It's for those who're making these charge to substantiate and elaborate. It does not prima facie look too compelling though, even if such charges are being made not for the first time now. And in terms of actual outcome, King Gyanendra was perceptibly less warm to India than his slain predecessor King Birendra.
In any case, Prachanda is on record having desperately sought Indian intervention during the tussle with the President of Nepal with no positive response forthcoming as a result of which Premiership slipped out of his eager hands. Even before that, India actively intervened in bringing about a rapprochement between the Seven party Alliance and the Nepali Maoists. The current order in Nepal is its direct outcome. So there is nothing new about Indian role in Nepal. China is its main and strategic competitor here. As a result China, and Pakistan, kept supporting beleaguered King Gyanendra till the very end. Quote India has always been a well wisher of Nepal. Unquote That's of course routine propagandist hogwash. No serious observer would take that with any degree of seriousness. India's relationship with its neighbours, just not Pakistan, have, in fact, always remained deeply troublesome. Bhutan, a protectorate, the only exception. Sikkim was just gobbled up. India was the major force promoting Tamil militancy in Sri Lanka, what it accuses of Pakistan doing in India. The result has been disastrous including assassination of an Indian former Prime Minister. Karan Singh's visit to Nepal was highly controversial. His attempt to save Gyanendra, at least partly, just flunked. Under the tidal waves of Janandolan II, Gyanendra had to restore the Parliament and was eventually delivered the more than deserved order of the boot. That Nepal is still in turmoil cannot, however, be primarily attributed to India. (Here is an informed, though not excellent, report-cum-analysis: < http://www.operationspaix.net/IMG/pdf/ICG_nepals_future_in_hoes_hand_2009-08-13_.pdf>.) The central issue is the terms and mode of integration of the Maoist PLA, a partisan force, with the Nepal Army. For obvious reasons, other political forces are deeply uncomfortable if not outright scared of the likely outcome of such "integration". Prachanda's own utterances to the effect that relatively small number of PLA foghters would be able to take over the NA have evidently not helped. This central issue remains to be resolved. The Maoist street protests, in three phases, meant to overrun the current regime have not succeeded outright despite rather impressive performance. The current regime is in a sort of precarious position. Yet there is a stalemate. The recent spiking of the anti-India pitch by t<http://www.operationspaix.net/IMG/pdf/ICG_nepals_future_in_hoes_hand_2009-08-13_.pdf>he Maoists, and levelling of this charge after a considerable gap, is only a part of the ongoing power struggle. This goes on together with the attempts at underhand deal cuttings involving mainly Prachanda and GP Koirala, the (not so) Grand Old Man of Nepal politics and the chief of the faction-riven CPN(UML), Jhana Nath Khanal, apparently to the discomfiture of and over the heads of their other party leaders. Prachanda has one of these days publicly pronounced that India wants Baburam Bhattarai, the number 2 in the UCPN(M), as the Nepal Prime Minister! Similarly, Madhav Nepal, the incumbent Prime Minister, is deeply miffed at being kept outside the recently constituted High Level Political Mechanism (HLPM), consisting of only these three leaders. Ditto with the Nepali Congress parliamentary party leader Ram Chandra Poudel. Madhav Nepal, the Prime Minister, has since been incorporated as an "invited" member! In any case, if the Indian elite is not perceived to be the "well wishers" of the Indian masses; its attitude towards Nepal can hardly be any better. Sukla 2010/1/27 ymalaiya <[email protected]> > How is it possible? > > - There are eyewitness > accounts<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1309825/Massacre-witness-blames-Crown-Prince.html> > of > the events. How can India be involved? > > - India had always supported the royal institution as symbolic of the Nepal > tradition there . In fact the power to the monarchy was restored (from the > despotic > Rana family <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rana_dynasty> , nominally > ministers) with passive help from India. > > -The royal family of Nepal has many relatives in India. Surely, they must > know the truth. > > -There was an inquiry > panel<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1387953.stm> , > its conclusion was consistant with all the accounts. > > Why blame India? India has always been a well wisher of Nepal. > > India helped avoid the bloodshed by sending Dr. Karan Singh, himself son of > a Maharaja, and a relative, as an emissary to advise King Gyanendra; as a > result, King Gyanendra stepped down. > > Yashwant > > > > --- In [email protected], Farida Majid <farida_ma...@...> wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:25:26 +0600 > Subject: Indian hand in Nepal's Royal Palace Massacre: Prachanda > > > Indian hand in Nepal's Royal Palace Massacre: Prachanda > > Former Prime Minister of Nepal Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda has > accused India of carrying out the Palace massacre in which King Birendra was > killed along with his family and also communist stalwart Madan Bhandari > eight years ago, reports Telegraphnepal. com. > > Prachanda, chairman of opposition UCPN (Maoist) party, claimed that the > main reason behind the killing of the two adored figures had been their > unequivocal love for their motherland. "They were both strong nationalists, > " he said. "Both King Birendra and Bhandari were killed because they shared > good relations with our party and they were about to meet me personally," he > said.The meeting with late King Birendra was tentatively fixed for May 25, > eight days before he was murdered, as the information got leaked, lamented > the Maoist supremo. > > He categorically outlined three reasons for the murder of King Birendra: > His proposal for Nepal as zone of peace, his preference for importing > weapons from China and above all his nationalist credential were the prime > reasons for his brutal murder.Of late the Maoist leader has whipped up the > sentiment of the nation by launching a campaign to free the country from > foreign interference, recover lands occupied by India and withdrawal of > foreign troops from Nepalese territory Kalapani. > > The Maoist leader also said that the entire responsibility for the Royal > Palace Massacre on June 1, 2001 should be taken by the then Chief of the > Nepal Army, Prajawal Shumser Rana. "The Nepal Army is bound to make public > the reasons for the security lapses inside the Royal palace", he > demanded."The murder spree of Nationalist Leaders continue since the War of > Nalapani", Prachanda said adding, "I could be killed any time from now but I > do not fear death." > > "We had won the Nalapani War with the British, now it is time for us to get > ready for a similar war", he told a meeting of Maoist cadres in Gulariya of > Bardia District on January 21. > > http://www.thebangl adeshtoday. com/leading% 20news.htm# > lead<http://www.thebangladeshtoday.com/leading%20news.htm#lead>news-01 > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
