nicely viewed account about India's dubious role in influencing Nepali politics by anjanP. I love to read these kind of logical arguements in the thread. Other guys are also invited. ( some days ago few 'esteemed' sajhaittes explicitly supported the gay activities in Nepal as the excercise of fundamental rights by group of individuals having a different sexual habit; and denounced the government move to shut down Tibetan refugee office in Kathmandu as serious violation of human rights conventions: now everybody seem to realize that it was an attempt to generate support from the Chinese government on the recent draconian political changes. Today, King Gyanendra has pulled down the curtains on the very fundamental civil liberties in our country and all those messiahs of human rights and freedom have hibernated, probably they have changed their nicknames and are in a full swing to support Gyanendra's move. This silence of those gay rights promoters reveals the fact that they are extreme oppurtunists who want to take advantage of the changed situation in Nepal. Anyway, I don't expect them to show their gut against Gyanendra's evil actions) Now back to our discussion. I still have more things about Gyanendra. But lets start with the role of India as a continuation to anajnP's analysis. Nepal has a very important socio political and economic relation with India mainly because of the geographical location of the country and due to some close bond between the people(specially madhesi community) living across the borders which runs back to history. Ram Sita Budhha Ashoka and stuffs. Because a long mountain range stands between China and Nepal, India is easily accessible to Nepali public. Even the rivers flow down to south from Nepal asking both country to have a good relationship.But the relationship has not been cordial since hundreds of years ago. Neither it has been balanced nor fruitful in the Nepali perspectives. Why not we focus on the ties between the two neighnours in the modern era? India had always been the biggest influence in our modern history but after India got independence from the British in 1947, each and every political events in Nepal are directly and indirectly influenced by the events and activities evolved in India. Indian independence paved the way for the overthrow of Rana regime in Nepal. Before that, Ranas pleased the British rulers of India; after that the palace and the politicians have been pleasing Indian rulers to fulfill their political ambitions. This is the biggest tragedy which accumulates to the overall failure of Nepal to achieve stability and developement. A different dimension to the relationship to India would have shown Nepal a vistas of oppurtunities, especially in the pretext of the rapid economic development of the northern neighbour China and India's remarkable effort to catch up other developed nations. Nepal could have been a trade link between two rapidly growing economies of the world. But the immense faith and dependence on New Delhi by Kings and politicians of Nepal from decades have not only jeopardised those chances of economic advantages, but also made our politics very dirty and oppurtunistic. Here, none of the groups- the King or the political parties or even the maoists could be less blamed. The group which can outclass another to show devotion and yessman attitude to India stays in the helm of power. Things and scenarios have changed a little bit in the recent years, but still India is the most influential player on the political affairs of Nepal. King Gyanendra could not have ventured to rule autocratically without the support of India. With this move of the King, India's influence on Nepal will further grow up. As the leaders flee to India for political refuge, Gyanendra must agree to Indian bargainings just to continue his authority. Otherwise India will soon use the dissident political leaders to rise against the King which will once again be counter-productive for the long term democratic stability of Nepal.The king will be in a double dillemma, because India have already thrown its aces by criticizing the Kings move as a serious setback to democracy. This adds pressure to the monarchy amidst the outcry of Indian media and intellectuals, which have urged their government to intervene directly to the king already. India is a surging economy and has very litttle diplomatic interest on Nepal. But it's interest on the water resources is vast and unfathomable. Hence, India in order to serve it's own interest puts the King and the political leaders in two sides of the balance time and again. This time the weight in the side of the king looks greater to serve India's interest and hence it is giving an indirect support to the King from the oblivion. But India is known to be the biggest democracy in the world and it's support to a tyrannical move in Nepal may run dry very soon. Its attitude towards Nepal in every terms depends on the polarization of Indian politics. And this polarization appears to be greater to the quest of democracy. So Gyanendra, unless acting as a yesman ruler to Indian rulers, cannot be assured to extract internal support for long. Even for few more months. To be contd.....