? 
Taken from comments on Economist's article
Nepal
General state of uncertainty
May 5th 2009 | KATHMANDU
Rep 3.... ha ha ha, Indian lap dogs indeed! I like that.
I think Nepal's best bet for progress would be to merge with India.
I don't think Nepal has the critical mass to be a country on it's own.
India seem to have a more resilient democracy, which will obviously
benefit Nepal. What do you get: 1. Loads of corruption (you have it
already)
2. Elections every 5 years (yours are more frequent)
3. Some progress... India has progressed more in the last 50 years as
compared to Nepal, so maybe there will be some benefit accrual.
4. You still get to retain and practice your religious beliefs.
The other option for Nepal is to become another Tibet (effectively
greater China). This will fit well into China's expansionist designs in
Asia. What do you think India is scared of exactly this. Funnily
enough, once Nepal is a part of China, you may have to give up your
identity of a Hindu nation (kingdom is no more)! What do you get here...
1. A single party and no elections
2. Significant economic progress (read huge dams and hydro plants, total destruction of your environment and loads of money)
3. No freedom to practice and preach your various religions
4. Chinese army presence as a bulwark against your worst enemy, India.
... now isn't that something to think about?
A
union state is the only way for Nepal to survive, particularly as it is
landlocked and trapped between two mutually distrusting neighbours. And
most importantly, its too tiny to make a dent on the world stage
dominated by very large and influential regional powers (G8+5 or even
G20).
Now I am of Indian origin so, my opinion is obviously biased toward
a union state with India. But as I see it, a union state with China
would almost certainly leave the Nepalese less free to exercise
freedoms than they would with India. A unified currency would offer
easier trading with India although being linked to India's growth rate
& inflation may not serve their best interests. Their military is
already trained with the Indian armed forces. In addition India may be
able to offer some of its advice/expertise in drafting a constitution
and leave an autonomous government. As a quid-pro quo India's regional
stability is not disrupted by China taking over the state.
Just one note about the EU. Membership requires compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, one of which is:
"Political: stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the
rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
"
Membership of the EU automatically binds National Courts to the
jurisdiction of European Court for Justice. Laws are passed downstream
to members (the EU Working-Time Directive is a classic example, and met
with fierce opposition). So even membership of the EU isn't necessarily
completely free from external interference.
But as I said earlier, the only chance of survival is a Union State; in this era of globalisation small = ignored.
angel of mercy wrote: