Ashu. In the entire time of interacting with you online over the years, this is the most direct comment you have hurled at me (under your real name). And I intend to respond. It has been my theory after meeting hundreds of Nepalis all over the US, that these folks like the American dollar, and their car, and their orange juice, they might go to big colleges, go work for big corporations, but there is this social segment of their brains that just does not change. It is as if they never left Nepal. The neanderthal stays on. For one, they tend to be super sexist. That does not change. Their ethnic prejudices stay on. Like in Indianapolis, the Newars no longer mingle with the "Bahuns," as if to say, I had to put up with you in Nepal, but I don't need to anymore. And I see why they might feel that way. Those same Bahuns have the weirdest things to say about Madhesis. No amount of education, no amound of "exposure" in a culturally diverse country like America seems to help them open up. Like Max Planck said, people don't change their minds, they die with them. For all your liberal arts blabber, I am sorry to say, maybe you are not blatant, but you are not that different. And you expose yourself in this comment. First of all, did you even read my blog post? If you did, do you realize I am only claiming to know King G through his public actions, and biographical details as have come forth through media sources I trust? I do not know the guy personally, for that matter neither do you. And it is not about the person. The question is about the system. A guy like you can go to Harvard, campaign for Al Gore and "deliver" him a town in New Hampshire, as you claim, and still not "get" democracy. Is that a shame of what? I don't know Nepe personally, but from what you tell me about him, so the difference between you and him is that you have access to power and he does not, and so he is bitter! Is that what you are suggesting? What access to power do you have exactly? And what is the source of that power? Where exactly does that power come from? You mind quantifying? Revealing? How can you not see this debate is not about individuals like you and Nepe or me? It is about the 27 million Nepalis? "....the usual "let's replace the King because he is khattam but, hey, everything will be hunky-dory after he is gone -- just trust me on this" hypothesis? ..." Trust me? Is this your attempt to personalize every discussion? Where in my writing do you get that "trust me" element? The choice the article offers is between Panchayat II and a Democratic Republic? If you have problems with the concept of a Democratic Republic, maybe you should elaborate and go on record. This is your chance. "....non-Kathmandu-based (i.e. village-grown) elites -- who may now be living and working abroad -- to vent their frustrations over their own sheer lack of access to any political power within Nepal than out of any desire to strengthen democratic institutions in Nepal...." This is the biggest reason why Federalism is necessary. Some people feel superior by spreading the Bahun, non-Bahun divide, some with the rich, poor divide, some with the Valley, out-of-Valley divide, and I guess you claim all of the above. So if Nepe says he is a Republican, you attack his "village" background? That means two things. One, that you think people from "villages" are lesser. Two, that you are not from some "village" which you are suggesting is your only claim to fame. I mean, what happened? Did King G induct into the cabinet someone you happen to know? Is that why you are feeling powerful? Or think Nepe is powerless and bitter? What exactly is the total amount of "power" anyone, you or King G and everyone in between, can possibly amass from within the "kuwa" called Kathmandu? What is your ceiling? "....the distance lends an air of doctrinal purity, an almost idealzed wish -- regardless of the messy situation in the ground in Nepal.... It is thinking like yours that has created that mess in the first place. And only progressive thought will clean it up. There is no other way. " The Maoists will NEVER come to the mainstream. Let's stop deluding ourselves -- once and for all. Either the state will flush them out to the point of irrelevance (a move I support, while keeping a sharp eye on the state's human rights abuses) or the Maoists will take over the country." I hope you are wrong, because both options look pretty bloody to me. But it is possible you are right, and you are being more of a realist than I am. Maybe you are seeing "reality" better than I am. And this is a respectful difference in opinion. And I can live with that. On the other hand, I think it is your Nepali Speakig High Caste Male Kathmandu Elite self that has been cultivating this social place in the scheme of things over a lifetime that will just not give ground to the Dalits and the Janajatis. It is like after the "backwards" in India came into power through the Mandal wave in India, a lot of "forwards" (the Indian term for Bahuns like thyself) left the country saying it is going down the tube! They actually left the country! A lot of "forward" kids burned themselves alive when they saw "backwards" getting reservations in jobs. I think you are part of that clogged social artery in Nepal. You will rather break or be broken, you will not bend. You will not make room, expand the horizons for those who do not share your background. So, I strongly disagree. I think the Maoists are perfectly capable of coming into the mainstream if people like you and King G were to be socially accomodating. Chhoowa Chhoot Murdabad! "...the King threatens the interests of non-Kathmandu-based elites..." Are you kidding me? There is no "elite" outside of Kathmandu. All the power in the country has been centralized over centuries in Kathmandu. "..Yes, the political parties threaten the interests of Kathmandu-based traditional elites' (hence, opposition to political parties and their netas come most from these people who chant the mantra of 'corruption' and 'bad governance' against the netas)..." Good observation. You paint the Maoists as less than human types who pertetrate violence for the sake of violence. I think that is the powerful demonizing the powerless. " They apper to have realized that military solution is not enough; and like the rest of ther world, I am hoping (with increasing impatience) that the King has some sort of a trump card." So King G is your Knight In Shining Armor!? "....Whether I support Tulsi Giri or whether Paramendra hates Tulsi Giri...." My grudge is with the system. You keep wanting to personalize things. Sure he is a Panche, from Dhanusha, of all places, but I don't much know the guy. ".... Talking about democratic republicanism at this stage is basically a RELUCTANCE and even intellectual cowardice to face the harsh reality in Nepal....." It must take a lot of courage to sing praises of Tulsi Giri! " And meantime, thinking that Maoists would make good bedfellows with the political parties to throw out the King is like thinking that having a pet cobra would not bite the owner someday. The Maoists would use the political parties for their own ends and then DISCARD them." If the Maoists were to come to power on their own, what would they do, take away your right to free speech? Last time I checked, King G did just that! So why are you for the king agains the Maoists? You should be for the Maoists. Satya: "He has no interest in negotiated solution." That is my understanding also. King G is trying to expand his personal power base as much as possible. So basically using the Maoist situation to get rid of the democrats he never had stomach for in the first place. mailaadai: " In my opinion, the Maoist can be fought by the people only. And how can that happen, the best choice is Constituent Assembly. " Exactly. I think, like you Ashu, the most important thing is to demilitarize the Maoists. And mailadai and I have the best prescription. Yours has not worked for 10 years. Try ours. Some comments at SEBS Re: For a Democratic Republic of Nepal RocknRollAbs 2/21/2005 2:06:38 AM EST only one comment to make: if you think that treatment/condition of madhesis will suddenly change because a new constitution is drafted by a constituent assembly, you clearly have wrong ideas about what a constitution is. the social inequality that sadly exists in nepal requires education and awareness of the people, intermingling of the various groups so that they better understand each other, even basic things like roads so that ppl travel around more and get to know more etc etc. i don't think all these things require a constituent assembly to materialize. constitution ma bhandai ma hunchha ra? ahile ko constitution le pani ta sabailai equal trtment/opportunities guarantee gareko chha ni... not against the idea of a cons assmbly, but against the idea that this is a good time to have one, and suggesting that we all be more realistic about the powers of reformation of a new constitution. Re: For a Democratic Republic of Nepal asis 2/21/2005 3:33:45 AM EST nice article paramendra dai...im sure the politicos back home are having the same dream as yours...but the bad news for both of you is that: "So the onus is on the democratic forces to create the political platform that gets rid of the monarchy and brings the Maoists into the mainstream." is either the most expensive option for nepal in terms of lives, time and money or simply just an impossibility. Re: For a Democratic Republic of Nepal bijaya 2/21/2005 6:47:47 AM EST If you do not believe in the street protests, how on earth can you 'abolish' the monarchy which is still surviving the military threats of the Maoists. Second thing, calling people who do not believe in constituent assembly as a non democrat reflects poorly on you, it is merely labelling someone. It might be a good idea if there is a political consensus among all the political players. It will not serve its purpose if it lacks support.