commissioners appointed for the purpose extending eastward from the River Kali or Sardah to the foot of the hills north of Bogowra Tal, and marked by pillars, shall henceforth be the boundary between the Britsh Provice of Oudha and the Territories of the Maharajah of Nepal. This Treaty, signed by Lieutenant – Colonel George Ramsay, on the part of His Excellency the Right Honourable Charles John, Earl Canning, G.C.B Viceroy and Governor-General of India, and by Maharaja Jung Vikram Shah Bahadur Shumshere Jung, Shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Kathmandoo within thirty days of the date of signature.
Signed and sealed at Khatmandoo, this First day of November, A.D., one thousand eight hundred and sixty corresponding to the third day of Kartick Budee, sumbut nineteen hundred and seventeen.
G.Ramsay. Lieut.Col,
Resident at Nepal

CANNING

Viceroy and Governor-General
This Treaty was ratified by His Excellency the Governor – General, at Calcutta, on the 15th November 1860.
A.R Young.
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.

BOUNDARY TREATY – 1st November 1860

TREATY OF TITALIYA – 10 February 1817

Treaty, covenant or settlement entered into by means of captin barre latter, agent on the part of his excellency the proper honorable the eal of moira, okay.g., governer-general & c., &c., & c., and with the aid of nazir chaina tenjin and mahca teinbah and lama duchim longdoo , deputies on the a part of rajah of sikkimputtee, being severlly legal and duly appointed for the above purpose- 1871.

Article 1
The Honorable East India Company cedes, transfer, and make over in full sorverignty to the Sikkimputte Rajha, his heirs or successors, all the hilly or mountainous country situated to the eastward of the Mechi River and to the westward of the Teesta River, formerly possessed and occupied by the Rajah of Nepaul, but the cedes to the Honorable East India Company by the Treaty of peace signed at Segoulee.

Article 2
The Sikkimputte Rajah engages for himself and successors to abstain from any acts of aggression or hostility against the Goorkhas or any other state.

Article 3
That he will refer to the arbitration of the British Government any disputes or questions that may arise between his subjects and those of Nepaul, or any other neighboring State , and to abide by the decision of the British Government.

Article 4
He engages for himself and successors to join the British Toops with the whole of his military Force when employed with in the Hills, and in general to afford the British Troops every aid and facility in his power.

Article 5
That he will not permit any British subject, nor the subject of any European and American State, to reside within his dominions, without the permission of the English Government.

Article 6
That he will immediately seize and deliver up any dacoits or notorious offenders that may take refuge within his territories.

Article 7
That he will not afford protection to any defaulters of revenue or other delinquents when demande by the British Government through their accredited Agents.

Article 8
That he will afford protection to merchants and traders from the company’s Provinces, and he engages that no duties shall be levied on the transit of merchandize beyond the established custom at the several golahs or marts.

Article 9
The Honorable East India Company guarantees to the Sikkimputtee Rajah and his succesors the full and peaceable possession of the tract of hilly country specified in the first Article of the present Agreement.

Article 10
This treaty shall be ratified and exchanged by the Sikkimputte Rajah within one month from the present date, and the counterpart, when confirmed by His Excellency the Right Honorable the Governor – General, shall be transmitted to the Rajah.
Done at Titalya, this 10th day of February 1817 , answering to the 9th of Phagoon 1873 sumbut, and to the 30th of Maugh 1223 Bengallie
BARRE LATTER
NAZIR CHINA TINJIN
MACHA TIMBAH
LAMA DUCHIM LONGADOC
MOIRA
N.B EDMONSTONE
ARCHD. SETON
GEO. DOWDESWELL
Ratified by the Governor- General in Council, at Fort William, this fifteenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen.
J.Adam
Acting chief secy. to Govt.
<

Agreement Between Kajee Amar Singh Thapa and Major General Ochterlony 15 may 1815

In consideration of the high rank and man or woman of kajee amar singh thapa, and of the skill, bravery and fidelity with which he has defended the country dedicated to his charge, it's far agreed.

1. That Kajee Amar Singh Thapa, with the troops now in Rajgarh, shall march out and retain their arms and accountrements, the colour of their respective crops, two guns and all private proper, which shall be duly respected and preserved, and every attention and delicacy observed in respect to the Zanana of the Kajee, and very person under his authority.

2. In consideration, also, of the gallant conduct of Kanee Ranjor Singh Thapa, it is agreed that he shall likewise march out of the fort of Jaithak with two hundred men, who are to retain their arms, colours and one gun, with the bharadar (chief Officers) and their followers, about three hundred more in number, unarmed, with his own and their private property which shall be respected, and the sanctity of the Zanana preserved.

3. Kajee Amar Singh Thapa and Kajee Ranjor Singh Thapa with their property and followrs, are at liberty to proced by the route of Thaneswar, Hardwar and Nijababad to join the troops eastward of the river Sarju or Kali, or by whichever rout they determine to proceed to that destination. Conveyance shall be provided for the transportation of their property to the confines of the Nepal territory.

4. Kajee Amar Singh Thapa and Kajee Ranjor Singh Thapa shall be at liberty to meet whenever they please.

5. All the troops in the service of Nepal, with the exception of those granted to the personal honour of the Kajees Amar Singh and Ranjor Singh, will be at liberty to enter into the service of the British Government, if it is agreeable to themselves and the British Government choose to accept their services, and those who are not employed will be maintained on a specific allowance by the British Government till peace is concluded between the two States.


6. Kajee Amar Singh Thapa, on his part, agrees to leave the fort of Malaon, whenever bears and other conveyance are prepared for his private property.

7. Kajee Amar Singh Thapa also agrees to send immediate orders for the evacuation and delivery, to persons properly authorized, of the forts of Bhylee (Inkee), Subbatoo, Morree, Jaithak, jagatgarh, Rowaheen, and all other forts and fortresses now held by the Nepal troops between Jumna and Sutlej rivers. The garrisons of all which forts, strongholds etc. Shall enjoy their private property unmolested, and the arms and warlike stores in each shall be left in deposit, for the future decision of the Right Honourable the Governor General; with exception to such among them as are related to Kajee Amar Singh Thapa by kindred, about eighty- three men, who shall be at liberty to retain their arms and accountrements .

8. Kajee Amar Singh Thapa also agrees to send immediate orders to Kajee Bakhtawar Singh for the evacuation of the territory of Garhwal, to deliver over the forts etc. in that district to the Officers of the British Government and to procced to Nepal by the Kumaon roate, with their garrisons, all public property including warlike stores, accompanied by a &#8220;Chaprasi&#8221; with pass on the part of the British Government.

9. Kajee Amar Singh Thapa also agrees to send immediate orders to Kajee Bakhtawar Singh for the evacuation of the territory of Garhwal, to deliver over the forts etc. in that district to the Officers of the British Government and to procced to Nepal by the Kumaon roate, with their garrisons, all public property including warlike stores, accompanied by a &#8220;Chaprasi&#8221; with pass on the part of the British Government.</p></br></br><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgW97PCzoPrmUp_3XCKtmZULRnyHE9OgygHX8HExF4lW5pIVpiK5WP1digNpUZhfq001NSJAr9oKKjc-IsmPbgcONNmM8Wyw66rfmPxDRFFSq9d8AmRw7NXJ6J-DbW3JVOnmUljuHOLaQ/s1600/kaji.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgW97PCzoPrmUp_3XCKtmZULRnyHE9OgygHX8HExF4lW5pIVpiK5WP1digNpUZhfq001NSJAr9oKKjc-IsmPbgcONNmM8Wyw66rfmPxDRFFSq9d8AmRw7NXJ6J-DbW3JVOnmUljuHOLaQ/s1600/kaji.jpg" /></a></div>

Greater Nepal not against India but Indian colonialism: Phanindra Nepal

Chairman of the unified nepal countrywide front (unnf), nepal is widespread secretary of the border issue civil committee.

excerpts of an interview via bn dahal to phanindra nepal;

Q: You obstructed the road leading to Indian Embassy on 2 December. What is the significance of 2 December?

A: Britain had sent the proposal of Sugauli Treaty on 2 December, 1815. It mentioned ceding 40% of former Greater Nepal territory. Nepal under pressure had to sign the treaty on 4 March, 1816. Sugauli Treaty of 2 December is the reason behind the current geo-poltical reality of the nation. This is why we mark 2nd December as a ‘Black Day’ annually. This programme is a certain every year. It will continue until India returns our territory.

Q: There are allegations that the programmes you have launched are anti-Indian?

A: Our programmes of Greater Nepal are not against India. We have opposed the Nepali border encroachment by India. We have not opposed India. They neglected our appeals to stop encroachment, so we lunched the programmes. The territories that we have demanded do not belong to India. But when we raised the issues of Nepal’s nationality, sovereignty and its territories, India perceives such programmes as against it. We are not against India, we want to be its good friend. If it stops encroaching Nepali land and stops making Nepali people suffer, we would not go against India unreasonably.

Q: Your programmes are being opposed from Nepali sides as well. Why?

A: Many Nepali political parties have said that Nepal’s politics lies in Indian hands. For many intellectuals and party leaders, to oppose such programmes will be equal to worshipping India. Those leaders that accept Indian blessings to save their politics are the ones opposing us. Nepalese live in India’s New Delhi and Mumbai as well. We have not said that those territories belong to Nepal. We have demanded at the people’s level, that India, which is a nationalist, and democratic nation that has fought against colonization for 90 years, should not take over Nepal’s land lost after the Sugauli Treaty.

Q: Border encroachment is a subject between two nations. What kind of support have you received from Nepal’s government in your campaign?

A: Let alone the government’s support to our programmes. The incumbent Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala, despite knowing that border has been encroached upon at different parts of the nation, she denied that such a thing has happened. It shows that there is no support to our programme. We were detained for eight hours when we launched a programme on 2 December. This also shows that the government does not support our programmes.

Q: Will Greater Nepal only raise the issue of border encroachment or other issues as well?

A: We have attached very important issues with Greater Nepal. Among those issues are the scrapping of 4.1 million citizenship given to foreigners. The citizenship should be given to those who fulfill certain criteria. The Nepal-India border should be either managed or controlled. We oppose Indian monopoly over water resources. The inundation in Tarai is an injustice as per international laws. Our campaign is directed towards that also.

Q: What is the area and what territories does Greater Nepal occupy?

A: Nepal’s territory was 2,04, 917 sq. km before the Sugauli Treaty was signed. Currently it is 1,47,181 sq. km. India has taken over 56,000 sq. km of our territory. Our territory spans from Tista in the East to Sutlej in the West.

Q: You have submitted numerous memorandums regarding the border encroachment to the Indian side. What reactions have you received?

A: After we submitted a memorandum at the Indian Embassy, they assured us that they would forward the same to their central government, and informing us that they cannot do anything. We do not believe that India would return our territories merely by acting on a memorandum. We want the world community to know that Nepal’s territory is under Indian control. This is our achievement. Q: Is it true that our territory is not only in India but as far as in Bangladesh?

A: Our land has spread to Bangladesh. It is true. But Bangladesh had not encroached on our land. That territory belongs to Nepal.

Q: Do you possess other documents other than the Sugauli Treaty to substantiate that India has encroached on Nepali territory?

A: There are many. Nepal-India treaty was reached on 3 July, 1950. Article 8 of the treaty mentions that all the agreements reached between Nepal and Britain have been abolished. The Sugauli Treaty was reached between Nepal and Britain. After that the treaty was abolished and Nepal’s territory was established from Tista to Kankada. As per international law, if the existence of one side, of the two sides engaged in a treaty, ends, then the treaty will be abolished. When Britain decided to leave India, it had said that it would leave India in its former state. So Nepali territories should have been returned or should be returned.

Q: You have been raising a nationalist issue on border encroachment. But those who call themselves nationalists have not shown any participation. Why?

A: There are some hilarious issues related to agitation for nationality. Nationalists’ are divided into splinters. One faction is afraid to support another due to jealousy as they fear that they will rise to power. Maybe, that is why our friends have not supported us. But I still believe nationality is hidden somewhere in their hearts. We are making efforts to expand our organization by including them.

Q: What is the Greater Nepal agitation?

A: Before Sugauli Treaty, Nepal’s border extended from Tista in the East to Sutlej in the West. After the treaty the border was limited to Mechi and Mahakali. When India achieved independence in 15 August, 1947, Nepali territories became independent. They should have been unified to Nepal, but it did not happen. Our demand is that it should happen. We want to remind India that it is maintaining colonialism over Nepali territories. We want to show the world that India has encroached on a large part of Nepal’s territory. We are of the opinion that such colonialism cannot continue in the 21st century. All those places Britain ruled have become independent.

Q: How do you garner economic support for your programmes?

A: We displayed black flags when Shiv Shankar Menon had arrived. Then we spent Rs. 900. Rs. 900 is not a big deal for nationalists. We have spent Rs. 8,000-9,000 in programmes. Friends are bearing the expenditure. We are fighting for Nepal’s border. Nepali people must help us.

Q: There are rumors that you receive money from Indians and you are launching programmes against India?

A: I have heard this for a long time. Such allegations were made when I used to write articles. We have done something that has not happened yet in front of the Indian Embassy in Lainchaur. Does India want to taint its prestige by itself? So this is a conspiracy. It may be driven by a motive that if such rumors are spread, the agitation will collapse.

Q: So you are working without interest?

A: I teach in Tribhuvan University. I am supposed to study for Phd degree, but due to this agitation I have not been able to do that. I am at the final stage. I have self-interest. When Nepali territory under Indian control is returned, then our border will join with Bangladesh. We can reach sea from there. We will be freed from Indian slavery. I want a free and sovereign Nepal and that is my self-interest.

Q: Indian SSB has sent a proposal to the center to place barbed wire at the border, while Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood called for constructing a border wall. Will not this secure Nepal’s border?

A: The idea of placing barbed wire and wall at Nepal-India border is full of bad intention. The barbed wire was proposed to give legitimacy to the land that has been already encroached. We agree with the two ideas, but Nepal’s border before the Sugauli Treaty should be taken as a basis. Then we will welcome what ever is placed at the border, whether it is barbed wire of wall. We people and government oppose the idea of constructing a wall at the current border.

Q: You have been raising the issue of Greater Nepal, but there are works going on to disintegrate Nepal?

A: Nepali indigenous nationalities do not want to live separately by dividing the nation. No one wants this. It has been proved that the efforts to disintegrate the nation are being made from the southern side. This issue was raised by those coming to national politics from India. I do not believe that this will succeed. The Nepali people will fight against the nation’s disintegration.

Q: It is rumored that your anti-Indian programmes have the support of North East?

A: We are the agitators demanding that the Nepali territories under Indian control be returned. Like this, there is a fight in Indian administered Kashmir demanding for independence. Likewise, various ethnic groups are demanding independence in Nepal’s east to North East. Nepal’s Greater agitation and North East agitation seems to be related in this way. We have extended moral support for their agitation. They have also morally supported our agitation. We do not have any sort of working alliance.

Q: The Indian side proposed referendum in places such as Darjeeling. What do you have to say to this?

A: Provision related to referendum cannot be biased. We are not afraid that India will show majority by referendum in Darjeelign because it is a place where there is Nepali majority. Referendum should also be held in Nepal to seek opinion on whether to take back Nepali territory that it had before the Sugauli Treaty. International law calls for referendum in both the nations.

Q: Royal institution has collapsed, is the monarchy nationalist or political party leaders?

A: Monarchy is not a complete nationalist. But none of the political parties proved themselves to be as nationalist as the king. During monarchy’s rule, national unity did not witness such instability as now. The foreign intervention was not as high. The political leadership should learn from this, they must correct themselves.

Greater Nepal is not impossible!

Phanindra Nepal, Lecturer Patan Multiple Campus

He's for the time being a lecturer at the patan a couple of campus in lalitpur, nepal.
he is considered to be a reservoir of information and a commanding authority as regards the “more nepal” principle to which he prefers to call a movement.

Mr. phanindra nepal is working as a secretary to the border challenge civil discussion board. mr. nepal is simultaneously the chairman of “unified nepal national the front” as well.
he has numerous books to his credit and plenty of thought frightening articles which have been published in several countrywide and international newspapers.
He is also the author of books entitled “The ABC of Greater Nepal” and “Nepal-Tista to Sutlej”. He has also edited a book on “The reality of Indian encroachment in Susta”.
Last week, we met this nationalist at a seminar and approached for an interview to which he readily agreed-Below the results-ed.

TGQ1: How you Mr. Nepal have been assessing the overall political events unfolding in the country more so after the September Kathmandu explosions? Who could have been behind such blasts? The Terai outfits? The Maoists? Or some unknown groups? Your comments please!

Mr. Nepal: There could be no second opinion that the incidents were inhumane however, the Nepali experience of last decade(s) suggest that it is not that we should take them very seriously but the motive with which the explosions have been carried out must be mulled over seriously. To add, in the aftermath, the two Terai outfits had already taken the responsibility, however, the war of words between the Maoists and the Nepal Army alleging each other for their involvement in the incident suggest that the conflict may entangle further in the days ahead. And it cannot be out rightly negated that if the problem persists for long it may have some negative impact on the Nepali politics as well.
However, I suspect RAW behind this heinous act as it has the majority or better say an overwhelming say in the Nepali politics. It is also known to all that it is only India and India alone that benefits more by keeping Nepali politics in a fluid/fragile and unstable state. And as politics continue to be fluid and unstable, economic activities cannot take its desired course thus the country becomes poorer and poorer. The result is thus what India desires from Nepal.

It is also likely that forces who do not want CA polls in November this year may be behind the explosions. And the reason behind the Terai Groups claiming the responsibility could have been a ploy to provoke the Pahade people to attack the Terai people in Nepal, finally, paving way for India to send its army in Nepal in the name of protecting the Indian migrant community here. This also proves why India has deployed a huge contingent of security personnel along the Indo-Nepal border of late. It is comprehendible why the deployment is not merely to curb terrorist activities but instead India needs as well some plausible reasons such as to protect its citizens in Nepal and thus that would be the mere pretext to enter into the Nepali Territory.
As yet it is only due to the tolerance and intelligence exhibited by the Pahade community living in the Terai, such Indian designs has been averted.
Nevertheless, what Nepal could do is to control the Nepal-India border to stop the arms trade, the arms that are being used against the Pahade community.


TGQ2: As we understand, you had been advocating the theory of “Greater Nepal” for long time in the past? Has the theory died a premature death or you continue in your initiatives for the same? What sort of response you received from the Nepali intellectuals during your campaign? And also tell us what was the response from the other camp?
Mr. Nepal: My association with the “Greater Nepal” movement is more than a decade and a half long. I can tell you that “Greater Nepal” was not a matter of discussion in the past, now it has become a major issue in the country’s national level politics- inviting various levels of serious discussions in the Nepali academic sector and beyond. Thus there is no point in saying that the theory has died a premature death. And this issue will continue to survive as long as Nepal does not get its lost territory back-lost because of the Sugauli Treaty.

I can also assure you that the Nepali politics that is presently divided in various fronts will one day be united in favor of “Greater Nepal”. It is also true that each and every Nepali share the pain deep inside their hearts because of the Sugauli Treaty. This pain will continue until we get our deserved rights back. And “Greater Nepal” is the objective of my life and I hope that it will come true during my life time itself if the nationalists co-operate me in my endeavor.
We are trying to move ahead with the motive of transforming the demand for “Greater Nepal” into a movement. In the process, various types of comments have come up, both positive and negative. Some say that India will never give our territories back but I question unless we formally demand how can they give us? It is said that unless an infant cries even the mother sometimes forgets to give the milk her own child.

Talking of our intellectuals now, they are more content with the party tags they shoulder. It is a matter of shame that intellectuals here toe a party demand, thus the movement for “Greater Nepal” does not, let me admit, at present suit to any party line. Just think, our leaders who even do not impart a single word in protest against continuous land encroachment by the Indian side, how would they demand the return of our illegally occupied lands by the Indian side? And the so called intellectuals would also not dare to cross the party line but recently some independent thinkers have come up in support of our movement. A great encouragement for us indeed!

It is for sure that the Indian side fears the movement for “Greater Nepal” originating from the Nepali soil. This has indeed become a matter of headache from them. They fear one day this movement may drag international attention which it would ultimately. If we get our lost territories back, Nepal’s eastern periphery can extend up to Bhutan and Bangladesh. This implies that the Indian controlled eastern states will finally detach themselves from the Indian Union-the colonial offshoot of British Raj. Thus the separatist groups waging movement for independence such as NAGA, ULFA, BODO and others in India could benefit from the movement of “Greater Nepal”.

Finally, India will have only one option left and that is to shape a treaty with Nepal to take Darjeeling in lease and Nepal in return could ask for extending its territory up to the Bangladeshi Border.
I now feel that the Eastern states in India are thus nearing their Independence.


TGQ3: Media reports say that Indian side has been constantly encroaching upon our lands in different parts of the country. However, the political parties, radical communists included, do not utter a single word in favor of their own country? How you take their silence?
If so then, should we demand the outright abrogation of the Sugauli Treaty of 1815? Given the fact that India is expanding her territories by intruding our lands, would it be a befitting response to India if we talk of the abrogation of the Sugauli treaty?

Mr. Nepal: The frequent media reports that the Indian side is encroaching upon our land are not at all fabricated events. In reality, the Indian side has been exceeding all the limits and there is not a single adjoining district in Nepal that has not faced continues Indian encroachment, to say the least.
To boot, we have lost almost 372 Square Kilometers in Kalapani area where the Indian military has a camp since Indo-China war of 1962 wherein India embraced a shameful defeat. More over, our territorial claims reach up to 17 Kilometers far from Kalapani. Add to this, some 20, 000 BIGHAS( approximately 13,000 plus hectares in metric system) of Nepali lands have been currently under Indian occupation in SUSTA area in Nawalparasi district. The list might go long of such encroachments in different parts of this country.

More perplexing is the response from the Nepali side. More so, the silence exhibited by the political parties and the so-called Maoist revolutionaries’ included is indeed surprising. This surprising silence is more intriguing. For me, silence is a sign of agreement or acceptance. Thus, I am forced to conclude that they have provided their positive nod to this Indian act of threatening our sovereignty. Which is also a proof that India itself is not abiding by the clauses of the Sugauli Treaty thus there is no point that the Nepalese alone should go by the clauses of the treaty. Thus India reminds us time and again that the Sugauli treaty is no more valid as they continue to intrude our territory.

In reality, the treaty became null and void right on 14^th August 1947. Had we been smart enough to get back the lands that we loosed through the treaty of Sugauli during the 14 to 15^th August, the entire lost lands of the Nepal would have been in our possession since then. But we failed. The fact is that from 14 till 18^th August, 1947, the lands which we lost under Sugauli treaty could have been secured. To be precise, Darjeeling was under the command of Pakistan and a Pakistani flag was fluttering there till 18^th of August*. (Read Status of ceded land of Darjeeling and Leasehold of Kalingpong by Rukesh Mani Pradhan) For the Pakistanis, they took over Darjeeling for it was an area that was adjoining East Pakistan then. But India became suddenly sensitive to this Pakistani overtures and instantly took hold of Darjeeling forcibly in order to secure its attachment with the Northeast which incidentally adjoined East Pakistan then.

Though India commands authority in Darjeeling in the East and Kumaon Garhwal in the West, however, the right of Nepal to claim these lands remains sovereign and valid till to date. Nepal, logically, can even now demand those lands from India. To me India which believes in expansionism and the one who enjoys sadistic pleasure in grabbing others’ property and money are similar both in content and nature.


TGQ4: Many academics in Kathmandu see the influence of India in our internal affairs and that too in a brazen manner.
Do you see such influence in Nepali politics by India or it is just a rumor only? If yes, then why India is dictating its terms and conditions on practically each and every political issues? Is our leadership that weak not to withstand the extraneous pressures? Your comments please.
Mr. Nepal: There is not only the Indian influence in Nepali politics but there is clearly an intervening Indian role in our internal matters. It is not just a matter of gossip but not to say so would be improper in effect.

Recently, the Indian ambassador to Nepal Shiva Shankar Mukherjee celebrating the Indian Independence day in Kathmandu said that “November 22 CA elections” must be conducted at any cost. Similarly, in 1992 the arrival of Chandra Shekhar and his remarks made at Ganeshman’s residence about King Birendra heralded a new era for India’s naked intervention in Nepali politics which continues even to day which is there for all to see.

Indians want those political parties in Nepal to succeed that serve well their objective to impose their directives frequently through their handpicked political men.
In reality, the Indians act as a mentor and thus reprimand our leaders and our leaders consider themselves fortunate to be their slaves.

The Indian mindset is such that they consider it their inherent right to interfere into our internal matters and this has become possible only because our leadership readily accepts such interference. Some times I also feel that India is not to be totally blamed. We have several examples of our own leadership publicly admitting their Indian lenience. Therefore, our politics is much weaker than our own perception. There is no National Agenda and Rigidity over any issue that warrants national attention. They are merely pawns at the hands of foreigners. Until and unless we have leadership a la “Mir Jaffar and Lendhup Dorje”, Nepal will remain ever as an Indian colony or at best a Protectorate.
We need such leadership that is more responsible to its own citizen and the country. Nepalese leadership should fear the wrath of its own citizen rather than fearing India.
Unless our leadership gets rid of the mindset that without India’s blessings they cannot acquire influential positions in Nepal, the Indian will continue to influence, interfere and intervene into our politics.


TGQ5: After the restoration of parliament by the King, what prompted the Seven Party Alliance along with the Maoists to bring in the new citizenship bill?

Mr. Nepal: For me it was a move to threaten the very sovereignty of Nepal as a nation state as a whole. As the restored parliament passed the citizenship act the provision for granting citizenship to any one born in Nepal was accepted thus India benefited the most which meant that India gained through its citizen’s acquiring Nepalese citizenship. In a few years time the situation will be such that the population of the Nepali of Nepali origin will be dominated by the Nepali of the Indian origin, thus real Nepalese will be in minority in their own homeland. Which also implies that now on the Indian Immigrants who now have the Nepali citizenship could influence greater say in Nepali politics. Finally, the Indian design of seeing Nepal becoming Bhutan first and Sikkim later is taking a formal shape.

And I also foresee a final standoff between the Indian migrants and the real Nepali population in Nepal very soon. Thus, to save our independence we must fight. * Pakistan’s flag fluttered in Darjeeling at the “Planter’s Club” presently a hospital
He is at the moment a Lecturer at the Patan Multiple Campus in Lalitpur, Nepal.
He is considered to be a reservoir of knowledge and a commanding authority as regards the “Greater Nepal” theory to which he prefers to call a Movement.
Mr. Phanindra Nepal is working as a secretary to the Border Concern Civil Forum. Mr. Nepal is concurrently the chairman of “Unified Nepal National Front” as well.
He has several books to his credit and many thought provoking articles which have been published in several national and international newspapers.
He is also the author of books entitled “The ABC of Greater Nepal” and “Nepal-Tista to Sutlej”. He has also edited a book on “The reality of Indian encroachment in Susta”.
Last week, we met this nationalist at a seminar and approached for an interview to which he readily agreed-Below the results-ed.

TGQ1: How you Mr. Nepal have been assessing the overall political events unfolding in the country more so after the September Kathmandu explosions? Who could have been behind such blasts? The Terai outfits? The Maoists? Or some unknown groups? Your comments please!

Mr. Nepal: There could be no second opinion that the incidents were inhumane however, the Nepali experience of last decade(s) suggest that it is not that we should take them very seriously but the motive with which the explosions have been carried out must be mulled over seriously. To add, in the aftermath, the two Terai outfits had already taken the responsibility, however, the war of words between the Maoists and the Nepal Army alleging each other for their involvement in the incident suggest that the conflict may entangle further in the days ahead. And it cannot be out rightly negated that if the problem persists for long it may have some negative impact on the Nepali politics as well.
However, I suspect RAW behind this heinous act as it has the majority or better say an overwhelming say in the Nepali politics. It is also known to all that it is only India and India alone that benefits more by keeping Nepali politics in a fluid/fragile and unstable state. And as politics continue to be fluid and unstable, economic activities cannot take its desired course thus the country becomes poorer and poorer. The result is thus what India desires from Nepal.

It is also likely that forces who do not want CA polls in November this year may be behind the explosions. And the reason behind the Terai Groups claiming the responsibility could have been a ploy to provoke the Pahade people to attack the Terai people in Nepal, finally, paving way for India to send its army in Nepal in the name of protecting the Indian migrant community here. This also proves why India has deployed a huge contingent of security personnel along the Indo-Nepal border of late. It is comprehendible why the deployment is not merely to curb terrorist activities but instead India needs as well some plausible reasons such as to protect its citizens in Nepal and thus that would be the mere pretext to enter into the Nepali Territory.

As yet it is only due to the tolerance and intelligence exhibited by the Pahade community living in the Terai, such Indian designs has been averted.
Nevertheless, what Nepal could do is to control the Nepal-India border to stop the arms trade, the arms that are being used against the Pahade community.


TGQ2: As we understand, you had been advocating the theory of “Greater Nepal” for long time in the past? Has the theory died a premature death or you continue in your initiatives for the same? What sort of response you received from the Nepali intellectuals during your campaign? And also tell us what was the response from the other camp?

Mr. Nepal: My association with the “Greater Nepal” movement is more than a decade and a half long. I can tell you that “Greater Nepal” was not a matter of discussion in the past, now it has become a major issue in the country’s national level politics- inviting various levels of serious discussions in the Nepali academic sector and beyond. Thus there is no point in saying that the theory has died a premature death. And this issue will continue to survive as long as Nepal does not get its lost territory back-lost because of the Sugauli Treaty.

I can also assure you that the Nepali politics that is presently divided in various fronts will one day be united in favor of “Greater Nepal”. It is also true that each and every Nepali share the pain deep inside their hearts because of the Sugauli Treaty. This pain will continue until we get our deserved rights back. And “Greater Nepal” is the objective of my life and I hope that it will come true during my life time itself if the nationalists co-operate me in my endeavor.

We are trying to move ahead with the motive of transforming the demand for “Greater Nepal” into a movement. In the process, various types of comments have come up, both positive and negative. Some say that India will never give our territories back but I question unless we formally demand how can they give us? It is said that unless an infant cries even the mother sometimes forgets to give the milk her own child.

Talking of our intellectuals now, they are more content with the party tags they shoulder. It is a matter of shame that intellectuals here toe a party demand, thus the movement for “Greater Nepal” does not, let me admit, at present suit to any party line. Just think, our leaders who even do not impart a single word in protest against continuous land encroachment by the Indian side, how would they demand the return of our illegally occupied lands by the Indian side? And the so called intellectuals would also not dare to cross the party line but recently some independent thinkers have come up in support of our movement. A great encouragement for us indeed!

It is for sure that the Indian side fears the movement for “Greater Nepal” originating from the Nepali soil. This has indeed become a matter of headache from them. They fear one day this movement may drag international attention which it would ultimately. If we get our lost territories back, Nepal’s eastern periphery can extend up to Bhutan and Bangladesh. This implies that the Indian controlled eastern states will finally detach themselves from the Indian Union-the colonial offshoot of British Raj. Thus the separatist groups waging movement for independence such as NAGA, ULFA, BODO and others in India could benefit from the movement of “Greater Nepal”.

Finally, India will have only one option left and that is to shape a treaty with Nepal to take Darjeeling in lease and Nepal in return could ask for extending its territory up to the Bangladeshi Border.
I now feel that the Eastern states in India are thus nearing their Independence.


TGQ3: Media reports say that Indian side has been constantly encroaching upon our lands in different parts of the country. However, the political parties, radical communists included, do not utter a single word in favor of their own country? How you take their silence?
If so then, should we demand the outright abrogation of the Sugauli Treaty of 1815? Given the fact that India is expanding her territories by intruding our lands, would it be a befitting response to India if we talk of the abrogation of the Sugauli treaty?

Mr. Nepal: The frequent media reports that the Indian side is encroaching upon our land are not at all fabricated events. In reality, the Indian side has been exceeding all the limits and there is not a single adjoining district in Nepal that has not faced continues Indian encroachment, to say the least.
To boot, we have lost almost 372 Square Kilometers in Kalapani area where the Indian military has a camp since Indo-China war of 1962 wherein India embraced a shameful defeat. More over, our territorial claims reach up to 17 Kilometers far from Kalapani. Add to this, some 20, 000 BIGHAS( approximately 13,000 plus hectares in metric system) of Nepali lands have been currently under Indian occupation in SUSTA area in Nawalparasi district. The list might go long of such encroachments in different parts of this country.

More perplexing is the response from the Nepali side. More so, the silence exhibited by the political parties and the so-called Maoist revolutionaries’ included is indeed surprising. This surprising silence is more intriguing. For me, silence is a sign of agreement or acceptance. Thus, I am forced to conclude that they have provided their positive nod to this Indian act of threatening our sovereignty. Which is also a proof that India itself is not abiding by the clauses of the Sugauli Treaty thus there is no point that the Nepalese alone should go by the clauses of the treaty. Thus India reminds us time and again that the Sugauli treaty is no more valid as they continue to intrude our territory.

In reality, the treaty became null and void right on 14^th August 1947. Had we been smart enough to get back the lands that we loosed through the treaty of Sugauli during the 14 to 15^th August, the entire lost lands of the Nepal would have been in our possession since then. But we failed. The fact is that from 14 till 18^th August, 1947, the lands which we lost under Sugauli treaty could have been secured. To be precise, Darjeeling was under the command of Pakistan and a Pakistani flag was fluttering there till 18^th of August*. (Read Status of ceded land of Darjeeling and Leasehold of Kalingpong by Rukesh Mani Pradhan) For the Pakistanis, they took over Darjeeling for it was an area that was adjoining East Pakistan then. But India became suddenly sensitive to this Pakistani overtures and instantly took hold of Darjeeling forcibly in order to secure its attachment with the Northeast which incidentally adjoined East Pakistan then.

Though India commands authority in Darjeeling in the East and Kumaon Garhwal in the West, however, the right of Nepal to claim these lands remains sovereign and valid till to date. Nepal, logically, can even now demand those lands from India. To me India which believes in expansionism and the one who enjoys sadistic pleasure in grabbing others’ property and money are similar both in content and nature.


TGQ4: Many academics in Kathmandu see the influence of India in our internal affairs and that too in a brazen manner.
Do you see such influence in Nepali politics by India or it is just a rumor only? If yes, then why India is dictating its terms and conditions on practically each and every political issues? Is our leadership that weak not to withstand the extraneous pressures? Your comments please.
Mr. Nepal: There is not only the Indian influence in Nepali politics but there is clearly an intervening Indian role in our internal matters. It is not just a matter of gossip but not to say so would be improper in effect.

Currently, the indian ambassador to nepal shiva shankar mukherjee celebrating the indian independence day in kathmandu stated that “november 22 ca elections” must be carried out at any cost. in addition, in 1992 the advent of chandra shekhar and his remarks made at ganeshman’s residence about king birendra heralded a brand new generation for india’s naked intervention in nepali politics which keeps even to day which is there for all to look.
indians want the ones political parties in nepal to succeed that serve nicely their goal to impose their directives frequently through their handpicked political guys.
in reality, the indians act as a mentor and as a result reprimand our leaders and our leaders keep in mind themselves fortunate to be their slaves.

The Indian mindset is such that they consider it their inherent right to interfere into our internal matters and this has become possible only because our leadership readily accepts such interference. Some times I also feel that India is not to be totally blamed. We have several examples of our own leadership publicly admitting their Indian lenience. Therefore, our politics is much weaker than our own perception. There is no National Agenda and Rigidity over any issue that warrants national attention. They are merely pawns at the hands of foreigners. Until and unless we have leadership a la “Mir Jaffar and Lendhup Dorje”, Nepal will remain ever as an Indian colony or at best a Protectorate.
We need such leadership that is more responsible to its own citizen and the country. Nepalese leadership should fear the wrath of its own citizen rather than fearing India.
Unless our leadership gets rid of the mindset that without India’s blessings they cannot acquire influential positions in Nepal, the Indian will continue to influence, interfere and intervene into our politics.


TGQ5: After the restoration of parliament by the King, what prompted the Seven Party Alliance along with the Maoists to bring in the new citizenship bill?

Mr. Nepal: For me it was a move to threaten the very sovereignty of Nepal as a nation state as a whole. As the restored parliament passed the citizenship act the provision for granting citizenship to any one born in Nepal was accepted thus India benefited the most which meant that India gained through its citizen’s acquiring Nepalese citizenship. In a few years time the situation will be such that the population of the Nepali of Nepali origin will be dominated by the Nepali of the Indian origin, thus real Nepalese will be in minority in their own homeland. Which also implies that now on the Indian Immigrants who now have the Nepali citizenship could influence greater say in Nepali politics. Finally, the Indian design of seeing Nepal becoming Bhutan first and Sikkim later is taking a formal shape.

And I also foresee a final standoff between the Indian migrants and the real Nepali population in Nepal very soon. Thus, to save our independence we must fight. * Pakistan’s flag fluttered in Darjeeling at the “Planter’s Club” presently a hospital