No matter how bad it went, no matter how bad people made it look like, there is no alternative to democratic system. Yes, nepalese politicians didn't play well with it, however, democracy is the only way to lead the country towards where we ideally want it to go. Constitutional Monarchy is as absurd as it can get. Monarch supported by the country-fed so called RNA never abides by the constitution whatsoever. He manipulates the constitution and do everything that favors him. So the governing system has to go beyond the Monarch, a mere person and should treat all equally. I know, we failed with our democracy in the past ~15 years, but still we shouldn't quit. We must get rid off the monarch.
Gri has already challenged the political parties to choose one- either Monarchy or Democracy. I dont understand why political parties can't go straightforward with multi party democracy, I dont understand why they can't act FULL TIME to kick G and his roots out of where he is now.

The same way Shah of Iran was kicked out... the same way Chiang Kai Shek was banished to Taiwan.... the same way we intend to revolutionize the political system in Nepal today.

The freedom fighters are all around you... you may not know it but the ones who are committed to concrete change (not just words) are the ones who speak/write the least. These people rely on action backed by words. Not just words and vague threats.

Perhaps you were at the ANA convention also... I would pay good money for a recording of Dr. Pramod Aryal and his friends jumping to the tunes of their Congressi Masters.

Forget the Monarchists... they are history no matter what. But before this fight is over, fools like Aryal and Poonte who talk a big game but produce absolutely nothing but more talking must be taught a good lesson - stay where you belong - where you can continue to talk your BS or come to Nepal and be ready to face the peoples' verdict. The new order will not tolerate neither the hardliners like Sachit Rana nor the self-deluded idiots like Mad Dog Aryal.

Democracy, as Ab Lincoln put it, is "of the people, for the people, and by the people".

The essence of democracy is EVERYONE's participation in the decision making process of the state affairs.

All of the first persons (i, we), second persons (you, you), and third persons (it, they) should have an equal say and an equal role, and also a choice to whether participate or not in the process itself, in a democratic environment.

Practically, state affairs are the best carried out by a configuration of proper check and balance between the executive, legistlative, and judiciary bodies in so called "democratic" nations.

This does not imply it requires a referendum at just everything but demands for a proper representation by elections, and in such a practical "trio" configurations of bodies - mainly the confidence and power of the legislative.

Talking Girija, Makune, 2007 saal, 2046 saal, बुज्रुक र उपबुज्रुकहरु हो , when exactly did u have a democracy in Nepal? हँ ?

When Maobadi ask for a constituent assembly, none of the "constitutional forces" agreed, is this not sufficient to prove that they are the most undemocratic beings on the whole planet? How democratic is the process of Congress, UML, Sadbhavana etc? Spare Gyanendra please, his camp has been the most democratic so far in terms of saying and doing, he ain't a hypocrite like the other political parties or the so called "democratic" elements.

Well, it appears that I forgot to imply that I am against ABSOLUTE TYRANNY as well. But I assume I did not imply for it either. Perhaps assumption is the name of the game.

There can not be any argument that democracy in the real sense is the best available system. But my point have always been, let us not pretend dummy that the democracy, BOUGHT (mind you, NOT brought/earned), by these pathetic moral less political figures would, if anything but better than the previous ones.

Are we to believe that these ghastly figures who are nothing but disgusting poltergeists, will or can be sidelined once the democracy will be restored on paper ( in practice will take time ), or are we supposed to trust them and give them another chance to ridicule or sense of believing?

Now, moving on to the correction part, it is indeed true that people's mandate has the ultimate moral and actual power and lasting effect. But the democracy we would have under these crooks would not be far from what we had in the past, after all, an apple do not fall far from the tree.

And these apples are all from the tree of corruption, ineptness, and opportunism. When we know the end notes of the fragile democracy which would be abused YET again by the very people, how long would it take for the people to garnish their resolution to make yet another fight back?

My common sense tells me that, the very reason people are not actually fighting for democracy bar some self acclaimed revolutionists and the very political parties and their 'bhada ko tattus', is because they have absolute to trust on these leaders. NADA. Let's say by miracle, the leaders brings democracy (which is unlikely), and knowing them, would they not misuse it? God forbid, if they, in their self interest would screw us again, can you imagine how long it would take for Nepalese to stand up, let alone make another stab on the iron fisted absolutism?

My simple question is, why keep the part that have cancer, when it is neither essential nor sensible when we can very well cut that part and then start the rehabilitation?

Freewill, by the people, for the people and all that are important, but TIME demands action, and the action has to come from, us, in our conscience which would be channelized in physical action PROVIDED the parties can lead the way and show us that they are for real. And to do that they have to ABSOLUTELY get rid of those chor, daku, inept and by and large, disgusting good for nothing so called leaders.

This is a FACT based in realism, which any one can sense by mere random observation. Denying this, and then grouching and standing on the idealism approach towards the current scenario would obviously sound better ON PAPER, but alas, on paper it is.

People's sentiments (allow me to make a general statement, with due acceptance and respect for any rebuttal whatsoever), in their silence and no movement ignoring the (even) the calls of our largely UNDEMOCRATIC parties who are fighting FOR DEMOCRACY (Ironic. Is it not?), is evidence enough that, people want action/apologies, and total shake up within the parties. They want to see that parties would discard and punish their leader, irrespective of their status. BAR this, democracy will come, not because these parties fought (or is it natakbaji) for it, but because dada from palace will yet again donate them.

For the common people, it is like, "whose father, what vitamin?"

Astu.

IndisGuise:)

6th para., Line 2.
"....is because they have absolute to trust on these leaders."

Read: "....is because they have absolutely no trust on these leaders."

-------------
Let me as well post a rather funny, but dismal and sorry conversation, told by one of the person in some family gathering (dinner).

(Somewhere in Singha Durbar, one communist neta to Congress neta after a short communist government, the congress was in majority. Girija was prime minister.)

Communist Neta: Ohoooo ke cha ho halkhabar. Kastoo tapai ko bhudi ta bhasakkai badecha ki 3-4 mahina ma. (with that oh so popular ?kutil? muskan)

Congress neta: Hoo ni aba ke garnu hernuna, tapai pani 5-6 mahina agadi bhasakkai motaunu bhako thio. Ahile ta bhudi sutukai ghatecha.

(And they laugh a boisterously. Shortly after the session, communist leaders were accusing congreesi leader in papers and there was some dhunga muda, some neta's were taken to Bir hospitals for ausadi upachar. Another press photo. Another day in the office.)

Duniya ko agadi natak. Jatha haru. The above conversation is NOT A FICTION; MIND you. Now tell please, how they would bring democracy? Even if we stick to IDEALISM, they do not have a moral authority to represent us.

If democracy, means those leaders would be in power, I would much rather wait. I for one, can not be disgusted to see their fuk face smiling and shamelessly shouting slogans, yet again.
(Gyanu dai ko pani herna na maan chaina, tyo dekhera pani jhan tyai neta haru dekhera riss uthca.)

Lu ta,
IndisGUise:)

I have no rebuttals or comments IndisGuise. You make your points well and I agree.... mostly...

Just a question... whose side are you on? Or are you a fence-sitter who sways in the direction the wind blows? I've seen you advocate for parties, advocate for the king, advocate for the maoists... who/what are you advocating for now? Democracy is not an answer here... be more specific if you'd like.

Your writing here is rather bold (more decisive)...... different from how you have presented yourself elsewhere. And yet, you are hardly in disguise...

Suggestion... don't write like you speak if you really want to remain InDisguise.

anti_g,

There is any side thats the problem. ALl the options are available are screwed up. I stand for peaceful and prosperous Nepal. Democracy is just a mean to get it. I do not have any options to pick. I want to see some of these leaders getting wacked.

No execuse for anybody. Be it royals, Be it Netas or Maoists.

Anti,

You call these Maoists goons "freedom fighters" and "comrades" and still vouch for democracy. Isn't "democracy" and Maoist Communism a contradiction in terms?

If Maoist ever come to power, believe me, there'll be no democracy. It'll be Prachanda Raj.

It's easy engaging in a free-style vitriol spew but you don't make much sense.

Whose side am I?
Any side (Bar Maoists, simply because, I see them as inhuman pathetic creatures in disguise of humans.), which promises us peace; a right to live without fear, and by and large would allow us to exercise personal freedom, so long as my personal liberty does not become hindrance to others. In short, while I do not like any parties on the table, namely 3 (PPM), I would go with either of the two that can bring peace first, and rest shall be determined as and when people would be capable and educated enough.

Anti_g, if this is not specific enough for you. I am sorry, I can not help it. I would like to believe I am not a fence sitter who sways on any direction the wind blows. I am clear on my conscience and vocal in my belief with myself.

Anti_g, if you would read more closely, I have never spoken for MAOISTS. NEVER. Impossible. They can be tolerated IFF it can save thousands of more lives to be destroyed, and many more thousands to be negatively affected.

Mind telling me how I have presented elsewhere? Be specific. My writing, here or anywhere else would be as bold or as bakwass, as and when I feel the need of it.

Anti_g, I am as much in disguise as you are as "Anti_g". That's that.

Your suggestion is noted,( I wonder what made you think so hehe) however, if this is the way I write, then so be it. As long as I do not attack non public people senselessly, I believe I have satisfied my moral obligation, and with it, rather subtle law of sajha.

Your suggestion smells like a threat. Anyways, for the people who know me, I am not in disguise; and for the ones who do not, I shall remain in disguise. I am here in sajha not to present myself as a political analyst or a leader; but as a Nepali, who has found an outlet to express his opinions. If you think you know me, you are welcome to make an approach to me in PRIVATE WITHOUT you yourself in disguise. If we do not know each other, let's leave it at that.

A suggestion...do not dwell in the name too much, for in names, lies nothing. Take yours "anti_g".

IndisGuise:)

Very well said Indisguise! Couldn't have put it any better myself.

Anil wrote:
"There is a better way of dealing with corrupt and inept leaders: VOTE THEM OUT!"

Oh, how I wish things were really as simple as that! *Sigh*

Anil ji, What you say sounds great in text-books and lecture classes - only if it were that straightforward and simple in real life too, we'd all be living in a Utopia.

I understand and fully respect your unwavering commitment to democarcy. I believe it all stems from the fact that you have been living in the west - in a democracy - for the better part of your adult life. But have you ever thought, perhaps, living in America for the length of time that you have, maybe it has cut you off from the "real world" as it were? because, lets face it, the world is a big place comprising more than 200 countries/territories and full of diverse cultures and peoples - not just America, and maybe you have led a sheltered life in a cocoon if you know what I mean, or perhaps, it might have stunted your 'understanding of the real world' (for want of a better word), although you do read a lot of books (or so the impression I get). I can perfectly understand why a lot of people on here are unflinching, dare I say dogmatic vis-a-vis democracy. The majority of the posters on here live in America - in a democracy, and they are predisposed to American values and ideals, which is clouding thier judgements.
What many of you are doing is looking at things from an American perspective.

yes, 2+2=4

BUT

3+1=4 as well,

and

6-2=4 as well.

There are cultures where fat/overweight people are considered beautiful. Now, to you - an america-bred person - you couldn't fathom the idea of someone overweight being considered beautiful - to you it would seem insane and ludicrous. But there you go..

Indeed George Bush may not have ulterior motives in Iraq and that he genuinely believes that he is doing a huge favour to the humanity by invading Iraq and installing democarcy in that country. He may very well honestly believe that democracy is what people in Iraq are thirsting for and that democracy will make Iraqis' life better - but that perception is based on his own values and morals.

Anilji, just because I refute you I hope you won't take it to heart. Am just voicing my opinion really. I have always enjoyed reading your posts because they are devoid of negativity and abuse. You are entitled to your opinions and convictions - that goes without saying. Your views - and although I do not agree with a lot of the times - brings diversity to this forum.

Do you support \'corrupt\' Sher Bahadur Deuba and Prakash Man Singh or \'clean\' and \'competent\' T. Giri, K Bishta, Senate Shrestha, Dan B, Shahi, and Jagat Gauchan? KG also swears by democracy. Choose your side carefully.

makar,
You are kidding, aren't you?

प्रजातन्त्रको अर्को बिकल्प छैन। निस्चय नै हो। तर अस्थिरताले अशान्ति ल्याउंछ र सही प्रजातन्त्रको मुल्य हराउंछ। नेपालको प्रजातन्त्रको सन्दर्भमा भयो त्यही। त्यसैले प्रजातन्त्रको बहालीपछि हामीले ब्यहोरेको सबैभन्दा ठूलो क्षति नै अस्थिरता हो। र अस्थिरता असक्षम नेतृत्वका कारण आयो। त्यसैले प्रजातन्त्रको बहसमा फस्नु भन्दा प्रजातन्त्र के ले खत्तम पा-यो बुझौ।

नेपालका सबैभन्दा ठूला पार्टीहरु नेपाली कांग्रेस र एमाले को नेतृत्व क्रमश: गिरिजा प्रसाद र माधव नेपालले गरेका छन्। यिनीहरुको नेतृत्वकालमा आफ्नै पार्टी भित्र प्रजातन्त्रको अभ्यास भएन। फलस्वरुप आफ्नै पार्टी बिभाजित भए, कमजोर भए। दुबै पार्टीले सरकार गठन गरे तर ब्यक्तिगत किचलोका कारण सरकार बिघटन गरिए। जनताले दिएको अधिकारको दुरुपयोग गरियो। मिलेर प्रजातन्त्र ल्याएका योद्धाहरुले मिलेर सरकार चलाएर स्थिरता ल्याउनुको साटो मात्र २० सीट जितेको पूर्व पञ्चहरुको पार्टीलाई दुई दुई पटक सरकार गठन गरेर अस्थिरता निम्त्याउन सहयोग गरे। त्यतिमात्र हैन, जब राजाले मिलिजुली प्रधानमन्त्रीको नाम मागे सहमतिमा कोही आउन सकेनन्। आफू भए ठीक र अर्को भए बेठीक को नीति अपनाईयो। यस्ता साह्रा घटना घट्नुको कारण असक्षम नेतृत्व नै हो। (मदन भण्डारी र मनमोहन भट्टराईको नेतृत्व एमालेमा धेरै प्रभावकारी थियो।)

अन्यौलताका कारण नेतादेखि कार्यकर्ता, ब्यापारीदेखि कर्मचारी सबैले क्षणिक लाभ उठाउन थाले। त्यसैले, भ्रष्टचारी हुनु राजनैतिक पार्टीहरुको प्रमुख कमजोरी हैन। उनीहरुमा देखिएको प्रमुख कमजोरी हो सक्षम नेतृत्वको कमी। पार्टीहरु फेरी सफलताको सीढि चढ्न नेतृत्वमा परिवर्तन आउनु एकदमै जरुरी छ। युवा पुस्ताको प्रतिनिधि नेता राखेर मात्र समस्या सुल्झिदैन। शेर बहादुर देउवा जस्ता विवेकहीन युवा पुस्ता फेरी पनि असफल हुनेछन्। त्यसैले, जबसम्म नयां कुशल नेतृत्व जन समक्ष देखिदैन तबसम्म लडाई चाहे प्रजातन्त्र जस्तो राम्रो नाममै किन नलडियोस, त्यसले राजनैतिक कार्यकर्ताको समय र शक्ति नष्ट गर्ने सिवाय अर्को केही उपलब्धि हुंदैन।

लडाई लड्न एउटा दूरदर्शी नीति चाहिन्छ। हाम्रा नेताहरुलाई क्षणिक लाभ बाहेक अर्को कुरा सोच्ने फुर्सदै छैन। लडाईलाई प्रभावकारी बनाउन नीतिको साथै समय पनि चाहिन्छ। माओवादीले १० वर्ष अघि सुरु गरेको लडाई अहिले चुलीमा पुगेको छ। हो, चुली। उनीहरुको रणनीति परिवर्तन नगरी यो भन्दा बढी सफलता भविश्यमा सायदै मिल्ला। भने, बिना योजना ७ पार्टीलाई आजको भोली सफलता कसरी मिल्ला? लडाकु पार्टीहरुको रणनीति के छ? कोही संसद ब्युझाउन लडेको, कोही गणतन्त्र स्थापना गर्न लडेको त कोही संबैधानिक प्रजातन्त्रको लागि। यस्तो अन्यौलताको लडाई कति सफल होला? नारा जुलुस र प्रचारबाजीमा सीमित लडाई ३ वर्ष अगाडि सिद्धिएला त? मलाई लाग्छ, त्यो असम्भब छ।

त्यसैले, पार्टीहरुले आफ्नो पार्टी संगठन गर्न समय खर्चिनु पर्छ र ३ वर्षभित्र हुने चुनावको तयारीमा लाग्नु पर्छ। सकिन्छ भने राजासंग मिलेर अन्तरिम सरकार गठन गर्नु पर्छ। राजाको ३ वर्षे कुरामा विश्वास छैन भने यदि त्यस्तो अवस्था आयो भने कसरी अघि बढ्ने भन्ने नीति तय गर्नु पर्छ। जो बलियो छैन त्यसले लड्न सक्दैन। त्यसैले आफूलाई बलियो बनाउने सुनौलो अवसर हो यो। हामीले क्षमा याचना ग-यौ र अब सुध्रियौ भन्ने भनाईको पछाडि आम जनताको सहभागिता हुन्छ भनेर मान्नु अलिक चांडो होला। यदि पार्टीहरु यसरी नै अन्यौलतामा फसे भने परिणाम घातक हुन सक्छ। किनभने भोली चुनाव त हुन्छ नै। आन्दोलन असफल भएपछि चुनाव पनि बहिस्कार गर्नु पर्यो। दोश्रो कुरा संगठन मजबुत नभएको पार्टीले चुनावबाट कस्तो आशा गर्ने? चुनाव बहिस्कार गरिएको खण्डमा ८०% प्रतिशत भन्दा बढी पार्टीहरुका नेता र कार्यकर्ताले स्वतन्त्र उम्मेदवारी दिनेछन (सत्ताको लोभका कारण)। त्यसैले प्रजातान्त्रिक शक्तिहरुका लागि घातक परिणाम।

यस्तो बिग्रिएको परिस्थितिलाई काबुमा ल्याउन राजाले कदम चालेका हुन भन्ने मलाई लाग्छ। स्थिरता र शान्ति सबैको सहयोगले चांडो आउन सक्ला। राजाका कदमले प्रजातन्त्रको लडाईका नाममा भ्रष्ट र असक्षम नेतृत्वले फेरी जरा गाड्न नपाओस। त्यस्तै, अस्थिरता र आन्दोलनका कारण राजाको कार्यकाल पनि नलम्बियोस। पूर्वाधार बलिया नभै प्रजातन्त्र बलियो हुंदैन। प्रजातन्त्रको बिकल्प पनि छैन।

funniest damn thread on sajha....HANDS DOWN!!! please, carry on...

यस्तो बिग्रिएको परिस्थितिलाई काबुमा ल्याउन राजाले कदम चालेका हुन भन्ने मलाई लाग्छ।

राजाले कदम चालेको मात्र होईन धेरै कदम हिंडिसकेको धेरै [ अक्टोबर २००२- जनवरी २००५ सम्म कठपुतलीहरु नचाएर र २००५ फेब्रुअरी देखि आजका मितिसम्म आफै नाचेर ] भईसक्यो । उनका सम्पूर्ण कदमहरु, खास गरेर, गत फेब्रुअरी यता, का फेहरिस्त दोधारेज्यूको सामु नै होलान् । दोधारेज्यू अझ पनि राजाको निस्वार्थ सदिच्छा माथि अडिग आस्था राख्नु हुन्छ । यसमा मेरो भन्नु केहि पनि छैन ।

पूर्वाधार बलिया नभै प्रजातन्त्र बलियो हुंदैन।

यसमा मलाई केहि अप्रिय कुरा भन्नु छ । दोधारेज्यू, तपाईलाई प्रजातन्त्रको पहिलो पाठ सुनाउने धृष्टता गर्दैछु, क्षमा गर्नुहोला । 'पूर्वाधार बलिया नभै प्रजातन्त्र बलियो हुंदैन' भन्ने कुरा अज्ञानतापूर्ण हो, किनभने प्रजातन्त्रको पूर्वाधार प्रजातन्त्र स्वयं हो । अप्रजातन्त्र प्रजातन्त्रको पूर्वाधार होईन । यस्तो अचम्मको कुरो पो त छ, प्रजातन्त्र ।

महाराज ज्ञानेन्द्रको प्रजातन्त्र हत्या गर्ने सदिच्छा र तीन वर्ष पछि मौसुफकै बाहुलीबाट त्यसको पुनर्जन्म गराईदिने आश्वासनलाई राजनैतिक पार्टीहरुले जो हुकुम सरकार गर्नु पर्ने तपाई मकरतन्त्रवादीहरुको आह्वानमा सदासयता/दुरासयता के छ म जान्दिनँ, तर त्यसमा नेपालको विकासशिल गणतान्त्रिक राजनैतिक चेतनालाई बेवास्ता गर्ने बौद्धिक अनिकाल अवश्य छ ।

ज्ञानेन्द्र महाराजले तीन वर्ष त के तीन दिन पनि सहयोग र शान्तिको शासन गर्न पाउने छैनन् । उनले पाउँछु होला भनेर नै यसरी अगाडि बढेका हुन् भन्ने मलाई लाग्दैन, तर त्यसै हो भने महाराज पागल होईबक्सिन्छ ।

(महाराज पागल होईबक्सेका कुरा निस्कदाँ गत सप्ताहान्त न्यूयोर्क को एउटा भेलामा एक वक्ताले यही ठहर गरेका थिए, हालै थपुवा मन्त्रीहरुको लिस्टो उपर टिप्पणी गर्दै)

दोधारेज्यू, महाराजप्रतिको तपाईको अपरिवर्तित आस्थाप्रति मेरो विमति भएपनि, हाम्रा राजनैतिक पार्टीहरुको यथावत अन्यौलता, अक्षमता र आत्म-अविश्वास बारे भने म तपाईसंग आंशिक सहमत छु । हुन त पुरै सहमत छु । तर आंशिक भन्न पर्ने एउटा कारण छ । तपाईले प्रस्तुत गर्नुभएको तथ्यमा सहमत, तर व्याख्यामा भने असहमत भएर त्यसो भनेको हो ।

हो, राजनैतिक पार्टीहरुले सत्तामा हुँदा भाँडभैलोको शासन चलाए । तर त्यसमा उनीहरु एक-तिहाई मात्र दोषी छन ।

बाँकी दुई तिहाई मध्ये, एक-तिहाई चै प्रजातन्त्र भन्ने व्यवस्था स्वयंको छ । स्विकार गर्नोस् नगर्नोस्, प्रजातन्त्र भन्ने चिजै एक गन्जागोल व्यवस्था हो । गन्जागोल भनेको कुरो प्रजातन्त्रको सार्वभौमिक चरीत्र हो । यसलाई प्रजातन्त्रको दोश्रो पाठको रुपमा लिए हुन्छ । राजनीति कुर्सीकै लागि हुन्छ, सर्वत्र । र कमोबेसी सर्वत्र हुन्छ हानाहान तानातान ।

अनि अन्तिम एक-तिहाई दोष चैं, २०४७ को प्रजातन्त्रको अपूर्ण स्वरुपको हो । मेरा सम्पूर्ण राजनैतिक बहस यसै विषयमा हुँदै आएकोले र अहिले सर्वत्र यसैको बहस चलिरहेकोले यसलाई अहिले नतन्क्याम ।

र यसरी, राजनैतिक पार्टीहरुले गर्नुपर्ने/लड्नुपर्ने सुधार/क्रान्ति दुई-तिहाई मात्र हुन आउँछ ।

के त्यसमा उनीहरु प्रगति गरिरहेका छन् ?

छन्, तर अझै नगन्य र अति विलम्बित गतिमा ।

कुरो अड्क्या छ त्यसैमा ।

Gun is a weapon or tool

Gun is a security tool

Gun is very dangerous

Gun can kill enemy or us

Our problem Gun should not be the problem. But our key problem is that who use the Gun.

So, there are lots of Nepalese crooks are using Gun who work in Nepali government offices and Nepali political parties. These crooks are the very serious problem. If we can take care these crooks, everything will be OK. If we can eliminate these crooks, Nepal runs very fast toward positive direction with many achievements.

नेपेजी,
म नाममा भन्दा काम/परिणाम मा विश्वास गर्छु। तपाई असोजतन्त्रका कुरा गर्नु हुन्छ तर मैले त्यो भन्दा अघिको प्रजातन्त्रलाई तपाईले जस्तो चटक्क बिर्सेको छैन। त्यसैले मैले शान्ति र स्थायित्वको कुरा उठाएको हो। असक्षम नेतृत्वलाई दोष दिएको हो। शान्ति र स्थायित्व प्रजातन्त्रका आधारशिला हुन्। र यसमा तपाईसंग मेरो असहमति छ।

मैले राजाले सबै समस्याको समाधान गर्छन र प्रजातन्त्रको बहाली गर्छन भनेर ठोकुवा गरेको हैन, शान्ति र स्थायित्व ल्याउन मद्दत गर्छन कि भन्ने आशा चै गरेको हो। आजसम्मको मेरो हेराईमा अहिलेको सरकारले माओवादी प्रति लिएको स्पष्ट दृष्टि र खरो नीतिले माओवादीहरु ढल्मलाएका छन्, पहिलो पल्ट हतियारधारीहरु कमजोर देखिएका छन्। यो शान्ति स्थापनाका लागि बलियो संकेत हो। प्रजातान्त्रिक शक्तिका सरकारहरुको तोरीलाउरे नीतिले माओवादीलाई सधै टेवा पु-याउन सिवाय केही गरेनन्। अहिले पनि उनीहरु माओवादीहरु प्रति अन्यौलता मै छन्।

नेपेजी, तपाई हामी विदेशमा बसेर देशको चिन्तन गर्ने हो। आ-आफ्नो क्षमता अनुसारको राजनैतिक विश्लेषण गर्ने हो। को ठीक र को गलत रहेछ भन्ने कुरा त समयले देखाउने कुरा हो। यो साझाको न्वारानको समय देखि नै तपाईका भनाईहरु पढ्दै आएको छु र आशा छ अर्को तीन वर्षसम्म यही हाम्रो भेट हुने नै छ।

किनभने प्रजातन्त्रको लडाई लड्न तपाई नेपाल जाने हैन र त्यो महान युद्ध रोक्न म जाने पनि हैन। तपाई लड्न गएपनि युद्धमा तपाईका नीति लागू हुने हैन। युद्धको नीति नेतृत्व वर्गले चयन गर्छ। र यो महान युद्धमा नेतृत्व लिने राजनेताहरु उही असफल, असक्षम, विवेकहीन, र दृष्टिबिहीन गिरिजा, माधव र देउवा छन्। त्यसैले, प्रजातन्त्रमा तपाईको निष्ठाप्रति मेरो कुनै सन्देह छैन। तर नेतृत्व वर्गको क्षमताप्रति छ र सायद तपाईलाई पनि होला। मैले नयां नेतृत्वको चयनको कुरा उठाएको कारण पनि त्यत्ति हो।

बांकी तपाईले राजाको बारेमा भविष्यवाणी गर्नु भो, मैले पार्टीहरुको। यथास्थितिमा मेरो बाजी कायमै रहनेछ।

राजा पनि असफल भैसकेको कुरा किन बिर्सने हं ? २५० वर्षको असफल ईतिहासलाई र १२ वर्षको प्रजातन्त्रलाई कसीमा राखेर जोत्ने हो भने, प्रजातन्त्रले नै जित्छ । सुकुल मुनि लुकाएको कसिङ्गरलाई प्रजातन्त्रले उजगार गरेको मात्रै हो । माओवादिका कुरा पनि प्रजातन्त्रले नै अगाडि ल्याएको हो। राजतन्त्र या पञ्चायति ब्यबस्था नै रहेको भए अहिले मौलिक हक-अधिकारका कुरा नै हुन सक्दैनथे । बहुदलिय नेताहेरुले सत प्रतिशत राम्रो काम नगरे पनि, देश जनातको हातमा नै थियो । अहिले राजाले ठिक गर्लान कि भनेर कुर्नु किन पर्?यो ? जबकि राजसंस्थाले २५० वर्षमा केहि गर्न सक्यो । दलका नेतालाई ठेगान लगाउने जनाता नै हुन, राजालाई त घोक्रेठ्याक मात्रै लगाउन सकिन्छ ।

Lokman,

I have had opporutnities aplenty to interact with Nepalis from Nepal too in the past few months. Some have been high profile members of the Nepali intelligentsia, others have been low-level commuinty leaders, yet others were ordinary Nepalis. I am fully aware of the fact that there are many Nepalis who think like YOU do; but there are many others who share MY sentiments too, ditto. So, I am not quite sure if my call for democracy in Nepal is altogether "alien" or "foreign" or "not in touch with ground realities" like you have said.

Having said that, it goes without saying that some of the things that I write may be somewhat off the mark sometimes. Here, what would be appreciated would be SPECIFIC EXAMPLES as to why I am so, rather than merely saying something along the lines of, "Well, you are wrong because you don't live here." Your rightful presumptions backed with specific examples would contribute to my limited knowledge of ground reality in Nepal too. I also feel somewhat uneasy with the thought that you -- an anonymous poster in Sajha -- may or may not be living/working in Nepal yourself. You could be accusing others of not living/working in Nepal just for the sake of an argument.

As far as the notion of culture goes, I have written it elsewhere in Kurakani too before, but let me reiterate it here:

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY ARE ACULTURAL -- THEY ARE UNIVERSAL AND TRANSCEND ANY CULTURAL BARRIERS. HUMANS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH CULTURE THEY BELONG TO, ARE INNATELY FREEDOM-YEARNING, AND THEY ARE AT THEIR BEST WHEN THEY ARE FREE. ANY FORM OF REPRESSION OF SUCH FREEDOM AMOUNTS TO INHIBITION TO INDIVUDUAL PROGRESS, THEREBY SERVES AS A GREAT OBSTACLE TO PROSPERITY OF THE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.

Yes, from time to time governments may have to resort to extreme measures to deal with extreme situations. But these measures should be limited to a VERY short period, and must have specific road map to achieve specific goal(s). In the case of Gyanendra Shah, I have every reason to believe that he neither has a specific plan, nor does he have the intention to make it temporary. But that is a whole different story. I shall delve into this further on my response to DODHARE.

I too was -- and I still am --strongly opposed to US invasion of Iraq int he name of spreading democracy. First of all, there is noo doubt in my minf that I believe Mr. Bush and his cronies have ulterior motives in Iraq. Secondly, in the name of democracy, they have resorted to blanket imposition of western values and norms into Iraqi lives, which will only further destablize the Iraqi society in the long run.

The point here is this: There is a subtle but very important distinction between DEMOCRATIZATION and WESTERNIZATION and CAPITALIZATION. When I call for DEMOCRACY in Nepal, I am NOT calling for WESTERNIZATION of our society.

Finally, Lokman, when Gyanendra and his BHAARDARS use text-book style autocratic techniques to squash the most basic, text-book theories of democracy, yes, I am compelled to defend the latter by relentlessly reiterating same basic, text-book ideas of democracy.

दोधारे-जी,

तपाईंले केही बढो समसामयिक तथा प्रासङ्गिक कुराहरु उठाउनु भएको छ। समयको अभावले चाहेर पनि म अहिले वहस गर्न असमर्थ छु। मौका पाएको बेला फेरि जरुर हाजिर हुने छु।

Anil writes:

"HUMANS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH CULTURE THEY BELONG TO, ARE INNATELY FREEDOM-YEARNING, AND THEY ARE AT THEIR BEST WHEN THEY ARE FREE."


Then he writes:

"I too was -- and I still am --strongly opposed to US invasion of Iraq int he name of spreading democracy."



My question:

Would Iraq have been FREE under S Hussain?
No.
If so, would that then have been a bad thing?
Yes.
Why?
Because [IRAQIS] ARE AT THEIR BEST [ONLY] WHEN THEY ARE FREE, and under
S Hussain, they would not have been free.


If FREEDOM is that important, then, then is not what GWB did a step in the right direction anyway?
At least, whether you like it or not, he made the Irqis FREER than what they were before.

How does Anil, who sings the bhajan of freedom on one hand go on to reconcile this odd position where the very war he denounces is more likely to make the Iraqis FREER
than ever before.

Does Anil think that there are NO trade-offs for freedom and democracy?
Where would he draw a line between how far he would go to achieve freedom?
Or, does freedom pop into people's lives just like that?

*****

Here's an argument FOR Nepal.

Democracy, like capitalism, IS an alien concept in Nepal. No matter how we romanticize our cultural values, let's face it that NOTHING about our social/religious structures is compatible with modern-day liberal democracy.

However, that is NO reason to reject democracy.

The argument should be this: Having tried feudalism and other non-democratic practices for most of our written history, this is our situation: Ours is one of the world's poorest countries, with un-freeest citizens and we are destined to live far short of our individual potential. What's more, given half a chance, most of our people try to run away to democratic (and capitalistic) countries.

That is why, it's time to give Western-style only-the-agreed-upon-rules-as-interpreted-by-the-Supreme Court-matter type of democracy a really forceful try.

For this, the terms of the debate must now be recast in terms of STRENGTHENING the check-and-balance side of the equation, and with less emphasis on the inherent goodness of democracy, which has been ABUSED for propaganda purposes by all
sides in Nepal, thus rendering it practically meaningless.

That means, we have to be necessarily western in our thinking to stand up against casteism, feudal structures, concentration of power and the like. It's difficult to be a Nepali and fight against all that. It's possible to fight against all that ONLY if you become a cosmopolitan Nepali -- a citizen of Nepal with a global outlook.

The challenge THEN is to be a pukka Nepali who is able to appreciate and learn from the best around the world and then push for democracy as defined by the rule of the laws that are generally compatible with tjose of other democratic countries.

I, for one, see that it's POSSIBLE to reconcile westernisation, democracy and capitalism with Nepaliness to help create a BETTER Nepal that provides EQUALITY of opportunity to succeed to all Nepalis, though such tasks are not easy.

oohi
ashu