The Chinese army entered Nepali territory and shot dead an army personnel on 28 June 1960 in the district of Mustang, resulting in considerable tension between the two neighbors.

China informed Nepal that it had sent its army to suppress Tibetan rebels. It said that the operation would be carried out without crossing the border and that the Chinese army would retreat 20 kilometers once the task was over. But on the very next day, the Chinese army entered Nepal and opened fire on a border inspection team. As soon as it got information about the firing, the Nepal government dispatched a strongly-worded letter, saying, “We are deeply wounded and our sovereignty greatly hurt by the action of the Chinese who entered Nepali territory and opened fire, even though Nepal has been a good friend of China. We demand the return of the abductees and the dead. We will also have the right to seek compensation for the incident.”

Nepal was on high alert following the Chinese invasion of Tibet. The Chinese premier had assured Nepal that his army would not, under any circumstances, penetrate into Nepali territory. Said Home Minister Surya Prasad Upadhyaya in the parliament: “It was beyond our imagination that the Chinese army would suddenly enter Nepal and open fire. Foreign forces opened fire on our soil after over a century. Naturally, all self-respecting Nepalis are hurt.”

The entry of the Chinese PLA caused a stir in the parliament. Upadhyaya informed that a 17-member Nepali team was on an inspection visit to the border when the Chinese forces entered the country and opened fire. Subedar Bam Prasad of the Nepal Army was shot dead. His corpse and the Nepali team members were taken to the Chinese camp.

The prime ministers of the two countries repeatedly corresponded with each other over the incursion. China later returned the abductees and Subedar Bam Prasad’s body to Nepal.

China had sent a letter to the Nepali prime minister on 12 July 1960, and had agreed to make a compensatory payment of Rs 50,000 for the losses and damages Nepal incurred. It said: “An unfortunate event took place when the Chinese army tried to crush the rebel bandits. There is no point or benefit in continuing to debate the incident site. We had informed the Nepal government of the arrival of our forces in Chinese territory close to the border in order to suppress Tibetan rebel bandits. As soon as the mission was completed, the Chinese army would retreat 20 kilometers from the border. The Chinese government upholds its border agreements.”

In the same letter, China had suggested that such incidents would not be repeated if an embassy and radio broadcasting service could be set up in the capitals of the two countries. Nepal sent a letter in response, saying, “We appreciate that China has acknowledged its unilateral military action based on short notice. Certainly, one-sided action by either government violates not only the words but also the spirit of the border agreement.”

Prime Minister BP Koirala said, “The Chinese premier’s response is satisfactory. What else can we do besides express indignation and demand an apology and compensation? Premier Zhou has accepted all that.” The issue subsided because China apologized immediately.

Political temperatures in Nepal had risen at the time, after All-India Radio broadcast news that the Chinese army had encroached upon several border points. Indian radio stations were influential in Nepal at the time as there were no other news sources.

Prime Minister Koirala had said in the parliament, “The news about the Chinese having encroached on a number of border areas is unverified. Such unconfirmed reports are being peddled not just by foreigners but also by some Nepalis so as to sell their newspapers. Such behavior could create a crying-wolf situation.” 

Next week’s ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss the life and times of Yogi Naraharinath, a colorful and influential character in Nepali politics after the restoration of democracy in 1950

Vault of history: XXXIV Ramailo Mela rumpus

While Nepal keeps running into disputes with its southern neighbor, it rarely does so with the northern one. Only twice have there been serious controversies between Nepal and China—once in 1960 during the parliamentary period (which will be discussed in the next issue) and then in 1967 during the Panchayat era. For a while, it seemed the second one would take on an extreme form, but in the end it was resolved without major ramifications. 

In the third week of June 1967, various activities were taking place to celebrate King Mahendra’s birthday. Part of the celebrations was a fair in Brikuti Mandap, Kathmandu, where the Chinese had also set up a stall, at which they had put up a big portrait of Chairman Mao, but not of King Mahendra. On that pretext, a group of ‘nationalist’ students vandalized the Chinese stall. The police were able to disperse the students, but then they started pelting stones at the vehicles belonging to the Chinese parked outside. An abnormal situation arose when people started chanting slogans against the Chinese, in an episode that came to be known as the ‘Ramailo Mela Kaanda’. 

China did not take this incident lightly; it issued a strong response, saying that it suspected an Indian or American hand in triggering the vandalism. It sent a letter of protest to Nepal, giving a warning to ‘imperialists, revisionists and reactionaries’. “For encouraging activities like these, they will break their own skulls and their followers will also suffer the consequences of their actions,” it said. China accused the American ‘imperialists’, the Soviet ‘revisionists’ and the Indian ‘reactionaries’ of inciting Nepali hooligans to commit hateful and unseemly acts against the Chinese. (Yadu Nath Khanal, Jeevani ra bichaar, (2059), Sajha Publication).

Those were not the only accusations; China also claimed Nepal had forbidden people from wearing lockets with Mao’s picture and carrying books containing his maxims. Thereafter, Nepal-China relations were strained for a while. China was not only angry about the incident, it also demanded that Nepal accord to the Chinese in Nepal the same status that it accorded to the Indians in the country. 

To build understanding with China, Nepal recalled its ambassador to India, Yadu Nath Khanal, and appointed him foreign secretary. Among Khanal’s main briefs was improving relations with the northern neighbor. After a year, a team led by Deputy Prime Minister Kirti Nidhi Bista visited China and held intensive talks with the Chinese, only after which was the matter resolved. 

Nepal convinced the Chinese that it had no policy or intent of carrying out anti-China activities. There has indeed been no visible conflict between the two countries following the incident at Brikuti Mandap. China has helped Nepal’s ruling establishment in every political era. The northern neighbor was particularly pleased after the Nepal Army in 1974 quelled the Khampa rebels active in the district of Mustang for the cause of a free Tibet.

Next week’s ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss the ‘Mustang Kaanda’, an incident in which the Chinese army entered Nepali territory and shot dead a Nepali army personnel 
 

Vault of history : XXXIII
The Everest dispute 

The strategy to minimize the Chinese presence on the East-West Highway continued for a long time. India was displeased that in 1985 a Chinese company won a global bid to build the Koha­lpur-Banabasa road section in the far-west under a World Bank loan investment. The southern neighbor put pressure on Nepali rulers to scrap the tender awarded to the Chinese company and ended up investing 500 million Indian Rupees of its own money. Harish Chandra Mahat, then minister for construc­tion and transport, resigned after the annulment of the Chinese con­tract. But Nepal benefitted, as it did not have to bear the burden of another foreign loan.The ‘Mount Everest dispute’ had been settled with King Mahendra’s visit to China. But the Nepal-China boundary agreement was overshad­owed by the controversy that the Kodari Highway generated. As per the boundary accord, which King Mahendra and President Liu Shaoqi had signed on 5 October 1961, Nepal and China agreed to erect border pillars in a manner convenient for both the countries. They agreed to take the historical boundary as a base, but to adjust it on the basis of joint inspections, equal­ity, friendship, mutual interest, and cooperation.

After Mahendra returned from China, a felicitation ceremony was held in his honor in Tundikhel on 27 October 1961. “We are proud to be able to say that Mount Everest, which the whole world seems to be eyeing, falls squarely inside Nepal,” declared Mahendra in a long speech he gave in Tundikhel.

Indian newspapers extensively covered the story on the Nepal-China border accord and weighed in on how easily China had agreed to it. Their view was that China should sign a border agreement with India the same way it had done with Nepal and Burma.

King Mahendra was delighted that he was able to resolve the Ever­est dispute. Previously, no one in Nepal had paid attention to the northern frontier; everybody took it for granted that the mountains belonged to Nepal. But controversy emerged when China claimed Ever­est; such a claim was also shrouded in mystery. There was a long discus­sion in Nepal’s parliament in April 1960 over the Chinese claim and the threat posed by the spread of communism.

Then Prime Minister BP Koirala had said in the parliament that the government would try to bring Chi­nese Premier Zhou Enlai around on Everest during his impending visit to Nepal. “We have told them that Everest belongs to us. Zhou Enlai is coming to Nepal. I don’t want to say anything other than to request everybody not to spoil the political environment. It won’t be appropri­ate to get worked up at a moment like this,” Koirala had remarked. Nepal had not expected a border dispute with China before the inva­sion of Tibet.

Mount Everest had shot to fame following its first ascent by Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary on 29 May 1953. Dispute arose when China placed it within its territory in a map it published in 1954. Some in Nepal were even considering staging a demonstration or waving black flags during Premier Zhou Enlai’s visit. But Prime Minister BP Koirala had said in the parliament that such acts would be unbecoming. And no protest took place when Zhou Enlai came here on 22 April 1960. Instead, the slogan ‘Chini-Nepali bhai bhai, let Nepal-China friendship last for­ever’ was chanted.

During Zhou Enlai’s visit, Nepal and China agreed “to resolve through normal diplomacy any disagreement or conflict that may arise between the two countries.” They also agreed to form a technical committee to settle the boundary disputes. The agreement helped clear up the differences between Nepal and China.

Next week’s ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss the ‘Ramailo Mela Kaanda’, an incident involving the vandalism of a Chinese stall at a fair in Bhrikuti Mandap

Vault of history : XXXII
Cold War in Nepal

India did not want Nepal to cul­tivate deep ties with China. Ever since Nepal established formal diplomatic relations with China on 1 August 1955, India began view­ing Nepal suspiciously. Successive Nepali kings and prime ministers started visiting China. India was unhappy about Chinese premier Zhou Enlai’s visit to Nepal on 22 April 1960. India also never approved of Nepali leaders like Tanka Prasad Acharya and Kirti Nidhi Bista who advocated better ties with China.

Work on the highway started with the formation of the ‘Kathman­du-Kodari Highway Construction Committee’ on 25 February 1963. (Later, its name was changed to Arniko highway.) The construction of the 114-km road, which ran from Kathmandu to Kodari on the Chi­nese border, was completed within two years. Nepalis living in the vicin­ity of the highway recall interesting stories about the Chinese workers brought in to build the road. Accord­ing to them, the Chinese used to satirize Nepalis’ indolence.

The Chinese devoted themselves to work day and night and did not like the sights of Nepalis indulging in idle talk, drinking and smoking. The Chinese used to smile when they saw monkeys around the construc­tion site during the day. At night, they hunted them. Although they never did so in front of the Nepalis, the monkey population around the site was wiped out.

King Mahendra had also launched ‘the great campaign’ to build an east-west highway. After the con­struction of the Kathmandu-Kodari highway, his attention was directed to roads in Tarai. China had showed interest in building a road to the east of Dhalkebar and had even begun preliminary survey work. But India, which was spooked by its recent war with China, did not want China’s presence on its border.

So India decided to build road sections east of Dhalkebar and west of Butwal. The Soviet Union helped with the Pathlaiya-Dhalke­bar section; India did not mind that as it had warm relations with the Soviet Union. China had already signed an agree­ment to build the Dhalkebar-Mo­rang section. Nepal found itself in a difficult spot when India started issuing veiled threats. Scrapping the agreement could draw the ire of the Chinese. According to then Finance Secretary Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, China easily understood Nepal’s pre­dicament. It accepted Nepal’s pro­posal to let India build that section and divert Chinese investment to another project. Nepal felt relieved by the flexibility of the Chinese, who without fuss directed their investment to the Naubise-Pokhara road section.

Because of its suspicion of the Chinese, India built most sections of the Mahendra highway—which meant lots of Indian contractors, construction workers, and even kitchen staff entered Nepal. Many of them enjoyed their stay in Nepal and settled here. This was in sharp contrast to the limited number of Chinese contractors and workers who came to Nepal and went back to their country after their projects ended. The Chinese had worked on the Sunkoshi project after the construction of the Kodari highway.

When communist nations like China and the Soviet Union started investing in physical infrastructures like roads, factories and power plants, the westerners grew anx­ious. They also adopted a policy of investing in infrastructure in Nepal. Countries of both blocs—commu­nist and capitalist—competed to give aid to Nepal. Recalls Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, “King Mahendra created an environment for com­petition between free-market coun­tries and socialist ones. He did so on purpose.”

The next ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss the boundary agreement between Nepal and China, including the resolution of the dispute over Mount Everest

Vault of history XXXI
Highway and geopolitics

In the speech he delivered in Pokhara in the presence of Indi­ans, King Mahendra said that people were commenting on the proposed link with China without appreciating the fact that he was trying to convert an old commercial mule trail into a modern highway. Mahendra had delivered a long speech, with references to politics, political ideologies, and develop­ment. “If they talk about the growth of communism, all I have to say is that ideologies neither grow on trees nor sprout from the ground. They are embraced or rejected based on the times and the circumstances, and on their suitability for a coun­try’s traditions and situation,” he had said. He wanted the Indians to hear this. He needed to allay their and the westerners’ apprehensions about China.

As the talk about the Kathman­du-Kodari highway gained traction, Nepali ministers and ambassadors came out in its defense. Minis­ter Tulsi Giri voiced his opinion rather strongly. “If India does not approve of a road link to the north and if China does not approve of a road link to the south, should Nepal stop building roads?” he asked.

Sino-Indian ties were worsening in those days. In fact, the two coun­tries went to war a year later. China was also openly hostile to the US. Chairman Mao had declared, “Our enemy is the expansionist policy of the US, and its political structures and institutions.” The strained rela­tions between these countries had a bearing on the Kathmandu-Kodari highway. There were even attempts to drag it into controversy and scrap the agreement.

The influence of the Soviet Union, another communist country, on Nepal was also growing. That’s why the western countries, which took the spread of communism serious­ly, were warning Nepal against its dangers.

King Mahendra had come to a conclusion that the publicity against Nepal could create problems. He even sent a team representing Nepal to the US and the UK to explain the reality surrounding the Kathman­du-Kodari highway. A team of Amer­icans had also come to Nepal to understand the matter. Mahendra’s message was, “Communism won’t travel in a taxi.” (Some said Mahen­dra had said that it won’t come in a ‘truck’, but actually Mahendra had used the word ‘taxi’.)

To explain things, Mahendra had sent to the US Bhekh Bahadur Tha­pa, the then member secretary of the National Planning Commission. Thapa had studied in the US and had returned to Nepal just a year earlier. This is how he recalls those days: “King Mahendra had asked me to explain to the Americans, with facts, the reality about Nepal. He wanted me to tell them that Nepal was virtu­ally India-locked and the agreement on the Kodari highway was signed only with the intension of reducing Nepal’s dependence on India; not to promote or embrace the Chinese Maoist ideology.”

Mahendra also employed the Nepali diplomatic missions abroad to ease western suspicions. Nepal’s ambassador to the UK at the time said, “India is angry about the agree­ment with China. The Indian per­spective that Nepal is tilting toward China is flawed. Nepal will never be a communist state during King Mahendra’s reign. Nor will it be Chi­na’s client nation. We cannot even imagine communism in Nepal so long as the reins of power are in the king’s hands.” (Grishma Bahadur Devkota, Nepalko rajnitik darpan, Part 3)

Next week’s ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss how Nepalis living in the vicinity of the Arniko highway remember the Chinese workers employed in its construction

“Communism won’t come here in a taxi.” This statement by King Mahendra had become very famous, not just in Nepal but across the globe. He made this state­ment close to the first anniversary of the dissolution of the parliamentary system and the elected government. He said it in response to some coun­tries’ suspicion that the Chinese authoritarian communist system could enter Nepal.When an agreement was signed with China on 27 September 1961 to build a highway linking Kathmandu with Kodari, there were incessant talks in Nepal about how Chinese communism would easily travel here. Naturally, India was alarmed; it feared such a road link would pose a threat to its security. West­ern countries were also unnerved. They too were apprehensive about the spread of communism in Nepal. “With the agreement on the Kodari highway, Nepal has openly invited communism,” they would say.

At the time of the agreement, Mao’s communist rule had been in existence for 12 years and Mahen­dra was on a two-week trip to Chi­na. In Beijing, a civilian honor was conferred on him, and in a speech Mahendra called Mao’s revolution “glorious”. He also said there had been ‘a rebirth of the people’s eco­nomic revolution’ and an increase in China’s power during Mao’s rule.

Indian newspapers painted that speech as sycophancy toward Chi­na. Mahendra had told the Chinese President that Nepal would not be a satellite state of any nation. “We don’t intend to follow any particular country or power alli­ance,” he had said. China, how­ever, expressed more concern about Tibet than about Nepal’s political situation.

In response, Chinese President Liu Shaoqi said: “When a handful of reactionaries revolted in Tibet, Nepal was firm with the right pol­icy of not interfering in China’s internal affairs.” One reason why China has remained happy with Nepal is because when it comes to Tibet, Nepal has always supported China. After Mahendra came back home, the apprehension of com­munism coming to Nepal was more common among foreigners than among Nepalis.

The defeat of the Kuomintang in 1949 had given birth to an era of Mao’s communism in China. China was distinct from western countries; it was also spreading communism aggressively. It brought Tibet under its control in the name of reform. But it did not do so until com­munism was firmly established. After the invasion of Tibet, there were fears that China would also enter Nepal and India. Stopping China’s advance was a strategy that India and western countries had adopted.

Both India and China said they would consider an attack on Nepal an attack on their own soil. While it was an expression of affection, it was also a roundabout way of saying that Nepal was under their security umbrella.

Mahendra had made the state­ment involving communism and taxi at a public forum attended by Indi­ans at a time when American and Indian suspicions were at a peak. He had inserted it in an interesting man­ner into a speech he delivered on 18 November 1961 at the inauguration of the Parthi Dam in Pokhara, which was built with Indian aid.

He said: “I’ve heard that some people say building the Kathman­du-Lhasa highway will be akin to inviting communism. It makes me laugh. I have nothing to tell those who, in their parochial ways, main­tain that communism will only travel in a taxi. I can only express sym­pathy for them. What else can I say?” (Shree Panch Maharajadhi­raj Mahendra Bir Bikram Shahdev baata bakseka ghosana, bhasan ra sandeshharu, 2022)

Next week’s ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss how Nepal tried to allay Western suspicions of Chinese communism

To woo Nepali Congress leaders, King Mahendra had assured them that the multi-party system would be reestab­lished within five to seven years. In line with such assurances, Home Minister Bishwa Bandhu Thapa made a radio announcement on 11 January 1961, in which he claimed that BP Koirala was still his leader and that the Congress flag would wave again in the country within five to six years. The January 5 (Poush 22) statement announcing the ban on political parties had included the phrase ‘for now’. In fact, in his new year’s message on 13 April 1961 (1 Baishakh 2018 BS), King Mahendra had said that the political system would change for the better in five to seven years once democracy takes root in the country. “We will keep moving ahead in line with national sentiments and with the aim of establishing democracy from the bottom up. And after five to seven years, when people are able to make an informed choice, they will pick a system or ideology appropriate for the circumstances,” the monarch had announced.

 With the advent of the Panchayat regime, the country started celebrating Poush 1 as a ‘historic day’ and Poush 22 as ‘Panchayat day’. Every year on these two days, people staged demonstrations throughout the coun­try against the multi-party parliamentary system and in praise of the Panchayat regime. Poush 1 was continually publicized as the day that would bring about ‘a new dawn and fresh horizons’. Throughout the Panchayat reign, demonstrations were held across the country on Poush 1 with the slogan “Let the Panchayat system last forever.”

Panchas (proponents of the Panchayat regime) never tired of repeating that the tenets of the democratic parliamentary sys­tem were ‘imported, hollow principles’. For 29 years straight, the government machin­ery waged a propaganda campaign against democracy and democratic values and norms, reminiscent of the style of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister.

King Mahendra ran the cabinet under his own chairmanship for 27 months, during which time the cabinet meetings took place at the Narayanhiti Palace. On 2 April 1963, Mahendra appointed Tulsi Giri as the cabinet chairman. At the same time, Bishwa Bandhu Thapa was appointed the chairman of the National Panchayat and was no longer a cab­inet minister. Surya Bahadur Thapa, while remaining the deputy chair of the cabinet, climbed up the political hierarchy from third to second position.

In the initial stage, Tulsi Giri, Bishwa Bandhu Thapa and Surya Bahadur Thapa were the three main pillars of the Panchayat regime. But in 1963, rifts started appearing between King Mahendra and Tulsi Giri. And on 23 December 1963, Giri resigned from his post, citing health reasons. But Surya Bahadur Thapa wooed him back, and a cabinet was formed under Giri’s chairmanship on 26 February 1964. But Giri could not feel comfortable being part of the cabinet and resigned on 25 January 1965, citing health reasons once again. After that, the palace left no stone unturned to destroy Giri; it even arrested him in April 1968 and imprisoned him for three months.

As clever and ambitious King Mahendra was, he was equally adept at using people to pursue his interests. He had adopted a policy of woo­ing and cowing influential Congress leaders, and of using them and casting them off once they outlived their utility. He used to ask them whether they wanted to become a minister or to go to jail.

After Giri, Mahendra used Surya Bahadur Thapa. Mahendra dismissed Thapa in March 1969 and appointed Kirti Nidhi Bista as prime minister. After Bista’s membership of the National Panchayat expired, he resigned on 13 April 1970.

From the next day on, King Mahendra ruled the country directly for a year. And on 16 April 1971, he once again appointed Bista as prime minister. For Mahendra, Bista was an uncom­plicated and compliant fellow, and he was the prime minister when the king breathed his last on 31 January 1972.

 Although King Mahendra dis­solved the government and the parliament on December 15, he did not immediately impose a ban on political parties. Before mounting the royal coup, he had had serious consultations with non-Congress leaders. The king had only expressed dissatisfaction with the government; he had not talked about banning political parties.

On 5 January 1965, King Mahen­dra delivered a long royal speech in which he announced the ban on political parties. The Panchayat system was also introduced on the same day. Otherwise, for 22 days after the royal coup, neither were political activities proscribed nor was the new system christened. Only on the day following the royal coup had the Home secretariat imposed a nationwide ban on polit­ical meetings, assemblies, speeches and demonstrations and on inflam­matory publicity until “another directive was issued”.

Only after 22 days of the royal coup did Mahendra announce that political parties would pose an obstacle to the emergence of a ‘new dawn and nation-building’. He said, “We have ‘for now’ declared politi­cal parties and politically-motivated class-based organizations illegiti­mate and placed a ban on them.”

In fact, Mahendra’s initial intent was to ban only the Congress, the party with a two-third parliamen­tary majority. The ban on all politi­cal parties was imposed only at the insistence of Bishwa Bandhu Thapa and Tulsi Giri. Thapa once told me, “We believed not just the Congress but even smaller political outfits should not be let free. All parties should be treated equally. We told the king they all have to be banned through a cabinet decision. The entire blame can be put on us.”

Giri and Thapa became propo­nents of a system under a single leader. In an interview Thapa gave during the Panchayat reign, he said, “We told the king that if he intends to be a leader, there shouldn’t be any other in the country. The sys­tem should be partyless. Without the king’s leadership, the Panchayat system would be lifeless. As long as the king’s leadership is there, no one else should dream of being a leader.” (Saptahik Manch, 30 June 1983).

Once the ban on political par­ties was imposed, King Mahendra became established as an author­itarian ruler. On the same day, he made an announcement asserting that the Panchayat system was the foundation of democracy. “Because the democracy imposed from the top down has turned out to be ill-fated for the country, we now need to strengthen the foundation of democracy from the bottom up,” he declared.

Incidentally, it was not the palace that came up with the name ‘Pan­chayat’. The credit goes to none other than Bishwa Bandhu Thapa. Upon taking the reins of power, King Mahendra was looking for a system ‘appropriate for the Nepali soil’. The responsibility for christening the system fell on the shoulders of Thapa and Giri. When BP Koi­rala was prime minister, his friend Jayaprakash Narayan, the veteran Indian socialist leader, had gifted him a small booklet entitled ‘Pan­chayat System’, which argued that development and politics can be taken synchronously all the way down to the village level. The book­let was in the possession of Thapa, who recalls: “I explained to the king the Panchayat scheme in detail. I told him about its plans and pro­grams. He liked the scheme and the plans. And so the Panchayat system was announced” .

Next week’s ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss the early years of the Panchayat regime