The ‘much awaited’ and ‘much admired’ Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was heartily welcomed in Nepal for his two-day visit in Kathmandu during August 3-4, 2014. Modi’s 42-minute-long, inspiring, and historic address in the Nepali language, before switching back to Hindi, in the Legislative Parliament cum Constituent Assembly (CA) on August 3^rd has not only changed the hearts and minds in all tracks I [1], II [2], and III [3] in the pyramid of Nepali people, but has also initiated discussion or argument among those who perceived Indian power and politics suspiciously in the past. Madan Kumar Dahal wrote that Modi’s speech addressed to the members of the CA was historic, titanic force and pathfinder that sets a new milestone in the history of Nepo-India bilateral friendship relations. His honest deliverance and assurance of better days ahead removed some of the decades-old accumulated cobwebs of suspicion. Modi is trying to prove that he is both a popular leader and a pragmatic philosopher and executive head of the world’s largest democratic country, India. Modi is trying to treat all the neighboring independent and sovereign states in a friendlier manner rather than establishing himself as a hegemon in the region.

Nepal is still in Modimaya mode. Parties are initiating dialogues on his proposals; appointing and sending an expert team to India to conclude the Power Trade Agreement (PTA); the coalition government has started collecting suggestions to strengthen bilateral relations; civil societies are granting their inputs; the media is widely providing a space of his visit, the authors are analyzing his public and private utterances; and others are abuzz through social media, for instance, Twitter. Nepali people are expressing their optimism that the visit will pave the way for a new beginning in Nepo-India bilateral relations. Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani, former Nepalese Finance and Foreign Minister, writes, “With Modi’s coming to power in India, hopes are soaring high in Kathmandu” ( Lohani 2014). Modi has become the first high-level visitor since the former Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar (IK) Gujaral, who visited Nepal on June 5-7, 1997. However, Nepalese President and Prime Ministers visited India on several occasions during these periods.

Why does anti-Indian sentiment prevail in Nepal, particularly at the people’s level? There are numbers of reasons. Firstly, the media plays an eminent role in this aspect. Media reports show that India has done various wrongs against Nepalese people, from border encroachment to land inundation in monsoon. Secondly, sometimes atrocities have been inflicted on the Nepalese people by Indian authorities, who forcefully try to enter into Nepal without official permission. Thirdly, there had been a high mobility of Indian authorities during the formation of Nepalese Government in the past. Even the Indian Embassy has played a dominant role in the promotion and transfer of senior civil servants and security forces in Nepal.

This article mostly reflects on Narendra Modi’s address in the legislative-parliament on August 3, 2014. Nepal suffers from political, physical, and socio-cultural infrastructures. But Modi has shown his interest in human security, bilateral relations, and natural resources. The article also tries to analyze the problems that Nepal encounters by being surrounded by India on three sides and China on one side. The concepts of geopolitics, security concerns, co-existence, unity, and sovereignty, and their effects on bi-lateral relations, enlighten this study. Nepalese people willingly wait to see whether Modi’s commitment and doctrine would pursue merely a cosmetic or real change, or a determined fast-track change, in the future. The following human security measures may help to understand his synergy, promises, and transformation.

Freedom from Fear

Freedom from fear is one of the dimensions of fundamental human security. The peoples of both countries have fear, suspicion, and misunderstanding regarding various issues. For instance, Nepal has been occupied with fear, suspicion, and misunderstanding due to the proliferation of Tarai-Madhes movement and its slogan “One Madhes One State”; socio-cultural leaders supported by Indian power, property, and politics; India’s vested interest to control Nepal’s natural resources; and Nepalese humiliation in India, etc. Whereas on the other hand, India’s feeling is that Nepal is being controlled by China; that there is less opportunity for India to invest in  hydropower; that fake Indian currency note supply to India via Nepal; and that Nepal is a shelter for Muslim fundamentalists.

K V Rajan, former Indian Ambassador to Nepal, said, “Pakistani activities in and through Nepal, migration, smuggling of narcotics and arms, terrorism, human trafficking, traditional cross-border trade and investment, regulation of the open border, development of border infrastructure and, above all, human insecurity have emerged as the urgent priorities” (May 3, 200). He further stated that China’s emergence as a superpower is no longer the only security concern in the sub-region, and may create problems for India making Nepal a close friend of it. Another Former Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Rakesh Sood, said,

India is where Nepalis come to study, work, spend holidays, plan weddings, invest in a second home; yet, India is also blamed for being insensitive, for meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs and often, for taking Nepal for granted (Sood 2014).

The Nepalese people are being humiliated in the course of their work in India, and their money is being confiscated by Indian security personnel and other criminal groups on their return to Nepal. If returnees deny providing a bribe, they are tortured mercilessly. There have been frequent reports that border security forces enter into Nepal without permission and beat village people, threatening them if they protest against the atrocities done by them in their territories. A few cases of arrest of Nepali by these security forces have also been reported. The custom security personnel also harassed Nepali on their return to home for buying needed goods and food for their families. Border encroachments, including Kalapani and Sustha in Nepal side, are widely practiced and condemned time and again. India’s construction of roads and dams on the no-man’s-land at the cross border of Nepal aggravates the situation. Anti-Indian sentiment among the greater populace had also been increased because of the insecurity across the Nepalese cross border.

Regarding Indian security concerns, an Indian plane (IA 814) carrying 178 passengers from Kathmandu to New Delhi was hijacked by five Kashmiri fundamentalists (militants) on December 24, 1999, and finally landed in Khandahar, Afghanistan, via Amritsar of India, Lahore of Pakistan, and Dubai. The Indian Government blamed Nepal for having security lapses. The Indian Government even suspended its flights to Nepal for six months. Additionally India put forward the idea of establishing its forces in Nepal, but in vein (Pathak 2009).

However, Modi’s visit and his speech are able to anatomize or erase many of these conceptions existing in both countries.

Freedom of Constitution Writing

Before Modi’s visit, Nepali had a conception that the Constituent Assembly second (CA II) of Nepal will remain unable to write a New Constitution until and unless the Indian establishment agrees on the issues of governance, name and number of federal states, and model of elections to the President and the Prime Minister and power sharing between them. Modi’s statement at the CA House empowers Nepalese leaders to write a New Constitution themselves, freely using their conscience.

At the House of Lawmakers, Modi said, “Nepal’s Constitution would set an example for the whole world, especially to strife-torn regions, as a model for leaving the path of violence, and how a peaceful and democratic process can help achieve goals” (Ministry of External Affairs). He stated that India respects the Federal Democratic Republic and inclusive Constitution. He congratulated Nepal for choosing ballot over bullet, referring to the Maoists. The United Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist abandoned violence and joined the peaceful mainstream politics through the Comprehensive Peace Accord in November 2006. In November 2005, a 12-point understanding was signed among the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists on the mediation of India in New Delhi.

Modi became the first Head of State who addressed at the CA II after the restoration of democracy in 1990, and urged the political leaders to use Rishi-Muni’s (sages) soul and mind in the course of drafting the statute, with 100 years of visions of uniting and integrating all parts of the society and the geography. The mind of a sage is far-sighted, anticipates problems, and takes the society forward. He said, “Your heart should be of Sage to draft a constitution. You are making the constitution, which is not merely for the citizens of Nepal”.

Besides to draft the constitutional provisions with rights of different sections of society, Modi further encouraged lawmakers by stating that the Nepalese Constitution should be a document like Samhita of Vedas and Upanishads (Hindu religious text) that should define a new direction for the country. He said, “The Constitution of Nepal would inspire the hopes and dreams of not just the people of Nepal, but the entire world.” Modi also gave an example of the Indian Constitution, which unites different diversities of society of India, uniting more than one billion Indians’ hopes and expectations.

India drafted the New Constitution through 389 members of the Constituent Assembly, on the basis of one representative for roughly one million of its population by the newly elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, with some reservations to Sikh and Muslim minorities (History of India), in comparison to the 601 Constituent Assembly first (CA I) and CA II members, in the case of Nepal. However, India’s Constitution is still applicable to unite and integrate a diverse society and its larger socio-cultural infrastructure.

In Nepal, the CA I (2008-2012) and CA II (2013- ) became no more than a ‘Job-House’ to 601 legislators (leaders and their activists). The issues of statute drafting could not be introduced even into the CA I for its discussion and endorsement. The Constitution-making was largely centered around a half dozen top leaders of the mainstream parties. It is remarkable that the people, particularly at community levels, were victimized by the People’s War during the armed conflict (1996-2006), but now, in the name of concluding the peace process, writing the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nepal.

The previous Indian Government played a significant role to crane Dr. Baburam Bhattarai into the Prime Minister’s seat, amalgamating the socio-cultural groups of Tarai-Madhes into the Maoists fold, and providing a hefty sum of money. The Publisher of the Sampurna Maya monthly magazine [4] asked the Congress leader, “You said that you are against the Maoist Government in Nepal, but why did you invest IRs 77 crores to form a new Government under the leadership of Bhattarai uniting the Tarai-Madhes forces?” His answer: “It was decided by the top that was beyond of my capacity.” A great majority of Nepalese believe that the CA I was finally scraped by the same Bhattarai Government on the advice of India in March 2013. India’s major purpose was to weaken the Maoist party defaming Bhattarai, who was popular in Nepal before taking oath of office as the PM. Moreover, the Maoists were finally split into the UCPN and CPN-Maoist under the international conspiracy theory.

Freedom to Review Treaty

Article 10 of the Nepo-India Peace and Friendship Treaty (NIPFT) 1950 states, “This Treaty shall remain in force until it is terminated by either party by giving one year’s notice”. But none of the previous Government of Nepal, except former Prime Ministers Manmohan Adhikari and Prachanda, tried to open this provision, despite huge public demand and pressure. Both Adhikari and Prachanda, who voiced to review or repel or sign a new treaty, could not run their governments more than nine months. However, Modi’s lecture and statement provide the freedom to review the treaty, respecting the voices of the Nepalese people. Joint Press Statement number 11, on the Official Visit of PM Modi to Nepal, said, “The two Prime Ministers agreed to review, adjust and update the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950” (Modi 2014)  .

The NIPFT established close physical and socio-cultural infrastructures and strategic relations between the giant India and small Nepal. The treaty was signed at Kathmandu on July 31, 1950, by the Prime Minister of Nepal, Mohun Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, and the Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Chadreshwar Narain Prasad Singh. Even though it was signed between two unequal protocols, it was named the “peace and friendship” treaty. Former Indian Ambassador K V Rajan said,

The treaty, signed between the Indian Ambassador with Prime Minister Mohun Shumshere Rana (a disrespect for protocol which added insult to Kathmandu’s sense of injury) in the last days of his discredited regime, was accompanied by an exchange of letters which was not made public until many years later — in 1959, when they were placed on the table of the Indian Parliament (May 3, 2008).

Moreover, the Rana autocratic regime agreed to sign the treaty while they were almost ousting from the Government due to incipient democratic movement under the tripartite India, the Monarch, and Nepali Congress leaderships. The one-sided belief of Rana was that the government would be protected and democratic movement would be minimized after signing of such an Indian-drafted and favored treaty. The treaty was protested by Dr. K I Singh and his associates, who was taken into custody for six months, but he escaped and flew to China. The 1950 treaty provided Indian military and economic assistance to Nepal. Consequently, the two countries decided to establish border checkpoints along Nepal’s border with Tibet to gather intelligence in 1951 (Menon 2014).

The rise of the Communist Government and extension of China’s power to Tibet heightened India’s security concerns. India compelled the Government of Nepal to step-up military-intelligence cooperation in 1952, under the 1950 treaty, against the newly born communist movement in Nepal. India sent a military mission to Nepal to train, modernize, and empower the Nepali Army. Nepal downgraded the Indian military mission whilst the Nepo-China trade agreement was held in 1956. The cut-down of military power in Nepal agitated India against Nepal’s monarch and that animosity continued until the Royal Palace Massacre in June 1, 2001, where the King Birendra, Queen, Crown Prince, Prince, and Princess were assassinated. The anti-Indian sentiment in track II and III further intensified after that massacre. The “zone of peace” proposal put forward by the former King Birendra was refuted by India, while the former demanded that Sikkim was a greater annexation of Nepal. That statement came immediately after Sikkim merged into India in 1975.

Maoists forwarded demands, including to abrogate Nepal India Treaty 1950 and all other unequal agreements, scrape the Integrated Mahakali Treaty, regulate the open border between Nepal and India, and prohibit entry of Indian number plate vehicles and others (Pathak 2005).

Freedom of One-Nepal

To proliferate the People’s War (1996-2006), the Maoist leadership tried hard to attract the disadvantaged, marginalized, and vulnerable community into the armed conflict’s sloganeering, autonomous, identity- and culture-based federal states, to fight against the kingdom and state machineries. While the Maoists deviated from their autonomous axis after the 2006 peace accord, the socio-cultural groups cashed the Maoists’ demand and initiated the protest movement across the nation. All conscious Nepalis feared that Nepal might be seceded. Modi’s speech of being integrated without Nepal’s socio-cultural erosion increases a hope of free and united (one) Nepal.

More than 125 castes and ethnicities reside in three tiers of geography: Himal (mountain), Pahad (hill), and Tarai (flatland). People are also divided into two groups, Pahade and Madhesi. The former generally lives in the mountains, the latter in the Tarai-Madhes. Prior to wrapping up the two-day visit in Nepal, Modi met with the leaders of socio-cultural Madhesi groups, including the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF), Tarai-Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP), TMDP-Nepal, Sadbhawana Party, and Federal Sadbhawana Socialist Party. The talks initiated with some introductions and information about Modi’s visit. Madhesi leaders were not happy with his address delivered at the Legislative Parliament while he talked on Tarai, but did not utter a word of Madhes and Madhesi.

Modi replied that he knows only one Nepal, where there is Himal, Pahad, and Tarai, nothing else, replied by Modi in one question. Modi stressed Nepal as a Himal, Pahad, and Tarai flower bouquet. He also put forward the mantra of sarvajan hitaya and sarbajan sukhaya (for the benefit, welfare, and happiness to all) and gets rid of anti-Pahade mindset to the Madhesi leaders. Even though, Madhesi leaders request Modi to support them for their empowerment.

Thus, Modi tried to call for a united and integrated Nepal “unity in diversities” where all castes, ethnicities, creeds, colors, professions, genders, and cultures can reside, exchange, and share, and participate with their grievances and happiness freely. Modi’s doctrine shall play a significant role for “One Nepal” in the long run.

Freedom of Bullet to Ballot       

Modi, addressing the Red Fort in New Delhi during the 68th anniversary of India’s Independence Day, praised and presented Nepal as the best example of moving from weapons to books (bullets to the ballots) (Pathak 2008); it could provide inspiration to the young people of the world to abandon the path of violence, and follow the path of Buddha and non-violence.

A total of 17,700 people were extrajudicially killed during the decade-old People’s War in Nepal. There is no account of arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment (Pathak 2014). More than 1,250 people were involuntarily disappeared or abducted, and their whereabouts are still not known. The Truth-Reconciliation and Disappearance Commissions could not be formed yet, but the Comprehensive Peace Accord 2006 has agreed to complete the study within two months.

The armed conflict has adversely destroyed the Nepal’s culture. The reculturation process through disarmament, demobilization, reinsertion, repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation, reconciliation, and reintegration (D²R⁶) could not be implemented (Pathak 2013), even after nearly a decade of peace accord.

The disarmament and demobilization of the Maoist ex-combatants implemented fully, but reintegration, either into the state security forces or society, succeeded partly. A total of 3,123 (9.6%) out of 32,500 ex-combatants registered at main and satellite cantonments were integrated into the Nepal Army, but it was not reintegration. It followed all standards of recruitment of the Nepal Army. Moreover, the (re)integration process did not follow true measures, for instance recognition of identity of ex-combatants that had practiced in the world. While large numbers of disqualified ex-combatants could not be reintegrated into the society, the cloud of danger from bullets is likely in the near future in Nepal (Pathak 2013).

Freedom of Coexistence   

In the past, India largely depended on a bureaucratic approach to look upon Nepal. Nepal’s political leaders tried hard to win the mind and muscle of India’s bureaucrats and RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) agents to fulfill their personal and family zest and zeal. Another is that wrong reporting to Indian leadership from them always puts Nepal’s desire, sentiment, and demand into shadow. Thus, Nepal’s agenda could not be put on the right track at the political discussions in India. The bureaucracy and RAW exaggerate their security concerns or weakness to put Nepal into their fold, rather than as a sovereign nation. Modi opened his eyes to see Nepal directly minimizing the roles of his staffs. This may be the reason that the British-Gurkha[5] bonds. Prasant Jha writes,

Almost a decade and a half back, in a conversation, the then PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra flagged security concerns. His counterpart, Hari Sharma, who was G P Koirala’s PS, turned to him and said, “Brajeshji, during Kargil, how many bodies came to your village? Four came to mine and six came to Ambassador Chakra Bastola’s village.” Mishra went silent (Jha 2014).

Regarding the bravery of Nepalese youths, Modi’s speech provides hope to all Nepalis. Modi addressed, “I came to visit Nepal immediately after being elected to the Prime Minister as relations with Nepal is a high priority of my government”. Modi now wants to engage Nepal into its security concerns and coexist without humiliating Nepal’s leaders, government, security agencies, and people in general. Modi initiates his right move to Nepal. Nepal’s concerns, such as border security, worker security, treaty revision, flood control and dam inundation, and exchange and sharing are to be addressed positively. Nepal’s people will wait to see how Nepalese leaders can cash this opportunity of co-existence, applying their ability, honesty, and commitment to focusing on the nation and people. 

Freedom of Development

Modi tried to address the trust deficit existing between the two countries on hydropower cooperation, as the Pancheswor Multipurpose Project (PMP) could not be made for such a long time. The PMP is a bi-national hydropower project to be developed in Mahakali River at the Nepo-India border. Its development is a mutual interest project of both countries (Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project). The PMP is covered under the integrated Mahakali Treaty, signed in February 1996 under the leadership of the then-Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. The fear widely persists, horizontally and vertically, whether India wants to reserve hydropower or not, in compliance with the treaty or agreement. The reservation on hydropower means none of the foreign countries could invest their currency. However, Modi vowed to initiate Pancheswor within a year.

Modi briefly explained the potential of Nepal’s tourism, herbal products (biodiversity), hydropower, and organic farming. He had expressed his firm commitment to support these areas by working together with Nepal. India would help Nepal emerge as a major exporter of herbal medicines in future. He propagated the idea of introducing the “HIT” (highways, information ways, and transmission ways) for speedy economic development in Nepal. He promised to construct Mahakali Bridge, purchase surplus electricity in the future, and supply additional electricity to Nepal in coming years. He extends concessional credit facility equal to US$ 1 billion. Earlier, both PMs, Modi and his counterpart Sushil Koirala, have witnessed the signing ceremony of four MoUs, including setting-up of the PMP.

Concluding Remarks

Whatever Modi has put forward, the concepts of harmonious socio-cultural and co-existential relations between Nepo-India people are much appreciated by the people in all tracks I, II, and III, theoretically. Again, the implementation has remained a major issue. The past has been a witness that the peaceful coexistence and harmonious and friendly relations between two nations sometimes turns to foe, while the concerned bureaucrats and security personnel misinform their bosses, particularly at the political level, where decisions are taken accordingly. Such trends often happen on the Indian side. Officials working at the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu seem biased; they have a superiority complexity and Nepali officials have inferiority complexity. Indian Embassy works in Kathmandu never follow the protocol status.

Even for small matters, ambassadors visit the office or residence of the Prime Minister, without ever informing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Does Nepal’s ambassador working in New Delhi have the same access to hold meeting with the Indian PM time and again? The answer is no. I have myself observed that one junior official working at the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu used slang words on the phone to the Secretary of Ministry in 2008 to fulfill his zest and zeal. Even the leaders of the mainstream parties are often blackmailed to work in favor of their vested interest. Modi adopts to appease the neighbors for their mutual interest unlike unilateral benefit of India in the past.

Thus, Nepalese people now seek mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, compliance of full human security, and genuine compliance with protocol under the dynamic leadership of PM Modi. That definitely puts the lotion to Nepalis wound from the past arrogance of Indian Embassy officials. Then Modi will be a real friend of Nepal. His doctrine of brotherhood, sisterhood, and neighborhood shall make good history ever since.

“Over one billion Indian people would want to visit Nepal once in their lifetime to pay homage to Pashupatinath Temple and the birth place of Lord Buddha”, Modi said. He addressed,

I am feeling fortunate being here as a Prime Minister. I am a Gujarati. I am here from Kashi to the feet of Pashupati Nath. This is the land where Kishori (Sita) played. I bow to King Janak. This is such a land where Lord Buddha was born.

Modi added that the relations between two Himalayas (Nepal) and Ganga (India) build connections in hearts and a shared cultural heritage. Truly speaking, Nepo-India has a special relation, unlike many other independent and sovereign countries have. Both countries have socio-cultural and linguistic similarity.

India is the largest democratic country in the world. USA seems strong due to arms, ammunition, and its forceful action against their so-called enemy, but not because of implementation of norms and principles of genuine democracy. Modi’s government should cautiously work with western countries, their friends, and other critical neighbors. The Western powers have a policy that encircles China to secede Tibet, and watch India for not being a superpower from the land of Nepal. On the one hand China is still surrounded by friendly neighbors, although it has adopted the People’s democracy. India on the other hand was surrounded by competing neighbors, except Bhutan, in the past.

If Modi wants to be the world’s top leader, he should maximize the governance and technology, and minimize the government and unhealthy competition, internally. Mutual respect for equal benefit, no domination of neighbors’ independence and sovereignty, clear demarcation of territorial integrity, development cooperation to weak neighbor(s), non-aggression, and non-interference shall be Modi’s Guru Mantra (vanguard of love) to spread his peaceful coexistence and friendship at the regional level. The unity among the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) is to be strengthened further internationally. Should Modi be able to further improve working relations and make a close tie with China following the string of pearls theory, his popularity will spread speedily all over the world. China shall also be headache-free from the USA’s political game of human rights, and climb further up towards superpower. In such case, the World Bank and United Nations shall also compel to be neutral. The Sino-India unity breaks a grand design encircling China and watching India. And such a tie ends the US empire and its satellite rule for ever.

It is to be assumed that Modi may face both domestic and foreign human security threats. Domestic security threats shall be more severe, owing to the accelerating 4 Cs of command, commission, corruption, and criminalization; competing, covetous, and power-hungry colleagues; lavish lifestyles and a shaky centrist state mechanism, and its link with mafia; ignition of empire culture; and feudal-mindset mushrooming militancy exist within India, rather than external Islamist and other fundamentalists. Tighter security is something to secure Modi and his position, but he should learn a lesson from the Royal Palace Massacre in Kathmandu and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

The principal reason of Modi’s insecurity is that he is speeding-up his social doctrine to respect, protect, preserve, and promote poor, marginalized, disadvantaged, and vulnerable people, not limiting him within the border, but beyond it. It seems that he is a hope for hopeless people, despite caste, ethnicity, creed, sex, profession, culture, color, and geography. Should Modi be able to transform his positive synergy into real practice through indirect/direct and informal/ formal procedures, will he attain the world’s top height of democracy and recognition as a role model of socialist [6]-cum-co-existentialist [7] leader in the universe? The true democracy will really materialize him as a pathfinder of genuine socialism to future generations. Even though, Modi is to be out from the shackles of injustice, inequality, indignity, insecurity, and inhibition circles, consulting with right experts and pertinent academia. Not listening to other means quagmires himself into dirty “demon” and “craggy” (democracy) politics similar to the past.

Notes

[1] Head and other influential members in the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary including top leaders of the mainstream parties and state actors.

[2] Civil society organizations and individuals or non-state actors which help to mitigate the conflict bridging the gap between track I and III.

[3] General people residing in the community and society.

[4] The author was witness of the conversation while he had gone India to attend for three days (February 11-13, 2012) International Seminar on Teacher Education for Peace and Harmony, organized by the Gandhi Bidhya Mandir at Gandhidarshan, Rajghat.

[5] The Gurkhas or Gorkhas synonymous with “Nepali,” which had derived from the hill-mountain district Gorkha. There are Gurkha military units in the Nepalese, British and the Indian army. Gorkhas are closely associated with the Khukuri, a forward-curving Nepalese knife and have a well known reputation for their fearless military prowess.

[6] The socialist advocates for human security that ensures fundamental freedom, universal welfare state, and collective bargaining, rights of co-determination, representative democracy, and partnership. For more see, Pathak, Bishnu. October 1, 2013. Origin and Development of Human Security. In International Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Vol. 1 (9), pp. 168-187. And Pathak, Bishnu. March 8, 2014. Human Security and Human Rights: Harmonious to Inharmonious Relations. In Achieve of Business Research. Vol. 2, No. 1. UK: Society for Science and Education.

[7] The existential attitude fulfils towards the compliance of human security through love, empathy, justice, fraternity, and happiness. For more see, Ibid.

References

History of India. (Retrieved on August 17, 2014).

Jha, Prashant. August 13, 2014. “After Modi’s Nepal Visit, what changed and what did not”. Hindustan Times. New Delhi.

Joint Press Statement on the Official Visit of the Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Shri Narendra Modi, to Nepal (August 3-4, 2014).

Lohani, Prakash Chandra. July 23, 2014. “Hopes Soar High as ‘Much Admired’ PM Modi Prepares for a Visit in Nepal”. The Himalayan Voice.

Menon, M S N. 2002. Little Good for Nepal in India. (Retrieved on August 11, 2014).

Ministry of External Affairs. August 3, 2014. Summary of Prime Minister’s address to Constituent Assembly of Nepal (August 3, 2014). (Retrieved on August 13, 2014).

Pathak, Bishnu. 2005. Politics of People’s War and Human Rights in Nepal. Kathmandu: BIMIPA Publications.

Pathak, Bishnu. May 8, 2008. “Nepal’s 2008 Constituent Assembly Elections. Converting Bullets to Ballots”. East West Center. No. 8.

Pathak, Bishnu. May 25, 2009. Nepal India Relations: Open Secret Diplomacy. Kathmandu: PCS Center.

Pathak, Bishnu. April-June 2013. “Transformative Harmony and Inharmony in Nepal’s Peace Process”. Gandhi Marg Quarterly, 35(1): 133-166.

Pathak, Bishnu. March 8, 2014. “Human Security and Human Rights: Harmonious to Inharmonious Relations”. Achieve of Business Research, Vo. 2. No. 1.

Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project (Retrieved on September 4, 2014).

Rajan, K. V. May 3, 2008. “Should the 1950 treaty to be Scraped?” The Hindu. New Delhi. (Retrieved on September 26, 2014)

Sood, Rakesh. July 23, 2014. “A New Beginning with Nepal”. The Hindu. New Delhi.

Telegraphnepal.com. August 5, 2014. Get rid of Anti-Pahade Mindset: PM Modi to Nepal’s Madhesi Leaders. Kathmandu.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Re-situating the Buffer State in International Relations: Nepal’s Relations with India and China
• Opinion – What does the Sino-Indian Dispute Mean for Nepal?
• Himalayan Geopolitics: Contemporary Analysis of Sino-Nepali Relations
• Doing Sex Right in Nepal: Activist Language and Sexed/Gendered Expectations
• India’s Use of Buddhism: Soft Power, Soft Balancing
• From Militancy to Stone Pelting: The Vicissitudes of the Kashmiri Freedom Movement