यदि पृथ्वीनारायण शाहले एकीकरण नगरेको भए ?

Archived from the original Sajha.com — preserved as posted, replies can no longer be added here.
Start a New Discussion
Archived Post

यदि पृथ्वी नारायण शाहले एकीकरण नगरेको भए नेपाल सायद ब्रिटेन को अधिनमा हुन्थ्यो होला | पछि भारत वा चिनको भूभाग पनि हुन सक्थ्यो | अथवा सिक्किम र भुटान जस्तै छुट्टै राष्ट्र पनि हुन सक्थ्यो | आखिर हामीलाई नेपाल छोडेर विदेशमा आएर नागरिकता खोज्नु परिरहेको छ भने एकीकरणले हामीलाई केहि फरक पर्यो र ? के नपाल एकीकरण जरुरि नै थियो ? तपाईलाई के लाग्छ ? नोट: यो मेरो ब्यतिगत धारणा होइन | केवल प्रश्न मात्र.. . Last edited: 11-Jan-13 01:28 PM

IT_Guy · Jan 11, 2013 1:23 PM · 35,661 views

24 Replies · Showing 21 - 24
Page 2 of 2

Kehi kaam napayera centuries agaadi ko kura kotayera aile jo maanche le Nepal banayo, tei manche maathi aula uthauchau. Aile Nepal ko situation bigryo so Prithivi Narayan Shah galat thiye. If Nepal was well established country, then these morons would not have complained about it. IMO, Prithivi Narayan Shah did what he had to do. It was centuries ago. I am not saying cutting bunch of people's nose is a good thing but it was at different time and situation. He was a ruler/king/war lord, and they are not supposed to be soft. Otherwise he would not have thought of invading other kingdoms in the first place.

Phantom-25 · Jan 11, 2013 7:26 PM

 Two thoughts: 1. Together we stand: Even though they were individual tiny little kingdoms, they shared a very similar cultures in most of the times. Reasons for that include but do not limit to; outgrowth from the same kingdom, kingdoms of brothers, same (similar) language/religion etc. Therefore, there was enough reasons for a brave king to rally the brotherhood to save each other's ass. For that unification was the only way to defend themselves from the Angrejs. 2. What if British Ruled?: Some of you so deny the unification so much yet show such an extreme patriotism. Don't you see little bit of irony there? Why not to push the question little further and fully deny PNS and say 'What the ---- would have happened, if British colonized Nepal? Countries build, countries fall....some longer, other shorter in the grand scheme of history. So why they ---- do we actually needed Nepal? 

Eutab4 · Jan 11, 2013 7:47 PM

 आज नेपाल नभएको भय हामी Chinese  कि इन्डियन  हुन्थ्यौ  भंनेय्हरु सुन--- China ले लेको भए Tibetean  को चाक  हानीको जसरि नेपाली को चाक  हन्थ्यो  . इंडिया ले लिएको भया , ऐले त इंडिया अलि अलि नेपालीलाई  चौकीदार  भाण्ठन्छ, नेपाल लिएको भय सबै नेपाली लै चौकीदार  भाण्ठन्य्थ्यो।अनि नेपाली हरु सबै चौकीदार हुन्थे। अनि सोछौ  होला हामी त त्येहकै नागरिक हुन्थेयौ अनि हामीलाई कसरि भेदभाद  गर्न सक्छन र? हो हाम्रा भुटान बाट लाखेटेयेका  नेपाली हरु पनि पैला भुटानकै नागरिक थिय।  ल  पृथिवी नारायण शाह लै गाली गर्ने हरु, अजै पनि देश टुक्राएर हामीलाई टिबेतेअन कि इन्डियन को चौकीदार बनाउन  ढिलो भएको छैन।आफ्नो स्वार्थको लागि देश टुक्रा टुक्रा पारो।

200times · Jan 11, 2013 9:03 PM

Are we interested in hypothetical questions? We do not know what would have happened had Columbus found east-India. We do not know what would have happened had East India Company (EIC) not established the Republic of India.     Said so, one has all the rights to hypothesize. One can theorize what would have happened had PNS not expanded his kingdom. If she or he wants to speak against Nepal, the law to express will allow. Troubling part is presentation of unreal pictures. Without knowing facts, they claim that we would have been in a better position in India.   Misinformation is hard. Do they know India? India’s growth is concentrated in the south. Cotton and computer belts of India, together with industrial activities, have grown. The story is not the same in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the northern states of India, however. One comment above has already made that clear. Even so, it is useful to present a few specifics relevant to misinformation. With limited natural resources, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, where population density is over 800 per sq. km, have per capita income lower than Himanchal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Sikkim, the other northern states of India adjoining China Importantly, all the last three states of India match with the southern states in terms of income by focusing on horticulture, tourism, and hydro. Sikkim, the second top in the region after Maldives in terms of per capita, with geography and natural resources identical to the latter three states of India, is working on to utilize the resources further to achieve a superior living standard. The question is why Nepal, given it has a greater share (area) of the natural resources provided by the Himalayan geography, is failing to utilize those resources by conducting itself in the manner Bhutan and India’s Sikkim, Uttarakhanda, and Himanchal Pradesh do, and be in a superior position in terms of income and living standard. Answer: ‘maobadi’. How can a country grow without a careful planning and programs? And how can our country move ahead when the government we see in today’s Nepal talks about thermal power. That was the biggest slap to us.    

kishnekale · Jan 11, 2013 9:30 PM

This conversation is preserved exactly as it was on the original Sajha.com and can't accept new replies.

Start a New Discussion

You might be interested in...

Recent Classifieds View all
Upcoming Events View all
Service Providers View all