“Monarchy is over in Nepal”. The same title is being used in fashionable
ways by many media in this world—of course, only those who hold significant
stake in Nepal. The biggest stake holder and the director of Nepal’s devastation is Nepal’s closest and sadistic neighbor, India. Even though the intellectuals are familiar
with this direction, I would like to show why the world remains anonymous of
this India’s sponsorship of terrorism
in Nepal. Quite surprisingly, the actors have created a
huge mass of junior actors in the hope to make them a lead actor one day. In the mean time, the director is enjoying
the show. Let’s trace back when the
director thought to direct this inhuman movie that might not leave the director
an option of bankruptcy if the truth is exposed.
As known to the world, Nepal was a Kingdom and the most
peaceful country in this chaotic earth.
While many may disagree, however, there was no extreme poverty in Nepal in mid 20th
century. The Indo-Nepal friction started
when the then Prime Minister of Nepal—Jung
Bahaur Rana—supported the British India to
suppress the Sepoy Rebellion. In 1857, India could have born, but since the Rana prime
ministers of Nepal
were strong allies of British, they supported British in their mission to crush
any independence revolution. In fact, Nepal had
already become an enemy of Indians then.
Moreover, the strength of Gurkha army was the biggest obstacle for the Indians
to overcome. Because of Rana’s support
for British India, the later known India could not gain independence
until 1947. Many of us forget to note,
immediately after India was
born, the Rana Empire was thrown out in Nepal in the year 1950. The then Prime Minster of Nepal—Mohan Shumsher Rana—was deposed who would
later go to India
on a self imposed exile. His titular
successor—Pashupati Shumsher Rana—still resides in Nepal. His role would come into play post the Royal
Massacre of 2001. Until 1950, Ranas were
the prime rulers of Nepal
and the monarchy was only symbolic. When
India was born in 1947, the
then prime minister of India
was Jawarharlal Nehru—the same leader who kicked out Indira Nehru for marrying
a Muslim, who would later become India Gandhi and the biggest enemy of Hindus
and Sikhs.
There was another family who was fighting for the
Indian state with the Indians—the Koiralas.
Koiralas were Indians who were born in the Northern Province of British
India –modern day of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh in India. Koiralas were three brothers who were born
and raised in India. The family claims to be originally from Nepal, however, their roots and bushes have been
found only in India. Even today, much of Koirala family resides in
India—respecting
the motherland. The Koirala brothers
joined struggled to give birth to India. During the later years when India was about to born, Koiralas were suggested
to form Nepal Congress Party within India. Finally India
was born in 1947 with another new nation—Pakistan. Appropriate justice does not seem to be
carried out looking at the area of India
and Pakistan
and the number of people residing. The
most important factor was religion. Most
of the princely states were to join the Union of India. One of the biggest Kingdoms was the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir whose King Raja Hari
Singh was a Hindu and the population majority was of Muslim. Raja Hari Singh decided not to surrender his
Kingdom to either of the countries.
However, illegally, India
annexed the Kingdom into its Union. It is interesting to see how Indian text
books claim this beautiful Kingdom a part of India. In the last days of 1948, a
ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices demanding plebiscite. Nehru never proceeded with the UN resolution
and hence, the ascertainity of the instrument of accession is questionable. The
Kingdom—as falsely claimed by India
and Pakistan—is
still considered as the international disputed territory. Then India
annexed the Kingdom of Gwalior, and the Kingdom of Hyderabad. By all means, they were illegal annexation. India’s
vulture eyes were gazing the Kingdom
of Sikkim and the Kingdom of Nepal. The Indian Congress had helped create Nepali
congress for a good reason. The Indians
had foreseen their fortune in Nepal. The Koiralas were assured by the Indians that
they would help Nepal merge
into India if the Indians
help throw the Rana regime in Nepal. India was lured with this Childish
Koirala Deal. Even a newborn child would
see the benefit in helping the needy brothers.
Finally, in 1950, King Tribhuwan fled to India to seek refuge from the
Ranas. The only Royal member left was
the 3 year old, the then prince Gyanendra.
The Ranas—who were expert in analyzing the future—were familiar with the
Indian game. The Indians had thought to
end the monarchy in 1950, but the Ranas, moving a mile ahead, crowned the 3
year old as the King of the Kingdom
of Nepal. The Koiralas’ and the Indians’ dream
shattered. The Ranas knew that India wanted to weaken Nepal by
overthrowing monarchy. Hence, they took
the wisest step to save Nepal,
and we witnessed the result. Even though
the Ranas were able to save Nepal’s
monarchy, unfortunately, their Empire was brought down. Since Ranas were the true Nationalists, their
downfall encouraged India to
envision a possibility to annexing Nepal
into India.
Not that easy as the Indians had presumed. The King in Nepal was considered the
reincarnation of Hindu God, and replacing the intuition of Monarchy was their
far dream. They figured where the
problem laid—Monarchy. Nevertheless, India
did not stay quiet, and offered Sikkim and Nepal to sign the instrument of
accession and join the Union of India
Nepal’s the then King Mahendra got infuriated with the proposal, whereas
the “Koirala equivalent” prime Minister of Sikkim offered Sikkim in the hands
of India, only to be slaughtered. The
three Koirala brothers became the prime ministers of Nepal
on the recommendation and pressure from India. This paved an easy path for the Indians to
observe Nepal
more closely. Nepal’s
monarchy was well aware of this Indian strategy, however, the then King Birendra
had declared Nepal
as the Zone of Peace in the 90s. This
was endorsed by more than 110 countries of the world, except India. Intellectuals could smell the stink that was
coming from the southern block. King
Birendra’s popularity almost made India’s dream a nightmare. Moreover, the future King Dipendra was one of
the most popular figures of Nepalese monarchy in the history.
India’s dream was almost impossible. As the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi created
LTTE in Sri Lanka, they
thought to help launch a Maoist revolution in Nepal
to break Nepal. The Maoists’ top demand was the abolition of
Monarchy. Since the year 1996, India started
funding Nepal Maoists to fight against state.
As the Maoist party was formed in 1996, their leaders were backed up by
the Indian government. Most of the Maoists leader lived in Darjeeling,
Lucknow, and Delhi
in India
and masterminded their plan. These plans were executed by guerrilla who lived
in Nepal
and were dying to fight war. In other words, India
created Communism in Nepal.
They also were supported by the Indian Communist leaders and other Naxalite
group who are fighting against the Indian government for communism.
Surprisingly India never
helped Nepal government in
arresting those leaders and extraditing them in Nepal. When Nepali Maoists met
Nepali Communist leaders in Lucknow, India in 2003, India
government did not take initiative to arrest them, even though they were
recognized as terrorists by the United
States. Hence it is evident that India never wanted peace in Nepal. At the same time, international media was
busy defaming the King Gyanendra.
The interesting chemistry was all political parties
held discussions in India
with the Maoists in the Indian’s presence.
The irony was Maoists were able to kill Inspector General of Police of
the Royal Nepalese Government, but were not able to kill any leaders. This does not digest well. These Maoists and leaders were in agreement
not to kill each others leaders. Although
India
was successful in proving why they did not endorse “Zone of Peace”, they were
unable to offer prayers to King. Then India
played the worst game with the help of its own citizens—Koiralas, and Maoists
to end the Nepalese monarchy—which the world today knows as the Nepal’s Royal
Massacre.
After the Royal Massacre, many speculations were in
the air. However, immediately after the
incident, media, which are funded by India, started to air against
Gyanendra, who was the only heir left to the throne. India’s, Koirala’s and Maoists’
strategy was to defame monarchy and most importantly, the monarch who was
unknown to the world. India knew that
King Birendra was most popular and if the blame could be dumped on Gyanendra,
it would be the easiest way to uproot monarchy.
And so was the story we witnessed.
India
had a sound plan to kill the Royal Family so that no one else would remain
alive to keep the monarchy breathing.
However, the massacre happened when King Gyanendra was out of town and
allegedly was on the way back to the massacre site for the dinner. Gyanendra was crowned again as the King of
Nepal, and India,
once again, could not prove to be a successful director. India funded media were airing
speculations about King Gyanendra. The
love and respect for the King was then seen by the shaved head of all the
Nepalese—who respected Nepalese Monarch as their father. Noticeably, the present Prime Minster, Girija
Prasad, the same Indian Citizen, was the Prime Minister of Nepal during the
Royal Massacre. He helped India
facilitate the killings. Later, he also
facilitated King Gyanendra, to be removed from the palace. In other words, the Koiralas were well aware
of the killings, but instead of stopping India to kill the royals, the old
traitor helped them successfully execute the plan.
The King wanted the then prime minister Sher Bahadur
Deuba to hold the elections but even after he was granted to extend the date of
election twice, he was never motivated to hold the election. The underlying
political reason was that he continuously wanted to be in his office by
postponing the election. As a Chief of State, King Gyanendra could not wait to
see his country devastated. This made him to sack the cabinet and impose his
direct rule. Subsequently, in October 2002, King Gyanendra dismissed the prime
minister and his cabinet. While stopping
short of reestablishing parliament, the king in June 2004 reinstated the most
recently elected prime minister who formed a four-party coalition government. The
King, citing dissatisfaction with the government, dissolved the government in
2005, declared a state of emergency, imprisoned party leaders, and assumed
power. The king's government subsequently released party leaders and officially
ended the state of emergency in May 2005, but the monarch retained absolute
power until April 2006.
When King Gyanendra ascended throne in 2002, Nepal has been
going through civil war from the past ten years. Politicians of Nepal, as an
easy excuse to take benefit from inexperienced King imposed blame on him. When
King sacked the parliament for its inability to hold elections, the law was
enforced, the administration was healthy and the environment was getting
conducive. He acted tough on the people to enforce laws. The 12 years of
democracy by then had made Nepalese lazy and incompetent, but the king wanted
to abolish the ongoing crisis. While most of Nepalese were pleased to see this
progress, the corrupted people were unemployed. The leaders of Nepal are
barely educated to find a job, if they do not engage themselves into politics.
The government employees who never showed up on time were forced to be in the
office and corruption was strictly made illegal. How can idle Nepalese like
that? Obviously it will make them revolt. These led the politicians ally
together and form a coalition to fight against the King. Nepal and
Indian media supported well these coalition leaders. Countable 10-15 people
gathered for to restore democracy and started protest. It was not until April
2006, when Maoists joined the movement to fight against king. Truckload Maoists
entered the capital city to revolt. As a way to spread violence, Maoists
attacked on Maoists in the revolution process and charged King for their
deaths. After 30 people were killed, the King gave up all the powers and
reinstated the government. Hence, the King who wanted to make the country
progress was iconized as a dictator. Following that, if anyone in Nepal supports
nationalism, then they are labeled as royalists or a dictator.
Now that the monarchy is gone, common Nepalese who are
die hard fans of King, are looking for their God. However, Hinduism and Buddism have not taught
violence to Nepalese. Maybe that’s why
common Nepalese are not on the streets yet.
I remain unanswered, is Hinduism’s patience tested? Is Gurkhas’ blood tested? Are the Nepalese tested? Nepal has so far witnessed the Maoists crowd,
not the Nepali crowd, there will be a day when Gurkhalis will be on the streets
to show the bravery of Amar Singh Thapa, Bir Balbhadra Kunwar, Bhimsen Thapa,
or another Jung Bahadur Rana…and who knows, another Prithvi Narayan Shah to
Unify the breaking Nepal.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080619175135tsop.nb/topstory.html
Last edited: 21-Jun-08 02:59 PM
.png)
