Critics of the Crimean referendum, almost all of whom have a western European mindset, say that the referendum was 'illegal'. What is legal in politics? Was ex-king Gyanendra's restoration of the Parliament in 2006 legal? What does legality do in the face of popular uprising (in Nepal's case) or in the face of total wiping out of an ethnicity (in Crimea's case)? Do the implications of wiping out of ethnic identity ring a bell? It should in Nepal's case, if one cares to ponder. The same countries that oppose the  Russian annexation of Crimea—whatever elese it is called, it is in fact an annexation—were silent when it there was a similar situation in South Asia almost 40 years ago. 

According to a 2001 Nepali Times edition, BB Gurung, a former chief minister of the Indian state of Sikkim said, “We can't turn back the clock now.” Under the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1950, Sikkim was made a  'protectorate' of India and the 1975 referendum effectively paved the way for Sikkim to join India. The US State Department, in documents declassified in 2007, wondered why India did what it did facing international criticism when it had effective control over Sikkim. The declassified documents (available readily on the web) reads, “Possibly India's confrontation with the Chogyal last year (1974) and his continued effort to assert his independent authority prompted India to undertake a 'permanent' solution at this time.”

 

International criticism of the 1975 Sikkim referendum was, at best, muted and nowhere near what the Europeans and Americans (the US) are currently voicing (criticisms) and doing (sanctions) today. China (think of Tibet) criticised India and accused the then Soviet Union of colluding with India. But the criticism in Nepal was rather loud. There were street protests and the National Assembly (Rastriya Panchayat) condemned what it called India's annexation of Sikkim. The result was devastating for Nepal. There were multiple sanctions (including on petroleum products) and Nepalis living temporarily in eastern Indian states were evicted. The movement of Nepalis in these areas, contrary to the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Friendship, was restricted and Nepalis travelling to these areas had to obtain special permits from the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu. 

The tension between New Delhi and Gangtok was brewing since the early 1970s and late king Birendra, in his speech at a farewell dinner during his coronation in February 1975, called on the international community to declare Nepal a ‘Zone of Peace’ (ZOP). By the time a western-style multiparty democracy was restored in 1990, more than 100 countries, except India, came out in support of the ZOP. But when democracy was restored in Nepal, out went the ZOP. It was as though regime and system changes force countries to change their national interests to suit the interests of more powerful countries. Or such changes show the assymetrical relationship between the leaders of small and big and powerful countries, particularly when leaders of small countries find, what they think to be a refuge in big and powerful countries which helps them develop—and may be unconsciously—a tilt towards them. Nepal has so far remained silent on the Russian annexation and the fact is that it seems to have done so because the masters of the present leadership have remained quiet.

In a true democracy, plebiscites help ascertain the wishes of the majority of the people. Yet, this mode of understanding the people's wishes has been denied time and again in many countries and in many areas in different countries. There is always a fear of a breakup of countries because of such plebiscites. In Nepal, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal has been calling for a referendum on secularism and on the monarchy. Political parties in power and different pressure groups obviously would not want such a referendum to ever take place. There is a saying that freedom is a myth and a rainbow which everyone strives for but cannot reach. The western European and American attitude is immensely idealistic on one hand and equally contemptible on the other. The Russian annexation of Crimea on whatever grounds needs to be condemned. But the European and American reaction would have been more than justified had they responded similarly on all such occasions. The West showed no hesitation while sending in aircraft to Libya following an uprising there. But what have the Europeans and Americans done in the case of Syria, where thousands have been killed and many more thousands rendered homeless? Is this not a two-faced attitude?