Talk:Greater Nepal/Archive 1

Accuracy of the map?
The Sugauli treaty is well known. However, I do not think that the borders of Nepal had extended right up to the Ganga, as is claimed in this article. Can someone provide a proper reference and state as to wich period in hisory did this happen? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the image of "Greater Nepal" as it innacurately displays parts of India which were never under Nepalese domininion as a part of Greater Nepal. If someone corrects the image and only shows the areas ceded under the Sugauli treaty, please feel free to add it back. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

your whether nepal exercised its sovereignity over oudh(the land stretching to ganges) is true, nepal did not. however given the right to taxation over terai under palpa dominion, the authors might have put it. even the fortress of kangra and adjoining hills were never annexed by nepal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.79.10 (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Supposed issues of neutrality and verifiability
I don't get what's so bad about the sources and why its neutrality is disputed - its Nepali and Indian newspapers, not blog or personal sites. And the article is brief and to the point - it describes the pre-Sagauli Nepal and why the "Greater Nepal" concept exists and what currency it has in Nepali politics. It has some bearing in Nepali politics, as the issue of Maoist propaganda suggests. It may not be mainsteam in Nepali politics, but its there. There is no judgment being made about whether the claims are right or wrong. Vishnava (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue of Neutrality and verifiability
Siwan means the border in Bhojpuri. Currently it is not located as border district of Bihar, India. It was the border of Greater Nepal that's why it called Siwan,the border. So we can believe that south-western border of Greater Nepal was the Siwan,  Bihar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant Paudel (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Greater Nepal article can remain
This article, in its present form, is to the point, unbiased and informative. It is not written from nationalistic POV. It can remain, as it is. Any refutations of the 'Facts' in it may be put in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki dr mahmad (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

encircled boundary line
what makes the difference between an "encircled boundary line" and an "area"? Article: "encircled boundary line of 367,575 sq. km kilometres covering an area of 147,181 square kilometres" Hmains (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the author intended by this confused sentence, I've removed it - including actual area as that properly belongs in Nepal article and doesn't illustrate size of irredentist claims. Fanx (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Material moved from underpopulated category
The following material was moved from the underpopulated Category:Boundary of Greater Nepal. It needs significant work before being added to the article mainspace: 

Historical Boundary of Greater Nepal
The Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal lies between two big countries, China and India on its north and South. It is elongated on the east and the west. Since the last two hundred years the frontier of Nepal is surrounded on its south, east and west by India and on the north by China. History is evidence that at one time the boundary of Nepal was extended towards Tista River on the East; to Kangara across Sutlej River in the west; to the confluence of Ganga and Jamuna Rivers to the south at far western side; In the course of time, at one time the western border was limited to Sutlej in the west to the mid-plains of the Ganges in the south; and it had touched the present day Bangladesh on the east. But because of time, situation and the activities of the past, the borderline of the Tista and Sutlej constricted to Mechi River on the east to Mahakali river on the west, and to watershed of the Himalayan Range on the north, and to the Siwalik range and the plains of the Tarai on the South. After the birth of Nepal even the passout of Prithvi Naryan Sha in 1774 it is continued its effort to unifide Nepal by his sons and there representetives mainly bye Prince Bahadur Saha.

The perimeter of the Greater Nepal extending from Tista on the east to Sutlej on the west was 4,079 line kilometres, east-west length as 1,373 kilometers and its area was 204,917 square kilometers. It was even bigger when the country’s boundaries had extended from Tista on the east to Kangara on the West and to the confluence of the river Ganges and Yamuna on the south with the total perimeter stretching to 5,119 line kilometers, east-west length as 1,415 km and the total area as 267,575 square kilometers. But the modern Nepal has an encircled boundary line of 367,575 sq. kilometers covering an area of 147,181 square kilometers.

Neutral POV???
The article is extremely biased. It says that India is illegally occupying Nepali territories. It does not quote that the Dominion of India and later the Republic of India are the successor states to the British Indian Empire, and as such have inherited all the territories, boundaries, treaty obligations, membership in multilateral organizations that belonged to the British India through a perfectly legal process of an Act of the British Parliament. It does not dare to stake any territorial claims against China, even though there are many areas that earlier belonged to Nepal and now annexed to Tibet. It does not name anyone of the "several" Nepali politicians who clamour for recovering these territories from India. This article should be modified to cover a neutral POV. And if we are going by irredentism, then it must be pointed out Nepal was a part of the Mauryan Empire and the empire of Harsha Vardhana! So will it justify a Greater India? - Gopalan evr (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct on that Republic of India is the successor to the British Indian Empire. But, India and Nepal signed 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship which states that all the treaties between the British India and the Kingdom of Nepal will be void as this new treaty takes into effect. Therefore, the logic the advocates of Greater Nepal are following is that the Sugauli Treaty, which was responsible for the loss of Nepalese land to the East India Company, would be legally void implying that the land should be returned to the state that had the land before the Treaty. Hence, the basis of this idea of Greater Nepal is not irredentism and that is exactly why there is no such territorial claims against China. Ashowmega (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Two fundamental things needed to be pointed out here. First, not all but only part of what is now Nepal came under the influence of Mauryan Empire. Second, to claim that some of the ancient cultures and civilization that flourished in the region to be strictly associated with Mordern India is almost like claiming that all the cultures and regions today that were a part of ancient Rome as Italians. Ned.eddie (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry the whole of Nepal was part of both the Mauryan and the Guptan empires which is more than enough justification for India to annexe the whole of Nepal. It's just that India has no interest in taking over worthless piece of rock filled with poverty and squalor. Keep dreaming. Nobody in Kumaon, Garhwal or Derjeeling wants anything to do with the cesspool called Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.167.166 (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We all know what cesspool India is, and its just few pats on the back for now but that is not going to last. Again, claiming all the ancient cultures and subcultures in South Asia to be solely associated with country India is as ludicrous and ridiculous as claiming France, Britain and most of Europe to be as Italians because they were part of ancient Rome.Get your facts straight. (Ned.eddie (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC))

Growingnepal.com
Having a quick glance at growingnepal.com shows that it is a non-academic source (opinionative blog), and as such a non-WP:RS. It can therefore not be considered as a valid source to be used as a reference in this article. Furthermore, moving on to the subject now, the picture does not imply anything referring to irredentist claims on Bangladeshi territories. As far as I know, Nepal and Bangladesh do not share land borders. I will also quote the accompanying text used for the image in the blog:

"Everybody knows the real territory of Nepal. Our glorious past says it all. This picture is the Real boarder of Nepal which was later compromised with the British during the war but now, since the British rulers left India, our lands should be returned to us. However, this has never been the case. Instead, India is still conducting activities against our feelings alongside the boarder"

For further reference, please also take a look at the DYK at the top of the talk page, which implies Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Sikkim (under jurisdiction of India) as being the areas of dispute by nationalists.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check the site. Here is one that fits WP:RS. http://www.nepalaustralianews.com/preview/index.php?cid=8655&page=news_detail --Rvd4life (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that this website is not in English and seems to quote nothing visible about Bangladesh, I'm afraid to say that is also not an WP:RS either. Web portals can not be used as an authentic source by any measure. Please read the guidlines on RS to see what constitutes a reliable source. You must use academic sources, especially here. And the assertion that Bangladesh is included in Greater Nepal is not supported by the article body, so please also read up WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 00:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated maps and POV descriptions on it.
I have edited the comments in the map because the part - "actually an imperialist map of China during the relevant period, besides the depiction of Aksai Chin as part of India, the map incidentally depicts all the pre-1947 Himalayan princely states in Pre-1947 India including inter alia Nepal, Sikikim, and what is now Arunachal Pradesh as integral parts of India" tries to convey a non neutral point of view. Those words should be a part of an another article most likely greater India and not Greater Nepal. Similary, I have edited the comments on the Map of 1805 to make it dwell on the facts and not POV.

I have removed the Map - "Imperial Gazetteer Map of British India, 1909. Nepal is shown as an Indian princely state on the map" as it is the depiction Nepalese boundaries after Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-16). It niether adds nor applies any significance to the current article as Greater Nepal is a topic of Nepalese boundaries prior to the Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814-16.

(Ned.eddie (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)) — Ned.eddie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have removed that map does not provide any significance or is related to the current article and removed the extremely biased and non-neutral comments. I believe our contribution should be more aligned to provide the users with neutral point of view. Please don't keep on adding it unless there's a good reason to it.(Ned.eddie (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)). — Ned.eddie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * If you get a consensus for your edits here, then feel free to make the edits. However, making large and significant edits without consensus and not leaving edit summaries explaining your actions is edit warring, plain and simple.  If you revert again without a consensus, I'm left with no other option but to report you for edit warring.  --Rvd4life (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Provide Links
If someone is changing this article and want to keep his matter about this article then change it but also provide a link that will tell what you are saying is correct. Please dont change any thing without a proper link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepaboy (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Verbose and rambling edits do not rationalize the concept
Long verbose, rambling background repeatedly added by Doseiai2 is not relevant to the article, nor does it add to the justification of the concept of "Greater Nepal". The concept is nascent (of recent origin). There is no historical background other than its recent espousal by the Communists and Maoists who draw inspiration from China (and therefore do not include parts of Tibet so as not to annoy China). The territories were never in possession of Nepal for more than 10 to 25 years in its 2,500 year history since the times of Gautam Buddha. The Kings of Sikkim, Kumaon and Garhwal kingdoms were always independent (of Gurkhas) and their kingdoms had never been defeated by the Gurkhas earlier. If the Gurkhas had not occupied these territories for a few years, there would have been no concept of "Greater Nepal" as espoused by the Communists and Maoists in recent times. Therefore adding verbose, rambling text reg. ancient tribes, races, diseases, adverse terrain, inaccessibility, et al as the background for the concept is out of place. Doseiai2 should know the difference between the words "historic" and "historical". Historical means what has come down from the past whether important or not; what happened in the past; what pertains to the past. Historic means an event of great importance. Some changes in history (such as the transformation of the British Colonies into the United States of America in 1776) were historic, others were only historical. The Sugauli Treaty was historic. Changes in India-Nepal boundary over centuries are historical, not historic. In history, kings and kingdoms fought wars, won territories and lost territories; some kingdoms or countries disappeared from maps while some new countries appeared on maps and the borders of many countries changed. The concept of a "Greater Country" on the basis of brief victories (spanning just one per cent of total written history) is only surrealistic nostalgia. Rao Ravindra (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying to hide truth
What is Greater India & Akhand Bharat (Undivided India)? Greater India says: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Indonesia, Philippines etc are the part of Greater India becouse there's people followed Hinduism & Buddhism in history and Akhand Bharat says the part sometime included in british india which independent in 1947 are the part of Akhand Bharat and should be restore as Akhand Bharat. This type of article should be remain on wikipedia but Greater nepal which tells try to say Uttrakand, Sikkim & Darjeeling sometime in history was part of Nepal shouldn't remain on Wikipedia? Akhand Bharat never will be restore becouse British India was unified by Britishers. Britishers captured, occupied conquest, ceded part of other's dynasty & kingdoms, they annexed part of bengal, gujarat, marathas, sikh empire, rajputanas, sindh, multan and they also ceded part of Gorkha (Nepal). But Nepal ceded only 1/3 part of Nepal to britishers & saved her sovereignity so this country couldn't part of India. On 1947 when britishers left india they freed all the part of Indian subcontinent. captured part chose Indian republic or pakistan dominion or remain sovereign but the part annexed from nepal remained in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepaboy (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Topposting
Before There were no country Name India, Nepal, Bhutan etc .... All the country were divided to small country ... As u know Nepal Was formed from gorkha kingdom ... But INDIA WAS FORMED AFTER BRITISH RULED THERE INDIA WAS ALSO SMALL SMALL STATES. YA YOU CAN SAY GREATER INDIA... GREATER INDIA CONTAIN PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH .. COMBO OF THESE THREE COUNTRIES IS CALLED GREATER INDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddrthpuri (talk • contribs) 10:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Major Bias issues are transforming this article into Propoganda
This page has to be one of the most biased articles I have seen on wikipedia, examples;

Gurkha Empire grew in all fronts just to shrink and defeat the British East India Company from South Asia and send them home. So India as modern Nation came as a gift, all territories united by the British, the inclusion of unrelated tribes and community in Indian Union is still bringing integration problem in the realm of Indian Nationalism.

This is an exert from the article, this entire section has numerous grammar errors and is written poorly. On top of this the statements 'came as a gift', 'shrink and defeat the EIC from south asia and send them home', are not only incredibly biased statements they don't have a citation, and are actually historically incorrect, the EIC was not defeated by the Nepalese kingdom and sent home (by the way they don't seem to understand the difference between sent and send).

Another example: Nepalese people now a days to some extent have in their mind of their glorious past history

'their glorious past history', this is a statement made without citations and is part of the author's view of the history of Nepal, it is inappropriate for this article or any other on Wikipedia to make value judgement on how important or 'glorious' a history is, this combined with the previous issue of a historically inaccurate statement in the article that the Nepali kingdom defeated the EIC and ejected them from India is historical revisionism and an example of propaganda.

And lastly this,

The Greater Nepal Movement want that this Treaty being unequal and done with the British only is irrelevant at present time. Adherents of Greater Nepal emphasize now that Indian Authority should give back those lost territories to Nepal, when once British had done this treaty with Nepal. Yes, this demand is made aggressively by Greater Nepal Movement. (https://www.facebook.com/greatnepal/posts/10151968642056397).

There is a facebook link just placed within a paragraph... It's not even a citation, just a posted link, the link btw goes towards "original research" were the author attempts to apply modern international law in the U.N. to a political treaty signed in the 19th century well before the founding of the U.N. and argue that the treaty is now void and the land should be ceded back to India. Needless to say a claim like that must come from a Wiki acceptable source and have some academic basis, and I have my suspicions that the link was included purely to promote it without trying to even pretend it was a source.

All of this in addition to the change I made on the Nepali officials statement on the issue are major problems with the article.

The change I made for example, was an outsourced, un-cited statement that read 'Nepalese Leaders can never openly claim the concept of Greater Nepal in public.'

This statement made right after a quote of the former pm denying the legitimacy of such an idea. This is not a citation of an actual allegation made by any source, and the fact that it would be included right after a statement by the former pm serves to try and suggest that this is the case for the former pm, this is borderline, if not actual slander.

I will attempt on my own to try and find a way to re-write the biased portions of this article to fit a wiki standard, a good example of such an article being 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksia_aculeata'. I will also share this article to wiki editors to get their take on this article, which in it's current state is poorly written and at times bordering on becoming propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D19:A00:BC0A:6816:CCC6:DCDA (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)