OPINION: Greater Nepal and laughter
Posted by barunroy on November 1, 2009

FROM MYREPUBLICA.COM

DR RAMESH KHATRY


Rate This

00

Some patriots advocate that we should campaign for Greater Nepal. The Sugauli Treaty of 1816 restricted Nepal roughly to our present borders. In May 1858, after Jang Bahadur helped the British during the Sepoy Mutiny (some call it the first agitation for independence for India), he received back Banke, Bardiya, Kailali and Kanchanpur. Before the ill-fated 1814 Anglo-Nepali war, our borders stretched from the river Teesta to the East and Sutlez to the west. The argument goes – when the British left India, they should’ve restored Nepal to those very same borders.

Matrika Prasad Koirala laments that the Ranas didn’t ask the British for “Greater Nepal” when they left India for good. They “did never even think of claiming back the territories of Nepal, which were ceded to the British Crown in the year 1815; not even the contiguous area of Nepali-speaking Darjeeling and the like. They were rather content with the hush money of Rs 250 million, which Great Britain promised them and independent India paid later. Pt. Nehru personally mentioned this to me in 1948” (A Role in a Revolution, p. 41).

We can’t yet take care of what we already have. History tells us that no government ever made the welfare of Nepalis its priority. If a government can’t look after its smaller population, why demand for more? More recently, scholars have argued for Greater Nepal through articles in some national dailies. They leave the methodology towards that goal vague. However, they have expressed such thoughts precisely when India has encroached upon our eastern, western and southern borders. I admit that I’ve laughed at sentiments for Greater Nepal. Why?

First, we can’t yet take care of what we already have. History tells us that no government ever made the welfare of Nepalis its priority. If a government can’t look after its smaller population, why demand for more? We may excuse Prithvi Narayan Shah for poor administration because he had to spend most of his life fighting. But none of his descendants can claim to have done any better. His son Pratap Singh had no interest in governance. He indulged himself in poetry, music and tantricism (the art of gaining power through spiritual rituals and yoga); and, as Ludwig F. Stiller (The Rise of the House of Gorkha, p.120) claims, deflowered many virgins in the process.

His successor Rana Bahadur can properly win the title of the “worst king” in Nepali history. No woman could feel safe under his lecherous gaze. For the sake of a Brahmin widow, Rana Bahadur abdicated and put one-and-half-year-old Girwanyuddha Bikram on the throne. Historian Stiller says that Rana Bahadur “must go down in history as a king who irresponsibly deserted his office for personal reasons and in doing so seriously weakened the country he was called on to serve.” Rajendra Bikram remained faithful to his two wives but his inherent weakness before them and others ushered in Jang Bahadur. His son Surendra Bikram was mad and helped Jang to entrench himself firmly in power.

From the advent of Jang Bahadur (1846), the Ranas should take the blame for poor administration of our country. Development of the nation took a backseat. Mahesh Chandra Regmi (An Economic History of Nepal 1846-1901) states that Jang Bahadur wouldn’t build a single road to India fearing that the British would annex Nepal. Jang evidently told the British Resident in 1864, “I know very well that advantage would accrue to Nepal for a few years if we were to open the country to British officers and British merchants, but even supposing that we were to double our revenue for ten or twenty years, what good would that do to us? At the end of that time you would probably take the country.” Regmi claims that in general the “Rana Prime Minister tried to spend as little time as possible in running the affairs of state so as to leave as big a revenue surplus as possible as his personal profit.”

After the end of the Rana rule in 1950, Kings Tribhuvan, Mahendra, Birendra and Gyanendra put personal interests first before the national. The Rana dictatorship and the failure of the monarchy have given us the present Maoist monstrosity.

Second, our republican governments fared no better. Voices for Greater Nepal arise when India encroaches on our territories. No government has had the courage to take up the matter seriously with India. The Maoists agitated much on Indian imperialism while out of the government but turned meek and mild while they sat on the hot chair. The Nepali Congress and the UML have fared no better. When we can’t even protect what we have, why do we hanker for something bigger?

Third, present-day Nepalis living between the Teesta and the Sutlez would hardly contemplate being citizens of Greater Nepal. India marches on to become a superpower while we’ve been fighting for five months to make our Maoist-obstructed parliament functional. The former Nepali Chief Minister of Sikkim, Nar Bahadur Bhandari, once boasted that Maoism could never flourish in his state because his people enjoyed the fruits of democracy. Persecuted Nepalis of North-East India may long for Greater Nepal but not others. Nepali residents of Darjeeling and Kalimpong pine for statehood under the Indian state, not a return to the motherland. Those living in Dehradun and Nainital seem content at their lot in life. Even Bhutan’s Nepali refugees prefer to return to their own country if they could.

Fourth, since India has already given Rs 250 million (as Matrika Prasad Koirala states) for our territories that we once owned between the Teesta and the Sutlez, the Ranas have sold away our Greater Nepal. Perhaps, scholars should write PhD theses on where the money went. Rana prime ministers like Padma and Mohan Shamsher retired to India. Did part or all of the money go with them?

In his classic essay (Is Nepal Small?), the great poet Laxmi Prasad Devkota argued that our small country can boast of many advantages. Small Nepal is beautiful but could become prosperous as well. Wealthy Singapore, perhaps as tiny as Kathmandu Valley in size, proves him right. Still rooting for Greater Nepal? Ha, ha! Let’s manage the smaller Nepal we have better