| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Paschim | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 09:47 AM
Okay -- I might very well have been the last person on Sajha to be aware of events in Nepal. But here are my random thoughts anyway, based on very limited information. King and Country by Paschim. 1. I am no constitutional expert, but to me, the king’s action is retrogressive. He has attacked the spirit of the constitution. The Nepali king has NO authority to assume executive powers. He cannot hire and fire Prime Ministers. That authority rests with the Parliament elected by the people of Nepal. The Constitution of 1990 makes the people sovereign, and a source of ALL state power, NOT the monarch. Yes, Deuba’s performance has been pathetic – but that is no excuse for the king to liberally interpret Article 127 to attack other articles of the same constitution, especially the all-important Article 3, and the Preamble itself. At constitutionally troubled times like now when we don’t have a parliament and elections can’t be held, he has a role under 127, but that is to find a “remedy” that conforms to other articles and the broader spirit of the constitution. He can’t use that to usurp power for even one second, or ask for the PM’s resignation (Deuba says he refused). If he is seeking an active role in politics, like Madan Bhandari suggested, he has to abdicate the throne, and fight an election as a commoner. 2. That Deuba is a pathetic dud and his venal allies are like gangsters is well known. But two “wrongs” don’t make one “right”, and by entering the scene in an apparent state of constitutional ambiguity, the king has gambled, and erred. Yes, the samsadbadi politicians have been major disappointments, and many of these bastards ought to be castrated. I can also sympathize, but not agree, with what seems to be a general sentiment of the people – je bhayo, thikai bhayo, or even khucching. But managing a polity is more about putting functioning systems and processes in place than anchoring hopes on an individual or two. To cleanse the filth and the sleaze in this system, we have to use the existing system itself – we can’t afford to look for despotic alternatives, whether in the form of ultra-left Maoists or ultra-right Royalists. Hira kaatne hira mai rakhera. So I for one don’t care if the king’s action is popular or not, I know he has done damage to the ethos of our constitution, and I don’t like that. 3. The king was clever enough to wait until the “predictable” constitutional provisions were exhausted. And he has repeated ad nausea that he is committed to democracy and constitutional monarchy. Should we then give him the benefit of the doubt that he will deliver on his promise of choosing a clean cabinet that will hold elections? If after the new government is elected, will he withdraw gracefully to his old constitutional role? If yes, this action may be bearable. His attack would have scarred the constitution, but if the outcome is sound, we can move on. But I doubt things will go this simply. What if his designs are more sinister, and that he seeks sakriya executive authorities that he is not entitled to? This is no satra saal, and I hope he doesn't dig his own grave. He should know that he can’t afford to alienate the enormous political capital that samsadbadi forces possess, and give further ammunition to Maoists. Unless, of course, the king is a republican himself. 4. What about the role of foreign powers? India and the US are important substantively – and China, since Zhou En Lai’s time, has preferred to be in the loop, but not be seen as meddlesome. The king is known to have talked to the US and Chinese Ambassadors. The last Indian Ambassador just died, and the new one, Shyamsharan, is yet to arrive. It is likely that the king sung his “committed to democracy” song to the American and told him that all this is temporary. So, no big fuss, I imagine, from the State Department, or the South Block for now. But they will be watching. |
| Naresh_karki | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 09:48 AM
here comes pashim...we all were waiting |
| Paschim | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 09:49 AM
5. As a *crude* historical parallel, it is interesting to note that after protracted chaos of around 5 years, circa 1957, King Mahendra had dismissed Tanka Prasad Acharya’s government on the ground that his government couldn’t hold elections by the end of that year. Charge against Deuba is identical. Mahendra had then brought in KI Singh, but after sacking him also, the king ruled directly for a few months, finally declaring a definitive date for elections in 1959. He then formed an “election government” under the chairmanship of Subarna Shumsher. It was that election that swept the Nepali Congress to power with two-thirds majority, making BP Koirala the PM. Mahendra is said to have been stunned at the result. His ambitions collided with those of BP, a formidable statesman in his own right, and the tussle ended in a royal coup 17 months later with democracy gone, and key democrats locked up without trial for 8 years. Then came the hideous Panchayat. 6. But the situation of 42 years ago was very different. We were a poorer, more isolated and illiterate country – with the king being treated as sacrosanct by much of the population. The Constitution of 1958, famously drafted by Sir Ivor Jennings, who also wrote one for Sri Lanka, had put in a curious division of power between the king and the parliament. Things are dramatically different now – the world has changed, the monarchy is weak, having been demystified and lost a fair share of legitimacy after last year’s Massacre, and their source of illegitimate power through the Army is also under challenge – partially from the Maoists, and more strongly through passive democratic thought processes. These are my personal opinions. So King Gyanendra won’t and can’t do anything as “bold” as his father. He is forced to “honor” the present constitution, which he says he will, but what his latest action has revealed is that he is only a reluctant adherent. The current constitution could be one of the best things that has happened to our country since the Unification in 1769. But what the king’s action has revealed is that, we may have a “ceremonial” head of state whose loyalty to this landmark achievement is actually not very sincere. And that’s sad. More remarks when I know more, and am better informed about where this game is headed. Thank you for reading. |
| ananta | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 10:32 AM
Paschimji, Let's see how will the situation develop within some days......?? In fact, our present contitution has not given him executive authority. Is it only for "tatkalai sambidhanko badha adchan fukaun " or for something more? Some Excrepts from Nepali Times(kunda dixit) The critical question now is who the caretaker prime minister will be and the composition of the council of ministers. A prime minister from the Panchayat era will be seen as a regressive move, while a cabinet led by able and decisive technocrats to immediately start implementing development would be just what the country needs at the moment. And if that happens, the king's move will be seen not as a regressive step, but one that will bring democracy and development back on track. Either way, "Asoj 18" will perhaps go down in history as a date to be remembered. Just like "Poush 1". |
| KingBhakta | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 10:36 AM
Paschim, if you don't sack the pathetic Deoba, what would you do? Deoba realized that he can never be sacked constitutionally, not now, not next year, not even after 10years. We were all deadlocked by the constitution. They were all trying to be in power, and forget about country, by postponing election for 14months, and there is no guarantee that election will be held in another 14months too. It is good that he sacked when deoba was alone, in next 14months, all these corrupts and thus making a all party goverment would make situation more complicated. Lets hope everything will be positive, we should support this move with reservations, not object it explictly. This vaccum was initiated by Girija and Deoba, then, exploited by UML plus other parties. King knows that its not 17saal, today population of Nepal is 23million, more than 2.2 times, more educated peoples, network of Royal palace was all ceased, as we can see from Maoist attack on Army barracks, and all these things tell that King can not toss his Gaddhi, but, he is getting right time to strengthen his position. Nalayaki of our political leaders who were in Daldal of corruptions, and musical chair game are responsible. Today, why no one in Kathmandu dared to come to street and speak a word against King, also not in support of these leaders. Because they had failed to deliver things to public, except those lucky ticket winners in elections. Its time to restructure multiparty system, by putting all those who were corrupt in jail and let a fresh election starts with clean imaged peopels. Its time to send jails to all those corrupts. |
| SOULFREE | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 10:37 AM
Paschim bro said >> The current constitution could be one of the best things that has happened to our country since the Unification in 1769. The current constitution could be one of the best things that has happened only to the Politicians. For the rest of nepali citizen, It just allowed people to vote whoever they wanted. Rest is still the same. Corruption is still the same. Richer are getting richer, poorer are getting poorer. What change did it bring in last 10 years? Violence and more corruption? A major Brain drain? Inflation? Terrorism? It might have filled the pockets of some politicians and their followers. Rest of the Nepal is same. Disapointed. We are still going down, and there is not even a small ray of hope that we will ever stop going down. So, the change is welcomed. At least it gives some hope. If it turns out good, then it is good. If it turns out bad, we have got nothing to lose. We will still be going down in same velocity. No regrets whatsoever. |
| sparsha | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 11:01 AM
One thing I am failing to understand is how did king's action violated the preamble of the Constitution? What does the Article 3 say? "The sovereignty of Nepal is vested in the Nepalese people and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution." How do you define this? If a PM goes crazy or uncostitutional then what the sovereign Nepali people are supposed to do? Gather in tudikhel and shout, "PM, Get the hell out of Singhadurbar and Baluwatar"? He would have no constitutional right to remain in power after six months. Why didn't he know that? How depth is his knowledge on the Constitution is reflected in his recommendation to the King to defer the election by more than a year. He was a caretaker PM. He was supposed to hold election not defer. It was Deuba and other political parties who were trying to violate the Constitution as they have been doing all the time. We, the sovereign Nepali people, haven't even recalled a single VDC chairman in this a jug old democracy. And we are expected to recall a PM that goes unconstitutional? come on! How are we supposed to do that? Deoba refused to resign when the King asked for it...how many of us think he would have resigned if people have asked for it? And who are these "people" who will ask for PM's resignation? Opposition parties always ask for PM's resignation no matter what he does. There is no unity among Nepalis. Political parties seldom alllow people to be just Nepalis. Nepalis are either Congressi, coomunist, panche, maobadis, or neutral. How many people are neutral? We are not united. we know it. May be we are sovereign but we don't know what that means and have never tried to exercise that sovereignty. Let's wait and see how things develop before we make king a villian. We all know King does not own us. If he competes for power with us, he will be gone. Right now, he is saying he has no intention to be an active ruler. Give him a chance and see. |
| ananta | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 11:17 AM
Now, I agree that Our present Constitution still contains some Constitutional Loopholes, Although Creators of Present Constitution were very careful for such loopholes and did not put any Dhara 55(of 2015 constitution) for the king. |
| makuro | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 11:45 AM
I see all the comments, analysis brewing up in this and other threads from King Gyanendra's yesterday's action. What I saw was basically people's approval or disapproval of his actions. But I failed to see from people's comment is this one: What is the best recouse King could have taken( instead of one he took) given the situation country is in? -Should he have consulted with Supreme Court before firing PM whether constitutionally he has right to do so? -let Deuba government continue until next election? - Before kicking Deuba out, assemble group of able people(from all political parties, clean and not contesting election just the way he said), transfering power to those group and then cut Deuba loose? -Revive dissolved House of representatives? What were the alternatives King have and what was the best one???? |
| paramendra | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 12:03 PM
Assessing King Gyanendra's Move |
| ananta | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 12:21 PM
Stalemate: Editorial of People's Daily http://www.yomari.net/p-review/2002/10/03102002/edit.html |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 12:28 PM
PM Deuba was dismissed for not being able to discharge his constitutional responsibilities i.e. for not trying to hold the election in time.Instead, he was trying to extend tenure of his office.Deuba says his dismissal is unconstitutional.It is reported that Deuba was asked to resign before his dismissal, but he refused to do so.Now His Majesty the King Gyanendra has assumed all the executive powers and he is soon to form the council of ministers.These ministers will not contest the coming election.His Majesty has upheld the trust in the constitution of the country, i.e constitutional monarchy and multiparty system. Common people have welcomed the steps taken by His Majesty.Bad governance, corruption and mismanagement of the state funds, and insecurity prevailing in the country was the main cause behind this political change. |
| VillageVoice | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 01:57 PM
Let me stress at the very outset: our politicains have been absoloute failures. And this is no defense of deuba's peformance - either as the Prime Minister or the party leader. The same applies to all the top guns, who have plundered, butchered, and razed the country. But I am still to be convinced that the bebhadan phukaune clause grants the king executive authority to dissmiss an elected head of the government. I thought, in case of a constitutional deadlock between the two, the Prime Minister prevails (who holds the executive authority, according to the constitution). For argument's sake, what if Deuba had resfused to budge???? Another constitutional crisis? The fact remains simple: The king prevailed because a/ the security forces are firmly on his side (now how constitutional is this one again??????) b/ and, to some extent, the public opinion--but one can easily question this assumption--is on the king's side for the time being. But how wise is it to let popular opinion, assuming that's the case here, rather than rule of law, prevail? What if there is a turnaround in public opinion within the next few days/weeks? Are we going to bring Deuba back - after all the Prime Minister insists his removal is unconstitutional? And we all know public opionin can be fickle. Paschim wrote: #But two “wrongs” don’t make one “right”, and by entering the scene in an apparent state of constitutional ambiguity, the king has gambled, and erred....I can also sympathize, but not agree, with what seems to be a general sentiment of the people – je bhayo, thikai bhayo, or even khucching. But managing a polity is more about putting functioning systems and processes in place than anchoring hopes on an individual or two.# Very well put. Deuba did go too far in seeking for a year's extension for elections but the king could have behaved better. But more importantly, what could the king have done to avoid the constitutional coup as Ananta asks? Certainly, seeking Supreme Court's opinion--forming amicus curie--was one option before him. He should have asked them to consider the possibility of reviving the parliament and various other options. And also held a broad-based consultations with people from various walks of life. That would have made a lot of skeptics happy in that the king had held *genuine* consultation with the people. After all, it was a convention-setting, grave national crisis and some delay would have hardly mattered. Yes, he did meet some politicians, but then they couldn't have possibly supported his move. Were they mere fait accompli then? |
| orion | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 03:36 PM
As I have stated in other threads, this King hardly has the credibility to "save democracy". That he was opposed to multi party democracy in 1990 is well know among people who have been watching the Palace. I think this is really all another chapter in the drama for the King to establsih himself as a dictator. Democracy may not have done wonders for Nepal, but dictatorship will be worse. Nepal's problems are not the result of democracy per se, but the result of the lack of proper democracy - ie the institutions and culture that needs to come with free elections and elected representatives. If the Kings action is intended to destroy democracy then Gyanendra is taking the country backward, not forward |
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 04:43 PM
Paschim, Enjoyed your thoughts. A well written piece! I am interested in knowing more about 2017 B.S. incident. Wonder how much of that is going to repeat this time. Can you enlighten us further on this? |
| ? | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 05:07 PM
Is/Was the nepali democractic system, a true representative of the people's way of governance? The election held every 5 years was the only time,when people got the chance to elect someone to the parliament, quite unsure of who was going to lead the country? I would call that window dressing for the policos to show that they were legitimately elected. The evidence was their performance, which was more pathetic than rock bottom. Maoist movement was not a frustration of the people rather of those, who weren't able to get into the game legitimately. Nepali Democracy or Nepali Monarchy, they did not make any sense to the general populace except for the political leaders, who got the chance of achieving themselves what they wanted to get( wealth and power) after much of the history of Nepali political system, where the king was the only beneficiary of nepalese wealth and power. Democracy or not, people just want to live their simpleton lives, and this applies certainly to you and me. We are sheep after all. |
| surya | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 05:15 PM
? "Maoist movement was not a frustration of the people rather of those, who weren't able to get into the game legitimately." So true!! As for "Democracy or not, people just want to live their simpleton lives, and this applies certainly to you and me. We are sheep after all." .... yes, people want to lead a "simple" life... lives with dignity, free choice, opportunity, equality. As for being sheep... speak for your self:) |
| ? | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 05:20 PM
I agree, I am a sheep and many are. This may not apply to you. |
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 05:37 PM
? "Democracy or not, people just want to live their simpleton lives,............" I agree with you fully that we all want to live decent simple lives. Very few us want the kind of power and wealth that our political leaders seem to aspire to. Unfortunately to live even that simple life, there needs to be an amicable political environment in the country. I agee with Surya that simple lives are lives lived with dignity, free choice, opportunity, equality. There's a lot of political apathy among Nepali public because of the failure of our leaders to deliver what they seem to promise every time election comes around. Even under these conditions of broken promises from the politicians, we as public has to show an active interest in politics of our country. Political apathy is the greatest hindrance to be able to live those "simpleton lives" that ? talked about. |
| madhav | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 10:37 PM
I think King cannot be formidable to our democracy and constitution as you said he is only a reluctant adherent. But the symptom of the incident is really menacing. In democracy, State Institutions and constitutions function well only when it is supported by political culture – a set of political values people perceives for their political system. The tragedy of our country is that mass people still regards king as a symbol of repository of state powers. Our political parties and leaders when out of rein always call upon king in public to settle disputes if any. Such things helped to bolster his role in the politics whatever we outcry for constitution and constitutional monarchy. Now, it is time to look for future and edify our set political values. If again any people’s leader surge challenge him our doubt about king’s role will be resolved. He will be compelled to limit his move within palace boundaries. Alas! have you see any charismatic leader as late M. Bhandari for this gambit? I have fear “ dud khana palkako biralo phari phari aaucha” Madhav |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 05-Oct-02 11:31 PM
Paschim, you are wrong. Your writing clearly shows your little knowledge of the constitution of Nepal, 2047. The constitution recognizes the institution of monarchy as a political entity that can make decisions in crisis situations. Article 27 (3) states that: Shri panch bata nepali janata ko sarbottam hit ra samunnati ko lagi yo sambidhan ko palan ra samraxyan garibaxane cha Translation: His majesty the king will abide by and protect the constitution of Nepal for the betterment of the Nepali people. This means, the King can take necessary actions to make sure that nobody violates the constitution of Nepal, 2047. Article 127 states that the King can use this article to remove obstacles/constitutional difficulties. When Deuba proposed to postpone the elections, he violated the constitution of Nepal. It is mentioned nowhere in the constitution of Nepal that an all party meet can decide when the elections can take place. Also, the interim government CANNOT make any decision. In this type of crisis situation, the King can hire/fire/nominate PMs, advisory committees and whatever he deems fit. It is that simple. You don’t have to be a constitution expert to understand this plain and simple nepali. Deuba and other major political party leaders were violating the constitution. If the King had agreed to their demands of an-all party government and the postponment of polls, then, the constitution of Nepal would have been ineffective starting last Thursday. Then, the King would have been forced to use the article 128, which would have called for a national government, a constitution committee and postponement of polls. And be mindful of your language when addressing the institution that has been recognized by the constitution of the kingdom of Nepal 2047 as the symbol of nepali unity and nationality. People like Madan Bhandari came and went, but the institution of monarchy has been there for the last 1700 years! Regarding the role of foreign powers, the US state department is not concerned about Nepal, and let me remind you one thing, if you have forgotten this: The US envoy to Nepal is serving his second term in Nepal. He was here in the early 80s as a first/second secretary and now as an ambassador. The Indians have welcomed the move in a vague diplomatic language and the Chinese have reacted to the recent development in Nepal saying “its their internal affair and china believes in non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs”. You are also VERY wrong about Mahendra and BP. Don’t you know this simple fact that BP and the King went together well, and 2017’s move was the need of the time. Although, BP was locked in Sndarijal prision, whom did he get his regular supply of whiskey and cigarettes? Who supported his family? BP or whoever translated that awfully un-readable, full of lies jail journal did not write this either. Let me ask you this: Were you born in 17 saal? Do you know what really happened then? Have you talked to the leaders who have the guts to say why 2017 saal had to come? Don’t base your opinions on just what you read, sometimes, people write books fll of lies just to prove that they are MAHAN (just as Henry Kissinger). Make no mistake paschim, King Gyanendra can make decisions 4 times bolder than his father and not a single nepali will be out on the street protesting against his decisions. You know what Paschim, the problem with you educated folks is that, that you guys think everything works according to logic, and if this does not happen, then this will happen. You guys don’t really and can’t really relate to the ground conditions. I don’t question your intelligence and knowledge but don’t expect everything to go by the logic, formulas and a set principle. It works perfectly well in classrooms, but in real life, this never happens. Sparsha, your’s is a balanced argument. Village Voice, I know you probably will skip my posting but why do you fail to understand this simple fact: How could the King overturn the decision of the Supreme court? The PM dissolved the house using his constitutional rights, the king used his constitutional rights to preserve and protect the constitution of Nepal. Article 127 isn’t that hard to understand. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 12:28 AM
OK, we are all discussing whether or not what the king did can be justified, or whether or not its constitutional. I, just now found out that not only the articles, but also the preamble of the constitution has to be taken into consideration before commenting on the articles of the constitution. After going through books on constitution law, I have come to a conclusion that: Preamble of the constitutions of Nepal is vague. Vague in a sense that it does not state who drafted the constitution. Where as in the constitutions of other countries’ it is clearly stated in the preamble. The preamble of the constitution of Nepal 2047, hasn’t clearly defined whether the people have a say in rajya-sakti ko upayog (the use of state powers). In previous constitutions, we did not accept preamble as an inseparable part of the constitution, but the article 116(1) of the constitution of Nepal clearly states that preamble is an inseparable part of the constitution, and the preamble itself is so vague, that you can define it the way you want to. According to Sikri, CJ (Ex-Indian Chief Justice): …all importance has to be attached to the preamble in a constitutional statute. Nepal adhirajyako sambidahn ko prastabana (preamble) does not say why the constitution was drafted, to achieve what objective and for whom it is drafted—leaves these three important questions unanswered. It says, the sovereign powers rest with the people, but this is not defined clearly in any article of the constitution. So, the constitution in Nepal contradicts itself. This is the case with article 115 (1) which is contradictory to article 35 (2) and article 35 (6) of the constitution of Nepal, 2047. This means, the constitution of Nepal 2047 has many loopholes. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 12:33 AM
tysaile sabai buhera, sochera, manan garera matra alochana athawa samarthan garaun hai mitra, tyattikai nagaru. another interesting thing is that: The constitution recognizes the institute of monarchy as a political entity that can make decisions, otherwise they wouldn't have included article 127, 128, 27 (3), 31 and 115 (1). any constitution law expert among us? |
| KingBhakta | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 01:18 AM
Isolated Freak, you are getting bolder. Thats good point. We are learning constitution. Thanks. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 05:41 AM
Isolated Freak-ji, we seem to differ so fundamentally in our "takes" that I don't think it's even worth getting into this time-consuming cyber-debate. But some briefs points anyway: 1. The only recognized interpreter of the Constitution of Nepal is the Supreme Court of Nepal. Not you, not me, not King G. So people may interpret the "letter" and "spirit" of the constitution differently. Please thus kindly refrain from haughtily dismissing other people's opinions as "wrong". The king has roles (mostly advisory) in this constitution, but the central tenet is that the source of ALL state power lies in the people and the parliament they elect. The king by assuming executive powers himself has violated that spirit. But as Ananta said above, we clearly still seem to have some loopholes and ambiguities, which ought to be redressed by the next parliament elected by the Nepali people in whom the sovereignty lies. 2. I have my views on the monarchy and will express them the way I see fit. Btw, Nepal as a state and monarchy therein has only existed for the past 233 years, not 1700! As for respect, of the 12 kings or so of the Shah dynasty, hardly more than 4 are even worth talking about. But let me repeat on Sajha for the umpteenth time that while I may have a dim view of the individuals, I am a strong advocate of the institution of a law-bound constitutional monarchy in Nepal. I have defended that institution against republicans here on this forum in a measured, qualified manner. 3. As for BP, Mahendra, and satra saal….please…you sound like my friend Krishna Nath Sah from Janakpur who used to say, "London doesn't exist because I have not been there". The simple fact is: King Mahendra deposed a democratically elected PM and dissolved a duly elected parliament, and imprisoned at least 6 major democrats of the time in Sundarijal (BP, Ganeshman, Yogendra Sherchan, Ramnarayan Mishra, Diwan Singh Rai, and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai) for circa EIGHT years without any legal trial. Period. IF-ji, thanking you for some of your points, let's just politely agree to disagree on all this. Because I am not budging an inch from my assertions, and I assume likewise for you. Good to see you on Sajha though -- you are rather lively :) ------ Parijat phul: thanks for your interest. It's a long story. Nepali history between 1950 and 1960 is one fascinating episode for me. I have been reading up on it a lot and speaking to many people (most recently a friend arranged for me to talk with Kirtinidhi Bista about those times). The learning continues…but to answer you shortly: No, IN MY OPINION, there is a ZERO possibility of a 1960 like coup. I don't think the present king will dare deviate from the current constitution although he will seek to exploit fully the ambiguities therein as has happened now. As for the future of democracy in our land, I leave you with the following 3 lines that I wrote on Sajha some SIX months ago. I still stand by these words: Democracy is here to stay and thrive. I know it’s hard to believe this in the current climate of unease, but take a broader view of history, pray with respect for all Nepalis being killed now, drink some Jhapa tea with milk and no sugar, think about the lovely actress Sonali Bendre, and please smile :) :) :) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 06:11 AM
pashcim, let's agree to disagree, but the institution of monarchy i am reffering to starts from the kirata period. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 06:13 AM
yeah, does london exist? i haven't been there. where is it? janakpur ma ho :-) |
| Paschim | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 07:48 AM
IF-ji, we can disagree totally in our views, but still remain mutually civil and respectful. I thus appreciate your reciprocity! I forgot one extra point on the US State Dept above. I think they take a huge interest in us -- buffer state between two emerging global powers; a new project of western-styled democracy, aid + tourism, and post 9/11, the Maoist conflict is a terror movement. The Bush administration has invested some political capital in this regard, by meeting Deuba, and having to lobby the Congress to give us some 40 million recently, in addition to the annual standard USAID assistance worth 5-8 million -- sure that's nothing compared to the easy billion or two they routinely dole out for Colombia or Peru -- or Egypt and Israel -- but I for one think, we have always punched above our weight internationally, and international goodwill for us (depite our follies) remains unique. And Michael Malnowski was the number 2 at the US Embassy under Madame Chang-Bloch. That was between 1991 and 1994, not in the 80s. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 09:05 AM
pashim, reciprocity assured. you knoww hy Gujral's govt. failed in india? he said, well, we should go along with non-reciprocity approach in dealing with small neighboring countries. so, reciprocity has to be there, and i assure you that. the concept of buffer nation does not exist in the US foreign policy agendda anymore, because the cold war is over. India and China are emerging as major markets for the american goods (i ams ure you have read the book, the great tragedy of american diplomacy which says that US diplomacy and foreign relations mainly revolves around finding markets for the goods produced in the US which can't be sold in the US). Another interesting fact, there was a resolution filed in the US senate late last december in which somebody proposed to open a US consulate and USIS in Tibet,w hich means, the american government has now decided to leave the Tibetan independence issue and has accepted Tibeta s a part of China. The late King Birendra in his interview to the newsweek during his coronation said that the concept of a buffer state does not exist anymore. About international grants and fight against terror, let's keep quiet on that issue. We are not getting anything from anyone. Clearly american economic diplomacy with India and China is at play here. Also, notice one thing: whenever they have a republican govt. in the US, something big happens in Nepal. In 1990, Julia Chang Block (bloc?) was the US amb. to nepal, we had "democracy", now we have a career diplomat, appointed by the republican govt. who allegedly met with the king on friday. you are nominated for foreign minister in our new sajha cabinet and you are quite capable enough to analyze all these crude data that i have supplied to you. analyze, keep quiet. that's the key to success, and when you reach to a conclusion, say aha! life ho to aisi.. coca cola.. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 09:10 AM
also accept my muri muri thanks for correcting me on HE Malinowski |
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 11:38 AM
Paschim, Thanks for your suggestions on how to keep our senses together in these trying times. Certainly I have been praying for the lost Nepali souls during these times. But the idea of Jhapa tea is a unique one...by the way I rarely take much sugar in my tea although I always drink tea with milk....and it just happens that I have some genuine Jhapa tea in my apartment. As far as the actress Sonali Bendre is concerned, I just have no clue who she is. But I take your words that she must be something...... Wish you had suggested some Nepali actress though..we talk so much about India bullying us, yet our Nepali men still rate the Indian actresses better than our home grown Nepali kachhis. Why is that? And thanks for additional info on the 2017 saal kanda....keep reading and keep giving titbits about Nepali history on Sajha. |
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 11:45 AM
Madhav, Your comments are right on the money. But I see that today's Nepali youths have far less sacrosanct view of the king compared to our parents generations....so may be afterall it is not that bad. |
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 12:05 PM
Isolated freak, You seem quite well informed about "the legalities" and "interpretations" of the constitution. Good to have someone like you to at least explain the technicalities of the constitution in times like this. But what I find ironic is that on one hand you seem to chide Paschim for being so academic in the analysis of the present situation (your words, "the problem with you educated folks is that, that you guys think everything works according to logic, and if this does not happen, then this will happen...."), while you yourself seem to be so caught up in interpreting the constitutionality of the moves that have been made, almost to the point of spliting the hair. I give credit to you that you are writing from the front-line while we are commenting from the safety of seven seas away. But please don't dismiss our ideas so easily either just because we are not on the front-line. Sometimes with a bird's eye view, you get a more whole picture than when one is in the middle of things. Having said that please do keep posting on this thread. A true forum is one where people don't necessarily agree, but yet can keep the discussion. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Oct-02 01:56 PM
parijat ko phul thanks for your kind words, i am no constitution expert either. i just shared what i learned yesterday and today. my beliefe is, sometimes, its easy to understand things/issues when you analyze them without any prejudice or biases or pre-concieved notions. if i get readers like you, then why not.. i'll be posting more messages as my learning progresses. right now, i am waiting for mr trikal darshi maharaj guru to tell me what's my future like:-) |
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 07-Oct-02 07:13 PM
Isolated Freakji or anybody else, I just read in the Kantipur Online article that "The current constitution recognizes the king to be above the law and none of the king's decisions can be challenged even in the Supreme court". This sounds too strong. I was under the impression that when the revision of our constitution took place in 1990, one of the main revisions made was that nobody is above law, not even the king. Since you seem to be coming across as one of the few in this forum who seems to have some direct access to the interpretations of constitution, I am wondering what you have to say about it. I have included the link below. http://www.kantipuronline.com/kol_news.html#Parties%20call%20for%20“collective%20meeting”%20with%20King Can anyone else also bother to enlighten this ignorant Nepali about the constitution of Nepal? Thanks. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 07-Oct-02 11:45 PM
Dear parijat ko phul, Our constitution is modeled after the Westminster model but its not perfect. It has its own flaws, such as clause 3 of preamble is not defined anywhere in the constitution. “King can do no wrong”, this is the underlying principle of constitution of any country where the institution of monarchy prevails. And its clearly written in our constitution that: Question not to be raised in Courts: No question shall be raised in any court about any act performed by his majesty (Article 31) Also, this article can be interpreted in any way one deems fit: His Majesty is to nourish and protect this constitution by keeping in view the interest and progress of the people of Nepal (Article, 27:3) My argument thus is, the King can use the authority vested in him by the constitution of Nepal can exercise his powers the way he deems fit to: Protect the constitution To remove the constitutional difficulties (this means when there is now way out in resolving the crisis, the King can use Article 127 to issue decree, so that the constitution does not become ineffective. Article 27 (3), 127 and 128 gives the King authority to make decisions to make sure that nobody violates the constitution. Article 128 gives him authority to suspend the constitution, create a constitution committee and form a national government or an all-party government. Regarding the legality of the King’s move: If the king had agreed to postpone the polls, then there would have been a grave constitutional crisis in Nepal. The political parties cannot define the constitution the way they please. This would have violated the Article 53 (4) of the constitution. And 27 (3) clearly states that the King is the PROTECTER of the constitution of Nepal 2047. So, to resolve a grave constitutional crisis—which the Deuba government created—it was imperative that the King make use of the Artcile 27(3) and 127. If he hadn’t done what he did, then we would have : An unconstitutional government , not accountable to anyone. Direct violation of the constitutional provision to have a new legislature within 6 months, after the house is dissolved by the PM in his discretion. So, it wasn’t the King who was violating the constitution or infringing upon the rights and “upa-lab-dhis” of jana-andolan 2046. Ironically, it was the political leaders who were advocating “rule of law” violating the constitution. If the King had agreed to the all-party demand of reviving the parliament then that would have been an assault to the Supreme Court, the Institution of Monarchy, the Election Commission and the Parliamentary System. We should be thankful to the king that he did not use Article 128 of the constitution of Nepal, 2047 and that he is committed to democracy, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system. I would have loved to write more, but have to go. Parijat ko Phul, if you have further questions/comments please contact me via email. When you submit a message to this board, there’s an option whether to submit your message to the board to send it via email. I have given my right email address, so, it will land in my mailbox and time permitting, I’ll send you my reply. Isolated Freak PS: A good friend of mine who happens to be one of the very few female law students to secure one of the top-5 positions in BL and LLM, is writing an article for the law journal of Shoka University of Japan. I’ll post it as soon as she is done with her article for you to read. R, if you are reading this, complete the article soon, please. And thanks for all your help in making me understand the constitution of Nepal, 2047. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 07:59 AM
Okay -- I repeat that I am no constitutional expert, and except a few classes at a graduate law school, I have never formally studied law -- but as a literate citizen, I can read the constitution of Nepal, fully know the context behind its promulgation, and thus infer a few things. I also realize that the ONLY legitimate interpreter of our constitution is the Supreme Court -- not me, not the Raja, not Isolated Freak, not his female lawyer friend…but I still remain puzzled at recent attempts to justify the King's action constitutionally -- I mean, sure, people were disgusted with Deuba and all that -- and there could be a strong moral and emotional case for what G did, but is there a legal and constitutional case? I remain completely unconvinced. Yes, silly Deuba was leading the country into crisis by dissolving the House, and not being able to find its replacement within 6 months -- but could that have been a pretext for yet another royal soap opera at midnight? I don’t think so. Freak-ji rightly quotes the principle that "king can do no wrong". Yes, that's EXACTLY the spirit in constitutional monarchies. But he sees that as some sort of a medieval feudal authority, whereas I see that as a spirit that essentially makes the king a toothless figurehead with NO executive authority. Except a few things (like deciding who is the royal heir and all that), nothing he does is decided by himself, so nothing he does is "controversial", so he can do no wrong. To me, that's the idea. Yes, he is formally part of both the executive and the legislature, but that's all symbolic, because all his authorities are STRICTLY checked. We hear a lot about 27 (3) and his role as "protector". Going back to the early 1990s when all this was done -- I find it impossible to believe that the drafters wanted to give Birendra and Co. any of this role…To me it was historic symbolism only…even Article 127 is subject to the parliament; even the emergency provisions that the king CAN declare at will has to be eventually ratified by the Parliament within 3 months with a 2/3 majority...my understanding is that the electees prevail, and they are simply, plainly, utterly paramount… Isolatwed Freak talks about clause 3 of the Preamble!! What clause? There is NO clause in the Preamble. The preamble is, by definition, a unitary chunk that introduces the purpose of a document -- there ain't NO clause! Isolated Freak then talks about Article 128 and some dude's power to "suspend constitution, create a constitution committee". Are we even reading the same constitution??? Where are these words??? Can someone show them to me, please? No person has any authority to "suspend" this constitution….Article 128 is part of "Transitional Provisions" and all it says is that if for some reason a new cabinet is to be formed, the king shall form it with "representatives from major parties"…I actually wonder which article he is to invoke to form the next cabinet -- and it'd be all the more interesting if parties refused to join…maybe he will go back to the farcically interpreted 27(3) -- oh, I (and my son Paras) are above the law, I protect this document and this land, decide the fate of 24 million people -- I mean this "spirit" is fine in Drabya Shah's time or in some tribal raaj of the 1400s, but now, this day?!! Parijaat -- Yes, Article 31 says the king's action can't be raised in any court -- but again, I interpret that more as a symbolic gesture than a substantive authority. Obviously Royalists differ -- for them it's some kind of a veto that was never intended for the Shahs when the constitution was written in 1990. Also, we need to bear in mind that Constitutions are much MORE than the document itself -- they combine other fundamental aspects of law and "spirits" -- take Britain for example, there is NO written constitution there -- but it is a model constitutional democracy where the UNWRITTEN Constitution is just an amalgam of case and common law traditions and precedents since the days of the Magna Carta (800 years ago) till today. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 08:03 AM
Yes, our Constitution is flawed and not water-tight. There obviously remain ambiguities and loopholes, and it seems it is those that the king is using -- that's why we may never fully settle if what the king did is legal or not (not the same as the fickle question of whether what he did was good or bad -- the crowd that is doing "deepawali" today is probably the same crowd that called him bad names when the royal massacre happened, the same crowd that gave donations to Maoists, the same crowd that will welcome Prachanda and Badal if they take over Singhadurbar one day -- it's the crowd of the same city that also did "deepawali" when Mahendra swallowed democracy in 1960). But to me, the fundamental question is this -- unlike all past Constitutions, the 1990 version does NOT talk about sovereignty being "inherent in us, the House of Shahs", but instead it codifies it being with the people of Nepal. That's a landmark *stripping* of authority, and it is that spirit that has been violated, as I understand it. Again, I repeat, yes, people were fed up with Deuba and his corrupt gang -- and wanted these duds to go -- but we should always look at broader implications -- I mean do we want King Paras 30 years down the road exercising this whimsical authority to dismiss, say, a very popular PM who is doing great stuff, because, say, the PM doesn't agree with the king about some decision? The thrust is that such crucial issues of leadership are to be decided by the sovereign people's representatives, subject to the full fanfare of a complete democratic exercise -- we can't afford to pin hopes or rely on ONE person's judgement of what is good for all the people of Nepal. Yes, in "normal" times, with a living parliament and all, the king may not dare do such a thing -- and it was Deuba's follies that drove us to this UNCHARTED and AMBIGUOUS terrain today, but I just sense a bad precedence with the king flirting like this… Anyway -- enough said -- and I don't know enough about law to go in more detail. So, these were just the concerns of a literate citizen. So I'll leave it at this for now, but just a last thought though -- I have heard NO reputed, well-known lawyer in Nepal say that the King's move was legally sound, I saw NO country expressing remarks WITHOUT reservations, and NO major political party (Congress, UML, RPP, NSP, UPF) saw this move as constitutional (please correct me if I'm wrong). Also curiously, in our cyber home of Sajhapur, of the 1000 people or so who visit the site every day, only 6 people have NOT welcomed the king's move in explicit writing and they are: Nepe, Biswo, Paramendra, Ashu, Village Voice, and Paschim -- all active users at this site -- so while I lament that we are a helpless minority of 6, I am relieved that I do have the company of 5 pretty vocal people! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 08:23 AM
pasachim, i don't have enough time to read all and post answers to your posting sorry, i have to save my job too. a good post. the clause 3 of the preliminery. second, our views don't coverge, so let's not get personal and try to make one another believe that what we say is the akatya-truth. third, read the constitutio of nepal again to understand dhara 128, sankraman kaal. this is when the king can appoint a national govt/an-all party govt. and also a constitution committee or constitution ammendment committee. The KP Bhattrai's govt frfom 2046 chaitra to 2048 Baisakh was in the sankramaan kaal period. the govt,. formed under the snkaram kaal period has two duties: 1. to come up with a new constitution 2. to hold general elections it is that simple. i did not take any law class nor been to any law school/grad school, you have taken it. read it carefully, think over it.. think what's not-written becase in law, sometimes you have to read what's not writteen. if constitution and law were so plain and easy to understand, the lawyers wouldn't be making any money! paschim, you can't think out of box, sometimes think out of box to get a clear picture of what is happening i n nepal. whether the king's move was legal or illegal, on that, i will say, it was legal and was constitutional because the constitution regards him a a political entity that can make decisons. whether you like it or not, whether you agree to it or not, whether 5 opeople support you or 200 go against me, i stand by my words. you do that too. and finally, i have had it with this, so, if you have questions/comments, send me a CC at my email address. I have no intention whatsoever to be a web-hero for no reason whatsover. alright all this helps, but do go over dhara 128, charra 27 (3) and dhara 127 carefully before you come again and say the same thing and make me say the smae thing. |
| ? | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 08:29 AM
Having a monarchy in Nepal raises a question, are we people (janata) or his subjects(raiti)? |
| Paschim | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 08:46 AM
Isolated Freak wrote: "Finally, i have had it with this, so, if you have questions/comments, send me a CC at my email address. I have no intention whatsoever to be a web-hero for no reason whatsover." Thanks for your response. I humbly give the same advice to you as well. Let's not imply supremacy of knowledge here -- emails can go both ways. As for heroism, IF-ji, you can't post stuff on a public forum and not expect it to be responded to. No unchallangeable rajas in cyberia. It's clear that we differ in views radically, and yes, I too don't have time to return to this debate -- but I am forced to do it as long as you keep posting something publicly that I may not share. You have the option to do the same to stuff I post publicly. But yes, I'm tired too, so let's just agree to disagree for the final time. |
| VillageVoice | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 08:48 AM
Paschim, some going there. Great !!! Constitutions evolve through conventions, (or else, Britian, as you correctly pointed out without a written constitution, would be ungovernable). I am now more worried about this precedent-setting move, therefore. To justify the royal takeover, becuase Deuba and his cronies were vile (yes, they are VILE, failures) is to miss the whole point. As if I/we are defending these assholes ... 1. But, for agrument's sake, what could the King have done that would have avoided derailment of the constitution? I suggested, for example, going to the supreme court and seeking advices from the Amicus Curie was one option? That and what else? 2. As importantly, what can the King do now? I am not talking about politics but bringing the constitutional process back on track, if at all possible? |
| Tropical | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 09:37 AM
Paschim , You are a man of contradictions. I don't know how you can run any ministry :S In your posting above you say: >>I also realize that the ONLY legitimate interpreter of our constitution is the Supreme Court -- not me, not you..... and then you go on to say: >>I interpret that more as a symbolic gesture than a substantive authority. What in hell is that supposed to mean? That rules apply to only the "sojha-sajha janata"? You can interpret however you like, but no body else can? You scold IF for exactly what you do with impunity! This is exactly what the present so-called netas are doing. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 09:39 AM
Ahem! Yo sano manchhe ko kehi amulya mantabya... I, like Paschim, am not an advocate of "ganatantra-badi"s, and ardently support the notion of constitutional monarchy under the legal framework that binds the actions of the monarch and makes them liable to the governed. Do not take my words, however, to mean that I would blindly support unilateralism on anyone's part, be it the king, the PM, or anyone else. I loathe the idea of the king being able to assume executive powers mandated by himself as much as I hated the idea of the PM being able to dissolve the elected body of parliament. The power to govern should be vested upon the governed themselves: by the people, of the people, for the people! Not that I am helplessly in love with "The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047 (1990)," but I must admit that the present constitution, which was cooked in a tremendous hurry to satisfy all the politcal parties, with a blatant disregard to the welfare of the citizens of the Kingdopm of Nepal, does allow the king to have done what he did. I believe King G's actions were legal not because of the provisions under the Articles 27, 127 or 128, for they are all ambiguous at the least; rather, I assert the legality of HM's actions under the following two articles that seem the most contradictory to the notion of consitutional monarchy: Article 31: No question shall be raised in any court about any act performed by His Majesty... Article 56 (1): No discussion shall be held in either House of Parliament on the conduct of His Majesty, Her Majesty the Queen and the heir apparent to His Majesty. I can grudgingly understand the outpouring of the support for HM's action based merely on emotions. I even have some reservations calling them support for HM, for they are merely a protest against the political leaders who have repeatedly failed the aspirations of the people. The root of the problem is that the Nepali people have been deceived, cheated and their aspirations blatantly disregarded by all the supposed leaders, including the royal institution. What we have had for the past 12 years was a half-hearted democracy, and the correct path forward would have been to achieve the other half. Instead, King G has now stolen even the precious half that the people had--a huge leap backwards. I, for one, protest his action not because it was unconstitutional, but because it has mercilessly attacked the very spirit of democracy. Nevertheless, there is still a dim light of hope. The actions that has been taken against two of the corrupt ministers is very positive. However, the house arrests and the possible seizures of properties of the corrupt officials has to be expanded to include even the past PMs and other ministers, and the elections must be held as promised. If King G follows through on the promises he's made, I think will still have an opportunity to ride on the free wheels of democracy. If he doesn't, well, we, along with HM, will be royally damned. I am cautiously optimistic. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 07:57 PM
Tropical-ji, I said the Supreme Court is the only *LEGITIMATE* interpreter of the Constitution of Nepal. So I, Raja, Freak-ji, or yourself can interpret the constitution as we understand it, but these may not have any legal or constitutional merit. They will merely be opinions of citizens which we are all entitled to express, agree and disagree over. The only interpretation of the Constitution that has absolute legal worth, hence LEGITIMATE, is that of the Supreme Court. Thus, what you point out above is not a contradiction. |
| sparsha | Posted
on 08-Oct-02 08:34 PM
I don't agree with Paschim when he says, "..., the king’s action is retrogressive. He has attacked the spirit of the constitution. The Nepali king has NO authority to assume executive powers. He cannot hire and fire Prime Ministers. ..." When Paschim says, "king has NO authority to assume executive powers. He can't hire and fire Prime Ministers..." I believe he was expressing his opinions not interpreting the Constitution. To me this Article 128 means the King has authority to assume executive powers." If, for any reason the Council of Ministers referred to in clause (1) is dissolved, His Majesty shall constitute a new Council of Ministers consisting of representatives from the main political parties. (Article 128 (2)). Article 127 is vague enough to give whatever needed power to the King If any difficulty arises in connection with the implementation of this Constitution. Somehow, the constitution (Article 127) makes the king also the Supreme Court regarding the constitutional interpretation. "He has attacked the spirit of the constitution". This is a debatable statement. What's the spirit of the constitution? the way Paschim feels? I agree to disagree. I agree with Paschim that only the Supreme Court is the legal entity to interpret the constituion. I am not a blind supporter of the king. The sovereign parliament (no! a PM shouldn't be able to dissolve a sovereign parliament at his/her whim) should be able to discuss about the actions of the King and other royal members. Royals should also pay taxes. Parliament should be powerful enough to summon the King and other royal family members to clarify matters if need be. However, I support the constitutional institution of monarchy in Nepal. |
| orion | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 01:56 PM
I agree with Paschim about a lot of things including the role of the Supreme Court. To me, the King has destroyed the essence of constitutional monarchy by doing things counter to the "King can do no wrong" guiding principle. The fact of the matter is, anybody taking executive action, whether that action is constitutional or not, *CAN* do a lot of wrong by virtue of the fact that executive decisions, like this one, affect all people in a country. And after all, to err is human. We can argue forever about the constitutional provisions which the King used given the somewhat ambiguous language of those clauses but I stand convinced that King Gyanendra has exploited a loop hole in the constitution to circumvent the essence and spirit of the constitution. I don’t know with what intentions he dismissed Deuba. I am inclined to believe that given his barely concealed contempt for democracy and his well known political ambitions, he is driven foremost by power. I respect the opinion of those who disagree. But I am of the opinion, that we are entering an era of extreme polarization in Nepali politics and King Gyanendra has deepened this polarization which is bad for the country. We are increasingly moving towards a King or no-King model because the system that was setup to pool and materialize the aspirations of diverse sections of society has been replaced by an authority that is not just unaccountable to anyone but is actually considered as someone "who can do no wrong". As Kunda Dixit noted, the buffer between the King and the Maoists is gone. In the shorter term, the thing has taken upon himself the responsibility of running, the country, the Army and the war on Maoism. Not that it changes anything. After all, the Army was deployed with Gyanendra's consent and it was clear where the loyalties of the Army were. Which begs the question, can the Royal takeover really bring stability? The answer, in my opinion, is a resounding NO. Because operationally, nothing has changed on the ground with respect to the ongoing military action against the Maoists. Actually, what it does change is that this has brought the Maoists in direct confrontation with King who now has the executive power to run the country. Of course I assume, when the King talks about stability, he means stability in ALL 75 districts not just in Kathmandu or Singha Durbar. And the biggest question that the Royal takeover or action does not answer is that of accountability at the top. That has been Nepal's problem for the last few years and was a problem even during the Panchayat. I for one do not think democracy has failed in Nepal - I think the lack of accountability in the political system was responsible to a great extent for corruption and instability. Politicians could operate on greed, whims and fancies and get away with it. Grassroots democracy was virtually absent in most parties. The problem is the Royal takeover worsens that situation, because the new executive in the country simply can't do any wrong. So it cant be challenged for any of it actions. Which is absurd because we have seen Gyanendra's own son Paras being accused of crimes - crimes so grave that any of us on this forum would be behind bars had we committed those crimes. All in all, I am firmly of the opinion, that no matter how good or bad the intent of King Gyanendra was, the Royal "takeover" has created more problems than it has solved and proved once again that Monarchy in Nepal is a destabilizing force, contrary to what many of us have been lead to believe over the years. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 09-Oct-02 10:04 PM
Greatly appreciate and respect Poonte-ji's and Sparsha-ji's thoughts on their respective assessment of the situation. It is no doubt complex, and diverse view points like yours only make the debate more informed, and richer. But I must say, I stand impressed with Orion-ji's convincingly broad articulation of the state of power-play in Nepal. Also delighted to note that many of our thoughts converge. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 02:06 PM
Very well said, Orion. I believe your thoughts and ideas strike a chord with many well-informed, democratic Nepalis. I too had raised the question of what new the king could do to quell the maoist violence in another thread a while back. The basis of king's power would rest on the RNA, which, as we all have seen, has failed to reign in the Maoists even after 9 months of the state of emergency. Now it will be interesting to see what would be his next move vis-a-viz the Maoists. If the insurgency is defeated rather easily, without any miraculous effort by the king, then it would only help to confirm many people's suspicion that the royal institution itself had played a role of "uksaune" the maoists. I will also be following closely his attitude towards the press freedom and the freedom to protest. If he starts to attack these basic principles of democracy, then the pro-democracy camp might as well start to stock pile the necessary arsenals for a prolonged war with Narayanhiti. |
| VillageVoice | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 03:26 PM
Hi Poonte, your concerns for press freedom and civil rights at large are well founded. The king, in view of his extra-constitutional adventurism, willl do well to allay fears of royal takeover a la satra sal. A quick handover of executive powers to the *people* would go a long way in satisfying a wary public - earlier the better. No one is stopping him from being a custodian for a democracy in transition - in fact, he's most welcome. Tara chetana bhaya, dhamilo panima machha marne kaam bhane theek haina. |
| Deep | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 04:04 PM
I don't know why the king did not meet sarbadaliya bhates. He should have. Although I have very little faith on most of the major party leaders but I would like to see the king hading over executive power back to voters. Sooner the better. No Narayanhiti bhajan mandali please! "No one is stopping him from being a custodian for a democracy in transition - in fact, he's most welcome. Tara chetana bhaya, dhamilo panima machha marne kaam bhane theek haina." I agree. |
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 08:08 PM
Orionji, You have raised an issue that puzzled me as well when I first read it in the Kantipur online. What could be the motive of the King G in not meeting with the all party delegates even after they had waited for nearly 6 hours. I smell something unsettling here. I would be curious to know what other contributors to this thread think about this? Poonteji, You raised a very important issue when you spoke about press freedom. Biswoji had started a thread on it earlier with which I agree. Isolated Freakji, I would like to hear your reaction to the recent refusal by the King G to meet the all party delegates, especially since until now you have been very pro-King G's action. I am probably instigating the issue even further by deliberately addressing directly to you. But I personallly feel that a debate should include both sides of the story, those who support it and those who oppose it. I sincerely hope you keep appearing on this thread to give your opinions which might very well be rebutted by others. So what? Afterall this is what this forum is all about. |
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 08:18 PM
sorry I misquoted Orionji. The issue of King G not meeting with all party delegates was brought up by Deepji. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 09:46 PM
Dear parijat ko Phul Straight to why the King didn't meet with the leaders: The leaders sat down in Balkhu on Monday, then, decide they all will met the king for their REPRESENTATION in the new govt., and sent a message to the palace that they were coming to meet him. Now, this is a direct violation of PROTOCOL. You can't just send a message to the palace and ask the king to meet you. You have to go through a process. The leaders, since, they are now "commoners" like us, they should have filed a petition at Paschim Dhoka, and waited for the king's answer, instead, they sent a message, went there and the King, who was busy, couldn't grant them audience. Now, what does this mean? This means, the leaders should learn to respect the institution of monarchy. This also means, the palace is strong. This means, the leaders should follow the procedures when meeting/scheduling a meting with the King. What was the sarba-dalia Agenda? Sarba dalia (all party) agenda (excluding NC DEUBA) wanted to have their representation in the new govt. That is it. This means: The leaders have no shame whatsoever. The leaders haven't made public who they want to send in as their respresntative in the new govt. The leaders still think that they are above the constitution. What should these leaders learn now? Stop making "nonsensical" comments. Stop disrespecting the institution of monarchy Stop dreaming of being mantris again and making money Anyway, the King did not meet the leaders for two reasons: An all party leaders or a farmer from Rolpa, they are all equal to the King. Of course, it does matter if you are in the govt. but for the most part, everyone, who is not holding a key portfolio in the govt, then, he/she has to follow the procedure to meet the king. No one can just walk in to Paschim dhoka and say, " I demand to meet with the King". This applies to the leaders as well as the commoners. second, it was good that the King din't grand these leaders audience, if he would have granted them audience, then they would have made the situation worse. Let the King decide, let him be the COOK because too many cooks spoil the broth. |
| sparsha | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 10:11 PM
I F is talking more like a guy from "shri panch maharajadhirajka pramukh sambad sachiwalaya". "An all party leaders or a farmer from Rolpa, they are all equal to the King." My god! |
| Arnico | Posted
on 10-Oct-02 10:37 PM
...but didn't he ask current political parties for input for the composition of his cabinet? |
| sucharya | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 02:20 AM
IF, There is no doubt that major political parties deserve no sympathy whatsoever. Yet, the nation, democracy, and even King need their ACTIVE support to move on. People may have respects for those clean-image statemen such as Kritinidhi Bista or Lokendra Chand, I do not think they are appropriate candidates to head the interim cabinet. If the main task is to hold the election or solve maoist problem for that matter, then it must be headed by an individual with strong party background. Qulaification like efficiency, organizational hold and political shrewdness should weighed more heavily than the so-called clean-image. I could not understand the strategic objective of including the pharses "clean-image" and "not-would-be-candidate" in royal statement. These could act as barriers for picking up efficient inviduals for cabinet position. The corruption problem and maoist problem are two different things and one should be able to strike a delicate tradeoff to avoid possible conflicts between the choosen strategic instruments to tackle them simultaneously. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 03:07 AM
Absolutely, the King should not head for a collision course with the parliamentary forces and seek to alienate them further. By polarising the country in two extremes -- Rajabadi ra Maobadi -- he grossly overestimates his popular base, and ignores samsadbadis at his own peril. Mr. Birahi mentions the following quote in today's Bimarsha, which may be a polite warning to the King to go back to being constitutional and restore rule of law. King Farooq of Egypt is said to have said when removed by Colonel Nasser over 50 years ago: "Eventually, only five kings would be left in the world -- one in the throne of England, and four in a pack of cards". Nepal rashtra ka raaja ra janata sabai lai chetana bhaya. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 06:31 AM
Building on the point above, the King has NOT opted for a direct confrontation with samsadbadis. Has appointed PARTY people for the top two posts, but both are weak. Good social names though. The big parties have been politely ignored, but their cooperation has been tacitly sought. That's not bad. Can someone who heard the news on radio kindly tell which article was invoked to form this? I assume it's not 128 (2). Was it 127 again? --------- My quick reactions to the new announcement that Chand is PM: 1. This is a CLEAN and SAFE choice that is also small. Promise of last week delivered. Good SOCIAL names, largely APOLITICAL. Which leads me to conclude that this is a very WEAK team to negotiate difficult questions of the day like Maoism, Good Governance, and holding elections soonest. The cabinet will put on a smiling face, while the king will continue to run the show from behind. 2. The King was conscious of ethnic (and to a small extent gender) balance. That's good. He is aware that populism counts. 3. Chand is not great, but not bad either. Not great because he is an uncritical Durbar loyalist who will do whatever G says, he doesn't have a strong party base, and is not known for bold leadership (more a status quo person)...but not too bad also because he is relatively clean, has been at the helm during transitions, important things have been coaxed through him such as the 1990 negotiations over democracy itself, is also not a hated politician, but largely sensible and NICE. Also a writer; authored the famous, "The Twelfth Player". Has won Nepal's Nobel for literature, the Madan Puraskar. 4. This team is unlikely to deliver big, or fix burning problems -- but it won't be disastrous also -- The worst fear that the King will resurrect the nasty reactionaries is gone, but by appointing a weak, but nice, team, he REMAINS in charge. An affront to the 1990 Constitution once more. I would have hoped for a stronger PM and DPM, with nice faces like Upendra, Ambika and Anuradha that King G has RIGHTLY picked for social, not political portfolios. 5. I think, we should give this team some time to set the tone. I am not optimistic unconditionally. It will absolutely need the support of political parties to deliver. But if Chand can rise to the occasion, he CAN act as an honest broker, form coalitions and alliances to at least make an honest attempt to solve some problems. But only through wider support from outside the cabinet. 6. I'm happy that G didn't opt for outright disaster; I positively acknowledge the NICENESS in the team, but am only VERY cautiously optimistic about this apolitical team's ability to translate its niceless into real political dividends. 7. A small chapter in history has been written. As a concerned citizen of Nepali affairs, my very best wishes to the new experiment, Mr. Chand, his team, and my parochial loyalties to Upendra Devkota (hope he places a call to his school buddy Baburam in Delhi soonest). 8. The wait is not over. It has just begun. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 07:13 AM
Kantipur Online says: "Chand also told journalists that his cabinet would be expanded from the present nine members to include members from other political parties." A good sign. King G is letting smily Chand negotiate with the glum netas of big parties. Post-Dashain Cabinet expansion must include a few heavy-weight, but very clean representatives from the major parties to really deliver and also partially conform to the Constitution. Hopefully the cabinet size doesn't also exceed an acceptable ceiling of 15. |
| VillageVoice | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 08:15 AM
All, well, most, party heavyweights are likely to have electoral ambitions. And what's wrong with that? When you are looking for people with "clean" image but without "electoral ambition", you are operating on a very narrow base. The king should seriously banishing that clause instead of taking mero goruko barai takaa position. The new prime minister should in fact revise the royal statement before the cabinet expansion. That will also prove it's him - and not the king - who is in charge now. by the way, does the king still hold the EXECUTIVE power? My understanding is no. What if the king decided Chand, or members of his cabinet, are "inept"? The royal palace, in a statement, should unequivocally state its poistion, now that the prime minister's been appointed and cabinet formed. The king should leave no stone unturned to set the constitutioal process back on track and win over a skeptical population. Eyebrows have been raised about the king's commitment to democracy and that's a serious charge. He will do well to reiterate his faith in democracy. Or else his image as a constitutioal monarch will continue to suffer. |
| Jame Bonds | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 08:20 AM
When anyone says 'if the king does not do this, he will suffer' I think of the cat and mouse. Which mouse is going to put the bell on the cat's neck? Koi chaaaaaaa???? |
| VillageVoice | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 08:20 AM
Pls read, "The king should seriously consider banishing....(first sentence 2nd para) |
| sucharya | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 08:27 AM
From Nepalnews.com " It is reported that the above mentioned parties (NC/UML) are reluctant to join the government. " Interesting to watch further development......specially what will be the response of these parties like? And its implication on the maoist problem. Not an easy sailing for the new cabinet! |
| kunjan | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 09:10 AM
Upendra Devkota First Article: Prem Ra Jiwan http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/nepaliweekly/bimarsa/2002/oct/oct04/column.htm |
| Orion | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 09:15 AM
James Bond, You make a very interesting analogy. The analogy, however, that I have in mind, is of the lion who thought he was the greatest creature in the jungle and thought no one else but he should rule. A total absolutist when it came to power. A dictator with a when it came to tactics. The denizens of the jungle are fed up with the Lion's arrogance and contempt for majority rule. So they decide to teach him a lesson. They tell him that there is another creature in the jungle who is claiming that he is the Lord of the jungle. The Lion is infuriated and roars "Where is that creature? No one but me is capable of ruling this jungle" The other animals then lead the lion to a well and point to the water and say "There he is, Your Majesty". The Lion sees his reflection in the water and thinking it is another Lion jumps into the well to finish his competitor one and for all. Alas we live in the twenty first century where the question is not whether absolute power will be challenged. Mice do not need to bell the cat in this day and age. It is a foregone conclusion that absolute and unaccountable power will always be challenged. The question then is how power should be challenged. The twenty first century belongs to freedom, justice and the rule of law. A wise leader will always stay on the correct side of these. |
| Deep | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 10:14 AM
Some of us are pretty good at one thing and just one thing-critisism. We love to criticize no matter what. Some of us say Panchayat destroyed everything in 30 years. We also hear from a guy who was born in 2036 saal, "Rana kaal was pretty cool. Rana provoded good security, strong monetary value (my hajorba's salary was Mo ru. 9.00 per month), an inflationless economy so on and so forth". Some of us were born in 2040 saal and consider ourselves as the experts on 17 saal. We even know what Mahendra and BP had in dinner one fine evening in Bharatpur. We even claim to know the color of underwear BP was wearing on the day of his oath taking ceremony. Some of us suggest, 12 years of democracy is the best political system Nepal ever had. Did Nepal really prosper in 12 years? Some of us are quick to defend 12 barse democracy by saying 12 year period is nothing for a democracy to deliver its fruits. 30 years of panchayat was forever but 12 years of democracy is nothing? I am not supporting Panchayat but I am talking about a balanced criticism. Some of us want the king to deliver good governance in 12 days the political parties could not deliver in 12 years. A new cabinet is formed and some of us are already saying this cabinet is worthless. Do we even know what do we want? Who do we want to lead us? We do not hesitate to use all kinds of fancy words, but do we even know how to put those words to work? Some one wrote here in Sajha that out of 11 past kings barely five are worth mentioning. So, the writer argues, the institution of monarchy is useless. The US had 42 presidents so far. George W. is the 43rd president. Are all 42 or how many of the past presidents are worth mentioning? Just because not all past presidents are worth mentioning should the US abolish the institution of Presidency? If the institution of monarchy threatens the system of good governance then we should throw the institution away not for the sake of fun or opposition. As Dr. Upendra Devkota says Parewako gund bhatikyo bhane pani Raja lai pratigami bhanne chalan chha. I want to see how this new cabinet works before I start criticizing it. You, the criticize experts, tell us how would you have solved the current problems of bad governance in Nepal? Who would you like to see in the cabinet? Give us the name. Tell us the concrete plan on how to lead Nepal to prosperity. Don't just throw some fancy political words, please. |
| Jame Bonds | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 10:39 AM
In my opinion nobody has the vitamins to go against the king. Remember "whose father what vitamin?" - Kasko bauko ke taagat? No Nepali Political Party, no nepali law - nothing can raise a finger at the Royal Family. People might be able to raise their voices once in a while but without causing any harm to the royal family. After all the Royal Family is the most powerful family in Nepal. Look at the example of Paras, after all the hungama, was anybody even able to lay a finger on him? NO WAY. Now for anyone to say if the king does this, it will not be good for him is khokro dhamki. What is anyone gonna do to them? Nobody is powerful enuff to do anything besides bark bark. No matter what they do, nobody can stop them. It's a good thing that the king seems to be a nice guy. Well, at least we haven't heard anything bad so far. |
| Prayas | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 11:14 AM
James Bonds ji, your opinion is quite correct.. but seems like youi have forgotten the important lesson of life "what goes around, comes around". There were many powerful people in history of world like Marcos, chowchesku etc. but when limit is over damn is bound to be destroyed. Well, we might not have same scenario here.... but "IF" things goes wrong and limit is crossed you will see not only "Vitamins" but "Adrenaline" too. |
| Satya | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 11:41 AM
The king’s move is similar to Musaraff’s action in Pakistan. Bloodless coup! Expect amendments in the present constitution to solidify the king’s power. Expect the election similar to the one Pakistan has today! Many Pakistanis also welcomed Musaraff’s coup so do many Nepalis. While there is no need to mourn Deuba government ‘s demise, king’s unprecedented and unexpected action is not a birth of an avatar to be celebrated. King Birendra tried to deceive the people promising democracy to foil the uprising against the Panchayat system by imposing Chinese communist style election system. Nepalis expected peace and prosperity from the so-called multi-party democracy but got “People’s War” and most corrupt Netas in history of the World. Now they hope king will save them with magic power! I don’t believe there was real democracy in the past 12 years life of the multi-party system. Yes, it was certainly more democratic than Panchayat but the king holds the real power, not the representative of the people. Who controlled the army? Of course, not the PM. No PM could rule against the wish of the king. Therefore the king is responsible for all the failures of the so-called democracy. If he is really acting for the welfare of the people what was he doing when Debua dissolved the parliament for his selfish aim? If the king loves democracy why did he fired the nominated upper house member (Shah?) for disclosing the king’s and Deuba’s motive? Remember Park Chung Hee (excuse me if the spelling is not correct) was the main architect for development of South Korea and also ruthless dictator. How many Koreans supported him? I agree 100% with Paschim that the king’s move violates the spirit of the constitution! Deep wants “to see how this new cabinet works before I start criticizing it.” no matter how the government is installed. Criticisms in this forum is not targeted against the new government, it is against the royal coup though it is bloodless so far. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 11:48 AM
Was about to go to bed -- but saw this senseless outburst from a respected poster, Deep-ji, so just a few words in response: Deep: A new cabinet is formed and some of us are already saying this cabinet is worthless. Paschim: I have seen NO ONE call the current cabinet “worthless”. I was actually very impressed by everyone’s calm attempt to write both the pluses and minuses of the announcement. And on balance, everyone seems to mildly positive (esp. in contrast to the King’s earlier move). Deep: Some of us were born in 2040 saal and consider ourselves as the experts on 17 saal. We even know what Mahendra and BP had in dinner one fine evening in Bharatpur. Paschim: Please challenge facts, points, and arguments of people with your better set if you have. Just being vaguely sarcastic is perhaps not helpful. One learns stuff from reading credible books and by talking to people. If one disagrees, one should just challenge them with better sources of their own. As I wrote above to IF-ji, do we all say, "London doesn't exist because I have not been there?" Deep: We do not hesitate to use all kinds of fancy words, but do we even know how to put those words to work? Paschim: Why angry over people’s choice of words? People express themselves differently. What's "fancy" to one may be "normal" to another, and vice versa. Please look at the individual merits of the points and evaluate them as such. And does every spoken word have to be "implemented" whatever that means? Deep: Some one wrote here in Sajha that out of 11 past kings barely five are worth mentioning. So, the writer argues, the institution of monarchy is useless. Paschim: That was me. But, NO, the writer did NOT argue that the institution of monarchy is useless -- and especially NOT because he pointed out that hardly 5 (actually 4) kings are worth mentioning. That point was made with reference to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT assertion by IF-ji asking me to be mindful of the language. He was touching on “respect” for these past kings. I was implying that respect is earned, and such is the record of Shah kings that hardly 4 (except PNS, Tribhuwan, Mahendra, Birendra) are worth mentioning. King G is just reigning. You can disagree with this, but pls. don't draw a totally false conclusion from what was never implied (see original posting above). That point was thus about respect, not perceived use. I am actually an advocate of a law-bound institution of constitutional monarchy. Deep: I want to see how this new cabinet works before I start criticizing it. Paschim: Yes. People are expressing their opinion on the ANNOUNCEMENT. No body is evaluating the PERFORMANCE as yet. That is yet to come -- after a reasonable period of their activity. And so far people's responses generally seem to be impressively weighed and balanced. I was rather surprised to see this bitter, vague and totally inaccurate posting from Deep-ji. Sorry...couldn't help responding...good night all. |
| COPY&PASTE | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 11:51 AM
If this government also can not hold election????? ........................... |
| Satya | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 11:56 AM
COPY&PASTE: "If this government also can not hold election????? ........................... " Fire the king! |
| ruck | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 12:00 PM
Deep Ji, I am so content to read what you've written above. You certainly make so much sense with your balanced approach - "No Criticism" Yours is certainly the "BEST" on this issue I've read so far here on Sajha. Wish we had more people like you here and in Nepal. keep up the good work!! |
| Deep | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 01:10 PM
Paschim ji, I was not thinking about you when I wrote what I wrote above. In fact, I have some idea where your stand on constitutional monarchy and some other issues from your many postings. What I wrote was the combined impression I had from many postings (not just from you). Deep: A new cabinet is formed and some of us are already saying this cabinet is worthless. Paschim: I have seen NO ONE call the current cabinet “worthless”. I don't want to post the names of the people who are showing no faith in this cabinet. Just go thru the postings, you will find many. Deep: Some of us were born in 2040 saal and consider ourselves as the experts on 17 saal. We even know what Mahendra and BP had in dinner one fine evening in Bharatpur. Paschim: ""London doesn't exist because I have not been there?" This is not what I meant. I am saying don't be an expert on something you don't have any expertise on. I was not attacking you, Paschim ji. Deep: We do not hesitate to use all kinds of fancy words, but do we even know how to put those words to work? Paschim: Why angry over people’s choice of words? People express themselves differently. I am not angry with people's choice of words. I am just fed up with people using all kinds of political words but doing nothing material. I wonder do they knoe what are they talking about! Once Janardan Acharya wrote (Samaya Samaya): A panchayati minister was addressing a mass in Dhankuta tudikhel. During his speech he once said "panchayati byabastha NIRBIKALPA byabastha ho". A person listening the minister speak, who had heard that NIRBIKALPA word so many times but didn't know what that meant, asked the minister ,"mantri jyu, ke ho yo NIRBIKALPA bhanya?". The minister didn't know himself. His speech was interrupted. He had to answer before he could continue so he looked to his PA. PA didn't know either. In that odd moment, the PA took control of the situation, came to the mic. and answered on behalf of his mahan minister "NIRBIKALPA bhanya dui dhunga bich ko tarul ho..aba bujhnu bho". Then the minister continued again. If you don't know what is NIRBIKALPA why use it? (By *you*, i don't mean you, Paschim ji, personally). Paschim: People express themselves differently That's what I was/am doing. Paschim: And does every spoken word have to be "implemented" whatever that means? May be not. You seem to know better. Deep: Some one wrote here in Sajha that out of 11 past kings barely five are worth mentioning. So, the writer argues, the institution of monarchy is useless. Paschim: That was me. I was not sure who it was when I was writing the above comment. Paschim: But, NO, the writer did NOT argue that the institution of monarchy is useless. Sorry and thank you correcting me. Deep: I want to see how this new cabinet works before I start criticizing it. Paschim: Yes. People are expressing their opinion on the ANNOUNCEMENT. No body is evaluating the PERFORMANCE as yet. Some people have already evaluated and concluded that this cabinet is a failure. Read through the postings. Paschim: "this senseless outburst..". Another abstract accusation! what is senseless? "I was rather surprised to see this bitter, vague and totally inaccurate posting from Deep-ji. Sorry...couldn't help responding...good night all. Why feel sorry if my posting was bitter, vague and totally INACCURATE? You should have been proud that you responded and I think you are. But I still wonder since when you own the copyright to define words such as bitter, vague, and inaccurate. You can differ and I respect your disagreement Paschim ji. I am fine with bitter and vague but totally inaccurate? well, congratulation on being a thekadar of words. Finally, my respect to you, Paschim ji, is still entact. I can express myself the way I see fit. No? Hope to learn more from you. Je bhe ni katha padhna chahi nachhodnu hola hai! |
| jira | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 01:46 PM
I am just wondering if anybody remembers from old school days when we were absolutely nothing but kids. "Pauryo..pauryo..pauryo..pauryo".. applauds everywhere and the fight begins :-) |
| Deep | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 02:02 PM
Correction: There may be more but I wanted to correct the following sentence. Finally, my respect to you, Paschim ji, is still INTACT. |
| Deep | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 02:12 PM
Finally, my respect to you, Paschim ji, is still entact. There may be more errors but I wanted to correct the following sentence: Old: Finally, my respect to you, Paschim ji, is still entact. New: Finally, my respect to you, Paschim ji, is still intact. Paschim ji, Good night! have a nice dream! Others, have a good day or good night! Jira, I am not fighting with Paschim ji. I am not interested in fighting. All I want is to express myself. Paschim ji le dyam ki dyam dina khoje pachhi maile pani afno kuro samma ta rakhna paunu paryo ni. kaso? |
| smr | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 02:30 PM
Folks: The members of the planning commission have all resigned in protest. Either it proves that they were a bunch of politicos and not professionals, or that these professionals are so right about their assessment that they had no choice but to resign. Neverthel;ess, it gives us a golden opportunity to abolish the planning commission. But then, they may have anticipated an ax falling on them How sad, either way. smr |
| Dilasha | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 07:18 PM
Interesting comments made from both Deep ji and Paschim ji about the new cabinet and the state of our beloved country. I am not well versed with the political system, the politicians, their previous works, the constitution etc in Nepal (thanks to you guys who participate in such discussions). However, as a citizen of the country, I AM aware of what’s going on, the consequences of the government activities, and how they affect the aam nepali janata. I and I bet every single nepali has been and will be affected by the actions of these politicians who have so far been the puppets, scapegoats and clowns thus considering Nepal a vaudeville to perform such stupid incomprehensible and indigestible acts. It is high time they stopped molesting our motherland that has been crippled, dysfunctional and lifeless ever since these bastards have gained power. Like everyone else, I too have been tired and fed up with the way things are (I know some of you might be disgruntled by this statement and ask me to shut the f… up and go back to Nepal if I’m so worried and do something there blah blah blah). I just wanted to shed some light on some of the important things that I hope the new cabinet ministers will take into consideration. This is my message to those policymakers to those leaders who have mounted the carriage and are about to take off to fulfill their distinctive roles. 1. Do not enter with the hope of changing the entire nation in a couple of days. Instead think about what you need to change in YOURSELF first, set your own principles, then figure out ways to change them and then carry on with your duties to rectify the deadly cancer that has caused immense pain thus causing her to languish day after day. 2. BE PREPARED! That’s what the scout motto is. It should be the motto of every leader, of every human being. Our leaders do not appear to be prepared at all and don’t seem to do their homework. They do things as they come by, without thinking, rationalizing and thus act on haste only to repent later which of course is of no use. 3. Always remember that YOU have not appointed yourselves, WE the public have put you in your respective positions so that you fulfill our dreams, our hopes and our needs. So be sensitive to our causes our sentiments our situations and act accordingly with virtue and dignity. 4. Learn from past mistakes and transgressions for God’s sake!! After having seen and experienced enough torture and pain from the rana kaal and panchayat kaal why do you want to follow their footsteps and repeat the same mistakes all over again? Enough is enough!!! 5. When you think of serving the people, please do not think that they’re the ones living in only big cities like ktm, pkhr,dharan,chitwan etc. etc. but also the ones that are living in every remote area where the basic necessities have not been fulfilled, where life is still struggling to survive, where tears are still being shed in pain and sorrow. 6. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS so please talk less and act more!! 7. The more power you have the more you tend to alienate from the people. This is the most intolerable act on your part so avoid building a fence around you and instead widen your horizons and make the CONNECTION!!! I'm sure there are plenty of other things but I'd like to quote Dr. Martin Luther King and thus conclude my saya shabda. “This is not the time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation/division to the sunlit path of social justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality to all of God's children” |
| Paschim | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 07:59 PM
"Dyam ki dyam" dina khojya hoina, Deep-ji (God, you are genuinely funny!), Maile specifically uthayeka kura haru lai charko khissi gare jasto gari naam naliyi kana bangyayera prastut gardinu bho bhanne bhujera matrai gambhir bimati janayeko. Khaas manchhe ta ma bhaladmi nai hoon, offence hoina, khali self-defence khelchhu! We've heard each other now, and with apologies to you Deep-ji, I take back the word "senseless". Will definitely keep reading your stories -- your very early one "Marda ko Chhora" remains my absolute favorite. More of those please :) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 11-Oct-02 09:02 PM
Deep wrote: A new cabinet is formed and some of us are already saying this cabinet is worthless. Do we even know what do we want? Who do we want to lead us? We do not hesitate to use all kinds of fancy words, but do we even know how to put those words to work? Interesting observation there! i totally agree with you. anyways mitra haroo, there is a new cabinet with people who are kushal prashahsak of the panchayat days, people who are experienced, people who FEAR about loosing their face in the public (Anuradha koirala and Dr. Saab), so i am hopeful that this new cabinet will DElIVER. a freak |
| kalanidhi | Posted
on 12-Oct-02 12:20 AM
I am giving feedback to OysChill’s thread……………I can hear what he is wacking…. Guys/Gals......... I am glad King is taking the power slowly and slowly. I just want to say to you gays/ gals that: Don’t stay behind the wall and bark. If you are true nationalist/patriots, just go to Nepalese village and educate the people who doesn’t know how to practice the democracy. Nothing is going to change in Nepal by barking within sajha territory. LC Chand is Mr. Clean with no black smudge throughout his career. We must be optimist about the new formed government. We should be wishing for their success in this context of Nepal, rather than disparaging them behind the veil. Why do you always have to be morose and pessimist about whoever comes to form the government. Tell me who will best fit to preside over Nepal? Give me a single name. Mr X, Ms Y, Mr Z……….. ? Whoever comes to form the government, your off-putting comments are already ready!!! Haina ta???? I know that you have good knowledge of reading books. Some of you might be graduated from Harvard; some of you might be from Stanford; some of you from other big institutions….but don’t try to apply your principles of books to the current situation of Nepal. Sometimes, you have to hop out of your values and principles and become practical. Theories and principles do not seem to be working in the developing country like Nepal. Nepal right now is in-deed in need of authoritarianism/despotism. That can only be possible by the overpower of the King G in this context. You live in the manson of glasses, so don’t try to throw the rock to others. Know how to be united and perform your patriotism. Since most of you live in the US, you know how American people got united against the terrorist act on 9/11 devastation. So, we need to realize the lack of patriotism on us. I think we should give the positive feedback to the new government. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 12-Oct-02 12:04 PM
My dear republican mitra Nepe-ji wasn’t happy with me (and VV) for what we remarked yesterday. Since all my views on this topic have appeared on this thread, beginning with the first one, King and Country, I thought I’d post my response to Nepe-ji (from the “Breaking News” thread) here too so that what follows forms a continued series of (hopefully consistent and logical) thoughts of mine on how I have been viewing recent events in Nepal, and “where I come from” so to speak. Thank you for reading. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 12-Oct-02 12:05 PM
Nepe-ji, khai ke bhanu? Dherai mahina aghi yehanlai binti gareko thiyen -- ma baata dherai asha nagarnus bhanera. I have a tendency to disappoint over time. Aba tyehi anumanit kram ko ek bindu maandinus yeslai. Aakal-jhukkal saath payeko chhu, natra eklai ladi raheku chhu yehan, bidhi ko raaj ko damfu pitdai -- dui chaar jana le bole holaan, tara jamin ko dhulo rajniti ra aam biswa ko aitihashik disha-nirdesh DUBBAI ko aad liyera ma karai rahekai chhu ekdam lonesome para le -- dekhi rakhnu bhayekai chha kasta kasta manchhe baata kasta kasta kisim ka prahaar aaunchhan, eklai khepi raheko chhu. Tara pani gaurab chha, ek inch yeta uta garya chhaina aafno adaan bata. Aba tapain aaunu hunchha ra bhannu hunchha, timi haru pani bikyau. This is unfair. Nepe-ji, we have a fundamental difference -- you are a staunch republican, against the monarchy in an absolute way. I'm not, I believe in legally and constitutionally restraining the institution. Like a true republican (and ironically, like your nemesis the monarchists) you also just trashed the 1990 constitution by saying the transfer of sovereignty in 1990 was a sham. Right here, I disagree with you. I think until the late 1990s, before our representatives started losing the moral high ground, monarchists were a defeated force. It is the democrats' follies that has allowed them to resurrect, that almost paved the way for full-blown retrogression recently. But despite the follies of politicians, what the king did remains wrong. And the truth is, 1990 and its achievements are NOT a sham -- and you do a great disservice to a 50 year old struggle by denouncing the movement as loudly as your enemy Royal stooges. Yes, I agree with you on the origin of the original sin -- sleaze, vice and corruption -- being the Palace; it all began in an institutionalized manner from Mahendra's days, and got worse after 2036; and the new people after 1990 were so easily co-opted. But you seem to think the design always existed, they never really gave up power. I say no. Their design to stage their comeback was ad-hoc, and prompted when samsadbadis started bungling. I remember speaking to a very senior person who worked at the Prime Minster's Office in 1991 and then in 1997. He says he was shocked to find the change in the nature of interaction between the elected PM's office and Durbar in those two periods. In 1991, the people's reps reigned supreme, reactionaries fled, king lay low; by 1997 (actually 1995 onwards and all that hung parliament hangama), our reps began to err in such a way that a slow resurrection was facilitated. I thus KNOW our gains then were real -- and the utopian republican ideals of revamping the whole thing, perhaps in the original way the Maoists intended -- wouldn't have worked, probably won't work. That's why I am a realistic democrat -- one who believes in competitive politics, the current Constitution, and in improving our existing mess from within. I will always oppose attempts to seek redresses through quick fixes, such as this latest Royal maneuver AND Maoist despotism. You are well aware of my positions AGAINST the Maoists. And you have seen how firm my stances have been AGAINST the royal experiment of last week. I am a flexible realist within the broad parameters of my rigid ideals. Damage has been done, but our next move is to limit that damage. While condemning, warning, protesting, we still have to move on to preserve what remains of the current khaka. And that means having this new royal installment work for us to hold the new elections and elect a new parliament soonest. I have big hopes from the new parliament -- it should be radical enough to curtail royal excesses and remove all constitutional ambiguities. I hope that parliament takes concrete steps to sever the tie between the palace and the source of its illegitimate power, the Army. All this in addition to a continued pursuit of a progressive social and a bold economic agenda, alongside the political questions of governance, from anti-corruption to devolution. I am a kramik sudharbadi, a samsadbadi who believes in setting concrete institutions and getting things done in a slow, process-and-system oriented manner. I don't believe in bloody revolutions and overnight solutions. So the "bold" republican goals of starting anew by restructuring everything, beginning with the abolition of the monarchy, is something that's not on my agenda. And neither is any of this royal nautanki my kind of opera. I am thus surprised to hear you were disappointed. About what, I ask? I was responding to the very micro news of the new govt., and giving my quick reactions on the pluses and the minuses. Has my macro view of the situation changed on the Great Royal Error and our immediate goal of restoring the Parliament? Not at all. Not an inch. My next interest is in seeing how we can elect the next parliament as soon as possible so that the process of democratization is not derailed further. Within that frame, I will of course be observing the minute details, and it was in that spirit I was evaluating Chand's team. If you re-read my points, you will see a recurring theme: it is nice, but weak to take on the immediate hurdles that are in the way of electing that new parliament that I want elected badly. I say, to remove those hurdles, this Chand team will really need the support of samsadbadis. I thus hope Chand recruits a few clean heavyweights from the major parties. I also hope that the Maoists cooperate with the samsadbadis, so that the king is not given another excuse to solidify his regressive hold. Myself and Village Voice are among a very lonely minority here taking all kind of prahaar from a camp that you call "royal dhupaures". Now, you jump in, and prahaar from the other end. I know yours is a fond, affectionate prahaar, one from an ally, a true Comrade. Tara yo bich baato ko bedana pani sundinus, Nepe-ji. Yeti sunera pani bikekai hau bhannu hunchha bhane, thikai chha, maaf paun, yehan bhanda thulo sochne wa aghi jaane saamarthya kahilai bhayena, thiyena. Bastab ma tyo bhram pani kahilai paliyena. |
| kunjan | Posted
on 12-Oct-02 12:05 PM
Paschimji, still not sleeping????!!!!!!!!! |
| Soleil | Posted
on 12-Oct-02 12:16 PM
Damn yo!! dis kalanidhi kala-niti whateva, posting da same comments everywhere, hence, creating two different threads of the same content. We hear ya dude UCLA, does it occur in your mind that the server is not your personal property? Stop barking dude. Peace!! |
| Biswo | Posted
on 12-Oct-02 08:57 PM
The grapevine is abuzz with the rumour that one assistant minister in the present government , Mr Dahit, is a Maoist. Any 'staunch' monarchists have any idea who the guys is? I think we at least deserve to know who our ministers are, now that the system is at the hand of the king who claimed he would form the government of 'untainted persons'? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 12-Oct-02 10:24 PM
he just hails from the most maoist affected are, not a maoist himself. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 01:07 AM
Paschim, Tapaain sanga ko baat-chit bhanda sukhad kura kamai holan. Sahamat hunda pani aananda laagchha, asahamat hunda pani aananda laagchha. Aba mero disappoinment chanhi tapaile aunlyaunu bhaye jastai mero aafnai karanley bhayeko ho- I kept expecting too much while being aware of the unlikeliness of it. Tara euta naya kura pani bhayo ni haina ra ? After His Majesty revealed/signaled what he is upto/what he is capable of, I thought (now I can see, naively) that perhaps my dear friends Paschim, Biswo ji and VV ji might reconsider their strong support for the ‘constitutional monarchy’. Well, I certainly underestimated these chattan.haru.laai. Tara, this is not the first time I failed to melt hearts of friends and NKs ! Tapaain ley bhannu bhayo: >Aakal-jhukkal saath payeko chhu, natra eklai ladi raheku chhu yehan, bidhi ko raaj ko damfu pitdai…..Tara pani gaurab chha, ek inch yeta uta garya chhaina aafno adaan bata. ..Aba tapain aaunu hunchha ra bhannu hunchha, timi haru pani bikyau. This is unfair. No, I did not say that. I have never doubted the integrity of Paschim. Nepe biklaa, Poorba maa ghaam astaaulaa, tara Paschim baata autocracy ko samarthan-ghham kahile udaaune chhaina. Siyo ko tuppo jati pani shankaa nagarey hunchha yesmaa. My only fear is that the buyer might well benefit by what you do or do not care to do. Tetti ho. >Nepe-ji, we have a fundamental difference -- you are a staunch republican, against the monarchy in an absolute way. I'm not, I believe in legally and constitutionally restraining the institution. Yes, Paschim. We have fundamental difference. I think we will continue to enjoy the respectful disagreement on this for some time. >Like a true republican (and ironically, like your nemesis the monarchists) you also just trashed the 1990 constitution by saying the transfer of sovereignty in 1990 was a sham. Right here, I disagree with you. No, I did not say it is a complete sham. By calling it a semicracy, I am recognizing the partial transfer of the sovereignty to the people. As it must be somewhere in our exchange in the past. I share your view that 2047 ko sambidhan is the second most significant Upalabdhi of Nepali janata after 2007 saal. Let me also add that hisabai garne ho bhane I have sacrificed some tears, a lot of sweats and 5 precious years of my youth to eventually bring it. Ansha nai lagaune ho bhane mero bhaag maa ek dhaaraa, dhaaraa nabhaye ek upadhaaraa, upadhaaraa pani nabhaye ek dui shabda parnu parchha. Kunai mu** G. ra si laai yo sambidhhan laai langauti banauna dinna kya ma. Janata laai ajha badhi poorna samprabhuman banaaune kura po gareko ta maile. And that will be the largest upalabdhi of Nepali people in their entire history. And that day, whenever will be, you will write that very sentence in your yet another historical posting (speech for the new Nepal sarkaar perhaps ?) and I will be saying I agree ! Kripaya eslai Nepe ley paaleko bhram nabhanidinu hola. >I think until the late 1990s, before our representatives started losing the moral high ground, monarchists were a defeated force. It is the democrats' follies that has allowed them to resurrect, that almost paved the way for full-blown retrogression recently. Paschim, let me tell you that you picked the most important part of the argument of today. It seems that the consensus among Nepali intelligensia is exactly what you just wrote. And this is exactly where I differ with them. At the surface it looks true. But this is a chicken or egg first argument. You say the near resurrection of the retrogative force is because of the follies of the democrats. I say the follies or inability of the democrats is the only inevitable result of the compromised democracy (Semicracy, I am going to patent this word :-)). This is actually the main thrust of the argument in my last posting. You have recognized, in the specific context of corruption, an unchallenged continuity of the system from Maharaj Mahendra’s rule to today. But you assert that there was no (political) design to stage a come back in future. I agree with you regarding the later. I have never said there was a DESIGN, I have only said there was no RESIGN from the possibility. I am not blaming anybody. As a matter of fact, I understand that given the time and the power relationship of that time, 2047 ko smabidhan was a grand upalabdhi. It must be cherished. As everybody did, I too believed that so much power at the hand of people must be enough for the rest to achieve as a process of kramik unnati. I hoped then to see the secondary manifestation of democracy- transparency, accountability and good governance- and the final fruits - rule of law, justice and bikas. The rest is history. Today’s mess in front of us is chikh chikh ke kah rahi hai, there is something missing in this simple raj-ganit. Chhoto formula ma bhannu parda, I think while DEMOCRATIZATION is essentially an incremental process, DEMOCRACY is not. DEMOCRACY is a revolutionary and all or none phenomenon, at least in the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal. Semicracy did not work. It is not going to work. >In 1991, the people's reps reigned supreme, reactionaries fled, king lay low; by 1997 (actually 1995 onwards and all that hung parliament hangama), our reps began to err in such a way that a slow resurrection was facilitated. I thus KNOW our gains then were real -- and the utopian republican ideals of revamping the whole thing, perhaps in the original way the Maoists intended -- wouldn't have worked, probably won't work. You may be right. But it was about then. Let’s talk about now and future. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 01:08 AM
>I have big hopes from the new parliament -- it should be radical enough to curtail royal excesses and remove all constitutional ambiguities. I hope that parliament takes concrete steps to sever the tie between the palace and the source of its illegitimate power, the Army. All this in addition to a continued pursuit of a progressive social and a bold economic agenda, alongside the political questions of governance, from anti-corruption to devolution. It sounds nice. But here are my reservations. First of all, you are setting up a very liquid and personality dependent system. It works only if we have bold leaders, only if we have sadhu raja and only if we have loyalty shift of the army. Then it is a design where the struggle between monarch and the parliament is most likely to continue for years (or even decades). For a country like Nepal with relatively easily manipulative people (do Maoists growth and recent fresh Deepawali not say anything ?) and the lack of affordability for a prolonged political conflict (we are not Britain/Ireland or Spain), is it a good option ? I doubt. And as for the pursuit of a progressive social and a bold economic agenda, just by simple logic and undeniable evidence from the whole past decade, it is not compatible with the monarchy. I have been arguing this all along. And I am sure everybody can explain this much better than my artless articulation. I wish I am as articulate as Paschim or Sitara or there are so many Sajhaites I envy. > I am a kramik sudharbadi, a samsadbadi who believes in setting concrete institutions and getting things done in a slow, process-and-system oriented manner. I don't believe in bloody revolutions and overnight solutions. So the "bold" republican goals of starting anew by restructuring everything, beginning with the abolition of the monarchy, is something that's not on my agenda. And neither is any of this royal nautanki my kind of opera. I am sorry to say this, but you are misrepresenting the republican agenda, Paschim. You know I am not talking about Maoists ‘Sarbahara ko adhinayakatwa’. Republican democracy is everything you described above plus one damn revolution, may be red, may be velvet. > I am thus surprised to hear you were disappointed. About what, I ask? Aafai bhannu hunchha mero disappoint garaune baani chha bhanera, feri sodhnu pani hunchha. Ke chaal ho ? Katai yestai yestai garera lonesome basnu pareko ta hoina, Paschim ? > I was responding to the very micro news of the new govt., and giving my quick reactions on the pluses and the minuses. Has my macro view of the situation changed on the Great Royal Error and our immediate goal of restoring the Parliament? Not at all. Not an inch. Well, this does not disappoint me at all. > My next interest is in seeing how we can elect the next parliament as soon as possible so that the process of democratization is not derailed further. Within that frame, I will of course be observing the minute details, and it was in that spirit I was evaluating Chand's team. If you re-read my points, you will see a recurring theme: it is nice, but weak to take on the immediate hurdles that are in the way of electing that new parliament that I want elected badly. I say, to remove those hurdles, this Chand team will really need the support of samsadbadis. I thus hope Chand recruits a few clean heavyweights from the major parties. I undestand your perhaps pragmatic interest to see things settle peacefully and as soon as possible. But I look at it differently. Putting my republican agenda aside, I think it is the second in a row rajaley sambidhan laai latyaye ra janata ko sovereignty laai BITULO paaridiye. I don’t think it is a matter to be put under the carpet. First, we should not allow a wrong precedence to take place. Second, we should make G. feel and understand Nepali people can and does punish ( at least morally for now and legally in future if possible) him for his wrongdoings. Third, Chand and his cabinet should know that the king can not force a parachakri sarkar on the people. And last but not the least, there is no significant advantage of the illegimate Chand sarkar to ignore the damage to be revamped right now. Gyanendra ko nirnaya firta gari sab bhanda jayaz bikalpa, parliament reinstate garnu parchha. Is reinstating the dissolved parliament is unconstitutional ? It is not constitutional. But it not unconstitutional too. Besides, it is morally right. If the husband of a widow revives, should she reject him ? |
| iXY | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 08:36 AM
Nepe mitra, ma pani ta naya word nikalchu ani patent ko lagi dakhila garchu. tyo ho nepal ma democracy pani chhaina, semicracy pani chhaina. chha bhane LamiCracy chha. Dherai lami bhayera Democracy ko naaam ma, incomplete constitution lai Lami le jastai badhai chadahi garera tyo bhadou ma ankha futeko goru Deoba lai garib ki ek matra asako tandro Samsada lai lagera bisnu le satidevi lai shiva ka haat ma thamaye jastai gari thamai diyecha. Samsada devi ta aba agho ma haam falera mari sakin. Tyo goru Girija aaj unconstitutional bho bhani samsada-devi ko sab bokera hideko chha samsada devi lai bachau, guhari raheko chha tyo dalal bisnu sanga ki samsadaa devi lai biutau, uta arko goru Deoba uski srimati Matri-Parishada ko sab bokera hideko chha, "meri matri parisadas ko chir haran bho bhanera. ". We are now approaching to Lamicrats. Lami ko real meaning ho "Dalali". Our political leaders are all LamiCrats, yane expert in Dalalitantra. When they met KG, they spent most of the time criticizing fellow political parties and their leaders to get PM's post. LamiTantra ma lage pachi ke huncha. ________________Democracy ________ __________/.\ ________ _________/.P..\ ________ _________/..E..\ ________________ /...O... \ ______________ _ /....P.....\ Triangle of "cracy" Politics in developing countries. _______________/.....L.......\ Three types of cracies now active in Nepal. _______________/.....E.........\ Peoples are confined by them. Confused largely. ______________/......S..........\ ........Semicracy/_____________\ Lamicracy politics in nepal should try to follow Democrats, but, Semicrats and Lamicrats are engaged in such a way that Democrats like Nepe were cornored and thrown as if unrelevant. LamiCracy(R), LamiCrats(R) and LamiTantra (R) are patented words of InterXY Coordinator, Inc. , 2002 Semicracy(R) is patented word belonged to Nepe Special Services, Inc., 2002 |
| tabponski | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 10:06 AM
dear all, Actually democracy is hypothetical. It is like attaining absolute zero which can never be achieved. In mathematics we can calculate the limiting value not th eexact value. In case of democracy too it applies. Like lim f(s)x f(p) where f(s) =people's satsfaction and f(p) =presperity democracy ->1 = 0.99999 (should be to prevaul perfect democracy rarely we have seen this) For our case even if tis limiting value is positive or simply > 0 people would be happy. But unfortunately it has been seen and analyzed that it is a decreasing function. that is why i have no biswas in whoever in the governement. Plz see my subject pashupatinath and also advise me accordingly |
| SITARA | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 11:27 AM
Tabponski Ji Nice Graphics there: One question: Does Lamicracy and Dalali have anything to do with "Dalai Lama's" fight against China's hostility toward's Tibet's Lamicracy???????? Just wondering :P |
| Poonte | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 12:21 PM
Hmmm....dherai kura bhannu thiyo...mantabya haru thuprera chhati nai ukus-mukus bhaisakyo...tara samaya ko abhav... Keep them rolling, my honorably intellectual cyber friends! The readings have been very thought-provoking, indeed! |
| Nepe | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 12:37 PM
iXY ji, Good observation. I am particularly impressed by the graphical illustration. One may add more points to make it quadrilateral, pentagon etc, but the point is that they are linked. You know one of my major frustration with both sojha sajha janata and tatha batha Nepali buddijibi is that they fail to notice or be candid about the LINK between the compromising democracy and the corruption. No wonder the majority of ‘Kathmandu ka buddijibi haru’ have been looking like ‘kuhiro ko kaag’ since last 5-6 years. Lami haru ko ta ke kura bho ra. On the related note, I think all the bad things happening in Kathmandu right now is eventually for good. I remember Sitara saying in one of the thread- yes we need change, any change. I believe more than ever we are even more closer to Itihas ko antim nirnaya due to this change opened by Gyanendra. ************* Poonteji, Your inputs are very much awaited. Yo show ta tapaainko hunu parne bastab maa. |
| orion | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 04:22 PM
Nepe, I couldn't agree with you more. In my opinion, Monarchy in Nepal is a dying institution. The power of the Monarch has declined progressively over the last 200 years and this trend shows no signs of abating if you dig a little beyond the surface. From having absolutist Monarchy, to Ranarchy, to the election of the democratic governments, to the rise of a communist opposition within parliamentary democracy and finally to the rise of an armed communist rebellion - all the signs appear to point to the weakening and perhaps the ultimate removal of the monarchy. Almost every major political event in the last few decades is a direct or indirect challenge to the authority of the King, and I think while the King does have support in some quarters of the population, with kind of social changes we are experiencing in Nepal, it is going to be very difficult for the Monarchy to keep its support base intact and thus to save itself. I believe the actions of King Gyanendra may, at the most, slow this trend somewhat in the short term, but in the long term, when historians write a book about the end of the Monarchy in Nepal, they will no doubt point to the events of the last few days and question the wisdom of the steps that King Gyanendra took. Like I have said elsewhere on the forum, the King has put himself into a very interesting position by taking executive power into his hands through a constitutional loop hole . Firstly, he is going to leave those opposed to him with very little options but to seek his removal. When the dust settles down over the events of the last few days and all trends point to a desire on the part of the King to wield executive power - perhaps through a proxy PM - the parties are going to be left with very little choice but to start an agitation or some form of protest because I seriously do not believe that either the NC or the UML - the two biggest political forces in Nepal, will or can share power with Gyanendra for long. From where I see things, Gyanendra may be able to use force to quell dissent in the beginning, but by suppressing the NC or UML through force, he risks loosing his throne because there will be few left to credibly champion the idea that the King and parties can co-exist. He can use military might, get his hands stained and rule for perhaps 5 or 6 years. I am pretty sure what the end of those 5 or 6 years will be like - a parallel to the flight of Marcos at best or a parallel to the Russian revolution at worst. Perhaps he realizes all this and will, in spite of the follies of the recent pass, allow the country to return to what can reasonably be perceived as democracy. I think that is the best option the King has available. Direct rule at this point, in my opinion, is bad for both the King and country and will only accelerate the country towards more instability and the ultimate overthrow of the Monarchy. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 04:32 PM
Paschim's words sound like a reiteration of the traditional Nepali Congress stance. (1) That the 1990 achievement was a tsunami. After 50 years of struggle. (2) Constitutional monarchy. The 1990 achievement was great, but not as great as Paschim says it was. At least, I don't think so. It only managed to push the country into a decade of Congressi dadagiri. True, the multi-party framework was introduced, but the truth on the ground was of one party hegemony. A few Congressi strongmen looting the country and keeping the Congress in power by all means necessary/possible. Corrution has been the name of the game. And that fueled the Maoist insurgency. Instead of just stating your position on "constitutional monarchy," will you please give reasons as to why you think: (a) the monarchy should continue to exist at all, and (b) that it ought to exist in the form you suggest it should, and (c) what exactly is that form? Noone can seriously doubt the 1990s have been a dismal failure. Well, will the Nepali Congress like to take responsibility? Because, after all, the 1990s have been the Nepali Congress decade. |
| iXY | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 08:57 PM
Nepe Mitra, dhanyabad for your appreciation. tara 4wota node yane four sided pani huncha bhani mero yatro mehanat lai mitti me miladiya. Jab 4 continent pari problem hota he to people mera naam XY lekar kahete he graph ma dekhao, aur sab TEXT wale aram se sole te hei. lekin aaj nepe ji ne mera graphics ko mitti me miladiya. iska jawaf dena hi padega. Dhanaya-bad or mithai-ka-goli aur what? aur dusari 3-D graphics se? Nepe ji, XY (in 2-D plane) graphics ma 3 sided element yane triangle is the most basic level closed loop. Whatever number of sides or nodes you assign to it, it is just an assembly of multiple 3 noded triangles just like in medical tomography technology. It divides the enclosed area yane peoples into smaller groups. All nodes in triangle are interconnected, unlike to 4 noded/sided quadrilateral or higher order polygons. The opposite nodes have no connection thus, the unconnected node is sluggish and one day it must have to merge or sink. It does not communicate with its opposite node and collapsible structure when the sides are connected by hinge type of connections at nodes. In triangle, hinge connection is enough, you don't need rigid joint. ----------O----------- sample hinge connection like in a balance "taraju" ------------X--------- sample rigid connection like a nut-bolt connection. Well, if you are talking things in 3 dimensions, then, 4 noded triangular prism is the basic element and it does have 4 sides, 4 nodes, all of them are interconnected, it makes 4 planes and these four planes are 3 noded triangles. i m a 2-D XY Coordinator, I don't like that 4th node in Z-plane. Well, in Nepal the 4th node is Donor/LoanCrats, i.e. the foreign donor countries or organizations like IMF, World Bank, they work on background i.e.Z-plane, invisible to commonors like me who love 2-D stuffs. I suggest peoples to remember the 4 sided prism, think its effect how it is polarizing the conglomerate white light into 7 bands. That is the great culprit in Nepal confusing peoples. Being a resource poor, the DonorCracy is very important node and can not be neglected in overall 3-D sense. LamiCracy(R), LamiCrats(R) and LamiTantra (R), LoanCracy(R), LoanCrats(R) and DonorCrats(R), DonorCracy(R) are patented words of InterXY Coordinator, Inc. , 2002 Semicracy(R) is patented word belonged to Nepe Special Services, Inc., 2002 |
| Paschim | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 09:29 PM
Building on your last statement, Nepe-ji, there's an Irish proverb that says, "what is a world to a man who's wife is a widow?" That lamenting (dead) husband is the Nepali parliament today, and I'd be thrilled to see it revive. Biswonath Upadhya, the main brain behind today's constitution, also says that ought to have been done. And if the King is continuously abusing 127, why not use it once more to restore the parliament? I have wished for that. But if we can't go back to the old parliament, then the next prudent thing is to elect a new one. That is my thrust. I am indifferent between the two options, but the second seems more realistic. You on the other hand, express your reservations for a "new" parliament, while advocating the revival of the "old" one. Tyo "haluka birodhavash-purna" bhayena ra? What other options do we have apart from siding with the two extremes -- Raja and Mao? It's getting awfully lonely here on the middle course. As for a republican democracy with one damn revolution, that's what the Maoists are saying. And they also say they'll settle for the "bourgeoisie" model. So, if you want YOUR republican cause to be differentiated from that of the Maoists, please spell how, Nepe-ji. I DO have a suggestion though -- come, become an unambiguous adherent of parliamentary democracy, let's really use parliamentary action to empower the people, make them aware, deliver socio-economic goods, and legislate continuously to weaken the link between army and the palace by gradually democratizing it over the next 2 decades or so, AND THEN if we still see the monarchy as irrelevant, let's ditch it in the garbage bin peacefully. And we can call that a "Blue" revolution, a peaceful one. Because, any attempt at that damn revolution NOW will only mean further anarchy in the form of a full scale civil war as the army is behind the king, and majority of the Nepali people want the institution to survive. So, join us, dear Nepe, for an alternative long peaceful march to that "blue revolution". Remember what Dilli Bhurtel said in episode 7? "Something big will happen in Nepal by 2030". What say you? Can I now tempt you to our camp? :) |
| Paschim | Posted
on 13-Oct-02 09:31 PM
Paramendra, appreciating the 1990 constitution is NOT the same thing as condoning the failures of the last decade. Be clear on that. Anyone who says the 1990s were a grand success is MAD. But this very constitution gives us the space to seek redresses of existing failures peacefully without having to resort to extremist quick fixes. Therein lies the beauty. Any attempt to burn down the "mamaghar" because one is angry with the "mama" is not something I'd advise. On the monarchy, briefly, it is the only Nepali institution that has survived intact since our Unification in 1769 (even our territory size has fluctuated and the lingua-franca is still not definite), so its survival is important for symbolic merits in a fragile nation, and what LITTLE value it serves to tie the extremely disparate ethnic and religions interests that Nepal is home to. Also because of the state of power play today, any attempt to dislodge the monarchy is ONLY possible through military action -- and that implies a protracted, full-blown, bloody civil war that we not only can't afford, but the utter chaos might endanger our existence as a country itself. But my support for the constitutional monarchy is not a "permanent" proposition -- if we have to throw it away, let's do it the "blue" way, over time, by strengthening parliamentary democracy (see note to Nepe above). In the meantime, let's keep using the legal and constitutional restraints to make it as powerless as possible. And for that we need a living parliament soonest. And, I am not a member of any political party in Nepal, so your questions about the good old Nepali Congress should be directed to the official spokesperson of that party, Mr. KC, in Teku. I hope the telephone works. ------ Sorry I'm in a rush today, so had to be "brief" to both of you -- bhanna ta dherai mann laagya thyo! Later in the week perhaps. |
| Orion | Posted
on 14-Oct-02 09:47 AM
Paramendra - on your question about blame for the 1990s - yes, I am in little doubt that the NC needs to shoulder a huge part of the blame for the lacklusture state of affairs during the last decade. However, abbrogating democracy is too harsh and unfair a punishment for the wrongs of one party. I have said for the last several years that the NC and democracy are not synonymous ( no matter what the NC leaders say), and to throw out multi-party democracy, if that is where all this hullabaloo is leading to, is to actualy give credence to the NCs claim that the party and democracy are one and the same thing. One another note, iXY, you are very creative and greatly enrich the discussion with your geometric analogies. Cheers. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 01:15 AM
iXY ji, As Orion too noted, your creative idea is impressive. Additional nodes thapna sakine sujhab diyera maile tappainko original idea laai mitti ma milaidiyeko patakkai hoina. On the contrary, you have now advanced your model to a new height by illustrating how 3D structures can show interconnection of more than three nodes. The use of hinge and rigid bridges should allow more accurate representation of the differential relationship among the nodes. I am not a mathematician. But I can at once appreciate the importance of your model in understanding the misunderstood politics of Nepal. A lot of bidwans in Nepal and here in Sajha too are failing to see the interconnection between the nodes of Nepali politics, like Durbacracy, Democracy, Lamicracy, Donorcracy and so on. Thanks for the terms you coined for these nodes. Keep up the brilliant work, iXY ji. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 01:21 AM
Orion ji, I am glad we share the similar views. And I particularly appreciate your statement that “Almost every major political event in the last few decades is a direct or indirect challenge to the authority of the King..”. Very true. I remember during 2046 ko jana Andolan ka antim hapta tira, when I saw a bunch of small kids on the roof of my neighbor imitating julus and chanting ‘Pampha Devi Bhalu Ho !’ (Sorry for the derogatory word) and when my teenager cousin reported to me how his friends wrote ‘BAD OUT’ (I hope everybody knows what BAD stands for) on the wall of his boarding school, my sixth sense said, a historical change is inevitable. (I knew the easy slogan of that time ‘Mariche Chor, Desh chhod’ was not representing the true voice of the history !). On the last day of the jana Andolan, I just knew I had to be there, at Ratna Park, to witness the history being made when a crowd of the common people marched towards the royal palace ! The rest is history. Today, once again, we have a second ‘Marich Man’. I will not be surprised if within less than a year, if we start to hear ‘Loke chor, Desh chhod’. And I would know this again is not the true voice of the history. I would know what’s ahead. Whether or not this happens, or better whatever happens, whatever we argue, the days (ok years) of the monarchy is counted. So says my guts. ******************************************************** Paschim, Let me say forthright that I agree with you on the followings: The middle course between the two extremes, Raja and Mao, is the right path. The ‘Blue revolution’ or even the ananta continuation of the ‘constitutional Monarchy’ is fine if it works, if it delivers. For me, the middle course is the democratic republic of Nepal. No Rajha, No Mao. You brought up a very interesting point of Maoist that they are saying they will settle for the "bourgeoisie" democracy. Before spelling out how I differ from Maoists, I want to say that what Maoists are saying is the most important fold where the only viable solution to both the Maoist problem and the Monarchy problem lies. That is where lies the best interest of Nepali people. Anywhere else lies the best interest of either a group of communist fanatics or kebal raja ko ek sano pariwar. I think it will be interestingly relevant to recall our old exchange in your famous thread ‘Prachanda Found Dead’ where I had argued why I think Nepali communists, including Maoists, have to be loyal to Democracy and you had made some positive remarks about that. Now that Maoists are ready to settle for it, shouldn’t I say ‘Dekhnu bho, mailey bhaneko milna aayo !’ ? Despite being the most positive signal from Maoists, they are far from being unconditional, trustworthy and genuine commitment. That where I differ from Maoists. Whenever or if ever Maoists become genuinely commited to “bourgeoisie” democracy, I am not going to say, well I want to go to the other camp of Monarchists because I want to be different than Maoists. I will be one of them. > I DO have a suggestion though -- come, become an unambiguous adherent of parliamentary democracy, let's really use parliamentary action to empower the people, make them aware, deliver socio-economic goods, and legislate continuously to weaken the link between army and the palace by gradually democratizing it over the next 2 decades or so, AND THEN if we still see the monarchy as irrelevant, let's ditch it in the garbage bin peacefully. Paschim, you painted a very rosy picture here. It’s very tempting. However, I want to remind that we ALREADY tried that. For more than a decade. It did not work. It failed. The king became progressively stronger and we (parties) became corrupt. Our parties became corrupt for the very similar reason a potentially good man goes to prostitutes after his beloved wife is lured and taken away by a filthy rich man. Let’s give the man his wife and her love. And see how he emerge as a good man we can be proud of. Let’s learn from 12 wasted years of our beloved country. Vijaya Dashami ko Upalaxema Mangamaya Shuva Kamana, taapain ra Sajha ka sabai bandhu haru laai ! |
| iXY | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 03:50 AM
Nepe ji and others, Dhanya-ko-bat le pitnu paryo aba ta bhena. aba ke garne internet world ma tyo candy-ko-goli le kaaam nagarne. Dhanya-ko-bat le matrai ta ho ni tapalai thikka parna sakne maile ta. Muri muri dhanya-bat. Lets replace that Semicracy (before public really understand its full meaning) by Durbocracy (DURBar 'O' Cracy) and retain the other 3 cracies as it is Democracy, Lamicracy, DonoCracy. I think that the Durbocracy and RepublicanoCracy can not be adjusted in the same prism. Either one should occupy the 4th node. Remember the prism of Nepali society is now made by 4 facets (in my imaginary model): 1. Democrats, Lamicrats, DurboCrates 2. Lamicrats, DonoCrats and DurboCrats 3. Democrats, DonoCrats and Durbocrats. and 4th facet free of Durbocracy is 4. Democrats, Lamicrat and DonoCrats. This is the only face that can be shared by RepoCrats (shortened it to RepoCrats: music ma shor milauna, ke). Therefore, republicans should move to other side of prism i.e. using the triangular facet made by 4th facet described above i.e. Democracy, Lamicracy and DonoCracy and try to make another prism such that it has no connection with Durbocracy node and the 3 facets made by it. Well, if you can shift the public confined by the aforementioned 4 facets to your own prism comprised of Democracy, Lamicracy, DonoCracy and RepoCracy. It should be via the 4th triangular facet in existing prism that does not have any connection with the Durbocracy node, then, you can shift the whole public to other prism making the first prism empty, i.e. Durbocracy become irrelevant and that prism needs to be thrown in dustbin, well, Democracy, Lamicracy and DonoCracy will not have to worry because they will keep on enjoying their presence in new prism too and their relative distance remained same as before, but, direction cosines REVERSED. Well, RepoCrats should convince the Democrats, Lamicrats and DonoCrats to join in the prism created by RepublicanoCrats. If the triangular facet currently shared by Democrats, Lamicrats and DonoCrats only (not by DurboCrats, the 4th face) can be used to make the new prism, I am sure you can create a bridge to move peoples from one prism to anoter prism very smoothly. Key to success is that You should not disturb the facet made by Democrats, Lamicrats, DonoCrats, but, use it. Now, the Democrats, Lamicrats and DonoCrats are scared because so called RepoCrates, the Maoists, are trying to disturb this 4th plane too. Those 3 crats who were enjoying exclusive relation at 4th face are having insecured feeling of joining hands with Repocrats. It is because the Maoists are even heading to sqeeze the peoples movement to only towards their own node, not giving any freedom to move in 3-Dspace or in 2-D planes, but, Maoists want to confine all peoples into single node, by making all facets or whole concept of prism irrelevant. Thats why peoples have moved back to original prism made by Democracy, Lamicracy, DonoCracy and Durbocracy. Biggest mistake by these Maoists is to minimize the presence of 3-D space and also 2-D plane, but, to confine everything in one point, i.e. Maoism only. No lateral no vertical no movement in z-direction too. Who want such system? Well, 2046 was successful to distort the original prism because of the use of Democrats, Lamicrats, DonoCrats effectively. Peoples were moving on the facet made my Democrats, Lamicrats and DonoCrats, as time passed the facet had a loop holes and peoples started moving to other 3 faces thus, Durbocracy got reinforced by the presence of peoples on these 3 facets: 1. Democrats, Lamicrats, DurboCrates 2. Lamicrats, DonoCrats and DurboCrats 3. Democrats, DonoCrats , Durbocrats. The last weeks' refusal to have joint discussions with all party leaders simultaneously is sign that DurboCracy found that the facet made by Democrats, Lamicrats and DonoCrats is weak and poor. They were fragmented and with a lot of loop holes. Peoples were trapped in those holes and fallen and reached to the remaining 3 facets that had connection with DurboCrats. Now, it looks peoples are negligible on the 4th triangular face, and it will take a lot of time to patch the 4th face, and the new 4th node in new prism should avoid Maoists' destination of totalitarian communist agenda. You should make peoples sure that you are different from Maoists. Peoples are looking from very far face and watching whether the Maoists and Replublicans are synonyms? Man lage padh nalage skip gara, tara complain nagara. I am inside the prism, but not on any surface. If you wish I can give you 4 coordinates their mathematical equations (not the xyz, but, N1, N2, N3 and N4). You will surely suprised to find 4th dimension i.e. 4th coordinate different from cartesian coordinate system. Well, if you add another independent variable, t (time), we can have 5th irreversible dimension. Bijaya Dashami ko upalakchya ma sabailai suvakamana. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 04:08 AM
Ixy-ji…my my…impressive political creativity there :) Nepe-ji -- things I mentioned were not really "tried" with fervor for unjustifiable reasons: i) fast-track "bikas", ii) drut rajnitik sashaktikaran, iii) gradual de-linking of THOSE two nodes of extra-constitutional power, etc. May sound clichéd to many, but this is more than sloganeering to me (and hopefully a new crop of netas who emerge after this current setback) who want to remain within the present khaka to pick the agenda, run with it, and deliver. Apart from repeating that the Durbar has to go NOW (which to me is impossible without a devastating civil war as King G and his heirs ain't leaving the throne voluntarily), I don't see what you are suggesting we do to realistically move on… Khair…ahile lai chhod-diun yi kura…malai ta bore laagna thalya jasto chha :) Birano shahar…eklo jyan...tika ko din…Sampurna Sajha-basi lai mero pani nyano abhibadan tatha Dashain ko hardik subha kamana! |
| iXY | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 04:33 AM
Oh!Ho! Paschim ji jasto bidwan lai pani mero Imaginary 4noded Susri Prism-a Kumari Nepal model ramro lageko. Katai Miss Prism-a ko fan banera, yi nai Kumai nabhainahune holani. hos garnu hoi, belama buddhi puryanu ni. Yi ta imaginary kumari Prism-a hun. I will give you a strategy how can you use this Prism-a kumari to establish yourself. Lets see how effective model / strategy will come out of my dumb brain. President InterXY Coordinator, Inc. |
| SOULFREE | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 04:33 AM
damn my men Paschimbro, NepeBro, Orionbro, ixy bro... You guys have written such a long articles. How about this? I have to write bunch of papers this semester. Why don't you guys help me out, do me a favor, write a paper for me ( two of them are 10 pages long and one is 5 -- all due before nov 21) -- So that I can chill out with you-know-who-what-where sipping 'sex on the beach'. Anyway, Its gonna be like "daine haat ko khel" for you guys. Don't worry, at the end of my paper, depending upon the grade I get, I'll tell my mother to give you guys "aashirwad" -- 'doodho nuhaye puto phale'. (I am sure paschim ji gonna nod his head --- ;-) |
| iXY | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 04:44 AM
Soulfree, tyo chor buddhi , thagne buddhi chhoda. Afno kaam afaigara. November 21 time dherai chha. Timi jasta nai ta hun tyo LamiCrats bhaneka. SidhaSadha janata lai fakyifukai garera kaam line, afaile gareko bhandai hidne. Find someone else, but, who am I to tell you to not to practice the LamiCracy. Well, I have to use you guys in my model to help Nepe ji create a new prism. Don't worry, aru kasailai kaam lagayera certificate leu, hami timro position for the time being will not disturb, because we need you LamiCrat peoples too to pull peoples to Nepe ji ko new Republican Prism. We can not help you, but, keep silence before we break your links with Durbocrats, and we want you to switch your cosine to opposite side. Till then bye. |
| SOULFREE | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 05:28 AM
ammai ixy... easy bro. Kasto raan raan paryeko. Ixy Ji, you need to get out of that xy plane and come to the three dimension. Mero aama ko syano chora cha... Rishani maaf ___ chodi dinus, thuki dinus, rish lai. ixy ji, don't politicize my simple request, please. ixy ji, mero budhdhi bhayepo chor budhdhi ta, budhdhi chaina, ke ko chor. Budhdhi bha bhe hazur lai anurodh pani ta gardina thi ni. Budhdhi bha bhe Nepal ko mantri bhai halthi ni. Aaba "model" ma raakhidine re, bho ta? Ixy jyu, model ma hoina, MODEL sanga raakhidinuna __ burger king ma dinner khuwauchu. Hazur lai mero fav model ko list pathau? |
| iXY | Posted
on 15-Oct-02 05:53 PM
Buddhi nai chhaina bhane kina degree chahiyo ta? buddhi n suddhi ko huudhu lai tyo paan pani poko parna nahune certificate kina chahiyo. Certificate le matra khana dine wala chhaina kere. Ki jane bichar chha Nepal ra America Return Unemployed Graduate le chalayeko Paan PAsal bhanera paan bechna. Ijjat ka saath 5 continet pichhe hat rahi he bhanera, tyo American University ko certificate saandar le jhundyayera paan bechna. Uta hamra DemoCrat leader KPB lai paan khub man parcha re, unlai mitho paan bechna sakyou bhane ta unle bholi Nepal Rastra Bank ko governer banaidelan ki ta Yojana Ayog ko Chairperson. Paan ma tyo KALO padartha halera beche ma DurboCrat haru le pani tanna sakchan, timi jasto LamiCrat lai. jata bata pani fayeda. Tyo nabhe timle jhundyaeko certificate dekheshi ta RepoCrat Maoists le contact pani garna sakchan, unemployed graduate bhanera. America bata padheka chhou, DonoCrat le pani "I am americanized via American English" bhani appeal garema hire garne chance chha. Timi ta jata pani thyakka ni, tyasaile ta Lamicrat bhaneko ni. yo sab trick le kaam garena bhane, aru kunai sajilo job garana. kehi napaye ek sayer bhayer basa ya kabi hou. chhanda na banda ko sayer lekha, Sajhapur ka bashi le je pani padhchan sittima paye bhane. K ko chinta. Bau baje le ghus khayekai thiye holan, ke chha sayer bhayera baubaje le kumlyayeko ghus le jindagi chalau. |