In 648, Tang Taizong sent Wang Xuance to India in response to (Buddist converted) Harshavardhana sending an ambassador to China. However once in India he discovered Harshavardhana had died and the new king attacked Wang and his 30 mounted subordinates. Wang escaping to Tibet and then mounting a joint of over 7,000 Nepalese mounted infantry and 1,200 Tibetan infantry and attack on the Indian state.
In a surprising move, for 8 days China’s State media outlet CGTN claims entire Mount Everest (China & Tibet call it 'Mount #Qomolangma') as the China-Nepal international border (1960 agreement) run next to it, but Nepal Communist Party govt is busy attacking India over the new Dharchula-Lipulekh road link which was made so that Indian army can access 4 km away from the India-China boundary. Nepal doesn’t face any threat of violent aggression from India, while the tiny road is strategically crucial for India which faces the threat of Chinese aggression as is visible from the face-off between the Indian Army and PLA Army troops in Sikkim’s Naku La sector. Nepal also claims the highly strategic areas of Limpiyadhura and Kalapani. However, the Indian troops have been deployed there since India fought a war with China in 1962.
China and Nepal have a direct internet connection now, which means that Nepal no longer has to be dependent on India for the internet. China has installed its Huawei 5G network tower on the highest peak in the world to snoop in India, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and China doesn’t even recognise the fact that it shares the peak with Nepal. When China is consolidating its claims, Nepal govt. has deafening silence towards Chinese expansionism. Clearly, China is exercising more influence over how Nepal prioritises its territorial disputes than Nepal itself. This is a common non-contact war communits strategy to try misdirect cultural ties, in order to convince them to lose any trust they have built with each other, so that the social unity becomes weak (divide and rule). With 90% FDI and BRI projects into Nepal, Beijing is doing with Nepal what it does in Pakistan or any other country with significant investments despite the fact that Nepal’s largest trading partner is India.
The issue is the cost of cargo between Kolkata and Kathmandu is three times compared to the cost of cargo between Hamburg (in Germany) and Kolkata. China, which currently accounts for just 13% of Nepal’s imports mainly because connectivity is hindered by the Himalayas has been amping up its operations in the region. China has been investing heavily in Nepal as Beijing has pledged $8.3 billion to build roads and hydropower plants in Nepal. This is a very common non-contact war strategy to try misdirect communities, in order to convince them to lose any trust they have built with each other, so that the social unity becomes weak (divide and rule).
Infrastructure projects are mushrooming. China emphasised that the cross-himalayan Lhasa to Kathmandu rail connectivity network will help Nepal become land-linked from land-locked. However, a costly railway line from Lhasa to Kathmandu, unless it reaches the border with India, makes little commercial sense. How the Kathmandu-Kyirong rail will connect with the India, given the different railway gauges, is also unclear. One way-trade seems to be the BRI norm. Sri lanka could not pay back their debt, china control over their deep-sea port. When tajikistan could not pay back their debt, china have built bases in tajikistan-china border, near wakhan corridor on afghanistan-pakistan border.
- United Left Front (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.Centre)
- Samyukta Samabeshi JanaMorcha/Left Front
- Workers & Peasants or Majdoor Kisan
Nepal's Maoists have been considered as a terrorist organization by the United States. When you see the Indian Ocean region, India & Sri Lanka has a very important place, our geographical location is very important. Indian Ocean is interest for China since natural resources such as oil and minerals coming to China are far away and therefore hydrographic survey vessel are being used to map funds and collect data necessary for the navigation of submarines such as salinity and water temperature. America is the storehouse of world-class technology. Military sales has long been a US diplomatic mainstay. There is no country that beats America on this high-end cutting edge technology. One of the problems is the cost. Also you see their track record- that track record. America would not give its cutting-edge technology to any country, not even to its NATO allies, forget about India. We are not even in an alliance with the Americans. We only have a partnership. As I said, America invests a lot of money in its technology; America is not a country that will give its technology to any country. Full ToT technologies will not be given to anyone in the world. So basically, it is a wild goose chase. When I see the track record, I admire America and American technology, but I am convinced that they will not part with any high-end technology for use in joint ventures. India still sees America as less reliable than other countries such as Russia, Israel, and France on matters related to defence procurement, despite being the go-to nation for world-class and cutting edge defence technology. India should not forget that when India’s Ballistic Missile Defence Programme conceptual stage, Americans had blocked the sale of Arrow 2 ABM. U.S Policymakers should understand that U.S. need to boost India (we have a very huge military) as a counter to China and that we can’t let India’s relationship with Russia get in the way, rather than outmanoeuvred India to push for US personnel and surveillance hardware being stationed for long duration on Sri Lankan soil.
President Xi was furious; he warned that those not respecting the 'One China' policy would be crushed. According to Chinese state media, Xi told the Nepali PM during his stay in Kathmandu: "Anyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bodies and shattered bones. And any external forces backing such attempts at dividing China will be deemed by the Chinese people as pipe-dreaming."
- Unified Communist (UCPN Maoist) formed by:-
Communist (CPN Maoist) supported by China with Chitra Bahadur Ale-group, and
JanaMorcha or Left Front.
Samyukta Samabeshi JanaMorcha the legal mainstream of underground Communist (Unity Centre), and
Rastriya JanaMorcha was formerly called, Chitra Bahadur KC-group, the legal mainstream of underground Communist (Masal). The small party called NSP (Malema) or Samyabadi, earlier known as Sadbhawana (Anandidevi), had merged into Rastriya JanaMorcha.
- Communist (Marxist-Leninist) former an underground Revolutionary Coordination Committee Jhapa District & Morang) formed by:-
Mukti Morcha Samuha,
Communist (Pushpa Lal) and
- Communist (United Marxist) includes Communist (United) and Communist (Marxist). The students wing of the party was called Nepal Progressive Students Union and its trade union was the Nepal Trade Union Centre (NTUC). They have been expelled from original UML Communist (United Marxist-Leninist)
- Janata Samajwadi Party, formed in 2020 after the unification of Rastriya Janata Party Nepal (RJPN) and Samajbadi / Socialist Party (Naya Shakti)
- Federal Socialist Forum Nepal (FSFN)
- Nepali Congress (NC)
- Nepali Congress (Democratic)
- Bibeksheel (&) Sajha
- Jana Jagaran
- Workers & Peasants or Majdoor Kisan
These treaties opened up opportunities for Nepalese citizens to travel, study, and do business freely in India. The extension of non-reciprocal duty free access for Nepalese goods to Indian markets has huge potential as Nepal develops further. Though Nepal largely gained from this arrangement, over dependence upon India has created an anti-India backlash. Under the INTPF, Nepal agreed to depend upon India for security, as well as seek Indian consent to import arms, ammunition and military equipment from other countries. As Nepal gained greater international exposure, these were seen as signs of Indian domination. As a result Nepal has stopped adhering to such stipulations. Many saw the India-assisted development projects as more beneficial to India than Nepal. On trade and transit issues also there had been the strong differences between the two countries as land-locked Nepal was keen to diversify its trade access to other countries over riding Indian concerns.
For most of the twentieth century, Nepal was ruled by the Ranas, a hereditary family of prime ministers who had displaced the Shah dynasty as the real rulers of the country. Then, in the early 1950s, after India gained its independence, King Tribhuvan, with the support of the new democratic Indian government, overthrew the decadent Rana rule and initiated the modern political history of Nepal.
King Tribhuvan and his son, King Mahendra, ruled directly throughout most of the 1950s, except during a brief period of multiparty democracy late in the decade, after which King Mahendra dissolved the elected Congress Party government. In 1962, King Mahendra issued a more royalist constitution establishing a new political structure known as the "Party-less Panchayat" system. This single-party rule banned all political parties and created village, district and national level councils, or panchayats, by which the king could rule without significant opposition.
Although effective at limiting dissent and organized political parties, over the decades, the panchayat government failed to serve the population. It evidenced little interest in addressing the country's systemic problems of social inequality and severe economic underdevelopment.
In 1990, yielding to a variety of political pressures, the panchayat system collapsed and a new multi-party democracy was established under the aegis of a new constitution. This brief period of political liberalization did not last. The new political system, formally a Constitutional Monarchy, was ill-served by many of the political leaders, who fought over power, leading to a new government almost every year from 1990 to 2002. These democratic governments were generally viewed as being extremely corrupt, self-serving and dominated by the same elites as the previous system.
Although the period of parliamentary democracy was unstable, it fostered a rapid increase in civil society organizations that had been banned under the panchayat, including political parties, nongovernmental organizations, human rights agencies, newspapers, magazines and other professional organizations.
In 1994, the United People's Front, a political alliance of several Nepalese leftist parties, split apart. One of its former leaders, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (commonly known as Comrade Prachanda), founded the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-Maoists, or Maoists), a radical splinter group of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN). The Maoists claim to be inspired by the revolutionary philosophy of Mao Tsetung. However, China disavows any connection between the Maoists and traditional Maoist doctrines of the modern state of China. The Maoists' model is ideologically similar to Peru's Shining Path movement, claiming to be a voice of the poor and to use violence as a means to fight state oppression and police brutality.
On February 13, 1996, citing the government's failure to respond to a memorandum outlining its demands-such as the abolition of royal privileges, the creation of a new constitution and renegotiation of the border with India-the Maoists officially launched their insurgency, the "People's War." The stated intention of the "People's War" is to overthrow the constitutional monarchy and to establish a republic through a constituent assembly.
The Maoists enjoyed some popular support for their cause. This was particularly true among the lesser-educated rural population, many of whom had had very little contact with the government other than through the police and a very poor health and education system at the village level. Over time, however, the Maoists' increased use of violence, intimidation and brutality has alienated many former supporters.
Maoist movement began in the mid-western region, targeting so-called "enemies of the people," such as police, landowners, members of the political parties, teachers, local government officials and others. From the outset, the Maoists have targeted the national infrastructure as a means of destabilizing the country. This has included attacks on airports, bridges, power plants and telecommunications systems, as well as forced "donations" from businesses, organizations and individuals to support their cause. They also carry out general strikes, bandhs, which disrupt trade and transport and cause shortages in food and other essential items by temporarily shutting down major highways, government buildings and schools. Maoist intimidation and harassment of international development agencies to provide forced "donations" has been ongoing for several years, reaching new heights in 2004. The Maoists are also responsible for a range of other egregious abuses against children, as well as adults, such as torture and unlawful killings. In a late 2003 Washington Times article, Maoist Chairman Prachanda claimed that the Maoists control up to 80 percent of Nepalese territory.
Unfortunately, in most rural areas, outside of the district centers, the system of elected local governments, known as Village Development Committees (VDCs), is no longer functioning due to earlier political decisions made in Kathmandu to dissolve local governments. In some cases the VDCs have been replaced by a parallel Maoist "people's government" (jan sarkhar) structure.
The Maoists are generally believed to comprise 3,000 to 4,000 regular troops and an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 local militia members, according to the Small Arms Survey 2003. However, one estimate printed in the New York Times in 2003, even before the escalation of the situation in 2004, placed these numbers as high as 8,000 regular troops and 40,000 irregular fighters.
On November 26, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency in response to the breakdown of the first cease-fire and the first Maoist attack on the RNA. At that time, the government officially authorized the RNA to "disarm" the Maoists. With this declaration, the government also suspended several articles of Nepal's constitution, including those relating to rights of freedom of thought and expression; rights of assembly and movement; the right not to be held in preventive detention without sufficient grounds; and the rights to information, property, privacy and judicial remedy, according to Amnesty International (AI). The government allowed the state of emergency to lapse in August 2002.
Over the years, the government's counterinsurgency has taken many forms, including roadblocks, security checks and blockades of food supplies and shipments of essential goods, all of which have had serious ramifications for daily life in Nepal. In this context, the government is also responsible for a range of egregious child rights abuses, such as unlawful killing, torture, forced disappearance and rape.
Political disagreements have also ensued within the government itself, such as a major disagreement over the proposed extension of the state of emergency in 2002. As a result, the government has suffered several major political upheavals in recent years, including dissolution of the Parliament by Prime Minister Deuba in May of 2002, followed by the dismissal of Prime Minister Deuba by King Gyanendra in October of 2002 on charges of "incompetence" and the indefinite postponement of elections.
Between 2002 and 2004, the king appointed two former panchayat politicians as prime minister, but both governments eventually collapsed. Ironically, in June 2004, King Gyanendra re-appointed Prime Minister Deuba to his position, with the support of other political parties and the stated agenda of restarting peace talks with the Maoists and ensuring elections to take place within a year.
Cease-Fires: Two rounds of negotiations were conducted between the government and the Maoists in 2001 and 2003. In both instances, the Maoist demands included the establishment of a constitutional assembly and a new constitution, while the government protected its interest in sustaining the monarchy and argued that it cannot hold parliamentary elections as violence continues.
What the myth-makers of Kathmandu failed to understand was that the Nepali polity was comprehensively anachronistic, based on a narrow system of accommodation of the urban and rural elites, and unable to deliver even the most rudimentary form of welfare to the vast majority of impoverished rural Nepalis. Left to fend for themselves after a series of betrayals that saw people being deprived of the agrarian livelihood thanks to World Bank-International Monetary Fund reforms, deprived of the water and natural resources thanks to Asian Development Bank-led developmental destruction, denied even basic services such as electricity and a decent education, ordinary Nepalis voted in large numbers for a political force that had articulated a new radicalism in Nepali history and underwent severe hardships to give a voice to peoples' aspirations in the course of the 10-year old civil war.
The mainstream political parties were themselves unable to overcome their ideological paralysis and formulate a clear vision of their politics that would at least have neutralised the loss of credibility that resulted from their craven conduct during the years that they managed the polity between 1991 and 2004. They were unable even to take a definite and categorical position on the question of monarchy and the army, both of which had caused immense damage to rural Nepal through their depredations.
In short, when the Maoists articulated politics more relevant to a larger number of Nepalis, the political forces defending the outdated polity became proportionately more irrelevant. This is why the Maoists won despite India's success in ensuring that the two major left forces, the Maoists and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist - Leninist), fought the elections against each other.
While supporting the Nepalese monarchy, India also gave refuge to the Nepali Congress party for decades and helped the democratic movement. This often led to tension and friction between Kathmandu and New Delhi. In 2005 New Delhi helped broker the 12-point understanding between the Maoists and Nepal's other political parties enabling the rebels to emerge from the underground. India also played a key role in convincing King Gyanendra to step down.
Instability in Nepal is likely to have an adverse impact on India’s political, economic and security interests. India was instrumental in the conclusion of the 12-point Agreement, which mainstreamed the Maoists in the political process and led to the elections in 2008. However, in the meanwhile, anti-India sentiments have grown substantially in Nepal. There is a deep-rooted suspicion, partly fuelled by the Maoists now, that India is trying its best to stop the Maoists’ rise to power. In the recent past, the Maoists have tried to use China to counter-balance Indian influence. They neither hide their suspicion of India, nor conceal their desire to play the China card against India. Moreover, their linkages with the Indian Maoists remain a constant source of worry for India. Interestingly, there has been an increasing attempt by China in recent years to engage the government, the political parties and the people of Nepal. All this has raised Indian concerns regarding the Maoists and Nepal.
India is faced with difficult choices. Any constructive attempt by India to salvage the situation in Nepal through proactive involvement is likely to be interpreted as unnecessary intervention in the internal affairs of Nepal. But passive indifference to developments in Nepal will be misconstrued as shirking of responsibility by observers at home and abroad.
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China, who had cancelled a scheduled visit to Nepal in December for unexplained reasons, halted in Kathmandu for a little more than four hours on January 14,2012, while on his way from Beijing to Saudi Arabia for an official visit. This is the first time a Chinese Prime Minister had visited Nepal since the visit of the then Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji in 2001. There have been a number of high-level visits of political and military figures from Nepal to China since the Nepalese Maoists came overground, suspended their insurgency and joined the power structure in Nepal, but reciprocal visits from the Chinese side to Nepal were very few. China kept away from getting involved in Nepal’s internal affairs even during the height of Maoist civil war. Actually, it had supplied arms to King Gyanendra when India had not come forward to do so.
However, the Chinese have considerably stepped up assistance to the Nepalese since the end of the monarchy in 2008 and established a "comprehensive and cooperative partnership" with Nepal in 2009. It has strengthened its relationship taking advantage of the pro-Chinese leanings of Maoists. China has strong security concerns in Nepal due to the presence of about 20,000 Tibetan refugees in Nepalese territory and their support to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the radical Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC).
Its long term plan appears to be to link Nepal with Tibet’s large network of road, rail and air infrastructure. This would give a big boost not only to trade but also neutralise India advantage in having better strategic access to Nepal. In 2007-08, China began construction of a 770-kilometre railway connecting Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, with the border town of Khasa in Nepal. Nepal had requested the link to be extended to Kathmandu. When China completes the ambitious project, it would significantly improve China’s strategic access to India’s borders as Chinese are involved in other communication projects underway beyond Kathmandu.
Wen reportedly pledged $140 million in aid to Nepal of which US $ 20 million would be spent on consolidating the peace process and US $ two million for strengthening the police. Nepal has reportedly sought Chinese assistance for a modern airport at Pokhra, for the development of its railway network and for the construction of three hydel power stations.
During Nepal’s period of political instability from 2006 to 2011, despite occasional glitches India had wielded its influence carefully and positively to ensure the peace process is not derailed. In appreciation of this, Prime Minister Bhattarai on the eve of his recent visit wrote “India played a positive role in the peace process in Nepal, and during our transition towards democracy. My visit [to India], at this juncture when we are at the last stage of completing the peace process, assumes special significance.” This probably reflects the growing realisation in UCPN(M) how Indian influence could be useful to achieve win-win results in stabilising democracy.
India has also reciprocated this welcome change in the attitude, during the October visit of Prime Minsiter Bhattarai with the signing of two agreements with Nepal. The Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPAA) was a long awaited one; it would smoothen and encourage the flow of Indian investments in Nepal. Bhattarai had apparently chosen to ignore the objection of hard line faction of his party in signing the BIPAA as evident from the black flag wielding party cadres who greeted him on his return to Kathmandu. However, many analysts in Nepal consider this development as success of the country’s economic diplomacy. The other agreement relates to extension of $250 million Dollar credit line from EXIM bank of India on highly concessional terms (1.75% interest with repayment in 20 years). This will be used to finance infrastructure projects including highway, bridges, railway, irrigation, hydro-power etc. Bhattarai had called this development as historic and a major step towards removing distrust in the bilateral relations between Nepal and India.
More important from Indian security point of view, both countries have agreed to check cross-border crime including smuggling of fake currency into India which had been a major cause for concern to India.
India has also agreed to facilitate the speedy execution of construction of roads, rail and Integrated Check Posts along the border areas of Nepal and India. Hiccups in trade and transit issues are also scheduled to be discussed at the ministerial level. India has also agreed to the use of Vishakapatnam port to facilitate Nepal’s third-country trade. It has also conceded Nepal’s demand for importing 200 MW of power from India.