The article “ >Letting Nepal be ” (Sept. 15) appears to be downright critical of India’s policy in Nepal. No doubt, India should look beyond Nepal’s Constitution crisis and explore other avenues for bettering relations. But the writer overlooks the fact that India’s intervention in Nepal is only well-intentioned and driven by the genuine need for stability in the country. Without such intervention, the Madhesi protest will continue to linger. Its fallouts will be seen in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. India has undoubtedly only played a positive role in Nepal’s development. Against this background, we can’t simply say that India is being a bully.
Pallav Kumar,
New Delhi
India’s intervention in Nepal has led to bitterness. No leader of a country, however small the country is, would like the idea of being led by a bigger and mightier neighbour in matters concerning its internal politics. India’s intervention will only aggravate the already existing tension between the two countries. History has shown that intervention of this kind has always backfired: that the U.S.’s interventions in West Asia have been largely responsible for the growth of the Islamic State cannot be questioned.
N. Visveswaran,
Chennai
