Posted by: Eutab4 July 1, 2013
Why Rana and Shah people get a fake hard on
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
@Sexy: Aha!!! Now, I understand where you were coming in the earlier posts. There are two things you really need to work on; history and what leadership means.
 
First Leadership. Are you trying to portray Ranas and Shahas some type of god-gifted leaders? Sexy, you need some works. Excluding two or so, they were not SELECTED BY PEOPLE as their leaders. One guy ran up  the Liglig Hill in Gorkha and became the king, and barbaric Jung B Rana killed bunch of people and come to power. Everyone else HAPPENED to be born on those two families and became the rulers. Clearly, you are mixing up ‘ruler’ with ‘leader’. Sweetheart, they are immensely different phenomena.
 
Mahatma Gandhi was a leader, Thomas Jefferson was a leader. Luck to their countries, these two guys also happened to be in power later. But their leadership essentially brought them to the power. Mahabir Pun is, the guy who successfully runs a fishery after coming back from Saudi is, Bhagawan Koirala is, Anuradha Koirala is. I hope you got the idea now. But these are only publicized ones. There are many many more in everyday life who are equally important in their spheres, but just are not publicized. 
 
Your point of 95% illiteracy: Should I remind you that the education to general public was illegal during your ‘leaders’ era of 104 years? If I have to, then we’ll start a new thread on the history only.
 
Again, not everyone in power is a leader. A few political parties emerged in matter of a few months after slaying some people. Remember? I reckon you will become a heck of a follower.
 
At least judging on your idea of “Leaders life styles is different than the followers”, it asserts my point of their inferiority complex. Real leaders never see a need to do that in trivial matters like clothing or food or selective language.  
Last edited: 01-Jul-13 07:53 AM
Last edited: 01-Jul-13 07:54 AM
Read Full Discussion Thread for this article