| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| U_2 | Posted
on 13-May-03 06:29 PM
Reading Biswo and Nepe's arguments here, I am getting now more and more convinced that Nepal needs no monarchy. How do you feel? I hope there are many others here, whose views on monarchy are beginning to change. IF's arguments in support of monarchy make interesting readings to some extent, but we are not fools. |
| dire_omen | Posted
on 13-May-03 07:14 PM
I heard this famous quote somewhere, I am not sure where: "...democracy works the best if all the people are educated..." Nepal has 50% literacy...so DEMOCRACY, at this stage, SHOULD be a dream ONLY-- nothing else! I would HATE to see Girija Babu or some other twirps running for president! Dire Omen |
| Nepe | Posted
on 13-May-03 09:32 PM
U_2 ji, I am both delighted and damn nervous to see my name in the thread title. I gather you started this thread to kind of extend the Koirala Interview thread. Since that thread is going well and that minor little personal scuffle among major posters has subsided, I am not sure if a new thread will do justice to that hot thread. (However, it is quite tempting to see ones name in the title- kinda star status ! Hehehe !) So, I decided to post my possible reply (to that old thread) and other things in this thread. (Nepe le pani stardom ko lobh garyo bhanera khisi nagarnu hai ?) Before getting into the boring subject of the monarchy (Hya katti tyahi kura !), I want to talk about quite an interesting breed of political observers in Sajha. It is very likely I will be accused of bashing a person/s. My reply is No, I am not bashing real persons. I am bashing ideas and thought system that are wrong. I will prove that by presenting both my agreements and disagreements, admire and scorn. With this brief bhoomika, let me pronounce the name/s. Isolated Freak. IF characteristically interpret things to arrive at surprising conclusions. It is hard not to be in awe with his unique, offbeat and novel interpretation and conclusions. He brings facts and news nobody ever heard or dreamt. His devotion to the cause and persons he believes in is rock solid. With the confidence and unfalteredness he says, There wasnt any peoples movement in 2046. It was a small agitation participated by a dozen of Nepali looking Indians. Panchayat was the best. Asoj 18 ko royal take over is constitutional. Maoists are losing the war Maoists came to accept the monarchy Girija bahulayo. Gyanendra Sarkar is about to take a big step, bigger than 17 saal Shree 5 Maharajdhiraj sarkar ko jai jai jai I see in IS a Nepali Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (Saddams information minister). Sahaf was visibly alone on Iraqi TV. But in Sajha, IF has multiple number of his religious followers. Their job is to say, well said IF ji;, couldnt agree more, you are my hero, Shree 5 Maharajdhiraj ko jai jai jai (to be contd, later) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 12:23 AM
Nepe, Don't asume that "if i haven't read it/heard it, then its wrong". Free yourself of this attitude. For the most part, I support my big statements with credible evidence. The 2046 andolan can be best understood in the context of Indian Embargo and other things such as Birendra Sarkar's flat out refusal to go with the proposal put forth by the Indian Governmnet, by SK Singh, to be precise. Other points are a matter of belief. Just as you are rock solid in your anti-monarchy and pro-maoist views, I am on mine. Anything wrong with it? As far as I am concerned, I don't think its wrong. I have my rights to express my views, just as you haev your rights to compare me to the Iraqi minister for information. Going by the same language and same tone, let me compare you with Pol Pot, the (in)famous Maoist leader of Cambodia because you don't want your views and points contradicted. And you call yourself a democrat. Ah! but the sad thing is, Pol Pot had a number of folowers, you don't seem to have any. And my friend, in democracy, he is a leader who has followers, not the one who is without any follower and didn't you just say, i happen to have a number of followers? Now, having known you for quite a while now, you'll go on labeling me agent and what not, and you know what, I will be enjoying those. Go ahead, make my day! namaste Shri Panch Maharajadhiraj Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev Sarkar ko Jai Jai Jai. |
| mirador | Posted
on 14-May-03 12:53 AM
A more appropriate comparison would be between Pol Pot and the last three Shri Panch Maharajadhiraj's we have had (before that the Sri 3s got all the Jai Jai from your likes). They all believed in autocratic rule, and murdered people in hordes. Unfortunately, nobody really knows how many pro-democracy Nepalis were killed betweeen the three Nepali Maharajas. There is an obvious reason for this. But there will come a time when people will look at what these Maharajas did with the country and gasp with disbelief and contempt. It is non credible to call the 2046 revolution anything other than that. The king then was faced with either compromising with the movement or being discredited internationally and eventually ousted. Anyone who was old enough to understand what was going on in Nepal then understands this and anyone who denies that there was a popular uprising in Nepal thirteen years ago against the king is either a lier or a person who had lost touch with reality or both. |
| tick | Posted
on 14-May-03 10:07 AM
Nepe, > .. that minor little personal scuffle among major posters has subsided.. In your statement you have proved that you are not more than a bully. I have to admit you write well and have strong beliefs that is not a justification to undermine someone that is trying to make his views clear. Don't get me wrong, I usually like to sidestep from the discussion to enjoy it rather than get engulfed in it. I have a life outside sajha. At least I try. That is my preference. How dare you call me little personal. Who the heck you think you are, mother teressa?? |
| sparsha | Posted
on 14-May-03 10:21 AM
Tick ji, Relax. I think Nepe ji is not calling you little personal. I would say he is using the adjective "little" for scuffle and he seems to suggest that little scuffle was personal. This is what I understood. We all are equal-Nepalis. If Nepeji had called you "little personal" I also would have stood with you to protest, tick ji. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 11:07 AM
tick, you'll learn to deal with nepe and his "sweet" accusations soon. just hang in here and you'll learn the rules of this hi-fi discussion game. the trend is: 1. Clique formation. One member of the clique writes something and everyone belonging to that clique goes wah wah wah, regardless of the content/idea/argument. 2. If somebody challenges those ideas/concepts then the whole clique takes it as an assault on their dignity and qualification and education and indulge in synchronize attacking against whoever dared to question it's member/comrade. 3. If the outsider still keeps on challenging, then they resort to name calling. some popular are: agent, oppurtunist, ulktra-rightist, undemocratic and idiot. 5. Then one on one. 4. Then the end of the discussion. next thread, same story. If you write well, and know some heavy duty words, it can be used as an intimidating mechanism. Oh boy, i get scared of al those heavy duty words whose meanings I don't know.. anwyay, today 7 members of the UML central committee left their party saying that they don't think the UML is able to come up with any agragami solution to nation's problems. |
| tick | Posted
on 14-May-03 12:43 PM
Sparsha tatha IF jyu, Thank you for the information. I admit I took the meaning differently. I am a little bit intimidated by the name-calling. I love intellectual discussion when people respect each other. If there is no respect the discussion becomes gali galoch and no one is listening to one another rather they are hearing themselves talk. This is what I see in sajha at times. However I also find that reasoning only goes so far, then people have to use their intellect to make a decision either to accept the idea or not to. If someone is convinced that only a person/party can save the nation, then it is the end of discussion. Even Pashupatinath cannot save Nepal if that belief prevails. On the other note, Sparsha ji I really liked your last posting in the other thread. It represents my view as well. I wanted to write but I refrained myself from endorsing what you had written. I am a Nepali citizen away from home like most of us and would like to return to Nepal never to come back, unlike most of us; if it works out. I am always worried about the insecurity that has plagued the country for the last seven years. All I want to see is peace and shanti sureksha. I strongly oppose the multi-party unrest that is happening now at the stake of security. This cannot be compromised. Let us see where future takes us and I would hate to see corruption and insecurity taking over the future of Nepal. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 14-May-03 02:34 PM
U_2, I thank you for your note. Give credit to Gyanendra, whom I used to support, but now oppose vehemently. With the king like him, who needs Maoists to ask for republican state? Nepal will survive without these Shahs and their arrogant, greedy clans clinging to power sickeningly. Our basis of unity will be tolerance of each other, respect of all castes/religions/community, and a vibrant democratic system where people will elect whoever they want to rule them. A clique of Shahs, a cabal of Ranas running RNA with infinitely long skein of nepotism as a basis of recruitment, a capricious prince and his distasteful day to day conduct, a corrupt statecraft nurtured primarily by some self-aggrandizing kings like Mahendra are not going to make Nepal prosperous and united.Their mere presence at the power center of Nepal is a shame to all educated Nepalese worldwide.They are the ugly blemishes of our nation, and we can get rid of them only by obliterating them. |
| taha cha | Posted
on 14-May-03 03:36 PM
We come here to the formal aspect of the State -- the question of monarchy versus republic -- which is mostly discussed from a highly emotional rather than a rational point of view. The debate proceeds by arguments ad hominem. A few undignified occupants of royal thrones are enumerated, and are then presented as examples of monarchy as such. The defenders of monarchy are no better. They point to corrupt professional politicians, of whom there exist a sufficient number, and claim that this is the necessary consequence of a republican constitution. Neither is a rational argument. There have been good and bad monarchies -- good republics (like Switzerland), and others which are far from living up to the same standard. Every human institution, after all, has its good and bad sides. As long as this world is inhabited by men and not angels, crimes and mistakes will continue to occur... Republicans are fond of claiming that a monarchical regime means the rule of the aristocracy. Monarchists, on the other hand, point to the economic difficulties, the tax burdens, and State interference in private life in present-day republics, and compare this state of affairs with the freedom and economic well-being under the pre-1914 monarchies. Both arguments are unconvincing. They use the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Anyone who is honest will compare present-day monarchies with present-day republics. It will then be apparent that the aristocracy of birth occupies no greater share of leading positions in monarchies than in republics, and that all states, whatever their form of government, are equally affected by the serious problems of the present day. Republicans frequently claim, in addition, that monarchy is a form of government belonging to the past, while republicanism is that of the future. Even a slight knowledge of history is enough to disprove this. Both forms have been in existence since the earliest times (though the monarchical periods have usually lasted considerably longer than the republican ones). In any case, it is misleading to call an institution which we already find in ancient Greece, Rome and Carthage, the form of government of the future. In any objective discussion, we must also assign this question its proper place in our hierarchy of values. It is not an accident that we speak of the "form" of government. There is a great difference between the "form" and the "content" -- or purpose -- of the State. The latter is its essential raison d'etre, its very soul. The former corresponds to the bodily form of a living being. The one can certainly not exist without the other; but in any sane hierarchy of values the soul occupies a higher place than the body. The essential purpose of the State, its "content," is rooted in natural law. The State is not an end in itself; it exists for the sake of its citizens. It is therefore not the source of all law (a claim that is still far too widely accepted), nor is it all-powerful. Its authority is circumscribed by the rights of its citizens. It is only free to act in those fields that are outside their free initiative. The State is therefore at all times the servant of natural law. Its task is to give practical effect to this law; nothing more. If the mission of the State is the practical realization of natural law, the form of government is a means by which the community attempts to achieve this aim. It is not an end in itself. This explains the relatively subordinate importance of this whole question. Undoubtedly a great deal of importance attaches to the choice of the right means, since this choice will determine whether or not the end is attained. But what is lasting in political life is only natural law. The attempt to realize this law in practice will always have to take account of current conditions. To speak of an eternally valid form of government, right under all circumstances, shows ignorance and presumption. |
| taha cha | Posted
on 14-May-03 03:50 PM
to be continued.. |
| mirador | Posted
on 14-May-03 04:09 PM
Mr. Taha Chha, Posting articles off the internet as your own is stupid. If you have no input of your own either i) shut up or ii) post the link. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6708/whysuperior.htm Monarchy vs. Republic - By Otto von Habsburg Amen. |
| Taha Cha | Posted
on 14-May-03 04:31 PM
Chill bro... Found it interesting like to share. |
| Arnico | Posted
on 14-May-03 07:19 PM
I second Mirador here. Posting someone else's work without proper credit is UNACCEPTABLE, including here in the sajha community. Meanwhile, I will join the discussion in a little while... was traveling and have a backlog of reading to do... |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 07:54 PM
arnico, back in KTM? We can continue with this discussion outside of Sajha too, hoina ta? Still waiting for Nepe's 2nd part. Oh boy! i am dying to read it. Thaha Cha, plagarism shouldn't be encouraged and I thank all the fellow posters who were quick in their anti-plagarism comments. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 14-May-03 08:54 PM
>anwyay, today 7 members of the UML >central committee left their party saying >that they don't think the UML is able to >come up with any agragami solution to >nation's problems. Is it true or another Al-Sahaf style statement? 7 UML central comittee members? How come I don't see it mentioned anywhere? What are the names of those people? Will love to know its veracity, IF. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 09:19 PM
Biswo, Unlike others I support my claims/statements with evidence. Read today's The Himalayan Times for the news. Those who quit include ex-MPs and ministers. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 09:25 PM
Biswo, but you know what. So, comparing labeling others without doing homweork on your part shows that you are no better than the people that you label this and that. anyway, here's the piece from the today's The Himalayan Times: Ex-ministers, MPs quit UML Kathmandu: Six persons including former ministers, former legislators and a farmer's leader associated with the CPN-UML in a statement published on Wednesday said that they have abandoned the party from Wednesday as the CPN-UML's behavior, activities and policies lack credibility and are irresponsible with regard to isues of primary importance including nationalism, democracy and peace talks. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 14-May-03 09:33 PM
In 'Koiralas Interview', interesting discussion is going on. Yeta tira IF is dying to hear my reply. OK, IF wins. Isolated Freak, I called you Al Sahaf. Look, I gave you the hottest and most extraordinarily popular name in recent history. He has inspired so many. Even Bush admitted he loved him. And, you came with Polpot's name for me ? Chhi ! chhi ! Do you think I qualify for one of the most hated name in the entire history of humanity ? You are well versed in the international affairs and the world history. Did you not find any other good name for me ? Do me a favor, Sir. Please find a suitable name for me. I am dying to be compared with some historical character. I promise I will not be offended by any name you choose. You called me Pro-Maoist. This is better. And you are almost right. The term most accurate would have been Maoist-like on account of some resemblence between the Maoists and me. Like them, I am fighting my own war for the republic of Nepal. I believe in revolution and sacrifice. But I fight against the Maoist too. You probably dont have the patience to listen repeatedly about this. So I will not waste your time. Back to Al Sahaf, the reason I called you Sahaf was not to belittle you, IF. After reading time-defeating, immortal speeches of Sahaf in welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com and comparing with some of yours own, it suddenly occurred to me someday we are going to have our own weloveIsolatedFreak.com site decorated with your death defying speeches. You don't need to defend your speeches, IF. People will love them just the way they are. (I remember once when you repeated for 25th time your excellent interpretation of our constitution to rightly prove His majesy's action was to upheld it, it made Paschim threw up right then and come up with his nonsense literal interpretation of them, dhara by dhara. I am sure he won't do such nonsense again ! People might be aware that almost all the people who drafted the constitution, including the Chief Justice have said that the royal move is unconstitutional. Our lawers have collectively declared it unconstitutional at their convention. But who cares, No ? Your Sahafist vision predicts the king is going to carry out a military coup, and you hope he will preferably kill or jail all party leaders and bring the golden Panchayat back.. I am sure you will prove this too is constitutional.) ****** Tick jyu, Rest assured, nobody will belittle you. On a different note, you recently said that you had participated in 2046 ko jana-andolan. How come you participated in something your Guru, IF, swears it never occurred ? (OK, if you mind the word Guru, I take it back !). Are you one of those handful Assamese sent by India to cause some agitation, according to IF ? On a serious note, Tick jyu, you have asked a very valid question in the other thread, something like- the king was not active during past 12 years, so why blame him for all the bad thing that happened during this period ? This is really important question. Those who oppose the king should answer this question first. If they donot have satisfactory answer, then they don't have moral right to oppose the king or the active monarchy. Happy now ? Do wait for my answer. To be contd.. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 09:41 PM
7 UML central comittee members? How come I don't see it mentioned anywhere? What are the names of those people? OK, let me correct my stattement: cenot the current ones, but some who resigned were EX central committee members. I am still trying to get the names, if i couldn't watch the NTVs news on Nepalnews or read today's Gorkhapatra. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 09:47 PM
Nepe, How about Stalin? And thanks for your kind words. I didn't know I have such a devoted and a loyal reader who well who spends his time writing on ME. But, nepe, don't worry, you'll soon have your web site too: http://www.welovenepekoantasantapieceofjunk.com Nepe, the differecne between you and me is, I attack the ideas, i don't personally go behind people asking what they do and what they eat. I limit my arguments/ideas to the topic being dicussed, unlike you go on name calling and investigations and what not. Go ahead, write some more. Haven't laughed for a while, so, entertain me. Namaste |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 09:56 PM
and Nepe, On a serious note: Your replying to this thread with specific referense to me and your sheer happiness in being included in the "convincing" list gives me the impression that you will make a good maoits and or ulta communits leader in the future. The sheer happiness you expressed in being promoted to the Concvincnmg people's list sjhows that you believe in "persoanlity cult"--a trait that is asscoaited with every communist leader in history. By bashing me, you are trying to create your own follwoers who will be praying you with dhopp-deep-agarbatti. So, admit it. You are no bette or even worse than me--someone whom you accuse of being an agent and all that. So, it is worthwhile to engage in discussions with you? No. Becuase, you want others to take what you say as brahma bakya and akatya. Why can't you understand this simple fact: Just as you have the rights to amuse us and entertain us with your views, I have mine. If you can't respect that, then that's your problem. Comparing me to so and so, wouldn't solve any purpose. And you are the biggest adcvocate of democracy! Well, yeah, I can understand your frustration. K garney.. la desperately wiating for the third part. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 10:02 PM
And also, I never said that Maharajadhiraj Sarkar is planning a coup-de-tat. If you misread me, that's your problem, not mine. But, yeah, I discredit the 2046 ko andolan because it wasn't carried out by the people of Nepal. India and the Congressis capitalzied on the world-wide democracy movement following the fall of Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the USSR. Anyways, why am i spoiling the show? Gai jatra is still 2-3 months away, but it doewsn't harm to have some advance laughing experience. What do you say? |
| Biswo | Posted
on 14-May-03 10:08 PM
IF, Now you are saying they are EX central committee members. After all lecturing to me. And where is one more question to you: Are you sure all of them are ex-central committee members? Anyway, you are free to revise your statement, and come up with final unvarnished version whenever you are done with your homework:-) laopengyou: bi suo xiansheng |
| Biswo | Posted
on 14-May-03 10:11 PM
IFji, Please read "And where is one more question to you: Are you sure all of them are ex-central committee members? " As "And here is one more question to you: Are you sure all of them (the seven according to you) are ex-central committee members? " |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-May-03 11:39 PM
Biswo/ bi shuo xiansheng, ni shuo shen me, tong zhi :-)? OK, the news is now updated in the nepalnews.com's site. However, there's a confusion on numbers. NTV's news at 8 last night reported 7 members, but, today its confirmed 6. zhi shi jiantian de xin wen.. here's the story for your reading pleasure:Six senior CPN-UML members quit Six senior stalwarts of the CPN-UML, including former ministers and central committee members, quit the party Wednesday following a scathing criticism of the party leading a movement against King Gyanendra with five other parties. Bhim Bahadur Khadayat, Prem Bahadur Singh, Binod Kumar Shaha quit the party along with Krishna Bahadur Shahi, Jhangad Bahadur Rawal and Madan Dhungel. They accused the party of "double standards", "power struggle" and "irresponsible actions." The party should be helping the peace process and accused the party for endangering the country's sovereignty. They alleged the party recommended the postponement of the November 13 snap elections on October 4 to then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. They, in a statement, opposed derogatory remarks against the King. nepalnews.com br May 14. Lu |
| tick | Posted
on 15-May-03 12:57 AM
Nepe jyu, It is nice to know you will not resort to name calling unlike others. Your sentence should read "I will not belittle you" rather than "nobody will belittle you" as you know there are people who have done it and will do it again. I was thinking to be on the sideline and just watch the debate. Since you called on me here I am. I was very active in jana-andolan and the activities even before that as I opposed the panchayat rule and I know how much Indian Embassy played a role in that andolan. Our krantikaris would not even call a meeting without getting financial help from the embassy, I was one of them. It did not sound as bad at that time as the "cause" was important than the means. Now I think the same way as my guru IF jyu. :-). (IF jyu hope you do not mind, I could not think of a better way to respond to smart-ass type comments.) I have lot of respect for IF jyu if you are trying to break that you can only fail and will come right back at you. Believe it or not even tough I disagree with you on almost on all of your views I respect you as well. You will disagree, so will I in your beliefs versus mine but that will not diminish my respect for you unless you resort to name calling and show cheap stunts, than I have to update my boxing and karate skills (do not worry I will use it on sand-bag :-) or simply walk away. There are times and again I find that simply walking away from a discussion is good thing when I see people throwing darts at each other, for better use of time. It is really easy to blame the king for everything, for every move. Hindsight is 20/20 for everyone. As one of the authors who writes hypocritical statements have mentioned the he supported the king now he opposes. You know why it is because it suits him. This is called "pipal-pate" which is self-explanatory. NC never complained when king gave interview when NC was in power. Now they oppose the interview, it was constitutional then it is unconstitutional now. Talk about hierocracy, they are full of it. Netas and chelas. Guru chela narka ma thelam thela bhaneko tyahai ho. Chela will simply follow the guru even if guru is hypocritical; chela thinks it is in his and his masters best interest to follow guruji. The chela could be much smarter than the guru but wrong guru will only lead to destruction of himself and the chela. Chelas are known to follow their gurus upto narka. The cut-n-paste job that taha cha had done is not good as the author and the source was not mentioned. It should be condemned and it is condemned by most of the authors in this board. NC and UML are investing very heavily in the protest of the king. All the money that have accumulated are being put to good use at least some of the money goes back to the economy rather than India or foreign country. It is sad on how much Indian embassy plays a rule in the internal politics of Nepal. In every andolan India is behind it. 2007 sal ko andolan, King Tribhuvan fled to India, Kangresi bhai were in India, 2046 sal ko andolan got started and heavily funded by Indian embassy, maobadi andolan being launched from India now India want to see its agents in power I see this is one of the main reason for the opposition. India knows how easy it is to persuade or buy already corrupted netas. I did read an editorial in Times of India that has said that king should go to exile before GPK started repeating those very words. I do not remember the date of the editorial but if you search for it I am sure you will find it in the editorial section. There is no perfect system in the world. The most popular democracy is US has its set of problems on the other side communism and socialism has its set of problems as well. The needs and wants of every society are different other than basic human rights, freedom of speech, health care, education etc. If not stupidity it is certainly not wise to say, "this is the solution for Nepal" Here is what I think Nepal needs at the moment 1. Corruption less governance with strong law enforcement 2. Strong leadership should emerge from people and the "senior" batch of politicians should retire. Let me make it clear, I do not advocate for a Panchayat like system. I am NOT against democracy. I am rajbhakta and deshbhakta, however I am not andho rajbhakta. I believe in the current king and support his vision. I am rajbhakta and I am proud to say so. I do not support Paras on his past behavior, he has the option to "straighten-up" and be a good-person before he becomes the king but if he doesn't we will deal with him then. If Phulan Devi can be elected why cannot Paras win the hearts of people? But for now the emphasis should be on peace nothing else. When peace is achieved and stronger law enforcement curtails corruption then I might have a different opinion but for now you know where I stand. I will be here mostly on the sideline as I find it hard to balance sajha life, personal life and professional life. I will contribute as much as I can but cannot contribute much time, as it is necessary to respond to every question, query or comments. There are good people like IF and Sparsha who have similar beliefs like mine then some of the agree-what-I-say-or-you-are-an-idiot-clan. |
| tick | Posted
on 15-May-03 01:19 AM
Nepe jyu, One more thing, you are comparing IF jyu with Al Sahaf, this is not much different then name-calling. I find it offensive and disrespectful and you should resort from comparing the most ridiculous personality to a respected sajha citizen. Like someone once said that there should be a code of conduct in sajha, it is a valid point. I think we are all civilized, educated and know how to act, speak and write in a civilized manner without offending anyone. Lets show the world that we know how to disagree. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 15-May-03 01:39 AM
IF tongzhi, From a riffraff of seven cadres to seven central committee members , that is quite an exaggeration, isn't it? I am not so familiar with UML politics, so correct me if I am wrong: except for Mr Binod Shah, none of others were ever central committee members of UML. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I think and that is what I read somewhere in a news too. And it is quite understandable if you, a steadfast supporter of monarchy, and autocracy like that of China, fail to understand that it is often party that matters, not a few individuals. Let's remember what is probably 'the' highest level of defection in Nepal's party system: Bachaspati Devkota who enjoyed BPKoirala like status in one of CPN factions that would years later be known as CPN(Maoist) defected to UML in 2047. The man who was a de facto ruler of Gorkha until then got a mere less than 3,000 votes when he ran for MP the next year. Anyway, enjoy these news while it lasts. -- Personal: lingwai yi huishe. Ni dasuan qu Beijing ma? Xianzai feidian(SARS) she zai she yige wenti le. wo de nage meiguo ren pengyou (Beida jingji xi de laoshi) shuo tamen geli(quarantine) ta 12 tian le. ji tian yiqian ta fa xin lai shuo nabian qingkuang tai zaogao le. Xianzai haoxiang shangke dou bu shangke. Anyway, zhu ni hao yun. Zhuyi shenti, yinwei xiang ni zheyang jiyou de ren (rightwingers, bu yao shuo wo zai 'namecalling' yinwei shang yi ce ni zizi haoxiang tongyi ni she jiyou de ren) yuelai yue shao. We always emphasize protecting extinct species, bu she ma? |
| tick | Posted
on 15-May-03 06:43 AM
This news says it all, what I had been saying all along.. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Five protesting parties support monarchy: Koirala Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala Wednesday toned down his earlier stance against the King and said the five political parties that were waging the peoples' movement were advocates of monarchy and wished to give him an appropriate constitutional place. Koirala was addressing the Nepali Congress office bearers and party workers from various districts of the eastern development region in Biratnagar. He said the responsibility of transforming the peace talks into permanent peace had fallen on the shoulders of the CPN-Maoists. Koirala said the movement of the five parties was in favour of the country and the people. nepalnews.com am May 15 |
| sparsha | Posted
on 15-May-03 08:16 AM
I meant to write Tick ji. Sorry-no Tickki. |
| sparsha | Posted
on 15-May-03 08:16 AM
Tickki, I did not quite get the news. Koirala is using (acccording to the news) past tense when refering to monachy. So, now those parties are not advocates of monarchy and does not wish him to give him an appropriate constitutional place anymore? Is this what Girija babu saying? or the newspaper is not quoting him correctly focusing too much on verb agreement? And is the movement (jana aandolan ?) over now? ["the movement of the five parties was in favor of the country and people"] Ke ke ho ke ke--- jo chor uskai thulo swar! |
| tick | Posted
on 15-May-03 08:30 AM
Sparsha jyu, GPK and parties are no longer against the monarchy. Remember how he had said the king should exile or his andolan will oust him, now he is saying he is not against monarchy. Is he a Hypocrite? I think so. This is also proof that there is no support for the movement outside the parties. I need get back to work... iti. |
| mirador | Posted
on 15-May-03 08:59 AM
This one is from IF >>Nepe, the differecne between you and me is, I attack the ideas, i don't personally go >>behind people asking what they do and what they eat. most ironic statement to come from you. Although I doudt it was intentional. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 15-May-03 10:01 AM
hmm.. nepe hasn't posted the third part yet. quite disheartneing. Tick, its always fun and nice to learn, converse and work with the likeminded people. Its not that I don't like to get challenged and forced to think, but at times, its good to see/know that there are others who agree with my views. Thanks for your kind words. Biswo, the news published is vague. It says former MPs and Central Committee Members but doesn't tell who were the former CC members. So, all these could be ex-CC members in the best case scenario, and just one in the worst case scenario. Mirador, that statement you quoted was "intentional" because Nepe was after my work in one of the threads. Obviously, you are yet to know your comrade in arms, but don;'t you worry, you'll get to know him. Best of luck, may you get to know him better than me or anybody else. -- Personal Bi Shuo (Bu Shuo:-)? Laopeng you, xie xie ni. Wo zhidao xianzai zhong guo de qingkuang luan de bu de liao (messy), zhao gao le.. ta ma de:-).. ke shi wo qu nabianr zai ba yue. hai you san ge yue le, suoyi wo xiwang, wo qu nabiar de shi hour tamen yijing you SARS de yi. zhu ni hao yun. Xie Xie ni. "Anyway, zhu ni hao yun. Zhuyi shenti, yinwei xiang ni zheyang jiyou de ren (rightwingers, bu yao shuo wo zai 'namecalling' yinwei shang yi ce ni zizi haoxiang tongyi ni she jiyou de ren) yuelai yue shao. We always emphasize protecting extinct species, bu she ma? " aaa! lao pengyou, ni shuo zhen dui ke shi ni bu dan xin, wo zhenyang de ren, wo xiang yue lai yue duo :-), xianzai hao xiang, neboer de hen duo ren jiyou de ren. suoyi, ni bu dan xin, bu xiao xin. ta ma de, yi jing wang le hanyu. Lu |
| mirador | Posted
on 15-May-03 02:47 PM
>>that statement you quoted was "intentional" IF , so you admit that you indulge in ad hominem attacks. Maybe you didn't understand. Calling someone only interested in people and not in ideas is a personal attack. Unless, of course, you can read his/her. In which case, let me assure you, mind reading is a very unreliable way to argue. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 15-May-03 07:06 PM
mirador, I know your comrade in arms better than you, and if you look at one of the past threads, you'll know what I meant. and I don't think I need to reply to people who come here and post one liners to get us all heated for their entertainment. That's why I have been ignoring you, and will continmue to do so unless you come up with good solid points related to "discussion". Nepe, where's the third part? |
| Nepe | Posted
on 15-May-03 10:01 PM
IF, you seemed to be in haste when you described me in above postings. Nevertheless they are quite entertaining. And in order not to kill the fun, I am not going to object them. Even if I want, I could not do so. After all I myself invited your wrath ! Ki Kaso ? However, I will certainly express my disappointment over the name you proposed for me. I was hoping you will be morecreative than this one. You recalled unhappily how I was after you in one of the thread (M.P.'s famous Humor thread "Paramendra Bhagat appointed Interim PM"). As I also explained then, after reading almost one hundered propagandist postings in a row within two days that said the same thing redundantly, from a new poster that just appeared to appear to defend Gyanendra ko dramatic action of the infamous Asoj 18 (I did not know you were a new avatar of an old poster), I suspected you could be a Disinformation Agent of Jangi Adda and doing your professional job. I have retrieved this piece for those who are interested to see it. --------------- http://sajha.summitusa.com/openthread.cfm?threadid=7401#15451 Sitara, Although I was surprised to be inappropriately characterized as an *extremely shrewd and educated intellectual*, I thank you for your true report on my connection to the INTERPOL and my interest in the case study of the Kalanidhi Barking syndrome being studied at NIH. NIH scientists are primarily interested in neurology as you already reported and in immunology for developing a vaccine. But I am not ruling out the possibility of a covert project to fight the attackers with their own weapon. Anyway, the NIH reports that the genome of the virus causing the KB syndrome is almost completely sequenced and now DNA fingerprints can be used to detect the virus and its modified strains some of which give subtle symptoms. The later is found in one or two of new posters in Sajha. I gathered this information from INTERPOL. I also want to share with you a rather interesting finding (not conclusive though) obtained from fingerprint profiling of our interesting poster, Isolated Freak. They say his fingerprints matched (not 100% though) with that of Bharat Shandilya, an occasional columnist in Kathmadu media who threatens journalists and spreads the state disinformations (He is reported to be an army officer working in the Jungi Adda, Kalyankari Shakha, name Rajendra ?). You might wanna ponder over why Ifji spread selective promotion of turbid dhara 127 and 128 but not the clean dhara 3 and 35(2) in approximately 100 of his postings in the first two days of the royal take over backed by the royal army. I am extremely busy at the moment helping to complete the KBS genome project, so I might not be able to frequent Sajha as much as I want. But I will certainly keep reading TSN. ------------------ I dont think I need to give any clarification here. However, will reiterate that, IF, your personal life is the last thing I was/will bother to have interest in. My curiosity was limited to your professional life, that too just to make sense of what you posted in Sajha. I am not sure if that is inappropriate. If you want nobody to question, wonder and try to understand what you post here, I dont have to give you advice what to do. ============= Tick jyu, Detail ma pachhi hai. Ahile lai this quick remark. I am quite impressed that you were not only active in Jana-Andolan, but also were opposing Pachayat before that. You wrote: " I was very active in jana-andolan and the activities even before that as I opposed the panchayat rule and I know how much Indian Embassy played a role in that andolan. Our krantikaris would not even call a meeting without getting financial help from the embassy, I was one of them. " I think you are a valuable source of information for Sajha readers regarding that history. I hope Sajha readers will be delighted to hear from you the exact facts you witnessed. Please do share with us. It is also going prove how true you are and thus earn a great respect from me and otherfellow Sajhaites |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 15-May-03 10:20 PM
where's the third part, nepe? gave up? come on, a shrewd and educated inttelectual can do a lot better job. Professional life is personal life when posting in sajha. Also, you can post my answeers to your outright silly suspicion and later affirmation of your baseless claim on that thread. You disapoointed me. I was expecting you to amuse me and entertain me in a shrewd and intellectual manner. |
| mirador | Posted
on 16-May-03 12:20 AM
IF, you are hardly involved in any meaningful discussion accusing others of being personal. You are the one who attacks people. For instance, you even labelled me, a newcomer to Sajha, as Nepe's Comarade in Arms for not being supportive of monarchy. >>I don't think I need to reply to people who come here and post one liners to get us all >>heated for their entertainment. That's why I have been ignoring you, and will >>continmue to do so unless you come up with good solid points related to "discussion". This smug post from you needs some clarification: i) "Brevity is the soul of wit...I will be brief". That comment about one liners is pathetic. Brevity has been the common knowledge since the 17th centure. See Hamlet Act II, Scene II, for details. ii) YOU are the one who is getting heated. I'm enjoying my drink. iii) You are not entertaining. Going back to the topic. I have, and I'm sure a lot of pro-democracy people on this board will agree with me, serious misgivings about your claim on the Jana Andolan 2046. This is what you said: >>I discredit the 2046 ko andolan because it wasn't carried out by the people of Nepal. >>India and the Congressis capitalzied on the world-wide democracy movement following >>the fall of Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the USSR. ... the most ludicrous comment I have heard regarding 2046 and borders on disinformation, especially the first claim that Jana Andolan was not carried out by Nepalis. The second part is partly true, the democratic fervor certainly was fired up by the world events but that does not discredit people's uprising in protest against an autocratic regime. Without the people's want to overthrow the government, no world event would have incited them to take to streets risking, and indeed sacrificing, lives. Do you have ANY facts to support your claim that foreigners participated in Nepal's revolution other than giving moral support to people opposing a tyrannical government? OR are you claming that Congressis, and the people from Nepali left who participated in the Andolan are not Nepalis? |
| SITARA | Posted
on 16-May-03 10:15 AM
Why do we need Monarchy in Nepal? To unite the people? Which people.... the very people who are under a cloud of misgivings, distrust and disorientation regarding the Royal Massacre, which was so hastily, suspiciously subdued? I fail to comprehend the need for such a massive coverup if the current monarchy and those affiliated are/were blameless! Many questions still linger in the people's mind regarding the horrendous incident. Why do they remain unresolved so? The explanations were too easy, simplistic and belittling (of the people who demand an answer). Someone please explain why on earth should *the people* place their trust and their future in a monarchy that can't explain the recent past? Why should they allow the practise of "divine rights" where divinity can get away with murder? Ok, so now that Monarchy rules....does peace prevail? At what cost.... freedom of speech, individual rights, or just under the covert operation of FEAR? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 16-May-03 10:25 AM
mirador, ) "Brevity is the soul of wit...I will be brief". That comment about one liners is pathetic. Brevity has been the common knowledge since the 17th centure. See Hamlet Act II, Scene II, for details. ii) YOU are the one who is getting heated. I'm enjoying my drink. iii) You are not entertaining. i)one liners that make sense are acceptable and worthy of being answered to. But senseless one liners are not. I am not a student of literature, so don't know what Hamlet is/was. ii) Enjoy your drink. iii) I am not a comedian to entertain you, so if you don't find me or my postings entertaining, its your problem, not mine. nepe will help you get entertained. also, "You are the one who attacks people. For instance, you even labelled me, a newcomer to Sajha, as Nepe's Comarade in Arms for not being supportive of monarchy. " See, when two people fight for the same cause in the same board, then going by the revolutionary vocab. , they become comrade-in-arms. Its not a deregotary remark. As for otehr issues that you raised, i have answered those in this board in earlier threads. Refer to the one that Comrade Nepe has posted. Comrade Nepe where's the third part? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 16-May-03 10:31 AM
also, just to console you, mirador: I can say tick my comrade in arms. because, we are fighting for the same cause here. just as you and nepe are. read nepe's postings more. he sure knows how to entertain people, including me. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 18-May-03 08:24 AM
IFji, khai lekhna jaangar nai chalena. But let me tell you this, I have no problem with what you believe in. The world is full of people filled with all sorts of beliefs, doubts, fears, motivation, knowledge and innocence. And I am fine with it. I do not have problem with your doing Jaijaikaar of 'Shree 5 Maharajdhiraj' desperately every time you get chance. I have problem, as a part of my sense of duty, only when you use public space to spread lies and twisted and misrepresented facts, although most of the time I choose to ignore them, as I see many others doing the same, obviously because your lies are so obvious and not worth spending time with. I hope you will not mistake it as Isolated Freaks views gone unchallenged in Sajha. You do get challenged now and then, if not always, don't you ? Just the other day, when you made a grand statement against democracy quoting Zakaria to make it sound like how well read you are in this field, Paschim's simple question exposed your asaliyat. So you were out to shatter the faith of the whole world in democracy by reading one page review of a book ! So much for your scholarship ! I had read your statement. However, the fundamentals of your argument was so silly, so Al Sahafist, I found it worthless to debate. Let's see how silly it was. You wrote: "..you know what, in the 21st century, the definition of democracy has chagned. Democracy is being debated. The whole system is being questioned.." Lets assume Democracy is being debated. The whole system is being questioned. Now, aren't debating and questioning themselves democracy in practice ? Unless the debate is done by just five people- Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Zia Ul Haq and Sri 5 Mahendra (add Sri 5 Gyanendra too, if you like)- among themselves, it is the democracy in action, my friend. A debate can not annihilate the debate, it only manifests it. A questioning does not annihilate the questioning, it brings life to it. There is only one person who can deny such a self-evident truth, that is Mr. Al Sahaf. OK, make that two. IF, your belief system looks like this. If a person who is alive told you that he is dead, then you believe that he is dead. And you are going to report that amazing finding in Sajha, quoting the source of your information, insisting that you did not make up this, the person had told you this himself. Now it is not difficult to understand why you do not understand that nobody has liberty to give up liberty. If you insist, all right, a person can give up his/her liberty. But what will happen to other persons who are unwilling to give up their liberties ? If IF, Tick, jaya_nepal, Youngbloodz and Bhinaju each decide to give up their liberties to give a room for the monarchy, fine. But what you gonna do with Nepe, Biswo, Sitara, Mirador and Orion who are ready to give their lives but not their liberties ? Do you have answer ? Obviously 'divine rights' of the monarch is out of question here. So, Comrade Isolated Freak, only Nepali Al Sahafs will night dream about an active monarchy. For others, it is just a day dreaming. Baaki rahyo, passive monarchy, that deceptively titled constitutional monarchy (Biswo 2003) ko kura. I will deal with it in future postings. Happy weekend ! |
| mirador | Posted
on 18-May-03 09:32 AM
IF, bold claims require strong proofs. You have come up with none. IF's claim #1) >>I discredit the 2046 ko andolan because it wasn't carried out by the people of Nepal. |
| kreep | Posted
on 18-May-03 10:08 AM
Sitara Nepal aaiju ani you'll know better :)... ma ko? :o) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 10:39 AM
Just the other day, when you made a grand statement against democracy quoting Zakaria to make it sound like how well read you are in this field, Paschim's simple question exposed your asaliyat. So you were out to shatter the faith of the whole world in democracy by reading one page review of a book ! So much for your scholarship ! Nepe, Fareed Zakaria's new book is a result of his research on this field for a long time now. Its an elaboration of his articles published on the Foreign Affairs and other newspapers/magazines and his interviews. as to otehr things, you make no sense. you ere doing good with teh sequels. once again, shri panch maharajadhiraj ko jai jai jai. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 10:41 AM
you ere doing good with teh sequels. = you were doing good with the sequels. |
| bhedo | Posted
on 18-May-03 10:47 AM
Okay, can someone clarify this. Can't monarchy and democracy be combined? What do you call Britain? They seem to be alright with what they have. Why shouldn't we? The UK isn't only for Anglo-Saxons you know, and yet everybody venerates the Royals. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 10:54 AM
and regarding my scholarship, dude, academic honesty is what i take pride in. I said NO to your friend's question and if you look at otehr threads in which I am active, I cite my sources, i don't present the ideas as my own. so, nepe, come withs omething original like the sequels to discuss or argue with me. Your analogy of liberty to me didn't make any sense. Force yourself to think, then come and challenge me in a manner that would make me engage in discussion with you. STILL WAITING FOR THE THIRD PART THOUGH. |
| mirador | Posted
on 18-May-03 11:32 AM
Another one from IF, >>Your analogy of liberty to me didn't make any sense. Force yourself to think, then >>come and challenge me in a manner that would make me engage in discussion with >>you. It's hard to find good examples of stuck up, presrumptous, high-handed, smug ego-trips. This is a good one. You'd have realized that you've been amply challanged had you actually read what other posters have to say instead of obsessively engaging in a perverse vendetta against other posters. In case you need a reminder, you have made a number of outrageous claims in this thread without a single piece of evidence to back them up. That is, like, soooo juvenile! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 11:44 AM
mirador, go check some of the old threads, I have provided with ample evidence. in this thread, i don't need to because, all the active debators have already read those, if you haven;'t, then search for them. If you don't have the time to do so, then keep mum. Just as you see this as me taking personal issue here, I see it the same way. Nepe's first reply, i.e, comparing me to al sahaf and labeling me what not showed how democratic and how much of a bidwan he is. Everyone has the rights to choose what he/she wants to believe in and those beliefs are to be challenged, not ridiculed at if you consider yourself a democrat. Nepe has an attitude problem and I have too. See, my attitude problem only arises when he labels me this and that. I believe in, Don't go after anyone but if anyone comes after you, don't spare him. Your comrade nepe invited this squabble. So,you just enjoy the show: Sajha Fight Club. Go get your drink and popcorns.. anotehr show is about to begin and you wouldn't wanna miss the show. |
| mirador | Posted
on 18-May-03 11:59 AM
IF, >> Everyone has the rights to choose what he/she wants to believe in and those beliefs are to be challenged, not ridiculed at if you consider yourself a democrat. Exactly the reason I am against monarchy. The right to dissent. Only in monarchy you don't get ridiculed, you get shot and you then disappear or you disappear and THEN only you get shot. It is unacceptable for a believer in democracy to stand by when the likes you start propaganda supporting one man tyranny. However, it shows a contradiction on your part. You expect democrats to treat you in the 'democratic' manner but you also oppose democracy. >>See, my attitude problem only arises when he labels me this and that Good. Realization is a step in the right direction. >>Go get your drink and popcorns.. anotehr show is about to begin and you wouldn't wanna miss the show. I'm keeping my expectations low. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 12:19 PM
"Exactly the reason I am against monarchy. " and that's exactlt the reason I chose to be a monarchist. "It is unacceptable for a believer in democracy to stand by when the likes you start propaganda supporting one man tyranny. However, it shows a contradiction on your part. You expect democrats to treat you in the 'democratic' manner but you also oppose democracy. " Being pro monarchy isn't being anti-democracy. Your other allegation that you get shot in monarchy is baseless. "Good. Realization is a step in the right direction. " I hope your comrade-in-chief also realzies this and starts heading in the right direction, i.e, being supportive of the King. and on this note, let me tell you honestly, just as you seem irritated and annoyed by my responses, I am by your's. So, here's a suggestion, why don't you just sit back, relax and enjoy the show while comrade nepe and I go one on one? But, if you want to get involved, don't expect any response/reply from me. now, kaag karaudai garcha, pina sukdai garcha. |
| mirador | Posted
on 18-May-03 02:10 PM
Another one from IF, >>Being pro monarchy isn't being anti-democracy. Democracy -Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. Monarchy:A state ruled or headed by a monarch. Never elected. The idiocy is apparent, you need not reply. |
| bhedo | Posted
on 18-May-03 02:32 PM
All right, I don't follow Nepal's politics closely, but uh, of course mirador is wrong. Even I can see that. What about constitutional monarchy? In such case monarchy can also be a democracy. What do you have to say about that? Read this: A constitutional monarchy (also capitalised as Constitutional Monarchy) is a system of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges a hereditary or elected monarch as a Head of state). As in most republics in most constitutional monarchies executive authority is vested in the head of state. The concept of constitutional monarchy owes its origins to the absolute monarchies for the later middle ages, where governmental authority was exercised by the monarch and his (or in rare occasions her) government, the development of popular participative democracy saw power shifting to governments selected from and answerable to legislative assemblies and parliaments, producing democratic systems of governments in which the monarch reigns but does not rule. Within constitutional monarchies, a sub-category exists, known as Popular Monarchy . . . Among constitutional monarchies possessing written constitutions are Denmark Norway Sweden Belgium Netherlands Canada Australia Spain " http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy Some of these Scandinavian countries are extremely affluent nations. Nepal is also a consitutional monarchy, is it not? Also, let's not forget that Deuba first broke the consitutional law. The King is just giving it back. Also, I just think that our system is all right, except that we need to limit the King's power. |
| khimu | Posted
on 18-May-03 03:23 PM
Asolated freak jee Why are you against Monarchy? I didn,t mean i disagree with you, WE are Nepali we need king, (Constitutional Monarchycal kingdom). The 1962 Constitution which stalled the process of parlimentary democracy and ushered in a Panchayatic system making the king the real and authoritarian ruler of the Kingdom, but i don,t want this kind of Monarchycal Kingdom i mean i don,t want king i want king but without power; just like England. If we do that, of course; our Nepal will be much better than now . Our country (Nepal) is not like some African country. WE have all educated leaders our leafders can rule Nepal but we (Nepalis) have to right one(Leader). WE need a voice like a Fatya sing Tharu, Madan Bhandari,ruller like a Prithavi Narayan shah, B.P. Koirala. We don,t want republican Government in Nepal , right! i dono what i wrote hai peace of mind khimu |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 06:16 PM
khimu, siwani tharu lai man paraune ho ki k ho? kaha bata fattey singh tharu ko name swatta ghussayeko? Siwani is a nice girl.. la la.. :-) |
| Nepe | Posted
on 18-May-03 09:10 PM
IF, My remark on your scholarship offended you. OK, let me tell you this, I gather from your postings that you are a well read person in your field of interest. Actually I did mentioned it in one of my postings above. Now, how much academic honesty is carried by your grand thesis with a bibliography of Zakaria, I leave it to Sajha readers. And let me disappoint you one last time by expressing my doubt over your academic honesty. Academic honesty, in my view, is a balanced treatment of the subject. But your views are anything but balanced treatment. In all political discussions, you sound like a disparate lawyer rather than a scholar. In the classic example of the discussion on the constitutionality of HM's move I referred above, you dishonestly ignored all those articles of the constitution that imply that HM's discretionary authority is limited to the royal palace and his descendants and he has no discretionary authority to take over the executive power. How much academic honesty this is, I will leave this too to Sajha readers to decide. I have no interest to discuss this with you. It's already been too much ad hominem. ************************************** Bhedo wrote: > Also, I just think that our system is all right, except that we >need to limit the King's power. Bhedo ji, It was a pleasant surprise to hear you advocating limiting the king's power. I particularly appreciate your moderate views, especially when I recall the views you expressed at the time of the royal take over. Regarding your argument for the constitutional monarchy, I agree that some countries are doing fine with having it. At certain hypothetical condition, it might work in Nepal too, theoretically speaking. However, the most critical point about the monarchy is that it is country specific. You can not replace one country's monarchy (and monarch) with the one from another country. Compare that with democracy, it has no such problem. The reason is obvious. Because of the periodic renewal of the authority in democracy, it is atemporal. Whereas the monarchy comes with a legacy. So the question of suitability of the monarchy in any form in Nepal is connected to it's legacy, to be specific, how much compatible it is with the popular aspiration of today and tomorrow, but not to the list of countries with living monarchy. In my future postings, I will argue that monarchy is incompatible with our need of today and tomorrow and hence possesses spontaneity for it's degradation. Taha cha, Mirador and others, thank you for your contribution and participation in this thread. Let's continue it. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 09:44 PM
Nepe, Nope, your remarks did not offend me. It actually allowed to me to tell you how much I know about Zakaria (Thanks to GOOGLE SEARCH 2 MINS.. ahh! seacrhing on GOOGLKE IS LOT EASIER TAHN COOKING MAGGIE CHAU CHAU....) Fareed Zakaria's new book which I am yet to read is an elaboration of his articles that he wrote for the New Yorker, Newsweek and Foreign Affairs. Its more of an elaboration to his article published on Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 1997) titled "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy". The thesis is: Democracy in itself does not lead to civil liberty(-ies), the system has to function well and ensure those. His argument thus is, neo-democracies are actually going throgh a difficult phase. Then he goes on to examine the reasons, why this happens? In 2002, Harvad International Review published his interview titled illeberal democracy five years later. In that too, he says how his earlier asertions that western-style democracies do not work unless and until there is constitutional liberalism. Anyways, Nepal isn't the only failed democratic state. Therea re lots of those. Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy has examples of some of the African Countries where demcoracy proved to be a curse rather than a boon. So, democracy without liberalism isn't a functioning democracy, and to have that you need to have a set of leaders who are DEMOCRATIC. Just chanting democracy slogans won't help. Also, Academic honesty is citing your sources and not engage or indulge in plagarism. I always include whose ideas/quotations I borrowed and sicne you seem to be an avid reader of what i write, you should know. For the most part I support my claims with references and when I quote someone, I give them the credits they deserve. Actually, someone here provided with the bibliography he/she used after I asked him/her the source(s) of the information. That's being academically honest. Academic honesty isn't having a balanced view. Its 3 things: 1. Not plagarizing. 2. Not claiming that I have read what I have not. 3. Citing and giving proper credits Those 3 things are what I consider academic honesty. Views are never balanced--either you take this side or the other side. There's no middle ground. Just as you are firm on your beliefs, I am on mine. And believing in something and going all-out to defend your beliefs is not being academically dishonest. However, to make fun of the otehrs who don't agree with you, and going after them personally, is not playing a fair game. Although, this has nothing to do with being academically honest, it has a lot to do with the "attitude". And when you come to debate all heated up, there's no room for any conciliation, let alone learning from each other. Anyways, your first ever posting on this thread was not against my ideas, but against me. It wasn't democracy/republicanism or Democracy/Monarchist discussion. It was simply YOU vs. ME, with Mirador and Biswo coming to your rescue (in which Biswo had something thought provoking to contribute, where as your latest fan had none) and Tick coming to my rescue, and occassional somewhat ideological backing from Sparsha./ But from the very beginning this was YOU vs Me. Accept it: We didn't engage in this thread to convince each otehr, we engaged and are engaging in this thread to prove who is BETTER. Let it be, I accept your challenge. The fight is still on Nepe. Its not ideological, its personal. And you started it. I did not compare you with anyone anything unless you started doing it. Now, that was to borrow your fan's words "oh-so juvenile". See, Nepe, I don't care what you think of me. You are entitled to your opinions, but you know what I think of you (i know you don't care either) but to end this series right here, let me quote my friend Ashu with a slight alteration: You are a democrat that would have made Pol Pot Proud, very Proud. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 10:03 PM
In 2002, Harvad International Review published his interview titled illeberal democracy five years later. In that too, he says how his earlier asertions that western-style democracies do not work unless and until there is constitutional liberalism. READ THIS AS: In 2002, Harvad International Review published his interview titled illeberal democracy five years later. In that too, he says how his earlier asertions that western-style democracies do not work unless and until there is constitutional liberalism, is turning into a reality and for this he uses Russia as an example. [Note: These days theorists are using practical examples to test their theories. Its using the current events to test the theories not the other w ay aroiund which prevailed in academica for a long time. That's why you see the influx of new theories these days. I don't know about other subjects/areas, but in political science and IR jerry Mershiemer, a hardcore realist has used the exampes of the USSR, Japan, UK, US and Germany to test his Offesive Realism theory. So, Fareed Zakaria's use of examples mainly Russia and others such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan etc. is to test the valiudity of his research]. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 18-May-03 10:09 PM
. is to test the valiudity of his research]. = Validity of his research question/hypothesis. What's happening leads thinkers to come up with new theories and fareed Zakaria examied those afore mentioned countries to come up with his theory of illeberal democracies. Anyway, WHEN IS THE THIRD PART COMING OUT? |
| Nepe | Posted
on 20-May-03 11:47 AM
IF, Not so fast, Sir. You can not grab a clean chit yet. The definition you gave for academic honesty is elementary one. The word I used, *balanced view*, is probably not stringent enough to characterize academic honesty, however, you well know I was describing about, let me put it clearly, honesty of not hiding known unfavorable evidences. And you lack this character very big time, my friend. I have given example. So I won't go into it again. Now about Zakaria. Since I have not read his books, I probably better not debate on this. I suppose there are other fellow posters who are in better situation to talk about Zakaria. Paschim, where are you ? However, with my googled knowledge and now recalling seeing him on TV talk shows, I can say this much with confidence. Isolated Freak, if you think you can use Zakaria's views to borrow support to what you are advocating- monarchy in Nepal, then you have chosen a wrong guy ! Zakaria has not recommended authoritarian system. As a matter of fact, he is against it. Let me tell you this, whatever I read about his views so far, I almost fully agreed with them. I won't talk much here, but let me drop a Zakaria's bombshell on you. You have argued on many occasions, that majority of Nepalis support the monarchy. May be you are right. But do you know what Zakaria says about that ? He says, in paraphrased words, that even if they are popular, wrong institutions are wrong. If I stretch Zakaria's views to the context of Nepal, he says, even in case the majority of Nepali people supported the *divine rights* (Sitara 2003) of the monarch, constitutional institutions should handcuff him. Zakaria stresses on the importance of able civil society to make democracy work. He is 100% right. And IFji, civil society develops in democarcy, not in monarchy. Compare 12 years of failed democracy to that of 30 years of Panchayati Ram Rajya. In Panchayat, it was zero, actually it was negative. Now we have at least some, if not good enough. It is in the future republic of Nepal, when we will be free at last of feudal mental slavery, that civil society will realize its full development and maturity. IFji, there is nothing in Zakaria's views that lend support to monarchy, yet you cited him as a preamble to say monarchy will live 200 years in Nepal. Once again, you proved your skill of misrepresentation. You are a Guru of disinformation. Have fun until it lasts. P.S. Third part ? It's already running in 6-7th part. There just wasn't announcement. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-May-03 11:59 AM
nepe, zakaria has proved that unless there is constitutional liberalism there won't be true democracy. just by electing the same set of leaders has given rise to more problems. " Around the world, democratically elected regimes are routinely ignoring limits on their power and depriving citizens of basic freedoms. From Peru to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon: illiberal democracy. It has been difficult to recognize because for the last century in the West, democracy -- free and fair elections -- has gone hand in hand with constitutional liberalism -- the rule of law and basic human rights. But in the rest of the world, these two concepts are coming apart. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is producing centralized regimes, the erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war. The international community and the United States must end their obsession with balloting and promote the gradual liberalization of societies." [Foreign Affairs, Nov /Dec 1997) so, MR. if democracy has given rise to more problems then what good is democracy to a developing country like nepal? And i never used zakaruia's point to advocate authoritarian rule in nepal. I just said, even democracies are not clean as we tend to think. since, you keep track of my postings, post that thread here. however, i say, as i have always been saying, nepal is not ready for democracy yet because of the low literacy rate and hawa fuskya netas and their chamchas. My name dropping of zakaria was to say that Democracy too can be questioned. and nepe, you can do a lot better. learn google search and learn what academic honesty means. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-May-03 12:06 PM
however, i say, as i have always been saying, nepal is not ready for democracy yet because of the low literacy rate and hawa fuskya netas and their chamchas. literacy is one factor thats responsible for an active and impartial civil society. Without the civil society's participation and activism, there won't be constitutional liberalism and when there is no liberalism to go with democracy, there's anarchy like we had in nepal for the llast 12 years. The leaders nor the public supported or strengthend the civil society and on top of the unwillingness, there was/is the pooverty and illetaracy factor. so, nepe the same set of leaders keep on coming to power, engage in corruption, leaving the country in a total chaos. come on nepe, a shrewd and educated intellectual can do a lot LOT better job. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-May-03 12:31 PM
For your convenience, this is when I DROPPED/USED ZAKARIA's NAME Nepe, Not at all. Democracr is the best system, no questions regarding that. But, in Nepal's context, forget democracy. It is 21st century, Nepe. Thanks for reminding us and you know what, in the 21st century, the definition of democracy has chagned. Democracy is being debated. The whole system is being questioned. The problem with you (General YOU) seem to believe that democracy and liberty go together and that's the biggest flaw (now, don't get offended) in your argument. Democracy does not necessarily lead to libertyy and those two are totally different concepts says Fareed Zakaria. Also, democracies didn't work in many nations. Nepal is one of those failed democractic nations but hey we are not a failed nation because there is still someone who is ready and willing to take the responsibilty for what goes on in the nation. That's why, I respect the King and I believe that the institution of monarchy is essential for Nepal's survival for at least 200 years. And as Sparsha already pointed out, why can't you people who are so against the King for reasons only known to you, can't utter a single word against the Maoists? Nepe, the world has been brainwashed to believe in other systems too. Then, your friend asked me whether i have read the book by zakaria in his unique sarcastic tone. Yeah, we all get our knowledge from google search except some. But, that's life... My answer to this was a honest no .... To answer your question, NO, I am yet to read the book, and that statement was taken from the review published on the Economist. and IF you wnat to take the discussion on democracy further, I am up for it. Actually, i ahve been raising this issue for a long time in this board. If you are willing to discuss issues pertaining to democracy in a democratic manner without letting your "sympathies" and or biases dominate it, I am up for it and I will reciproacte in the same manner. But if you go on name calling and assuming that whoever disagrees with you is a total idiot, then.. you know what happens then. . Let's question democracy. Is democracy only electing leaders or it means something else? Or discussing the pabitra system of democracy a taboo? Now, i don't wnat to be labelled ultra-this and ultra that just for questiong democracy. namaste. have a good one. ****** Waiting for the oh-so-broing 8th or 9th part!! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-May-03 12:37 PM
Now, nepe: either you didn't read me carefully.. which i can say honestly.. because, just I am tired of reading your ghisa-pita lines again and again, you must be feeling the same reading mine. or, my dropping the name made you nervous. Since, you couldn't come up with counter points, you resorted to personal attacks by labeling me this and that. NEPE, as I already wrote, its you vs. me, not this system versus that. BUt, I am enjoying it.. hope you are too. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-May-03 12:47 PM
hahha nepe, here's a good evidence to prove that you don't challenge me enough: yoiu posted your message on 11: 47 AM my answer to that was already posted on 11:59 AM so, it was 3 mins to read, 9 mins to type my response. why 3 mins: because there was nothing new, and nothing challenging. yeah, you can say the same thing about me too.. which i don't deny. but come on, comrade propoganda, you can do a lot better job. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 20-May-03 02:41 PM
IF, You certainly won the race. It's just that I was slowly walking the opposite direction. |
| Paschim | Posted
on 20-May-03 10:56 PM
Nepe, you are in the right direction; keep walking! Nepe wrote: "I suppose there are other fellow posters who are in better situation to talk about Zakaria. Paschim, where are you ?" Nepe, I am traveling...will be on the road for 2 more weeks, so won't access this forum regularly... didn't read all these postings (sorry!) but saw your query. quickly on zakaria's fascinating new book, one of his central points deals with how increasing democracy, i.e., popular participation in affairs of the state (e.g., regular plebiscites, or the opening up proceedings in Congress to close public monitoring and lobbying) has almost rendered governance in America dysfunctional...fascinating case study from california for instance. he argues for restraining such popular (democratic?) pressures, and instead delegating much authority to specialist bodies shielded from pressure to produce substantive results...of course, these bodies will all be answerable to a democratically elected leader or cabinet. he cites the workings of the Fed, the EU, and the WTO as examples...There are other interesting chapters, one on democracies abroad where he says a certain level of per capita income and above will allow democracies to function better as the middle class and the CSOs will sustain the system better with reduced patronage from the state...he also talks a lot about how the link between democracy and liberty is not automatic; historically in the West, the sequencing has varied, and oftentimes, the link has to be cosnciously forged. I think people would benefit from zakaria's bold musings if they actually read them. I am now in Nepal, and will be discussing and loaning my copy of Zakaria's new book to my friend Sushil Sharma, the BBC Correspondent here, so anyone in Nepal who badly wants to read it can contact him to photocopy excerpts, if permissible under local IPR laws! Gotta run now...Jaya Cybernet Cafe in Thamel...connection isn't bad at all. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 21-May-03 02:25 PM
Paschim, Thank you for your encouragement and that quick synopsis of the book that launched a thousand meter race right here. It surely seems democrats will benefit a lot from reading Zakaria. And for now, most importantly, it is clear he ain't no good news to those who pledge for a system which is responsible to nobody. Enjoy your travel. Sajha readers will be eagerly waiting to read your stories. You must be meeting interesting and influencial people. If you can put aside your feelings, meet Baburam Bhattarais too. They have gone wild and they need to be domesticated. Their exposure to people like you will go a long way to that end. I personally find their public commitment to bourgeois democarcy, market economy and to let a popular mandate decide the fate of the monarchy very encouraging, if not adequate. And if you ever happened to be at a mass gathering of Jana Andolan II, make sure you wear that turban you spoke about last time. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 21-May-03 02:41 PM
Let me put something to those who read reviews and pretend to know the view of the writer. I am a regular reader of Foreign Affairs, have been a subscriber for more than two years. Zakaria is not my 'most' favorite writer, but he brings some interesting points. Sometimes he wonders whether democracy functions better in more affluent societies. But nothing can be more bizarre than citing Zakaria to justify an authoritarian rule in a third world country. If Zakaria were to read these postings, he would be surprised. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-May-03 07:39 PM
Biswo.. oK you too joined the band wagon! Biswo, Zakaria wasn't quoted to advocate an authoritareian system in ne pal. It was used to "say that DEMOCRACY too can be questioned". Mathi ko first post ramro sita padhnus biswo ji. Democracy without liberty is illeberal one and illeberal demopcracy brings more trouble to the nation that the authoritarian system. Unless there is "constitutional liberalism" and the basic rights of the people are ensured, democracy don't function well, because the same set of leaders are elected again and again.So, the ida of constitutional liberalism has to be promoted along with democracy. So, democracies without liberalism which comes from a set of democratic leaders ara failed democracies. Nepal is an examp[le of failed democracy. Nepal has benifitted less from democracy. Nepal doesn't have a set of leaders who can lead and ensure rights. That's where my quote ended. Then, I further said, well if there are so many versions of democracy then why shouldn't we discuss the system itself. Then I said, since we don't seem to have any leader who has really fought for the people nor taken any responsibility to what's happening in Nepal, except for the KIng, I would rathjer support the KIng. Read the same p[ost again. I say, democracy is the best system. No othere system is better but DOES IT WORK EVERYWHERE? |
| Biswo | Posted
on 21-May-03 08:05 PM
>Biswo.. oK you too joined the band wagon! IFji, I was in this thread before too. Don't feel bad about this. Talk to you later. I am glad to know you recognize democracy as the best system. We can decide where it works best. As far as I know Gyanendra Maharaj, he thinks it works in Nepal too, doesn't he? |
| Nepe | Posted
on 21-May-03 08:06 PM
Isolated Freak is not satisfied with winning his imaginary race with Nepe. Now he is running a relay race, all four legs (segments) by himself, starting from Zakaria and finishing at Maharaj Gyanendra. My big applaud ! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-May-03 08:13 PM
nepe and your nonsense one-liners.. !!! I haven't been recieving the jokes on email these days, so you know what I read you these days. come on, you can do a lot better. |
| mirador | Posted
on 21-May-03 10:22 PM
Mr. Freak, While they are busy coming up with posts to match your calibre, why don't you anser this question I raised to you earlier? Do you have ANY facts to support your claim that foreigners participated in Nepal's revolution other than giving moral support to people opposing a tyrannical government? Remember, you claimed that 2046 Andolan was not carried out by Nepalis. I didn't think so. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 27-May-03 07:13 PM
".... popular participation in affairs of the state (e.g., regular plebiscites, or the opening up proceedings in Congress to close public monitoring and lobbying) has almost rendered governance in America dysfunctional......" Granted this is not Paschim's point, but his tacit liking of the same makes one wonder. Paschim has risen on many occasions at the site to speak for democracy in the Nepali context, especially if it has the Nepali Congress smell to it. But here I see a step in the opposite direction. The WTO is NOT an example of a functional institution. It is fundamentally undemocratic. The global trade regime is one of unfairness where the poor countries get srewed up. It is not fair and free trade, but trade as suits the powerful. And an opening up of the organization's proceedings might be the first step in the right direction. Democracy is not a privilege a society or a country gets after a certain level of socio-economic achievement, but a tool, a precondition for those achievements. I see the cart before the horse, to use a tired metaphor. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 27-May-03 08:05 PM
Now, almost certainly, if I see old threads coming out, I guess it must be our old friend Paramendraji. Welcome back, Paramendraji, with usual formidable firepower. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 28-May-03 01:14 PM
I guess I am less frequent these days. So I hop from author to author, and so old threads resurface, I guess. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 28-May-03 01:45 PM
isolated freak: "...I have my rights to express my views...." But that RIGHT was not yours as long as Mahendra was in power. That right is a post-1990 democratic right. So why are you still such a MahendraBhakta? Biswo: "...Their mere presence at the power center of Nepal is a shame to all educated Nepalese worldwide..." True. SITARA: ..."so now that Monarchy rules....does peace prevail? At what cost.... freedom of speech, individual rights, or just under the covert operation of FEAR? .." The voice of reason, Sitara. isolated freak: "...Democracy without liberty is illeberal one and illeberal demopcracy brings more trouble to the nation that the authoritarian system. Unless there is "constitutional liberalism" and the basic rights of the people are ensured, democracy don't function well, because the same set of leaders are elected again and again.So, the ida of constitutional liberalism has to be promoted along with democracy. ...." You are making a lot of sense here. Democracy is like the stock market. It has to be continaully refined, and made better, and better. The campaign finance reform in the US is one such refinement. Polishing, if you will. So, true. But, to move from the Panchayate autocracy to what Nepal had in the 1990s is/was a positive step. To have had stronger anti-corruption laws so as to counter the Nepali Congress brand of corruption would have been a further step in that direction. What I don't understand is how you connect the dots to want to take all of us back to the Panche era! Or to sing songs for the king! Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, Step 4. You vocalize the inadequacy of Step 2, but then propose going back to Step 1 .. ! |
| paramendra | Posted
on 28-May-03 02:16 PM
Some links of relevance:
---Fareed Zakaria, editor and columnist at Newsweek International ---Zakaria defines democracy, in contrast, as a political system based on "open, free, and fair elections." That is but a small portion of what democracy is all about. The "liberty" he describes is part and parcel of democracy. Elections are part of the package called democracy, but elections are not the whole of democracy. ---- if elections were held now in many Middle Eastern or North African countries, they would be won by fundamentalist parties that would proceed to destroy whatever modicum of liberty exists and probably eliminate future elections as well. Again. Elections and democracy are not synonyms. Elections are a subset of democracy. ---In the great Russia-China debate over which should come first, political reform or economic reform, Zakaria sides most definitely with the Chinese. That is so lame. ---force them to devote their unearned revenues to popular education and economic development. ..which can only happen if Saudi Arabia and Egypt were democracies. Democracy is not a decision taken in a split second. It is an arduous process of institution building. ---communal tensions They exist in the US as well. It is called race relations. ---the United States suffers from an excess of democracy I believe it is the reverse. There is not enough democracy in the US. The campaign finance reform has not gone far enough. The author is slightly confused. ---Without constitutional liberty, too much democracy can lead to disaster. The United States, however, has a different problem. It still has too little. Too little, not too much. |