This paragraph by Bishista Shrestha, in replying to Dr JEREMY RAPPLEYE's article appeals to my sentiments:
"When I share with die-hard optimists that I am fed up of living in Nepal and if I get a chance I will take the next flight abroad they reason that things will change in Nepal in the next 10 to 15 years and that we should stay put here and contribute to nation-building. I know that things will change. With India and China growing at a rapid pace a country squeezed in between the two giants cannot avoid growing even if it wants to. But the question is: How long before that starts happening? For a nation 10-15 years might not be too long but for a mere mortal like me it means everything. In another 10-15 years I would have lost the most productive years of my life and that is something that I simply cannot afford."

I agree with what Dr Rappley is saying: "Viewing not the future ideal but the current reality of bikas in Nepal coming to terms with the country’s place in the global economy."

But, does Rappley offer a solution? What can Nepal do to be competitive in a globalized world while being sandwiched between India and China?

The writer seems to be saying that despite money pouring in from developed nations, quality of life has not improved for the Nepali. "It is little wonder then that it has brought to Nepal the exact same results: A massive spike in inequality growing exclusion along class lines and the breakdown of democracy."

Nepal is like a little brother with two charismatic and influential big brothers: China and India. China is an example of an economy where there is development but little democracy. India is an example of an economy with more democracy than development. And Nepal? Nepal is confused.
Under Panchayat (and more so under Mahendra's rule) the push was more for development than democracy. Now we have more democracy than development. For all the talk of westerners saying that Nepalese don't have enough democracy, the fact is that Nepalese have lots of 'freedom': they have a lot of the things that are free; it is the things that require money that we cannot afford.

If Nepal had enough money, it could have both development and democracy. All the philosophizing in the world doesn't change the fact that the root of our problems comes from having a small budget and a lot of mouths to feed. You can slice the pie with all the mathematics in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still the small size of the pie that is the problem.

But I do agree with this sentence in the article: "Blame is perhaps the only growth industry in Nepal; finger-pointing advances in lockstep with stagnation." 
As much as it hurts to say it, what else can you expect on a sinking ship? Didn't you watch the movie: The Titanic? All there was in the end was violence that came from the desperation of self-survival and lots of exiting. Perhaps the best thing that those of us who can "swim" can do is leave the sinking ship. Perhaps the less weight it has to carry will make it sink slower. Maybe, if enough people swim away, it will actually start to float again.