Would Nepal be any better or worst if we were colonized by British, given that Amar Singh and Bhakti Thapa-s) did not exist or were not involved enough, or simply Nepal had given herself up "temporarily" to the British invaders over the Ranas ~~?
(The -s) I meant--> warriors of those days with any names)

OBVIOUSLY NEPAL WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR BETTER OFF BEING UNDER BRITISH RULE THAN RANAS. I mean look at most of the countries that were under british rule now. They are well developed, including metros in India and south africa etc. And i dont think we would have been part of india because even during british rule, there were still parts of india that were ruled by original kings, like in kashmir. Nepal would have been still its own country and after independence, obvioulsy it would still be its own, plus we would have darjeeling and sikim back. And when iindia was granted independence, britian asked us if we wanted darjeeling back, and the stupid rana dynasty declined coz they were all freaked out that democracy would come in. WELL WHAT A SAD F****** DECISION. Do you know how amazing darjeeling is, industrially and educationally? I't slike a mecca for tourisim and business. Our country makes the most stupidest decisions, and im not suprised as all, we still do.

Good Thought Swati, except for your Nos 1) and 2) that included Indian intervention issues! I don't see much of touching-branches between British Colonization and Indian invasion. It's true that British ruled India (as well as numerous other countries), however--refrained from releasing them as a "lumped" nation, all chanting "Jana Gana" at the end. Furthermore, what extent of India's ECONOMY handling right over Nepal is diminished due to the after-effect of Ranas regime over the assumed post-English era (that we are proudly enjoying in the present) ?
Vedic's stmt bears good sense~~
~@~

this is a very thought-provoking post, saajha! but i have to say, that i also think nepal would have been, if not part of india, much more like it. yeah, perhaps some good would have come out of it- particularly with regards to infrastructure and road construction/maintenance (one of the country's best roads, dharan-dhankuta, was built by the british), but nepal would have an entirely different identity today. and i am, for one, grateful that nepal was never a colony. i think nepalis should take a great sense of pride in that fact. just like in se asia, thailand was the only country to have never been colonized by a european country. of course, thailand has been blessed with an effective government that actually cares about its people. THAT is what nepal needs, not to have been colonized....

and considering the british effectively invaded india and tibet, i would like to think that they were defeated by nepal! i mean, they must be recruiting all those gurkhas for a reason, hoina?

I disagree with you, why do you think Nepal would have been different? How has India become totally different from what it was before British Rule. It became better, the whole area was united into one area (sad part was west india and east india broke into pakistan). India is now moving more to 2nd world than the third world. Most of their roads are developed,Most part of Mumbai actually looks like a metro in the west. Education is high, entertainment industry is amazing. The amount of things they export and manufacture is also amazing. Yet each indian has their own root and culture. A culture that has been present for hundreds of years, can not be just whiped out by a single country colonizing it. The british in India became more accustomed to Indian Culture. Same goes to Nepal. The area now called Nepal is as old as the area now called as India. We have the same rich history and customs as like the indians do. So if the british did come and colonize Nepal, yes we would be under their rule for awhile, but we would still have our own kingdom, even if its a puppet governemtn (we're so used to having puppet government, that we wouldnt even be bothered) The british would have made Kathmandu the Mecca of the HImalayas, that was the only reason why they snatched darjeeling from us because they wanted a coolerspot near the himalayas, since india was all hot and stuff. Just imagine,

JUST IMAGINE, NEPAL COULD HAVE BEEN LIKE HONG KONG. It is smaller than India, It is hot and cold, would have been a perfect place for the british. The himalays would have protected them from China. And our people would have been more educated. Our living standards would have been higher. And obvioulsy the british empire was bound to fall, because of the rise of AMERICA and stuff. They would had to give up Nepal or we obvioulsy would have fought for independence. By then we would have produced great leaders. Our culture and religion would never have been erased becaue ifyou look at any of the countries the british ruled, the indegenious culture and never disappeared, it became stronger and even became fused with western culture in some way, that it made it BETTER.

So please don't keep saying things like we have so much pride. By the way our country is going downhill, tell me what our pride is really about? If you are a nepali and living in America, and you say you are so proud of your country and have so much pride, THEN GO BACK AND TRY TO CHANGE IT. Don't hide here, indulge in western tradition and yaap about how much you love your country and the people. If you think that, then your just damn ignorant. And I'll tell you something, I'm nepali and I live in the states. But I don't really ahve any pride anymore because that country will cease to exist in matter of 50 years. And no, we wont be invaded, we would be devulged by our own people. We will make our self cease to exist.

Its not becoz British left India as a developing nation ..they sucked all their resources n left. Its the Indian people who built their country with all their hardship n tactfullness,
For the fellas who say it would have been better lets ask a question with ourself, if ur family is poor, wil u curse ur parents for that ,n keep on bashing them remarking our mother that it could have been better if u choosed right father.

I dont say we r not in problem, every countries faced problem in the past ...but its the optimism possesed by the countrymen and a full generation sacrificing for their country that made them acheive all what they have. Sorry for us that we couldnt get true leadership....I am sure EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY. I would better say those people who say it could have been better r damn oppurtunist like hynahs who can even let thier mother alone in times of troubles n necessity.

where ever u go, ur Dignity is in saying 'I am a Nepali' n not a 'green card holder second grade american citizen '. I can earn a lot of money,n see lot of bars n pubs, good roads,
freedom(in their definition),etc but the devine feelings that u can share with ur country is something else.
U can act like a white guy, talk with them in every possible AMERICAN /British accent but still in their point of view u r still a foreigner ..what if Nepal was a developed country, wont u feel proud of saying I am a Nepali.. yes u would coz u r an opportunist. A perfect HYNAH.

It's true that they took most of the wealth, but what you say about indians developing their own country is untrule. The british ruled india since the 1600s till 1947. DO NOT TELL ME that during those years they did not develope anything. The major metropolitans of India are made by the british. The archeteture and education was done by the british. Most of the parliments that the indians now were done by the british. Yes the british were somewhat ruthless, but if it wasnt for the oppurtunity of education granted by them, leaders like gandhi, nehru wouldn't have been formed. Gandhi wouldn't have gotten his education as a lawyer, wouldnt have had a chance to travel to south africa and realize the things he did that made him a leader.

We should be just optomistic, we should take action. OH and OPPURTINITISM is what drives people to sucess, not just PRIDE. Yes i can tie a nepali flag in a stick, where the whole nepali uniform and hold a khukuri and stamp "I AM A PROUD NEPALI, JAI NEPAL JAI NEPAL, I LOVE MY MOTHER LAND" SO WHAT?? If you dont' take action, nothing will happen. Just saying you love your country and are proud, doesnt make you anything. And if you look at most of the leaders of the world. They are the one who criticized their country, thats how they became leaders. They were the oppurtunitist!

People here america don't really care about where your from, they only care about the color of your skin. I dont really consider my self an american even though i am citizen, and yes I am a nepali, was born there, I link my self more to my religion. And no matter how much you go to those white people and say "I MAY BE A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY, BUT I AM A NEPALI IN BIRTH" They don't give a damn. They'll jsut say "YOUR A BROWN N*****"

And if nepal was a developed country, I still woundt be so over proud of being a Nepali. No matter how much your country is developed, people are still ignorant. Nepal has so many ethnic groups and so manly language. No matter how rich we are and how many skyskrapers we've established, people would still hate. We are backward people, with backward society, but we have a rich culture that people really don't understand and chose to be BACKWARD.

""I MAY BE A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY, BUT I AM A NEPALI IN BIRTH" They don't give a damn. They'll jsut say "YOUR A BROWN N*****"

Maybe down South in that red-state cesspool of yours. Here in blue "Northern Virginia" area of red-state virginia, I have never faced racism my entire life. And I've been living here for ages and ages.

well i'm from the north too and ive seen a lot of racist shit in the news. This country is still divided. DOn't deny it. THUGGED

vedic, while i can appreciate your views, i can't help but wonder why you would become a citizen of america if you don't consider yourself american? and if you feel so strongly about nepal's need to develop, why aren't you there doing what you can to help make that happen?

of course there are people in america who are racist, but you also said the same thing exists in nepal. the difference is in nepal, most of the hatred and ignorance stems from the caste system.

you also wrote
"JUST IMAGINE, NEPAL COULD HAVE BEEN LIKE HONG KONG"
oh, how wonderful that would have been! to have another overcrowded, chaotic, urban oasis full of colonial influence and fast food chains.

and if merely establishing skyscrapers and turning the world into a concrete jungle is your definition of development, i rejoice in the fact that nepal is not developed. no wonder you decided to live in america....

i think saajha started a great discussion here and there is no clear-cut, definite answer. it is interesting to hear different people's thoughts regarding this topic, but, even though nepal may have become "more developed" as a result of having been a british colony, i appreciate nepal for what it is and for what it has the potential to become. but as i said in my earlier post, THAT is largely up to the government.

Let me do the backtracking here and reach up to the point I left off with -- earlier.
Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan... three "living and crawling" examples of untouched proud nations (disregarding the recent Osama Hunting Campaign in Afghanistan, initiated by the US of A) versus Hong Kong (true it is: overcrowded, fairly chaotic, straight urban with diverse orientation), Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Canada,.. (the list goes on); Say we've 'got' two choices here: Now, Given that we are not directly/indirectly affiliated with any of those nations and are to choose to have the political/economic foundation of one of them (Remember I have said foundation, not necessarily the System!) implemented in a similar fashion on our imaginary nation, what would be the odd of seeing the first choice over the second?
Resources on the earth, even if "sucked" and be used, while letting the claimant enjoy the benifits out of it, rather than having it go withered would be wiser, I beleive Mr/Ms sense! Therefore, before blaming on "Mom" for choosing the wrong "Dad", we'd be better off observing what foundation they possessed in the past, and probably blame oursleves for being unfortunate to being deprived of having that "possibly better-stronger" root, which even abandoned our Moms-Dads! I know you're indicating Nepal as mother and Ranas or British as the candidates for "father", and I have not diverted that abstraction... read carefully, it does tally with that fairly enough!
British or the Ranas, we are proud of being the Nepalis, we do posses that DIGNITY; Indians and Sri Lankans do too, don't they? Well Good... then! And Oh, it sure feels great seeing the exotic beauties of Darjeeling and Nainital (even driving or riding on train) .. hurts that they're not in Nepal anymore, but hey we have Rara in Mugu.. beautiful it is... but how to go there ...?? I mean for most of us! ~~
~@~

IF Bristish were in Nepal, Nepal would have been much better today and no one can deny that, because we have seen the status of countries that were never touched by Bristish. Yah yah, thailand is another story, because of theri clever goverment..

and on a plus point, there wudnt be no king, no maoists, and even if there were maoists they wudn;t have been this much stronger...they wud be just like those indian insurgents...haa..Proud to Nepali :P thats all we have Dignity and proudness, aru ta k nai cha, na ghar cha, na paisa cha, na education cha, khali proudness cha :) .

The Rana rule in Nepal was more like power concentration under few hands. Nepal was still a sovereign country with its distinct identity as a Kingdom. Things would have definitely changed if British ruled Nepal.
Then, we Nepali people would have actually realised the meaning of being independence and a democracy. British would have developed Nepal, citiing examples from Darjeeling, New Delhi, Calcutta and many other Indian cities. Nepal would have been under the same wave. Nepali people would definitely oppose the British rule, fight for their rights and know the importance of freedom. May be it was possible, the Monarchy would have been abolished then and there with power concentrated with the public. Also, the leaders would have had better sense of governing than what they have today. The anti monarchy revolution in Nepal brought results very easily. It was an easy democracy, we could not digest and hence the present situation in Nepal.
I would say Nepal would have been better with British Raj.

Vediclife: You got interesting point. We all assume we are proud and patriotic Nepali. So what? Nobody cares about the country other than chit chatting and some comforting remark. You are right. If country is going down, then it is also because of the people. After all, a nation and people are inter-connected. I think they both carry same scarce.

Reason we cannot accept this is because we just have too much ego. A real patriotic person will contribute something for better purpose. What I see is exactly the opposite. After all, Yo Hallei Halla ko Des Ho.

"We should be just optomistic, we should take action. OH and OPPURTINITISM is what drives people to sucess, not just PRIDE."

VEDIC ...Amazed by ur self centered, ego..my example of Hynah has its true candidate if u agree with me.With best possible respect.

Saajha ,'Sense' would be highly appreciated. In my Earlier posting I characterized mother as Nepal n Father as 'Ranas or British' ,u found it out correctly, thanks. At the same time u wrote

" we'd be better off observing what foundation they possessed in the past, and probably blame oursleves for being unfortunate to being deprived of having that "possibly better-stronger" root, which even abandoned our Moms-Dads. "

Sense,

I don't know why you keep yapping about "Hynah" because there is no such thing as a "hynah" I think you are talking about hyaena. And it's pathetic how you try to bring the whole "mother and father" crap into politics.

And ofcourse how is being optomistic being self centered? The optomisim I'm talking about is more so of the belief that the universe is OR WILL improve and that good will ultimately triumph over evil. That is if we take action.

koolketa I totally agree with you. same with jayanepal.

Saajha i would disagree with you. Afghanistan was not an untouched country. The soviets took over afghanistan, if not the british.

And the theory of the whole "mom-dad" (DISTURBING I MUST SAY) If you wan't to think of it as MOM AND DAD well MOM=NEPAL didn't really chose DAD-Rana's, the DAD chose the mom, ranas just took over, the country didn't favor.

And I know this sounds bizzarre in a way but it really isnt. In human nature, we tend to always take over things and making things better. For instance, the native americans were the original poeple of the west. Yes they had a culture, but their technologies were backward than europe. Then europeans came to the North america, established their colonies, and prospered. YES they did bring diseases and other harms to the Natives. But Economically speaking, America people the country that it is today because of the Europeans.

Now speaking of India and Nepal. The indegenous people living in the Indian subcontinent have been there for almost ever. Native americans migrated to the americas from the baring straight. So the culture of the Indian Subcontinent (including nepal obviously) was much richer and stronger. Our science was stronger than the europeans (knowing europeans stole science etc from the east) The only way the british got india was because india wasn't a whole country, it was broken into different kingdom. Where as Nepal, was already a country of its own. So it was easy for the british to invade india because they could alley with different kings and then take over them. But still theoutcome of the british in india was still good, if not bad. The british made indians realise to hate the british and unite as one. That way the country was united and thats how they fought the british. NEPAL WOULD HAVE EASILY THOUGHT OF THAT WAY BEFORE THAN THE INDIANS. The british would have made nepal like hong kong because it is

a) Situated in the north near the mountains= WELL PROTECTED
b) A very good trading post= ECONOMY
c) Great water source etc

And obvioulsy in the 20th century we would have been independent like any other colonies. An empire is bound to crash one day. Look at the Macedonian empire led by Alaxander, the roman empire by caesar, the babylonian empire, and then THE BRITISH EMPIRE. They used to say the sun will never set on the british empire. WELL IT DID. and look at britian now, its a vegetable. But look at india now, atleast they got a head start on developing their countries. and look at us. we cant even build our own roads espically in our capitol, that we have to call other countries to build it for us. THATS JUST PATHETIC, and ur talking about BEING PROUD.

yeah Vedic thanks a lot for correcting me, shud say I dont have good knowledge of English as u do. Okey if its disturbing abt Mom n dad why do u call Nepal as ur motherland?
'Janani janmabhumishca swargadapi gariyesi' I can find it out frm ur name that u can easily figure out its meaning..thats why I refered Nepal as motherland as most of Nepali take pride in saying. well if its disgusting for u then I can well assume that u do have a little respect for ur country n thats a positive sign.

Only n only if u think economic indicators r the true basis to measure a country's sucess then ur point may have some sense but I still say its better die hungry then be a puppet of others becoz being a puppet is dying every second, n the way u would have advised could have led us to the same situation....

A lot of questions can be raised
1.What if British made Nepal an unified India?
2.What if they left us like Hong Kong which struggled for freedom but ended up in the cruel regime of China?
3.What if their policies failed in our country n turned our country like afghanistan where Soviets made mistake?
4.What if British found it useless piece of difficult terrein and left it untouched but still taking the tax from the people?
5. What if Nepal was already a developed country but couldnt just defend British army?
6.why not make the whole world USA since it is the most powerful nation in the world , if you say "opportunism is what drives to sucess" ,a powerful country can invade another without any legitimate reason?

The truth is u r only looking at one part of the coin which luckily shone for the British, but the other part still remains the same in mysery, yes we could never shine but our mysery r far more better than those 30% hungry people in India left by the British becoz they were of no use to them.

Ok a motherland is just a term used as someone's native land. But the way you talk you make it seem its a human characteristic between a mother and father. And please, next time don't twist my words.

I only gave an example as economically, I didn't say that IT WAS THE ONLY FACTOR. know that ECONOMY is what runs the country.

And my thoughs on your factor

1) What if British made Nepal an unified India
So what if it did? During british rule, even if they ruled Nepal and called it "BRITISH INDIA" after the struggle for independence, no doubt would nepal be its own country again. You know why? India wouldn't try to keep Nepal part of them because India knows that Nepal had a long history of an unified independent soverign state. And look and India. After the British left, West India broke away and was called PAKISTAN and the bengal area became east pakistan later Bangladesh.

2) What if they left us like Hong Kong which struggled for freedom but ended up in the cruel regime of China?

When MAO and communist regime took over China, the Republicans ran to Taiwan and other places. Those island comprimises of people that were once were from the mainland. IT's all political. And to this day, china fights to have taiwan back. And the whole thing about Hong Kong. Hong Kong was originally chinese, the British took it cos it was in the middle between their empire, and could have been used as a point. The British and the Chinese had made a compromise that Hong Kong would be given back to China in matter of years. That is why Hong Kong is now part of China, they didn't just go and invade and took over Hong Kong. The Agreement ended, and the British handed Hong Kong back to China through foreing policy not through blood bath.

3) What if their policies failed in our country n turned our country like afghanistan where Soviets made mistake?

What's there in Afghanistan? What makes afghanistan a strategic point. Didn't you know the British tried to colonize nepal 3 (or so) but failed? If they tried to colonize it, I'm sure there were reasons. Read some of my comments on why the British wanted Nepal. Some of the reasons were the security from the himalayas, the great water source, the temperature etc. They would have made a metropolitaion city out of kathmandu. It would have been the best trading post for them. And look how east india tea prospered. East nepal was perfect for tea plantation etc, that is why they stole darjeeling from us. Yes they would use our resources, but what resource do we have besides forest and hemp and other textile. They robbed India becaue of gold and the kohinoor jewl. They didn't rob any tea! They made plantation. And if the british did the same to nepal, we would have eventually prospered because at the end, they would have abandoned everything they had built, and we would be using what they left. That's what India did.

4) 4.What if British found it useless piece of difficult terrein and left it untouched but still taking the tax from the people?

Well the more difficult the terrain, the better defense. I'm not saying they make roads in every corner of the country, just to the main cities and post.

5) What if Nepal was already a developed country but couldnt just defend British army?
Well it wasn't a developed country. It wouldnt' have developed in western standard. If it was developed, at that time of imperalism, it would have been conquering other countries just like the british.

6) why not make the whole world USA since it is the most powerful nation in the world , if you say "opportunism is what drives to sucess" ,a powerful country can invade another without any legitimate reason?

I can't just make the whole world USA. And there is always something that can not be done, wether oppurtunism is there or not. The fact is AMERICA wouldn't have the oppurtunity to capture the whole world. IF it were the only country, then maybe us. America is already sucessful.

And your last part, 30% of the people in india left hungry after the british. Well guess what The poverty and hunger in nepal is more than 30% before, now, and will be in future. And the ranas, the shahs and the congress is still doing that, worse than the british. Yes its a shame that another country comes to your land and starves your people, but its more shameful when your own government does that to you! Atleast the british would have developed the country and would have given the standard of education even if treating us bad etc. OUR OWN GOVERNEMTN COULDN't even given anything, but TORTURE.

Dear vedic life,
Soviet Union NEVER TOOK OVER Afghanistan, neither did British! Britain did have control of the Afghan foreign affairs (NO MORE THAN THAT), until 1919; that was when British attempted their THIRD fruitless effort, which followed two previous that began sometime in the early 1800s.. I don't remember the year!! Furthermore, Soviets, when they attacked/invaded (NOT TOOK OVER/COLONIZED) Afghanistan in 1979, CIA backed up Afghans to harness the energy of Afghan resistance to the Soviets and expand it into a holy war, an Islamic jihad, which would turn Muslim countries within the Soviet Union against the communist regime and eventually destabilise it; Offsprings are Taliban and Osama Bin Laden!!!

The system that had been set forth in the Nepalese Culture/Society and Economy during the Ranas' regime created a framework that utlizes the democracy and liberty in a "rather-shifted" manner giving rise to an intense inconsistency in the political stabilization. "Opportunism" appeared as a major curse, just like in any other third world nation; it spiced up that "shift" leasing to the possible demise!!!!!! I guess I'm all done discussing this particular thread~~
~@~

I meant LEADING not LEASING... a Typo~~
~@~