Dhat teri!

[Lurker]

But that isnt the case at all now. Govt minister seen publicly along side a "Freedome movement leader" is not the thing to do when you want to maintain calm. Again i say lurks , this isnt about our policy vis-a-vis Tibet. This is about keeping peace. I say - do the thing that is beneficial to both India and Tibet. You sat - Do the right thing , even though it may cause some problems . Whose approach do you think is right ?

This is what I think Sriram, and you may have to grab a chair and read it at leisure. In the mid 80s life was simple, and simplicity sometimes gets you thoughts that stay with you forever. One such simple aspect of life was Television. Only one channel there was, that too a Government channel(DD) with programmes that basically started around 6 pm and ended up around midnight(only on Sundays did we have programmes starting in the morning). A lot of programme/coverage dealt with Indian history, policy, geography and so on. And one coverage that was watched with certainty in my household was the 26th January and 15th August parade. Every year there used to be some diginatory who would be the Guest of Honour. On atleast two occassions the Guest of Honour was a Palestinian Revolutionary named Yasser Arafat. What I distinctly remember about him are: 1) He was a big friend of India. He was supported by Indian Government in his fight for his people and when he would come to India he would receive the honour reserved for the Head of States. 2) Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussain were two of India's strongest supporters in Middle East. This was 80s when fights were limited to UN and other diplomatic channels. Whenever Pakistan would rake up Kashmir you would have Iraq and PLO working for India's benefit. 3) Yasser Arafat remains the only person who picked up on the rumour that Indira Gandhi was going to be assassinated, he notified Indian Security forces too but before he could get to actual killers the killer got Indira Gandhi. That was 20 years ago, today India is very close to Israel and far removed from Iraq and Palestine but you would be surprised, even shocked, that India's connections run very deep. And so when Indian Engineers were kidnapped in Iraq they were released without harm, atleast initially before India completely succumbed to USA. My point is this. We have had tried and tested friends. Friends like PLO, Russia, Dalai Lama. Granted today world has changed and so we need to be flexible with our policies but why do we have to dump our old and tested friends? We have dumped PLO/Iraq and now gone with Israel. Can't we have good relations with both? China has not changed its friendship with Pakistan, has it? We are changing all our friendships in a hurry and basically for what? US cares more for China than it would ever for India. Read any Analyst opinion. Hillary Clinton the person most likely to be the next President of USA is on record last week saying the relationship between USA and China is the biggest thing in the world. China cares more for Pakistan and will always use it to keep us in check. What are we getting in the bargain here? Last week Indian Deputy PM went to Russia and was completely snubbed. This at a time when Russia is doing photo-ops with Iran, Venezuela etc. But why would they bother with us when we keep bowing to American agenda?? We are practically getting into a position where we are losing our old friends, and this whole Dalai Lama saga smacks from the same hymn sheet. xxxx

[Ram]

Lurks, I see where you are coming from. I have to make one thing categorically clear here - I am not for dumping time-tested for short term foreign policy gains. But you must also keep in mind the nature of the game that is being played out, it is important not to live in the past. Wrt foreign policy , you have to run to stay where you are. You have to play the balancing game , play your percentages and play smart so that the ultimately you get what you want. In so far as the The Lama is concerned , i do want India to wholeheartedly extend all support to him ,but not at the expense of our foreign policy. Lets do what needs to be done , but lets not make a big deal about it. The refugees will be taken care of , the Lama and his followers will be protected , but not in the full media glare. The need of the hour is to be subtle , not brash. At this critical juncture of our foreign policy , i say lets be discreet and achieve what we want , rather than be over-bearing and attracting a lot of negative attention.

[Ram]

You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't speaking of 'lets do it now/negotiate with maoists etc etc'. All India CAN/SHOULD do is keep its unity in diversity perspective & clean up its political process. As long as those two happen & india's economic boom keeps up, we don't have to do anything, eventually these countries will come to us and want to join up, like Sikkim did. And this is not in the short-term future perspective but perhaps in the next 50-100 years. By then, Maoists will most likely be history- maoists arnt exactly very 'popular' in Nepal ( i know a LOT of nepalis and have lived in areas with significant nepali population in the last 10-15 yrs). Its just that their Monarchy is even less popular and most people would rather support the Maoists than the monarchy. But from nepali societerial perspective, Maoist support is a tool to get rid of the monarchy & lessen corruption in the government. The vast majority of them arnt dyed-in-wool commies. So nepal really, looks 'a lot worse than it is'.

So you are saying that Nepal joining India would be a natural phenomenon not necessarily precipitated by either country ? Has there been a precedence to this ? A country that has been sovereign for a given amount of time joining with its neighbor ?

[Bongosamaj]

So you are saying that Nepal joining India would be a natural phenomenon not necessarily precipitated by either country ?

Essentially, yes. You could argue that even social conditions are ultimately precipated by national entities to some extent, but for matters of simplicity of the topic, the above quote of your's is essentially what i meant.

Has there been a precedence to this ? A country that has been sovereign for a given amount of time joining with its neighbor ?

Yes, but the social conditions have to be perfect for it. Both 'nations' should have deep identifying bonds with each other & the population has to be friendly towards each other. Cultural & economic commonality is essential. And in this aspect, India-Nepal are very close. Indians work in Nepal without visa and vice-versa, most of Nepal's trade is with us and their culture identifies much more commonality with us than with anyone else's. And precedent for this exists. The most famous western example of this phenomenon ( where a country/sovereign region has joined its neighbour out of free will) is Switzerland : Switzerland started as half a dozen tiny independent 'cantonments' ( smaller than Dutchies) that paid homage to the Austro-Hungarians and the Romans before that. But somewhere in the 1100-1400 AD period, they gradually 'merged' together to form the nation of Switzerland- without any fighting between themselves i might add. There are many such examples and ironically enough, such examples exist in our very own country: Sikkim joined us in the mid-late 70s and this was despite the Sikkimese king wanting to remain independent ( their public govt. asked India to send its troops in & secure the Royal Palace and then hold referendum- which was held and over 97% of Sikkimese voted to join India). So yes, this is very much a possible scenario but for it to work, India MUST walk the path of moderation, not the path of extremism as espoused by any party- the Hinduvtas included.

[Ram]

Good points. But i was looking for something much closer to our times. I have seen nation split , but never merge, in the modern post world war 2 times. Besides , China will have serious problems with India and Nepal merging coz they might lose many strategic peaks to India then.

[Bongosamaj]

China will have serious problems with India and Nepal merging coz they might lose many strategic peaks to India then.

Dude, i hope India and China won't be that stupid. If you look closely, the Nepal-Tibet border runs along *the highest range* on this planet. I find ' forward base' on Everest to be rather laughable an idea on so many levels. But mankind is capable of some pretty nutty stuff.

But i was looking for something much closer to our times. I have seen nation split , but never merge, in the modern post world war 2 times.

Umm. Hello, I already gave you an example- to do with OUR country for fux's sake. Sikkim merged with India in the late 1970s. Unless you want to be a snooty lil git and diss Sikkim, simply coz its a small & quiet place, there is no reason to not consider Sikkim-India merger to be the perfect example you are looking for. Sikkim was an independent nation for almost 350 years before it merged with India. In short, their history is : Sikkim breaks away from Tibet in the first half of 1600s, is like any other kingdom for their day for the next 200 years before the Brits showed up there. Then the Brits showed up and did the same to them as they did to the 100s of other kings & kinglets all over India. In 1947, Sikkim chose the independence clause for the instrument of accession ( remember, the Brits gave the princely 'puppet states' the option to either Join India/Pakistan or go independent). Sikkim stayed an independent monarchy but the King began to have ideas about former Sikkim territorries now in India ( the whole Darjeeling-Kalimpong was Sikkimese before the Brits showed up) and the Indian PM ( Indira) kind of made it clear that India wouldn't care to 'protect' Sikkim's land ( Sikkim- India had similar treaty as India-Bhutan has now) if Sikkim's king was gonna be an ar$e. However, the PEOPLE of Sikkim were not too hot on the direction this monarchy was taking, particularly since they themselves had little quarrel with India. India didn't do anything but ignore Sikkim in its 'independent state', only keeping a watchful eye on China on Sikkim's passes with China ( the defence obligation treaty). Plus, the Sikkimese people themselves have many tribes amongst them, who are heavily intermarried in the region. The whole East-Nepal-Sikkim-North WB ( Darjeeling-Kalimpong area)-Bhutan area is an 'ethnic endosphere', where people have heavily married into each other, live next to each other, etc. The whole idea of tiny independent Sikkim with commie China breathing down its neck pretty much terryfied the Sikkim National Congress Party ( which was at that time, beginning to gain some power due to the monarchy's attempts at introducing limited democracy in Sikkim's independent period). This led to India throwing 'full support' for the SNCP and essentially forcing the King of Sikkim to give significant power to the PM's position. The moment that happened, the PM made official request of India to enter the country & disarm its military ( who till then and for 100s of years previous, swore loyalty to the King & his family) and hold refferendum for merger with India. India pretty much did exactly as asked and 97.5% of the voters voted to merge with India. ( estimated voter attendence was definitely above 65% of the voting population, though precise figures are unavailable due to no official census of Sikkim in decades, the unknown factor in Sikkim's population is not huge, since its pretty much the extreme north, which is very sparsely populated & the roughest terrain in the state, that had no reliable census information) This, i think, is categoric an example as any you will find of two nations merging together.

[Ram]

Hmmm.. Thanks for that piece of info. Have learnt quite a lot today.

[Bongosamaj]

You are welcome.