| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 12:54 PM
Dipendra was pursuing a PhD in geography at Tribhuwan
University when he died.
Apart for his three-year stay at Eton in England doing
his O and A Levels, Dipendra -- unlike his father -- hardly
spent much time outside of the country. This also means
that apart from his usual hangers-on and the same old
friends from high school in Nepal, Dipendra had had hardly much experience working/dealing with people DIFFERENT from
him and DIFFERENT from his ideas and beliefs.
This is important because it now appears that, to put it
crudely and simplistically, Dipendra died because he did not know how to handle differences of opinion, while persuading
others of his interests.
King Birendra had spent five years at Eton followed
by a year at the University of Tokyo, two years
at Harvard . . . all supplemented by extensive
travels through Europe, Latin America and Asia. One
could argue that all this exposure made Birendra
tolerant of opinions different from his, and,
that is why, his image as a law-abiding
constitutional monarch is much higher now than
ever before.
And so, I've often wondered why Dipendra -- Eton
notwithstanding -- was NOT sent out all that much for
college and/or grad school. Besides, not that it
matters now, why was Dipendra doing a PhD anyway, when he
could have hired the smartest PhDs for just about
anything in Nepal? Also, for someone given to such
obvious scholarly pursuits, how come Dipendra never
published anything related to geography in any
journal coming out of Nepal?
After all, King Birendra's Panchayat-era Palace Secretaries
all sent their kids to foreign places, especially
soon after their introduction of the now-failed
Naya Sickchya Yojana in the '70s.
Narayan Prasad Shrestha, the former Palace Secretary,
who once introduced himself to me as someone who was "first-class-first in English from Leeds University"
sent his son to an exclusive school in Mussorie, India,
before sending off to Philips Exeter in New
Hampshire.
Likewise, another former Palace Secretary also sent
his son off to Harrow, one of the exclusive schools
in England. Thapa's son -- who's an excellent
debater -- later entered the London School of
Economics.
True, sons of both Shrestha and Thapa are smart
Nepalis anyway who were/are able to make the best
of the opportunities available to them, and that's
fine. (None of them went on for a PhD!!)
But what I didn't understand is: How come King Birendra
somehow did not push his oldest son into getting a broad
exposure in the arts, the sciences and the humanities?
Any university in the West -- Harvard included -- would
surely have taken Dipendra in as a visiting (i.e.
non-degree) undergraduate or a graduate student. An
exposure to a variety of people, ideas and beliefs
would have prepared Dipendra very well . . . making
him aware of the differences and making him more
adept at handling his emotions well.
But anyway, this is all wishful thinking now.
oohi
ashu
But I wonder:
|
| Palpali |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 10:27 PM
More than what I see as a visiting undergrad in the US or a Europe tour, I can relate an elite's upbringing close to home where millions of poor people are your best open books. I call this "a rich man's dilemma" where one thinks that studying in Harvard or travelling to Europe is the best way to feed upon the differences of opinion. Nepal's ruling rich people are handful and one of the reasons why the rest have not risen up is because most of the elites have never learnt how to properly interact with the poors. I am not totally against the idea that one needs to be a scholar at an American college or go to Europe to develop a holistic perspective. The key here is to understand the poors. Think of the Maobadis. Think of what they have done and what they are doing. Think.
|
| mahos |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 11:14 PM
i disagree with you assertion that
"This also means
that apart from his usual hangers-on and the same old
friends from high school in Nepal, Dipendra had had hardly much experience working/dealing with people DIFFERENT from
him and DIFFERENT from his ideas and beliefs."
because of his high-school which had people from all of the 75 districts of nepal, he grew up, in a sense, with the common nepalis, and interacted with people a lot different from him in ideas and social stature.
unlike the late king birendra, diperndra was not educated in a convent style school or a big-name college ( with the 3 years at eton being the exception) . He got his degrees in higher education from Tichandra college, a NEPALI school, and that probably brought him closer in the eyes of many people.
But the crime he committed is beyond any reason, so to speculate it in terms of his isolation is probably not a sound argument. If anything it was probably the "elitist" feeling that was harboured within the palace walls that propelled his frustration to the point of bloodshed. but that also is speculation.
and to reiterate your point along the lines of "why was Dipendra doing a PhD anyway, when he
could have hired the smartest PhDs for just about
anything in Nepal? " the late king did hire the "best minds" (his palace Secretaries and their kins)
to goto the schools you mentioned, much good that did him.
anyway, i think it takes a lot more than foreign travel or a reputed university to make a person and even more to get rid of that pesky little thing called ego, again in my opinion.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 11:18 PM
Dear Ashu:
I don't think that just by going to Harvard somebody becomes
tolerant, and just by remaining all life in Nepal makes a person
violent, but once I also wondered why Dipendra didn't go to
some top ranked university in US.(I think the govt is responsible
for paying his tuition.)
The king probably thought that Dipendra should be kept where
he could be kept under the watchful eyes of the palace.
I also believe that Birendra wasn't a rich king, though in Nepal
he should be considered a rich person.He owned a few cars, and
didn't have a private plane/jet. His sons/daughter were sent to
the schools in KTM may be because he didn't want to plunder the
national treasury for his petty interest (it can also be a reason,who knows!).
King Birendra went to school in St Joseph (Darjeeling),Eton,
Tokyo, Harvard, and probably understood vacuity of living far
from the home for such a long time.Also as a father, he probably
didn't want to send his kids away from home for long.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 11:37 PM
Prince William, heir to the British throne, surely has no shortage of access to top-notch educators and diverse ideas. But he has also spent the last two months in Chile--scrubbing toilets, splitting firewood, and repairing trails.
PR? Of course. But it's also an education.
I doubt there are many people on this site who would doubt the merits (and costs) of a foreign education. But in addition to that, as Palpali pointed out, there are other crucial things to learn if one aspires to a leadership position in Nepal.
Which is more educational for the average scion of wealth: to spend time carrying a doko, or ordering drinks at a disco?
|
| Sunil |
Posted
on 18-Jun-01 11:38 PM
The reason Dipendra was never sent out of Nepal for study other than to Eaton was because he was not a good student. He created a lot of ill will toward himself and Nepal royalty. He did travel quite a bit as you will recall, to Japan, Austrailia and other places. He was not a good ambassador for Nepal. So when you ask why he did not study more outside of Nepal that is the answer. Geography, come on, what a simple subject. How do you get a Ph. D. in geography and do anything productive with such a degree. He should have been studying sociology, economics, public administration, international affairs.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-Jun-01 01:01 AM
Sally wrote:
>Prince William, heir to the British throne,
>surely has no shortage of access to top-
>notch educators and diverse ideas. But he
>has also spent the last two months in Chile--
>scrubbing toilets, splitting firewood, and
>repairing trails.
>
>PR? Of course. But it's also an education.
Yes, Prince William is taking a whole year
off -- working in a village in Chile -- before
going to a university in Scotland next year.
My point, Biswo, is NOT that Dipendra should
have gone to Harvard. That's not what I meant at
all.
What I meant was that: All things being equal,
had Dipendra gone abroad (where he would
have not been as fawned over as he apparently was
at home) and challenged himself in terms of ideas,
beliefs and behaviours and interacted with a wide
variety of people (as Birendra surely did), he would
have had enough maturity to:
a) to see the advantage of having multiple viewpoints,
even when one disagrees with those viewpoints.
b) to handle differences of opinion,
c) to persuade others of his ideas without resorting to
fatal emotionalism, and so on and on.
I mean, it's really a shame to LOSE your life and family
over some girl who you want to marry and your parents
disapprove of.
Dipendra could have learnt a thing or two from the young King Abdullah of Jordan (who married a commoner, and still credits
his time at Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts, where
he waited on tables and cleaned dorm toilets like every
other Deerfield student), and other Royals around the
world.
My point, to repeat, is that, in retrospect, it seems, quite
sadly, that Dipendra did not know how to handle
differences, even extreme differences, of opinion.
Nor did he seem to know how to persuade others of his ideas/choices.
What's more, he did not even know how to ask for help and
whom to ask for help. Surely, these things CAN be learned,
and one of the best ways to learn such skills would be to go away from home ands try to live and suffer like everyone else.
And friends in and from Nepal, especially friends from one's school days, are often of LITTLE help with one's emotional or intellectual growth. They are fine for going out for beer
and just sharing some inside jokes, but my experience is
that Nepali friends value comfort over growth, and that's fine
if one wants a certain kind of easy-going, make-everyone-happy lifestyle.
But if you are aspiring for a leadership position, as Dipendra surely was, then having a DIVERSE group of friends from a variety of backgrounds and learning from them is crucial. Sure, you don't have to like ALL your friends for ALL their traits, but at least, you would appreciate/know the diversity of people and their ideas. Again, one is more likely to meet these DIVERSE groups people if one goes away from one's 'comfort zone' from time to time.
oohi
ashu
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 19-Jun-01 02:46 AM
There is nothing to disagree about in your comment. Going to
a lot of places could have helped Dipendra, no doubt.Sadly,He just
went to Borboun Street(New Orleans) type of places.It was also
obvious he took as granted his future as king, otherwise he could
not be puffing cocaine!
Again, it is not the place, but the willingness of a student that
determines how much the student learns.Now, send Paras to Harvard,
and the first thing he would do is probably get a ticket to Las
Vegas or New Orleans, rather than attending class in those old
venerable halls. Had Dipendra been a successful king, had Nirajan
been a ideal citizen/businessman, we could have claimed: look,
they became so successful even though they studied in the
colleges of Nepal.
King Abdullah wasn't groomed for being king. Prince Hassan was
heir apparent for a long time, I am sure you know about this.
Prince Hassan's image is somewhat like Gyanendra: suave, Oxford
educated, diplomat and somewhat uneasy about the brother king's
handling of the nation.Hassan didn't wait the table either! I
am presenting this here just as a fact.
Btw, in an unrelated note, I am surprised that the report of
committee as posted in the website
http://www.ntc.net.np/full_report.htm
printed princess Puja Shahi's reply as that princess Prerana's.
Prerana is still unmarried, I guess, so who is her husband who
carries Dipendra?
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-Jun-01 05:32 AM
Mahos wrote:
>because of his high-school which had people
>from all of the 75 districts of nepal, he
>grew up, in a sense, with the common nepalis,
> and interacted with people a lot different
>from him in ideas and social stature.
No.
This is a big myth about Dipendra's school in Nepal.
When you are 10 years old and in Class Four, and you
have friends from all over the country, then you treat
your friends as just that: friends you play with and
study Mahendra Mala WITH -- nothing more, in most cases.
As such, you don't treat your friends as SEPARATE individual
people different from you . . . people who bring different
ideas, beliefs and values to the common pool and people you
can learn FROM.
At best, you will know cultural trivia
such as that the Rais have a "dhaan dance" or that the
Gurungs have "rodi" . . . and stuff like that, but
interpreting diversity in terms of food, festivals and
enthnic costumes is ultimately too limiting.
After all, you can only learn from others when you are
first aware of what you don't really know. And usually, you
become aware of what you don't know later in life -- certainly
later than when you were, say, 10-16 age-group ko set. This is where you need a a wide exposure to all kinds of ideas and
people.
For example, just because, say, a Bahun boy from Surkhet
goes to school for six years with a Magar boy from Rolpa,
calling the latter "bhotay" in an affectionately, consensually joking way does NOT mean that the bahun boy will grow up
with an enlightened understanding of or even sensitivity to
the Magars of Nepal . . . and vice versa.
All their friendship means is that the bahun guy has one
Sherpa friend and vice versa. And that's it.
But one could argue that because of the same schooling during their formative years, those two guys ko value/belief system
is all the more 'standardized' to fit "THE mould" proposed by the school -- and it would be THE mould the students would not be able to challenge with their own ideas. That's because if they challenge the "standardized mold', then the chances of their
being ostarcized or ridiculed would be too high . . . and
that could be too painful for young students.
And so, because of this 'standardized mould', both the bahun and the Sherpa together become, by and large, similar to one another in their outlooks (whatever those outlooks are!), yet "misfits" as leaders in their own village/rural/urban communities.
I am NOT trying to blame Dipendra's school for this or that,
and I am certainly not trying to make one case fit all.
I am trying to argue that had Dipendra been exposed
to and had practice with multiple ideas (both agreeable and disagreeable ones), maybe then he would have been intelligent enough to handle his emotions well -- both to marry Devyani
and to be the King. That's all. As things have turned out,
he lost both his goals.
As for the "ego" thing, for someone who shot his own family
members and himself, maybe Dipendra had had no ego, or perhaps had a very low opinion of himself or just hated himself.
Despite his love for Devyani, he did not even control himself -- throwing her future in jeopardy as well. After all, someone
with a sense of ego -- at the very least -- "loves" himself or herself . . . and loving oneself does not mean putting one's
and one's loved ones' lives in jeopardy.
oohi
ashu
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 19-Jun-01 08:54 AM
It's probably quite easy to say "yo gareko bhaye hunthiyo, tyo gareko bhaye hunthiyo" after the incident but the question is would that really have altered the outcome? who knows? It's always easy to speculate from outside of a situation. when watching a football on a TV/stadium we see a lot of mistakes being made by the players and often we express our frustration but those players are in real time pressure and can't see all the things we do from outside. There is no gurantee that Dipendra would have been a tolerant man had he been exposed to outside world. If dipendrea did ( I am still having hard time beleiving it..especially with that Dr. shrestha's report (that dipendra's blood had no trace of alcohol or narcotics.)what he is accused of doing then I seriously doubt he gave any thought to what he was doing. It happened before his wisdom kicked in. We all do certain stupid things in rage or under certain pressure/circumstance which we never in our sound mind think will ever do.
Exposure to real world in a larger and greater extent MAY or MAY NOT HAVE helped. It's virtually impossible to speculate how a person reacts under any circumstance, I firmly beleive.
sparsha
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 19-Jun-01 06:45 PM
Dear ashu dai,
I don't know how you got the idea that the crown prince was intolearnt of other's ideas. And that's what caused the tragedy. I strongly disagree.
Going to Harvard, Yale, Eton, Oxford or any other school/college in the US or Europe does not make one sensetive or tolerant. One has to develop those qualities himself/herself and it has to come from INSIDE. If it was not the case, then everyone who went/studied abroad would be a BUDDHA. It does not happen.
And why was Dipendra sarkar taught in Nepal instead of Europe or the US? Well, the late king wanted his son to know nepal and nepali people than Europe or America and the people there. That's the whole reasoning behind the establishment of Budha Nil kantha school. At BNKS, Deeopendra lived like a commoner and interacted with bright students from chaudha-anchal-pachattar-jilla. I think, that had made Deependra more sensetive and tolerant than any other royals in nepal.
So, to say that one has to go abroad to develop tolerance /sensitivity is simply not true. If it was the case, then people who haven't gotten a chance to go abroad or study abroad would be, in ashu's analysis, the most insensetive and intolearnt people. I don't agree.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-Jun-01 11:58 PM
Hi Trai,
Thanks for your views.
The point I was trying to make was: If you aspire to
be a public leader, then, you have to get out of your
'comfort zone' once in a while, take the heat, even
make some enemies (if necessary) and learn to
survive. Doing this may NOT be easy.
Getting out of your comfort zone once in a while is
one good way to strengthen your emotional muscles, to
sharpen you skills to seek help from and work with
people you did not grow up with, and basically, learn
to chart a course when you are dealing with the
unknown, and on and on.
In Dipendra's case, especially with reports coming out now,
it seemed unlikely that he ever got out his once-set-fixed-forever type of "comfort zone" in Nepal. Had he gone abroad,
away from his usual hangers-on and the usual comforts,
and spent some time doing whatever he wanted to do . . . then
the chances of his
Sure, Dipendra, by all accounts, had an excellent brain.
But the sad thing is his brain apparently remained
unchallenged till his dying day. I mean, so bored with life seemed Dipendra that he was even given to abuse drugs. Isn't
that a shame and tremendous disappointment to all who knew him?
I mean, to have a first-rate mind, and blow it all like that . . .?
Like I wrote earlier, this is all wishful thinking now, but
I -- who never met Dipendra and have heard only uncritically
good things about him -- certainly wish Dipendra had been
challenged more -- by friends, by stangers and, yes, by
professors and friends at distant, foreign universities.
On a related note, I have noticed that Nepalis educated in
the US, in general, seem to be a lot more mature than
Nepalis with similiar or more level of education in
India.
It seems to me that one way to explain this is to say that we 'equalize' the personality differences, and then look
at other variables.
And so, it seems that a Nepali student who is working hard to earn money to pay rent, utilities, tuition in the US has more chances of being out of his/her "comfort zone" and hence be mature and responsible than a Nepali student with an identical social background and similar age in India or Nepal.
This is one example of what I mean about "getting out
of your comfort zone" to learn the survival skills.
oohi
ashu
|
| Robin Pandey |
Posted
on 20-Jun-01 12:08 AM
Ashu, you hit the bulls eye on the "comfort zone" talk!
|
| Palpali |
Posted
on 20-Jun-01 07:34 AM
>Ashu wrote: On a related note, I have noticed that Nepalis
>educated in the US, in general, seem to be a lot more mature than
>Nepalis with similiar or more level of education in India.
I wonder how many people (in the US) you have dealt with to make this statement. I have seen wiser and practical people (specially the senior citizens now) in Nepal who have not even completed high school. And I have seen impractical and by-the-book types who have had Ivy League experience. DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU DEAL WITH AND THE ENVIRONMENT YOU GROW UP IN.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 20-Jun-01 08:08 AM
Palpali wrote:
>I wonder how many people (in the US) you
>have dealt with to make this statement. I
>have seen wiser and practical people (
>specially the senior citizens now) in Nepal
>who have not even completed high school.
I knew I'd get comments like yours, which
is so true as to be of little use to advance
this or any discussion.
Often, a favorite rhetoric device of some Nepalis
is to throw in unrelated truisms, and, I guess,
that's fine too.
I mean, OF COURSE, Palpali, we all know that there are
many/some very wise and practical people in Nepal who
never went to school.
But these series of postings is NOT about such people
or their experiences.
That is why, I was careful to say "all things being equal
this is what I have found out from my experience."
This 'all things being equal' is a thought-device
that allows one to hold some things constant while
you examine some other things.
And so, this 'all things being equal', for our discussion
purposes, EQUALIZES, like I wrote, age/social background/and
even personal qualities so that we would only be looking
at the opportunities for "out-of-one's-comfort-zone"
experiences either in India/Nepal or the US.
>And
>I have seen impractical and by-the-book
>types who have had Ivy League experience.
Sure.
But I am NOT equating Ivy League experience
with fountain of wisdom.
What I am saying is that the more you go out of
your "comfort zone" the more you are likely to
have diverse sets of experiences, and those
diverse sets of experiences, in turn, help
you to be a more emotionally capable
person who can handle life's highs
and lows better.
That's all.
>DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU DEAL WITH
>AND THE ENVIRONMENT YOU GROW UP IN.
Yes.
Thankfully, one can change the environment one grows
up in by going out of it and experiencing new things,
people, friends, ideas, beliefs, practices, hobbies
and so on.
I guess I feel very sad because Dipendra, with all his
intelligence and privilege, did not seem to know how to
handle his emotions, and I just think his frustrating actions
and the deaths were so unneeded and so entirely
preventable . . . and that I am looking into his background
to figure out how he could have snapped like that -- with no regular outlets for his emotions so that when the outlet
did open up, things exploded so fatally . . . Surely, Dipendra
was smart enough to know that killing his family and himself
was not going to get him nearer his goals.
Sure, we may never know THE TRUTH.
But it doesn't hurt to try to understand it in ways
one can.
oohi
ashu
|
