I have read a very cheap and deregatory article of Mr. Sirnivasan. The article is not worth publishing in any of the reputed media. I wonder how you published this article. It is not based on any fact and everything what he wirtes is pure imaginary.
He does not know the reality in Nepal. He thinks that the Maoists are aided by China. He forgets the fact that Nepalese Maoists are enjoying shelter in India and their funds are place in Indian banks. Indian authorities help these Maoists directly and indirectly. Please ask this gentleman to find out realities and not write things that are imaginary.
Don't worry Rajeev Srinivasan, Naxalites are also present in India. It is just a matter of time when even India will be a part of China or US for that matter. part of china because of the Naxalites and part of US because of banglore. US is sending it's employees in Banglore. The job market in banglore will saturate and then it will grow to different cities and then India is done for. We just have to wait and see.
First the factual mistakes... i counted a score but will give only two as examples. One, Prachanda is not a JNU graduate. It is another Nepali Maoist leader, Baburam Bhattarai who did his PhD from JNU. Two, It was not K.N. Panikkar, but K.M. Panikkar who may have influenced Nehru's China policy. K.N. Panikkar is vice chancellor of Sri Sankara Sanskrit University in Kalady. If this man goofs up on his own State's facts, how can one believe the integrity of his other 'facts'...
Moreover, Ashok Singhal and the RSS-VHP wallas recently declared Gyanendra to be Hindu Emperor of the world's only Hindu Rashtra. No wonder Srinivasan wants India to suport this tyrant who the people of Nepal dont want. Not one word about Nepal's democratic parties or human right abuses by the king.
The Maoists have been in India for over 30 years and still cant control a single tehsil, forget controlling a district. why have they gained control of Nepal within 3 years? can india afford yet another non-democratic polity (already there are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma) on its border. without democracy there is no stability in any of these countries which is not good for India. Rediff should dump Srini
Dear Mr.Rajeev, After reading your article i would like to comment on the following way: 1. Nepal never was a part of China or Tibet whatsoever,as you are trying to say in your article. 2. Do not forget that India annexed Sikkim like Chinese did to Tibet.So to whom should we (Nepalese)trust?Neither of the both. 3.Neharu took the foreign affair of Bhutan,making Bhutan a vassal state of India. 4.India tried to do the same in 1990 with the late king Birendra in the bargain of not supporting the democratic movement of Nepal if he had signed the treaty draftet unilaterally in India.King denied and we had democracy. 5.Prachanda never went to JNU-don't write what you dont know about. 6.Read once the history written by your own late prime minister Neharu before venturing to write something about history. 7.Do not try to bring unstability in Nepal by distorting the fact. Hope the above points will help you to correct your mistakes. Sunil
First of all the comparison with Sikkim is very, very silly. Sikkim did become part of India in 1975, but there was a huge section of the population that wanted the merger. Sikkim's integration with India did not create *one* ( not a single one!) refugee. Chinese invasion of Tibet caused hundreds of thousands of Tibetans to run to India( and some to Nepal) apart from those who were slaughtered. Sikkim's merger with India was bloodless. I think the problem with India's neighbours-Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and even Sri Lanka- is that they are very immature. They are dominated by oligarchies and demagogues, who can whip up irrational sentiment at any given time.
No Madhab, the comparison is totally bogus. Apart from the fact that India has not produced *one* refugee, all the North Eastern sates are functioning, pluralistic democracies. Tibet has made even a pretense to being a democracy; it is an outright colony of Beijing. What exactly are you advocating? That if some people look a little diffrent from the majority in a country, they should separate? Would you advocate this for every country in the world-The US, Canada, France, China, Thailand, Australia? Nice world!
RE:Read History carefully
by Abhik ray Chaudhury on Feb 11, 2005 08:44 PM Permalink
Comparing Sikkim with Tibet is unfortunate. Chinese PLA invaded Tibet, and afterwards there were several armes uprisings agains the chinese there. Tibetan refugees continue migrating to India even now.Also, the China is moving the han chinese into Tibet in a large scale and tibetans are already a minority in their state. India did not send a single platoon to 'capture' Sikkim. Sikkim is one of the quietest states of India and exercise peaceful elections, electing only sikkimese who rule their state. No non-sikkimese indian can buy land in Sikkim (as in other states of india where minority communities are majority).
RE:Read History carefully
by Madhab on Feb 22, 2005 11:39 PM Permalink
Comparison with Sikkim is not only historically correct, also the comparision should include how the Indians grabbed the vast North-East India after the imperialists Britishers left India. North East India has been reeling under the torture and colonial rule of India for more than 50 years. Indians didn't send troops to capture the land, because these innocent North Easterners were helpless and without any fire power then. But now India has stationed its vast army over the entire region in such numbers even the Chinese would be ashamed if they compare how much they have stationed in Tibet. We have to accept the fact: Powerful nations do occupy and torture--like CHinese do to Tibetans and Indians are doing to its North East people--its nothing new in history.
