Nepal has a lot to fear from India :
Sikkimisation fears in Nepal; then and now : Kurakani in Kathmandu
Sikkimisation fears in Nepal; then and now
Thirty eight years have elapsed since Sikkim ceased to be a monarchy and became a state of the Indian union. But repercussions of the historic development are still felt in neighbouring Nepal.
Fears of Sikkimisation (yes, it’s a word used frequently in Nepal) of Nepal -meaning takeover of the sovereign nation by the bigger southern neighbour is still part of the discourse in political circles and media.
Political parties who see a grand Indian design in everything bad that happens in Nepal use this term frequently to rouse patriotic fervor. And many common Nepalis do believe in Nepal’s imminent Sikkimisation.
Last month Dev Gurung, secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, the faction which split from Pushpa Kamal Dahal led Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), said Sikkimisation has already begun and a violent uprising is the only way to prevent its spread.
This fear is not new. A section in Nepal has been wary of India’s so called Sikkimisation plans for close to four decades now as the recently released Kissinger Cables by whistleblower website WikiLeaks show.
The huge cache of US diplomatic documents circulated between 1973 and 1976 include quite a few cables which indicate how Nepal viewed events unfurling in Sikkim during that period.
A confidential cable sent from the US Embassy in Kathmandu in April 1973 mentions about the Nepal government’s “understandable and predictable” reaction of not making an official statement on disturbances in Sikkim for fear of offending either India or China.
The cable details how four Nepali foreign ministry officials expressed “intense interest” in the position of the great powers including China on the issue during a social gathering and showed feelings of fraternal sympathy for the Nepali majority population in Sikkim.
The officials were also anxious to get Soviet reaction to the developments and asserted that in view of close ties between New Delhi and Moscow, India would not “swallow” Sikkim without a “green light” from the Soviets.
Another cable sent the same month details US Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Rush’s meeting with King Birendra in Kathmandu in which the monarch opined that there were two points of view in Nepal regarding the events in Sikkim.
“One, that it was initiated by India, in which case it would affect others in area, and, two, that situation arose more or less out of internal problems” (in Sikkim),” the cable states.
The situation mentioned is the riots against his unpopular rule which led Palden Thondup Namgyal, the Chogyal (ruler), to seek protection from India.
Birendra told Rush that he was “inclined to believe that it was 50-50 proposition” and that Nepal was closely watching the outcome of events in Sikkim to determine its meaning.
In another meeting with US diplomats a month later Birendra said Indians held all cards in Sikkim and took advantage of the situation. “He (Birendra) said he did not know how (the) present arrangement will work out, but he thinks there will be future troubles in Sikkim,” said the cable.
A cable sent in July 1974 on ‘Nepali view of Sikkimese Events’ notes the total absence of reporting in Nepali press on developments in Sikkim and mentions it could be due to direct guidance from the palace to local journalists.
But common Nepalis were keen on happenings in Sikkim and avidly read reporting in Indian press on the subject. The cable speaks of Nepal government’s concern on how Sikkim could become a sanctuary for activities of Nepali Congress, which was plotting to usher democracy in Nepal.
“Most sophisticated Nepalese recognise that there is no direct connection between politics in Sikkim and Nepal. Nonetheless, there will be some concern that events in Gangtok represent direct Indian intervention in neighbouring Himalayan principality, and Nepalese are always quick to draw parallels between their own situation and those of other Himalayan states,” it said.
Another cable sent the same month mentions of “unhappiness” among Nepalis at various levels due to India’s 1974 nuclear explosion and intervention in Sikkim. “These events have revived fears of Indian hegemonistic designs raised at time of 1971 Bangladesh crisis”, the cable said.
But after remaining mum for over a year, Nepal gave its first official reaction to events in Sikkim when the country’s foreign minister said in August 1974 that it was Nepal’s “unshakable stand that there should be no outside interference in the internal affairs of any country”.
The cable noted that the minister’s statement after weeks of studied silence “had effect of letting genie out of the bottle”.
A month later reacting to news of Sikkim getting parliamentary representation in India, the same minister made a statement wishing for Sikkim to “continue to make progress through the preservation of its traditional entity,” said a September 1974 cable.
The same cable mentions of unanimous condemnation of Indian action in Nepali media and protests by students outside the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu. The cable noted the Sikkim issue could become a contentious one in Indo-Nepal bilateral relations.
A subsequent cable speaks of a 5000-strong student demonstration against India in Kathmandu where traffic was blocked at several places and shops closed in protest against happenings in Sikkim. The cable notes that the well organised campaign had approval from the Nepal government.
During a meeting with a senior US diplomat in New York in September 1974, Nepal’s foreign minister said Nepalis were worried by Indian absorption of Sikkim, which he described as “cleverly managed and deliberately staged”. He also stressed that “sentiments on Sikkim ran very deep in Nepal”.
But sensing New Delhi growing unhappiness at such statements and anti-India protests in Kathmandu, news on Sikkim slowly started disappearing from Kathmandu’s major dailies and protests by students also came down in subsequent months.
And when King Birendra met Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in New Delhi on September 30, 1975 neither sides raised the issue of Sikkim during the “frank and realistic” deliberations.
Posted by
Utpal Parashar on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Filed under
Nepal,
South Asia · Tagged
hindustan times,
indira gandhi,
Nepal,
Nepal Maoist,
Palden Thondup Namgyal,
Pushpa Kamal Dahal,
sikkim,
sikkimisaton,
Utpal Parashar
!Now let us talk about the Indo-Nepal bilateral relation.India and Nepal are two sister countries and we share our Dharmic roots with our Nepalese brethren.Majority of the Indian citizens have huge respect for Nepal due to the selfless service rendered by her brave Gurkha citizen to our country since our independence.India and Nepal have a open border and any Nepalese citizen can work and live in India just like a common Indian citizen.The same is also true about the Indian citizens in Nepal.We are both the proud descendants of the great Dharmic civilisation and i for one consider Nepalese people as my own brothers and sistors.India has always respected Nepal's sovereignty and territorial integrity and we will do the same in the future also.
