October 10, 2010


[Former US envoy to Nepal James F. Moriarty, offering his advice to Prime Minister G. P Koirala,  had once said, “Maoist and extremist Madhesi groups are  threat to democracy”.  He had further commented, “Nepal needs monarchy, but King Gyanendra should not be the monarch. King Gyanendra should immediately abdicate throne if the monarchy is to be retained intact.]

By Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant
TGQ1: Dr. Pant, you must have been observing the unfolding political events in the country since the last two months wherein the nation has so far remained unable to elect a new Prime Minister even in its twelfth round of elections and awaiting the thirteenth very shortly? What does it all mean? Is it the abject failure of the republican order itself or the prevailing dirty politics that has made the politics even uglier? As a responsible observer, how would you comment on all what has been witnessed by the population in the recent months? Where does the fault lie Dr. Pant?

Dr. Pant: It is the result of the collections of the mistakes committed by the rulers afterwards 1990. It is no different than the piles of the dirt seen in the every corner of the roads in the capital city of Kathmandu.

First of all let us talk about principles of the political parties in Nepal. None of the political parties is working according to the principles it  purportedly espouses. Principally, there can be only three political parties, a democrat, a communist and a Vedic/oriental (mixed one). If a socialistic democrat, competitive communist and dynamic panchayat is also accepted principally there cannot be more than 6 political parties in the country. In other words, all these three can be divided into hardliners and softliners. None of these is based on political principles. Since 1990  Nepali politics is based on individualism. Former  PM G P Koirala spoiled the norms of democracy and capitalism both. So did Prachanda  spoiled the very backbone of the communism. The Panchayati/Vedic provoker Rastriya Prajatantra Party spoiled its very root ignorantly. If NC were supposed to practice democracy, the 1990 constitution was sufficient when the King agreed to be a constitutional head of the country. If Prachanda were to participate in the multiparty system, the 12 year long Maoist guerrilla war, killing thousands of innocent people and making millions more homeless was unnecessary. If it were to support the western style politics, it was useless to establish the RPP and participate in politics. Principally, it  can never be a republican party. A Vedic King always remains constitutional, a cultural one, a moral one and above all - common to all, never a dictator, never partial. The SPAM as quislings, is guided and influenced by the aliens and seek to fulfill their respective petty  interests forgetting broader national interests.

Secondly, how can Nepali Congress believing in competitive politics and capitalism still   have a working alliance with the Maoists, who believe in one party dictatorship and nationalizations of all the private properties? How can the RPP deviate from the oriental political/social system? They did it because their masters told them to do so. They cannot be anything but anti-national, driving the youths out of nation and making the remaining population poorer and poorer day in day out. They are both inefficient and antinational. Any political system by itself is always good. They become bad due to failure to implement, or due to bad intentions. If you ask me which is the best government? I shall answer that the best government is one   which governs the best. Putting the excellent first is a must for a best government. Instead party leaders have adopted a policy of putting the last first - meaning putting the worst first. Hence it is natural for such policy to make politics dirtier and uglier. Presently politics is criminalized and criminals are politicized. Even in the elections you have no choice but to select one criminal from among the whole host of criminals. There can be several questions regarding the very feasibility of party system in the developing countries.

Third, I would like to point out the mistakes they have made. The first mistake is to reject the 40 point proposal of the Maoist; rejected by NC majority government which led them to start of the guerilla warfare. The second mistake NC did, was the dissolution of the local self-government and the parliament. The third mistake it did was not holding general election within required time frame. Instead they activated the 127 article of the constitution, unnecessarily giving power to the King. The fourth mistake was, the SPA's indecisive race for the post of PM. Ultimately, HM King had to seek applications, which compelled him to take the administrative powers himself, which became a point of criticism.  The fifth one was the revival of the defunct parliament. The King, did not have the power to revive the dismissed parliament; and the parliament formed without any election (nominated by the parties), formed a full-fledged government.  The King had done so under the pressure of Indian special envoy to Nepal. These last two mistakes were even done by the King along with the SPAM. It is also known as tripartite agreement (known as 11 Baiskh agreement) which was dishonestly violated by India and SPAM. This point has now become an issue of political honesty and a point for demanding referendum. The sixth one, the ad hoc government performed such deeds that should have been done by the consent of the people through a referendum only. But they grabbed the power of the people. Or the constitutional assembly by declaring the 9 point declaration on May 23, 2006. These were done on the directions and protection of India; and this is being called democracy erroneously. The interim government can do no more than hold the general election to the parliament/ Constituent Assembly/Referendum. All the remaining actions by the government are illegal; and against the democratic norms and values. The seventh mistake, was the sabotaging the heritage of the eastern civilization preserved by our ancestors. And the eighth is the banning the king from participating in the Indrajatra on Sept 21, 2010.

This has been the abject failure of the republican order itself and democratic practices also. The prevailing dirty politics has made the politics even uglier. It does not matter to the general public whoever becomes prime minister. The general public is now thinking that none other than the crown can induct the people of Nepal, can protect nationalism and national unity.

The present problem in this regard is of the principle of ‘Nepal being under Indian security umbrella'  as accepted by major political party leaders of Nepal, when not in power. When in power, it has been the most difficult job for them to do. Therefore, there is contradiction in their speeches and actions - the display of double standard. This tendency has distanced the relation between the king and the party leaders. This story is being repeated since General Thimaiya's visit in 1960 till GP Koirala's/PK Dahal's rule 2008.

TGQ2: Dr. Pant, we understand that you are a highly acclaimed planner as well. Nepal has been planning its development strategies since five decades plus but yet the Singh Durbar designed “plans” have apparently not reached the target areas or say groups in the remote and the inaccessible mountains? What has caused this lopsided development? Is it again the “pull-factors” in the politics that has marred the development of this country? Or what you think to have been the main reason for our underdevelopment and misery?

Dr. Pant: Nepal has its internal problems of unwariness and poverty. And its external problems are India and donors. The present problem of the planning are: donor guided or wrong planning; absence of the mainstream national policy; non-system based administrative and managerial system (i.e. person guided and whim based); politics sans commitment; politicians sans any sense of duty; no unity in dealing with national problems; and political leadership being loyal to the alien forces.

The donor driven planning has made Nepal dependent upon aliens. The spirit of collective development is ignored, each sector/project is working in isolation. There is rampant wastage of resources. Unless and until it is planned as per the requirement or the need of the nation, the resources we have, and mobilize them without any outer intervention, the nation will remain as it is for sometime long. 

No alien but the Nepalis themselves should do what it takes to  develop their country on  their own - to  become self-reliant and self-sufficient. A beggar can never be a rich by begging. Therefore, intellectuals, members of civil society, information and communication activists and political parties should understand that mutual trust is the only way out to emancipate Nepal from poverty and ignorance.

Only with the implementation of the Vyawasthit Vasti Model can promote the developmental aspects.  A thorough transformation in all sectors is the need of the time. Nationwide planned settlements are the important aspects of national development. It should consist of  land use map; nationwide planned public settlements; agro farming, agro forestry and national parks. The plan must clearly identify agro and non-agro sectors. The agro-farming must be based on consolidation of land, plots and block farming package.

Nepal has to arrange the organized settlements all over Nepal.  Only this scheme can diversify agriculture, forestry industry and tourism in a scientific way. The planned and consolidated settlements through land pulling scheme are to be implemented to ensure security and sustainability. People in the planned settlements must get all the services and facilities required in a regular basis. This scheme provides full employment opportunities and delivers services in a systemic way.

The main national policy should be binding by law to all the political parties and governments. There must be clarity in determining national goals and the objectives of the main policy. Nationality and democracy should be instituted as absolute end and system of life. The polices and programs to implement and distribute political, social and natural resources should be sustainable and clearcut. Continuous follow-up and supervision/monitoring of the policies have to be carried out on the basis of decentralization and people’s participatory approach.

Agriculture, land reform and forest policies and programs are brought into implementation throughout the nation, based on the land utility map. Compulsory forest preservation should be done on the land with more than 45 degree slopes in the hills. The planned villages are to be settled in a safe place located on the land 30 to 40 degree slopes in hills and safe uplands and in Tarai also. Agro-farming is to be carried out on the land with less than 30 degree slopes. Land plotting and tenant ownership should be fixed. Semi-employment system must be ended by the abolition of double ownership and occupation. The program --one person-one job is executed by appealing to the labors towards agriculture and non-agriculture based industries.

For the agro-based employments, as per the land utility map, programs: such as management of irrigation, seed, fertilizer, tools, crops preservation, horticulture, fishery, husbandry, veterinary service, animal pasture, expansion of agriculture, research, agro-market, record, loan and technology, land plotting, block farming, land conservation and agricultural industries etc. should be developed in an integrated package. Agriculture market is developed through cooperative organizations depending upon the size of land and block farming. 

A sustainable forest policy should be brought into effect to conduct professional forest cultivation or industry, developed as the main source of export with a view to boosting national economy. The forest cultivation should be done in private and public places such as river banks. In the areas with more than 40 degree slopes, existing national parks and the perspective Himalayan national parks should be developed as animal, birds and herbs gardens, apart from forest cultivation. Inner forest cultivation and by-products should be developed in a package. Ecological and environmental balance should be maintained and artistic objects should be made and exported. 

The policy should ensure that every Nepali gets the five things free of cost:

(a) easy access to pollution free air, 
(b) free education (up to age of 18), 
(c) free health services (through referral record system) 
(d) free potable water facilities and 
(e) full-time job.

The government must protect all the handicaps, orphans, elderly people, and the destitute by implementing of Social Security Benefit Program.

Measures stated above are examples only.  After the implementation of such policies, not less than four million youths seeking jobs in foreign nation(s) will not only come back to Nepal, in addition it will be able to provide jobs to over six million foreigners. 

TGQ3: You have, Dr. Pant, penned several books wherein you invariably project and portray the Indian involvement and active engagement in each and every Nepali affair beginning 1950s. To the extent that you claim  it is the brainchild of the Indian RAW-(Research Analysis  and Wing) the continued sorry state of this country in each and every sector. What makes you so sure in writing such stories? What is the basis of your confidence?  By the way, you also see, in your book, every second Nepali as a RAW operative, more so in the Nepali political parties. If so then you may know some Nepali media men to have also been working for the Indian regime? Can you name some? Your comments please.

Dr. Pant:  All my writings on national issues are not any utopian story. They are for 'protecting Nepal and making Nepal a prosperous country.' The subject matters I have put in my books are the facts, research based and proven by the practices that everybody has seen. Among the 4 dozen books, mainly in Nepali language 'RAW ko chalkhel ( Raw's Activities - part I&II), Abiral Hastachhep, (Incessant Interference), Nepal-Bharat Seema Samsya' ( Indo-Nepal Border Issues) and in English 'Machination of RAW in South Asia, Nepal-India Border Problem, Comparative Constitutions, Continuous Interferences and Illusion of Independence" are such books, for example, which  reveal the ill-intents of India and the Nepali leaders. So far, no one has ventured to challenge my views. The so-called Nepal expert, S.D Muni of India, has not ventured to criticize it. Even the Indian Embassy in Nepal has not proven my writings to be wrong. These are the evidence on which I am standing. As you know I am the first person to explore all these things. Now some nationalists have started writing about such things, which I think is my successful contribution. It is not just limited to this point only; my writing has enthused the minds of the young generation of NC, UML, Maoists and others as well. They have now started demanding democracy in practice, nationalism, parties based on principles and a systematically running administration. Why and how people are afraid of exposing such things are also explained in the prologue of my book 'Illusion of Independence'. I still claim, unless the brains of the political workers are cleaned of erroneous notions, and that China and India are practically put at equidistance, and Nepal’s need-based development plans and program is launched, Nepal can never progress. If it is launched, as I said in my 'Vyavasthit Vasti Model', Nepal will win in the  development race with China and India within three periodic plans.

So far naming of the persons in the media is concerned, every reader/watcher can easily understand because of its way of presentation and giving of the priority. 

TGQ4: A sizeable quarter of the informed citizenry now have begun analyzing that the country’s politics may have slipped out of Nepali hands and gone to the pockets of alien elements, near or far, after the 12 point New Delhi  agreement, November 22, 2005. Or is it our own inability that New Delhi cashed it afterwards? Some even say that the Nepali monarchy was sidelined by New Delhi to take Nepal under its control for all time to come? Can we believe this theory? What would you say about it,  Dr. Pant?

Dr. Pant: You are correct that the whole drama is played by New Delhi. The USA after, the atomic power treaty with India, has viewed Nepal through Indian window. At the same time EU has accelerated its activities through some INGOs that are out  for conversion.

New Delhi hatched a ploy against the King, fearing that the king would hold general elections successfully and he would be popular among the people. So, it directed some of its agents to instigate the so-called Janandolan-II and forged alliance between armed groups and seven political parties. The story does not start from this point. It has a long history. Let me brief you on this also.

King Birendra's denial of the invitation of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for a cup of tea in South Asian Summit held in Islamabad, as per the propriety of protocol, is the nucleus of the coldness of the relation between the two countries. Indian Media hyped this which led Nepal-India relation to hostility, thus generating critical situation in the political dynamics of Nepal. However, the invitation for a tea is not the only solid reason of coldness and uneasiness; there are many other things that had been accumulated, which are not known to all. In reality, the conflicts were the counter-actions of India’s domineering tendency and Nepal’s desire to exist as an independent and sovereign nation. The activities of NC, Communists and Conservative Royalists contributed in paving way for the misunderstanding.

Nepal had no conducive environment to plan and utilize its own natural resources. Let’s take an example of your farmyard. What happens to you if, you are not allowed to do farming on your own backyard or utilize it or sell the products in the market? You can either gather intellectuals of your area for justice, or go to police office or court, but a head of the state cannot act accordingly. Can he?

Nepal began to expand her relation with the countries of the world; extended relations with China from 1960 and tried to balance the relationship between two neighbors; opposed India’s overbearing attitude and of the unbarred entry of Indian security personnel and the political leaders with arms and ammunitions inside Nepali territories; denied the proposal of the treaty on extradition to handover any foreign national as per India's saying; rejected  talk with PM Rajiv Gandhi on the occasion of inauguration of ISTD; denounced the Himalaya Atlas published showing that Mt. Everest in India  and so on. However, Nepal had not been convinced with India’s sweet, verbal assurances that there will be no harm to Nepal from India.

India was unhappy and has been trying to break the "equidistance policy" of Nepal Nepal started purchasing weapons from China as it had purchased from India considering that Nepal, as a sovereign country can buy weapons from any country she likes. India could not tolerate it and tried to demerit its sovereignty. India further blamed King Birendra for incitin conflicts (The Statesman: Aug. 29, 1989) by adopting pro-China and anti-India policies after 1972. India started pressurizing King Birendra to keep a distance from China but instead lean towards India. On April 1, 1990, then Indian foreign secretary S.K Singh met King Birendra at the Royal Palace and asked him to sign a secret Treaty, putting Nepal on the status of a protectorate like Bhutan. King Birendra refused this proposal outright and instead, declared multi-party system the same evening (for detail see annex 6 of the Comparative Constitution of Nepal pp. 336-339).

Soon after India hatched ploy against the King after it failed to bring him in Indian favor. Then after, Indian army planes started over flying Nepal's airspace; compelled to cancel its work permit policy; accused Nepal of not assisting it in getting photographs and film exhibited during centenary of Jawaharlal Nehru; opposed that the map developed by Nepal reflected that some portion of Jammu-Kashmir fall in Pakistan. India also accused King Birendra for doubling the size of the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) with the support of China. However, the increments in the armed forces in Nepal were due mainly to three factors:

(a) Nepali Congress’s armed struggles, 
(b) Naxalites’ armed movements and 
(c) Maoists’ armed struggles. 

The truth is that all these terrorist activities began from Indian soil and with Indian's supports.

Let me put few more points on the development sectors as well.  India opposed  China’s entry under the global competition to build the Mahendra Highway in the Kohalpur-Attaria sector. King Birendra's strategic planning for making Nepal self-sufficient, self-sustained, fully employed and having higher economic standard of living were mainly based on -the principle of the Zone of Peace Proposal; -the principle of Asian standard by 2000, and; -the PDLT principle for bigger local developments (to eradicate poverty, unemployment, imbalanced development and low level of awareness) and work permit, to protect employment of the Nepalis. 
All these policies were condemned by Nepali Congress after India put them in power in 1990. Soon after the restoration of multi-party democracy, when Ganeshman Singh was asked what the new constitution would be like, he could offer no specifics except dropping out of the ZOP proposal which clearly this indicated the implementation of India’s will and NC as the agent of it. They also implemented the citizenship Acts, as drafted by India, against the spirit of the constitution.

India relentlessly created problems in the constructions of East-West Highway; Sikta Irrigation Project; Kankai High Dam; Arun III; Karnali hydro projects; Marsyangdi Hydro power Project; West Seti Project. Regarding Industry and Trade, India created hurdles in Udayapur Cement Factory; Carpet Industry; Garment Industry; Tourism Industries and so on.  Finally, being unsuccessful everywhere, India used two weapons at a time, the weapon of mass media and the weapon of economic embargo. It helped to make the dry port concept to fail.  

As the Monarchy was seen as a hurdle in implementing India’s wishes, the Indian spy agency - RAW started to play special political game against Nepal's Kingship, taking Nepal’s political parties in confidence in order to suppress Nepal’s firm stand on nationalism. India reached to a conclusion that Nepal’s monarchy should be debilitated to subdue the voice of nationalism. Then, Nepal’s political parties launched their campaign against the monarchy by declaring the People’s Movement in 1990. It also started media war through established Nepali Medias and dailies, FMs and TVs. India did so in order to revive its lost image in the world. They launched various propaganda against Nepal. They tried to portray Nepal  acting as per the directions of expansionist China, imperialist America and extremist Pakistan. They elaborated even further that, Indian citizens were terminated from their job and beaten up at different places of Nepal under the direction of Nepal' King. One estimate is that over 80 per cent Media of Nepal are financed by the RAW. This is the main reason that the government of Nepal and Nepali media have conflicts on matters of nationalism.  

The International Christian Missions were active against the monarchy and Sanatani Aryan Culture. Christian Missions provoking non-Hindu youths, on the other hand, invested in several sectors to oust the king. 

At the beginning the Palace, NC and India had a triangular relationship.  King Tribhuvan wanted India’s support to free himself from Rana’s clutch. Nepali Congress acted as a bridge between the King and India. NC regards King Tribhuvan most because the King used to agree with its every agenda. King Mahendra was the most disliked King of NC as he was not its puppet and prevented it from doing work irrationally. However, King Mahendra stood as an obstacle to NC because of India. NC, by virtue of the King, removed Rana family rule and by virtue of India, removed the Kingship, and it did so for the sake of India. To hate NC is to hate India as well. The double standard policy of NC has deceived Nepalese and supported India

King Gyanendra, though supported NC’s agenda to, reinstate the trashed parliament even against the spirit of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990, was not in favor of India as desired, was asked to remove with so called armed civilians. Thus, the excellent relationship among NC, Palace and India since 1950s ended up with the worst situation in 2008. People of Nepal did not get rights to decide, it was only two parties, two persons in the party and these two persons as the loyal implementers of the order of the alien.  Therefore, NC is the main reason of the spoilage of the relation between two countries; making Nepal as the dependent/subordinate of India; an under developed nation; damage national economy, oriental civilization, nationalism and national unity. King Birendra and members of royal families had fear for their lives. Even Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and Manik Lal Shrestha had knowledge about this (People's Review June 11-17, 2009.)

The USA and the India who claim themselves to be the greatest democracies of the world condemned King Gyanendra's effort for the general election and overcome with the terrorism. Their actions were completely out of principles and were a person-bias. The former US President Jimmy Carter's utterances and Ambassador James F. Moriarty's words prove it. On June 14, 2007 President Jimmy Carter came to Nepal and congratulated Prime Minister G.P Koirala addressing him - "my hero" or the great leader, leader of the democratic revolution' similar to the fashion as Indian Prime Minister did (hardly any heads of the state would receive) while receiving him in Indira Gandhi International Airport. The Indian Prime minister had applauded him as the great leader of Asia. Then came the newly appointed American Ambassador to Nepal Nancy Powell. As soon as she landed on Nepal, she  went New Delhi and stayed weeks for the strategic Indian advice. For, America had understanding with India that she will view Nepal through Indian window. America would support India's policy on Nepal except one party communist rule. The understanding had frustrated communists who believe in the dictatorship of proletariats.  PM G.P Koirala always remained busy with the Ambassadors of India and America, ignoring national issues and his party works and works of the people. He dealt with them as if they were his boss. India and America interfered in Nepal against diplomatic code of conduct.

Former US envoy to Nepal James F. Moriarty, offering his advice to Prime Minister G. P Koirala,  had once said, “Maoist and extremist Madhesi groups are a threat to democracy”.  He had further commented, “Nepal needs monarchy, but King Gyanendra should not be the monarch. King Gyanendra should immediately abdicate throne if the monarchy is to be retained intact (The Kantipur, May 17, 2007)

The RAW analyzed that if the Maoist embraced nationalism as main principle, the situation of monarchy/Panchayat system would perpetuate in Nepal. Then India cannot dominate Nepal in any form. The RAW doubted over Maoist party that they might lean towards China rather than India. Therefore, the RAW instigated Tarai forces to launch struggle for the purpose of taming the CPN-M. The movement affected the Tarai votes of NC, the RAW planned to organize a party TAMALOPA (Terai Madhes Loka tantrik Party) to protect NC's vote in Tarai region. The same lesson was learnt from the Maoist and has started to laumch a new party under the leadership of Matrika Yadav - a Terain leader, former Maoist rebel.

TGQ5: Indian media and the government in Delhi appear to have been annoyed, and to a greater extent become nervous also, with the increasing Chinese influence in Nepal. Do you think that the Chinese have increased their interest in Nepali politics as the Indian perceive it? Undoubtedly, the Chinese may have interest in Nepali politics because Nepal’s political stability may have some linkages with their own security interests. Should China then increase its presence in Nepal? Has it increased its presence already in Nepal? To what extent, if so, the Chinese influence is desirable for Nepal? Or Beijing’s presence here is a logical move for the overall political stability of the entire South Asian region? Your enlightening comments please Dr. Pant.

Dr. Pant: As the big 3 political parties of Nepal have created a congenial atmosphere to invite India to penetrate into Nepal's internal matters, so has India compelled China to take interest in the affairs of Nepal. China has little interest in matters of Nepal, lesser than the interest in 1960s. China, in my opinion, is being dragged by India in Nepal. For, China is solely concentrating on its economic growth only. Chinese economy, having increased by a cumulative 371.3% in the last 40 years and annual average of 9.3%, expecting to reach $123 trillion by 2040, is projected to pass the United States by 2020. It has no time to spare in such petty issues. Besides, Nepal lies in its tail end i.e. least concerned. It is India, which irritates China by several means. India plays through Dalai Lama to create unrests in Tibet; plays games at the northern borders of Nepal through its Nepali puppets. For example, India asks PM Koirala to open up Nepal's northern borders which is closed for foreigners and he opens it up. And then proposes an Indian  fund of Rs.22 billion to spend itself in seven years wherever and whatever it likes, P.M Surya Bahadur Thapa accepts it. Along with the fund it pleases local people and makes ' irritating deeds' against China through several methods.

Therefore China has come out openly on Jammu  and Kashmir, in the issuance of visas on separate pieces of paper. However, China is also more active on the territorial issue of “South Tibet”; the China’s “sphere of influence” on Indian Ocean and the East China Sea; the turning of the water of the Brahmaputra.

After knowing China’s 'mercantilist' economic policies and its export-led growth responsible for exacerbating global economic imbalances and  feeling the failure of Indian Intelligence after Mumbai attack; unable to build a national consensus and confront serious challenges ranging from Maoist violence India, would not have made such serious mistakes on its policies upon Nepal. 

China, wasted sufficient time while wrecking Nepal into storm that is shaking China itself. On August 5, 1962, the Foreign Minister of China Marshal Chen Yee had said, “If any foreign troop makes evil attempt to attack Nepal, China will support it (Nepal).” China forgot this verse and did nothing since last seven years as people had expected.  Following his statement, India was arguing that Nepal is distancing India and is being closer to China. India harbored suspicions. 

Today Nepal  has all  the problems basically due to the mum of China. The growing Indo-American interactive machination on Nepal is  also due to the muteness of China. China did neither show concern, take side of any force, nor spoke about them. China has remained silent because it does not want to lose international strong trade holds in European and American markets and so has it in India. It does not want to lose its good-will in the global market. Nepal witnessed series of changes and  these changes have impacts over China. China has showed its little concern over Nepal’s politics after realizing the Indo-American policy would cause harm to it.  Professor Wang Wai's comment and the fresh high-level visit of Chinese delegation to Nepal can be taken as its strong reaction however, very lately. China a hopeful leader of South Asian region missed the opportunity.

China should have understood King Birendra's denial of the invitation of Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi on 1st April 1990. China knows much about the Indo-Nepal issues of misunderstanding; NC as the puppet of India is saying “Whatever is good to India is good to us Nepal” and the defeat mentality of the Nepali political leaders.

King Mahendra and King Birendra played vital roles for "One China" policy, its roles in the UN. King Gyanendra also followed his brother and father. He clearly stated the word 'double standard' and invited China in the SAARC. However, China remained unheard, which created a critical situation in Nepal

The conservative way of thinking of the Communist parties, the Nepali Congress and the palace all have contributed to the rise of reactionary idea, obstacle for the progress of Nepal and the promotion of its nationality. Communist forces were divided into statuesque, revisionists and dogmatic lobbies. Ultimately neither communists, nor the Congress nor Nepali people were anti-monarchical and anti Hindu Rastra system. It was only alien forces that have influenced NC and Communist  parties in the country. Nevertheless China has, as usual, remained a silent onlooker.