Submit your Article

 No one had imagined the Indian mission would stay here long, as Nepal’s official decision included the statement: “The team of the Indian military will, in a year or possibly less, help our army offi­cers train and restructure the Nepal army.” But the Indian mission ended up staying here for 18 years—by set­ting up check-posts on Nepal’s bor­der with China.

Bhadrakali Mishra, the minister for transport and forest, had pro­posed an even more alarming idea. On 13 April 1952, he made a proposal to the Cabinet that our newly gained democracy be protected with the help of Indian police and civil offi­cers, since the army, bureaucrats and even some citizens of Nepal can­not be fully trusted after K.I. Singh’s rebellion. Mishra suggested that two Indian tanks and 500 Indian soldiers equipped with modern weapons be kept in Kathmandu in order to protect the country and its nascent democracy. He also suggested that Indian forces guard the airports at Simara, Tumlingtar, Biratnagar, Pokhara and Taplejung. (Grishma Bahadur Devkota, Nepalko Rajnitik Darpan, Part 1, Page 165). (The Cab­inet did not pass all the points in Mishra’s proposal.)

That was the time when Sir Chan­deshwar Prasad Narayan Singh, the Indian ambassador to Nepal, exercised enormous clout in Kath­mandu. Nepal was buffeted by comments and speculations about Singh’s hand in picking ministers and shaping Cabinet decisions.

Mishra and his deputy minister Dharma Ratna Yami frequently bick­ered about forest clearances and the contracts for them. A majority of the contractors were Indians. Mishra had been appointed a minister by the Congress, but he was let go on 6 June 1952 on the basis of a prime ministerial report alleging ‘increas­ingly irreconcilable differences’. But about two years later, he was again included in the Cabinet reconsti­tuted under Matrika Prasad Koirala.

Disputes and suspicions within Nepali political parties escalated following the arrival of the Indian military mission in Kathmandu

Disputes and suspicions within Nepali political parties escalated following the arrival of the Indian military mission in Kathmandu. At the time, another Indian mis­sion—the Buch Commission tasked with reforming Nepal’s bureau­cracy—was active in Kathmandu as well. Moreover, King Tribhuwan’s advisor-cum-secretary was also an Indian administrator. The presence of the Indians in Nepal’s ruling circle had thickened.

The Indian military mission did not remain confined to moderniz­ing Nepal’s army. The Indians led the government to believe that K.I. Singh could mount an armed attack from China and that the Chinese communist revolution could pene­trate Nepal. They impressed upon the government that both Nepal and India faced threats from China. Sub­sequently, under Indian strategic planning, 18 check-posts were estab­lished, and occupied by the Indian army, on Nepal’s border with Tibet.

The Indian military mission showed no sign of leaving after a year, which caused infighting in the ruling Congress. Its leader BP Koi­rala issued a statement saying that “the Indian military mission, which had come here for a year, should be sent back”. Opposition political outfits were also obviously unhappy with the continued presence of the Indian forces.

Earlier, Indian Prime Minister Nehru had caused a stir in Nepal by saying, “From time immemorial, the Himalayas have provided us with magnificent frontiers.” And when India actually sent a military mission to Nepal, no one, besides those in government, took it lightly.

The next column in the ‘Vault of history’ series will discuss how the Indian military mission was eventually expelled and how India reacted to it

 Nepal is an ancient country, with a history spanning several millennia. But now this country of 30 million people is gradually evolving into a modern democratic state. It has in the past witnessed several social and political upheavals. In the painful process of giving birth to Nepal, the great forefathers of the nation and its people had to struggle against not just unfavorable nature and geography but also the onslaught of various imperial forces.

Situated between India and China, Nepal is a melting pot of the two civilizations. While Buddha (Sakya Muni) was born in Nepal 2,500 years ago and Bud­dhism spread all across the globe from Nepal, the great Himala­yas spread over 800 miles on the northern part of the country are the abode of Shiva and Parvati, the mythological Hindu gods. For thousands of years, the caves in the Himalayas have served as cov­eted destinations for great sages.

The Himalayas, a perpet­ual source of inspiration for mankind, encourage them to achieve the highest goal of liberation from social evils including hunger, disease, pover­ty, inequality and injustice. Nepal is one of the most diverse coun­tries in terms of religion, language and ethnicity in addition to being a land of varying geography, veg­etation, wildlife, climate and bio­sphere. More than 100 languages and dialects are spoken by almost as many ethnic communities.

Impeccable religious and communal harmony is another signature trait of Nepal. Hindu­ism, Buddhism, Islam, Christi­anity, Jainism and Sikhism are so well blended that the coun­try has become an unparalleled abode for the followers of diverse religious beliefs. People can practice their religion without any fear of the state or the society.

Right now this great country is at a crossroads. Internal and external forces are working in tandem to undermine its social fabric. This is one of the three major challenges facing the nation. To strike a balance between class, ethnicity, gender and region is a challenging task that should be the state’s top priority. Strengthening social fabric and harmony by promoting unity among the people across their ethnic, linguistic, religious, gender, religious as well as polit­ical divides is the government’s fundamental task. Given the geostrategic location of the coun­try, no government or responsible political party could ignore this issue. Besides, the forces that may raise their ugly heads under the guise of strengthening federalism and devolution of power must be checked on time. The incum­bent government has done a com­mendable job by mainstreaming a separatist movement in Tarai.

The second big challenge is to recalibrate the present model of development. Nepal is one of the poorest nations of the world. It is rightly said that the country is sitting on a goldmine and yet is impoverished. An imposed model of development, which is nonetheless accepted by our policymakers and leadership alike, is solely responsible for the dismal state of affairs.

The present western model of development adopted since the nineties has failed to pull the country out of the morass of poverty and backwardness. The development model prac­ticed by the incumbent govern­ment as well as previous regimes has instead served only foreign interests. It has failed to create national capital. Year after year a major part of the budget is spent on the import of goods and services. The borrowed devel­opmental model of the west has accelerated the flight of financial and human capital. The flawed development model does not view our precious water resource as a vehicle to revive agricultural production through a network of dams and irrigation canals—something that would bring pros­perity to millions of farmers and make the country self-reliant in food grains. Harnessing the rivers as per this planning would create a solid base for industries too.

No industrial development is possible without the founda­tion of agriculture. From the US to Israel through to China and India, industrial development was based on high growth in their agricultural production. But our policymakers continue to be obsessed with generating and exporting electricity. This type of development model would only serve the interests of corpo­rate insiders rather than those of the peasants. Our rivers should first be used to quench the thirst of the people and livestock and second for the farmers to irrigate their crops.

The third major challenge for Nepal is to maintain a balanced foreign policy. Since the coun­try’s founding in 1768, Nepal has practiced a balanced foreign pol­icy with China and India, thanks to the great farsightedness of our founders. Geography itself has ordained the country to maintain balanced relations with our two equally important neighbors. But due to the short-sightedness of some leaders at the helm, misun­derstandings and problems have emerged. Maintaining equal and balanced relations with China vis-à-vis India is the most challenging task for Nepal. If handled with foresight and diligence, these challenges could also turn into great opportunities.

The author is a centralcommittee member, Nepal Communist Party

 Those of you who are regular readers will have noticed that I was not in the paper last week. When I queried why my column didn’t appear I was told that a two-page sports feature had taken up my, and other, space. Yes, quite true, I had noticed the middle spread was all about sport. “Not all read­ers are interested in football”, I quipped. “It’s World Cup cricket”, came the reply. “Which just proves my point. Period.” So it would seem we are entering five weeks of world class cricket coverage. Which, now that I look closely at the two-page spread, is being held mainly in England.

Despite being British, I know noth­ing about cricket. Or very little about it. I have, over the years, watched the IPL matches out of India. On and off. With interesting names such as Chennai Super Kings and Kolkata Knight Riders and having patrons/owners the likes of Shah Rukh Khan, there is a little more spice (masala maybe?) to watching this cricket league. But it’s mainly the audience’s reactions that I am watching. To me the audiences in India provide more entertainment that those men in various colors running around a field! The cheer­leaders dancing around, pompoms in hand to Bollywood numbers are also fun to watch. And so, just not (English) cricket!

Aside from the IPL, I know as much about Indian cricket as I do about any breed of cricket. But I do know that when India and Paki­stan play, the TV viewing rates go through the roof! Quick men­tion here of the fact India play Pakistan on June 22 in the Cricket World Cup. I might even watch that one—if someone will sponsor me a drink or two!

Meantime, oddly enough, some weeks ago I did meet Jonty Rhodes, a former South African cricket player and fielding coach of IPL team the Mumbai Indians. He, along with West Indies and Afghanistan coach, Ryan Maron, were here in Nepal for a 10-day high performance coaching camp aiming to both train coaches and select a few young players for the national under-19 team. Not only was Rhodes extremely impressed by the level of ability in Nepal, he also stood up for child rights. In the press meet of the Dhangadhi Premier League (DPL) 2019 Rhodes signed a commitment to end child mar­riage in Nepal, put forward by social partner World Vision International Nepal. Bet you didn’t know that Mr Cricket Fan.

Okay so maybe I do know more about cricket than I realized. Per­haps it’s my sporty father. I don’t think he ever played cricket but when I was very young he was the commentator at Gayfield Park, the football stadium in Arbroath, Scot­land. Since we lived in Arbroath at the time, and since he somehow, I don’t know how, was obviously enough of a fan to be a commentator, he supported the Scottish Football League team, Arbroath FC. And still makes an annual trip to Gayfield to support his team.

I remember sitting high up in the commentator’s box on Saturday afternoons. Most probably having an Arbroath pie at half time. Or a bri­die (similar to a pie but shaped more like a big Tibetan Shabaley), coming famously from down the road in For­far. But no, I don’t like football either. Also in Arbroath, my father was a tennis coach at a private tennis club. And no, I don’t like tennis either. See a pattern here?

Anyway, back to the World Cup Cricket, which I will not be watch­ing. For those who got excited to see the schedule printed out in the middle of this publication last week I can only say bah humbug! Just kidding… But some of you were missing me, I know. I’ll see you guys in the bar. And rest of you, cricket loving folks, I wish you few no balls!

 Upon an ‘urgent request’ from Nepal, the Indian Army entered Nepal on 10 March 1952, ostensibly to train and restruc­ture Nepal’s army. Nepal made an official statement saying that it was grateful to the Indian government for sending the officers. But it was branded “foreign interference” by Nepali Congress leaders outside the government as well as by other political forces. The entry of Indian forces into Nepal took place against the back­drop of K.I. Singh’s rebellion (about which I have written in previous issues). The Rana fam­ily and their courtiers wielded enormous power and influence in the army and the upper echelons of the state apparatus. Unhappy with the regime change, many Rana major generals, who had lost their perks and prestige, had resigned voluntarily.

With the ouster of Mohan Shumsher, Matrika Prasad Koirala had become prime minister on 19 November 1951, and the new government was comprised of Nepali Congress leaders and palace loyalists. The Ranas and those under their patronage wanted to destabilize democracy, and the government was scared of them. It was put under the impression that a reactionary plot was a distinct possibility, and it sought an Indian military mission within three months of its formation.

That was the time the commu­nists had come to power in China—something that did not go down well with India and the democratic West. The Congress government in Nepal was made to believe that K.I. Singh could return from China and bring communism along. Afraid of a potential revolt, the government readily accepted the Indian military mission.

King Tribhuvan also agreed to it. Having won back his crown with Indian help, Tribhuvan felt obligated to return the favor. Many believe he accepted the Indian mission to repay India for its support. At the time, Tribhuvan was virtually all-powerful, and the government could not have taken key decisions without his consent. The palace posed no obstacle to the entry of the Indian military mission and the establishment of Indian check-posts on Nepal’s border with China.

Amid fears of K.I. Singh and China as well as a counter-revolu­tion from the Ranas, the Matrika Prasad Koirala government felt the acute need for training and restruc­turing the Nepali army. The gov­ernment’s formal decision states, “Our freedom is sacred to us. Safe­guarding our newly won democracy from internal and external threats requires a well-trained and modern army. To meet this objective, we welcome our neighboring country India’s assistance.” (Nepal Gazette, 14 April 1952).

About a month prior to the pub­lication of that statement, Indian army officials had visited Nepal to discuss the matter with their Nepali counterparts. Nepal Gazette states that the Indian military mis­sion came here with the consent of the head of the Nepal army. It further says, “The Nepal govern­ment decided to invite a team of 20 Indian army officers and their staff. The Indian government has kindly accepted Nepal’s request to pay their salary.” The Indian contingent would later expand.

Some argue that the Indian army personnel were in Nepal to help with the building of the Tribhu­van International Airport and the Tribhuvan Highway. But the Indian army officers appeared more eager to become Nepal’s de facto rulers than to train the Nepali army. They started concocting various agen­das to call Nepal’s prime minister, ministers and high-level officials for meetings.

Many did not like the attendance of PM Matrika Prasad Koirala in the meetings they summoned. But such attendances gradually became reg­ular. It wasn’t that the arrival of the Indian Army attracted no public crit­icism. In fact, there was widespread criticism of “foreign interference” from even within the ruling Con­gress. The entry of the Indian mili­tary mission was also seen as a plan to gain command of Nepal’s foreign and defense policies.

The next column in the ‘Vault of his­tory’ series will discuss the duration and the political implications of the Indian military mission in Nepal