भारतीय इतिहास के ६ स्वर्णिम पृष्ठ (वीर सावरकर - विदेशी आक्रान्ताओं पर विजय गाथा)

Nepal in the Bombay Session of the Hindu Conference (1926) Another, yet more significant feature of the conference that deserves to be specially emphasised was the presence and the thrilling speech of Shriyut Agamgiri, a Nepali leader, who came all the way from Calcutta to Bombay with a set purpose of representing the feelings of our Nepali Hindu brethren towards the Sanghatan movement. The Sanghatan movement cannot be said to be the spokesman and cannot claim to represent the Hindus as a whole as long as it fails to enlist not only the sympathy but the actual and active participation of the most powerful and prominent and the only organised section of the Hindus—the Hindus of Nepal. The moment Nepal steps in and assumes the lead of the Sanghatan, it will be a power that could no longer be safely despised or neglected by any one in the world. Nepal as the only organised Hindu power owes it as much to herself as to us all. Whatever affects us Hindus as Hindus, must affect our brothers and co-religionists in Nepal too. This pan-Hindu consciousness must be instilled down into the heart of the humblest of the humble of the Nepali Hindu. With this end in view, for the last two years or so, constant attempts have been made through the press and platform to rouse amongst the people a sense of the importance of this Nepali question. Last year, a proposal to offer presidential chair of the Mahasabha at Calcutta to His Majesty the King of Nepal or to His Excellency the Prime Minister was deliberately put forward from the chair and was unanimously adopted at the special session of the Mahasabha at Belgaum, congratulating the King on his progressive policy and assuring him of the feelings of deepest love and loyal pride that all Hindus cherish towards our brethren in Nepal. This interest that the Hindus on our side began to evince in Nepal naturally disturbed some people whose energy is ever employed in one single mission—to keep the Hindus divided in castes and creeds and provinces and sects and sections. Queer and mischievous theories were cooked up insinuating that Nepal was no more a part of India than Tibet was. Nor was she racially, communally or any way organically connected with us, the Hindu outside Nepal. The mischief was transparent and yet unfortunately some Nepali Hindus too did fall a victim to its spacious reasoning and said, ‘We are not Indians; we are Nepali. The Sanghatan has nothing to do with us.’