Trust: The Indian Government had given employment, even in its Armed forces, to the Nepalese citizens.
Empathy: Under the various International Schemes/Plans the best Indian Universities had accommodated Nepalese students even when the latter did not qualify for admission on competitive merits.
Compassion:
The Nepalese small businessmen are permitted to run business in India--without paying any discriminative Tax like the '25% Tax on Profits', 'Tourist Tax' etc.
The Indian Tax-payers are financing the supply, 'on-credit', of petroleum products to the Nepalese economy even though Nepal has no money to pay for it in the foreseeable future.
Sovereignty: The Indian Government has, diplomatically & militarily, ensured that no lcountry violates the sovereignty of Nepal. Remember what happened to Tibet, and what is being done to Nepal's' peace by some disgruntled sections?
It is, therefore, painfu to find some misled and UNGRATEFUL individuals on the Internet abusing & hating ALL the Indian people.

check this link or wiki on sikkim:

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2005/4/13_3.html

The reason of tibet you have given to prove india as a protector is false.

Half knowdledge is always dangerous.

China occupied Tibet militarily, whereas it was the Legislature of Sikkim which (under the leadership of Mr. Bhandari) opted to join the Indian territory.
What made the said Legislature to act the way it did, is not public knowledge--though a few Indian & Sikkimese officials/people do know. Moreso, it happened during the time of a very strong Prime Minister, viz. Mrs Indra Gandhi.
I know because i was in the Armed Forces and my Brother was in the Intellegence at that time.

creativeqb.......if u r a nepali than shame on u...if indian then f**k u all

Listen Creative GB,
NO SOVERGN COUNTRY WOULD WILLINGLY SUBMIT TO ANOTHER COUNTRY JUST LIKE THAT(you talk as if India did them a favor). TO SAY THAT INDIA IS NEAPL'S PROTECTOR ...HE HE IS FULL OF BULLSHIT. WHY THE FUGGING ECONOMIC BLOCADE EVERYTIME NEPALI GOVT DOES NOT SUBMIT TO INDIA"S WISHES ? WHY ARE THE NEPALI BUSINESSMEN ALWAYS HARRASED IN PORTS OF CALCUTTA ? WHY DID INDIAN GOVT EXILE NEPALIS THAT HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR CENTURIES OUT OF ASSAM ? WHY DID INDIA HARBOR WANTED TERRORISTS LIKE BABURAM when they were attacking and killing innocent people in NEPAL ?
At the same time I am not saying India has not helped us(like the things you mentioned above). But TO PORTRAY INDIA AS A PROTECTOR OF NEPAL IS FULL OF BULLSHIT. THEY ARE JUST PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS THATS ALL. WE ARE NOT BLIND thanks but no thanks . he he

Tibet was occupied militarily by China. On the other hand, it was the Legislature of Sikkim which passed a resolution to join India-- out of economic needs.
Now, like all other States, Sikkim, too, gets an annual grant from the Central Government. And the Sikkimese can compete for admission to IIMs/IITs, can win a JRF/SRF (scholarship worth Rs.3,000 per mensem--with no Bonds attached), and can also join IAS/IFS/IPS etc.

Creativeqb(no no you are distructive) Fuccck OFF from the sajha otherwise I will kick your ASSSSS.

Yeah Tibbet was militarily occupied YES. ITS WAS THE LEGISLATURE OF SIKKIM WHICH PASSED A RESOLUTION TO JOIN INDIA ? he he Lets not mislead people here. INDIA COERCED THE LEGISLATURE OF SKKIM TO JOIN INDIA. And with the help of corrupt Sikkim politicians like Bhandari ......India said .....SEE NO HANDS.... NO HANDS. managed to absorb Sikkim effortlessly.

OUT OF ECONOMIC NEEDS ? he he And EVERY TIME INDIA PUTS ECONOMIC BLOCADE AGAINST NEPAL.......NEPAL SLIPS INTO THAT ECONOMIC NEED TOOO. AND IF THEY SQUEEZE US A LIL TOO TIGHT NEPALI PEOPLE WILL BE FORCED TO BOW DOWN TO THE MIGHTY INDIA. AND WE HAVE PLENTY OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN NEPAL WHO LIKE MR BHANDARI WILL NOT HESITATE TO HAND THE AUTHORITY OF NEPALI SOVEREIGN TO INDIANS.

So lets not mislead people here. We are aware of the facts too just like you.

The original post by creativegb reminds me of a conversation between the Indian ambassador to Nepal at that time and a Nepali journalist. The Ambassadors asked almost philosophically "we do so much for you, why do you hate us ?" The answer of the journalist, who I think is a fairly objective person was "It is precisely because you do so much for us"

That in many ways sums up India's dilemma with Nepal : damned if you do, damned if you don't. Of late pragmatists seem to have the upper hand in India's foreign policy establishment, and the message appears to be that is still better to overdo than under do when it comes to assisting Nepal.I feel that is the right approach.

The thing people in Nepal are most sensitive about is their sovereignty - and by that I mean Indian encroachment of their sovereignty. Whether that is a justifiable concern or not is something that has been debated over and over on this and other forms and I don't see much sense in talking about it now. If India wants to win over the hearts and minds of Nepalese, they just need to be more understanding of this concern - bringing Sikkim into the conversation, for example, clearly shows a lack of such understanding.


Plus, Sikkim and Nepal are two very different countries. We are bigger, with more diversity, a stronger sense of nationhood and nationalism (which sometimes has been misguided I admit), and we are, overall, a society deeply conscious about our rights and freedom as 2 revolutions have shown. Good luck to anyone who tries to impose their will on us. In any event, I doubt India will want to annex us - they have enough problems of their own and it is unlikely, as long as common sense prevails in Delhi, that they will want to lord over almost 30 million unruly people and add to their already overflowing cup of woes.

Just my thoughts.

" Now, like all other States, Sikkim, too, gets an annual grant from the Central Government. And the Sikkimese can compete for admission to IIMs/IITs, can win a JRF/SRF (scholarship worth Rs.3,000 per mensem--with no Bonds attached), and can also join IAS/IFS/IPS etc."

If the purpose of the above example is to infeer that Sikkim has benefited from joining India, then that might be a fair case to make. But if you are implying through that example that Nepal might want to do the same, I think you are missing the forest for the trees. First of all, Nepalese can compete under a foreign quota for some of those admissions already. Besides, I don't think a nation of 30 million people is going to hand over the country to India just because they can now be part of full competition for what is it like 50 seats at AIIMs annually? On the contrary, a Nepali might have a better chance competing in the much smaller foreign quota pool than the huge general pool that encompasses hundreds of thousands of test takers.

I hope that is not what you were trying to say because it is a rather absurd argument.

Capn'
I dun think they want to lord over 30 million unruly Nepalis but they definately behave like they want to be landlords of Nepal someday. he he he I know they have enough problems of their own...but that has not stopped them from meddling in internal politics of its neighbours. Like in Sri Lanka and Nepal. They were harbouring Maoist Leaders just like the Tamil Tigers and tauting their respective government. Its like they wanto to mold us to their will.... and you know NEPALI PEOPLE WILL NEVER EVER EVER SUBMIT TO THAT.

CreativeGB nepli people can still get into IIT, AIIMS and all today too. And just like India Nepali government have given Indian citizens of freely trading in NEpal too(and they take that $$$ back to INDIA without any problem). More than half of the most prominet businessmen in NEPAL are of Indian Origin. So lets not make it look like India is doing us a big favor by doing this.

I dont know about IPS, but Nepalese dont even have to take the NDA exam - unlike the rest of most of India - to join the Indian Army if I remember correctly.

The more I think of this, the more your argument, if that is where you were getting with this, seems flawed - almost as flawed as those blind anti-Indians out there on the other end of the spectrum.

From what I hear, then Sikkimese government willingly, with full congnizance, made the decision to join Indian union. I still don't know why? Can somebody please explain?

For what it's worth, I also hear Sikkim nowadays has prospered quite a bit. I do not know if that is because of Indian money that poured in after the union or because Sikkimese kicked out that worthless Bhandari and put in the able Chamling as their Chief Minister.

Few bad people are enough to ruin a lot of good people. This is what exactly happens in conflicts between nations. For example, US invaded Iraq, but it was not because every US citizen wanted to go for that. There were few bad people, motivated by their vested interests, who plotted all the series of fake stories, who influenced intelligence, who argued aggressively before the whole world displaying the fake threat from WMD. They were successful to cross over the US barricade meant for stopping misuse of their military power and they were successful to win majority of their congress votes which allowed them to go for the war - now we are witnessing the result of their success.

Between India and Nepal, I think the same principal is working right now. India can/will never try to annex Nepal as it did with Sikkim. Whoever thinks and argues like that, I believe, they do not fully understand the dynamics of current world. Indians know better than us that by doing so it might put themselve into huge trouble. However, I do not expect indians will give up playing games in nepalese politics and economy, because there is a certain group of people in indian beaurocracy whose career is built up on Nepal. These people do not want to end their career or turn into a low profile officer by limiting the scope of their expertise and experience. Just notice how ShyamSharan was able to get big leap in his promotion immediately after his tenure as an ambassador to Nepal was over; how KV Rajan, SD Muni, Ashok Mehta etc. and company are getting high profile consultation jobs from indian foreign ministry based on their association with nepalese politics. These are the people trying always very hard to involve India into Nepal as much as possible, which must be for their vested interests. In turn of that, India would be making some benefits through treaties, mostly intended to milking from nepalese water resources and human resources. However, I think, India is not making a good judgement on chosing right approach to cultivate those benefits. For India, a prosperous, stable and sovereign Nepal would be much more helpful than a weak and troubled Nepal. Our unfortunate is that few of powerful guys in indian beaurocracy are not yet ready to recognize this positive swath. They will keep hindering Nepal for several years in future and nepalese will keep on having anti-Indian centiments stronger than before.

Chane...Waiyaat Bakwaas....baseless story.

randiii ko chhoro craetivegb, if u r nepali i would love to see u leave nepal and start living in india plz don't make my BP high.

.First, here's a saying for creativegb. I think Alexander Pope, the scientist, said: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Second, a little background history about annexation of Sikkim. Sikkim was a country that was older than Nepal. The dynasty ruling Sikkim at the time of its annexation by India was 1200 years old. The Indian Army dropped its soldiers at midnight from helicopters, surrounded the palace of Sikkimese King, and gave the King an ultimatum: submit to India as a state or go through a bloody coup. The King, who was unwilling to let any people die and who knew he had no options, agreed to give up the country.

P.S. King Birendra did warn the Sikkimese King of India's intentions days ahead of the coup by calling the King and letting him know that India was thinking of attacking and capturing Sikkim. The King of Sikkim disregarded Birendra's suggestions to be careful by saying that Jawaharlal Nehru, who was still alive, would never let such things happen.

P.P.S. Sikkim was captured by India in the 1970's. My question is: What was the United Nations doing when a sovereign country was attacked overnight, captured and declared a state by India?

that means if we have to attack india we have reason to attack

indian army only entered sikkim after the referendum in which majority of people decided to be part of india.

its not that sikkimis were not nationalist but they were outnumbered by indians who influxed rich state of sikkim.

same story with sri lanka. all the tamils are , if you remember, were labours(from india) in various tea estates. later when their number became significant they start demanding for their own separate country.

====================================================
as always
what do i know (O:

thats what they are doing now in terai