The claim doesn't make any sense
India under Pandit Nehru had agressively taken over various Indian Kingdoms and fought a war with Pakistan on Kashmir. Within a few years it had also invaded and taken over French and Portugese territories in India. Sikkim was an independant kingdom which was again co-opeted into the Indian union.
If Nehru didn't care for all this which would have been more expansionist in nature than a union with Nepal, then why would he deny that?
Nehru on Nepal
More info here
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Editorial
India under Pandit Nehru had agressively taken over various Indian Kingdoms and fought a war with Pakistan on Kashmir. Within a few years it had also invaded and taken over French and Portugese territories in India. Sikkim was an independant kingdom which was again co-opeted into the Indian union.
If Nehru didn't care for all this which would have been more expansionist in nature than a union with Nepal, then why would he deny that?
Nehru on Nepal
Speaking in Parliament, Nehru said: “We cannot allow that barrier (Himalayas) to be penetrated... Therefore, much as we appreciate the independence of Nepal, we cannot allow anything to go wrong in Nepal... because that would be a risk to our own security”. What he feared happened. But what we said then is still valid. If the Maoists come to power in Nepal, that would be one of the worst disasters for this country. We cannot permit it.
More info here
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Editorial