Posted by: rethink January 11, 2013
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
That is a very good question to which most of us cannot be objective as seen by most of the responses.
Honestly we have been so brainwashed by the concept of unification that it seems like a grand action deserving our gratitude. Looking at unification objectively, it is nothing but expansion - an expansion of the kings land of rule. The British expanded their rule of land by assimilating greater Nepal into the Indian territory but it's not considered unification by Indians inspite of it being just that technically. The british unified India. They should have erected a statue of a Britisher in India holding a finger up saying 'hami ek hau' indicating their unification of India.
In any case, people living in different states did not appreciate PNS's expansion.
Now what if PNS had not expanded his country?
Most likely there would not have been a country called Nepal. Most likely there would not have been the royal Shah rule and the Rana rule in between which resulted in lot of corruption and abuse of general Nepali population. It took hundreds of years to end royal autocratic government, it took hundreds of thousands of lives on Nepalis in the Shah rule ie including expansion collateral damages and Rana regime and ensuing peoples insurgency. Hence people living in this area were very much worse off considering their standard of living and any convenience made available to them by the ruling class or government. People living in this area still consider themselves cursed by sati. Everyone still suffers besides the politicians and a few others handful of people.
Alternatively, everything would have been a part of India and right now would be appreciating a democratically ruled country with more opportunities than they currently have.
As they say, you don't miss what you don't have. Right now lot of Nepalis have a huge sense of Nepali Pride but that wouln't even exist if PNS had not assimilated the territories. We'll probably all be proud Indians and living conditions wise, far better off than we are currently.
Honestly we have been so brainwashed by the concept of unification that it seems like a grand action deserving our gratitude. Looking at unification objectively, it is nothing but expansion - an expansion of the kings land of rule. The British expanded their rule of land by assimilating greater Nepal into the Indian territory but it's not considered unification by Indians inspite of it being just that technically. The british unified India. They should have erected a statue of a Britisher in India holding a finger up saying 'hami ek hau' indicating their unification of India.
In any case, people living in different states did not appreciate PNS's expansion.
Now what if PNS had not expanded his country?
Most likely there would not have been a country called Nepal. Most likely there would not have been the royal Shah rule and the Rana rule in between which resulted in lot of corruption and abuse of general Nepali population. It took hundreds of years to end royal autocratic government, it took hundreds of thousands of lives on Nepalis in the Shah rule ie including expansion collateral damages and Rana regime and ensuing peoples insurgency. Hence people living in this area were very much worse off considering their standard of living and any convenience made available to them by the ruling class or government. People living in this area still consider themselves cursed by sati. Everyone still suffers besides the politicians and a few others handful of people.
Alternatively, everything would have been a part of India and right now would be appreciating a democratically ruled country with more opportunities than they currently have.
As they say, you don't miss what you don't have. Right now lot of Nepalis have a huge sense of Nepali Pride but that wouln't even exist if PNS had not assimilated the territories. We'll probably all be proud Indians and living conditions wise, far better off than we are currently.