South Asia focus: conflict in Kashmir

Sheik Huma
Issue date: 10/16/08 (Ka Leo)
Kashmir is a particularly beautiful, yet unstable, region in South Asia that lies between India and Pakistan. Over the past 60 years, both India and Pakistan have fought three wars over this territory. Kashmir has been grappling with incidents of violence since a separatist uprising in 1989 and now the recent spate of protests due to a controversial religious land transfer issue has added fuel to the fire.

On May 26, the Jammu and Kashmir Government, in consultation with the Indian government, reached an agreement to transfer 100 acres of forest land to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board. The board is responsible for the smooth and trouble-free pilgrimage to the holy cave shrine of Amarnath, and the acres were given in order to set up temporary shelters and facilities for Hindu pilgrims.

This evoked a huge controversy; demonstrators from the Kashmir Valley were against the land transfer, while protesters from the Jammu region supported it.At first, the people of Kashmir opposed the land transfer because they feared ecological imbalance in the region. The protesters later claimed that land transfer was an attempt to change the demographics of the valley.But the acre agreement is not the real issue, as far as protesters are concerned.

The people in the region have pent-up emotions and take advantage of any situation that arises. There are already thousands of acres of farmers' land under the occupation of the Indian Army in the valley. While farmers are still optimistic about getting back their land, it seems the Indian government is no longer interested in the reduction or withdrawal of troops from the valley. The land transfer has only helped to spread negative sentiment.Kashmir has been recognized by the U.N. as a disputed territory.

The origin of the problem in the valley is traced back to the non-implementation of the agreement made by the Indian government in 1947 when India and Pakistan won their independence from Britain. According to the agreement, the people of Kashmir were promised the right to self-determination by the first prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru.

The various phases of self-determination, however, were always evaded by the Indian government. The valley has since become the bone of contention between the two neighboring countries.
The protesters also said that according to Article 370 of the agreement - which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir - no non-Kashmiri can own land in the valley.

The recent row is thus a fight of Kashmiris for their rights.Thousands of people took part in the processions in which 40 people, including a separatist leader, were killed and hundreds were injured due to police firing. As the protests turned violent, the Congress-led government in the region came under extreme pressure from its main alliance party, the People's Democratic Party. The party threatened to withdraw support if the government did not revoke the land order.

Though the order was revoked, the Ghulam Nabi Azad government had to step down after the People's Democratic Party didn't lend support to his government and the governor rule was imposed in Jammu and Kashmir.The revocation of the order, on the other hand, provoked widespread protests in Jammu. Several people there were killed and many others injured in demonstrations. The people of Jammu, in support of the land transfer, enforced an economic blockade in the Kashmir Valley by stopping traffic on the Srinagar-Jammu National Highway.

The protest continued for 61 days, and on Aug. 31, a Jammu and Kashmir governor-appointed panel signed an agreement with the Hindu groups, who were leading the agitation in Jammu. According to the agreement, the shrine board would be making temporary use of 40 hectares of land during the "yatra" (pilgrimage) period.Although the new agreement has brought the situation under control in Jammu, it has provoked Muslims in Kashmir.

Though there was a lull in violence in the Kashmir Valley during the holy month of Ramadan, a string of violent incidents have taken place in the past few days. Recently, curfew was imposed in the valley and several separatist leaders were arrested in order to stop them from holding sit-ins in Lal Chowk, the heart of the capital city in Kashmir.The question is how many more lives must be lost before there is a complete end to violence in Kashmir?

Nepal's "living goddess" tradition meets modernity - Commentary

By: Kamal Raj Sigdel
Posted: 10/20/08
Last week, Nepal witnessed the coming of a new "living goddess" in the sacred temple of Kumari in the ancient city of Kathmandu. News headlines splashed in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, CNN, BBC, and many other media across the world.
The news stories tried to present the event as vividly as possible, but mostly cast the event as an exotic oriental experience. The government of Nepal, too, did its best to publicize the event in the world tourism market. What seriously lacked in all these media representations, however, was a real analysis of the tradition's challenge to survive.

According to local legend, the tradition of virgin "living goddess" worship, as manifested in the Kumari of Kathmandu, dates back to the time of the Vedas. The ancient Hindu monarchs used to worship Kumari (the virgin) for power to win great wars. It is believed that unlike the living human goddess today, Kumari used to be one of the immortal deities.

When it came to the seventeenth century monarch Sidhinarasingh Malla, however, something very unfortunate happened. One day, when the queen saw the king playing dice with the Kumari, she complained, thereby offending the goddess and prompting her disappearance.

After the king made several appeals and apologies, the deity agreed to reincarnate herself by entering into the body of a young girl, whom he could visit once per year. She would, nonetheless, vacate the young girl's body during menstruation. Today, when the young goddess comes of age, a panel of sacred judges identifies a new girl to become the next living goddess.

The first challenge to this tradition came when the monarchy was abolished after the successful April Uprising of 2006. When the king was sacked, Nepalese authorities chose to assign all cultural responsibilities the head of state.

Unlike the dynastic kings, current heads of state can be anyone from any religion, as the country has been declared a secular state. The culture would face a serious problem if, in course of political developments, a non-Hindu becomes a president and fails to carry on the cultural responsibilities that the cultural groups assign.

More intriguing is the way the Maoist-led government is dealing with the tradition. Allaying people's fear that the communist government scarps all "bourgeoisie" cultural practices, the Maoists have allowed the tradition to continue, probably because they understand that the culture has its own unique political semiotics, which were displayed during the Democratic Movement of 2006 against the monarchy.

When the movement was in its climax, the Newar community of Kathmandu invited the prime minister, instead of the king, to pay an honorary visit to the Kumari, which marked the first symbolic abolition of the monarchy. Though the Maoists understand that the Kumari deserves their respect, they are not clear about how a secular government can continue to sanction affairs that are particular to a certain religion. If they do not change their wrongheaded policy now, the culture will soon lose its way.

Another challenge comes from the unrealistic representation of the tradition by the international media, who allege that the tradition is a human rights violation. The argument is that the tradition, against the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is "executing the child and snatching her right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

Most of the allegations - which come primarily from the Western media - are baseless. If the culture does not violate the rights of the child in the eyes of the Newar community, it should be allowed to continue as it has for centuries. In fact, the living goddess lives for about seven to ten years in the luxury of the Kumari palace, just as an elected president lives in the presidential palace, with all facilities provided, with her parents and friends around her and with her education advanced by special tutors.

Thus, it is in the best interest of the government of Nepal to prevent its head of state from religious meddling by shedding off the cultural responsibilities that it inherited from the Hindu monarch, while at the same time clarifying some of the myths associated with the tradition.

(Sigdel is an Asia Pacific Leadership Program fellow at the East West Center and can be reached at kamal.sigdel [at] gmail.com.)
© Copyright 2008 Ka Leo O Hawaii

Army integration: The toughest job facing post-conflict Nepal - Commentary

Army integration: The toughest job facing post-conflict Nepal - Commentary

Nepal: A yam between two boulders

Nepal: A yam between two boulders

By Kamal Raj Sigdel

Ka Leo Contributing Writer

Posted on Kaleo.org: 9/29/08

Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: The rise of a new breed of communist leaders in Nepal has drawn the world's attention. It is partly because the tiny South Asian country is a Chinese neighbor and partly because this is a new democratic experiment. But will the Maoists give up their communist ideals? And will China and India, two economic giants, let the democracy groom on its own?

Nepal's democracy faces two major challenges: the Maoists' continued enchantment with the communist ideals and their reluctance to fully democratize themselves, even after entering into the multi-party democracy, and China and India's increased interest in Nepal's politics.

Indeed, the new Maoist Prime Minister, Prachanda is having a hard time. The illusive rebel leader, who did not even exist to many Nepalis' until recently, is now busy making the rounds garnering support to rebuild the war-torn country.

However, to everyone's surprise, Prachanda began as a true communist; he chose to begin his visit with China, and not with India. He went against the Nepali tradition, and reportedly offended India. Many democrats took it as an alarm-a communist with a history of a bloody war that killed more than 13,000 civilians preferred to break bread with communist neighbor China, ignoring the invitation of India.

Prachanda's visit to China was meaningful in that it was not limited to the Olympic Closing ceremony. Prachanda met both Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao and discussed issues ranging from bilateral cooperation on security and Tibet to development assistance and trade. He also went one step further, paying a symbolic visit to Mao's ancestral village that inspired Maoist guerillas in Nepal. This raised eyebrows in India.

In fact, Prachanda seems to be more worried about gaining support from China than in striking a balance and, of course, in correcting his cadres' undemocratic practices, returning the occupied land of innocent civilians, stopping abductions and intimidation, or reigning in the Young Communist League (YCL), a Maoist sister paramilitary organization, and in teaching democratic values and norms.

Ever since the day he won the election, Prachanda has been saying that he wanted to review the India-Nepal Friendship Treaty of 1950, because it was "unequal." In the face of his desire to redefine Nepal-India relations (albeit a good thing in itself), it was a clear message to India that the new red leader wanted to ignore them and side with a fellow communist nation.

Just when Prachanda was breaking bread with Chinese leaders in Beijing, one of the India's largest selling dailies, The Times of India, splashed a news headline that read, "Nepal PM Prachanda chooses China over India."
Challenges

Prachanda faces both challenges and opportunities of being sandwiched between two of the world's fastest growing economies. The first king PN Shah had a good understanding of Nepalese geopolitical locus when he described it as a "yam between two boulders."

Accordingly, one of the major challenges is to strike a balance in foreign policy in the face of the growing interests of the two giant neighbors so that it won't be crushed as would a yam between two giant boulders. In a bid to balance his relation, Prachanda visited India subsequently but he still fails to allay the Indian fear that the new leader is playing what they call the "China card."

As the Maoists have not articulated their terms of engagement with foreign powers, there is always a room for them to play, or for themselves to be carried away. In fact, both the neighboring giants have increased concerns in Nepal. Increasing Chinese pressure in suppressing Tibetan refugees in Kathmandu and Indian role in shaping many domestic policies and political parties are some of the examples of interventions. Given the Maoists' wavering faith in democracy and perceived likelihood of being carried away by external influences, it is feared that the peace process will be derailed.

Under these circumstances, the Maoists would do better if they completely gave up their faith in arms, fully democratized themselves and institutionalized democracy. It is too decent of the Maoists not to think of China as an alternative, be it in supplies or in finding a back up for a red takeover.

Prachanda has to realize the country's critical geopolitical location. Only a balanced foreign policy could garner a wide support so that the peace process can be taken to a logical end. There are also risks of the peace process falling apart, particularly in the two big powers not acting wisely. Nepal, therefore, needs warm and open support from both of its powerful, but competing, neighbors. (The writer can be reached at kamal.sigdel [at] gmail.com)

---

© Copyright 2008 Ka Leo O Hawaii

Nepal: A yam between two boulders - Commentary

Nepal: A yam between two boulders - Commentary

Light Article

Is the English language full?

By Alex Beam

I love neologisms, coinages, new words, whatever you want to call them. I think "staycation" is hilarious. Daniel Maurer, author of "Brocabulary: The New Man-i-festo of Dude Talk" is merchandising the words "brobituary" and "manecdote."

Brobituary is the all-too-apropos term for the valedictory speeches a man hears at his wedding. Full of praise and good feeling, they signal that the portion of his life worth living has come to an end.

A manecdote is a story that emphasizes one's manliness. Like the time I talked about repairing the garage door. Which I still haven't done.

These words are just the tip of the iceberg. I've been keeping tabs on the marketing-driven variants of "metrosexual," which now include "petrosexual" and "jetrosexual." What about "retrosexual," which fits me to a T? Whenever I hear that two young people are getting married, I exclaim: "To a member of the opposite sex? How exotic."

Conventional wisdom likens the English language to a healthy, growing organism that easily generates new words like "poke" (in the Facebook sense), "ginormous," "crowdsource," or "webisode." Every few years, a new edition of Merriam-Webster or American Heritage issues a press release commending themselves for integrating words like "Web-surfing" and "Islamo-fascism" into their dictionaries.

Similarly, the language purges itself of words that are no longer of any use, like "etiquette," "manners," and "modesty."

Are new words as great as we think they are? Paul MacInnes, writing for The Guardian newspaper, says no. "The common line is that any new word is a good word," he says. "It shows a vibrant, playful language shaped by those who practice it." He continues: "Not often, however, does anyone stop to ask whether this is a good thing, whether ... the English language is full."

Full! Interesting concept: New Words Need Not Apply.

MacInnes caught up with something called The English Project, supported by the BBC, the English Speaking Union and other worthies, which "aims to create ... an innovatory 'language exposition' (or 'living museum') where visitors - both physically and virtually - will be able to explore the English language in all its vigorous complexity across time and geography." Their Web site is www.englishproject.co.uk.

The EP has been harvesting what it calls "kitchen table lingo," previously unheard words that might be used by as few as three people. "If enough other people start to use your words," they announce, "then they could end up in the Oxford English Dictionary!"

MacInnes and other Brit lingoists seem underwhelmed by the Project's discoveries. Residents of the United Kingdom, we learn, have invented many, many words for the telly's remote control. (Just as the Canadians have many descriptive words for underwear, including "gaunch," "gotch," "gitch," and "ginch.") In Britain, "podger," "blipper," "twitcher" and "melly" are just a few of the new names for the remote.

I call our remote "the situation," as in, "hand me the situation, please." This is not the most precise term, because often I am handed a Kleenex, the Economist magazine, or just a beleaguered look. "Do we really need new words for the remote?" MacInnes asks, and one would have to say: No.

More Sarah Palin-dromes!

The contest isn't over yet, as excellent entries continue to find their way to my inbox. (A palindrome is a word or phrase that reads the same backward or forward, the classic example being, "Madam, I'm Adam.")

Serial palindromist George Lovely chips in, "Woe! Dawns Sarah harassn' Wade. Ow!" where Wade refers to Roe v. Wade, of course.

Alison Merrill sent in a serious candidate for world's longest Palin-drome: "'Ah! I made veep.' - S.P. Moody? Baby? Doom? P.S. Peeved am I, ha!"

In contrast, brevity is the soul of Ira Richler's wit: "Peeve: Babe veep."

Bob Treitman sent me "'Hey, did I harass?' Sarah: 'I did, yeh."'

From Hastings, in the United Kingdom, Paul Barlow put down the podger long enough to send in eight, repeat eight, vice-presidential palindromes! On McCain's vice-presidential announcement, he writes, "Avid dog delivers reviled god-diva." On Palin's election as Alaska'a governor, "Hara! She won snow eh? Sarah?"

Brace yourself. There are more.

(The New York Times, Sept 25, 2008)

The normalization of oral sex

Oral is normal

The normalization of oral sex.

By William Saletan

Every day, thousands of parents sit down with their children to talk about the facts of life. They want their kids to know how babies are made, how serious sex is, and how they can protect themselves. For most of us, the topic is awkward enough without getting into advanced stuff. That's why the coverage of President Clinton's blow jobs felt like such a cultural assault. We just want to stick to the basics.

Well, you can kiss that era of innocence goodbye. I'm not talking about your kids' innocence. I'm talking about yours. For your information, Mom and Dad, oral sex is now more basic than vaginal sex. That may not be part of God's or nature's plan. But according to survey data, it's a fact of life.

The latest evidence comes from "Noncoital Sexual Activities Among Adolescents," a study published in the July issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health. The study analyzed the US government's first survey of such practices, conducted in 2002 and released three years later. When the data first came out, I chided the media for ignoring the findings of widespread anal sex. Don't worry: I'll spare you that topic today. What's interesting in the new analysis is the correlation between oral and vaginal sex. If your kid is doing one, he or she is almost certainly doing the other.

The raw numbers indicate that 50 percent of teenagers aged 15 to 19 have had vaginal sex. Fifty-five percent have had heterosexual oral sex. Are kids substituting oral for vaginal? Nope. Among technical virgins—teens who have never had vaginal sex—23 percent have had oral sex. That number sounds high until you notice that among nonvirgins, the oral-sex figure is 87 percent. If your teenager has had "basic" sex without somebody's mouth being involved, congratulations. You're probably the only such household on your block.

The data on timing underscore this connection. Among teens whose first vaginal sex happened less than six months before the survey, 82 percent admit to oral sex. That figure barely increases for teens who began vaginal sex three years before the survey. In other words, teens lost their oral virginity at around the same time they lost their vaginal virginity. If you think your daughter is going to learn the basics now and the advanced stuff later, you've got another thing coming.

Look at the data for older adults, and you'll see similar patterns. At ages 20 to 24, the percentage who admit to oral sex trails the percentage who admit to vaginal sex by around five points. (A study of Georgia college students, published last year, produced similar numbers: 96 percent of those who had lost their vaginal virginity had also lost their oral virginity.) At ages 25 to 44, the gap is around eight points. If anything, these numbers understate the prevalence of oral sex, since they're based on self-reporting. The discomfort most of us feel around this topic surely affects some survey responses, even with guaranteed anonymity.

The near-disappearance of lifetime oral virginity makes sodomy laws fairly ridiculous. The percentage of Americans aged 25 to 44 who deny ever having had oral sex now barely exceeds the percentage who admit to same-sex activity. By empirical standards, if gay sex is deviant, so is chastity of the mouth. Indeed, there's some evidence that what's vanishing isn't oral abstinence—which perhaps never really existed—but stigma. That's the implication of a decadelong Australian college study, published three years ago, which showed a significant increase in female, but not male, admission of oral activity.

So cheer up, Mom and Dad. You don't have to be embarrassed any more about discussing the facts of life with your child. She'll be happy to explain them to you.

-Slate 

Army Integration in Nepal

Army Integration in Nepal: Democratization or politicization?

Bishta makes a strong argument that the Nepal Army should never be politicized in the name of Loktantrikaran. He has a striking question: if the Maoists achieved so much with some 3400 crummy weapons, cannot the Nepal Army which has 95,000 trained soldiers equipped with all modern ammunitions revolt it the Maoists try to politicize it on their will?

BY ARJUN BISHTA

Recently, Nepal marked the 50^th anniversary of participation in UN Peacekeeping operations worldwide. It is rather ironic that the same army that contributes the fifth largest contingent of peacekeepers in the entire world, and which has won many accolades in the international arena is considered in need of 'reform' by non other than a Maoist-led government. As such, it is about to be laid on the alter of sacrifice at the mercy of those whose intent is at best unclear and at worst an unmitigated disaster for the prospects of democracy.

Integration and other 'reforms' in the national army may be understandable and justified at the logical end of a political process. In other words, if we were a hundred percent clear that the Maoists have come into the democratic political mainstream and no longer harbor any further designs for seizing unchallenged power, almost any measure, including the integration of all 19,000 UNMIN-verified Maoist combatants into the army, would have been justified. However, in Nepal, the Maoists are very clearly on the path of defeating all opposition to their unilateral rule.

Indeed, the Maoists have not even tried to disguise their unchanged objective of eventually establishing a communist republic. The problem in Nepal lies in the wider community deliberately choosing to ignore these clear indicators and indulging in wishful thinking--arguing that surely, the Maoists do not really mean what they say! In this context, allowing the removal of the army as the last line of defense of democracy--following on the heels of the end of monarchy, sidelining of the NC and now the compromise of the UML--is nothing short of political suicide by the democratic front.

Without a doubt, the peace process must come to a logical conclusion with Nepal achieving an enduring peace, stability and economic progress under a multi-party democratic framework. The Nepal Army, which has been instrumental in promoting peace nationally and internationally, now clearly relies on objective civilian control to maintain its apolitical and neutral status. This is apparent from the very mature and measured manner in which the army accepted the reality of the demise of the monarchy. At the core of the concept of objective civilian control is the recognition of the professional military's right to retain control of its fundamental values and procedures.

Today, it has become common practice, even in backward Nepal, to consider stakeholder interests while making decisions that ultimately affect their future. Yet, while the future of 95,000 army personnel is being decided, it is apparently left up to a closed group of politicians, most of whom, in Nepal's new reality, are going to be from the Maoist pact.

Is it that difficult for the politicians and the international community to realize that what is happening, in essence, is that those in power are taking the army for granted simply because it is disciplined, cohesive and intact--the very values that the Maoists now seek to destroy?

It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to figure out that, in Nepal's reality where one has to revolt to be heard, it may not be too long before the army is forced to assert itself. And rightly so. If the Maoists achieved so much with some 3400 crummy weapons, is it really in anybody's interest to destroy the very fabrics that hold the army together and restrain it? The purity, sanctity, and integrity of an army that has proven itself apolitical and restrained, should never be compromised in the name of 'loktantrikaran'. Certainly, it should not be left at the mercy of a proven undemocratic force to grab unequivocal power.

Till date, the army has obeyed the orders of the legitimate government mandated by the people. However, it is unlikely that it will take its own destruction and the compromise of Nepal's territorial integrity and sovereignty lying down. Democratic politicians should start listening to the genuine stakeholder concerns of the army and provide ownership to it. Only then can it stand as bedrock upon which Nepal's burgeoning democracy can be built. (TKP, July 3, 2008)

Nepal Royal Massacre and The Mystery Unfolding

By Ashutosh Shrivastav

'Monarchy is over in Nepal '. The same title is being used in fashionable ways by media throughout the 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 most sadistic neighbor, India.

Even though the intellectuals are familiar with this direction, I would like to show why the world remains silent on India's sponsorship of terrorism in Nepal. Quite surprisingly, the actors have created a huge mass of junior actors in the hope of making them a lead actor one day. In the meantime, 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 the 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 the British, they supported the British in their mission to crush any independence revolution.

In fact, Nepal had already become an enemy of Indians then. Moreover, the strength of the 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 and 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 Indira 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 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 the struggle to give birth to India. During the later years when India was about to born, Koiralas were suggested to form the Nepal Congress Party within India. Finally India was born in 1947 with another new nation - Pakistan.

Appropriate justice does not seem to have been carried out looking at the area of India and Pakistan and the number of people residing there. The most important factor was religion. Most of the princely states were to accede to 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 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 textbooks claim this beautiful Kingdom a part of India. In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices demanding a 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 annexations. India's vulture eyes were gazing on 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 overthrow 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 Indian dream shattered. The Ranas knew that India wanted to weaken Nepal by overthrowing the 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 of annexing Nepal into India.

It was not as easy as the Indians had presumed. The King in Nepal was considered the reincarnation of a Hindu God, and replacing the institution of Monarchy was their far dream. They figured where the problem lay - the 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 then King Mahendra was infuriated by the proposal, whereas the 'Koirala equivalent' prime Minister of Sikkim offered Sikkim to 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 intrude in Nepal's internal affairs.

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, but not 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 history.
India's dream was almost impossible. As the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi created LTTE in Sri Lanka, they thought they would help launch a Maoist revolution in Nepal to break Nepal. The Maoists' top demand was the abolition of Monarchy. Since 1996, India started funding Nepal Maoists to fight against the state. As the Maoist party was formed in 1996, their leaders were backed up by the Indian government.

Most of the Maoist leaders lived in Darjeeling, Lucknow, and Delhi in India and masterminded their plan. These plans were executed by guerrillas who lived in Nepal and were dying to fight. In other words, India created Communism in Nepal. They also were supported by the Indian Communist leaders and other Naxalite group fighting against the Indian government for communism. Surprisingly, India never helped Nepal's government to arrest those leaders and extradite them to Nepal.

When Nepali Maoists met Nepali Communist leaders in Lucknow, India in 2003, India's government did not take the initiative to arrest them, even though they were recognized as terrorists. Hence it is evident that India never wanted peace in Nepal. At the same time, international media was busy defaming King Gyanendra.

The interesting chemistry was all political parties held discussions in India with the Maoists in the Indians' 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 the 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 Nepal's Royal Massacre.

After the Royal Massacre, much speculations was in the air. However, immediately after the incident, the media, funded by India, started to rail against Gyanendra, who was the only heir left to the throne. The strategy of India, the Koiralas and the Maoists, was to defame the 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 the monarchy.
And so that 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 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 began 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 the 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 from 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 an extension of the election date twice, he was never motivated to hold the election. The underlying political reason was that he wanted to remain in office by postponing the election.
As a Chief of State, King Gyanendra could not wait to see his country devastated. This made him sack the cabinet and impose 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 had been going through civil war for ten years. Politicians of Nepal, as an easy excuse to take benefit from inexperienced King put the blame on him. When the 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 Nepalese were pleased to see this progress, the corrupted people were unemployed. The leaders of Nepal were barely educated to find jobs, other than in politics. The government employees who never showed up on time were forced to be in the office and corruption was strictly made illegal. How could idle Nepalese like that? I think that is what made them revolt.
That led the politicians to ally together and form a coalition to fight the King. Nepal and Indian media supported these coalition leaders. 10-15 people gathered to restore democracy and started a protest. It was not until April 2006, when the Maoists joined the movement to fight against king. Truckloads of Maoists entered the capital city to revolt. As a way to spread violence, Maoists attacked other Maoists in the revolution process and charged the 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 framed as a dictator. Following that, if anyone in Nepal supported nationalism, then they were labeled as royalists or a dictator.
Now that the monarchy is gone, common Nepalese who are diehard fans of the 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 Maoist 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.