Nepal: Why are Nepalese pro-Chinese but anti-Indian?
0 comments | by Dadichi Thapa
India & China: Let us first understand the difference in their psychology through their popular board games, and see how it has shaped their cognitive and planning vis-a-vis international strategies.
1. Chess: Probably the most popular strategic board game in the world, and thought to be originated in India some time before the seventh century. Here, the opponent is deemed lost when checkmate i.e. King is killed.
Like their popular board game (Chess), India's strategy also boils down to the same fundamental psychology i.e to take control of the head of the government, hence the victory.
2. Go: The ancient Chinese strategic board game which is believed to be more than 2500 years old.
Like shown in the above picture, it too is two player game, but the objective of the game—as the translation of its name implies—is to surround a larger total area of the board with one's stones than the opponent by the end of the game. That is, it doesn't believe in single power system like the chess, but incapacitating the whole of its opponent units, which is, making its opponent immovable, in a simple sense. Though this game has simple rules, but the number of significant strategies that can be involved in this game is vast i.e. 10 raised to the power 761 compared to the estimated 10 raised to the power 120 in chess.
Now, if we introspect, for example United States of America, which too is a chess playing nation, it believed on its victory instantly when it brought down the "Heads" like Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Osama Bin Laden (Al Qaeda), Gaddafi (Libya) etc, only to realize the worse in the form of IS (Islamic State) etc as a residue. Same is with India here in case of Nepal. India only concentrated on the head of the government while formulating its strategies, for example the major political leaders of Nepal, and completely ignored the other small but key players as well as the non-Madhesi citizens (people of hills and mountains).
But, the China unlike the chess player, has "Go" game based strategies, i.e it believes in surrounding, and thus incapacitating. For example, if we consider India as China's opponent, let us observe China's military base surrounding India, often referred to as "String of Pearls Strategy".
The same strategy is being implemented in Nepal, or at least a form of its derivatives. China, unlike India, is filling up the vacuum created by India i.e. it is taking everyone into its trust, and not just some politico like India has - which has left the most Nepalese severely skeptical and angry about its intentions. Now the situation is, the most popular party Nepali Congress, which is believed to have some ties with India, is desperately gasping for some free space and fresh air.
Now, coming to the question, " Why are Nepalese Pro-Chinese but anti - Indian?", all I want to say is, because of India's poor bureaucracy and outdated RAW. I literally am confused: Is India arrogant or ignorant? Despite of the fact, unlike China, India - Nepal has not only state-state ties, but also, people-people, religion-religion, culture-culture relationship which is such a great asset and advantage, but yet India is losing trust of Nepal in a considerable amount. I don't know why India assigns inexperience bureaucrats to handle Indo-Nepal relationship; I don't understand why India still trust on R&AW, as history suggests, it has always failed to acquire its objective when it comes to Nepal ( Mission R&AW by RK Yadav). Nepal, which means protected by a sage, has survived for thousands of years of wars; I don't understand, why India continuously mistakes talent for luck.
Don't ask but introspect, why there is growing pro-Chinese feelings in Nepal? If you are still dumb to understand, lookup on the above "String of Pearls Strategy" map, and imagine one more pearl in the string in the form of Nepal, very close to the heart and neck of India.
In a nutshell, I hope India will stop unnecessary meddling in Nepal's internal affairs; instead works together to strengthen the relationship through mutually beneficial policies, or else, in time, it will destroy Nepal, as well as itself.