Posted by: CopiCat January 14, 2008
Nepal good with king or without king? have your say
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        

Based on the views expressed, some people seem really dreaming India to take over Nepal so that they would be able to say loudly and proudly one day, " See as we had told that India would take over Nepal and we would be a part of India, we are now." Otherwise parroting a single word again and again and again without any justification makes no sense. Your dream would never come true guys! Keep on day dreaming.

People's voices were put under the foot and always supressed in the pretext of blind nationalism during Panchayat regime. In the eyes of royalists, political parties and people who came to the street against the cruel regime were "Bideshika bui chadeka bwasaharu". During Jana Andolan I, we were in schools and taken to rallies, organized by Mandels, in support of Panchayat regime and the King. We dint know anything about nationalism and politics. We chanted songs in support of King and slogans againt the political parties and Jana Andolan. Later we went to college to pursue higher studies and gradually realized that we were abused by Mandales. In fact before we came to the college, we used to think that King is the greatest and mightiest creature in the world and anybody who is against the king is senseless and anti-nationalist.

In the same way, I find some frens plagued by similar kind of naive mind. Come out of narrow mind of blind nationalism. Nothing would happen in the absense of king. King is just the scarecrow (hau guji)  and believe on yourselves. You are now in America (or any other countries) having higher education. As rightly pointed out by Neell, people are there on top of all.  Where is the place of people in your unity and nationalism? Or do you still think people are bheda/bakhra and raities?      

Read Full Discussion Thread for this article