| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Paschim | Posted
on 08-May-03 01:34 AM
On Privy Purse by Paschim. Case I Post-2000 Nepal has been so eventful with high-voltage jaatras that no news surprises me anymore. But this seemingly minor and easily ignorable news in Nepalnews.com of 6 May was different. The news was: "Raja of Jajarkot Capt. Prakash Bikram Shah died Monday&he flew with the Royal Nepal Airlines and was chief of the Royal Flight&the Raja of Jajarkot along with the Rajas of Mustang, Bhajang and Salyan receive privy purses." May the soul of Captain Shah rest in peace. But it is ridiculous that in today's Nepal, there still are these petty 'kings" who receive privy purses (personal maintenance allowances) from the national exchequer for being, well, a feudal remnant in far flung districts where they don't live permanently (and where the human development achievements are almost medieval). The amount given to these "chhote" rajas must be modest, especially compared to the vulgar chunk that goes to Narayanhiti. But that's less of a point. It's the symbolism in a struggling democracy. The State should not be conferring legitimacy on the idea and person of feudalism -- the insignificant samanti remnants from history. Parliaments can pass laws on non-discriminatory social security (briddha or widow allowances), and pay and perks to the one king we have, and other elected or duly nominated bearers of public office in constitutional bodies, but the idea of formal privy purse to private citizens on the basis of their last name and past title is farcical. I believe, they are not even constitutionally recognized. If the legal basis of this practice is some antiquated law on raja-rajauta from the dead Panchayat, it must be scrapped. If these men own cultural resources, preservation of which is important for the nation's arts, then a grant can be issued with funds to the DDC where the treasure lies, or through a national heritage trust, and the accounts can be checked later by the Auditor General. This might be the case in Mustang, for instance. There are many discretionary funds (at the PMO, or Griha, or Rajdurbar) that are used/abused big time. And we all know about corruption at high places. But there are institutions responsible for fixing these -- and although operationally awry, the 'principle' of limited discretion to bearers of sensitive portfolio is acceptable in statecraft. But this custom is way out of line -- one of regular handout for personal expenses to the defunct rajas is just wrong head to tail. I hope this issue is inducted in at least one of the 40-point, 75-point, 24-point, and 35-point demands floating in the rajdhaani! Case II I think the idea of the privy purse entered Nepal from India, where in 1947, Sardar Ballavbhai Patel (The "Bismarck" of India) annexed some 560 petty princes and their kingdoms into the Union. The royals were stripped of power, and portions of property, as the "Republic" consolidated its grip. In return, Nehru agreed to give these Rajas the privilege of a Privy Purse, and even put the privilege in the Constitution. But came along Mrs. Gandhi in 1972, Nehru's daughter, when she abolished the Privy Purse in one clean stroke. Case III Bolsheviks had a series of bloody parties in 1918, the most infamous of which was the lining up of the Russian royal family of Tsar Nicholas II at a basement of a house in the Urals. Seven Romanovs and four of their staff were shot. The order apparently was to shoot them gently by aiming at their hearts. But it ended up being a messy massacre because the bullets started bouncing from the bodies of royal women. They apparently had hidden some of their Privy Purse -- eighteen pounds of diamonds -- inside their bra and other inner garments. Remarks welcome here, and at kautilya100@yahoo.com |
| noname | Posted
on 08-May-03 02:01 AM
Hello Hello....Ke ho yasto aandhi tufan jasto....!! Appeared mildly in two threads (in national flag, i was expecting you...in fact i was thinking to post something about national anthem to bring you back in the forum :)...), and came as torando here...:). That aside, I used to think that too keep the title Shree 5 meaningful, we have 4 raja - rajautas in Nepal. One being, as you mentioned, late Prakash Bikram Shah, and rest of the three are: Binod Bikaram Shah(Bajhange), Jigme (Mustange), late Gopendra Bahadur Singh (who was a photographer in GP Sansthan and died 5 years back). The Rajya-Rajauta ain was brought in place just to legitimize the tradition that has been there from long, I think. As you mentioned that sum must be modest (i am lazy to check it in red-book), and if we agree that we have to have Shree 5, is it not necessary to have the 4 kings? |
| Paschim | Posted
on 08-May-03 04:27 AM
Noname, Nepal jaanu aghi kasrat gareko ni. Ugra-baam ra Ugra-dakshin ko jagjagi bhayeko bela ma yo dukhi Paschim ko ke haal hola, bhannus ta? Anyway, I was told, and I don't know if I am right (readers, please correct me), the royal priest, bada-guru-jyu, is informally a Shree 6. Aba tapain ko logic anusaar, kun 5 wota bahun khojna kata jaane? :) |
| ??! | Posted
on 08-May-03 07:15 AM
Hami ta Pujya Shree 6 Pitaji bhanera lekhtheu.. Pitaji lai raja bhanda pani mathi garera... |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-May-03 10:04 AM
Ho, pahila pahila bada gurujyu lai shri 6 bhanninthyo.. ra guruju ko paltaan bhanera dharmik karya ma sainik sahabhagita banuna euta kampu (battallion) kholiyeko kura itihas ma cha.. ra pahila pahila guruju ko paltan ko head bada guruju hunthe. tara ahile sahhi nepali jungi adda le gurujuo paltan ko byabasthapan garcha. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 08-May-03 10:17 AM
Paschim, Welcome back. These 'Chhote Rajas' remind me some Hindi movies and their Thakur Sahibs. Privy Purse in India was established out of the need to avoid civil war type situation, as the Maharajahs in princely states still had some power, local police force, and had they chosen to fight, republic of India could have faced hard time in its childhood. Once the statecraft was firmly in place, Indira Gandhi did what was probably the most sensible thing to do. About Sri things, I read in some holy scripture about its uses long ago. From my weakening memory, I would like to write the tradition of using number of sri: Sri: For general people Sri 2:Espouse (Wife)? Sri 3: For ministers.Friends Sri 4: Thiefs/Evils Sri 5: Kings Sri 6: Pundits.Gurus. Sri 108: Mathadhis, some big time pandits. Sri 1008: Shankaracharya.The biggest living authority of Hinduism. Or something like that. I may be wrong in some of the uses, but the system is definitely somthing like the one I mentioned here. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 08-May-03 06:44 PM
Very informative. Thanks all. Biswo, your list looks convincing in a Hindu way, tara tyo Shree 4 kahan bata ghusyo? Dushta haru lai ta (minus) Shree 4 po ho ki?! |