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)

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~~
~@~