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)

If British ruled Nepal, it would be a part of India and you will be licking indian a**

Do you actually believe that the Nepali's defeated the British army? I wish that was true. Don't get me wrong, I'm still proud of the Nepali Warriors of that time. One thing you have to understand is that history is biased, especially Nepali history. The British army of that time was ruling almost half of the world. Don?t you think if they wanted to, they couldn't take over Nepal?

The British at that time took some of the best parts of Nepal during a treaty. They got Darjeeling didn't they? They couldn't didn't find anything useful out of the remaining part of Nepal so they let go. But, when the history was written, it said Nepali army defeated the British. Which is all B S if you ask me.

Give me some legitimate explanations ONLY if you are capable. Such comments don't make sense and will be ignored hereafter. Furthermore, 'bhole...', if you are a Nepali or are related to Nepal one way the other, you take your statement back to you and apply it to yourself~~
~@~

Dear Turbine,
I don't deny your hypothesis. I did not, anywhere say that Nepalese (Amar Singh and all included) DEFEATED the British. Whether British wanted it or not is not what I was concerned on. The question I raised was how different would Nepal be if "Ranas" were to be replaced by the "British" ~~
~@~

Here is my thought
1) part of india, like Sikkim and be singing JANA GANA MANA
2) like kenya, having safari parks and all this tourist destinations , ppl making loads of money but economy handled by indian traders lol its is today too
3) Like kashmir, cuz india and china would have in war for nepal as a bone of contention

lastly but very unlikely
4) Developed like Singapore.

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. "