| Username |
Post |
| rat-a-tat |
Posted
on 27-Sep-02 08:49 PM
Here's sth I got forworded through mail. Interesting reading...
A group of children were playing near two railway tracks, one still in use while the other disused. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track.
The train came, and you were just beside the track interchanger. You could have made the train change its course to the disused track and saved most of the kids. However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed.
Or would you rather let the train go its way? Let's take a pause to think what kind of decision we could make.
Most people might choose to divert the course of the train, and sacrifice only one child. You might think the same way, I guess......................
Exactly, you are not wrong, many people will think the same way what you have just thought initially because to save most of the children at the expense of only one child was a rational decision most people would make, morally and emotionally.
But, have you ever thought that the child choosing to play on the disused track had in fact made the right decision to play at a safe place? Nevertheless, he had to be sacrificed because of his ignorant friends who chose to play where the danger was.
This kind of dilemma happens around us everyday. In the office, community, in politics and especially in a democratic society (NEPAL), the minority is often sacrificed for the interest of the majority, no matter how foolish or ignorant the majority are (Like Deuba, Girija, Bhattarai, Madhav Nepal, name all...) and how far-sighted and knowledgeable the minority are.
The child who chose not to play with the rest on the operational track was sidelined. And in the case he was sacrificed, no one would shed a tear for him.
One of my friends said he would not try to change the course of the train because he believed that the kids playing on the operational track should have known very well that track was still in use, and that they should have run away if they heard the train's sirens.
If the train was diverted, that lone child would definitely die because he never thought the train could come over to that track!
Moreover, that track was not in use probably because it was not safe. If the train was diverted to the track, we could put the lives of all passengers on board at stake!
I am not a politician.
However, in a democratic society, a politician should by all means garner the support of the majority. To sacrifice one far-sighted visionary is only one vote lost, but to sacrifice the ignorant majority may cost the politician his majority support. That’s what’s happening in Nepal and in all democratic countries.
Democracy is needed only when they understand the value but not until they are aware of it (like the children playing in the used track).
|
| Desh_Bhakta_Bhattarai |
Posted
on 29-Sep-02 08:09 PM
Democracy and Nepal
~Desh Bhakta Bhattarai
On Falgun 7, 2007 B.S., Nepal got her democracy from the autocratic Rana rulers. For the past one hundred and four years, the Kingdom of Nepal had been under the selfish Rana regime. With the leadership of King Tribhuvan, and many democratic activists, Nepal finally got democracy, the democracy which was so much needed by Nepal. In the establishment of democracy, Nepal had lost her many brave sons and daughters, whom we call "Shahids", or Martyrs. In 2007 B.S., King Tribhuvan, along with the whole royal family took aslyum in the Indian Embassy of Kathmandu. He then crowned two-year old young Prince Gyanendra, the second son of crown-prince Mahendra, as the king of Nepal and fled to India along with the other members of the Royal Family. Then with the help of the Indian Government and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Neheru, Nepal finally established Democracy. The rejoice of Democracy was incredible. There were cheering everywhere and everybody was happy. Everybody felt that now they will have their chances to proove that they have the potential.
For ten years, ten changes in government occured. However, the development process of Nepal was like a turtoise. Everybody tried to pull one others' legs and the democratic rule wasn't as effeciant as expected. After the death of King Tribhuvan, the crown-prince, Mahendra, ascended the throne. King Mahendra was not satisfied by the democratic parties and sloppy rule. He wanted a change. So, in Paush 1, 2017 B.S., he dissolved the Nepalese Government, arrested several government leaders, including Prime Minister Bisheswar Prashad Koirala, and imposed the state of emergency. And hence, the democracy gained by the Nepalese people came to an end. King Mahendra changed the constitution and imposed a new kind of government, called the "Panchyat". All the political parties were banned and autocracy regained power.
continued..
|
| Desh_Bhakta_Bhattarai |
Posted
on 29-Sep-02 08:10 PM
After the death of King Mahendra in 2028 B.S., Nepal had a new king for hope of democracy, King Birendra. A Havard Scholar, King Birendra was hoped by millions to be benevolent and liberal ruler. He proved that he had respect for democracy by declaring a referdrum of government(2036 B.S.) where the people had to vote to choose whether they want the present government of Panchayat, or they want multi-party democracy. The voting results showed that 51% of the people wanted the present Panchayat government and 49% wanted democracy. Because of the victory of the "Panchas" the government continued. But the unrest continued. People blamed on the Panchayat that they had won the election by unfair means. Finally, the blazing fire of protest was silented.
However, this wasn't the end of the multi-party democratic movement. People were still dissatisfied by the Panchayat government, which was curropted. On Falgun 7, 2046, the struggle for democracy was reborn. The different banned partys, the Nepali Congress Party, the CPN-UML party, and several others set a joint movement against the Panchayat Government.King Birendra knew that the people were dissatisfied and so, for the people's will, he declared the Panchayat Government unconstitutional and declared democracy. The constitution was ratrified and the multi-party democracy was finally established after 30 years of struggle.
continued...
|
| Desh_Bhakta_Bhattarai |
Posted
on 29-Sep-02 08:11 PM
After years of struggle, Nepal got its beloved democracy back. In 1991 the Nepali Congress Party (NCP) won the country's first democratic election in 32 years, and the party's general secretary, Girija Prasad Koirala, became prime minister. Koirala resigned in July 1994, and the king subsequently dissolved parliament and set new elections, in which the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist), or CPN-UML, won the majority of seats. Manmohan Adhikari was sworn in as prime minister. In 1996 the Communist government was dissolved by the parliament and Adhikari resigned his position under allegations of corruption. The king swore in Sher Bahadur Deuba of the NCP as prime minister. That same year, a radical leftist party called the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist), or NCP-M, unhappy with the pace and direction of change, launched a "people's war" aimed at overthrowing the government, abolishing the monarchy, and establishing a people's republic. Incidents of violence were at first confined to remote mountain regions but by the late 1990s had spread to more than half of the country.
Political stability remained out of reach, and in March 1997 Deuba unexpectedly lost a vote of confidence and was forced to resign. King Birendra then named Lokendra Bahadur Chand, a member of the pro-royal National Democratic Party (NDP), as prime minister; Chand was backed by a royalist-Communist parliamentary coalition in which the CPN-UML had the largest bloc of seats. Chand was forced to resign in October as the NDP split into two factions, one headed by Chand and the other by NDP president Surya Bahadur Thapa. Thapa was named prime minister later that month, heading a coalition government that excluded the CPN-UML. In March 1998 the CPN-UML split, with the smaller faction taking the name Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist), or CPN-ML. The split left the NCP with the largest bloc in parliament. In April 1998 Thapa resigned, and Girija Prasad Koirala of the NCP was again made prime minister. Koirala briefly won the support of the CPN-ML in a majority coalition, but when the party withdrew from the coalition in December, he was forced to resign. Koirala immediately was reappointed prime minister at the head of a center-left coalition that incorporated the CPN-UML. Parliamentary elections held in May 1999 ended the need for coalition governments by awarding a majority of seats to the NCP. The legislature elected Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, a former prime minister, to lead the government. Bhattarai stepped down in March 2000 and was replaced by former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala.
However, political stablilty became out of question. The Maoist Activists continued their violence in the western part and was spreading towards the eastern part of the country. One June 1, 2001, everything changed. The people were depressed and the counry was more unstable. The reason for this -- the Royal Palace Massacare. On June 1, 2002 (Jeshtha 19, 2058 B.S.) King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya, Prince Nirajan, Princess Shruti, along with 6 other members of the Royal Family were killed in the Palace Massacre. Crown Prince Dipendra was blamed for the killings by the eyewitnesses. They said that Dipendra killed the 9 members and then shot himself. The "Raj Parishad" named Crown Prince Dipendra, who was in coma, as the King of Nepal. The people of Nepal were astonished. People failed to believe that Crown Prince Dipendra had done it. Due to the inablity of King Dipendra to govern, Prince Gyanendra, the brother of King Birendra, was named "Rajya Shahayak". However, on June 3, 2001, King Dipendra died of his injuries and Prince Gyanendra was declared the king of Nepal. He, his wife, the new queen, his son and other members of his family had survived. People were inraged. They wanted the guilty. The riots were beginning to evolve. Almost all male citizens shaved their hair, as a symbol of loyalty to King Birendra, and as a symbol of incooperation. A probe committee including Keshav Prashad Upadhyaya, the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Taranath Ranabhat, the Pirliment Speaker, and Madhav Kumar Nepal, the main opposition leader, was formed by the king to investigate the massacre. Madhav Kumar Nepal resigned from the committee saying that he was unable to be in the committee. The two-member committee began the investigation and came to the conclusion that Crown Prince Dipendra had shot the 9 Royal Family members and then shot himself. The riots were silent and some signs of peace emerged.
Prime Minister Girija Prashad Koirala resigned after the probe committee had finished their investigation. He had resigned due to alligations of corruption -- the Lauda Air scandal. Sher Bhahadur Deuba was once again sworn as the Prime Minister.The Maoist violence's stopping was out of question. In the mean time, the al-quieda terrorist network, with the base in Afghanistan, laid a terror attack on the United States of America. On September 11, 2001, they hijacked and crashed planes on the World Trade Center of New York and the Pentagon, in Washington D.C. The American President, President George W. Bush declared a world wide war on terrorism and pleadged to exterminate terrorism from the world. In November 2001, the Maoists unexpectedly attacked the military. Now, the actions of Maoists were intolerebel. With the vote of confidence form three-forth of the parliment, King Gyanendra declared the state of emergency, the first time since 1960 A.D. The military started taking actions against the Maoist rebels, who were now declared terrorists. America gave full support to Nepal's act against terrorism.
continued...
|
| Desh_Bhakta_Bhattarai |
Posted
on 29-Sep-02 08:12 PM
In the course of time, the leftist CPN-UML and the CPN-ML parties unifiied. Nepali Congress President Girija Prashad Koirala was not satisfied by the state of emergency and criticized PM Deuba. Another Parlimentary voting was appealed. Deuba didn't trust the Nepali Congress, although he is a member of that party. He didn't want to take the risk to loose the vote of confidence on the state of emergency. So, he appealed to the king to dissolve the parliment. The king dissolved the parliment and new elections were scheduled. In the mean time, Nepali Congress split into two factions- the Deuba faction and the Koirala faction.
The elections are scheduled to be held in Kartik, will they be held on time? Will the election ever be held, or will the "satta" would flip (satta paltinu)? We have no idea on what will happen in the future. Yesterday was history, today is passing rapidly, and tomorrow is mystery. We don't know what will be the fate of our beloved Nepal. Democracy, as Lincoln said, is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. But is our Democracy exactly as it is defined? I don't think so. We, the Nepalese people, have no part to play in the government except our voting right. Well, you might say: "You could surely stand in election!" I would say: "We all can surely stand in the election but we surely need to be in a specific party to become the Prime Minister!" We all know, that in our constitution, we must be in a party in order to be in the post of at least a Minister. The party that has the majority has the right to choose the PM, not us. We cannot be in the PM's position, or a Minister's position without beong choosen. In this way, we could say a popular Hindi saying: "Jiski Laathi, Oo-si-hi ki bha-ins!"("Whoever has the stick, has the buffalo."). Other things also contribute in us NOT being a part of government: the "Naatabaad" and "Kripabaad", racism, sexism etc. We all definately know that to pass a governmental exam, or to get a position in governmental office, we must have source. There is a popular saying: "Source is force, labour is 'Gober'(cowdoung)"!!
From all this, we can surely infer that Nepal hasn't used its democracy properly. The democracy, which took us 30 years to obtain, has sucked up the country more than the "Panchayat" had done. I fully support democracy, but I come in doubts, will this democracy last longer?
I remember jumping out of my gate when democracy was declared. I remember myself shouting: "Praja-tantra Aayo!" at that joyous moment. I remember waving my party's flag at the first democratic election in 1992. But is getting democracy worth remembering? Will this democracy last longer or will it collapse? Are the so called "democratic" rulers going to be enlightned and will govern the country well, or will the governence get worse? Nobody knows the answer except God itself.
______________________________________________
oh! My fingers hurt!
~DBB
|
