| Username |
Post |
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 30-Jun-03 03:15 PM
An interesting article on the above topic by Deepak Gyawali can be found in the following link:
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue151/opinion.htm
diyo danak sabai lai....eheheh
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 30-Jun-03 04:35 PM
Dipak Gwawali, who could reject an offer of Ph.D. from an unquestionablly legitimate provider but could not resist an offer of a mantri ko kursi by a questionably legilimate provider. To me, pardon my French, he is like a prostitute who slept with Maharaj Gyanendra. He may have some good reason for that. But I don't. However, I am not saying that a prostitute can not say a right thing. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed reading his piece. Nice one, except when he talks about 'the grand design' theory. However, it is totally understandable why he wants to discredit the theory. How could he admit that he has just been thrown out of a paasaa where he was played as a goti of Maharaj Gyanendra's chaal after all ?
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 30-Jun-03 05:26 PM
Nepe ji,
I don't think any university would offer him PhD without him applying for it in the first place. Had he applied for it, there is no question of rejection by the applicant. There might be other reasons like lack of financial aid, terms n conditions of scholarship, family reason, his opportunity to make money in the PhD incubation period, family reason, etc. But, what he was doing in Nepal was great at his capacity. When I met this gentleman some years ago in a meeting, he didn't sound like 'Neta' but more like a technical expert of his field. But I felt he is an eloquent person. Padhe lekheko manchhe mantri jyu bhayeko naramro ho ra desh ko lagi? Definitely he is superior than those 'lyapche mantri jyu'. Maharaj sanga ke kasto sambandha thiyo oohan ko, tyo malai tha bhayena hai hajur...
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 30-Jun-03 06:05 PM
Oh, come on, let's not be that harsh on Gyawlijyu by calling him a prostitute just because he joined the Chand cabinet! Then we would end up calling all our other political stars such as G. Koirala and M. Nepal as prostitues as well. After all, they too had submitted their binti patras to Gyanendra maharaj to make them his prime minister back in October and this time again when Chand stepped down. It is just that His Majesty, in his sovereign wisdom, choose the jokers, instead of the clowns. It does not make much sense for the clowns to cry foul after they are spurned. They will have their moment on the stage when the next act, I am sure. To give them credit, both Girija and Nepal are tough players, they will survive the present wilderness.
We might disagree with the King's choice, but it is hard to argue that what he did was illegal or unconstitutional. Clause 127 of the constitution does give the king quite a bit of authority to deal with 'difficult situations'. The appointment of the two governments were according to the letter of the constitution (127).
Indeed, if the King's position was illegal or unconstitutional, why would the firebrand revolutionaries, the Maoists (Here I am not talking of the mellowed NC and UML types) so eager to have peace talks with the King's appointed government? Indeed, why do they want to have a meeting with him ---they have been throwing in binti patras for this too recently?
One of the old traditions of Nepali politics is to lambast the king while in opposition, but once in power, chime 'the country needs monarchy.' Girija has done this so many times!
|
| Prem Charo |
Posted
on 30-Jun-03 06:59 PM
Napeji,
I never thought you would go in such cheap comment. I had good impression towards you. Anyway, Yo sajha maa Ph.D ko kura lai liyera kina big deal huncha vanne, never could understand. There is no doubt that Depak is smart (in good way), intelligent, creative. When he was minister, he have done several remarkable good decisions and plannings for our country.
I personally don't know eather you or Dipak. I am not supporting any party eather. Just Impressed with Depak's couple of wise decisions. Nape, before making any cheap azz comment, try to reasearch about that person.
Haamro desh maa raamro kaam garne maanis nai kati chan ra ? Ek dui jana le niswaartha kehi garna khojeko lai ta appriciate garna saknu paryo ni, ki kaso ??
Raamro kaam ko appriciate garne charo = Prem Charo :)
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 30-Jun-03 07:27 PM
Usually Nepe ji thinks a lot before writing anything here. As he knows something about deepak ji, there might be some personality clash between them, or 'khandani ris iwi' for some reason, etc ....eheheh
peace
|
| GP |
Posted
on 30-Jun-03 07:30 PM
Nepe jyu wrote: To me, pardon my French, he is like a prostitute who slept with Maharaj Gyanendra.
I think Nepe jyu, the selection of that particular word to explain Dipak G. is not appropriate at least in my understanding. As Maoists say King is one node in that 3 noded triangle surrounding Nepali Citizens, Dipak Gyawali 's move can not be that
harsh as long as he does not commit a mistake of exploiting the power to influence
the things happen illegally, that happened in Parlimentary Party's 12years of rule.
Nepe jyu's use of that particular word reminds the encounter with the Maodai in
SCN, who used to use harsh words on anyone who slightly showed disagreemetns
and / or a moderate view on royal and parliamentary forces. A friend of mine in Japan, always reminds me that name Maodai presented to me. Hamro A. jyu was also presented with a funny title ..........
GP
PS: Those who don't know about Maodai's postings, please, visit
http://www.geocities.com/nc-fan-club/
Maodai said he was in "semi-industrialized asian country: it can be Korea
or Israel or Singapore ............".
|
| TANSEN.COM |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 06:01 AM
i thing you guys will become pure political NETA in one day..i wiss u guys all the best hai ..
TARA AUTA KURA K BHANE SATHIHARU" NEWYORK MA AAGOO BALERA KATHMANDU MA KHICHADI PAKDAINA " NEPAL KO LAGI KEHI GARNE MAN BHAYE JANU PARYO NEPALKO GAUGAU MA .. SAYOG GARNU PARYO GARIB HARU LAI ..SAJHA .COM MA BASERA GAFF MATRA DIYER HUNE WALA KEI CHHAINA .
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 06:49 AM
Nepe,
It's one thing to dislike DG for his career choices.
It's another to liken him to a prostitute.
I assume you've had a bad day (don't we all?) or something similar, and further
assume that your characterization of DG -- regardless of how much you dislike his choices -- is unrepresentative of your usually civil contributions to Sajha.
That said, Tansen.com -- I, for one, am in Nepal, do my work here as a professional, and try to make khichadi in Nepal by aago ba.lay.ra right here, and still try to find time to generate Nepal-related kurakani on Sajha to share info, news and views, to clarify issues and to sharpen the debates . . . voluntarily.
I don't know about others, but in the last three years, I have learnt a lot on Sajha,
have made a lot of young and old friends, and will continue to turn to Sajha for continuing education, information, networks and even entertainment/amusement.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| (*)Y(*) |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 07:37 AM
Euta issue paihalyo, aba GP ra Prem Charo lai aru ke chahiyo?? I knew He was gonna start his lecture on this....
|
| Bond-007 |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 08:04 AM
Nepe,
I am with you. He is a perfect example of *the great oppertunist*. I no longer have the same level of respect to Deepak Gyawali, Anuradha koirala, Dr. Devkota and alike. I wonder whether GBBS sleeping with them was a part of a *grand design* by which people with potential and icon on their respective fields (like DG, Anuradha koirala and Dr. Devkota) are systematically screwed so that they are no more a threat to the palace? (Old Mahendra theory during the beginning of Panchayat era).
|
| Prem Charo |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 09:27 AM
(*)Yakk(*),
Here we are talking about some subject matter. If you have any comment about this topic, why don't you go for it ? Why are you making this cheap personal comment ? Don't you have anything else than shit in your head ?? Damnn !! What a low down dirty shame !!
He he he he
Prem Charo :)
|
| RBaral |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 09:37 AM
Prostitution is one of the oldest profession. One thing prostitutes do is that they agree to sleep with their customer. In other words, they provide a service to thei customers for a *fee*. Because of the nature of the service they provide, prostitutes are very friendly, affable and responsive.
By referring Deepak Gyawali's act as that of a prostitute, I would understand, Nepe is portraying his act as providing a especialized service to the King. He might have used his creativity in word selection, which, in my opinion, is perfectly fine.
Do threads that are related to Deepak Gyawali get vanished in the thin air? We all will find it out.
Namaste, Rishi
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 12:41 PM
Hare Shiva ! Jindagi ma ekchoti yeso hyaarsh bhayera hereko, katiko chitta bujhena chha ba ! La bhaigo, tyo prostitute bhanne shabda firtaa liyen. Tyasko substitute malaai ahile phurena, tyasaile dotdotdotdot bhanera padhidinu hola.
Prem Charo ji,
If you had good impression about me and now I have lost it, it is indeed a big loss to me. Before I remorse about it, however, I would like to know if it has everything to do with my poor judgement regarding the choice of words I made or it has something to do with support/sympathy/neutrality to so called Pratigami Shahi Kadam you may have. Where do you stand about Gyanendra Maharaj ko gatibidhi ?
And your reply to (*)Y(*) warns me I better stay away from you. So you are not welcome until you wipe out that shit from your thutuno and apologize to Bond-007.
Gurudev,
Khai ke bhanne ? I hope you remember my concession theory and how you had kindly approved it's validity. Yes, I am well informed of DG's professional credential and I also trust in his monetary integrity eventhough I do not know anything about the later. But he's not gonna get any concession to betray the vast majority of pro-democracy intelligentsia in Nepal. No way.
Bhunte ji,
No I do not have any personal acquaintance with Dipak Gyawali, let alone ris-ibi. I had a tremendous respect and trust in DG. On the day of November 19, 2002, everything evaporated.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 12:44 PM
Shuva Chintak,
you are a monarchist, I am a hardcore republican. Our frequency is so different, biases so opposite, there is hardly any sense of a debate between us. So I don't want to get into a large discussion.
Regarding the controversy of the constitutionality of shahi kadam, you seems to have missed to notice the words I used in my statement. I said a questionably legitimate provider to Maharaj Gyanendra. By calling it a questionably legitimate, I had already acknowledged the existence of both arguments- for and against the legitimacy of it. So your argument is redundant. I did not say it was indubitably illegitimate, although that's what I believe it is.
And please dont bring dhara 127. Yo dhara ko jhako jharne kaam dherai palta bhaisakeko chha Sajha ma. Search the archive yourself.
Tai pani yati thapi halum. In essence, Nepal Adhirajya ko sambidhan 2047 is a tamasuk whichby raja got the divorce from his soverign /executive power and he agreed that from now on she would be the spouse of the peoples representatives. In that tamasuk, however, were some error/loopholes left. Gyanendra Maharaj used that loophole to go and sleep again with his old flame despite the fact that she was divorced and remarried
to somebody else.
In a plain and simple language Gyanedra abused dhara 127. If you want, I can show you it's letter does not give him any right to take over the executive power against Prime minister's will. I can also show you other article and clauses that does not allow him to take over the power on his own discretion.
Still, I am not saying that Gyanendra Maharaj ko kadam was unconstitutional. It was neither unconstitutional nor constitutional. In fact, it has nothing to do with the constitution. Yes, Sajha folks, you heard me right. Gyanendra Maharaj lied to you. This lier did not use the clause 127 of the constitution to take over the power. He actually used the clause 001 of the paraconstitution of Nepal. Ever heard about it ? No, na ? Let me introduce you with it. This is a very old sambidhaan, let's say, more than 200 years old. There aren't too many clauses in this paraconstitution, but they are clear cut about what they say. No way to make alternative interpretation like 2047 ko constitution. All right, so the clause 001 of it states that the Royal Nepali Army shall be fiercely loyal to the monarch. This is the clause which Gyanendra Maharaj had used to kick out Deuba and take over the executive power. Had Gyanendra only used the clause 127 of the 2047 ko sambidhan, Deuba could have easily kick Gyanendra's ass and declare on the national TV that he still is the prime minister of Nepal.
Ashu ji,
As you are among those whom I trust, let me confess to you. I did not have a bad day, but I used the prasanga of Ph.D. and that particular adjective to dramatize my comment. I really do not have anything to say about DG's professional choice. I just respect his personal decision.
A part of the reason I dramatized it was to draw more attention because I really haven't got any chance to comment on DG's political decision in Sajha. Last time when you, Paschim, Biswo and other friends were having a discussion, it went to an unsuitable direction or so I thought.
Now, we all have our own opinions. And my opinion as a member of the pro-democracy civil society is that DG betrayed us. And also as a colleague, I would say he did not make a smart decision. Because I do not see what he gained, but I can see what he lost. I dont like this casteist proverb, but its meaning goes well with DG, Jaat phalnu gahat ko jhol ma.
Bond007 ji,
Thanks for your support. By bringing up other big names now screwed up by the palace, you provided a larger picture. Yes, what goes for DG is what goes for Devkota, although I don't think he has as much influence as DG as a think tank of Nepal. To Anuradha ji, somehow my respect is intact. Because I never saw her a think tank. She is a good charity worker and will probably continue what she was good at or even do better. There is one more reason why I feel about her differently. I knew her when as they say she was nobody. The chhalaang she succeeded to take in her life to reach where she reached is an amazing story of an women's struggle in our society. Can you believe, I had this idea conjured up in mind to make a Nepali movie based on her story. Who knows, may be some day I will.
Rbaral ji,
You got me right, hajur.
|
| Bond-007 |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 12:54 PM
Nepe Ji,
------------I am a hardcore republican---------
I thought I was the only republican in this forum, glad to know there are more! Proud to be a republican Nepali!!
Jai Nepal!!!
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 12:58 PM
republican=not returning nepal?...eheh
|
| Prem Charo |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 08:25 PM
Nape,
I think your slanderous comment about somebody is self-explanatory that you are intellectually handicapped. Your comments are vindictive.
I do not have any personal acquaintance with Deepak Gewali. He was included in the cabinet because that particular government was formed by the King choosing all technocrats. You should do thorough research before you lacerate somebody's character. I am not going to apologize with any dumb head. You started this abusive language pal.........
Sajha is not your fathers property. You dont get to decide who is welcome or not. What are you thinking? Have you lost your mind ? You are gonna get what you give.
Prem Charo J
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 01-Jul-03 08:42 PM
Hey friends,
if there r any strengths and weaknesses with DG or Sree5GBBS, be specific and come up with your ideas and counter ideas. But, let's not fight among us yarrrrrrr...........
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 02-Jul-03 11:35 AM
Bond-007 ji,
I was surprised by what you said. But since lately there hasn't been much discussion in Sajha directly on the topic of the Republic of Nepal, you must have missed the names of Republican Sajhaites. And there are of course many who do not feel need or comfort to declare their affinity publicly. I particularly think about yet a third group which consist of undecided, doubtful and learning Republicans.
An analogy could be drawn to the situation in Nepal as well. Although, liberal Sajha hastis are reluctant to comment on it, everybody knows there is an unprecedented surge of public debate and tilting towards the Republic of Nepal going on in Nepal these days. The only problem is that the republican issue is still largely Maoist agenda.
But, slowly but surely, the liberal democrats (cadres of political parties and the civil society) are taking up it. A huge pressure is building up for the leadership of parties to remorse for their misdeed and misled polity of the past and give up piggy-bagging the monarchy. The future of the republic of Nepal looks clear now, more than ever. It is just the matter of time. Maharaj Gyanendra ko churi-furi is what is called the last brightest glimmer of a extinguishing candle.
Prem Charo,
I have seen you in other threads how you annoy the posters, don't read their postings carefully, don't answer their questions and keep blabbing the same annoying thing again and again as you have exactly done here. Somebody had named you Naka-charo. But I think it was too polite for you. ReconFella has done a better job.
Anyway, as you can see, I have too important things to think about than wasting my time with a guy of your type. That's is why I said you are not welcome, not welcome to have a conversation with me. Of course, you can ignore that and post if you like, but I am not going to respond. I want to stay away from you.
Regarding what I said about DG, I have replied to other posters' inquiry and dissatisfaction and will continue to do so. I don't prefer to talk to you.
Bhunte ji,
Yes, those are interesting topics. I can't say about DG, but Kurakani is full of discussion about Sri5GBBS, no ?
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 02-Jul-03 08:54 PM
Nepe wrote:
>>>Last time when you, Paschim, Biswo and other friends were having a discussion [on DG], it went to an unsuitable direction or so I thought. <<<
No.
I think the discussion then was quite suitable.
My assertions about DG -- who I continue to respect, by the way -- were challenged
in this forum. The challenge was fair enough.
My assertions about DG were further tested for their validity by asking DG himself whether what I said about him here were right.
But after all the fact-finding "rock'n'roll" (to use Kumar Prasad Upadhyay's memorable phrase), it turned out -- gasp, choke, gulp! -- that I was, guess what, RIGHT all along . . .
To me, the learning of greater significance was that more than DG's grad school choices, I learnt -- again! -- that just because a fellow Sajha friend is clever and smart in his own ways, that does NOT mean that the person can also be expected to be intellectully honest and to be fair to others' (disagreeable) ideas.
That -- to me, anyway -- was a priceless lesson.
Then again, why dwell on the past, right?
Live and let live, and let's amuse ourselves, shall we?
********************
That said, Nepe, your likening DG to a (negative-sounding) prostitute (to show your disgust for those who are close to the King) and your liking Anuradha Koirala (whose life's mission, it so happens, is rehabilitating women sold into prostitution) shows that your thinking about republicanism is muddled, arbitrary and intolerant.
Allow me to explain.
Logically, by your reasoning, if the King is your enemy number one, then, WHOEVER is close to the King is also a "prostitute", right? I mean, the friend of your enemy is also your enemy, hoi na ta?
But the fact that you liberaly give yourself the right to denounce DG while exalting Anuradha Koirala (even though both served as Ministers for the King) shows that
you give yourself arbitrary powers to judge people DIFFERENTLY for the same
kaam.
That's fine.
But if you want to stick to this, consider the implication.
When you give yourself that kind of arbitrary powers to decide who is
what, then why can't you TOLERATE the fact that there may well be other people
who too have taken arbitrary powers for themselves to support the King for whatever
right or wrong reasons, and debate with them based on those reasons?
You see, the intellectual trouble with you republican guys is NOT whether you are
right or wrong about the King.
The trouble is that you guys are, like the Maoists, intolerant of different viewpoints; you denounce your ideological opponents by calling them "prostitutes" and so on; you simply cannot understand that there may well be people who do NOT buy your line of thinking at all.
You guys do NOT debate.
You assert with no evidence.
[An example: "everybody knows there is an unprecedented surge of public debate and tilting towards the Republic of Nepal going on in Nepal these days."]
And expect everyone to agree with your dubious assertions.
And those who do not agree with you are supposed to remain either silent or ridiculed for even expressing SKEPTICISM about your position or worse are called "prostitutes".
Do you see the inconsistency within your democratic republianism now?
*************
Finally, you may defend your respect for Anuradha Koirala for referring to her work at Maiti Nepal.
Fine.
But if previous social service is indeed your yardstick for keeping your respect intact for her, then, you may wish to find out more about the "Swaba.lam.ban" social service that DG was involved in, together with Dr. Devendra Raj Panday, for a long time, outside of Kathmandu.
Finally, just because I have taken you on, don't confuse me either as a supporter or an opposer of the King. :-)
oohi
"More libertarian; less liberal --both in an contemporary American sense"
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 02-Jul-03 09:15 PM
lau nepe ji le Anuradha ko barema spastikaran dinu paryo, ki ta DG sanga mafi chhema yachana magnu paryo...no double standard hai...
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 02-Jul-03 10:23 PM
Ashu,
"
The trouble is that you guys are, like the Maoists, intolerant of different viewpoints; you denounce your ideological opponents by calling them "prostitutes" and so on; you simply cannot understand that there may well be people who do NOT buy your line of thinking at all.
You guys do NOT debate.
You assert with no evidence. "
Good observation, ashu. I totally agree with you. This discussion is/was not a discussion at all. I see it more as a cheap attempt to spread one's political views/agendas. And hey, you have to sound radical and you have to be OFFENSIVE when you are spreading your in-tolerant doctrine!! There's a nepali saying , "naya musalmaan le dherai pyaj khancha". When the Maoists themselves have dropped their Republican agenda, I don't think it makes any sense to any sensible perosn to raise this issue. So, this was a politial campaign all along. Nothing more, nothing less. Not that I have any objection to people spreading their beliefs here, but, i do have objections to people comparing orthers to this and that, just because they don't believe in what the posters here believe in. Come on, how can you expect to have a meaningful debate/discussion with someone who likens people to this and that? As you said earlier in some other thread, "they will make the maoists proud".
iFreak
a mere spectator
|
| Prem Charo |
Posted
on 02-Jul-03 10:28 PM
Bhunte,
Now you are talking man !!
Ashu,
I am totally agree wit you. Let's see purbaagrahi haru le ke vanchan ???
*****
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 02-Jul-03 10:39 PM
love bird, ooops....
|
| Prem Charo |
Posted
on 02-Jul-03 11:14 PM
Bhunte,
tapanin pani no double standard hai, re kya. Mero side ko kuro lai support paryo vanera OOOOPSS !! diyaa ki kya ho?
he he :)
|
| Bond-007 |
Posted
on 03-Jul-03 07:41 AM
IF Ji,
---When the Maoists themselves have dropped their Republican agenda, I don't think it makes any sense to any sensible perosn to raise this issue----
There are lots of Nepalese who think independently from GBBS, GPK, MKN and BRB. Just because GPK, MKN and BRB (lately) changed their views regarding GBBS doesn't imply that Monarchy has all of a sudden become exempt from public debate. I am not a great fan of any of the politicians mentioned above, am ideologically close to the Nepalese right wing however against the Monarchy (I bet, the Maoists are not proud here). Its BRB who changed his mind not I and thousands of other Nepalese who want the Monarchy to go.
Jai Nepal!!
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 03-Jul-03 09:09 AM
Ashu,
1. Among all Sajhaites, you have a unique way of arguing and I have always enjoyed reading you. And also have a thing or two about pitfalls and tricks of arguing.
2. As you have seen all along, my English vocabulary is limited. I often wish I could write like you. I am saying this not to pump you up, but to explain that, imprecision, if any, in my statement, pertaining to vocabulary better be looked liberally. I am, however, not asking any consideration regarding the nuance and intention of my statement. I take a full responsibility of them.
3. That said, I found a trick of argument you often found as a fault in others argument, using yourself here. The trick was, making assumption and then building all following arguments on that. I forgot what it is technically called.
You wrote:
"That said, Nepe, your likening DG to a (negative-sounding) prostitute (to show your disgust for those who are close to the King) and your liking Anuradha Koirala (whose life's mission, it so happens, is rehabilitating women sold into prostitution) shows that your thinking about republicanism is muddled, arbitrary and intolerant."
No. Neither my criticism of DG nor the differential treatment between DG and AK characterize my thinking about republicanism. Its your assumption and its wrong assumption.
3. I did not criticize DG for not being republican. I criticized him for betraying the pro-democracy intelligentsia which was, and still largely is, pro-constitutional monarchy (without right to take over the sattaa) and which, I assume, was looking up to him, and which, I again assume, DG was fully aware of, and so knew the implication of his decision that it may demoralize them.
4. You wrote:
"But the fact that you liberaly give yourself the right to denounce DG while exalting Anuradha Koirala (even though both served as Ministers for the King) shows that you give yourself arbitrary powers to judge people DIFFERENTLY for the same kaam."
I am glad that you did not say I was defending AK. Because I was not defending her. And I am not defending her. What I did was I dismissed her political importance as compared to DG. If anybody in this board sees her as politically equivalent to DG, I shall remain corrected. Otherwise, the way I know her, she went to join raja ko cabinet like she would join Prince Charles dinner to get more support for
Maiti Nepal, an anthropological decision, if you like. However, if she knew the adverse political impact, if possible anyway, to pro-democracy civil society, like DG would know, then I will certainly denounce her decision.
Yes, I judged DG and AK DIFFERENTLY, but not arbitrarily. I had given a specific reason. I am sad that you deselected that part in order to make additional assumption and to produce rangi-changi conclusions finally. I had written, " To Anuradha ji, somehow my respect is intact. Because I never saw her a think tank".
I am not saying AK is dumb, but for a poor intellectual decision, a genius and an average person should not get the same penalty. In addition, different intention also should be taken into consideration.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 03-Jul-03 09:12 AM
5. Now, I assume your motivation to try to discredit my judgement has less to do with me and more to do with your need to defend your earlier action of defending DG. That is fine, as you would say. But let it be clear- your support for DG and my sympathy for AK is neither of the same form nor for the same reason. I have no problem to say AKs decision was WRONG. But you can not say the same about DG.
6. You wrote
"The trouble is that you guys are, like the Maoists, intolerant of different viewpoints; you denounce your ideological opponents by calling them "prostitutes" and so on; you simply cannot understand that there may well be people who do NOT buy your line of thinking at all."
Ashu ji, here again you used another trick of argument. That is, I know what it is called, generalization. The bold faced words to show this without explaining much.
7. You wrote:
"You guys do NOT debate. You assert with no evidence. [An example: "everybody knows there is an unprecedented surge of public debate and tilting towards the Republic of Nepal going on in Nepal these days."]. And expect everyone to agree with your dubious assertions.
I think this will be a major theme of our debate if we could continue. So I ask you a simple and plain question. Do you disagree with my statement above ? Are you dismissing that there is an unprecedented surge of public debate and tilting towards the Republic of Nepal going on in Nepal these days ?
If yes, say so. I will provide tons of evidence. I did not because it is an everyday news in Kathmandu. Do you live in Kathmandu or Timbuktu ? Come on Ashu ! Bhanne pani euta had hunchha ni !
8. Let me put together some aarop you put on the Republicans
"* you simply cannot understand that there may well be people who do NOT buy your line of thinking at all
*You guys do NOT debate.
* You assert with no evidence. And expect everyone to agree with your dubious assertions.
Ashu, here you are once again in a faulty platform of argument. Representing Relative as Absolute. Let me clear it by asking a simple question- if the Republicans are that way, the non-republicans are not that way, right ?
The non-republicans do enough debates. They assert only with evidence. They do not expect everyone to agree with their assertions. Right ? Wow, these guys must be very good. Now could you please give me the names of a dozen or so non-republicans, besides yourself, which will convince me of your assertion I derived from your argument about non-republicans ?
9. Now back to your aarop to me about my understanding of republicanism. You kindly wrote:
".... shows that your thinking about republicanism is muddled, arbitrary and intolerant."
Ashu, I am not a well-read man except for my professional field which is far away from politics. However, my thinking of republicanism is not muddled. I have been thinking about it for several years now. My thinking about republicanism is clear. You know what, why don't you take my test ? Do me a favor, Ashu. You compile and ask me 20 or as many as you like tough questions about republicanism in Nepal. I will answer each of them. Then you judge my thinking. Actually I have been looking for a chance like this. Alright, you take your time to compile the questions, I will take my time to answer them (I may take several days to weeks, ni !, jaagir pani khaanu paryo ni !)
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 03-Jul-03 09:16 AM
Oops.. the whole got italicized. Replace the above with this one
------------------------------
5. Now, I assume your motivation to try to discredit my judgement has less to do with me and more to do with your need to defend your earlier action of defending DG. That is fine, as you would say. But let it be clear- your support for DG and my sympathy for AK is neither of the same form nor for the same reason. I have no problem to say AKs decision was WRONG. But you can not say the same about DG.
6. You wrote
"The trouble is that you guys are, like the Maoists, intolerant of different viewpoints; you denounce your ideological opponents by calling them "prostitutes" and so on; you simply cannot understand that there may well be people who do NOT buy your line of thinking at all."
Ashu ji, here again you used another trick of argument. That is, I know what it is called, generalization. The bold faced words to show this without explaining much.
7. You wrote:
"You guys do NOT debate. You assert with no evidence. [An example: "everybody knows there is an unprecedented surge of public debate and tilting towards the Republic of Nepal going on in Nepal these days."]. And expect everyone to agree with your dubious assertions.
I think this will be a major theme of our debate if we could continue. So I ask you a simple and plain question. Do you disagree with my statement above ? Are you dismissing that there is an unprecedented surge of public debate and tilting towards the Republic of Nepal going on in Nepal these days ?
If yes, say so. I will provide tons of evidence. I did not because it is an everyday news in Kathmandu. Do you live in Kathmandu or Timbuktu ? Come on Ashu ! Bhanne pani euta had hunchha ni !
8. Let me put together some aarop you put on the Republicans
"* you simply cannot understand that there may well be people who do NOT buy your line of thinking at all
*You guys do NOT debate.
* You assert with no evidence. And expect everyone to agree with your dubious assertions.
Ashu, here you are once again in a faulty platform of argument. Representing Relative as Absolute. Let me clear it by asking a simple question- if the Republicans are that way, the non-republicans are not that way, right ?
The non-republicans do enough debates. They assert only with evidence. They do not expect everyone to agree with their assertions. Right ? Wow, these guys must be very good. Now could you please give me the names of a dozen or so non-republicans, besides yourself, which will convince me of your assertion I derived from your argument about non-republicans ?
9. Now back to your aarop to me about my understanding of republicanism. You kindly wrote:
".... shows that your thinking about republicanism is muddled, arbitrary and intolerant."
Ashu, I am not a well-read man except for my professional field which is far away from politics. However, my thinking of republicanism is not muddled. I have been thinking about it for several years now. My thinking about republicanism is clear. You know what, why don't you take my test ? Do me a favor, Ashu. You compile and ask me 20 or as many as you like tough questions about republicanism in Nepal. I will answer each of them. Then you judge my thinking. Actually I have been looking for a chance like this. Alright, you take your time to compile the questions, I will take my time to answer them (I may take several days to weeks, ni !, jaagir pani khaanu paryo ni !)
|
| GP |
Posted
on 03-Jul-03 06:34 PM
This debate will give us some good ideas. I am only afraid that it should not turn out finally a personality clash. So, Nepe and Ashu should refrain from personal attack, till now its free. So that we can keep on enjoying your ideas.
This is just a warning, .......... in heated debate, most Nepalis end up in personality clashes, I wish Ashu and Nepe be different from average Nepalis, and prove to be unique Nepalis, not typical Nepalis..... But, in Nepal, many peoples say "kasto typical
manche rahechha", that was actually meant to say "kasto unique manche rahechha".
Lets not get wrong. Keep on moving ahead with arguments free from personal
stuffs.
Thanks.
GP
|
| allare |
Posted
on 04-Jul-03 03:21 AM
Someone says here that,
"The trouble is that you guys are, like the Maoists, intolerant of different viewpoints; you denounce your ideological opponents by calling them "prostitutes" and so on; you simply cannot understand that there may well be people who do NOT buy your line of thinking at all. "
I am just concerned here about first line:
... like the Maoists, intolerant of differnet view points...
It seems that, if you have do not find tolerant nature in other (just for you) then its funny to compare that guy with Maoist and claming in same though indireclty that Maoist are intolerant.
Yesterday, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi compared German MEP Martin Schultz to a Nazi concentration camp guard and you might know the reaction in europe. Somewhere, you are giving Maoist (intensionally or non-intensionally) the label of Nazi and comparing other people who do not buy your view with Maoist nature.
.. Way to go...
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 05-Jul-03 07:46 PM
Nepe's major question:
"So I ask you a simple and plain question. Do you disagree with my statement above ? Are you dismissing that there is an unprecedented surge of public debate and tilting towards the Republic of Nepal going on in Nepal these days ?"
*******
Again, Nepe, you have asserted a statement.
You have provided NO evidence whatsoever to support your evidence.
You just expect people to lap up your assertion, don't you?
And so my answer to your question: YES, I do dismiss your claim, and that is, without being a chamcha of any kind of the King.
My evidence? I could go on, but for now, do read Alok Bohara's article, in which he
says:
"In five questions related to the royal role on various issues, King Gyanendra has between 45-60 percent favorable opinion. For example, 70 percent dont blame the king for the current state of the country, while nearly half the voters blame Girija Prasad Koirala. On the issue of national welfare 20 percent show ambivalence, but the king scores about 46 percent as being someone who cares about the country and its people. The parties and the Maoists get only 18 percent and 16 percent shares respectively."
For more, read: "Illiberal democracy and the leadership crisis: Analysing results of recent opinion polls on public perception of governance." The Nepali Times, 27 June- 3 July, 2003.
Now, tell me, by your formulation, since Bohara reaches a DIFFERENT conclusion from you, is he too, in your republican-speak, "a prostitute"?
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 05-Jul-03 08:24 PM
Nepe wrote:
"3. That said, I found a trick of argument you often found as a fault in others argument, using yourself here. The trick was, making assumption and then building all following arguments on that. I forgot what it is technically called."
No.
Ask anyone. My questions are straightforward and clear. I use no NO "trick of argument" of any kind.
I think since you cannot call me a prostitute outright, you have to grit your teeth, force a smile, and resort to a subtler way to denigrate my challenge to you by saying, "Oh, he's just using a trick of argument", as though that exuses your calling your ideological opponent "a prostitute" and exempts you from engaging in some serious thinking about your brand of republicanism.
Look, your approach may work with your committed fan base, and that's OK.
Sorry, it doesn't work with me, and, I dare say, with other reasonable people who
are tired of your hollow assertions, and want sharper, more thought-out arguments from you.
And so, republicans, you guys need to get your act together if you wish to persuade reasonable people about the validity of your stance. Else, your assertions after assertions with no evidence reduce your stance to the level of a caricature.
*******************
Nepe wrote:
"In addition, different intention [of DG and AK] also should be taken into consideration [when judging them differently for similar kaam.]"
I, for one, have no trouble admitting that I do NOT know why DG took the post. Nor too do I know why AK took the post. They are both intelligent, reasonable people, and I assume they had had their own reasons to do what they did.
But you, on the other hand, while chiding me for making assumptions, seem entirely comfortable ASSUMING:
a) what the specific reasons of DG and AK for taking up the post were
b) that DG's reasons were khattam than AK's, and
c) that DG is to be judged more harshly than AK.
Is all that NOT a bundle of arbitrary decisions, based on assumptions from afar,
on your part?
*****
You also imply that for Nepal's pro-democracy intelligentsia, what DG ("think tank") did was of more interest than what AK (charity worker) did vis-a-vis the King.
To that I say, this kind of muddled thinking shows the Maoist-like elitism that you
guys can barely contain.
Let me explain.
Even though I respect DG a lot, I think that pro-democracy intelligentisia should pay more attention to the kind of work that AK is engaged in.
AK is in the business of restoring the rights and dignity of former prostitutes . . . to ease their re-entry into the mainstream of Nepali society. In contemporary Nepal, you can't find a better example of democratisation than AK's attempts at restorting the rights of these women.
But somehow, in your Maoist-like elitist mode {in which leaders are revered; while non-leaders are brushed asied), you exalt DG for his thinking, expect more from him, and denounce him when he lets you down, while you remain distantly respectful to AK for her charity work that has IN FACT led to making our societies more tolerant,
more accommodating and more democratic.
I find your constrasting ways of viewing DG and AK very interesting, and this makes me wonder whether, in the name of republicanism, you guys are only for democracy by the elites for the masses.
Finally, like I said, you've got some serious thinking to do before you come out on Sajha again with your half-baked assertions.
Till then, happy thinking.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 05-Jul-03 08:30 PM
Nepe wrote:
"Let me clear it by asking a simple question- if the Republicans are that way, the non-republicans are not that way, right ?"
Nepe, look, I am NOT interested in non-republicans.
Nor I am interested in what they say.
For the purpose of this kurakanoi, I am interested in only examining
republican thoughts, as they come from you and others.\
That's all.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Bright Eyes |
Posted
on 05-Jul-03 09:23 PM
Ashu wrote:
>> in the name of republicanism, you guys are only for democracy by the elites for the >>masses.
Ashu ji, quite the contrary. I think you got carried away there. The republican's want a political system with elected leaders as the head of the state as opposed to a king or other totalitarian modes of governance.
Now which one is more elitist: Nepe wanting publicly elected officials or the King appointing people that he thinks are suited well, for whatever reasons, to run the government?
The idea is that government officials who decide for people, should be chosen by the people themselves. This idea is called democracy (some call it republicanism since it implies the absence of monarchy in our context). It seems to me that Nepe is accusing Gyawali of disregarding that idea, as demonstrated by him accepting his appointment by the king. The accusation is fair enough. The king should NOT be the one choosing ministers. That is, if you believe in democracy.
|
| Satya |
Posted
on 06-Jul-03 08:24 AM
I am a pure republican though my past was tainted with support for constitutional monarchy. When ever there is a slight chance (probably troubles created by the king himself or his chamchas) to descridt democracy king try to take executive power not intended by the constitution. There is no room for absolute monarch in mordern time and if the king always tries to get absolute power then he should be kicked out from the throne no matter how corrupt and inept our part leaders are.
|
| GP |
Posted
on 06-Jul-03 05:31 PM
--
The result published in Nepali Times based on internet poll, as mentioned earlier in other threads, I do not take it as a reliable data. The questions raised were also biased.
In Nepal's contents, when you read articles written / (researched by) relatives of beneficiary of wrong system, e.g. Panchayat in case of Dr. Bohara, you have to be cautious before accepting the article fully as if a professional writing, but, you should keep some reservation that the author might have used his professional ability to twist the things. And, lets not forget Dr. Alok Bohara is the younger brother of benefeciary of Panchayat system, i.e. Deepak Bohara. Who knows whether he is paying past dues.
I was just surprised to see Dr. Bohara's changing tone depending on who controls power in Nepal. Before you take this article, its better to read his past articles published on Kantipur Pubs. and Nepali Times. For me he is like Cameleon, that changes color with the environment. (Its my observation). Well, some peoples might reject my observation saying Dr. Bohara as an opinion writer.
GP
|
| GP |
Posted
on 06-Jul-03 05:48 PM
One more thing, I observed on Dr. Bohara's article.
He writes in such a way that he expects the power house in Nepal to invite him to a powerful political position, e.g. as a minister in the Ministry of Finance. ...... Articles with some background (predefined) motivation, thus, a trick : use professional ability to get a public position. "I should speak this, so that, s/he would invite me to occupy xyz position in Nepal". This can be realized by those who are carefully following Dr. Bohara's past articles. You can even go back to old TND days and read his articles.
I don't like Girija nor Makune, but, Dr. Bohara was never portraying NC or UML in positive way or the socio-economic changes in last 12years compared to Panchayat. He is always in the bandwagon to denounce NC / UML's work, portraying previous system was better than this new one (the way he writes), because Panchayat (his brother's magi khane bhado and his probable landing space after getting Ph.D. degree in economics: first as an Assistant Minister in Finance Ministry ..... was dismantled by NC / UML). I smell such agenda in Dr. Bohara's articles.
GP
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 06-Jul-03 06:48 PM
GP wrote:
1. ......... as mentioned earlier in other threads, I do not take it as a reliable data. The questions raised were also biased.......
So, you dont' believe on number. The question was biased? Hope you are not smocking Ganja Prasad....
2. .....In Nepal's contents, when you read articles written / (researched by) relatives of beneficiary of wrong system, e.g. Panchayat in case of Dr. Bohara, you have to be cautious before accepting the article fully as if a professional writing, but, you should keep some reservation that the author might have used his professional ability to twist the things. And, lets not forget Dr. Alok Bohara is the younger brother of benefeciary of Panchayat system, i.e. Deepak Bohara. Who knows whether he is paying past dues.......
That is YOUR 'NEECH' thinking. Dr. Bohora didn't get American Economics PhD and Professorship, because he was Deepak Bohora's bro. It is because of his brain and talent. He has a very well respected position here. he is a well published guy in his field. Beside, he has been involved in many nepal related social charity works. Do you want me to buy a screw driver for you?
3. .....He writes in such a way that he expects the power house in Nepal to invite him to a powerful political position, e.g. as a minister in the Ministry of Finance. .....probable landing space after getting Ph.D. degree in economics....
Don't worry about him. His students are alredy finance ministers, governers, planners, teachers, etc. So he does't need to seek a FM position in Nepal. If the country can get his expertize, that would be great for the nation.
Anyway, before going to bed think of yourself if you are a suitable person to polish his soes......Why you go so much personal? Some of my frens at AIT told me about you. I am sorry to convey you that they consistently told me that you are a PSYCHO. So you better fix your brain.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 07-Jul-03 09:53 AM
GP-ji,
Wisely, you advise others to "refrain from [using] personal attack"; yet, unwisely,
you choose not to follow your own advice.
When a respected guru like yourself starts behaving erratically, what is a chela like
me to do?
Or, is yours a case of, as a memorable slogan on a T-shirt goes: "Take my advice; I am
not using it"?
I say that because as a "quant jock" (you are an engineer, aren't you?) you can
very well challenge the very basis of Alok Bohara's analysis,
a) WITHOUT bringing in who he is related to and
b) WITHOUT dragging Bohara's putative family history into the kurakani.
Let us learn to challenge/question/examine people's ideas based on what they say,
and NOT based on who they are.
oohi
"For God, country and sajha.com . . . though not necessarily in that order! :-)"
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| GP |
Posted
on 07-Jul-03 01:14 PM
Ashu,
I realized it later, that I felt whether I was pouring my anger/dissatisfaction against elder Bohara to younger Bohara. I should not have done. I extend my apology to younger Bohara.
My last posting was over-reaction, and extrapolation by looking at
some uniqe cases in Nepal. I was surely following Dr. Bohara's writings, but, I might
have always looked him first as younger Bohara, less as an individual economist.
I realized it later when the cumulated and biased feeling on him (knowing him younger brother of Deepak Bohara) was poured off in last posting ............
Biggest mistake on my part is probably extrapolation of chaos in Nepal, where peoples with strong political background mis-use public resource to benefit their families. Worst part to me was to know that Dr. Bohara is younger brother of Deepak Bohara. I should have realized that Dr. Bohara should not be interpreted as younger brother of DB but,
as an independent individual Dr. XYZ. I was really biased for a longtime, as early as I started reading his article, especially, after knowing him as a younger brother .. ....
Sometime, you realize such injustice imposed on someone (especially, towards the relatives of high ranking officials) only after ejecting out all the accumulated venom (when its based on biased information, especially, at the very beginning you try to know who is he?) against an individual. It happened to me too. It should not repeat to other individuals, and should be a great lesson to me. Once again my sincere apology and I am really sorry for that. I withdraw the both postings. If possible, I would be grateful to San if he can delete these two postings.
Thank you for reminding me. Late better than never.
GP
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 07-Jul-03 01:41 PM
GP ji,
We all make mistakes, but should learn something from our mistakes. Sorry if i were hard on you, but it is good if you have realized where your shortcomings are (if any).
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 07-Jul-03 07:43 PM
GP-ji,
Thank you.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 08-Jul-03 10:35 AM
To continue mero kachhuwa gati ko debate with Ashu...
Ashu,
I was a tiny bit surprised with your consistently hostile tone and attitude, particularly when I compare it with gentle arguments on similar topics/disagreements Paschim and Biswo used to have with me. But I suddenly remembered I have called Dipak Gyawali a prostitute for doing the thing you had congratulated him for. And then I was not surprised.
I sorted our your latest reply into two subjects. 1. The situation of republicanism in Nepal, and 2. About Nepe. To me the first is more important than the second. So I will ignore the second. Also, my previous reply in which I pointed out your faulty arguments (wrong assumption about why I condemned DG, generalizing Nepe's one comment as the Republican Manifesto, failing to present the non-republicans vis a vis republicans while giving verdicts against the later) stands by. You have addressed them pretty poorly in your reply. Basically, you have failed to refute them. I don't think I need to add anything. Also, you have started a new faulty ride of argument. How many times and in points you dragged the word 'Prostitute' ? In the world of arguments, it is called amplification and false analogy. Let's see what new 'trick' you are going to bring next time.
But honestly, I would like you to keep arguments confined to the issue of how khattam republicanism is rather than how khattam Nepe is.
So, now to the main point I am particularly interested in debating.
First of all, thank you for your answer to my question regarding whether you dismiss my assertion about the unprecedented support republicanism is getting in the country.
So you indeed dismiss it.
>And so my answer to your question: YES, I do dismiss your claim,
>and that is, without being a chamcha of any kind of the King.
OK dismiss it. But why you have to add, "..and that is, without being a chamcha of any kind of the King".
Who is calling you a chamcha of the king ?
If I have to call, I would call you a chamcha of a chamcha of the king, not a chamcha of the king. I am not that dumb, Ashu.
Now, back to your dismissal. So you are claiming there is no unprecedented rise of support for the republicanism in Nepal.
Really ? Nobody is talking about republicanism ? No intellectuals, no political leaders and cadres, no students, nobody ? Nobody in the street demonstration saying a word against the monarchy ? No parliamentarian clapped gadgadaahat taali in their meeting of defiance every time the word ganatantra was pronounced ? Nobody from Nepal is writing op-eds in favor of republicanism in the papers in country and abroad ?
Everything is as before, let's say five years ago, when only the Maoists were talking about the republicanism ?
Oh my God ! Ashu ! I don't know how I got misinformed ? I don't know who brought these false daily news to Nepe's ear. I am sorry, Ashu. I made a false assertion. I made a false assertion without evidence !
Ashu Tiwari ji, the history will remember your dismissal !
Now, let's visit Bohora ji's article where I should find the undeniable evidence that supports your dismissal.
I will not even argue how much scientifically reliable internet polls are. I will not even raise the question how the way a question is drafted and/or who asks the question and/or how the person perceives the consequences or lack thereof etc may influence one's answers. Don't you worry about that, Ashu.
Now, tell me which number represents the support to the monarchy or the opposition to the republicanism ? I will take your word for it.
"In five questions related to the royal role on various issues, King Gyanendra has between 45-60 percent favorable opinion. For example, 70 percent dont blame the king for the current state of the country, while nearly half the voters blame Girija Prasad Koirala. On the issue of national welfare 20 percent show ambivalence, but the king scores about 46 percent as being someone who cares about the country and its people. The parties and the Maoists get only 18 percent and 16 percent shares respectively."
OK, 60 percent.
Now, that makes, somewhere between 0-40 percent in favor of the republicanism. Right ?
Now, you give me the number. How much do you think might support republicanism today ?
I do not want to shock you with my biased assertion. So, 15 percent ? Does that sound reasonable ? Or that's too much ? OK, 10 percent.
Now, this time be honest. What percent do you think was in favor of the republicanism, let's say last year or two years ago or 10 years ago ?
Whatever number you give, you can not deny that there has been an unprecedented rise in the favor to the republicanism.
Or do you still want to dismiss it ?
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 08-Jul-03 10:37 AM
Now, let's go to a scientifically conducted poll Bohora ji mentioned, a poll done by Himal KkabarPatrika in 22-25 Chait, 2059. The question that was the closest to the question of monarchy was 'Prajatantra laai khataraa ko baata chha ?' Let's look at the result:
The King and the palace force: 52 %
The Maoists: 49.9%
Present government: 44.9%
I wonder what was the number for the political parties. In any case, if you take the result at its face value, then, Nepali people don't trust anybody, the establishment or the rebel, for the democracy. If the poll accurately represents the reality, I would interpret it as that they are looking for a new force or a new equation which is 100% for the democracy.
The above data is quite favorable to the cause of the republicanism and I can use it for the publicity as such. But I would like to do the opposite, if you like.
I would like to show the readers the scientific limitation of so called scientifically done polls. There are chances of error/bias in all stages of a poll, drafting of the questionnaire, sampling of the respondents, analyzing the data and the interpretation. Sampling, data collection and analysis is no big deal. Anybody with a small training in statistics can do that. The most challenging, complicated and often less discussed part is the drafting of the questionnaire. This is the most vulnerable to the introduction of bias and inaccuracies. A clear idea about what you are investigating and sufficient knowledge of the culture, psychology and the situational factors are critical. I think many Sajhaites who work in similar field can explain this better than me.
I will just illustrate my point with the above example. First the question. The danger to the democracy. It is not a simple question. It is a complex question, almost abstract. People will understand this questions differently and their answers will be different accordingly. When they answer about the king they may be talking about the sovereign power, when they talk about the Maoists, they may be talking about the freedom, when they talk about the NC and UML, they may be talking about the good/bad governance. This will be clear if you ask them a second question, 'HOW ?'.
Anyway, I hope this improvised Paandittyaain of mine will make my readers aware of the limitation of the numbers obtained from even the polls labeled as scientific, let alone an internet poll.
The situation of republicanism or anything of a grave and revolutionary nature is probably difficult to determine by poll in Nepal. People are not accustomed to share potentially dangerous views with unknown person. If you really want to find out, probably you need to conduct smart research like psychologists do. I don't think a question like 'Hey, I am not going to tell your name to anybody, now tell me do you support the king' will be able to gauze the difficult process of transformation in thoughts of Nepali people happening.
What you see on the surface is a fraction of what is beneath the surface. The republican voices that has surfaced in recent time is indicative of where our society is heading to. Evidence ? Let's keep watching the developments for now.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 08-Jul-03 06:36 PM
Nepe wrote:
"I was a tiny bit surprised with your consistently hostile tone and attitude, particularly when I compare it with gentle arguments on similar topics/disagreements Paschim and Biswo used to have with me. But I suddenly remembered I have called Dipak Gyawali a prostitute for doing the thing you had congratulated him for. And then I was not surprised."
Nepe, look, all of us can preach to the converted, anytime, anywhere.
The question is: Can we rise above our own limited circles, and preach, with patience,
to the unconverted, the skeptics, the doubters, the questioners, the not-sure wallahs
and others who do NOT necessarily share our points of views and win their respect?
So far, let's face it, you republicans have been having kurakani among yourselves, patting each others' backs, foor-ka-o-ing one another, living in some la-la land,
and being "gentle" with one another.
And that's fine -- in and of itself.
But just because, in an open, democratic forum like this, I dare -- (WITHOUT saying whether I am for the King or against the King or remain ambivalent about the King)--
ask you a few questions, and push you to (I assume) think hard and spell out the
fuller version of your republicanism, look at -- just look at --how you have impatiently, and in obvious frustration, chosen to characterize me: "consistently hostile [in] tone
and attitude."
Nepe dear, my point is simple: If you have this much problem engaging in a kurakani about republicanism WITHOUT calling the other side this and that, how the hell do
you ever expect to convince/argue with/debate with, say, the Viswo Hindu Maha
Sangh and many others in Nepal about the supposed merits of republicanism?
Do you just expect them to lie "lam.pa.saar" to your arguments? Do you just expect them to be washed away by the tide of republicanism anyway? Surely, Biswo and Paschim alone do NOT constitute your entire Nepali universe, or do they?
************************
Nepe, gotta go now. Got a squash match to play at Sat Dobato. Wish me well, I will pick up this thread later this week.
Meantime, I urge Sajha folks the count the number of adjectives that Nepe has
hurled at me, and entertain themselves. From my side, I will continue to be sharp, and will NOT engage in adjective-hurling and name-calling.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 08-Jul-03 06:51 PM
nepe and ashu,
Hjujr haru SXS ka 1st and 2nd boy haru ho ki ke ho (like BaburamBhhattarai and UpendraDevkota at Amar Jyoti)....kya syatar hana-han hajur haru ko ta....Sandhe ko judhai ma bachha ko michai ma pariyo ni hajur....eheheh
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 12:39 PM
Ashu,
I agree with you 100% that there has been very little public debate on the republicanism in the country. So, I appreciate your suggestions and challenge to me and other republicans. I am sorry if I mistook your well-intentioned challenge for hostility.
Regarding the public debate, while I think there is very little public debate on the republicanism, far too little for the amount of the public interest that already exists, I am not surprised as to why it is so. And I am going to argue that it is so not because of the lazy or khattam republicans but because of the factors inherent of the republicanism and some cultural factors, none of which is to be worried about, because these factors only repress the public debate on the republicanism but not the public drive for the republicanism. In other words, don't be surprised if we arrive at the republic of Nepal without seeing too many seminars, workshops and talk programs in star Hotels or even in Martin Chautari or Parisambads on TV for that matter.
In order to understand this, we will need to go back and read our history of political revolution or transitions, whatever you call them, of 2007 and 2046, in particular, the discrepancies between the public debate and the public drive for the change, and most interesting of all, the discrepancies between the actual language of the slogans and rhetoric commonly used and the actual desire of the people, during preparatory years of those two revolutions.
Take for example, how things moved ahead during 2036 and 2046, the preparatory years for 2046 ko paribartan. The king was never challenged directly, but everybody knew they wanted to curtail the power of the king and give it to the banned political parties. Even the most agitating students wouldn't take the king's name directly. By the way, a sort of academic anarchy in schools and campuses that was there I think as an expression of political frustration is interesting to compare with what's going on in schools and campuses these days. Ashu, I was thinking to join in the discussion about political invasion in schools you brought. That will be a separate discussion.
Anyway, to continue with the nature of the public debate until 2046 actually happened, let's take, as an exercise, the immense popularity of the satirical works of Madan Krishna - Hari Bansha ko jodi as some kind of measurement of public mind. Now, those who have watched/listened to their entire works, can you find any satire directly against the king ? Even the most daring satires are very indirectly directed to the king. Otherwise, khaali panche.. panche.. panche.. panche.. panche.. panche. Now does anybody here think that Madan Krishna and Hari Bansha and, by virtue of their popularity, the common people did not know that the actual power is with the king and the panches are just the puppets of the king ? I think not.
So what do we learn from this ? We learn that Nepali people may resort to safer way to say things and beat up the scapegoats to express their anger, but they are not distracted from the focus. Outsiders or those ignorant of Nepali culture are not going to be able to gauge what Nepalis are upto just by some superficial observation.
I think the lack of the public debate on the republicanism should be looked at in this light. However, the importance of such debate should not be undermined.
***********************
Bhunte, Bright Eyes, Satya, GP, sabailai dhanyabad hai, for making me say this much. Please do continue to push, pinch and alert me.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 01:00 PM
A minor correction:
Take for example, how things moved ahead during 2036 and 2046, the preparatory years for 2046 ko paribartan.
Read as:
Take for example, how things moved ahead during the period between 2036 and 2046, the preparatory years for 2046 ko paribartan.
|
| Boke |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 01:52 PM
So Ashu,
I am curious, are you for the King or against the King. I ask because you keep highlighting that point. Since the debate has matured to this level, Nepe (and the readers) would want to know from which quarter you hail from and what motivates your arguments. Please don't say that your affiliation is not germane to this debate, because it is. Where you are coming from is an important factor to understand what you are trying to say. Ki kaso, mitra?
|
| GP |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 04:28 PM
Black and white vs Colorful world: an analogy between digital and analogue world.
I guess you know better than me that the world is not just Black and White. Between black and white there is gray zone and there also lies colorful world. Thus, myself including Ashu (I guess) plus many others have not decided or fixed our positions in
these two "YES" or "NO" extreme answers. We are just watching those who believe
in white and black as only the two options in the world.
The world is analog machine for me. I am a student and student should use analog
machine, and once they graduate from student and enter to professional life, they
should use digitial machine, where you have no freedom to switch between "YES"
or "NO", you have to follow the Digital Machine's Fixed Digits. Analogue machines
are really good for studies, because the dial can be interpreted as you like especially
when its in unmarked zone, e.g. between 0 and 1. Digital Machine will tell you
either 0 or 1, but, you can switch your record 0.45 based on your personal judgement if its analogue meter.
This fact, I realized while carrying an experiment. A student wrote in his report that
the analogue dial gauge should be replaced by Digital instruments, because himself as
a beginner found it annoying to read the analogue ( dial) gauge. I had to insist that
all digital meters have analogue things housed inside it, what we get in the digital panel is just an interpretation made by manufacture. Thus, when you really want to measure
things below the tolerance limit of the digital meter, you have no choice, but, if you are real master, you will kick out digital and stay with analogue. Digital world is just a skin, and therefore, its less real.
I will remain in analogue "gray" world and will continue to enjoy the freedom of choices.
Bujhne lai yo kura gahiro chha, nabujhne lai yo kura ... pahiro chha.
GP
|
| k-re |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 04:35 PM
I have no idea of ..what you guys talking about....
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 04:50 PM
A quick remark,GPji. Life does not always give you respectable freedom to choose 'gray' area.
In the referendum of 2036, there were only two colors, Black and White (Okay, Blue and Yellow) to choose from. What did you choose ? Or stayed away from voting in order to remain in the 'gray area' ?
|
| GP |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 06:46 PM
Read only if you have time and interest on Entropy [Grayscale].
If you can not understand, please, don't complain ....... I my self don't know what I am talking --Entropy-- in this posting ... hehehehe.... I am just giving an idea what happens to you when Entropy increases. An Example --an analogy--
Nepe jyu and others,
Tyasaile ta goli maryo ni. Hami lai gray area chahiyeko, powerful manufacturers don't let us select our choice, but, force us to follow their calibration chart presented in digital form. Yes, you are right we were forced to select 0 or 1 in that referendum. Even in
that referendum, I could not vote because of my self fltered out in another 0 or 1
category of above age 21 and below 21. I was in "0" group, i.e. underaged, not allowed to vote. Well, we did campaign on "Blue"'s favor ...... I remember the "black" ink we used
at that time in painting stone walls to roads was a used engine oil from my cousine's
rice mill. ........
But, Nepe jyu, we do sampling of millions of 0 and 1 to find the exact position in gray
zone. Thus, Panchayat was (even if we follow BPK to accept the result) OK for 6
persons and not OK for 5 persons out of total 11 votes. .................. .......
Panchayat was in gray zone, thus, thrown in 2046.
Afterall, what is Gray? After I started using graphics software like PowerPoint,
then, only I realized that Gray is not a separate color, but a mixer of black and white, and in computer screen its a illusive new color where fine sized black and white dots are placed side by side. It was really amazing finding to me. And, we know combination
of RGB can produce all colors ranging black and white. What I mean is that when
we go to root level, we hardly have gray zone or spectrum of colors, but, we will have
finite/limited colors. Similarly, lets make a society that can tolerate black and white
living side by side. ................. or, the 3 primary color RGB can produce colorful world.
Well, lets also remember that Gray zone = highest entropy = higest disorder.
As I always tell those who make presentation with a lot of colors in their
PowerPoint Slides or OHP transparencies that "Too many colors equal to NO color: recommend them to minimize the number of colors in their Slides : to reasonably accetable level of entropy.", similarly, too many options equal to No option (because its too dificult to select the best option) e.g. in questionnaires. Black and white does have lowest entropy, but, very very fragile, not stable for long time. ......... I think the degree of grayness should neither attain maximum entropy: chaotic, e.g. current Nepal (who is doing right, whom would you select? King G? Maoists? NC(Girija) ? NC(Deoba) ? UML? RPP? Sadvawana ?), nor lowest: black and white (either King G or Maoists) completely separated.
............
I should stop clogging this thread by imposing my fun based analogies. I just tried to make a fun.
Have fun. Learn entropy, and explain the world and happenings around you. Shanon was great to introduce entropy in information theory ............ Entropy exists everywhere. Entropy [disorder] is always increasing. Idea of throwing King out of power
is also an approach to increase entropy, because in King-ship, the head of the state is limited to his family alone, thus, lowest entropy (highly fragile), and when King is thrown
out of power and then, it will be Chaotic who should we elect as head of the state. Peoples will be in confusion, they will have headache, and the last election in USA is also a kind of situation with highest entropy: Bush and AlGore did not have clear demarcation line..............
Entropy [Grayness] rules. Gray is ultimate destination in Black-n-White world.
GP
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 07:19 PM
Nepe wrote:
"Regarding the public debate, while I think there is very little public debate on the republicanism, far too little for the amount of the public interest that already exists, I am not surprised as to why it is so. And I am going to argue that it is so not because of the lazy or khattam republicans but because of the factors inherent of the republicanism and some cultural factors, none of which is to be worried about, because these factors only repress the public debate on the republicanism but not the public drive for the republicanism. In other words, don't be surprised if we arrive at the republic of Nepal without seeing too many seminars, workshops and talk programs in star Hotels or even in Martin Chautari or Parisambads on TV for that matter. "
Nepe,
I am sorry to write this, but the paragraph doesn't make sense at all. You could have simply written "There's hardly any debates on republicanism in Nepal, for reasons only the republicans know". Look, this paragraph itself proves, how weak your arguments are. Then, you say, don't be surprised if Nepal becomes a republic. A wishful thinking on your part, sitting in a room in the US or wherever you are, but again, what are we to infer from your lines? If we minus the jargons and heavy weight words from yoor posts, you seem as confused as everybody else regarding republicanism in Nepal. Jargons and words might make your posting unnecessarily long and appealing to a certain group, others, the non-converted ones look for arguments, logic and so on before they decide on something, or before posting their replies.
Also, you are missing a point here.
The debate is about: How well can you convince a non-republican or someone with a vague political affiliation/tilt about your republicanism?
And,
Can you be civil and resp[ectful to the people who don't necessarily believe in what you believe, rather than just name them or liken them to this and that?
To be frank, Nepe is using a trick of argument here, not ashu. Because, Nepe just turned this debate into something else. Ashu's questions were simple and straight forward, but nepe's answers are way way off.
Nepe, rather than focusing on the public debates and issues that you yourself aren't very clear on, address the basic issues, which are:
1. How can you think Republicanism will benifit Nepal?
2. Why people are reluctant to get in the republican bandwagon?
3. What are the republicans in nepal doing to promot their views/ideas?
4. Why do you think people are still supportive of the King?
and
5. What are the Republican strategies?
IF I understood correctly, ashu and many other silent readers were looking for answers to these questions, not your jargonized, 90% nonsense lecture on ethics, hostility and research methodology.
Sounds rude, but hey, I am not very polite, and that you already know.
Of course, you can dismiss it outright saying that you don't want to discuss or debate with a hardcore monarchist, and that's fine. I too am not keen on either reading your nonsensical lines.
Namaste and happy thinking.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 07:49 PM
. How can you think Republicanism will benifit Nepal? = how do you think
|
| Boke |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 08:10 PM
GP, goddess of brevity seems to have illuded you.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 08:47 PM
"Regarding the public debate, while I think there is very little public debate on the republicanism, far too little for the amount of the public interest that already exists, I am not surprised as to why it is so. And I am going to argue that it is so not because of the lazy or khattam republicans but because of the factors inherent of the republicanism and some cultural factors, none of which is to be worried about, because these factors only repress the public debate on the republicanism but not the public drive for the republicanism. In other words, don't be surprised if we arrive at the republic of Nepal without seeing too many seminars, workshops and talk programs in star Hotels or even in Martin Chautari or Parisambads on TV for that matter. "
To simplify and summarize this paragraph:
1. There's hardly any debate on republicanism in Nepal.
2. Only the Republicans know why there's no debate.
3. Nepali people somehow know what the Republicans are thinking and we might see have a republic soon.
now, let's look at the flaws in this argument:
Nepe's line of thinking resembles "sabai nepali pancha hun, sabai nai pancha nepali" attitude. Come on, how do I or anybody going over this discussion possibely know what the Republicans are thinking in Nepal? This argument somehow tends to portray that the majority, if not the whole of Nepal's population is anti-monarchy. The question here is: How does Nepe know that the majority is against the King? What are his sources?
Also, if only the republicans know why there's nod ebate in Nepal on their cause, that means, republicanism in Nepal is confined to a close-knit group of like-minded individuals, who might or might not be in the majority. In the worst case scenario, this means: Nepal has a limited number of republicans who don't find it comfortable to promote their views to the non-republicans. All they do is pat each other's (the members of the close-knit community) back. In this scenario, how can you or any republican say that Nepal is moving towards a republic, when the majority doesn't even have a clue on what's cooking in your head?
I don't think I need to explain the 3rd point. Its obvious. No debates, no promotion of views, just historical comparisions and nonsensical remarks, and you think the majority of Nepali are up for a republic. This is absurd. Really.
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 09-Jul-03 08:53 PM
where is the hairline between republicanism and democratism? Hatti ra Hatti Chhap Chappal Oostai Oostai ho? Nepe & IF ji, I will offer a cup of tea or raksi (*BLEEP*) when we get a chance to meet with you folks conditional on if you teach me some literal meaning of those terms...ehehehe
|
| RBaral |
Posted
on 10-Jul-03 04:47 AM
Hello:
I am thinking of posting some of my thoughts on this thread -- time permitting. I am on a cluttered desk, buried on a pile of work. Hopefully I will be able to catch up with this thread by the end of this weekend.
Namaste, Rishi
|
| Bond-007 |
Posted
on 10-Jul-03 09:04 AM
If ji,
I am trying to answer your questions. "Bhul chuk line dine hai" :)
1. How can you think Republicanism will benefit Nepal?
Answer: Are you challenging other people thinking ability?
2. Why people are reluctant to get in the republican bandwagon?
Answer: Why did Saddam have 99.7% vote in Iraqi election?
3. What are the republicans in Nepal doing to promote their views/ideas?
Answer: What is the monarch doing to validate his existence?
4. Why do you think people are still supportive of the King?
Answer: Are you talking about those people who went to Narayanhiti carrying placard on his birthday?
5. What are the Republican strategies?
Answer: Did you forget the strategies in 2047? The King should be grateful to the Nepalese people and their leaders for not throwing him out back then.
The reason I want the monarchy to go:
Its a sign of mediaeval feudalist system, very undemocratic, source of corruption (moral, cultural and financial), very oppressive, a gang of murderers, biggest hurdle in development of a country, if I do cost benefit analysis, heavily tilted towards cost.
My overall thoughts on Monarchy:
Its an unnecessary and evil institution fit only for fairytales. The sooner we can get rid of this system the better we will be.
Jai Democratic Republic of Nepal!!!
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jul-03 10:09 AM
Bond 007,
Your answers are not the type of answers I or anybody going over this thread is looking for. I don't know about the others, but if I were a Prof., I would have given you a F because your answers are flawed, do not reflect any thinking whatsoever on your part and more than that, your answers do not take the realities and ground realities into consideration.
The biggest problem with you or any other republican in this board is: You have a hypothesis, and that's it. No induction, deduction or verification to verify/refute your hypothesis. Just because you have hypothesis doesn't mean its already verified, or does it? I don't know.
Anyway, your hypothesis: Monarchy is bad. But, no proof/fact to support this claim.
Another hypothesis: Republicanism is good. Again, no proof/fact to support this claim.
------
Now, let's look at your answers:
1. How dou think Republicanism will benefit Nepal?
"Anwer: Are you challenging other people thinking ability? "
Your answer is like: If someone says, "I am the President of the USA", you just blindly accept it because asking how/why/what makes him the President would be questioning that person's thinking/imagining ability.
2. 2. Why people are reluctant to get in the republican bandwagon?
"Answer: Why did Saddam have 99.7% vote in Iraqi election?"
Here's a counter question: Why didn't he (saddam) get 1%? Also, the comparision and analogy is wrong. We are not talking about a President who has to prove his legitimacy through polls/refarandum, we are talking about a King. The King does not need to rely on polls and other means to show that he is legitimate, or does it? If it has to, then the English are the most stupidest and undemocratic bunch.
3. 3. What are the republicans in Nepal doing to promote their views/ideas?
"Answer: What is the monarch doing to validate his existence? "
Refer to my answer to your answer no. 2.
4. Why do you think people are still supportive of the King?
"Answer: Are you talking about those people who went to Narayanhiti carrying placard on his birthday? "
Well, not really. I am talking about the majority of Nepal's population. And yes, I am also talking about the people who went to the palace carrying playcards on his b'day. I am yet to see such a big crowd in any rally organized by the Maoists or any other political parties in Nepal.
5. 5. What are the Republican strategies?
"Answer: Did you forget the strategies in 2047? The King should be grateful to the Nepalese people and their leaders for not throwing him out back then. "
This is absurd. This is like saying, 'we should be grateful to India for not annexing us" Somethings aren't possible and the political parties in 2047 realized this.
Try hard. Concrete answers are expected, not assumptions and imaginations. Support your claims with facts.
namaste and hope you get an A next time.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jul-03 10:11 AM
legitimate, or does it? If it has to, then the = does he? If he has to,
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 10-Jul-03 01:04 PM
the latest debate is as if one is trying to converge the two poles of earth.....sarathi ho, keep on moving the 'rath'...
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 10-Jul-03 01:23 PM
Bond, James Bond-007,
With a license to kill,
for Her Britannic
Majesty's Secret Service,
Turns out to be a die-hard republican after all these years?
It will put all previous defections and double-crossing to shame!
Irony of ironies, me says. But it would make a great Bond sequel...we could even have Nepali kanchi to be the Bond girl...any nominations?
I cast my lot for the by-now utterly famous red tank top woman from the ANA picture, the one standing next to saday's dream. The red devil has the raw appeal, body symmetry, and sheer oomph to give the Bond guy a run for his money. I think this girl leaves all other Nepali aspirants to men's fantasies in the dust...no one comes close...except of course saday's pari!!
Go Bond!
|
| rajunpl |
Posted
on 10-Jul-03 03:04 PM
If i remember corectly one of my prof. said "THE HISTORY OF MANKIND BEGIN WITH PROSTITUTION."
Using this word in political discussion doesn't mean much whatsoever.Nice to see few good discussion here.harcore republican in onehand and hardcore monarchist in otherhand both are right somehow in their kind of point of views.well, if you want to talk about the past comparing we have seen century long monarchy and GP prajantantra.
ummm.. yes, DG is better than angutha chaap mantris .But who do I believe..? republican aor the monarchist..?shree 5 ko maharaj dhiraj doesn't mean much neither makune type republicn and ultra-radicalistbadi in the other hand.well i respect the views of DG.
LIGITIMACY hmm... Are we going back to french revolution.? I don't know much history but one of my francais ami said that "If nepoleon failed to save his legitimacy will gyanendra save..? FAUX NEPOLEON" is the ordinary francais mouthpiece.
her again,
1. How can you think Republicanism will benifit Nepal?
2. Why people are reluctant to get in the republican bandwagon?
3. What are the republicans in nepal doing to promot their views/ideas?
4. Why do you think people are still supportive of the King?
and,
1. How can you think monarchy will benifit Nepal?
2. Why people are reluctant to get in the monarchial bandwagon?
3. What are the hardcore monarchist in nepal doing to promot their views/ideas?
4. Why do you think people are not supportive of the King?
let us see how it goes...
|
| singaney |
Posted
on 11-Jul-03 08:44 PM
sorry folks, totally irrelevant for this thread
BTW Rbaralji!
Are you the one who used to go to Lousiana Tech during 95/96 doing masters in Mechanical eng?
...just wondering
|
| boke |
Posted
on 12-Jul-03 12:11 AM
I am sorry, but I am not satisfied with IF's response.
2. 2. Why people are reluctant to get in the republican bandwagon?
"Answer: Why did Saddam have 99.7% vote in Iraqi election?"
Here's a counter question: Why didn't he (saddam) get 1%? Also, the comparision and analogy is wrong. We are not talking about a President who has to prove his legitimacy through polls/refarandum, we are talking about a King. The King does not need to rely on polls and other means to show that he is legitimate, or does it? If it has to, then the English are the most stupidest and undemocratic bunch.
Saddam did not that 1% because he wanted to show he allows some dissension in his country, but we know that is not true.
I say King has to rely on public opinion. No one in this modern world believes that King is the master and citizens are his slave. If he wants to stay relevant, he should keep his finger on the nation's pulse.
And who said English cannot be stupid and undemocratic? Also, there is a vast difference between their royalty and our royalty. Queen Elizabeth actually pays taxes. Prince Charles spearheads many worthwhile causes (and does not just cut ribbons), Prince William actually spent some time in Latin America cleaning toilets and helping a local community (which I am sure has taught him good work ethic and better understanding of people less privileged). And still around 40% of Britons believe their more than 1000 years old royal lineage should go away.
My basic point is this. King is a leader, maybe in an anachronistic way, but the reality in Nepal is that he has the power. So he should lead. We as citizens have the right to demand higher standard of living, better safeguard for our human rights, superior institutions in all constitutional forms. And he has to provide that. Otherwise, how is he different than any other so called Netas who are busy making big talks, amassing wealth at the cost of sweat and tears of the nation, and is ineffective in country's development?
|
| KaleKrishna |
Posted
on 12-Jul-03 12:58 AM
Is gray as mentioned by GP falls in the sustainable phasing out (or gradual reshaping) of the existing monarchial system to a republican state. Just curious and if it is so my raised hand for the idea.
What we have to understand is the geo-political situation of the country and also global happenings. Into the 21st century we find the clash of religions (christains, jews vs muslims), rest uncluded in hinduism, buddhism, jainism, skhism and others are fearing second wave of decapitation. Religion is not the question here, but culture and identity is and the century old tradition of kingship did not merely come as a relationship of master and slave. "Naya na paye Gorka janu"--must had some deep rooted meaning in it. How can we boldly say the monarch love for the nation is less than ourselves. Of course he will be part of history and partly responsible for what happens to his linege and nation in future. Let us hope by the time Hridendriya takes to the throne -he will be able to rule a prosporus Nepal. Look at Thailand and see how revered is the monarchial system there, it is because the leaders and ordinary peoples are good. In our context, (99% including myself) will not hesitste to sacrifice nations cause if it even slightly benefits self's.
Republicanism, with these unpatriotic bunch of jockers leading the nation is beyond my immagination.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 05:08 PM
GP ji,
I knew you supported the color blue. That's why I wanted to remind you that. I am proud that you were on the right side of the history then. I hope you do not have a second thought about that now.
Boke ji,
You are right to assume that I would certainly like to know what the position of Ashu
is regarding the king. And you are also right to assume that a clearance about that will help to fully understand what Ashu was trying to say.
However, I would like to let you and perhaps Ashu too to know that I have never believed that Ashu might be supporting the king, at least not like the royalists like Isolated Freak. Yes, his consistent ambiguity (as far as I know) on such a matter of burning importance is not soothing, to say the least. However, I have always given him a benefit of doubt and actually defended his position on some occasions when other good friends in Sajha have confronted him for his ambiguity directly or indirectly.
My rough understanding about Ashu and many other not-yet-the-republican friends among which are the likes of Biswo, Paschim, Poonte and VillageVoice, which is backed by their own statements now and then, is that they are PRAGMATIST rather than IDEOLOGIST. While I believe that there is a fine line between the Pragmatism and the Opportunism, I have kept my trust and respect for these gentlemen alive and will continue to do so until, God forbid, some get slipped like Dipak Gyawali !
For a practical purpose, I think, the republicans do not need to be apprehensive of the Pragmatists. The good thing about the Pragmatists is that they will be friends to the republicans WHEN the republicans will be visibly strong. They will not be so when the republicans are not yet become strong. So their position is a kind ofa barometer to measure who is prevailing. It is not my intention to be offensive, but I believe the pragmatists do not determine the course of the historical change, they merely help implement and maintain the historical decisions taken by other determining forces.
What about a superposition of duality between the pragmatism and the revolution ? I dont know. Probably such thing would exist if there is a quantum politics operating in our time. But until the USA brings back Saddam Hussain to make a leader of free Iraq, I will keep this theory on hold.
IF,
I would have been surprised if anything I said made sense to you. A guy who dismiss a history of millions of Nepali's participation in the mass movement of 50+ days in 1990 and makes a public claims repeatedly that it was rather a small agitation made by a dozen of undercover Assamese sent by India, a guy whose political mantra is no less than "shri 5 maharajdhiraj ki jai jai jai", a guy who refuses to read any dhara except dhara 127 of the constitution of Nepal and even rejects the interpretation by the overwhelming majority of the intellectuals' that the king has twisted the dhara 127, a guy who argues for the divine immunity of the monarch against any public mandate, how could you make any sense of what a republican says ?
[ By the way, I repeated these credentials of yours here to introduce you with new Sajha visitors among those 4000+ daily visitors San has reported recently. Otherwise, you are already well known among older Sajhaites !]
As you are already familiar I regard you as an intellectually dishonest man on account of how your approach of selecting favorable evidence and hiding unfavorable evidences to the political issues you argue on, let alone misrepresentation of history as I mentioned above. So I will prefer to leave you alone with your arguments to the readers rather than every time reminding you the basic principles of intellectual discussion and repeating the same job of keeping historical records straight.
Nevertheless, you have asked some valid questions regarding the republicanism. All of which can be unified into a single question- 'why republicanism for Nepal ? what's good about it ?' I was planning, anyway, to share my views on this with the readers, of course in a kachhuwa gati. So I will put my views here.
Bond-007 ji has already summarized some good points there. I will add some from my side, some of which might be elaboration of his points.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 05:17 PM
Why republicanism for Nepal ? What's good about it ?
For starters, the republicanism is a question of right, it is not a question of mere good and bad. Even if it is bad, if the people want it, they have right to have it. Because for the question of this nature, there can NOT be anybody except the people themselves to judge what is good and what is not. Bond-007's concise reply to IF, 'Are you challenging other people thinking ability?' does embody the essence of what I just said.
I can give a pretty good lecture on people's right to IF who do not seem to acknowledge these rights. However, I think that will be too basic, so unnecessary, for the majority of the readers.
I will also not waste readers' time by lecturing the same basic concept that nobody, no king, no prophet , not even the God almighty him/herself can decide what is good and what is not for the people against their mandate is the heart of the notion we call democracy.
However, I will certainly point out the justification for my respect for, what I term the Pragmatists, come from the same notion.
That said, I will now try to convince the skeptics of the republicanism that it is only the republic Nepal that will save our years and decades from being wasted in unnecessary conflict, give a chance to clean up all the garbage accumulated so far and a chance (not a guarantee, because there is no guarantee for anything in history. Whoever offers a guarantee, check out the small print conditions at the bottom of the warranty paper they provide, you will be surprised what it says !) for starting a clean and uncompromised future of the nation-building.
Before showing the logical strength of the republicanism, I would like to show you the physical strength of the republicanism. In earlier posting, my major point was that while the monarch is as powerful as before, there is an unprecedented public interest and growing tilt towards the republicanism which is as clear as bright day light, as EVIDENCED by the mood of the public demonstration against the king (No I am not talking about the leaders, they are confused at best; I am talking about the awakened lower level cadres and supporters), by the changing tone, language and openness in the criticism of the king in the mainstream media, and to some extent by the reversed attitude of the civil society towards the Maoists.
Yet, the democratic republicanism has not been a dominant political power. They have a long way to go to be a well coordinated force (I will not say an 'organized' force, see below for my explanation) with visible icons (I will not say 'leadership', see below for my explanation), to snatch the formal driving wheel of the republicanism from the Maoists and, the most important of all, to convince the majority of the people to see that the transition to the republicanism is not as drastic as we are not aware of; in fact, we have seen more drastic changes already, we have paid the price of blood and tears to the history for a full democracy already.
IF asked why [the majority of the] people are reluctant to get in the republican bandwagon ?
This is a valid question. However, there is a serious error in this question. For starters, contrary to IF's imagination, the republicanism is not a bandwagon waiting for people to ride and go. Meaning, the republicanism is not a political party. Instead, it is a national awakening.
A national awakening to see that a compromised democracy experimented TWICE did not work, that a nation in 21st century is a positive notion of having confidence in yourself (the people) rather than a negative notion of disintegration without a guardian.
And for this very reason it won't emerge as one more political party to be added to the fleet of already failed political parties.
Rather it is emerging as (a) a soul-searching by the sane element of these very failed parties, (b) enlightenment of the intellectuals who knew the flawed system but knew not what can fix it, (c) realization by the Maoists that there is no point trying to sell communism, and, the most significant of all, as (d) common peoples increased awareness of their rights.
As the republicanism is a soul-searching, an awakening, a realization and an awareness of the nation, it does not have a political leader. Each republican is a political leader. Yes, some of them may become icons like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, but it is yet to be seen.
My point of visualizing it as a 'coordinated' force rather than an 'organized' force was to emphasize its multiple origin and the non-partisan nature.
My friends, its time to dump the cliché that Nepali politics is a game of three powers- the Maoists, the king and the parliamentary parties. Now, the republicanism that transcends the multiple parties is the new emerging power.
This posting has already become too long. And I have yet to talk about the major premise- whats good about the republicanism. I am now planning to talk about it more in the next series of the postings. For now I just want to mention that I have brought up above one argument that the republicanism is going to save years and decades of the country from wasting in unnecessary conflict. Let me also add that the so called experts analysis of the Maoists problem has been like an elephant examined by blinds so far. I believe the cause of the emergence of the Maoists was our national denial about the actual power of the monarchy. Read more here:
http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=11224#29092
In the next series, I will argue that the failure of the political parties in the whole decade is not fully explicated by pure moral degradation (greed and corruption theory). It has something to do with the intricate relationship between the power and the sense of responsibility. Remember the quote from the Spiderman- 'A great power comes with a great responsibility'.
In order to understand the failed decade of Nepal, you have to converse the quotation and sleep on it-
A SUPREME POWER COMES WITH A SENSE OF SUPREME RESPONSIBILTY.
A COMPROMISED POWER COMES WITH A COMPROMISED POWER.
More next time
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 05:30 PM
Correction: the final line should read:
A COMPROMISED POWER COMES WITH A COMPROMISED RESPONSILITY.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 06:46 PM
Look Nepe,
You don't make any sense now either.
You dismiss your opponents' claims, and tend to think that its ONLY you who is RIGHT.
2. You go on to compare and liken people to this and that. In this thread, you have shown the height of immaturity by comparing Deepak Gyawali with a prostitute. Its such a shame that you are no different than a Maoists or Khagendra Shangraula, who are not very keen on hearing what other's have to say.
Look, this is how you contradicted or made a joker out of yourself in this thread:
i) You likened DG to a prostitute for accepting the minister ship, however, you spared Anuradha Koirala for doing the same. Does it make sense? No.
ii) You said, there's no or not much public debate going on in Nepal on Republicanism, but you were quick to add that, ONLY THE REPUBLICANS KNOW THE REAON. Now, what sort of argument is this?
iii) You don't know how to prove or refute your hypothesis.
3. You can't defend yourself intellectually, so what you do is, you attack your opponents personally. For example, you have more than once labeled me this and that, including an agent and have compared me to Al-Shayaf and what not. Also, I strongly object to your use of the word, intellectually dishonest. You got to prove what you say, so that you don't lower your credibility.
4. Long postings and unnecessary words do not show you are well read and you know everything. A good idea will be to get a book that teaches you how to write short and effective essays.
Anyway, get this in your head: You can't get away with your anap-sanap in this board because we are not FOOLS and we certainly don't want the Maoist-like-attitude to dominate this board. You either prove your points with evidence or accept the fact that there are MANY people who don't necessarily think the way you do, or just stop being critical of the people, just because they tend to challenge your half-baked ideology.
Having said this, I have no intention whatsoever to get in a meaningless debate with you. Also, your answers didnt make sense. You use words and lengthy sentences to cover your dim-witted arguments, and when asked to prove your arguments/claims, you divert the issue to something else and seek help of your friends, to come and rescue you& Its not only me, but others too are tired of you harping your boring tune all the time. Its time to modify the tune, if not change it so that people take you seriously.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 07:16 PM
OK, let's disect your essay:
For starters, the republicanism is a question of right, it is not a question of mere good and bad. Even if it is bad, if the people want it, they have right to have it. Because for the question of this nature, there can NOT be anybody except the people themselves to judge what is good and what is not.
This argument is flawed. Rights are either CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTED and GOOD or plain bad. Look, if we go by your logic, its like saying, I have rights to label you this and that, not because its right or wrong or good or bad, but its my right. So, you have no knowledge whatsoever of constitutional law and political science, yet you try to portray yourself as a prominent Republican philosopher.
I will also not waste readers' time by lecturing the same basic concept that nobody, no king, no prophet , not even the God almighty him/herself can decide what is good and what is not for the people against their mandate is the heart of the notion we call democracy.
Again, you are dismissing the fact that there are many Monrachical-Democracies in the world. DEmocracy does not necessarily mean REPULICANISM, or a REPUBLCIAN state. IF we go by your logic, we have to accept that North Korea which calls itself a Democratic Republic is in fact more democrating than the United Kingdom.
This is a valid question. However, there is a serious error in this question. For starters, contrary to IF's imagination, the republicanism is not a bandwagon waiting for people to ride and go. Meaning, the republicanism is not a political party. Instead, it is a national awakening.
This is funny: How can a valid question have error(s)? Its valid or invalid. There's no valid questions with errors.
Also, you are comparing your Republicanism with a nationalist movement. Its quite misleading. A nationalist/nationalism movement means that the majority of the people, inside and outside of nepal are actually rallying/uniting for the cause. This is where you have slipped miserabley: I and ashu have been asking this question to you: How can you say/prove that the majority are in favor of your Republicanism?
As the republicanism is a soul-searching, an awakening, a realization and an awareness of the nation, it does not have a political leader. Each republican is a political leader. Yes, some of them may become icons like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, but it is yet to be seen.
This is quite silly. Look, if there are no leaders, then the mob becomes unruly and that results in anarchy and chaos. Also, republicans ought to have a leader. Its not a self-driving ideology. Leaders have to prove to the people that Repulicanism works and that's what the country needs. Sun Yat Sen in China, Lenin in Russia are the examples.
My point of visualizing it as a 'coordinated' force rather than an 'organized' force was to emphasize its multiple origin and the non-partisan nature.
Look, in politics, there is organization or alliance. Its not a social charity that is a co-ordinated effort. There's no meaning for this phrase in politics. Its either you are with us and that you BLIDLY support us, or you are with our enemy and that makes you our enemy. This is it. Co-ordinated effort, wow.. sounds good, looks good in your papers, but, it does not make any sense when it comes to poracticing politics.
My friends, its time to dump the cliché that Nepali politics is a game of three powers- the Maoists, the king and the parliamentary parties. Now, the republicanism that transcends the multiple parties is the new emerging power.
Yourt ideology seems/sounds more dangerous than the Maoists one. At least the Maoists are recognizing that there are multiple forces in Nepal, and that its in their best interests to work with these forces to achieve their objectives, you are totally dismissing the fact and the reality that there exist multiple players. You are saying that you will just bypass these forces, and my question is: How?
Also, with a brilliant choice of words, you have termed some of the Sjaha friends oppurtunists, just because they don't support your half-baked ideology or they have dared to challenge you.
Namaste.
Now, people will decide who is what.
|
| KaleKrishna |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 07:39 PM
Nepejis argument on some aspect was very thought provoking, however there are others that I disagree. Regarding the mentioning of " made by a dozen of undercover Assamese sent by India, a guy whose political mantra ...". There was lot of homework done by prabashi Nepalese and with first hand experience I say without their active involvement Nepal's democracy would have gested longer. The point here is let us not undermine their contribution by giving bad name to it (it applies to all).
As the want of republicism in Nepalese mass is concerned, first they have to be prepared to chose from their hearts (unlike at present where 90% of votes are ill-influenced).
As with Nepejis last two lines, yes I cannot agree more, but with our current crop of leaders will it not be:
total power= uncontrolled opportunity to loot.
If republicism is to come in Nepal then a generation of leaders has to be developed and fresh batches on the mend. As Nepalese populace have higher tendency for frequent changes what after republicism (if democracy is being refuted for failing to deliver, then republicism-democracy or something else??), what is the possible alternatives then?
Will republicism and regional happening (prosperity of India, deterioting condition back home, instable politics, insecure country with civil war make foundation for second Sikkim).
Merely advocating something without its immediate and far reaching consequences may not contribute in bringing about a sustainable change. For every change brougth will have its effects and consequences.
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 07:57 PM
As democracy in Nepal in the past became like 'bandar ko hat ma naribal', republican state may follow same. however, to sustain any advanced political system in a country like nepal people has to be educated. reading the nepali times's recent news, as unicef head says 'let schools be free out of politics'. leading political parties seems to be grossly involved in the recent anomalies in our educational institutions, which immediately need to be stopped as a concerned citizen. hope Nepe would not disagree on this issue and would convince his fellow republican friends.....khoi afu lai je aye pani 'hatti ayo hatti ayo fussa' jasto chha...eheheh
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 08:03 PM
".. democracy in Nepal in the past became like 'bandar ko hat ma naribal', republican state may follow same. however, to sustain any advanced political system in a country like nepal people has to be educated. reading the nepali times's recent news, as unicef head says 'let schools be free out of politics'. leading political parties seems to be grossly involved in the recent anomalies in our educational institutions, which immediately need to be stopped as a concerned citizen. hope Nepe would
...
Bhunte,
You have rasied a very good point. Unless the nation achieves two goals: economic development and at least 90% literacy, too much of democracy would result in disasters. Sometimes, poor countries are better off with an authoritarian regime because the authoritarian rulers, just to prove their legitimacy, institutionalize institutions that are the backbones of any given democratic society sucha s bureaucracy, health care, education, economy etc. So, I am of the belief that when you have all the infra structure ready for democracy, then only you should democratize. It works better that way.
la ta pachi lekhula hai.. haat dukhyo..
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 13-Jul-03 08:05 PM
just to prove their legitimacy, institutionalize institutions that are the backbones of any given democratic = Missing "they".. so read the line as .. they, just to prove their legitimacy,..
|
| noname |
Posted
on 14-Jul-03 06:00 AM
Monarchism in any of the form either absolute or constitutional - is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for prosperity of a country, and neither is Republicanism. But one thing is for sure, so far in the process of evolution of nation-state, numbers of republican states are ever growing.
That said, where does Nepal lie in this debate? Let me try to be more specific to Nepal. The monarch draws power in Nepal from four sources: Legacy, Religion, Military and a fourth factor.
1. The legacy that Prithvi N. Shah unified Nepal and present king is descendants from the same hereditary line is one determining factor in installing power in the king. The unifying role, if any, of the king also emanates from this factor. The powerful voice being raised by some quarters particularly by an increasing number of radical communists - against the current king has served in deteriorating, if any, this legacy factor.
2. Religion: The king is considered to be incarnation of Bishnu. There is growing discontent about Nepal being Hindu Kingdom. (I want to make a note here that Mainstream media has something little different to say. Take Kantipur for example which has recently published two columns under established by lines. Both of them, in a sense, question about correctness of this issue currently being raised by Five political parties.) The jury is still out, but along with first factor i.e. legacy, this factor has only transitory value and fade with time. The more conscious people become, these factors bear little or no resonance.
3. Military power: Although Maoists successfully dismantled the buffer zone provided by political parties to negate any voice raising against the king, they have not been able so far to drive a wedge between the Monarch and the military. The king is in position to hold absolute authority, if desired, by using this force.
4. The fourth factor: This is most elusive factor, but has very large bearing in Nepali society. Give whatever name you want to this factor. We have more faith in a stone placed mysteriously in the dark than in a standing god in front of us. Tens of thousands of people flood the streets to have a look at Baburam Bhattarai. Another tens of thousands gathers to have a glimpse of the King. I can not give a name to this factor, but this I exemplify as believing in a magic stick. People forgot 30 years of the King's direct rule and had very positive feeling when he took executive power in him. Now, the polls show that Babu Ram Bhattarai should be the prime minister to rescue the country. After few years we search for another mystique figure. In short we look for magic stick, which is impossible to get, to solve what requires an articulated, continuous and unique to the ground reality (based on realpolitik) effort. Although evaporative (when comes in touch with the public), this factor also counts.
In the whole history of monarchism in Nepal, only two kings Prithvi Narayan Shah and Mahendra - in the past have demonstrated strong personal leadership capacity. Rest of the time, the military power was either with Bhai-Bhardars (Bahadur Shah, Bhimsen Thapa) or Ranas. Although King Birendra too enjoyed great deal of unanimous role except in the last 10 years with multi-party democracy, the friction inside the palace had undermined his role. But during the whole history of modern Nepal (after PN SHAH) including last 12 years of democracy, the military had never been disloyal to the King.
So, what cost are we ready to bear to have a republican country? And, Is the cost worth paying? Has the countries that have adopted republicanism in modern era (after second world war) have stable politics now? How long can we wage a war? 7,000 lives and 7 years of fighting already has buckled the country to the knees.
|
| Bond-007 |
Posted
on 16-Jul-03 08:04 AM
IF Ji,
----------Here's a counter question: Why didn't he (Saddam) get 1%? Also, the comparison and analogy is wrong. We are not talking about a President who has to prove his legitimacy through polls/referendum, we are talking about a King. The King does not need to rely on polls and other means to show that he is legitimate, or does it? If it has to, then the English are the most stupidest and undemocratic bunch------
I call it a slave mentality. Even Lord Ram was subject to scrutiny by his subjects, and here we are talking about just an accidental king and an institution whose relevancy is constantly being questioned. However, I totally understand the feelings of those who are riding monarchy bandwagon due to their unfulfilled desire for *katto*. I dont blame thee who sit under a fruit tree, because he is smarter than me.
I never said English are the most stupid and undemocratic bunch, but looking around all I am trying to say is that Americans are most brilliant and democratic bunch because they did away with this system some 227 years ago.
I hope you'll change your view regarding the Monarchy after you visit PR China (unless this is also paid for by GBBSs), if not I will be the first person to condole your loved ones if you ever come under the vehicle driven by a drunken prince, or between bullets fired by the drunken prince for the king.
I am just a commoner who feel sad when my one brother kills my other brother to defend him who is dividing them and when my child is forced to sleep hungry because there is not enough left after feeding him who is already full.
Thanks for your F grade anyway, because getting an F from a bias professor is better than getting an A+ for an unbiased one.
Jai Democratic Republic of Nepal!!
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 16-Jul-03 09:31 AM
Bond 007,
Look, Let's not ridicule each other's belief. There's no way I will think like you or vice versa. However, we can persuade each other to think from a different angle and challege our thinking, and this is waht the Sajha board is all about.
Having said this, you failed to impress me with your PERSONAL replies to my honest questions and reasonings. Look, the problem with you and Nepe and other republicans in this board is, you guys simply don't know how to debate, or how to initiate a healthy discussion and how to make people sympathetic to your cause, if not persuade them to think the way you guys do.
Look, we are not interested in phiolosophical reasonings behind republicanism in Nepal. If it were good and read-worthy, we would have tolerated it, but useless, logicless reasonings don't appeal to us, at least to me.
Now, getting to this thread:
I asked simple PRACTICAL questions, whose honest answers would have made me probably at least think for a while, however, you guys failed miserabely. Instead of coming with good thought-provoking answers and counter-questions, you and Nepe came up with what I found childish and immature comparisons, PERSONAL hatred and you know the rest.
So, is it worthwhile to even read what you and your comrade write? No. The reasonings don't make any sense, the arguments are flawed and there's no clear-cut strategy. Now, you tell me, why would I spoend my time reading your nonsenscial PERSONAL remarks and assumptions? Its not my fault. Its your fault, because you have failed, that too miserabely, to persuade me or even make me seriously think about your philosophy.
|
| Bond-007 |
Posted
on 16-Jul-03 10:06 AM
If ji,
-----------Its not my fault. Its your fault, because you have failed, that too miserabely, to persuade me or even make me seriously think about your philosophy--------------
Reminds be of "Gyan Baje" (our Nepali teacher) he used to say *najanne lai po sikauna sakincha...... jani jani buchpachaune lai ke sikaune*. Any way, with due respect I propose a truce for the shake of healthy debate in this forum.
Happy posting!!
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 16-Jul-03 10:13 AM
Look Bond 007,
The thread is not about Monarchy, the thread picked up because people were curious about Republicanism and how it is going to benifit Nepal. We wanted to hear your arguments, not your silly reasons and absurd analogies.
Again, I am asking the same things:
How can you prove that Republicanism will work in Nepal?
What will be the governing philosphy?
What will be the political structure like?
look, we want answers on practical issues, not on philophical issues, and looking at your repsonses, I know, i won't be getting PRACTICAL answers, so.,. let's not waste each otehr's time.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 16-Jul-03 10:15 AM
And before I forget, my nepali teaher would always say:
Murkha Sita Daiva Darauchan
|
| Bond-007 |
Posted
on 16-Jul-03 10:19 AM
IF Ji,
---Murkha Sita Daiva Darauchan----
That's why I am scared with you!
Thanks,
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 16-Jul-03 10:24 AM
then stray away, i am not inviting someone that i want to stay away from to be with me, am i?
|
| Bond-007 |
Posted
on 16-Jul-03 10:39 AM
A while ago I wrote:
----------Any way, with due respect I propose a truce for the shake of healthy debate in this forum-----------------
I love this forum and visiting this site is a basic necessity for me, so I can't promise staying away from you (let me confess, I still enjoying reading your post in other subject matters), but let's close this matter and move on! Thanks for your understanding and looking forward to meet you in other threads!
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 19-Jul-03 09:57 PM
IF,
I am sorry I did not find anything worth divulging in your latest postings. You sound quite upset and saying the same thing over over again plus some jathabhabi to me which was expected because I was brutal to you when I exposed your credentials aiming to let newcomers to know them. I am sorry I can not help here. A man got to tell what a man got to tell.
In any case, I am not interested in spending time defending anything related to Nepe's personality because this is an open book in Sajha. Everybody is free to judge him. I am not worried about that.
In this thread I would like to talk only about the republicanism. However, I am not going to spend time refuting your childish reasoning like, 'look the UK is a monarchy, why can't we be ?'.
Because logically such reason is as meaningless, or strong if you insist, as saying, 'look India is a republic, why can't we be one ?'
However, I will certainly point out how absurd your reason becomes when one tries to corroborate it with what you (and Shuva Chintak, because he has been sponsoring this reason in some other threads too) actually want to back up with. You, directly, and Shuva Chintak, by implying, want an ACTIVE MONARCHY in Nepal. And you want to justify it with the RUBBER STAMP MONARCHY of the UK ! Do I need to say more ?
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 19-Jul-03 10:04 PM
Kalekrishna ji,
Thank you for your kind word and a very important question you raised-'do we have able leaders to run the republicanism ?
First, let me clarify about that remark on 'Assamese'. It was not my remark. I was referring to what IF has been telling in this forum to belittle and dismiss the Jana Andolan 1990. I certainly welcome, acknowledge and appreciate the contribution made by NR Nepalese as well as democracies all over the world to overpower the autocratic monarchy in 1990.
Now to your question. While I acknowledge that this is a valid question and, more importantly, believe that the success of the republicanism andolan will heavily depend on the satisfying answer to this question, allow me to point to a faulty notion on which this question is standing.
This question assumes, as far as I can see, democracy as some job that requires PRE-TRAINED leaders and the people. Let me add that I have been amused to see that a large number of sajhaites subscribe to this notion and, therefore, have skepticism about the republicanism in Nepal.
My answer is- A real democracy (what we have in Nepal is a semi-democracy!) does not require PRE-TRAINED leaders and the people. Democracy itself is a training as well as a job.
Democracy is like a swimming, you have to be in the water to learn it and do it.
Now, what about the hopeless leaders that our decade long experiment with 'democracy' produced ? Does it not have any bearing with what we can expect in the republicanism ?
No, not much. First of all, let's keep in mind that our current 'democracy' is a corrupted version of democracy. It's basis is the national denial about the actual power of the monarchy. Let me add a remark which I will shortly elaborate in my reply to Noname ji, that Noname ji has elaborated excellently the actual power of the monarchy in his brilliant posting.
So these UNSPOKEN power of the monarchy has actually neutralized the potency of democracy in Nepal. A superficial observation is of not much help, but if one does a deep analysis, he/she will be able to see that the current crop of IMPOTENT leaders is the end result of the IMPOTENCY of the 'democracy' caused by the UNSPOKEN power of the monarchy.
It could also be of a general interest to Sajhaites that many Sajha hastis view this UNSPOKEN power of the monarchy as a LEGITIMACY of the Monarchy in our democracy rather than seeing how it has undermined the democracy itself.
Our current crop of the leaders are khattam, they horribly lack the sense of responsibility, accountability and integrity. But the question is why ? Why are they what they are ? What is the reason of their moral degradation among other things ?
Is it because of some weird coincidence that all of them happened to have the same karma written by bhawi on their chhaithi or determined by the movement of the graha naxetra ? (Trikal ji, could you find janma kundali of our neta haru and find out what they are fated to do ?)
Or it has earthly environment of Nepal's polity responsible for it ?
As I said before, I assert that an in-depth analysis will show that our impotent leaders are the end product of the impotent political system.
In several threads in the past when I had discussion on this subject with Biswo ji and Paschim, I have maintained this position. While they along with other hastis like Village Voice and Arnico were of the opinion that we have a sufficiently good system, so the blame for the failure goes to the leaders, not the system.
What is lacked here is, may I dare say, a scientific approach to analyze the human behaviors. Our friends want to treat the spoilt leaders like an ignorant father will beat his spoilt son. It's time to be an educated father, understand what led the kid to be so and apply psychologically sensible remedies to help him become a reasonable kid.
I would like to quote an analogy I gave to Paschim to explain why the current monarchy wont allow good leaders to emerge:
"& we ALREADY tried that [making parliamentary force stronger over time using the existing constitutional means]. For more than a decade. It did not work. It failed. The king became progressively stronger and we (parties) became corrupt. Our parties became corrupt for the very similar reason a potentially good man goes to prostitutes after his beloved wife is lured and taken away by a filthy rich man. Let's give the man his wife and her love. And see how he emerge as a good man we can be proud of. Let's learn from 12 wasted years of our beloved country."
I would admit here that the operational mechanism of the monarchy in inhibiting a good public leadership to emerge is subtler than an abduction of other's wife can depict. However, the overall scenario is the same.
In view of Noname ji's elaborate examination of the total power of the monarchy, which I had tried to capture by the term para-constitutional power in my earlier postings, and to acknowledge how the majority of our leaders should have consciously or sub-consciously accepted that as a legitimate position of the monarchy, I would revise the analogy for the relationship between the monarchy and the political leaders as follows,
We could only have dwarf leaders all these years of the compromised democracy for the same reason crops would not grow well under the shade of a big tree.
It is not that the quality pool of we Nepali is shallow. Have you not seen any Nepali doing best in what they are doing ? Have you not seen any Nepali who can be potentially a good leader. Forgive my optimism, but I have seen even in Sajha some good people who can be amazingly good leaders provided they are given a good system to work in.
I have brought up BBC ko Rabindra Mishra's old appeal many times- Pratyosh Onta haru le rajniti kina nagarne ?
The answer is simple. In order not to be tainted in history as serving the royal family and pretending they are serving the people.
In order not to be another Dipak Gyawali, to be fair to the origin of this thread.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 19-Jul-03 10:09 PM
Noname ji,
Good analysis. You have said it all. There is not much to add. All those four fronts- legacy, religion, the loyalty of the army and the culture of Hero worshipping (?) are the sources of the power of the monarchy. One can add one more or two. For example, I also dont have a name for it. But a fraction of well educated and liberal minded Nepali who support the monarchy for the fear of the possible cost is also a source of the power of the monarchy. I have often ridiculed them by calling them self-defeated and dreamless Nepalis.
I have only one thing to say to them. First, DARE TO DREAM. Then let's talk about the cost.
As you have pointed out in your own way, these legitimacies or the sources of power of the monarchy, except for the loyalty of the army, were good until they were questioned/confronted. However, the later is happening day by day, thus weakening the strength of the monarchy.
Legacy alone is not going to save the monarchy. The Rana Shasan had a legacy of 104 years ! No Nepali gave them a rat's end in 2007 saal. (It is a different story what the royal family did and has been doing till to date to them !).
Religious legitimacy, as you pointed out, is fading with time. I will also add that the monarch is trying to do everything to take advantage of the Hindu fanaticism in India. But it is going to be early suicide if the monarchy openly identifies with it.
As Neta ji has discussed in length in other threads every class except high caste Hindu Nepali has score to make with the state of Nepal which represented the later group only.
(I would like to comment on that separately. I will basically argue that it is only the uncompromisedness of the republicanism that will be able to deal with the matters like equality and social justice, and, on contrary to the claims of the monarchists, if we continue with the monarchy, Nepal is doomed to be a failed state, in which case, people will not mind to integrate with India !)
Now the army. Yes, it is fiercely loyal to the palace. It does not care about the democracy. There is no question about it. So the question is, what will it do, if, God forbid, Gyanedra decided to use it to save his throne ? Will it go and kill 20, 000 Nepali people as one Sajhaites said once ?
I don't have the answer. May be Yes, may be No.
But I am certain, they cant do what they did to the Maoists.
With the Maoists, somehow, they had a legitimacy kill them. The Maoists were fighting technically for the communism and the large parties NC and UML had endorsed to mobilize the army to kill the Maoists, primarily to save their democracy.
Although it was the monarchy they were actually saving, the fact that it was portrayed as a mission to save the democracy has an important implication. It has established a norm that the state of Nepal can not launch a war against the civilians PRIMARILY to defend the monarchy. If any, it can only get a benefit of other wars important to the state, like one for defending the democracy (from communists), defending the sovereignty (from foreign states) or defending the integrity (from separatists).
Is the monarch capable of taking over the sovereign power and twist this norm and stage a war against democratic republican civilians ?
Yes, he is.
But the legitimacy of such war ?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to guess it.
If against all odds, such thing happened, it will not be long before a rift will appear within the royal army.
Once again, a glimpse of the dichotomy of ethnical and class composition in the royal army along high officers and the foot soldiers levels will be sufficient to know why.
Add to that how much support NC and UML may give to the monarch to kill the civilians who are not fighting to weaken them but rather to bring a full democracy.
So, while it is true nothing comes without a price, I still think many Napalis are overestimating the cost of establishing the republic of Nepal. And more importantly they are overlooking the cost of keeping the monarchy against popular voice against it. Its gonna cost our country, which I want to discuss next in this or other threads.
Before ending this posting, I would like to ask a moral question to those who support the monarchy for the fear of the cost of lives and other things. What will you be thinking when, God forbid, Gyanendra orders his soldier to shoot a non-Maoist Nepali to save his throne ?
Believe me, if I have any chance, I am ready to be that first Nepali.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 19-Jul-03 10:41 PM
Nepe,
As always and as expected, you make no sense whatsoever this time either. PERIOD.
Defend your claims. Do not divert the issues. Defend the earlier claims you made, then we will take it from there, huncha?
|
| KaleKrishna |
Posted
on 20-Jul-03 12:45 AM
Nepeji, Bond ji, IFji, thanks for enlightning my degenarating brain.
I appreciate the high level of discussion, and I only wish my leaders back home had the same. However, don't you guys think that what we are advocating may not actually be the solution. There may be a better way out; that includes the gray zone, where educated and commited leaders (statesman) can slowly and gradually use their influence to push monarchy to oblivion of nations administration. Keep them as symbolic head of state and as a patron of the nation.
One thing what we have to consider is Nepali populace tendency for frequent change and the vested interest of neighbours. Any hasty decision without sufficient evaluation of pros and cons may led to the state of no return. Hence, personally I think the seed has to be sown and nurtured with the resources of awareness and once majority of pupolace is able to decide their future (without gun, muscle, money), then make the final sweep if that is what is in the best interest of the nation.
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 20-Jul-03 12:57 AM
I am with Kalekrishna's version "...... where educated and commited leaders (statesman) can slowly and gradually use their influence to push......"
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 20-Jul-03 01:05 AM
yo FHGD thread ta IF ra Nepe ko Martin Chautari jastai nai bhayo. ani yo IF path ra Nepe path ta jhan "iitta ke jabaf patthar se dega" jasto bhayo....Keep it vibrant......
|
