Trust: The Indian Government had given employment, even in its Armed forces, to the Nepalese citizens.
Empathy: Under the various International Schemes/Plans the best Indian Universities had accommodated Nepalese students even when the latter did not qualify for admission on competitive merits.
Compassion:
The Nepalese small businessmen are permitted to run business in India--without paying any discriminative Tax like the '25% Tax on Profits', 'Tourist Tax' etc.
The Indian Tax-payers are financing the supply, 'on-credit', of petroleum products to the Nepalese economy even though Nepal has no money to pay for it in the foreseeable future.
Sovereignty: The Indian Government has, diplomatically & militarily, ensured that no lcountry violates the sovereignty of Nepal. Remember what happened to Tibet, and what is being done to Nepal's' peace by some disgruntled sections?
It is, therefore, painfu to find some misled and UNGRATEFUL individuals on the Internet abusing & hating ALL the Indian people.

thopa is right.

if you think sikkim was obtain without force, read this from history:

In 1947, a popular vote rejected Sikkim's joining the Indian Union and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed to a special protectorate status for Sikkim. Sikkim was to be a tributary of India, in which India controlled its external defence, diplomacy and communication. A state council was established in 1955 to allow for constitutional government for the Chogyal. Meanwhile trouble was brewing in the state after the Sikkim National Congress demanded fresh elections and greater representation for the Nepalese. In 1973, riots in front of the palace led to a formal request for protection from India. The chogyal was proving to be extremely unpopular with the people. Sikkim was closed and little was known until American climber Caril Ridley happened into Gangtok and was able to smuggle photos and legal documentation out. When confirmed by China, India’s actions were brought into the spotlight of world awareness, However history had already been written and matters came to a head in 1975, when the Kazi (Prime Minister) appealed to the Indian Parliament for representation and change of Sikkim's status to a state of India. In April, the Indian Army moved in Sikkim, seizing the city of Gangtok, disarming the Palace Guards. Within two days the entire nation was in Indian hands. A referendum was held in which 97.5% of the people voted to join the Indian Union. A few weeks later on May 16, 1975, Sikkim officially became the 22nd state of the Indian Union, and monarchy was abolished.

China eventually recognised Sikkim as an Indian state in 2003, which led to a thaw in Sino-Indian relations. In return, India announced its official recognition of Tibet as an integrated part of China. [wiki]

United Nations did nothing because it was taken later with referendum. Those poor himali people were promised a lot of goodies but ultimately peace was what people wanted most and without India it was not possible. It shows how elected leader was able to sell the whole country when fighting over power was unleashed. Good thing that we were able to pass 1970s contemporary India. Now the condition of Nepal right now is in same as sikkim in 1973. Luck is with us that we are more nationalist and this is 2007. But if impasse continues and power equillibrium breaks nothing can be guranteed. We must have election as soon as possible. Remember, India as an animal who doesn't do its own hunting but is not ashamed to claim it later either.

captain, that journalist answer was tamed. This could have been the better answer:
" leave us alone. Leecher's cure for blood pressure cannot justify its presence."

we are to blame that we can't protect our own country, everday being invaded by india, and its ecomnomic and political intereferences has collapsed our country. i think it would be better for whole south Asia if india is wiped off the map of world.

A couple of points:

- It is hard to have a meaningful and sensible discussion about India-Nepal relations when Sikkim is brought into the picture. Doing so brings out the worst in both people. Even otherwise level headed people tend to get emotional - on both sides - as we are beginning to see here on this thread. The conversation that follows is then the same old one we have been having for the last 30 years and nothing concrete ever comes out of it in my opinion.

- Sikkim is about the past. While we cannot ignore history and its lessons, we cannot live with our heads buried in the past either. We have to move with the times. Sikkim was an exception in so many ways - it was not a member of the UN, if I am not mistaken, it was a small area to manage and had a population that thought India could provide them the freedom that the Chogyal could not. (And no Nehru was not alive in 1975 as someone mentioned - he died in 1964). Present day Nepal has less of that problem - we have put our Chogyal in place and might be getting rid of him soon. Nepalese already have the freedom and ability to choose their destiny in a way the people of Sikkim never had.

- India may have intervened in Sri Lanka but it got it's rear-end kicked pretty badly. Let's not forget the IPKF withdrew from Sri Lanka in the end. In the Maldives too, India paratroopers helped put down a coup but they did not occupy the country even when they had the means to do so. Perhaps the lessons of Lanka were hard to miss or they feared stretching their forces too thin might make them vulnerable elsewhere. Case in point: the 1965 war with Pakistan which many feel Pakistan instigated noticing India's vulnerability after the 1962 defeat at the hands of the Chinese. Both operations happened under Rajiv Gandhi's watch as did the infamous blockade of Nepal. Rajiv Gandhi had an ambitious and almost arrogant foreign policy in some ways. He paid for it with his life. Indian PM's have been much more accommodating of their neighbors since. And rightly so - why would any sensible leader want to put his finger into a bee-hive when they are already other fires to douse?

- What is another ambitious/ arrogant leader emerges who is not cognizant of the lessons of the IPKF misadventure in Sri Lanka? I'd argue, such a thing can surely happen, but if you look at the things that would encourage an Indian leader to follow Rajiv Gandhi's footsteps versus the things that would discourage them to do so - I'd say they latter carry much more wight in this day and age. For example, no occupying power has succeeded since second world war, with Britain in Malay in the 60's being an exception, in putting down an insurgency against occupation. With the lessons of Iraq fresh in the minds of military planners around the world, I am left to wonder if the Indians would so fool hardy as to attempt such a feat.

- " captain, that journalist answer was tamed. This could have been the better answer:
" leave us alone. Leecher's cure for blood pressure cannot justify its presence." "

Not everyone thinks that way and neither should they. India is neither a friend nor an enemy of Nepal in my opinion. They are a neighbor whom we need to live next to and business with. As with any business dealing, a cordial atmosphere is required to get effective results, and that should be the focus on both sides.

- Last but not least, we need to be strong economically to gain respect from India. Like it or not, for now, with India's economy booming, the way to grow ours is to work with them and get Indian and foreign investment in (and in the process gain access to their markets). Forward-moving politics is about pragmatism - unless we learn to deal with India and others in such a manner, we will continue to be left behind as the begging bowl of the world while our neighbors speed past us in every way.