The original post by creativegb reminds me of a conversation between the Indian ambassador to Nepal at that time and a Nepali journalist. The Ambassadors asked almost philosophically "we do so much for you, why do you hate us ?" The answer of the journalist, who I think is a fairly objective person was "It is precisely because you do so much for us" That in many ways sums up India's dilemma with Nepal : damned if you do, damned if you don't. Of late pragmatists seem to have the upper hand in India's foreign policy establishment, and the message appears to be that is still better to overdo than under do when it comes to assisting Nepal.I feel that is the right approach. The thing people in Nepal are most sensitive about is their sovereignty - and by that I mean Indian encroachment of their sovereignty. Whether that is a justifiable concern or not is something that has been debated over and over on this and other forms and I don't see much sense in talking about it now. If India wants to win over the hearts and minds of Nepalese, they just need to be more understanding of this concern - bringing Sikkim into the conversation, for example, clearly shows a lack of such understanding. Plus, Sikkim and Nepal are two very different countries. We are bigger, with more diversity, a stronger sense of nationhood and nationalism (which sometimes has been misguided I admit), and we are, overall, a society deeply conscious about our rights and freedom as 2 revolutions have shown. Good luck to anyone who tries to impose their will on us. In any event, I doubt India will want to annex us - they have enough problems of their own and it is unlikely, as long as common sense prevails in Delhi, that they will want to lord over almost 30 million unruly people and add to their already overflowing cup of woes. Just my thoughts.