| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| ramprasad_03 | Posted
on 14-Dec-03 01:50 PM
From December 11-17, 2003 issue of The People's Review. Perils of over-intellectualization: Root cause behind the success of Maoist terrorism BY RAM PRASAD NEPALI Among many factors contributing to the flourishing Maoist rebellion in Nepal is the outright intellectual dishonesty in the Nepali intelligentsia (comprised of social scientists, political analysts, journalists, leading opinion-makers and leaders of political parties). The country edges ever closer to cambodification while the intellectuals conduct the degrees of rationalization in legitimizing the Maoists. They try to give the Maoist movement a political color when the only color remaining is that of blood. ...............click the link below for full article http://www.yomari.com/p-review/2003/12/11122003/ram.html Hoping for fruitful discussion. Ram Prasad |
| VincentBodega | Posted
on 14-Dec-03 02:53 PM
is there anyone else left to blame now? When we are at it lets blame the kids of the Nation too. Heres the logic. Maoists + angry = Nepalbanda. Nepalbanda + schools = schools Closed. Kids + schools closed = happy. Therefore I am so sure that the kids of the nation are real n'sync with the maoists. Hoina ta? PS: I havent read the article... |
| Nepe | Posted
on 14-Dec-03 07:04 PM
Nepali ji, Welcome to Sajha. You did a good job by reposting your article here in Kurakani fovra general discussion. Beleive me, there is no better place than Sajha Kurakani, if you want a brutally honest, brutally frank and bewilderingly diverse opinion on any kind of matter. This site, unfortunately is experiencing interruptions and other technical problem owing to moving from one server to another. So the volume of replies has gone down these days. I hope our good webmaster manages to fix the problem soon and Kurakani resumes it's usual noise and vibrancy. Be ready to be showered with all kinds of labels, comments and remarks. As for my view, I partially share your fear about the Maoists. I think if they succeed to take over the power single handedly, militarily and without significant change in the current political polarity, our future is at the mercy of the potential Nepali Pol Pots. I also do not, like you, quite agree with the almost unanimous views of the mainstream experts that the root cause of the Maoist rebellion is the social, economic and cultural injustices existing in our society. I see these socio-economic agenda as actually hitchhiking the band wagon of the Maoists for a free ride rather than being the original passenger, let alone being the driver itself. What is the root cause of the Maoist rebellion, then ? Although you have lashed out our intellectuals enough for being fooled by the smart Maoists, you conspicuously missed to spell out the root cause of the Maoists rebellion yourself. Your rhetoric about the Maoists does not help to understand why our intellectuals got fooled. This is a major weakness of your article. You accusation of over-intellectualization of the Maoist problem to others seems to be actually your pretext to refrain yourself from a difficult intellectual exercise and at the same time to give monopoly to your strong rhetoric about the Maoists. Since you have based whole argument on those rhetoric rather than a serious analysis of the matter, you have found a chance to comfortably prescribe the solutions, the type of which would have been completely invalid, had you dared to make a basal intellectual analysis (against over-intellectualization). Let me make it clearer with my views on the Maoists. I think that the Maoists and the monarchy are two sides of the same coin. Therefore I think your prescription of Monarchy+democratic force as a cure to the Maoist problem is nonsense. Republicanism is the cure to the Maoist problem. Republicanism is the cure to the Monarchy problem. Republicanism is the cure to the ailment of democratic force. Read my views, which you might find as a super over-intellectualization of the whole thing, at Nepe's column ("Why Republicanism for Nepal" ), here.. - http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622 |
| ashu | Posted
on 14-Dec-03 09:21 PM
Manjushree Thapa, a novelist, recently published an op-ed in Kantipur, celebrating the solidarity that a number of Nepali writers and artists showed toward poet Purna Biram, who remains a Maoist sympathizer. Manju wrote that the state had no right to silence the likes of Purna Biram, and that Nepali writers and artists have their work cut out to speak up for the rights to speak and write. (Never mind that the examples from around the world that Manju used in her article could be countered by furnishing a list of writers and artists who have supported fascism, East European communism, Nazism and so on.) As a defender of freedom of speech (First Amendment style), I fully agree with Manju's larger point. But what I cannot understand is why Nepali writers/artists remain silent and do not make a fuss even by putting themselves in harm's way when the other side, the Maoists, routinely kidnap journalists, torture and kill school teachers, threaten editors and columnists, blow up civic centers and warn journalists not to write anything against the Janayudda . . . I mean, are these not instances that violate Nepalis' freedom of speech and their right to live as they please? As a citizen, I just wish that our writers/artists and others were EQUAL-OPPORTUNITY defender of freedom of speech of all Nepalis. I say that because often I can't help feeling that only in Nepal, Nepali writers, intellectuals and artists can PICK and CHOOSE their side (i.e. scold the government, remain quiet about the Maoists), and then have the ARROGANCE to declare to the rest of us that they -- being writers, artists and intellectuals -- are actually talking about fundamental values of democracy, freedom of speech and so on and on when -- let's face it -- all they are doing is basically staking out a SAFE and SECURE position for themselves to lash out at the government again and again . . . knowng fully well that the government will not arrest them but that the Maoists will harm them (if they start speaking against the Maoists). ************* On another note, if you want to make a lot of money in Nepal for the next several years, make sure that you get jobs in Nepal related to conflict mitigation, crisis analysis, dispute-resolution and other similar fields. Your success indicators will be vague, you will run around here and there, host workshops and put out serious-sounding papers, and may even get to rub shoulders with the high and the mighty and enjoy other perks. Loads of money -- through various bilateral, multilateral and international agencies -- are pouring in for the elusive quest of shanti (peace). Not that there is anything wrong with this per se. As one of my acquaintances , who got a job as a conflict expert in a Kathmandu-based international agency, after searching hard and wide to make use of his science degree put it: "Thank God for this conflict. Without it, I would have starved to death." oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| ashu | Posted
on 16-Dec-03 02:14 AM
To give equal time to Side A: The past two weeks have been full of utter Public Relations Disasters for the Royal Nepal Army as it -- going by the media reports -- terrorized people in Bhairahawa, Pokhara and parts of Kathmandu. Innocent people/ordinary citizens have been killed; the RNA seems neither apologetic nor sympathetic to the victims nor too explantory about the obvious mistakes it appears to have committed. oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| spark | Posted
on 16-Dec-03 03:06 AM
Cruel killing of Maya by RNA in Panauti is just terrible. State atrocities are more serious than rebel's one. It appears monarchy is getting costlier to Nepal and Nepali. Why do we need monarchy in 21th century? Why to sacrifice lives of ordinary citizens just to save nonsense monarch? |
| ramprasad_03 | Posted
on 17-Dec-03 08:20 PM
Dear Nepeji: Thanks for reading and responding. I read your extremely long article. We obviously agree and disagree on certain things. My biggest contention with your proposal of republicanism is this: that you put cart before the horse. Until and unless the terrorism ends, no other -isms can take its place. I suffer no illusions that Maoists will miraculously turn Buddhists (give up violence) at the mention of the word "Republicanism." My understanding says that even after they have been given all that they have asked for including the reign of the country - the killings will not stop. Their manfestos say that "to achieve a perfectly classless system devoid of any hint of feudalism (and feudalism is defined very broadly as any type of heirarchy), the killing (sacrifices) must continue even after the victory over the borgeousie government is achieved. Mao had always understood that humans by nature will form heiarchies even in a non-feudal society, and Mao believed that this hierarchy must be destroyed consistently. This provides them with the pretext to systematically eliminate any opposition and those that think differently. Yes, the wounds in Peru are still open where the Shining Path was more or less crushed. Some 38,000 people died within a decade in Peru. But,I believe they are still better off than Cambodia where Khmere Rouge was not suppressed in time resulting in anywhere from 1.3-1.7 million dead. Do you think their wounds will ever heal? Let's not be blinded by delusions of grandeur. Ram P |
| lonely1 | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 07:15 AM
Ram Prasadjee, All right lets not keep any illusiona about the cause of Maoism, too. Can you enlighten us (under the illusion) on the cause of Maoist insurgency in Nepal, too? Anshujee, When a dog bites you, it's not a news, but when a man bites a dog, it is. This old Nepali saying should answer your bewilderment at why creative artists of the country across political line express solidarity against state(-caused/ supported) violence. What do you think about the feedback to Nepali times "economists wanted"? Are you fulfiling that role or want to at least to a certain extent? I hope you can if you want to. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 11:48 AM
Ram jyu, That was an very insightful and analytic piece on Nepal's present crisis, unlike the politically correct but polemically-fattened junk that usually litters the Nepali media these days. There is no one 'Root Cause'for the present mess: there are many factors involved. The chief among them is the structural and institutional weakness of the Nepali state, and India's instigation of the Maoist rebellion. If and when India stops supporting and harboring the Maoists, they will be neutralized within a year or less. Nepe jyu's contention that a republic is the answer to Nepal's woes appears to be poetic sentimentality, rather than a rigorous analytic prescription. How does the removal of monarchy, resolve all our problems from insurgency to poverty, corruption to lawlessness? By asking for a republic now, don't we end up legitimating the Maoists in a round-about way? Despite all its limitations, monarchy is still the unifying principle for the Nepali-nation state. Besides, all those countries that threw out monarchy on ideological whims did not end up pretty: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Laos, Russia, Kashmir, Sikkim, Tibet...the list goes on. lonely jyu, what we have in Nepal is man biting man, not man biting dog! Whether it is the security forces or the Maoists, they are biting/killing human beings, just like you and me. To imply that some are humans and others are dogs in this tragedy just adds salt to injury. In my humble opinion, the reason why the 'creative artists' are not raising their moral voice against the Maoist killings is either they are scared of them or they indirectly/directly support them. In comparision to this, it is very safe and fashionable to write against the government...the government does not chop off your head just for writing against it. Moreover, writing against the government is also profitable: INGOs, foreign governments, Amnesty International and such other donors give regular hand outs to these 'creative writers' for writing against the government. I saw a newsreport that said a foreign government had given a large sum of money to organize several 'writing retreats' for some of these writers. I think Manjushree Thapa was incharge of organizing one of these month-long retreats in Dhulikhel resort. So these are the political-economies of our 'creative writers' writing against the security forces, but not against the Maoist terror. |
| ashu | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 11:50 AM
Lonely1, While the Royal Nepal Army has surely committed its own set of atrocities for which its acts must be condemned, let's also muster collective courage to openly tell the Maoists too that their committing murders, inciting violence, spearhading destruction and spreading terror serve NO purpose whatsoever. More than 8000 people, many of them nameless and long forgotten, have been killed since 1996. Statistics -- as available from INSEC and as tabulated by Mohan Mainali show that most who have died are Magars, and many who did the dying came from the lowest economic strata of Nepali societies. In other words, the poor, the weak and the vulnerable in Nepal have borne the brunt of all this violence. To what end? Meantime, as a citizen, I am getting resigned to the fact that merely wishing for peace, merely lighting another candle at yet-another donor-funded peace rally in Kathmandu, and merely carrying placards that ask both sides is stop the killing is simply NOT going to bring peace in Nepal in near future. We, the citizens, have to take on a greater role to push for peace. Else, the temptation is too great for Nepal's military-business complex to continue to make money from this war . . . not to mention for aid agencies to continue recruiting bright young Nepalis to pontificate for years on ways to mitigate thi conflict. Let's be real: We are in for long innings of violence here, though much of that violence will play out, away from the comfort zones of Kathmandu. My only gripe with Nepali artists/writers (quite a few of whom are actually good friends with me) is that they should inspire the rest of us to speak the verifiable truth through their own courage of convictions, through their bold act of speaking out against extremism of any kind . . . and NOT take a repeatdly waffling and politically expedient and ideologically-driven stance on issues. In this context, yes, the poet Purna Biram's freedom of speech must be protected REGARDLESS of his political sympathies, with which one may disagree. But my point is that in the same vein, while defending Purna Biram's freedom of speech, let our writers/artists NOT keep quiet about the diminished or the absence of similar rights of local stringers, journalists, school teachers, charity workers, the elderly and other relatively "unglamorous" figures based in the hills and the tarai whose day-to-day freedom has to be negotiated with the Maoists. That's all. As for "economists wanted" . . . well, more economists -- especially those who are superb communicators -- are always welcome in Nepal, of course. But my own experience is what Nepal needs is a whole lot of smart, young, wel-educated people who can challenge the status quo, who can inject a dose of energy, enthusiasm and even skepticism when debating/making public policies, folks who are NOT afraid to call a spade a spade and, ost importantly, folks who are not afraid to even make powerful enemies. [In Nepal, professonal downfall seems to start early for those who work extra hard to be liked by everyone!] Fortunately, we already have some non-economist writers who are doing good work. I can think of Krishna Shrestha writing about macroeconomics in Gorkhapatra, Sudeep Shrestha on consumer rights in Kantipur, Bikash Thapa on energy issues in Kantipur, Rajendra Dahal on water issues, and so forth. Then again, the more the merrier!! oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| ashu | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 12:10 PM
Suva Chintak wrote: "I saw a newsreport that said a foreign government had given a large sum of money to organize several 'writing retreats' for some of these writers. I think Manjushree Thapa was incharge of organizing one of these month-long retreats in Dhulikhel resort." "Writing retreats" are fairly common in the US. As far as I can tell, Manjushree Thapa did an excellent job co-ordinating various Nepali writers to work on books that they themselves wanted to work on. The money involved, I can tell you, was very modest. The was NO politics involved whatsoever. Nepali writers of various stripes appreciated the opportunity to work on their novels and texts for about a month, in the company of other writers, away from the hustle and bustle of their daily life, in Dhulikhel. Some good books -- created this way -- are in the pipeline for publication in 2004. All this, I would say, bodes well for the promotion of book culture in Nepal. Manju is actually one of the few Nepali writers who is self-effacing, modest and listens to view that do not co-incide with hers. oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| Nepe | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 02:59 PM
Ram Prasad ji, It was a pleasure having you read my outrageously long article and have your remark. That article came out of several discussions I had with several posters on various occasions in this forum. So it was basically a compilation of several postings from various threads. Having myself kept all volumes of red book of Mao in my trunk religiously for years until my father donated them to somebody and having been familiar with the Maoist concept of 'continuous revolution', I fully understand your fear about the Maoists. What you said would have made a perfect sense, had it not been for a major detail you chose to overlook. The question of monarchy and it's elusive power is completely overlooked by you. Republicanism is getting rid of the monarchy. It is not what you are trying to describe, that is, putting the Maoists on the throne. Saying No to the monarchy is not saying Yes to the Maoists. As for the Maoists, they are borrowing their legitimacy, relevance and power from keeping the key political question of our history, that is the monarchy, in addition to other socio-economic issues, which actually are derivatives of the same key question, as hostage or as weapon if you like. Maoists are deadly and heavily armed, not with the three not three and pressure cooker bombs, but with these burning questions left abandoned (bebarisey) by other political forces. (Ashu and Suvachintaks' trouble with understanding our intellectuals and creative artist might partially be answered by this aspect they seem to be ignoring !) Republicanism may not make the Maoists Buddhists, but it sure disarms them by stripping off their legitimacy for what remains left on their list. At the same time it forces them to make a choice between being a partner of democracy finally achieved or keep trying to push for the obsolete ideology of communism. So, it is clear that your analogy of a cart and a horse is not right in our context. The correct analogy, as I described earlier, would be a coin. The Maoists and the monarchy are two faces of the same obsolete coin (khoto sikka). It's time to reject that coin and replace it with a new and modern currency of the republicanism. Asking the Maoists to surrender to the monarchy is not worth it. It isn't a realistic thinking, either. Asking both of the Maoists and the monarch to surrender to the democratic republicanism or, as for now, a peaceful political process to that end is worth fighting for. It should have been much more clearer (to my old friends who insist on the monarchy) if they have heard the type of slogans people are excited to chant and hear on the streets of our cities, let alone the villages under the control of the Maoists. If you are against the republicanism in Nepal, you are on the wrong side of the history. ========== Suvachintak ji, A conversation between a staunch republican and an equally if not more staunch royalist is like two people talking in two different languages without an interpreter. Nevertheless, here is a quick reply to your questions. > Nepe jyu's contention that a republic is the answer to Nepal's >woes appears to be poetic sentimentality, rather than a rigorous >analytic prescription. As it happens, it's both. Have you had a chance to scan my indecently long piece 'Why Republicanism' ? I have been told ( no, not by a republican) I have made a compelling case for the republicanism there. >How does the removal of monarchy, resolve all our problems >from insurgency to poverty, corruption to lawlessness? It's a secret, sir. >By asking for a republic now, don't we end up legitimating the >Maoists in a round-about way ? No. Because, as far as their demand for a democratic republic is concerned, it is ALREADY legitimate. Their illegitimacy is their ideological commitment to go beyond that for a communist republic and their current violent method. >Despite all its limitations, monarchy is still the unifying principle >for the Nepali-nation state. If by unity, you mean the one there is between you and Isolated Freak, for instance, then you are right. But if you also mean one between you and Nepe, then you are wrong. >Besides, all those countries that threw out monarchy on >ideological whims did not end up pretty: Afghanistan, >Cambodia, Laos, Russia, Kashmir, Sikkim, Tibet...the list goes on. Did these countries re-instate the monarchy ? Is Loya Jirga going to declare Afaganistan a kingdom again ? if not, what does this tell ? |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 03:01 PM
Ashu jyu, I don't know much about these 'writing retreats', maybe they do have them in the US, UK, or Japan. But I can't imagine them being funded by foreign states or INGOs. Now there is nothing wrong with supporting our literary output with foreign money. Maybe if Lakshmi Pd. Devkota also had similar foreign donors he would not have died early. My only concern is that this kind of sponsorship might encourage people to take a particular political line: such as being critical of the government while keeping mum about the Maoist atrocities, all in the good name of human rights, literary freedom, and such other high sounding rhetoric. Manjushree might be an excellent individual, I have no doubt about that. But we are not discussing personal lives here, but the public roles of the writers such as Thapa. She went on to great length to expose the alleged rape of two Muslim women in west Nepal by soldiers, but she chooses to keep mum over the dozens of killings, tortures, abductions, and sexual abuse of women by the Maoist revolutionaries. Is this the much awaited avant-garde moment for Kathmandu's literati: embrace of the Maoist progressive line? Some solidarity. The writers' moral outrage these days does not emerge from empathy with the victim; but from antipathy towards the victimizer, with the proviso that it be a soldier or a policeman. Other killings do not seem to perturb the creative souls. Sure, I too respect Purna Biram's and Prachanda's right to hold their beliefs. But the line must be drawn when they seek to impose or terrorise others in the name of their beliefs. I agree that 'crisis management', 'conflict resolution', and 'crisis negotations' has become a big business in Nepal and both exotic and indigenous fly-by-night 'experts' are making a killing out of the booming sector in Nepal. I thought that a recent critique of such 'expertise' would be interesting read for our Sajha readers. This is the reaction which is published in this week's Nepali Times: ICG The lack of basic facts, objectivity and analytical rigour in the International Crisis Group’s report (‘Danger of a widening war’, #172) was more than made up by high rhetoric and sanctimonious verbiage. The report claims that “most of those being killed in Nepal are non-combatants”. At the start of the second ceasefire, when the total body count from both sides was around 7,300, Prachanda himself had accepted in a statement that just over 5,000 Maoists had been killed in the past seven years. How did the ICG come up with the non-combatant figure? In a naively patronising manner, the report prescribes that it is “not difficult to imagine a series of agreements around which the king, the RNA, political parties and Maoists could coalesce”. Of course we all know that if all these groups could agree we would not have had this bloody war in the first place! The king, political parties and the Maoists are not the only players in the war. By allowing the Maoists to operate from its territory, India has become the most important protagonist in the conflict. Yet, the ICG report has, like most of the Western embassies, special envoys and human rights and such other do-gooders descending in ever greater numbers in Kathmandu, opted not to include the most crucial variable in the present conflict. Analytic oversight? Berating the king and RNA for the war and everything else is akin to blaming the victim. Before the Maoists began the war, Nepal was practicing multiparty democracy, human rights were respected and people had liberty to lead their lives in peace. The government is only trying to regain the countryside back from the Maoists so that people can lead normal lives and democratic processes can start again. So it is rather mischievous to say that the king “suspended the democratic system in October 2002”. The democratic system had already been snuffed out in the previous seven years when the Maoists systematically destroyed the local elected government, chased away the other political parties from the districts, killed off political leaders and prevented the holding of local and national elections. In contrast, the Maoists are treated with kids’ gloves. The ICG report strongly opposes labeling the Maoists as terrorists and makes no moral or practical demands on them as it does on the king and the army. The larger question is: if a group that operates against the laws of the land to get its way through systematic use of terror against civilians, students, civil servants and businesses is not a terrorist group, then who is? If the ICG feels it has the liberty to ask the government to give up its policy of forming civil defense groups in the village, what is stopping the ICG from urging the Maoists to give up arms or to call on the Indian government to stop harbouring a group that is destabilising a neighbour? There could be no other swifter resolution to this war. Maybe ICG’s claims to being non-profit and independent is suspect, as is its claim to knowledge and expertise. As an institution run by former politicians, bureaucrats and business tycoons like the Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky (doing time in a Moscow jail for alleged embezzlement and malpractices), truth might be a commodity of convenience for the International Crisis Group. After all, war continues to be one of the biggest businesses in the world. Jack Shaw Lexington, USA |
| channel69 | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 03:59 PM
More than 8000 people, many of them nameless and long forgotten, have been killed since 1996. Statistics -- as available from INSEC and as tabulated by Mohan Mainali show that most who have died are Magars, and many who did the dying came from the lowest economic strata of Nepali societies. In other words, the poor, the weak and the vulnerable in Nepal have borne the brunt of all this violence. First of all, the Peoples war started in Rukum and Rolpa where majority of people are from magar ethnic background. Once a pristine place, Maoists made it a killing field. Magar who are killed in this bloody war are both from government and rebel sides. In the Maoist hierarchy there are more Brahmins, many chhetris are also lost their lives in this sense less war. Obviously, this is a class war. When the distribution of the state resources are mishandled by so called government representatives that create a class in the society. Today, Nepal is in the verse of failed state not because of Maoist war but because of corrupt culture and weak distribution of resources among people. Maoist is the by-product of corruption. What is CIAA can do? Not a single person from politicians, minister to government employees, police, RNA are free of corruption. Today, so call intellectuals try to twist the fact and still blames on poor, weak and vulnerable for the Maoist problem. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 08:40 PM
Nepe jyu, There you go again, not with facts but passionate sentiments! Sir, you are a great poet, but politics, I am not so sure! Unlike your irrational hold on to republicanism, my support for Nepali monarchy at this juncture in history is fully qualified. All I am saying that given Nepal's socio-political development and geopolitical context at this point, it might do more harm than good to remove monarchy. If anyone can convince me with facts and logic than Nepal will be a better without the House of Gorkha, I am willing to come over and join the republican camp. I did go and read your beautifully written and passionately aruged tract for republicanism. However, your call for republic is neither historically grounded nor politically plausible. It is, rather, a sentimental longing. And however, lofty and noble, I don't think any nation can allow the ship of state to be guided by our feelings alone. If you think I have misread or misunderstood your exposition, I would request you to restate your main republican points - in a succinct form - in this thread. That might also benefit a lot of other readers as well. For me monarchy is not an end in itself, but as a means to an end: it is justified only as long as it contributes to Nepal's political and social life. So you could call it a pragmatic position. You, on the other hand, are beholden to republic for the sake of republic, no matter what the consequences or the costs. You don't see the possibility of ever being convinced of an alternative viewpoint. Again that is your right, but it is not a rational or scientific position if you lock yourself into a dogmatic position. You said there is no unity between you and me. I am sorry to hear that, because no matter what caste, religion, region, or viewpoints, I consider there to be some level of unity between all Nepalis. But following your own statement, even if there is a republic, there would not be any unity because we would still continue of have different views. I am suprised that such a learned person like you is not aware that countries like Cambodia and Britain reinstated their kings and monarchies after flirting with republic...a very costly flirt, if I may add so. Both Britain and Cambodia became better places after the restorations..there is no historical doubt about that. Do you doubt that they would not reinstate Dalai Lama in Tibet if they could? And you raise the interesting point about Loya Jirga. First of all, the traditional Loya Jirga is part of the monarchical system of Afghanistan...the advisory council of the Afghan kings. They are akin to our traditional Panchayat... the council of elders that assists the king in running the state. So the very fact that Loya Jirga has been revived after 30 plus years is a sign that everybody feels they need the stability and legitimacy of the traditional system! And as to your question if they will bring back the king, the first Loya Jirga that convened last year had made a strong demand to restore the king for the sake of national stability, continuity, and legitimacy! However, the Americans and their puppet Karzai manipulated the Loya Jirga process to kill that proposal. By the way, could you care to spell out the 'secret' that would turn Nepal into heaven once monarchy is removed? Hope to hear your thoughtful comments! SC, to discuss with a open mind |
| ramprasad_03 | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 11:52 PM
Nepejyu: >It was a pleasure having you read my outrageously long article and have your remark. Yes, your article was too long (unbearably so),and as Suvachintakji rightfully says - full of wishful thinking - just the thing we need to damn our country. >As it happens, it's both. Have you had a chance to scan my indecently long piece 'Why Republicanism' ? I have been told ( no, not by a republican) I have made a compelling case for the republicanism there. Just because some people are compelled does not mean eveyone will buy your argument. Almost a billion Indians believed that the Ganesh Statue was actually drinking milk a couple of years ago until someone proved it was a mere capillary action. >Having myself kept all volumes of red book of Mao in my trunk religiously for years until >my father donated them to somebody and having been familiar with the Maoist >concept of 'continuous revolution', I fully understand your fear about the Maoists. But what you don't understand is reflected in your next statement: >Republicanism is getting rid of the monarchy. It is not what you are trying to describe, >that is, putting the Maoists on the throne. Saying No to the monarchy is not saying Yes >to the Maoists. Who said anything about putting Maoists on the throne? In fact, if we don't suppress them now, who will be able to say anything about it? When they come to power, they will rule the way they want - whether Prachanda becomes a king or not. Who will be able to say yes or no. My argument is that we should deal with the Maosit first and negotiate with the king later. >If you are against the republicanism in Nepal, you are on the wrong side of the history. Either you are brain-washed by those red books or you are blinded by your own vision. If there is no Nepal, there will be no Nepali History and there will be no republicanism. What makes you think that Maoists will actually agree to anything? Maybe, that's the "Secret." And I totally don't get this "two side of the same coin" - such a cliche. Also, why do you propose that we fight both monarchy and maoism at once when we are having difficulty fighting one? Sometimes I wonder if that is a deliberate ploy to mislead us poor unintellectuals and hand the power to Prachanda (pun intended). Anyway, my hopes were raised slightly to read that Indian Police are looking for Maoists Leaders. I will believe it when I see it though. I will definitely celebrate when the terrorists Prachanda, Baburam, Badal, Mahara and other bearers of red books (bloodied by Nepali blood) are caught or killed. No one should ever accept them as a political leader again, and there shall be no amnesty for their crimes against humanity. Keep it coming Ram P. |
| ramprasad_03 | Posted
on 18-Dec-03 11:58 PM
Also, that critique of ICG, if you haven't read, makes very important observations as to the confusions created by the fly-by-night expat run NGOs in addition to the confusion created by the Nepali intelligentsia, and I can bet that Maoists actuaaly draw strength from such patronizing and government damning reports. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Dec-03 08:15 AM
This is a great discussion. I love it when people throw in their own politically immature view with a statement that "many people who are not X also liked it, so who are you to not like it". What a way to persuade people! Somebody who is way too obesessed with me and likes to bring me in discussion even when it is totally irrelevant says he knows all about the Maoists! Believe me, even in China, the birthplace of Mao and Maoism, I am yet to meet people who say they know all about Maoism. Here's a piece of info: The little red book that you slept with every night, was a part of the Propoganda Campaign during the Cultural Revolution. The person-in-charge of spreading those propoganda that contained lines such as " Ge ming bu shi qing ke chi fan, ye bu shi zuo wen zhang" [Revolution is not a dinner party, nor it is writing an essay] was Lin Biao, who tried to stage a coup against Mao, and died on his way to Russia. After 1972, when the news of Lin Biao's death was released, people stared their own campiagn called "Anti-Lin Biao" campaign. Moreover, experts in China have been discussion the Maoist ideology for a long toime now and there is no agreemenmt among the experts on interpreting the thoughts of Mao. Some call it original Chinese where as some have come to see it as the plagarized version of Marxism. Thanks to Chen Du Xiu and the Communist International. So, I find this funny that a Nepali claiming to understand the Red Book and the Maoist ideology of continuing revolution, when even people in China are having a hard time udnerstanding this. Also, to say that Republicanism is a solution to all of nepal's problems is very very immature. THe question is how? How/waht makes Republicanism better than the institution of Monarchy? What will be the governing system like? When one deliberately avodis these questions and harps the same tune all the time, you come to question that person's political maturity and that's quite a right thing to do. When the line of argument starts with, "even X believes in this.." then, you know, the best thing to do is just avoid the posting(s) altogether. It does not make any sense. Again, we have this trend in Nepal, everyone is a self-declared political analyst and theorist. A Chemistry major spends more time thinking about politics that his/her major and comes up with his/her own half baked ideology that does not correspond to any of the political science theories and trends! Now to RP, I read your piece and I totally agree with it. Nepali intellectuals seem to be suffering from a rare disease called "Seeing one thing by totally ignoring the other". They only see the RNA atrocities but they don't see the Maoist atrocities. One reason for this could be the fear factor. You can criticize the state as mucha s you can because you know the State will not come afetr you. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Dec-03 08:33 AM
Here's more on Continuing Revolution: Some analysts believe that Mao believed in the continuing revolution until the goal of a true communist state was achieved. After 1949, China saw revolutions such as "100 flowers campaign", "kill Sparrow campaign", "the great leap forward", "the cultural revolution" and "the spiritual cleansing campaign". The whole of this continuing revolution ideology that somehow paralyzed the Chinese growth was brought to an end by Deng Xiaoping, after staging his own brief "campiagn" on spiritual cleansing. The CCPs official line regarding the continuing revolution is vague: On the one hand it supports Mao as a great leader, on the other hand, it does not support the revolutions that somehow slowed the Chinese progress. Furthermore, the people purged during these revolutions such as Peng Dahuai during the Great leap forward, and Liu Shaoqi during the Cultural Revolution have now been included in the great leaders' list. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Dec-03 11:41 AM
OK, here's more: There's this trend among some Sajha visitors/posters: If you believe in what I say, you are an inteligent person. Democracy here in Sajha or in Nepal have been confined to this simple definition: If you agree with what I say, you are a democrat, if you don't agree with what I say, then you are not a democrat. Why can't people believe in what they w ant to believe in without being labelled undemocratic? In my opinion, these Sajha/Nepali democracts are worse than the Maoists, who at least do not use the word democracy and are quite honest about their political viewpoint. Here, in the cover of democracy and discussion, people try to persuade others with their half baked ideology. And as long as you say wah wah wah wah wah to any thing that any rame-shyame-kaley post here, you are good, you become a part of the democarcy clique, and if you even question their muddled thinking that neither has any theoretical components to it nor is based on any varifiable fact, then you become a feudal-oppressor. Such is Nepal and such is Sajha. Democracy doesn't necessarily mean repuiblicanism. There are many democratic monarchies in the world. And as other Sajhaities promptly pointed out, republicanism actually made things worse in places like Ethiopia, Cambodia, Kashmir and Afganisthan. Monarchy in many country represents the symbol of unity and the symnbol of national INDEPENDENCE. As long as you have monarchies, the influence of the "external" factors in the "internal" matters are quite low. It will take a long time in a country like Nepal to switch from monarchy to a republican state. And that transition time will be depreseeingly depressing that will make the Maoist rebellion look rather peaceful. The fact that Nepalis are still trying to get used to the democratic system even after its re-itrodcution 13 years ago, says it all. Are we ready for another long- uncrtain phase in our history? I am not. Prbably a handful of people who want to go through this uncertainity phase just to test out their own hypothesis, but what if the hypothesis proves incorrect? What will we do in that case? Break Nepal into pieces to avoid an everlasting civil war? If things are not taken care of right now, the chances of a huge scale civil war starting in Nepal are very high. The population is already divided in terms of political ideologies and ethnicity and believe me, if the trend continues, we will have our own "perpetual" civil war that will be guided more by the ethnic nationalist movements than political ideologies, and who will suffer then? We all will. And this is probbaly some foreign powers want to see in Nepal. The only binding force and the only force that can counter the excessive foreign interferance in the country is the institution ofr monarchy. The people in Norway, Demnmark, Sweden, England aren't stupid. They realized that the King is important to their nations so they despite all the ups and downs retained institution of Monarchy. In other parts where the institution was demolished, the people faced even harsher conditions: they found themselves either under tyrrants or saw civil wars broke out. Iran, Afganisthan, Cambodia say it all. So, no, unless and until there's a strong nationalism in Nepal and the whole of Nepal has a comon cause and the Nepalis themselves, without any ideological or any other interfarance from any power, say they want a Republican state, Nepal should remain a monarchy. |
| bklynsajha | Posted
on 20-Dec-03 04:24 PM
Isolated Freak: Some of us in sajha think that by bringing Republic system, everything will get better. What they dont realize is the need of good leadership. Post 90s did not bring anything better and I believe Republic idea is just another escape goat for those rulers and their associcates. Look at what they have done to the school and students. They are using them as a tool to make their statement. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 21-Dec-03 12:42 AM
Shuvachintak, As for how much dogmatic, sentimental etc. is the quest for republicanism, I'll come to it shortly. Let me start with a reciprocal compliment to your mastery in humor, your bold display of your taste in carnal pleasure and your art of narration very few Sajhaites have. I find you a very intelligent person with a taste of, I know this does not do a full justice to you, but anyway, a spoilt aristocrat. I only find it hard to comprehend the way you justify even the most heinous act of atrocity committed by our royal army without a shred of compassion to the victims in this forum. And when it comes to justify the monarchy, nothing is unfair in your book. Your argument for monarchy in above posting is full of deceptive analogy and hollow statements. Let me show them. 1. Justification from existing monarchies SC, you have repeated this arguments so many times in this forum and I clearly remember one occasion when I had countered you saying if a few monarchies left in the world justifies Nepal's monarchy, then the vast majority of the republics in the world justifies the republic of Nepal even more strongly. This, I said assuming you meant the constitutional monarchy (the reigning one) in Nepal However, now, realizing that you are talking not about the reigning, but about actually governing monarchy in Nepal, here is what I have to add. SC ji, you are a master of deceptive analogy. How ridiculous of you to bring the history of British monarchy, which actually is the story of the birth of the modern democracy by taking away the governing power of the monarchy and reducing it to a harmless reigning institution, to justify your and your comrade Isolated Freak's call for making Nepali monarchy a fully governing one. Correct me if you and your comrade-in-arm are not advocating for a governing monarchy. If you are advocating for a governing monarchy, don't take the name of the kingdom of Combodia. Combodia is an ulto loppa for those who advocate for a governing monarchy. Because Combodia has a reigning monarchy and there is no sign it ever will go back to a governing monarchy. I have no problem with a monarchy of a Combodian model or a British model for that matter. My only contention and argument is that, based on the experience of past 13 years, our monarchy was never a pure reigning one, nor it intents to be. SC, since you have charged me of being dogmatic, let me repeat again, I have no problem with a truly reigning monarchy. My only problem is with Shah family, their greed and ambition, their hypocrisy and particularly their affinity to and the legacy of dictatorship they inherit from Mahendra Shah. As for flexibility and pragmatism, although I am saying a republic, I wouldn't insist on the formal designation. If we can have a functional republic still with a crown somehow, as Narahari Acharya of Nepali Congress has put forward, that's fine for me. SC, although you claimed, you certainly did not read my looooong article 'Why republicanism', otherwise you wouldn't charge me of inflexibility, dogmatism and so on. Because I have clearly put down my view that a monarchy without any political power and in a form of a cultural institution is okay. I particularly like the aspect of people's control over the institution of monarchy in the Combodian model. In Combodia, the king is appointed by the people. The king can not choose his heir by himself. So, I think, there are enough room for practical compromise with Nepal's monarchy without compromising the fundamental democratic value, the supreme authority of the people. This is also where we should be looking for the solution to the insurgency. This brings me to our new co-poster Ram Prasasd ji's insistence on military solution to the Maoist insurgency as independent of the monarchy. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 21-Dec-03 12:44 AM
Ram Prasad ji, After reading your remark on my article, I am confused about exactly what you are advocating. Please be specific what are you advocating, 1. Wipe out the Maoists in any way possible 2. Keep the monarchy at any cost 3. Both from above Assuming you are not a royalist and are advocating just for (1) and also assuming that you really did not get the 'two faces of the same coin' theory, here is a simplified explanation for your easy consumption. Okay, Maoists are not trustworthy. Granted. Okay, we should wipe them out. Granted. Okay, we should wipe them out militarily. this too Granted. Now, Ram Prasad ji, listen carefully, I am going to show you how republicanism or even just the Constituent Assembly or any other equivalent option that I discussed in my piece is going to make wiping out of the Maoists way too easier than in their absence right now. Unless you are information impaired, you should know that the Maoists are saying they are ready to put down their arm if the king abdicates or if that is difficult then at least agrees for the constituent assembly and to conduct it under the supervision of a neutral agency. No, I am not asking you to trust them. Keep mistrusting. I do the same, for your information. We just tie up their disarmament with the progress in the demand to ensure they keep their word. Now, wouldn't it be easier to wipe them out when they put down their arm, if that really became necessary or desirable ? There is one more thing that will make it even easier. You and our Ashu have implied that our intellectuals are supportive or sympathetic to the Maoists either due to their cowardice or due to their faith [on them as an agent of change] or other unknown reasons. Now let's see how things gonna change. First, the *coward* intellectuals will become less coward when they will see the Maoists disarmed. Next, the intellectuals who are sympathetic to the Maoists for any positive reason will of course be glad too see Ram Prasad and Ashu were wrong. But it will cause no harm to the country. However, if the Maoists indeed turned out to be what Ram Prasad and Ashu were fearing and took up arm again or decided go against multiparty democracy, then, the good news is, those sympathetic intellectuals will turn unsympathetic and oppose the Maoists. In every way, there will be way too stronger, extensive and unequivocally just coalition against the Maoists. And this time we can easily wipe out the Maoists. With our unity, resolve and sense of duty. What about if Maoists came to power through election and then started to show their true color by slowly or suddenly imposing a communist dictatorship ? If anybody has this kind of fear, there is a therapy available. It's called reality check. If somebody needs it, let me know. I can offer the therapy. If you want I will give the detail next time. But for now, suffice to say, I will ask you to study the history of the UML, once equally feared Maoists. Now, Ram Prasad ji, your call for wiping the Maoists out now is a wishful thinking in reality, a suicidal attempt for possible mass destruction and unjust for saving the monarchy. Republicanism is the only just, sound, pragmatic and creative way of the permanent solution to the Maoist problem. Suppose somehow the royalist force defeated the Maoists now. Trust me, the second Maoist II is on the way. And this time, it will not be the Maoists. It will be 'the Republicans'. And you will have no story of from Combodia and Peru to cloud the actual act of saving the monarchy. Republicanism is here to stay, fight and win. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 21-Dec-03 10:38 PM
>>"I have no problem with a monarchy of a Combodian model or a British model for that matter. My only contention and argument is that, based on the experience of past 13 years, our monarchy was never a pure reigning one, nor it intents to be." 1. Come on sir, why are you backing out now? If monarchy is such a evil institution responsible for Nepal's destructio as you claim, why are you making this concession? Why do we even need a monarchy that is Cambodian or British, why not just do away with it...why are you afraid of taking your argument to its logical conclusion? >>"SC, since you have charged me of being dogmatic, let me repeat again, I have no problem with a truly reigning monarchy. My only problem is with Shah family, their greed and ambition, their hypocrisy and particularly their affinity to and the legacy of dictatorship they inherit from Mahendra Shah." 1. Maybe this explains your true motive for your rabid, irrational, inconsolable hatred of monarchy: it is not the institution as much as the individual family that you hate. While I respect your right to hate anyone you deem fit, I don't think it should be the basis of prescribing a system for the country. Your strong personal antipathy to the family Mahendra Shah precludes the possibility of rational discourse on the topic. Seriously, did you or your family have a personal family feud with Mahendra Shah's family? >>"SC, although you claimed, you certainly did not read my looooong article 'Why republicanism', otherwise you wouldn't charge me of inflexibility, dogmatism and so on. Because I have clearly put down my view that a monarchy without any political power and in a form of a cultural institution is okay." 1. Again, I don't know how you claim to see in my head...I read your long piece...I just wish it was as substantive or moving as your gazals and your college love stories (with their saintly desire plots - not carnal like mine!) Please do put out a succinct version for everyone to be enlightened of your republican righteousness in this thread rather than self-referencing yourself each time.."by the way, have you read my excellent paper?" Self promotion gets pretty tiresome on the audience after a while if you can't deliver the substance. 2. What makes you agree to a cultural monarchy ? Isn't the whole problem with monarchy its culture? If republic is good, stick with it, the whole hog! Monarchy is feudal, regressive, hierarchical CULTURE: why are you saying that "cultural institution is okay"? That is why I say you don't follow your own point to its logical end. By the way, my best wishes for your Maoist Revolution II, may you be the first president of the Republic of Nepal...Hail the new chief!! Hope to hear from you sir, It would help the discussion if you could be less hostile and refrain from name calling such as 'carnal' or 'spoilt.' Yours truly, |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 21-Dec-03 11:05 PM
Nepe jyu, some more quick responses: >>"Justification from existing monarchies" SC, you have repeated this arguments so many times in this forum and I clearly remember one occasion when I had countered you saying if a few monarchies left in the world justifies Nepal's monarchy, then the vast majority of the republics in the world justifies the republic of Nepal" 1. If I can not use existing examples for my argument, what am I allowed to use? In the last posting, you asked me to name countries that had reinstated monarchy after a republican haitus. So I gave you Cambodia and Britain. If you were going to argue this way, you should have listed the examples I am not allowed to cite! But now you say I am not allowed to use them, after the fact! You are like the guy whose rule in a debate is "heads I win, tails you lose." Although you claim to be a republican-democrat, by the way you argue, you seem to be a republican-dictator who does not allow people to expose your tyrrinical rules of argument. >>"How ridiculous of you to bring the history of British monarchy, which actually is the story of the birth of the modern democracy by taking away the governing power of the monarchy and reducing it to a harmless reigning institution, to justify your and your comrade Isolated Freak's call for making Nepali monarchy a fully governing one." 1. Let us look at your logic and grasp of British history. First of all, when the British crown was restored in 1660, it was not done so as a "constitutional" or "reigning" monarchy. The irony is that Britain has no "constitution", so there can be no "constitutional monarchy" there. The King was reinstated with all the rights, obligations, and limitations imposed by custom, tradition, and practice. In the course of the next three centuries the powers of the crown were gradually, in an orderly and evolutionary manner, transferred to the Parliament. That is why you call it the birth of modern democracy...it was not a revolutionary process that you and your Maoist comrades-in-arms are advocating for Nepal. If you think of the British as such an ideal, then have the patience for its evolution in Nepal. Otherwise don't sing praise for the British crown, be consistent and stick with your revolutionary republic. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 21-Dec-03 11:41 PM
Nepe jyu, >> "If you are advocating for a governing monarchy, don't take the name of the kingdom of Combodia. Combodia is an ulto loppa for those who advocate for a governing monarchy. Because Combodia has a reigning monarchy and there is no sign it ever will go back to a governing monarchy." 1. All right, Cambodia is off limits for me to. But if the institution of monarchy is such a feudal, bad, evil, WMD, Bin Laden, Saddam, regressive, as you characterize why did Cambodia even want to have the king back? Why couldn't they have a republic instead? Please do enlighten us, sir! The same goes for the mother-of-democracy British: After enjoying the bliss of a republic for a decade, why did the Brits reinstate the King? Why, why Mr. Nepe? Were they all stupid? Please don't skirt this question...and don't give one of your "It is a secret" or "Just read my loooong essay" kind of non-argument. >>"SC, since you have charged me of being dogmatic, let me repeat again, I have no problem with a truly reigning monarchy. My only problem is with Shah family, their greed and ambition, their hypocrisy and particularly their affinity to and the legacy of dictatorship they inherit from Mahendra Shah." 1. Perhaps this explains Mr. Nepe's true motive behind his anti-royalist tirade: It is not his opposition to the institution as much as his hatred for the family of Mahendra Shah! You are entitled to hate any one you like, I respect your right. But such irrational personal hatred can not be the basis of sound debate or rational analysis, no? Your family and Mahendra's family must have had a pretty bad falling out, what was it about? If you don't mind sharing with us..so that we might empathise with your view more. >>"As for flexibility and pragmatism, although I am saying a republic, I wouldn't insist on the formal designation. If we can have a functional republic still with a crown somehow, as Narahari Acharya of Nepali Congress has put forward, that's fine for me." 1. Again, lack of consistency and the ability to take your position to its logical conclusion. If you thing Monarchy is such ugly WMD, why agree to any of it? >>"SC, although you claimed, you certainly did not read my looooong article 'Why republicanism', otherwise you wouldn't charge me of inflexibility, dogmatism and so on. Because I have clearly put down my view that a monarchy without any political power and in a form of a cultural institution is okay." 1. Again, dear Nepe jyu why agree to the institution of monarchy in its cultural form? After all it is the culture of hierarchy, inequality, superiority, servitude associated with monarchy that is evil, is it not? Why are you suddenly bending your proud republican spine to this degenerate, regressive CULTURE!! Sir, I pray that you be consistent. Finally, Mr. Nepe, I would appreciate if you can refrain from cheap name calling when you can not keep up with the evidence or the logic. Why characterize others as "carnal"? Just as every person who believes in the constructive role of monarchy in Nepal at this point in history need not be a "spoit aristrocrat", not every closet Maoist has to be a republican riffraff lout. Values of basic civility and decorum ought to be valued everywhere, especially in our esteemed Sajhapur. At your service, Sir, Suva Chintak |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 21-Dec-03 11:44 PM
Sorry folks, There might be some duplications in the above postings due to computer glitch...inconvenience deeply regretted. SC |
| czar | Posted
on 22-Dec-03 02:50 AM
Might I state that this battle royale provides yet further privelege to be privy to such fine minds? On the matter of monarchy, one wonders how their continued reign provides any substantive benefit to the man on the street. Is it perhaps their unceasing corruption that does it? Or is it more likely that the plunder of national treasures and resources contributes to the welfare of the citizenry. Forgive me, but I have yet to grasp how such a degenerate institution is going to deliver on, among others, poverty alleviation, education, health care and a just civil society. They’ve been at it for decades whilst their subjects slid inexorably yet further down the scale of the human development index. If a company management delivered such poor results, they’d be given the sack. Just why should the monarchy, given their absymal performance, be treated any different? The welfare of citizens is as succint a measure of profitability as any P&L. At the end of the day, it’s either deliver or get lost. That’s the bottom line. Narayanhity and hangerons have neither credible leadership and compassion nor ability to deliver. The barbarity of the Maoists has, by default, cast a sheen of sainthood on the monarchy. That, however, does not constitute actual ability or credibility. Rolling out tired and dissolute old warhorses like Chand and Thapa and the deadly duo of puppeeters Pashupati Rana and Sarad Chandra is hardly an inspirational recipe for success. They’ve had innings before with lousy scorecards. They possess neither the ability nor insight to go beyond their own shortcomings even in the best of times. And these are hardly such. Whilst examining the recent Afghan and Cambodian history, perhaps some closer scrutiny might be beneficial in examining, particularly in the case of the latter, the role played by their monarchy and court in contributing to the simmering discontent that the genocidal Khmer Rouge so successfully hijacked. Nordom Sihanouk and progeny are some of the angels that keep Cambodia perenially on the brink of poverty and disaster. Déjà vu? As for the Afghans scraping the bottom of the barrel to dredge up their king. Clutching at straws. How realistic is it to believe that their feeble king is the chosen one to miraculously dissipate tribalism and poppy cultivation? Perhaps someone forgot to inform the Taleban remnants, along with every other tribal warlord with blood in his eye. Sovreignity must rest entirely and solely on the citizenry where every man, woman and child has equal right and responsibility for the welfare of the nation and themselves. Monarchy, to date, has interfered in this. If Nepe is arguing such a case, then I support such a notion. He further states the possibility for Maoists II, an even more fearsome blood bath that is likely to follow in the event the monarchists prevail and the Maoists are defeated. Is that so unrealistic? Examine for a moment the aspiration and hopes of the people. If the existing political and social structures do not permit them to express and pursue their just aspirations, how long will it remain pent up before it surfaces? That the Maoists shrewdly seized the moment then it is thanks to their instinct for timing. Remove the Maoists, then the simmering cauldron will come to a boil and spill over in other ways. It is just a question of how and when. Case in point: India. Rajeev Gandhi and others opened up the moribund Indian economy and forced changes to modernise their economy. This relieved the pressures of their aspirations and provided constructive channels for their ambitious citizens. Had this not occurred, people would have seized on their mountains of grievances and vented it in the most violent manner. Jyoti Basu and his comrades in West Bengal provided just such an ominous and terrifying portent of possibilities in the late 60’s and early 70’s. |
| czar | Posted
on 22-Dec-03 03:01 AM
Disclaimer: I make no claims of scholarship, only an attempt at presenting some of my observations. |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 23-Dec-03 05:06 PM
I read Ram Ji's article, it amazed me! Perhaps he does not know he is representing more than 99% Nepali, who want to solve the problem by violence. More than 99% Nepali are seeking the solution of the present crisis via arms revolution. Let me explain this. Let me start from Maoist point of view. They claim that all the regimes of the past as well as the present one are failed to move the country in the progressive direction, rather led towards the regression. I totally agree with them, and all most all Nepali who came in my contact have aproved this. There is poverty all around. There are many people in the country who take one meal in 24 hours. Many have no warm cloths to put on in sever cold days of winter. Many are living a life of a servant, guard, and loader in neighboring India (This is the reason why Indians mistreat Nepali, and Nepalis express their anger towards Indian as a reaction). A child has to help his/her parents instead of going school, what is the use of free primary education? No medicine, no clean drinking water, no electricity, no means of communication, no security, no shelter, no education, every thing no, no and no, the list goes on and on. Who is responsible for this? Lets not talk about the Rana rule, in 30 years of active monarchy, monarch is responsible, and after that political parties and monarch both (Mostly political parties, but monarch can not be considered pious because of its pseudo-activity). This is what Maoists claim, and I am agreed with this. Hey, 30 years of active monarchy gave us nothing more than poverty and lack. Very liberal policy and cozy lifestyle of our beloved late humble king made parasites active, who socked our blood until we become so weak to walk in the path of progress. Many Nepali understood this fact and brought forth democracy in 1990. This era ends on sacking of Sher Bahadur’s elected government by present King. During this so called democratic period the whole system remains almost the same, if something was changed were the parasites. These new parasites were so hungry that they socked our remaining blood almost three times faster the pervious leeches, leaving us nothing more than a skeleton. People like high school teacher became millionaires. KP Oli answered to reporters that he became rich because his friends helped him. Leaders like Girija, Sher Bahadur and Madhav protected themselves as well as their bodies saying that this is the practice of democracy. :)! Practice of democracy is exercise of corruption!!! Funny! From PA to PM, almost all bureaucrats as well as politicians were rotten. Collectively, the entire governing system was giving very bad smell during these two regimes. Maoist took advantage of this moment. They became able to expose the parasitic nature of the governing bodies to the people of rural place like Rukim, Rolpa and revolted against them. Plus, they have experienced the monopoly of local police and other government officials. These poor, miserable, humble, ignorant people who think suffering and lack is due to their destiny worshiped king as one of their deity, where as the king takes that worship as a matter of pride and always remain busy to think about the progress of those who are close to him or remains unworried about those poor have-nots. This revolted them. The king and his family are living a life of first class American citizen with the tax of miserable ones, who don't have food for full stomach. I came to know that the new king has increased his and his families' salary by more than double, which may cause many Nepali to take the half meal. Such things certainly genererate revolution in general human mind. Their jungle which was used to the music of the bells and gongs of their sheep and yaks, start to enjoy roar of vehicles (for the first time they have seen vehicle in their cow feeding jungle, Tibet). They are also human, they also have dreams like other human beings. This is what revolted them. Refuge has turned to evil; king as well as political leaders betrayed them. Revolution was must, but I have a question to Baburam whether the arm revolution was necessary? contd.... |
| Nepe | Posted
on 23-Dec-03 06:46 PM
Shuvachintak ji, There you go again. A disparate attempt to muddle the clear distinction between the reigning monarchy (which is essentially a republicanism) and the governing monarchy (the real monarchy which you and your comrade IF are advocating for) as if it will succeed to confuse the people and you can pass your resolution while they are confused. And your exercise to picture me as being a dogmatic republican in one posting and softening to the monarchy in the next posting, when my stand and conviction and rationale for them has remained the same every minute of all these years (okay my personal history may not be a reference in this discussion, but al least I can refer to the damn article 'Why Republicanism for Nepal' which you have kindly read as I learn) is hilarious at best and pitiable at not so best. Since you look determined to repeat the same magic of muddling and twisting things, I probably leave you with your show. However, your logical house of cards falls down with a tiny blow of the fact that the governing monarchy and the reigning one are not the same. Before going through some of your funny arguments, I would like to say a word about my looooooog article the reference of which has displeased you. I am not satisfied myself with the inconvinient length of the article. However it came as a necessity rather than my intention to intimidate the readers. As regular Sajhaites know I had so many duplicate debates on the same subject and the content in the past. Not only the new comers but often the same old poster would start the same debate every now and then pretending to forget everything I said in the old thread that now has disappeared under the pile of new threads. I was tired of answering the same question again and again. So I decided to put some of my major arguments in one place in that article. Hence it's length and my repeated referring to it. It is so funny you once asked me what good is the republicanism for Nepal. No not the question, but your asking me the question and then when I made fun of it by saying it is a secret, your asking me again as if I have no answer to give to you. You claimed you read my article. Then how did you miss the answer when the whole article is in fact answer to the question 'Why republicanism for Nepal' ? And contrary to your intellectually dishonest assertion that my argument was dogmatic, my arguments were based on realpolik. My arguments may be wrong and I welcome everybody to show me how. However, I argued, not based on any dogma or history of French revolution or even the history of Mahendra and Birendran's dictatorship before 2046, but on the observation of what happened on the ground after 2056, during the past 13 years of the 'constitutional monarchical democracy'. I argued how it was the failure of the system due to it's flaw in Nepal's context and how that flaw was the paraconstitutional elusive power the monarchy have and how the success of the Maoist insurgency was a dirty reaction to the denial of the paraconstituional power of the monarchy and how there is no military solution to the Maoists insurgency and how a formal republicanism or at least politically castrated monarchy is the only way which will correct the system to allow good popular leadership to emerge, help bring the Maoists to democratic stream and how all these will eventually make Nepal a swarga. Okay I did not elaborate on the last. However, if the emergence of new popular leadership free of psychological bondage with the monarchy and the democratic integration of the Maoists and a flawaless 'rajya sanyantrako khaka' for freedom, justice, transparency, accountability did not make Nepal swarga, what will ? Maharaj Gyanendra or Maharaj Paras ko hukumi shashan will ? Now let's go to some of your funny arguments about me. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 23-Dec-03 06:53 PM
> Come on sir, why are you backing out now? If monarchy is >such a evil institution responsible for Nepal's destructio as you >claim, why are you making this concession? As I said above a reigning monarchy with its political power castrated is essentially a republicanism. Therefore I was not upto giving concession to Nepali monarchy, instead I was talking about castratating it to make it powerless as an option if that became one. I will always prefer a formal republicanism though. >Your strong personal antipathy to the family Mahendra Shah >precludes the possibility of rational discourse on the topic. First, it is not a mere antipathy, it is the recognition of the facts about our royal family, so this is what actually leads to a rational discourse. On the other hand, a denial of the facts (a contemporary phrase for it is Al-Sahafism ) would lead to a flawed discourse. Isolated Freak's Al-Sahafism about Mahendra Shah in another thread and your general tap on his back are actually what preclude the possibility of a rational discourse on the topic. > Please do put out a succinct version for everyone to be >enlightened of your republican righteousness in this thread >rather than self-referencing yourself each time.."by the way, >have you read my excellent paper?" Unless relevant, I have never mentioned about my excellent paper. I agree that a succinct version would be more desirable for a general reading. However, for specific questions like you have asked, I still think the long version answers them better. >It would help the discussion if you could be less hostile Let's not measure the hostility. Generally I find you not a hostile but a humorous and often sarcastic poster. So hostility, if any, on my part is not intended. >and refrain from name calling such as 'carnal' or 'spoilt.' I am surprised you are offended with such very Sajhaite brand of humor. However, I perfectly understand it since I know you know I am not a female poster. I sincerely tender my apology for any discomfort my words may have caused. >If you think of the British as such an ideal, then have the patience >for its evolution in Nepal. I did not say the British as ideal. Acceptable, Yes. Ideal, No. I praise the French revolution. As for evolution, I wouldn't go for re-inventing the wheel. I wouldn't ask Nepal to be a theater to enact the drama of British history. Besides, did I ever say we need to chop off the head of Maharaj Gyanendra ? 2007, 2017, 2046, 2058. What more evolution should we be waiting for ? >After enjoying the bliss of a republic for a decade, why >did the Brits reinstate the King? Why, why Mr. Nepe? I can hear the sound of your feet thumping. So how can I skirt the question ? Okay, my answer is, because they did not find a suitable successor to Cromwell, so they brought Charles II. >Were they all stupid? Please don't skirt this question... Yes, they were all stupid. You don't believe ? Here is the explanation. See it this way, among the whole bloody Brits, they did not find a single guy who was suitable to be the successor of Cromwell. Cromwell was the only one, all the rest were stupid and unable to be the successor of Cromwell. Got you ! SC, I pity you for resorting again and again to the same deceptive analogy to support your hollow assertion about Nepal's monarchy. Kaha-ko 17th century ko primitive English politics with no democratic institutions, no global democracy and kahako 2060 saal ko Nepal with democratic institutions ready to say good bye to the monarchy ! > Just as every person who believes in the constructive role of >monarchy in Nepal at this point in history need not be a "spoit >aristrocrat", not every closet Maoist has to be a republican >riffraff lout. I have no problem with your personal belief if that is a personal matter. But when you bring it for a public debate, you are gonna hear other's views. I do not want to stretch it, but I would say this much- I have never read your posting where you have explained the real "constructive roles" for the monarchy. Abstract, imaginary and speculative role is a different thing. As a matter of fact you never talk about a [limited] role for the monarchy. You advocate for a fully governing monarchy. Correct me if I am wrong. May be I am misreading, but I find you everywhere giving ovation to anything royal, anything aristrocratic. Hence the compliment. If it was apriya to you, I have already tendered my apology. >not every closet Maoist has to be a republican riffraff lout. Say it loudly if you are calling me a closet Maoist. If my views qualifies me as a Maoist, I am a proud Maoist. But I am not a closet one, an open one. |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 23-Dec-03 08:36 PM
I can not reach to Baburam, but I asked this question to one of my friend who always approves the Maoist actions. He said, Baburam used violence as the last weapon. Baburam sought for non-violence solution, but he could not find, and finally he picked up the gun. I disagreed with him because I can not approve the violence at any cost. I know violence can never be a solution because it is itself a problem. Moreover, I might have read some chapters of a book which is unknown to Baburam. I analyzed what a general intellect and a little advanced intellect would do in the sutuation of our country. Country is democratic, but people are not enjoying democracy. King is under the constitution, but constitution does not seem above the king. There is freedom of speech, but there is no one to listen; even a valid speech. For example: a politician or a bureaucrat becomes millionaire in no time. There is no judicial system to judge it. There is no authority to take action against it; the formal authority itself is a part of it. If general public utilize their freedom of speech and pointed out the corrupted person, they have a ready made reaction, "this is a game of opposition to insult me and to abolish my career". What is the use of such freedom of speech where it has no application? You are shouting, "hey there is a thief, there is a cheat, there is a corrupt", but no one listens to you. Does your shout bring something change? What is the difference between Panchyat and after Panchyat? In Panchyet, you were not allowed to shout even if you have seen a thief, thief used to come and steal. After Panchyet, you are allowed to shout but no one will pay attention to you. Neither you can catch the thief, nor you are allowed to punish the thief, there are no criteria to stop stealing. Meaningless freedom of voice! Do you know why dogs do not bark in USA?- Because they are well-fed and well-cared. We have all the systems frizzed, there is no change from Rana to Panchyet, and from Panchyet to democracy. People are the same; mentality of the people is the same. Everybody are serous about their own progress, there is no one serious about the progress of the country. We have constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy, ideally same as the Great Britain, which is considered to be father of democracy, and same as Japan which is second largest economy of the world. Theoretically there is no difference between the system of these two great countries and our motherland, but what makes us the second poorest country of the world? System is important but if is not applied it does not make any sense. Right medicine is important but if it is not taken by the patient, there is no cure. Everybody knows that Girija is corrupted, his bodies are corrupted, and many bodies of Madhav Kumar are corrupted though they did not get that chance. Sher Bahadur as well as his bodies are corrupted. Those who are corrupted are leading figure of the party, and if there is election they will get ticket. Most of the voters are uneducated and illiterate. Most of the educated voters are selfish and opportunist. The so called leaders are so cunning and clever, they know how to regain power,using Saam, Daam, Danda, Bhed. Since they are the executive member of the party, they will give ticket to their closest bodies and the house will be full of rotten minds again. If the captain is not disciplined, you can not expect discipline from the recruits. Leaders encourage bureaucrats to be corrupted. The system is frizzed, the power will always goes to corrupted gentlemen. Voters are not aware for the first place, even if they are aware they don't have choice for good versus bad, they always have choice for bad versus bad. There is no system of flourishing an honest leader, not at all. Always bad people get ticket, they have money, trick, and workers, and get elected again and again, regaining power. The cycle goes on and on. Please give me the way out of this cycle if you have any. Khum Bahadur, Govinda R. Joshi, Chiranjivi Wagle, Vijaya Gachhedar, Jaya P. Gupta can be taken as example from Congress and Bharat Mohan, KP Oli , Jhalanath etc can be taken example from UML. They will lead till their death, system is fixed. I am advocate of democracy, but what to do with such democracy which is only in books. There is democracy in almost all African countries; there is democracy in almost all south and Central American countries. Do we know what's going on out there? I need democracy but an applied democracy. Now king has taken the power...... contd... |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 23-Dec-03 11:53 PM
Nepe jyu, Thank you very much for coming out clean, finally! Rather than boxing with shadows of ourselves, I think we can have a much more meaningful exchange of veiws with a "proud Maoist." This casts a new light on all our past discussions as well. I wish I could be as excited about your other revelation: after all this red-hot pursuit you turn out to be man! I am devasted....Occasional pitfalls of cyber courtship! After enduring all the chicanery of Capitalist chiks and fuss of the feudalistic femme fatales, I was hoping for a change of scenery with a Red Devil's daughter. I thought I was on the scent of something revolutionary...no luck. But enough of light humor, allow me to attend to some of the serious matter you raise. I don't know how else to put it Sir, but I am afraid you are way off the mark in explaining the restoration of the crown in England. It was not because Cromwell was the only right person and the rest of the Brits were simply dumb to put Charles II back on the driving seat. The 13 or so years of Cromwelll's rule was characterized by instability, confusion, arbitrary rule...much like our past 13 years. It was a republic no doubt, but the people felt it was not working for them. So they decided to bring back the monarchy. And history shows that was a good choice, Britain became the dominant global power in the next three centuries....the empire where the sun never set, as well as the mother of democracy, ironic isn't it? I am really suprised that you, of all people, called the rest of the British were dumb, except for Crummy Cromwell. Despite your claim to being a people's man, someone who believes in the sovereignty and power of people decide for themselves, you could not respect the people's decision. If you are a true democrat, one must accept whatever the people decide, even if it is against what one great person like Cromwell has said "Thou shall not bring thy king back." But being a Maoist, it is convenient to dismiss the people's wish and desire, because only the great leader know best, right comrade? That is how Stalin, Hitler, Mao, ruled and Prachanda will rule. You said that actually France was your ideal. But if we follow the French history as well, monarchy was restored several times in the next century after the heads rolled off the gillotine. Now, were the rest of French also stupid cheese eating surrender monkeys and the only sane and righteous were the Jacobins and the Girondists? It was foreign armies, first the British and then the Germans who finished off the restored monarchy in France. Bear with me Sir... |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 12:27 AM
I am really suprised when people blame Nepal's monarchy for everything bad that happened in the last three hundred years. Given Nepal's geopolitical context, natural resource base, and socio-cultural level, would the outcome have been much different even if we had a prime minister or president instead during this whole period? It is easy to say that the Kings did not take us to the moon or build towers of babel, but how have we contributed to the national enterprise as individuals, groups and cummunities? It is ironic that it is the republicans who blame the Kings for not having the divine power to fix everything with a magic wand. The situation is such that some folks will even blame the king for their ereticle dysfunction: "Oh, that bloody king has all the potency, how can it rise up?" kinds of self pity. I met this irate republican at the tandoori pit the other night and we ended up - you guessed it right - Nepali politics. He went ballistic at one point, accusing the monarchy for his prolonged state of involuntary bachelorhood. I was preplexed and asked him how in the world .... "you royalist hanger-ons", he lashed at me before I could finish my question, "can't you see that's because Gyne and Parase have hoarded up thousands of tarunis in Narayanhiti harem. That has literally dried up the supply of eligible brides in the market. How am I to find a woman?", he nearly pushed me over. That is the level of discussion at times, I sorry to report. Let us just imagine, how much more better of worse would Nepal have been without the monarchy or with a president? Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan, Kashmir are some of the relevant and close examples. We can review their trajectores and come to a logical conclusion. Am I try to skirt Nepe comrades' mother of all question? I could do it the easy way: "Ahem, have you read mu magnum opus called the 'Idea of Constructive Monarchy'? Ha ha ha, Sir, I think you have a funny bone, I am just trying to tickle it a little. You get too serious in your passion. Yes, the queston of ruling vs reigning monarchy...although it sould not really make that much of a difference to a real "proud Maoist", but I am happy to try my hand at punditry here. Like every institution in society, monarchy is also an evolving institution. What we have today is not the monarchy of two hundred years ago, and a hunderd years later it will be very different (and none, if the maoists can help it) than what obtains today. So in this processual perspective what we need today is a middle ground between what you have described as a 'castrated' Kingship and an absolute Kingship of the Panchayat years. We have to find a viable balance for the present between the two extremes, and I foresee that in the future the role and functions of the monarchy will be gradually taken over by parliament. And I don't agree to your idea of keeping a castrated Kingship for the sake of keeping it....my view is that if there is no political function for an institution, we should say good bye, the state must not bear any dead weight. Sorry, but I am a fiscally conservative by nature. Just a minute, |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 12:53 AM
And one mistake people make in judging the kingship is by what is happening today in the post Oct. 4th episode. This is not the normal role of monarchy, it is the emergency role of the King according to article 127 of the constitution. We may disagree whether it was time to exercise the special article, but it is provided by the constitution. I personally believe that there existed an emergency situation, but things could have been run differently even after the imposition of 127. But Gynendra made his choice, and history will judge him on it. If he succeeds, he becomes a hero. If he fails, a villian. That is the way history runs...and it is pretty harsh on losers. And in the world of politics, the good does not always end up on top. Finally, to all the dyed-in-the-wool- republicans and Maoists: here is a piece of practical advise if you really want to hasten the demise of Monarchy in Nepal. The students have gone full-throttle on the streets for the republic; the parties will have to soon follow their youngsters in the final battle for the new republic. Now if the Maoists and other republic minded people can join forces, the Narayanhiti will collapse like the house of cards it is. I don't think such an opportunity will offer any time soon. Girija and Makune and the other five agitating parties have several times said they will opt for a republic. Now is the time to put their money where their mouth is, other wise let the King bring the country to a safe landing. The problem with the parties is that they can not work themselves, neither will they let the king resolve the issue. Maybe the time has come for them to stop dithering and take a stand, either way. Nepe jyu, I really enjoyed this conversation with you, it was a pleasure, despite the mistaken identity! The gentlemanly apology is duly acknowledged, and in turn I offer you my own apologies for any rude comments. Season's Greetings and Happy New Year to you and all Sajhapures, May the New Year bring peace and better tidings to our country, and the Lord bless us all! Yours truly, Suva Chintak |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 08:48 AM
On the other hand, a denial of the facts (a contemporary phrase for it is Al-Sahafism ) would lead to a flawed discourse. Isolated Freak's Al-Sahafism about Mahendra Shah in another thread and your general tap on his back are actually what preclude the possibility of a rational discourse on the topic. Nepe, Look, I don't give a hoot about what you believe, what you say or what your political ideology is. I respect those even when I don't agree with them and even I read your postings, it s for a comical relief. And that is because I believe in democracy and I believe that in democracy there exist multiple viewspoints. However, you self proclaimed democratic republican do not seem to udnerstand one thing: there are 3 billion people who are probably 300 times smarter than you and who do not agreee with your views. Namaste! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 08:49 AM
even- even when |
| Nepe | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 04:57 PM
It is getting more hilarious and it had to. Give a man, who lives on twisting things and deceptive analogies to justify his adherence, few light jokes as a bait, and fir dekh tamaashaa. How the guy will grab the bait in a lightening speed and then start to entertain you with priceless arguments he builds on them. SC took no time to conclude that Nepe is a Maoist, to write a very happy welcome note and built arguments basing on his assumption, all for this statement of mine, If my views qualify me as a Maoist, I am a proud Maoist. Einstein was right when he said the Universe and stupidity are infinite. SC who is a regular and old timer poster in Kurakani, who claims he read my epic paper where I have put my views about the Maoists, took no shame in removing 'if my views qualify me as a Maoist' part of my statement and showed his guts to write all those stupid things he wrote about me. SC, what are your assumptions here ? I mean do you think your readers are stupid enough to buy your twisted arguments or do you think your anonymity somehow shields you from your intellectual dishonesty ? Or you just needed some relief however momentary it is ? Here is another bait you took. I wrote, Yes, they were all stupid. You don't believe ? Here is the explanation. See it this way, among the whole bloody Brits, they did not find a single guy who was suitable to be the successor of Cromwell. Cromwell was the only one, all the rest were stupid and unable to be the successor of Cromwell. Got you ! I can not believe that SC who is the royal humorist of Sajha, is pretending that he did not get the joke ! Fine, he does not have to get the joke in 'Yes, they were all stupid ' if that's what floats his boat. However, how can he ignore the point in "they did not find a ...suitable...successor of Cromwell" ? Yes, Cromwell was a cruel man. But did I justify the idea of republicanism with Cromwell ? In fact my point was there is no point in analogy between a specific event of 17th century, when the notion of modern democracy was just evolving, and today's Nepal which is officially fully commited to the idea of democracy and already have a complete set of democratic institutions. It is like making an analogy between a fetus of an English woman and an adult Nepali man and asking him to act like that fetus. ------------------------- > It is ironic that it is the republicans who blame the Kings for not having the divine power to fix everything with a magic wand. In fact it is ironic that you are saying that the king does not have the divine power and the magic wand. Because, all these time you and IF were saying exactly the opposite. > what we need today is a middle ground between what you have described as a 'castrated' Kingship and an absolute Kingship of the Panchayat years. Interesting. So you contradict with IF's view that we better go back to Panchayat. That's good. > my view is that if there is no political function for an institution, we should say good bye, the state must not bear any dead weight. Sorry, but I am a fiscally conservative by nature. Impressive stand. > And one mistake people make in judging the kingship is by what is happening today in the post Oct. 4th episode. This is not the normal role of monarchy, it is the emergency role of the King according to article 127 of the constitution. I agree. The normal one, if ever happened, would be much worse, unless one doe not desire democracy, freedom, transparency and accountability. > Now if the Maoists and other republic minded people can join forces, the Narayanhiti will collapse like the house of cards it is. True. >I don't think such an opportunity will offer any time soon. You never know. May be the student's republican tilt is just the beginning. > Girija and Makune and the other five agitating parties have several times said they will opt for a republic. Now is the time to put their money where their mouth is, other wise let the King bring the country to a safe landing. The problem with the parties is that they can not work themselves, neither will they let the king resolve the issue. Maybe the time has come for them to stop dithering and take a stand, either way. I agree. >The gentlemanly apology is duly acknowledged, Thank you. But don't you think I was too gentleman ? My apology was for the condemned words 'carnal' and 'spoilt aristocrat'. Look what followed. >After enduring all the chicanery of Capitalist chiks and fuss of the feudalistic femme fatales, I was hoping for a change of scenery with a Red Devil's daughter. I thought I was on the scent of something revolutionary...no luck. >"you royalist hanger-ons", he lashed at me before I could finish my question, "can't you see that's because Gyne and Parase have hoarded up thousands of tarunis in Narayanhiti harem. That has literally dried up the supply of eligible brides in the market. > Season's Greetings and Happy New Year to you and all Sajhapures, Same here. *********************** IF, >I believe in democracy I don't believe. Take the bait if you can. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 05:52 PM
"Sint Musis socii Charites, Furia omnis abesto." "funem contentionis nectamus, sed cui bono?" [let the Graces come the Muses, but let the Furies keep away. We may contend, and likely misuse eachother, but to what purpose?] We are both scholars.... (Robert Burton. The Anatomy of Melancholy). And how apt the sentiment, although, inapplicable when the discussions are concluded on false premises and arguments (for argument sake) are distorted to lynch another of the disagreeing party! I have been following this thread with interest which at times has changed to disappointment, not by the content of the discussion, mind you, but by the mere over simplification of and deliberate distortions of interchanges put forth by Nepe. Here is such an example which reeks of a glib and pestiferous proclamation concerning one person who merely happens to disfavor the crown. And voila, there you have it: Nepe has been conveniently proclaimed a Maoist just on the grounds that he is NOT a Royalist! "Say it loudly if you are calling me a closet Maoist. If my views qualifies me as a Maoist, I am a proud Maoist. But I am not a closet one, an open one." Nepe "Thank you very much for coming out clean, finally! Rather than boxing with shadows of ourselves, I think we can have a much more meaningful exchange of veiws with a "proud Maoist." This casts a new light on all our past discussions as well." Suva Chintak First: Gleaning from the whole manipulative meanderings of the arguments, Suva ji, you had already established within your arguments that Nepe is a Maoist (not a Republican); it was just a small matter of exposure. This, you, in a self-congratulatory manner and in one sweeping statement concluded. You disappoint me sire, it behooves that one such as you (erudite, educated, learned, well read) be discerning when concluding such warped statements. Second: Sire, you bring to mind Bush's asinine proclamation to the world "If you are not with us, you are against us" which translates to -- If you do not fight terrorism, you are a terrorist! when put into perspective of this thread,-- If you are not a Royalist (for whatever reasons it may be) you are a Maoist(closet or otherwise)!!!! Third: Be aware that there are many who do not support the sole power and sway of one Royal Family; be also aware there are many who would support a CONSTITUTIONAL Monarch IFF the word "Constitutional" is operative in the full sense of its meaning and practise. The anti-king sentiments did not arise one fine day when the "common" people of Nepal so happened to read the "Divine Rights". If I recall correctly , Nepal never went through the "European Enlightenment" phase and yet, many have come to the conclusion that the perhaps,just perhaps, the royal family (their extensions)'s antics may not (has not in the history of Nepal) benefit those many outside of KTM and those many more below the poverty line. How many of those poor and starving would have to read up the histories of England's monarchy to justify our current "constitutional monarchy" to feed their stomach? Does it not suffice that even in times of "peaceful" royal reigns, (way before the rise of Maoism) nothing was done to alleviate the poverty???!!!! I do not pretend to have written treatise on political discourses, neither do I aspire to do so. Call me, if you will a lazy self-humorist who writes what she thinks, without the impressive political jargons, theories, historical know-hows of events; neither do I have the suave abilities to lick into shape (disagreeing parties') arguments to fit my pre-conceived notions of labelling my opponent. Call me an ignoramus on the wielding of vague political innuendos, for I have no expertise. However, I do know the ramifications of labeling an anti-Royalist, a Maoist! How convenient a tactic, to eliminate the opponent. Calls to mind the arrests of the three students and those many non-Maoists but anti royalists who have mysteriously disappeared from the face of the peaceful earth of Nepal! In Peace, for the people! Sitara |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 06:11 PM
Nepe jyu, Welcome back to the table!! Quick responses to your valiant effort to revive what is exhausted. >>"If my views qualify me as a Maoist, I am a proud Maoist." Does a Maoist have three eyes? Is a Maoist distinguished by four hands...or does he have one leg? Basically, it is our views that make us a UML, NC, Maoist, or Royalist, right? So if your view qualify you as a Maoist, you are a Maoist, no? If it quacks, walks, and shits like a duck, it is probably a duck kind of situation we have here. So where do you see me twisting my arguement. Or did you change your political color overnight? Proud Maoist last night, not so sure on X'mas eve? Hmmm....The Lord must be working miracles here. Your bait argument on the rest of Brits except for your Crumwell being stupid for not continuing the republic is lame, it simply does not fly, and you know that. You post your replies one day, next day you come and check out the responses. All those that made some sense, you claim their paterntity. But those that were really stupid, you disown by saying that you were only joking and trying to bring on the holiday cheer!? Come on Nepe jyu lets not try those pathetic grade school argument techniques...I think you ought to give more credit to the intelligence of the Sajhapures. I think you are trying this "Heads I win, tails you lose" kind of tedious techinique, it doesn't work anymore. In the first posting you asked me to cite examples, I gave you examples from existing examples, you say existing examples don't count. So I give you the English episdode from the past, you say it is from the past so it does not apply to present Nepal. So just ley I know if you want examples or not? But why do you then bring on the rather messy example of an English woman, feutus, and a Nepali man? How come you are allowed to bring in any examples? That is not fair, nor very democratic, is it? You know Nepe jyu, one of the qualities of growing up is knowing when you have lost and conceding the point gracefully. "But I did not mean that", "That is not what I intended" kind of banter only carries so far...let us learn to be men and stand by what we mean and what we said. Hope to hear from you soon, SC |
| SITARA | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 06:22 PM
CZAR: You certainly are not B S-ing are you?! You do have your historical facts well aligned. It amuses me to observe that no one has challenged your arguments. Do I detect a deliberate oversight on some reader's part?! Perhaps, the arguments you put forth will conveniently dissipate into cyber space, if we ignore them! hehe! |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 06:46 PM
Sitara jyu, So this is what it takes to bring Sitara jyu back to Sajhapur...then it has been well worth it! I am glad a lot of interesting people across this land of honey and milk are sitting around their computers this time of the year...maybe it says something about tone of our debate! I think I have tried to address some of your issues in my posting to Nepe jyu, the charge about twisting his argument. So I will skip that. >>"If you are not a Royalist (for whatever reasons it may be) you are a Maoist(closet or otherwise)!!!!" Could this be a case of mistaken identity? Except for IF and myself, I don't see many people who have tried to make a cause for, it seems rather unsuccessfully so for" for a continued relevance of Nepali monarchy in the immediate future. We have never said that anyone who is not a royalist is a Maoist. These is my intellectual position, not a political program. If you are going to be a fair jury on this debate, don't you think you should also censure him for calling me all kinds of names....please go back to the thread to see who began name-calling business here. But if you are also a partisan to the debate, your jury duties are waived!! >>"Be aware that there are many who do not support the sole power and sway of one Royal Family; be also aware there are many who would support a CONSTITUTIONAL Monarch IFF the word "Constitutional" is operative in the full sense of its meaning and practise. The anti-king sentiments did not arise one fine day when the "common" people of Nepal so happened to read the "Divine Rights". If I recall correctly , Nepal never went through the "European Enlightenment" phase and yet, many have come to the conclusion that the perhaps,just perhaps, the royal family (their extensions)'s antics may not (has not in the history of Nepal) benefit those many outside of KTM and those many more below the poverty line. How many of those poor and starving would have to read up the histories of England's monarchy to justify our current "constitutional monarchy" to feed their stomach? Does it not suffice that even in times of "peaceful" royal reigns, (way before the rise of Maoism) nothing was done to alleviate the poverty???!!!!" There is no quick answer to this, I agree to many of your concerns about poverty. But I personally think it would be too simplistic so that all this happened becasue of the king. Since you site examples of England, maybe I should also be allowed to cite a counter example: Somalia has not had a king for a long time, but how come it is such a abysmal place? The larger point being that kingship or republic are just one of the many other variables that determine the overall polity and economy. So the King deserves neither all the praise, nor all the blame. >>"Call me an ignoramus on the wielding of vague political innuendos, for I have no expertise. However, I do know the ramifications of labeling an anti-Royalist, a Maoist! How convenient a tactic, to eliminate the opponent. Calls to mind the arrests of the three students and those many non-Maoists but anti royalists who have mysteriously disappeared from the face of the peaceful earth of Nepal!" Come on Sitara jyu, I think we can do away with false modesty: anyone who took you for an ignoramus is in for a big shock! And I fully share your concern for the disappeared people in Nepal, with a slight modification: while you seem to pine only for those anti-royalist, I grieve for all those people who have lost their lives, limbs, and their loved ones in the past eight years...whether they were Maoists, Royalists, or anyone in between. There is no distinction in death and loss. And according to my reckoning, a large share of the blame for the killings must go to the Maoists, they were the ones who started it. I think there was no need for violence in Nepal, nor can it be justified in any way. And I fully respect your right to be a republican to try and end the monarchy. If you truly think that is the better alternative, more power to you!! Merry Christmas SC |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 07:12 PM
Nepe jyu, Aren't you going to send some more of your wonderful "baits"? I am waiting to swallow them hook, line, and sinker. Don't make it a long wait! SC |
| SITARA | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 07:43 PM
Suva ji: You have spared me the guillotine, whew! and my head is still attached! But, what is this I feel around my neck a garrote or a noose? You have labelled me a Republican! It tastes strange to my tongue to utter the words "Sitara, the Republican". An interesting ordeal indeed, a political intellectual has compartmentalized me into a Republican's shoes, not that I denounce it ofcourse for I have been spared from being called a Maoist! If you have not heard my stand on a "CONTITUTIONAL Monarchy" then, I see it futile to argue your "intellectual position". Neither, amI a judge nor the jury and neither do I desire to analyse juvenile name-calling. By the way, was it just a name calling that you proclamed a Maoist; does that mean you did not really mean it? Well, you could have fooled me! However, if it was just a case of jousting in the spirit of name-calling then, be my guest, have a ball. My little insignificant effort was to bring to your attention the ramification of calling people a Maoist. And yes, what of those many limbless, faceless many who were decpitated by the Maoists? What ailed the peace zone that the remote countryside discarded the notion of the divine king to embrace such an alien thought of Maoism; was it greed, poverty, despair, angst, or was it just another desperate move to better a living hell? The enigma lies in discerning the cause of Maoism. And that is what it is: an enigma,which caused a rapid fire to spread,immolating themselves as well as others. False modesty??????? Sire, I do not boast of working at a tandoori pit which seems to be a treasure chest of information, where the common tandoori worker apprentices in exchange for vast wisdom and knowlege!!! Or are you just born erudite, suave and sophisticated streetwise???!!! :) And No! it does not take much for me to come to Sajha, just some lazy leisurely hours to kill on Christmas Eve! I wish you Season's Greetings too suva ji! If it saves the country, people and positions, more power to your intellectual position. :) |
| SITARA | Posted
on 24-Dec-03 07:53 PM
"Carnal" desiring "spoilt aristocrat" eh? Hmmm...come to think of it.... it does equal to WMD (Woman of Mass Destruction), hehehe! Touche'!!! Sorry, but I am trying in vain to contain my mirth lest the loose tighten! hehehe! ah my humor, thou dost betray me in my dire moments of seriousness!!!! :) |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 25-Dec-03 12:56 AM
Then king took the power. Whether he did, right or wrong, we can analyze it. 12 years of democratic era established a frizzed pattern of black politics. It has became game for few cunning figures, power got misused, and by the name of democratic practiced poor Nepali were got looted. A cycle of never ending black politics started, and country became orphan. Maoist picked up the gun to solve the problem and started to advance significantly. Girija, one who remained most powerful person in this black politic era, try to crumb them, but failed to do that. Instead his action helped to increase the number of Maoists. Brutality of armed police and irresponsible nature of politician increases the armed Maoists in no time (some people said that Maoists made people join their army by force, there is no such evidence and I don’t agree with this statement). Mostly poor people joined Maoist force because they find that the way is beneficial though it is dangerous (they got nothing during 30 years of active monarchy and 12 years of so called democracy). Some people joined out of revenge (to take revenge form the armed police who killed their innocent relatives without any judgement). Girija’s Kilo Sera-2 operation increases Maoists instead of decreasing. Girija went to palace to ask king to deploy army. Our humble late king Birendra said he will not deploy army against his sons. For the first time I realize the wisdom of army to remain under the king. The situation went worse and worse, Maoists started to attack police stations, they were gaining popularity, and went out of the control of the police. Girija went again to palace to ask for army assistance, this time there were our late crown prince, late king were out of the country. Some palace source told me that crown price asked Girija, the reason origination and development of the Maoists. He asked why people are ready to give their life. Were they revolutionary by nature? What was the cause that they were ready to give and take the life? Crown prince asked for the solid reason. Corrupted Girija left the palace unanswered. Second time I realized the wisdom of the army to be under the royal umbrella. This poor corrupted guy would have brought either big massacre or he would have suppressed the voice of people, if army were employed by then. Girija did not pay attention to the 40 demands of Maoists; instead he started to suppress their voice. Whatever form it has taken now, but in the beginning Maoists started from the basic demands of the people, this is the reason why they gain popularity in no time (some of us won’t be agreed with me, it is not necessary, I will explain this later). Those 40 demands of Maoists were the demands of Nepali people, 39 of them were strongly approved by former US ambassador too (please read his interview in one of the volume of Himal in 2001). He disapproved only one demand, ie to keep country isolated from the internal economy. He said, that was their lack of experience. KP Bhattrai was bound to resign by Girija blaming that he could not solve the Maoists problem. Girija was bound to resign by Sher Bahadur because he made the problem rather worse. Again Girija bound Sher Bahadur to break the party for the same issue. Game of power! No one was serious about the country. Oppositions were waiting for the iron to ripe. UML comrade also followed almost the same path though they did not have enough time to enjoy the power (KP Oli, RK Mainali, Bharat Mohan, CP Mainali, Jhalanath, even Modnath are considered to be villions like Khum Bahadur, Chiranjivi, Mr. Joshi etc of congress). We have witnessed, UML also had power conflict which lead to the fracture of the party. Bihari politics! What people can expect from these leaders? These infamous political leaders brought a lot of projects in their election areas to secure their position. So the people of those areas will be in illusion, but we have to see the entire country. For example: one of my fried is from Bharat Mohan Adhikari’s area. He said, Mr. Adhikari, provided electricity, telephone, drinking water, farming projects and so many others. He brought many INGOs and NGOs to his election area. He did all in 6 month period while he was minister. Minister is for whole country, not for one election area. He did this for his future to secure his place in the house of representative. This is a sort of constructive work to some extent, many leaders have done very destructive work too. What did he do for the remote place like Rukum and Rolpa? That part remained untouched. Can they neglect the part simply because it is geographically remote? That is not fair. Girija government tortured, detained and took in custody to too many citizens giving them the level of Maoist. Sher Bahadur used his weapon of “Dialog with Maoist” to get power, after getting power he turned more severe than Girija. Neither Girija, nor Sher Bahadur listens to the voice of Human Rights. They blame that human right organizations are biasing. Why should they bias? There are well educated intellectuals in the human right organization; I would better like to go in this chapter sometime later. King took the power; governments changed but the process of torture, detention and even sever penalties to the innocent citizen remained the same. to be coned....(please correct the mistakes yourself) |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 25-Dec-03 12:58 AM
After the Deuba government king had two choices. One remains care free and let the problem be handled by the Deuba’s government. Another, act as if he did. He rejected first choice may be because he realized the conflict for power among the political leaders. He found they were not serious about the Maoists problem. He might have chosen second option because of the three reasons. 1. Unexpectedly increasing Maoists are ultimately attacking the Monarchy, so he wanted to take the safety measure. 2. He found people were agitated from the corrupted government and looking for a loyal support. His advisers assured him that the people are looking for active monarch. 3. Both one and two. He took the power with the promise that he will give the country a safe landing and then hand the power over to the people. Obviously he could not grasp the power in 21st century as king Mahendra did in 20th century. His idea of safe landing sounds terrific, but nobody let him hold the drivers seat. There remain two powers besides him, Maoists and political parties. He can not fulfill the Maoists demands, Maoists are determined to overthrow his regime. Political parties are giving him the level of king Mahendra, they don’t let him drive the country. He is in dilemma. Political parties lost popularities because of the corruption. They roar only with the natural support of international community. International community neither approve the Maoists way though their demands are valid and for the people, nor appreciate the active monarchy though the kings action seems appropriate. So the support automatically goes to the political parties though their action is not for the people. Maoists are attacking to the security personals to overthrow the existing regime. All the government tried to solve the problem through dialogue, but no government could succeed. They demand for the constitutional assembly, no government is ready to make any change in the existing constitution. They think this constitution is the best model of the existing systems of the world, so they are not ready to do any compromise with it. But Maoists think that for the overall progress of the country there must be some change in the constitution. Both parties are taking their stand. One party stood for no change in constitution, where as another party stood for change in constitution. More than 8,000 people have died in this conflict. Both parties are taking their stand, no one is moving back. I can guess the mentality of both the parties. Maoists strongly believe that they represent the actual Nepali and advocate their problems. They considered that the government is lifeless, senseless and good for nothing. For them army and police are private security personals of king. They have great abortion towards the government. They strongly believe that until and unless this regime is fallen there is no progress of the country. Their mind is completely absorbed with this type of feelings. They believe that the government can not understand the language of dialogue and they must communicate through arms. They attack armies and police, and kill them as if they are not human. For them Army and police are terrorist, who kill and torture people mercilessly. They kill government spies, as well as whomever come across their way, without any mercy. They believe they will force the government to admit them. This is the state of the mind of Maoists and their supporters, and they are not a little bit doubtful about themselves. On the other had, government strongly believe that the constitution is perfect for the country, there is no change necessary. The Maoists are revolutionary force, barrier for the progress. They attack the police and army and killed them. Army and police should be defensive. The Maoists should be abolished, they are terrorists, and until they are eradicated, there is no peace and no progress. This is what government and government supporters strongly believe. Human mind always enjoy the conflict, it automatically take the support of one. While watching game we are always supporting one or the other group, if two countries are in war, we are taking support of one or the other. It is arduous (not impossible) to be indifference. So you will find either government supporter (no matter who is governing) or supporter of the Maoists. Negligibly small number will be indifference. Government supporters believe that the problem will be solved if Maoists are wiped out. They have strong abortion for Maoists and want to see their end; the news of gunning down of Maoists gives pleasure to them. Where as Maoists supporters believe that the problem of Nepal can not be solved by existing regime, the existing regime should be fallen. They have strong dislike for the government and they enjoy the news of ambushing the security personal. Each group feels they are right and other is wrong. They even feel sorry for another group. to be contd.... |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 25-Dec-03 01:00 AM
There is no difference between both the supporters. Both are seeking solution through the violence. No matter whether he is illiterate supporter of the Maoists or a well educated supporter of the government, both have the same state of the mind. Nobody knows who is correct. There are many heads advocating Maoists, so a wise person can not simply rule out what they believe. I know human intellect is always slave of his thoughts and thoughts are always inspired by the surrounding. Hence for me wise is the one who knows this fact and do not make any decision with the influence of thoughts. Thoughts are very fragile, they are impermanent, and they can not be the source of right judgment. Maoists are ruling the villages, army and police are guarding the main cities and head quarters. This is fact. Sometime security personal went to the village in search of Maoists, and sometime Maoists come to their camps. They are so furious for each other. Both are scared of each other, and looking for opportunity to kill their enemy. Brother is killing the brother; the death toll is rising day by day. In this fighting the victims are simple citizens too. Maoists are killing them for the charge of spying for government, where as security forces are killing them at the cost of supporting Maoists. Record shows that the security forces have killed many civilians than the Maoists. Many killed civilians were leveled as Maoists too. Maoists trouble them for food and shelter and security forces troubles them for this assistance. They are suffering from both the sides. According to human right authority, more civilians were killed, tortured and detained by security forces than the Maoists. I have heard from villagers too, they remain more scared form the security forces compare to the Maoists. What an opposite picture! Some folks believe that human right activists and intellectual are biased. As an open minded, free thinker, I can not believe this. A fear can not close the mouth of many and fact can never be hided. Why do we hesitate to reject the fact, the statistic? Why do we blame others? A single person can go wrong but a group barely goes wrong. Actually the problem is, we would like to hear what we want to hear. Maoists are asking for constitutional assembly. They want people to decide for the change or no change in constitution..... to be contd..... |
| failedstate | Posted
on 25-Dec-03 01:21 AM
Menawhile we need more good news like this: "The Maoists have admitted that they have suffered setbacks in the east. In a statement by the Mechi-Kosi Regional Bureau on 26 November, more than 70 guerrillas had been killed since the end of the ceasefire. The security forces say they have killed more than 450 Maoists in the eastern region in that period and captured large amounts of explosives and weapons. Eastern command chief, Major General Pradip Pratap Bam Malla also appears to be ahead of the rest of the country in setting up new volunteer civilian forces that arm and train villagers to fight the Maoists on their own." Peace! |
| Brook | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 05:16 AM
(This posting should have been up several days ago but despite repeated attempts I have been unable to post until today. Hope it works this time) My congratulations to Ram Nepali sir and Suva Chintak for calling a spade a spade and exposing the true colors of the "democratic" agents of change here on our board. Special congratulations to SC for valiantly engaging two of the most unreasonably inflexible republican voices on this board. Personally, I have been irritated a lot with the usual brainwashed, prejudice-driven, unopen to introspection and incapable of self-criticism type claptrap that passes for a well argued case for a republic around here. I mean, how childishly stubborn, and hypocritical for our "agents of change" to let their emotions rule rule their judgement and their judgement dictate prescriptions for an entire nation? Like Czar, I don't claim a level of erudition in these matters to be able to prescribe anything that'd magically transform the political landscape for the betterment of the sovereign people. But I'd hardly be saying anything new if I said that an alternative to a rejected null hypothesis should itself be subject to scrutiny. Therefore, my problem is that even after reading Czar's posting, Nepe's manuscript and his numerous other essays (which I must say, add more heat than light to his position) the only concession one would be willing to make is: monarchy as an institution has a distorting (both economic and political) influence on the Nepali society. But how is doing away with monarchy an automatic panacea for whatever you think ails Nepal- especially when one can hardly think of leaders who'd inspire the majority, if not the entire nation? Republicans have to answer that question before they bring their case for hearing. There are no perfect solutions. There's no way poverty in Nepal will just go away overnight. There's no way Nepal will magically wake up to an egalitarian society tomorrow. So, speaking in terms of distortions alone, how is any alternative political milieu going to address the already existing distortions and other new and more intricate ones that are sure to emerge? Is the new system - in whatever adulterated form of the status quo today you desire- going to add more distortions than redress the existing ones? A company management that doesn't perform would undoubtedly be shown the sack but iff the board were convinced that the incoming bunch (gauging by their credentials) would do any better. Stretching the analogy further, what if there were no other manager in the market who'd take the profitability higher? Clearly, a sub-optimal strategy would be the most efficient in such a situation. Also, a nation can hardly be governed by simply looking at bottomline profitability. Even if it could, company profitability would not necessarily equate to worker's welfare. The relationship would be quite the opposite actually. (contd) |
| Brook | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 05:26 AM
(contd) So the bitter truth - like it or not - is that Bam Dev can go live on TV showing irreverence for Gyanendra, Gagan Thapa can spew vitriol against Paras in the streets of Kathmandu but when the palace throws as much as a morsel at them, these guys will go (and HAVE GONE) wagging their tails in pathetic anticipation of more. To do justice to these guys however, it has to be said that most Nepali citizens, irrespective of what they might say in the streets or at their party gatherings, would do the same. What does this say? 1. Monarchy as an institution is much more than Gyanendra, Paras and their politico-military tag-alongs and it is still something MOST NEpalis bow down to. 2. I know there are people who won't bend over to the crown- there might even be some among us right here- but they are not only in the minority but also in shadows of political oblivion. 3. Most importantly, even the staunchest supporter of a republican state here, Nepe, has acknowledged that monarchy as an instution is CULTURALLY ingrained in the Nepali psyche. But CULTURES take a substantial amount of time to change. Agreeing on the long horizon nature of the problem while at the same time, advocating quick fix solutions is a dubiously tricky stance to take in public debates. Nepe should probably sort out his intellectual confusion and if he wants a short cut to immediate changes he should probably cross over to the other side. After all, that's what they are trying to do, no? Bring about some sort of a cultural revolution? In that sense therefore, Nepe - with you antipathy for all things regal and by induction, all things feudal - you should have no qualms about swearning allegiance to the Reds. I won't ask you to leave behind your "democratic" mask though. Even the Reds have a democratic face, don't they? They will most likely be pleased to let you to continue using it it! One more thing, you base your arguments on realpolitik? What, are you kidding me? Excuse me but realpolitik-ers don't suffer the Utopian delusion! In this classic debate of the positivists and the normatives, I am sorry to inform you that contrary to what you might like to believe, you are so adamantly arguing for "what should be" that you have turned a complete blind eye on "what is"! PS: I still love your Ghazals. Brook. |
| prawin | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 09:57 AM
such a lot of text, and i still don't see any "solution." i wonder if this entire gesture, this very democratic voicing of opinions, isn't somewhat masturbatory. well . . . since the universe outlives history, and since the only real platform whence one can speak is that of intellectual integrity--i am at a loss for words right now. but an awful awful lot of text, here. hope the winter treats each of us kindly. |
| lonely1 | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 10:23 AM
IF, RP, Brook, Do you mean what you are saying? I still want to think that you are writing in the spirit of humor. Otherwise, how would you dare to dichotomize the entire range of potential views into Maoist and non-maoist/ royalist? If you call Nepe a Maoist just because he is self-proclaimed Republican (and that with an awareness of his limitation and decent pratical flexibity), you may call George W Bush also a Maoist because he is the President of a republican state! And what a pity, IF, you will find most countries of the world slipping away from your hand because you yourself had the myopia. But still, if you mean what you three are saying, kudos--you are the trio who lashes at rhetoric and intellectualism by using none other than the same tools. The only difference is that your rhetoric and arguments are hackneyed, trite and swept aside and proven wrong by the tide of history in much of the world. Your hankering for a soceity and polity based on feudal, casteist and mysogynisitc practices is not going to help you now. The old order is somewhat lost and in crisis any way. But your bravery is that you don't want to listen to what the people are saying or feeling, you don't examine who or what is behind hundreds of years of exclusionary politics and where the roots of Maoism are. You are angry that your sires in narayanhity and your ancestral privilege to access that power center is now in peril and so you are blindly accusing everything and everyone who does not agree with your anachronistic faith. If you want to resurrect monarchy, why don't or didn't you advise the kings to follow the suit of Japanese or Thai kings who made so many sacrifices to modernise their soceities and to introduce some measure of social justice even by giving away their historical privileges? I pity your intellect and rhetoric that takes resort to the same to abase any view that does not fit in your scheme of things. How clever but how unabashedly hypocritical and presumptious! Wow you should have majored in hypocrisy and how to hang to power without letting others know your interests! Finally, read Sitara's comments one more time--if you can understand--given your neo-con, ala Bushist, anti-intellectual posture. Yes, Brook comes a little different in that he reveals his jargons, but his avowed preference of "what is" over "what should be" does not make him just a positivist. Even the positivists hate to advocate for status quo. Even Bush! No real politician or thinker would like to carry on with the evil of the past just because some cons like it but only what is relevant to the present. And Brook, where is your political science class in which you read about the enormous amount of cooptation of the normative, even utopian/ socialist ideas by the positivits as you call them? Or you just want to hang to the past because the future is slipping out of your hand? How dry the world would be without imagination, without specualtive thinkers! Then you trio may also want to strangle the poets, artists and sceintists because their visions would not conform to the dull receipe of the positivist. Happy holidays if you are in the US. Lonely1 |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 11:51 AM
Lonely 1, I think you are reading the whole thing wrong. Being a Republican does not mean you are a Maoist. However, to assume that there exist no alternative views and what you say is right and those who do not buy your views are idiots and feudal and what not make you no different than the Maoists. Don't the Maoists have the same line of thinking, i.e, whoever is a non-maoist is a feudal oppressor? This is the problem here in Sajha. People fail to understand that there are many people in the world who think differently. Of course, if the Republican advocates in this board had stated their views clearly and without getting personal, then the chances of we non believers giving it a thought would have been more, but your own people blew the chance by getting persoanl and basing their claims on something that's way off historically and politically. " And what a pity, IF, you will find most countries of the world slipping away from your hand because you yourself had the myopia. But still, if you mean what you three are saying, kudos--you are the trio who lashes at rhetoric and intellectualism by using none other than the same tools." I have no idea what this means. Will it be possible for you to state this in clear, simple and plain English. Unlike you, I am not in the US and I do not understand overly complex sentences. " Your hankering for a soceity and polity based on feudal, casteist and mysogynisitc practices is not going to help you now. The old order is somewhat lost and in crisis any way. " What makes you think we support feudal, casteist and mysogynistic practices? You are letting your imaginations run a little wild than it should. Just because we support Monarchy does not make us eligible for all this heavy-duty charges. And what is "order"? How do you define Old Order and New Order? You seem to be well versed in scoial science, so please enlighten me. I have no idea what these words/phrases mean. " But your bravery is that you don't want to listen to what the people are saying or feeling, you don't examine who or what is behind hundreds of years of exclusionary politics and where the roots of Maoism are" And your bravery is you don't want to accept that there are many people in the world who do not agree with your views. Before you go on searching the roots of Maoism, search the roots of the political parties in Nepal. "If you want to resurrect monarchy, why don't or didn't you advise the kings to follow the suit of Japanese or Thai kings who made so many sacrifices to modernise their soceities and to introduce some measure of social justice even by giving away their historical privileges?" Your citing the Japanese example is a little off, if I may say so. Since you seem to be a learned scholar, I dare not correct you. I am sure it was a typo and I am sure you already know this: Before the Tokagawa Shogunet took power in Japan, the Japanese society was divided between the warlords and their Bushido Code follwoing Samurai warriors. When the Tokagawa Shogunet took power and started its quest for a centarlzied Japanese Empire, the Emperor became a figurehead. I mean he was not better before anyways. Anyway, after Meiji bid adeu to Shogunet rule, Japan pursued a militarization policy. This is when the old myth of their Emperor being the Emperor of world resurfaced. This myth plus the militarization of Japan lead to Japan's involvement in the World Wars. And when Japan lost the world war II, America put certain restrictions on the Japanese Emperor. The Emperor just didn't wake up the next morning after the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Bombings and told his people that Japan will now go through a demilitarization phase and that his citizens don't have to put the world under his feet. America made the rules for Japan, not the Emperor and the Emperor had to agree to whatever the Americans said to save himself from being tried at the War Crime Tribunal for Far East held in Tokyo. " Finally, read Sitara's comments one more time--if you can understand--given your neo-con, ala Bushist, anti-intellectual posture. " I can't udnerstand, sorry. Told you, I am not an intellectual like you, nor my angrezi is enough to understand what Sitara wrote. But having read Sitara's other pieces by clicking on dictionary.com 200 times, I am sure what she wrote here is something brilliant and as you know, brilliant stuff are for brilliant people, not for unintellectual like me. " No real politician or thinker would like to carry on with the evil of the past just because some cons like it but only what is relevant to the present." Maile yo pani bujhina. Yahale bhanna khojnu bhayeko k ho? Is turning a blind eye to all things past is a trait of good politicians? "How dry the world would be without imagination, without specualtive thinkers! Then you trio may also want to strangle the poets, artists and sceintists because their visions would not conform to the dull receipe of the positivist. " maile yo pani bujhina. Yes, the world would be a dry place withot all the thinkers and poets and artists, but these people do more justice to themselves and the humanity, if they stick to their professions, hoina? For politics, there are politicians, let them run the country. I don't think the situation in the world is that bad that we need artists, scientists and poets to run the world in their own creative ways. "Happy holidays if you are in the US. " I am not in the States. But still, happy holidays. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 11:56 AM
Brook, Interesting obsrevations there. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 12:37 PM
Look, this is what I call admitting mistakes. " It would be churlish to claim that the Bush administration's foreign policy has been error-free from the start. We are human beings; we all make mistakes." -Collin Powell, Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2004. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 01:04 PM
society was divided between the warlords and their Bushido Code = between the warlords with their Bushido.... |
| Gokul | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 03:56 PM
Madhavraj Joshi (Shukraj Shastri's father) was a devout person. Some wicked pundits, who were hypocrats and did not possess any spiritual feeling, wanted to punish him by accusing him of being an atheist. The situation was tricky. How to prove a profoundly religious person as an atheist? They made a secret plan and challenged him to participate in a shastrartha to be held in front of Maharaj Chandra Samsher. That day came and Pundit Madhavraj came to the palace highly excited not knowing the evil design of his adversaries. The discourse continued and at one point, one pundit aksed him: What is Brahma?. Madhavraj explained it as a universal existence. Then another asked whether the Shivalinga in Pashupati is a stone or God? Madhavraj, as expected gave the logical answer and said, although it is a stone, it symbolizes our faith ... Then pundits asked him: Is it a stone? He unhesitatingly said yes. The plot worked. He was immediately declared an atheist and beaten severely in front of Maharaja. A profoundly religious person was made a sinner that day. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 05:27 PM
Sitara jyu, For the sake of setting the records straight, I am here to appeal my initial sentencing for the lynching of the "disagreeing party" and several other offences by the right honorable celestial circuit court of justice. Your honor, I plead that I have been falsely accused and indicted in the People's Review Affair of 2003. In defending my innoncence, I request you to review the whole file again and especially the following testimonials from the said case to determine the culpability. In one of my responses, I stated: "Finally, Mr. Nepe, I would appreciate if you can refrain from cheap name calling when you can not keep up with the evidence or the logic. Why characterize others as "carnal"? Just as every person who believes in the constructive role of monarchy in Nepal at this point in history need not be a "spoit aristrocrat", not every closet Maoist has to be a republican riffraff lout. Values of basic civility and decorum ought to be valued everywhere, especially in our esteemed Sajhapur." Nowhere in this statement is Mr. Nepe being accused of being a Maoist, closet or otherwise. What I have made is a general statement to undescore the point that just because you believe in monarchy, you don't have to be a "spoilt aristrocrat." Similarly, not every Maoist (closet/cabinet/open) has to be a riffraff. Why did I make this statement? In an earlier posting, Mr. Nepe directly accused me of being a "spoilt brat" and a "carnal" man. I had to make this statement to deny what he accused me of, which I did sincerely. In the next posting, Mr. Nepe responded thus: "Say it loudly if you are calling me a closet Maoist. If my views qualifies me as a Maoist, I am a proud Maoist. But I am not a closet one, an open one." If he is not a Maoist (a position that he adopts later on), why did he need to say that he is proud to be a Maoist? He could, in the most sincere terms, either not responded or just said that he was not a Maoist, and that would have been the end of the story. But since he stated in the most emphatic terms, when it was not necessary, that he was a proud Maoist, I took him at his word. Now is that a sin in a discussion? I am a plain speaking village boy working in a tandoori shop, and I go by what people say in words, not how they scheme up in their heads. So after reckoning that Mr. Nepe was a Maoist from his own statement, I acknowledged what he had just stated. And I am slammed for what he himself said! How can that be fair? Now look at how Mr. Nepe was scheming all along to cause my downfall, not with a sincere and meaningful words, but plots and schemes...his incencerity shines through the following statement; he was not holding a debate in good faith: "Give a man, who lives on twisting things and deceptive analogies to justify his adherence, few light jokes as a bait, and fir dekh tamaashaa. How the guy will grab the bait in a lightening speed and then start to entertain you with priceless arguments he builds on them." So all along he knew that he did not mean what he said infront of us here in Sajhapur, he knowinlgy said things which he knew he was going to deny later after he had put me in his bait traps! Now, isn't there a federal law about tainted testimony? Knowingly giving a false statement? Your honor, I plead you look into that before sentencing me for "implification of and deliberate distortions of interchanges put forth by Nepe." You did not stop there in condemning me to the gallows, you further wrote: "Here is such an example which reeks of a glib and pestiferous proclamation concerning one person who merely happens to disfavor the crown. And voila, there you have it: Nepe has been conveniently proclaimed a Maoist just on the grounds that he is NOT a Royalist!" Again, I did not proclaim him Maoist, he did it himself, in his own free will, with a premediated motive to trap me in a trap most treachearous. It appears that he succeeded most admirably, he did not only get me, he was also able to hoodwink your honor as well! So your most noble and just honor, I seek nothing but a fair judgement on this matter. If I can't get justice from you, one so high and wise, there is no hope for humanity either Humble petitioner SC PS: Historically, the gillotine, gas chambers, the gulags, and the killing fields have been the instruments of choice for the republicans to protect and promote democracy. No such fear from your 'constitutional monarchy.' PS: I detected a certain grade inflation for Czar jyu, especially on his history score card. An impressive and articulate condemnation of monarchy certainly, but "but historical facts well aligned"? Could it be the case of the good teacher's favourite pupil...I am not being jealous of Czar or anything you know! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 06:07 PM
Ghumdai firdai Rumjataar bhanya jasto...jatti karayo, yeta uta gari, fan fani ghumera tyakryakkai feri shuru kai thaam ma pugni...dashain taaka haamro gaam gharaan Roti ping le ghumyaune bhanda ni charko ringata laagne gari... Therefore, I had decided long ago that chatting politics in Sajha is like a monkey trying to run around a tree, trying to grab his own tail (or, to put it more explicitly, like a man running aruond a tree trying to screw his own arse) :P Therefore, I have no comments as per the discussion at hand, other than to admit that I'm having a wonderful time reading and "enlightening" myself from varying points of views. Aba chai kaam ko kuro garam...SUVA CHINTAK-jyu...I will be in your town this weekend--probably until the 29th/30th. Milchha bhane chiya paan garna jaam tei Au Bon Pain tira ;) Ke chha tapain ko schedule? I have emailed you also...but just wanted to make sure you got this message if you havnt checked you email lately. Kali Gandaki le bagayeko kassam, ma tapain ko coffee/tea ma kunai prakaar ko bikh haalne prayaash gardina! :) If the response is positive, please email me your # as soon as possible...ani...sssssssshh...arulai nabhanam hai haamro date bhanera...feri artha ko anartha laulaam ;) |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 06:17 PM
Poonte hazur, It will be my honor to T with you, poison or no poison! When are you getting here? Just send me the time and I will take a break from my tandoor joint to meet you at ABP. Aba Sajha ko chalfal, kuro kani yestai cha; Gorkahli (Goru-khali, in Bhupi's insightful version) haru lai tarka bhanda ris jyada; praman bhanda galli-galouch bhadi auncha, tesaile ali ali grama garmi bhai nai halcha. Ke garne? Lau hazur, chito darsan pam! SC |
| SITARA | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 06:31 PM
Suva ji: Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas and good spirits you do bring us, good sire, along with such hai, hai hai, high drama! :) I watched the much talked about film, "Chicago", last week. Gere is the criminal lawyer par excellence! What brilliant court performance; what melodrama expressed with watchful yet mirthful eyes; what feigned anguish smoothly laminated in veneer of oft practiced intonation, pitch and articulation intended only for the interested audience. A master manipulator of emotions! Indeed, entertainment of the finest kind. Surely, you too sir, are breathtaking in your impeccable performance; at times vaccilating between tongue- in- cheek mockery to a rapier smooth analogy which implies(mind you) operation logic 10, while laying down the treacherous carpet of literal translations! Here, I shall stop. For, I know that you know that I know what you want us to know! Perhaps the eggnog has taken its toll!!!!!!!!!!. There is no comparision between you and Nepe in your(both) presentations: Nepe is earnestly impassioned while you are casually unimpassioned. Both, a scholar in your respective fields. What remains, is not the content of the argument but the tone. As for the little jab on saving humanity: You never cease to awe me with your assumed position of the proclaimer of "Maoist", "Republican", "Judge/ Jury", "Savior of humanity". What divine status do you hold that our destiny seems pre-charted (by you)for those of us who cross words with you? :) As for the other; let the "favored" pupil speak for himself and prove his caliber, for I am no standard bearer, just a mere, at times ignorant, consumer of historical facts: a non-entity! |
| SITARA | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 06:33 PM
Logic 101* |
| Nepe | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 06:44 PM
Lonely1, You said all I had to say. And I could not have put it more succinctly. Thank you. *********************** Brook, Your bitterness was something I had not seen before. But, at any rate, I am not going to make it my problem. I will leave you alone with your irritation with me. However, I fail to understand what you get by calling me a Maoist. Is it some kind of bullying, intimidation or did you need some relief from the headache of republicanism ? If you are bullying under the cover of anonymity, you must know that only goes so far. Besides, don't be so sure about your anonymity, Brook. If you just meant a proximity to the Maoists, you did not have to be a bankrupt to call me otherwise. You are talking so silly, I do not even have a language to reply in. Let me try, If I condemn the violent method (at least as the first method to try) and if I don't believe in the communist ideology, but in damn democracy and freedom and advocate for a democratic republic as its final political system for Nepal, then how on earth is it wrong to be a Maoist, if that's what I am ? Jarur saathi ma pani Maoist (Sorry Devkota, for paraphrasing you) This insanity aside, I am glad to hear you are familiar with my writings and also so hear some sane arguments of yours. >But how is doing away with monarchy an automatic panacea for whatever you think ails Nepal- especially when one can hardly think of leaders who'd inspire the majority, if not the entire nation? Republicans have to answer that question before they bring their case for hearing. I have answered this question a dozen times in Sajha Kurakani and in my masterpiece 'Why Republicanism' too. So I am sorry for self-referencing again (to SC, particularly). There is no dearth of Nepalis with qualification to be good leaders, particularly in the pool of intellectuals outside active politics and some inside active politics who are in low profile. Fortunately God has not limited the intellect to a particular race, population or family, and there is hardly any field Nepali individuals have left to excel. Or Brook, Isolated Freak and Shuvachintaks' futeko aankhaa do not see any of them ? In any case, there are hundreds of thousands Nepali who can provide better leadership than Maharaj Gyanendra and his heir Paras shah, the only condition being they are not to be neutralized by the power, constitutional as well as para-constitutional ones, of the monarchy. >1. Monarchy as an institution is much more than Gyanendra, Paras and their politico-military tag-alongs and it is still something MOST NEpalis bow down to. What are you talking about, Brook ? Monarchy in Nepal is Gyanendra as long as as he is alive, then Paras as long as he is alive, then Hridayendra as long as he lives. Who the f_k is the institution other than Gyanendra and Paras themselves ? As for MOST Nepali bowing down, are you kidding or what ? Yes, some do. But that is also true for Saddam Hussain. A referendum on monarchy or the election for the Constituent Assembly is what will tell if Brook is right. But why the master is chickening out and killing 17 (?) Nepalis everyday. The day Gyanendra agrees for the Referendum or the CA, all these killing will stop. > Nepe, has acknowledged that monarchy as an instution is CULTURALLY ingrained in the Nepali psyche. Yes, like the cage is engrained in the psyche of the caged parrot. Even then things are changing after the major demystification of the monarchy at the Narayanhity massacre. Population under the ideological influence of the Maoists and the youth of the country have largely liberated mind. >Agreeing on the long horizon nature of the problem while at the same time, advocating quick fix solutions is a dubiously tricky stance to take in public debates. Nepe should probably sort out his intellectual confusion and if he wants a short cut to immediate changes he should probably cross over to the other side. Don't make assumption and argue on that. Republicanism is not a medicine to cure a problem. It is the factory to produce the medicine. You sound to be in confusion about the notion of democracy. Sort that out, first. As far as crossing over is concerned, the crossing over of "the other side" to this side is what I am after. Read the last few concluding para of my magnum opus. > Bring about some sort of a cultural revolution? Certainly. But not the one smashing the idol in a temple. Rather smashing the idea in the head of a Brahmin who would come to beat a Damai who would enter the temple. And so on. > Nepe - with you antipathy for all things regal and by induction, all things feudal - you should have no qualms about swearning allegiance to the Reds. I won't ask you to leave behind your "democratic" mask though. Damn.. how many times I am going to be unmasked in Sajha ! Poor me ! ********** SC, Now that I call a humor and an escape. Selective evidence always helps, no ? |
| IndisGuise | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 06:58 PM
"As for..........................................................caliber, for I am no standard bearer, just a mere,"at times ignorant" , consumer of historical facts: a non-entity! "Often" would have been better instead of "at times", and "arrogant" would have been appropriate instead of "ignorant". Hehehehe!!!:) I hope hajur malai maaf gari dinu huncha hola.. it was just mah random thought.... I post my indiscriminate thoughts with trepidation....Indiaguise:)) |
| SITARA | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 07:10 PM
But ofcourse Indisguise ji! I thought those two "often", "arrogant" words were pre-established, the others I make it a point to reiterate! The ego speaketh volumes. :) Your disguise intrigues, your trepiation dismays but your "indiscriminate" conclusions endears me! hehehehe! :) |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 07:38 PM
Sitara jyu, It is funny how we take away different things from the same social representaions, in this case "Chicago." You were dismayed by all the tricks-of-the-trade of a criminal lawer, a part and parcel of the US justice system. I had not thought much of Gere's performance. What really impressed me was the feminine manipulator, vixen, seducer par excellance portrayed by Zeta. The ease and oomph with which she delivered that feminine mystique was stunning. Nevertheless, thank you for putting me on the same pedestal as the nefarious attorney; but don't expect me to repay the compliments...I am rather stingy in that department :-) Judge and jury, celestial and justice was harmless banter hazur, I ask for forgiveness. Ditto for the republican characterization, that was a sincere misunderstanding on my part. Since my plea for justice has already been ruled out, may I at least plead for forgiveness and mercy? SC |
| IndisGuise | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 07:43 PM
Sitara ji, Just as "Ganga Putra Bhisma" put his "Dhanus" and was ready to get killed when Lord Krishna himself was about to give him "mokcha", even though he was "Bachan Badh" to not to pick up weapon in Mahabharat ko "Yudh"...I have no other option but to surrender mahself to your "achuk astra" (your words). I understand you are not "Bachan Badh", thus keeping mah safety in mind, I belive I should just capitulate for I can not fight against thou "Achuk Atras".I am just glad that my conclusion endears you. I take it as blessing...but do not get dismayed by my trepidation, it was out of sheer respect hehehe.... Indisguise :)) |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 07:53 PM
Nepe jyu, Now, isn't that rather marvellous that you should be accusing Brook of suffering from bitterness! The wonders never cease! A brief glance through this, and other threads in Sajha ought to make clear where all the choicest epithets, invectives, and raw anger comes from to make the winter chill bearable! While they are excellent substitutes for reason, evidence, and civility, they also have a energy saving function...at the end of this winter we will all see how much we have saved on our heating bill due to this new source of fuel. I wouldn't be suprised if Dick And Rommey decide to take over Sajhapur on the pretext of WMD! Selective evidence? Please let me know where, so that I can explain myself fully. Humor as a get-away car? Hardly, Sir. I was waiting for the other baits you were going to toss so that you could catch me again in your fradulent logic trap. SC |
| SITARA | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 08:19 PM
Suva ji: You sadly misunderstand me. I was applauding the dramatization of the courtcase in both instances, yours and Gere's. The "compliment" stops there. Be not be hasty in consuming it whole; such benevolence is a rarity for me too! :)) Now, that I have moved out of the little known subject (for me) of Politics, I shall sleep better tonight! The waters are too treacherous! Suva ji, your banters were taken in the same spirit! No appologies necessary unless you want one from me for interrupting the erudite flow of poli-ticklings. ***************************************************************** Indisguise ji: I swear I have laid down my weapons! |
| SITARA | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 08:20 PM
Be not hasty* |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 26-Dec-03 11:56 PM
Poonte hazur, Khi ta, bijuli tar me kunai khabar ayena ni? Ke bho? Lau e-mail pam, natra bhane ABP ma kati bela bhetne so ko jankari pam, ma hazir bhi halchu ni. Aru teta tira gaun ghar, bastu bhau sabai ramrai hola bhanne asa gareko chu. Mathle ghare ghantauke, palla ghare kanchi ra khola gaun ki nakkali lai mero hardik perem suani dinu hola. Aru ganthan ke garuan ahile, bhet mai beli bestar laune chu. Oohi Suva Chintak [Ye hazur, kati hamro sahar ma kalakar/galakar bhaera ayeko ta haina? Balla balla afno Jhalakman ko sarangi sunne dhoko pugne bho ki jasto po lagera ayo!) |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 27-Dec-03 02:42 AM
Maoists are asking for constitutional assembly. They want people to decide for the change or no change in the constitution. What type of change do they want in the constitution? Are they negative power like the devil of the myth, who wants destruction? I don’t think so. If few group of people giving trouble to the citizens, they are terrorists. But what if the group is so big that the government can not control it? They are not terrorists. Terrorist can kill anyone to spread terror; Maoists can kill almost any Nepali they want, security forces fail to give security to the general people, but they are not killing random civilians like a terrorist does (there are some shameful incidences from both the sides, these can be taken exception). Instead of hypnotized people of certain ideology, they are hungry stomachs fighting for the food. They should be listened, this is my view. I can not approve their killing of some civilians for the charge of spying. I can neither approve destroying the infra structure and resources, nor can I approve the trouble they are giving to civilians. I can not approve even attacking the security forces and picking up the gun. I am completely against the way of violence they are following. But I approve their right demands, their voice should be heard. The difference between Maoists and me is I want solution of those problems through non-violence way. I have experienced that violence can never end the violence. I have mentioned that I have a Maoists supporter friend. We sometime discuss about the political situation of our country. We agreed with the problem but disagreed with the solution. He is firm and rigid for his believe. If I say him Maoists are cause of death of more than 8,000 people, he simply says that for the better future of many some people have to sacrifice. King Prithivinarayan killed his soul mate (Mitra Hattya---king of Bhaktapur), killed father-in-law (pitri hatya---king of Makawanpur), killed brotherhood (Gotrahattya----for this reason why he changed his Gotra), and killed Brahman (Brahma Hattya----killed one Brahman, something Mishra, separating his skin from the body, at the charge of spying). We have a history of violence, this great king committed sin for the sake of united Nepal. Many people had suffered while he started the mission of uniting Nepal, many were killed, many died, and many tortured and insulted (people of Kirtipur). May be Baburam is following Prithivinarayan for the shake of better rule, better future of country, and for the shake of what he call real democracy. I am doubtful. Maoists and governments agreed to solve the problem through dialogue. Nobody wants to follow the difficult path versus the simple path. Solving problems through dialogue is a simple way for Maoists. They are also human and they also have intellect, they know very well that they also have to die if they follow the path of violence. They know very well that they are not hunting some birds; they have to fight with very strong force. The chance of death is more than the chance of killing. Besides this, they dropped the dialogue and picked up the gun. Why? Because they did not get what they want. Of course they were very ambitious in the beginning, but during the last talk they were came too down to their demand. Their main agenda was constitutional assembly, but the government rejected it, and they picked up gun again. Government wants to solve the problem within the constitution but Maoists demand is beyond that. Do Maoists demand a new constitution? I don’t think so. If they demand a new constitution, they are not realistic. How about the other people who want to keep the old constitution? You can not simply neglect them. Maoist want constitutional assembly, they want people to decide whether they (people) want their version of constitution or the old version. This sounds very scientific to me. Lets Maoists put forth their version of constitution and let the people decide which one is appropriate for the country. This will solve the problem. But some one should loose a lot, mainly king. If I foresee, one way or the other, king has to loose his power. There have always been two types of rulers, one who rule by love, and another who rule by fear. Those are fortunate rulers who get opportunity to rule by love, most of the rulers rule by fear. I am sorry to say that, our king is not getting opportunity to rule by either one. King can not convince many Nepali that he is father figure and loves them, it will take long long time and he does not have that long time. He neither can be a “god father” to rule by fear, because this is 21st century plus there are armed civilians too. If I were a king, I would have chosen the path of Dharma, the truth. I would have fulfilled the wish of people. I have strong belief that the late king Birendra would also have followed the same way. If the king is not ready to see the people’s interest, if he is not ready to face the constitutional assembly, many people (Maoists, civilians, security forces) will die. Those who will die will be Nepali brothers and sisters. This will prove that king has no love for Nepali; he loves his status, position, and power. No compassionate father can bear the death of his children. If he thinks that he is safeguarding constitution, constitution is for people not people are for constitution, he must attempt to see the people’s interest. If the terrorists can influence the whole country, they are not simple terrorists, they have some caliber, and they should not be neglected. contd.... |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 27-Dec-03 02:43 AM
Unfortunately there is no influential king in Shah Dynasty. Tribhuwan and Birendra are most beloved among them, not because of their policy but because of their personality. They ruled by love, they gave love to people and got love back. Power does not matter, if you are loved, you are the most powerful person of the world. A beloved person can never be harmed, and those who love him give their life to protect him. That’s why love is the greatest power ever. Actually if we judge, king Tribhuwan had less contribution to bring democracy in the country compare to other freedom fighters. But his love for the people and his ideology of freedom made him the democratic hero. King Birendra became beloved after losing the power. Nepalese children of free Nepal will love to read only about Tribhuwan and Birendra among the Shah Kings. They became popular because they give the power. Always love favor to one who gives not to one who takes. King Gyanendra can be most beloved king in this historic era if he follows the path of Dharma, leaving self-righteousness. Everybody in our country is self-righteous. They think they are the only right people and others are wrong. They think they can not convince others because those are not smart enough to understand their correct ideology. This is epidemic in our society; of course king is also caught by this disease. King should not hold the power, neither he has to hand over the power to so called democratic forces (because they don’t represents majority of people anymore), nor he has to give power to Maoists (there is no question to give power to Maoists). King should hand over the power to people. King should do what the majority wants. If king is forming all party government and handing over all the power to them, that will not solve the problem, king also knows this fact. It is because; those parties do not represent the majority of people anymore. So the people will not get power again. As soon as the political parties get the power, they will use army to erase the Maoists. And Maoists have grown up as a strong political power; they can not be erased by force easily. They are really powerful. If we look at the history of our king, they were remarkably pro-people. Even before unification, the crown of Shah Dynasty, Ram Shah (I always bow down to this NayaMurti, superhuman), Mahendra Malla (sabaile khayepachi khane raja), Pratap Malla (great Tapassi king), they ruled people by love. Tribhuwan and King Birendra are real kings of modern era. I did not see the farewell of either of them (actually I came to know about royal massacre after 25 days because I was in long meditation course at that time and during meditation you have to isolate from the outside world completely) but I heard the whole country cried on their farewell. All people die, but the history survives. One has to leave every possession in this world, what goes with us is only Punnya. Wise one always realize this fact and tries to do wholesome deeds for the welfare of may, fool always acts for his interest and define good and bad keeping himself at the centre. Hey where am I going? Sorry! King Mahendra is considered as very controversial. I don’t approve his move in 2017 but I am not ready to blame him completely for the annihilation of democracy, BP is also equally responsible. Let me explain this microscopically. King Tribhuvan was very serious about the development of country; he had great faith on BP. But he passed away and king Mahendra took the throne. By nature, most of the Kshatriyas are very proud, dignified, and respect loving people. Mahendra had this weakness. If I analyze, BP must have developed some sort of ego (nobody can claim that he is perfect egoless person). He was not giving importance to king Mahendra regarding governing policies (he doses not mean to though, but he was not polite to Mahendra). Mahendra must have felt insult when BP came to shake hand with him, “hello King Mahendra”. After defeating King’s football team in farewell game, BP said, “king you lose it”. There is a saying “Khsatriya can live without food but can not leave without dignity”. He must have felt dominated by BP and looked for the solution. He easily won the immature prime minister of India, Mr. Neharu (ask to any good Indian intellect about his immaturity, one example was India-China war) and took the power over. Because now he was completely responsible for the progress and regress of the country, he worked hard to prove himself that he was right, king Birendra could not follow him, and finally he was blamed for the annihilation of democracy. Why do I make BP as equally responsible as king Mahendra? No doubt BP was a great leader; he had good vision for the country. He had dreamed a lot for people and country (Girija ruled for more than half year just saying “BP ko sapana”). He would be doing something better, but he was not a perfect man. He was a good psychologist but he could not read the psychology of a person who always grew up in pride, thinking that he is something other than the general people. Have you heard what Rana used to say “Junta Ka chora le rajya garne?”. This was Rana, just Shree 3, king Mahendra was Shree 5, and he must be looking for respect. BP could not understand that, he gave no importance to king Mahendra. contd.... |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 27-Dec-03 02:53 AM
This was very big mistake of BP, he tried to run the country as if British prime ministers were running, and that was his foolish. He did not realize that he is running the country which was run by Mahendra’s father, and Mahendra was grown up in that environment where he was being worshipped as a deity. King Mahendra could not make such a big transition, from deity to valueless statue. This was the big mistake of BP. BP would have give importance to young king, he would have given him respect, he would have shown courtesy, and he would have kept kings dignity. He failed to do that. King Mahendra was not a saint like king Birendra to seldom care about the prestige, pride and dignity. King Mahendra was not absorbed by the love of people to think, “I ma not getting respect from BP so what, he is doing better for the country and the people”. Both, king Mahendra and BP were defiled people, they were ego centered. So, ego is the root cause for this historic change. I always look for the fundamental reason of the incident. Neither BP, not Mahendra, but their ego is cause of our suffering. Country is actually depends on the vision of the leaders. We lost democracy because of these two leaders, both of them wanted to do good for country but they wanted respect in return. A real leader never wants anything in return. King Gyanendra can be hero in history; his vision can lead country to right direction. He won’t be defeated if he leave the power, but he will certainly be defeated one day if he hold the power. If he really wants to serve the people he can do that without power too, he could have done king Birendra’s active regime where he was indirectly active in politics. If he solved the Maoist problem and give the country a right direction, he will be one of the historic Shah Kings. In 21st century power does not count. Nobody cares who the US president is. In this world, in this era what counts is how you live, peacefully or not. Power does not give peace; king should live peaceful life handing the power over to the people. And those who rule the country, should not enjoy power, they should use the power for the welfare of many. Conclusion: 1. King should think of the welfare of the people, he should find the way that ends the conflict. If the people want him to leave, he should accept it. The whole Nepal will cry for him and accept him as father. Those who sacrifice are always worshipped. 2. King should not give power simply to the so called democratic forces that does not make any sense. What else Madhav Nepal will do other than the Surya Bahadur Thapa? More and more Nepalis will die, and king will be infamous. History will consider king as a visionless uncompassionate person. Maoist will kill Security personals and security personal will kill Maoists, in between them, many innocent people will die. That will be the heartless state of the king. King has power now; he can save his sons and daughters. This is my appeal to king. 3. King should not try to neglect Maoists, they are political powers. Constitution is for people, people are not for constitution. If Maoists have some idea that includes the welfare of many people, king should welcome it, at any cost. 4. King should not listen to the old fashioned minds like Mr. Keshar Jang Rayamajhi, those minds are outdated. Those minds are to be kept in archive and they are very much self-righteous. Maoist can not run a community state in Nepal which is surrounded by democratic India in 21st century. County like North Korea is struggling for survive, how come Nepal be self sufficient. If they are fighting for the communist autocracy, there is no one fool than these people. I don’t think that they try to establish communist republic, I have been hearing that they are committed to multiparty democracy but they want republic state. If they think that royal institution is cause of regress, they will leave violence if the king leaves the throne, a wise king will always let the people decide. If the people don’t want him, he should abandon the kingdom. Such king will be real historic king; I would say a real king. If the king tries to real against of will of people by force, he is god father, not a king; sooner or later he will be thrown. If the king has doubt of his popularity and wants to suppress the Maoists instead of accepting the challenge, he is enjoying killing, and misusing countries army. Those who will die will be Nepali whether Armies, Polices, Maoists or civilians. All of the Nepali has to analyze this. If king Gyanendra try to solve the problem through violence, that will be his great ignorence, and we have to suffer for this ignorence too. Actually we have already been suffering from the ignorence of Baburam who set out the path of violence to solve the problems of Nepali people. At this point of histry, ignorence will be root cause of suffering. contd.... |
| DHANANJAYA | Posted
on 27-Dec-03 03:16 AM
I forget something to say, some day if government asks for internal arm support to crash the Maoists, that day will be darkest day of the Nepali history. I am scare of being Columbia. Violence can never end the violence; this is unavoidable law of nature. Let’s be wise and abandon violence and give importance to each others views, let’s not ignore anybody. Maoists, king, parties all should get united and walk together to make country. To try to suppress any of these will bring the problem. My version of solution is completely different: If I were Baburam, I would have used my whole strength to help people to be mentally sound. I would have used peaceful pretests against the corrupted government. I would have used my whole strength to educated people of rural area to look for their right through peaceful protest instead of giving them gun. I would have used my whole strength to generate good peoples. I would be feeling satisfied if I be able to put one soul in the right direction. Do I think the Maoists rule or republic country will solve the problem? No! People are same. Their mentality is same, whoever may come in power it does not matter, and greed of their mind will remain the same. One Baburam will do something (let me believe this) because he is committed, but how about others? We have already seen how the situation went worst in democratic period compare to the Panchyet. Why? People are from the same society, they are electrons of the same band. In front of greed, there is no principles works. Let me tell you one story at the end, A beautiful princess was traveling in a street on her chariot. A poor guy on his donkey was following her. She looked out from the window of the chariot, the guy smiled at her and said, “Hey, will you go with me to night, I will give you 50 cents.” Princess fired at him and started to scold him. He said “it’s Ok, calm down baby, how about 50 thousand dollars?” She got loosened, stop nagging. Again he said “don’t worry; I have a lot of money, how about 50 million dollars?” She put her hands on his hand. Then he said “how about 50 cents?” She immediately pulled her hand and starts to nag him again. “You fool, beggar, dirty, filthy, what do you think of me?” He replied, “I know who you are, you are a prostitute. One who is ready to spend a night with me in 50 million is a prostitute. It does not matter whether 50 cents or 50 million.” This guy is true. Now Maoists are getting 50 cents, so they are not taking, they looks honest, tomorrow if they get power they will be offered 50 million, I am pretty sure most of them will be defeated by their greed. This happened in 12 years of democratic era, even in Panchayeti era. So the root of the problem is greed, it is hided inside everybody. It shows up in right time and made us selfish. This is the reason a honest looking person goes dishonest when he gets plenty of. I will spend my whole life to help people to eradicate their greed that is the root of every problem. To eradicate ego, self-righteousness and ignorance which are main cause of the regress. If people are good, any party, any system will be good, but if people are defiled, no party, no system works. This is the unavoidable law of nature. I am optimistic, this is Dharma Yug, people are being more righteous than previous peoples. Dharma will prevail and we will live peaceful life. Our son’s and daughters will read the history, I don’t know who will be hero, but I am pretty sure hero will be the one who is ready to sacrifice, a real sacrifice, sacrifice for the people. Please don’t misunderstand the word sacrifice, my sacrifice means non-violence sacrifice. Sacrifice of ego, sacrifice of self-righteousness, sacrifice of greed, sacrifice of power. A Rishi said from his experience: Yan yan chajati Kamanag, tan tan sampajjate sukham! Sabbe te sukhang ichheya, Sabbe kame pati chaje!! More you leave the things in your life (sacrifice) more you will get happiness, if you want to get full happiness, you have to sacrifice everything. Indeed! Tyag is most virtuous deed ever. Dhananjaya |
| Poonte | Posted
on 27-Dec-03 09:30 PM
Sorry fellow Sajhaites for this personal posting, but I havnt been able to get hold of SUVA-jyu via email, hence I once am compelled to use this thread as a personal communication method :) SUVA...I am already in your town...9:30 pm, Saturday...please check your email that you have listed on Sajha for my number. You can also email me back by clicking on my name. Aru ta testai ho, Ganthare Thula...gaamn ghar ko khabar...tyo maathle ghare ghantauke laai pohor saalai haija le lagyo...palla ghare kanchi pani poila gaaki bhayo yestai 2-3 mahina...ani tyo khola gaam ki nakkali ko ta kurai nagaram...poila gaaki 1 mahina mai byaai re chhora...sutkeri ko tauko khaam bhanera gaako thiyen ma pani bhetna...simmmmmmmmyaaaaaa Nakkali le ta "mero chhora ko bau yei ho" bhanera malai nai aunlyaidiyo gaanthe...ma ta suinkucha thoken! |
| czar | Posted
on 27-Dec-03 11:53 PM
Perhaps my understanding of the definition of a debate is incorrect, but the abundance of labeling and name-calling prevalent has me hard pressed to call this a debate. Exhibit A is a statement such as “the usual brainwashed, prejudice-driven, unopen to introspection and incapable of self-criticism type claptrap that passes for a well argued case.” As a gentleman here further acknowledged “monarchy as an institution has a distorting economic and political influence on the Nepali society.” Though an understatement at best, it is a welcome realization. Examine the political influence: The ruling monarch has, in the present circumstances, no obligation to call elections of any sorts and he has no timetable to adhere to. Cite the lack of security and hence unsuitable environment for elections and the executive rule continues endlessly. I, for one, find a total absence of any judicial or executive body that has, under the present context, the legal basis and authority to challenge or counter the monarch on this or any matter whatsoever. This situation exists as the monarchy operates entirely beyond the scope of the constitution. In this uncharted territory sails a monarch with unchallenged authority, with no checks or balances of any sorts. It is a fearsome historical precedent that is an expression of a total lack of commitment to or grasp of democratic or modern values. This imposes yet further irreparable damage to the fabric of nationhood. Continue this long enough, and all that will remain is a collection of ethnic and economic groups with enormous wounds to heal and interests to defend. There will be no nation left. Economic effects of monarchy. Perhaps some of the readers here are familiar with the series of techno-economic feasibility studies conducted for a number of industries in the 80’s and early 90’s as both NIDC and the Agri-bank mulled implementing software, on Lotus 123 and Dbase, to do this. To provide some perspective, Prithvi Raj Legal was joint-secretary at the Ministry of Finance when the national budget was first created using PCs. [I also remember feeling numb on learning that that NY city spent three times as much on garbage collection as our annual education budget of US $ 25 million that year.] Out of those studies that year emerged several industries, some of which continue today and provide some remuneration to the public exchequer, whilst others merely perpetuated the scams that they were. Enormous sums were withdrawn from the banks and financial institutions by the scions of business and social elite. Those loans were granted not so much on the merits of the business plans, but rather on the promoter’s pedigree or contacts. One group received a shade under Rs. 10 crores for a deluxe hotel in the city’s northern suburbs, about 14 crores went for an aviation project (now defunct), to be topped off by juicy supply contracts for the army. Another lot was given multi-crore financing, at most favourable terms, for a yarn factory that had no discernible consumer for its output in the country. Of the available credit in the market, close to a quarter of it went to special interest projects that year. Of what remained, nearly half went to support inefficient and loss making SOEs run by cronies and hanger-ons. Just barely over a third of all available credit was fought over by the rest of the market. How evenly balanced was that contest? Anyone care to place bets on it? The very public and final humiliation of Nepal Bank Limitedin the past few years is testament to that. The near insolvency of Rastriya Banijya Bank and Agricultural Development Bank is more affirmation of it. Also established in the latter half of the 80’s was the SSNCC (Social Service National Co-ordination Committee) was established, ostensibly to streamline development of national projects and so forth. With bhajan sessions on Friday presided over by the late Queen, people manoeuvred and fought to be present. It was a grease-pole climbing and brown nosing event par excellence. A younger generation of ‘businessman’ and ‘facilitator’ publicly emerged. It was these personages who diversified their operations and interestingly won just about every plum contract in the country. A few VPs of prominent south Asian banks quietly arrived in Nepal to provide advice and services for private banking customers needing offshore banking and asset management. And this is the model of economic management and development that the monarchy offers. No thank you. For those that would argue that the demo-crazy lot wasas shamelessly brazen with their plunder, then I am in full agreement. However, the difference is that the politico’s elected, democratically or otherwise, can be held accountable one way or the next. Let the extremists call the CIAA a kangaroo court if they will, but at least it has within its power the ability to have even the seasoned Girija running to file pre-emptive writ petitions. Name one court in the land where such an accounting can be held for Narayanhity et al? The very presence of a corrupt and corrupting monarchy prevents the rise of forces and institutions within the country that would allow for the citizenry to exercise their rights. More importantly and critically, there exists no avenue for our fellow men to execute their responsibilities to the nation. Ask what you can do for the nation, sure, but the present system is designed to stymie every possible effort in this direction. Supporters of the system then conveniently make a case for the absence of suitable folks to run and build the country, all the while actively strangling the birth of any that would. A vicious cycle that is somehow supposedly beneficial for the nation. Why the abject fear of a nation of free people that are fully capable of leadership and progress?All the intellectuals here have visions and plans. Implement them in a society that is freed of the burden of a system that holds all accountable and responsible. (contd) |
| czar | Posted
on 27-Dec-03 11:55 PM
"Implement them in a society that is freed of the burden of a system that holds all accountable and responsible. " should read as : "Implement them in a society that is free to hold all accountable and responsible." |
| czar | Posted
on 27-Dec-03 11:57 PM
(contd.) Today we have an ambassador at large that was finance minister when the first well publicized multi-million dollar financial scam took place. The infamous carpet kanda of the late 70’s over which Dr. Tulsi Giri had to relinquish his premiership in ‘78. The near Rs. 19 billion LC (letter of credit) scam took place under the watchful eye of the ruling and misgoverning monarchy later on. Those in the know can admit to themselves in private the truth to my assertions. Heated and silky rhetoric does not cut it. The country has been pillaged and looted by all. It is time to stop. Remove the monarchy and allow the people will rise up to challenge and discipline the rest of the crooks. Yes, there are no perfect solutions, but any system that claims divine right to know what is best for its people is nothing but a sham. Be gone, Satan. On leaving politics to politicians. In a few of the postings I read stern admonitions to leave politics to politicians. That poets, chemists, etc ought to kindly butt out of such matters. Might I remind those that need it that politics is too important to leave to politicians alone? To elucidate my point, please be advised that Dr. Martin Luther King had a degree in sociology and a doctorate in theology. He ought not to have dabbled in politics eh? Mahatma Gandhi: trained as a lawyer. The bum, how dare he take on the British empire! He ought to have known better. Mao Tse Tung: enrolled in a teacher’s training course and studied Chinese literature. Someone forgot to tell him he wasn’t supposed to become possibly the most powerful person and politician ever. Franklin Delano Roosvelt: went to Columbia Law school. Charles de Gaulle: military academy graduate, led the free french forces in WWII. Drat, he was a soldier, who gave him permission to form the Fifth Republic huh? Dwigth D. Eisenhower: military school graduate. Who checked his political pedigree before allowing him two terms as president of the US ? I rest my case. |
| czar | Posted
on 28-Dec-03 12:38 AM
At this time, the ruling monarch is the operational head of state and, as such, I respect the position. Therefore, it occurred to me that some uninformed readers may misread the expression “Be gone, Satan” as my implying that the monarhy is Satan or Satanic. Incorrect. Lest a firestorm erupts, Be gone Satan is an expression used to demand removal of the influence that leads to failure and misery. According to the bible, as quoted by Matthew 16:13-23 "Satan, get thee hence!" or “Be gone Satan” is an utterance of Jesus Christ that admonishes one of his disciples for speaking of something that was ill thought of. Some in the bible contend that anything that gets us off track is directly or indirectly from the Devil. He loves to send us off on a wild goose chase. He wants to distract us from our destiny of joy and success. Hence the expression was used in the context of the monarchy getting in the way of the nation’s success. |