| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 24-Oct-02 08:37 PM
Hi all,
About two weeks ago, I too, in my capacity as a private citizen in Nepal, had signed
a petition in support of this writ.
Now, it turns out that Supreme Court has thrown out the writ altogether, citing the Constitution.
In Nepal, the debates surrounding what's constitutional and what's unconstitutional
are getting more and more complicated -- in both academic and practical sense.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
******************
SC throws out petition
The supreme court registrar Wednesday rejected a writ petition demanding the annulment of King Gyanendra's assumption of executive powers and subsequent appointment of Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand by invoking article 127 of the constitution.
Registrar Shree Prasad Pandit said under article 31 of the constitution the King's actions cannot be challenged in any court. Advocate Upendra Nandan Timsina presented the writ to the apex court challenging the King's action.
The King appointed Chand October 11 after dismissing Sher Bahadur Deuba on October 4.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 24-Oct-02 08:52 PM
Well, isn't that what the constitution says? Cannot question royal affairs or actions? Now, do you see the "kartut" of the 1990 constitution?
Trouble lies ahead!
|
| orion |
Posted
on 27-Oct-02 02:24 PM
Ashu - this brings to light the whole absurdity behind the "King can do no wrong" principle. The Monarchy must be brought within the tax code and the jurisdiction of Nepali law - else I don’t see how, even with military power behind it, it expects to play a role in the country in the long term future. Now that we have an activist Monarch, who is above the present laws of the land, I honestly don’t believe we can have any meaningful and effective form of government unless either the authority itself is explicitly removed from the King or he is made accountable to parliament or some elected body for his actions.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 27-Oct-02 02:31 PM
In other words, we need a "Magna Carta".
No tax, no law, no transparency, no constitutional restraint= no democracy!
|
| nayabato |
Posted
on 27-Oct-02 04:08 PM
namasker
i am too not familiar with the articals of the constitute, however has it not come to a point that the "royal" family has had its run in Nepal?
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 27-Oct-02 05:40 PM
Relevant portion of the constitution:
Part 5 His Majesty
Article 27 His Majesty
(1) In this Constitution, the words "His Majesty" mean His Majesty the King for the time being reigning, being a descendant of the Great King Prithvi Narayan Shah and an adherent of Aryan Culture and the Hindu Religion.
(2) His Majesty is the symbol of the Nepalese nationality and the unity of the Nepalese people.
(3) His Majesty is to preserve and protect this Constitution by keeping in view the best interests and welfare of the people of
Nepal.
Article 28 Provision Relating to Succession to the Throne
(1) Nothing in this Constitution shall affect the custom, usage and tradition relating to the order of succession to the Throne by the descendants of His Majesty.
(2) His Majesty shall have the exclusive power of enacting, amending and repealing the law relating to the succession to the Throne by His descendants.
Article 29 Expenditures and Privileges relating to His Majesty and the Royal Family
Expenditures and privileges relating to His Majesty and the Royal Family shall be as determined by law:
Provided that no law shall be made having the effect of reducing the expenditures and privileges being provided by the existing law.
Article 30 Income and Property of His Majesty to be Exempt from Tax and Inviolable
(1) The income and personal property of His Majesty shall be exempt from all kinds of tax, fee or other similar charge.
(2) The property of His Majesty shall be inviolable.
Article 31 Question not to be Raised in Courts
No question shall be raised in any court about any act performed by His Majesty:
Provided that nothing in this Article shall be deemed to restrict any right under law to initiate proceedings against His Majesty's Government or any employee of His Majesty.
Pay attention to Article 127 and 128.
Article 127 Power to Remove Difficulties
If any difficulty arises in connection with the implementation of this Constitution, His Majesty may issue necessary Orders to remove such difficulty and such Orders shall be laid before Parliament.
Article 128 Provisions Regarding The Council of Ministers
(1) The Council of Ministers existing at the commencement of this Constitution shall be deemed to have been constituted under this Constitution.
(2) If, for any reason the Council of Ministers referred to in clause (1) is dissolved, His Majesty shall constitute a new Council of Ministers consisting of representatives from the main political parties.
(3) A Council of Ministers constituted under clause (2) above shall consist of a Prime Minister and, on his recommendation, other Ministers, State Ministers and Assistant Ministers as may be required.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 27-Oct-02 06:41 PM
Orion wrote:
"Now that we have an activist Monarch, who is above the present laws of the land, I honestly don’t believe we can have any meaningful and effective form of government.."
Well, Orion, that's the point.
The REALITIES of Nepal -- as I am discovering more and more -- do not fit in tidily
with the IDEALS of a democratic society, the stuff we learnt in political science/theory classes.
Hence, there's this persistent dichotomy between what's out there as it is and what should be out there as though Nepal were a perfect country.
This does NOT mean that we should not discuss politics. But that for our politics-related discussions will have a lot more meat, not to mention juice, it's time we started taking Nepal's realities as the are and then moved the discussions forward based on those realities.
Else, like I said in another thread, our discussions will sound more and more like discussions, held on the deck of the Titanic, on the engineering behind ship-building.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| nayabato |
Posted
on 28-Oct-02 07:05 AM
thank you for the lesson
it looks like the nepali people have been led down the same path again where i remeber once seeing a performance by maha, where one whistled followed by another of the same at a different note, and asked the other kay ho... the answer was neapli janta.. meaning whatever the people in powers put infront of the layperson, it would be parroted with no inquistion....
what kind of constitue is it where a family is exempt while rest of the population, some selling their children into demeaning workforce so that the whole paribar can have food?
the law courts, and the judges, need really to look at the matters fully and make a management decesion, should my judgement be basis due to the backhanders or should i really think about the nepal of tomorrow. who is the king to be outside of the law?
|
| Nepali Kanchi |
Posted
on 29-Oct-02 10:52 AM
Good thing that the Maoist general strike was suceessful, at least this shows that there is more than the political voice of only the royal family.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 29-Oct-02 02:57 PM
The MAHA prahasan you are referring to is: Rastriya Gaun Khane Katha.
The whistling question you mention was whistlling the tune of "Gopi Krishna Kaho" The answer was: Mantrile gareko bhaasan.
The question that elicited the answer "Nepali Janta" was:
Chadnani hune, jotnani hune
tara tesko gobarle potna nohune,
mukh nabhako, puchhar taukoma gako, ke ho?
From the behavior and tendency of Nepalese public to start "dhupauro" process whoever is in power, it is not far from the truth. Just remember the palace massacre incident. Even before the inquiry was underway, or released, everyone was busy congratulating the new King and then followed by the new crown prince. It was a nationaly security issue for the truth to come out and people to show their skepticism about the whole affair.
But that is not the Nepali way. Neither the public, nor the law regarding secrecy of royal affairs has changed. The country is even more vulbnerable to international conspiracy should they choose to exercise it.
Come to think of it, the fundamental component of a modern state is to have a rule of law that applies to all. Without the rule of law institutionalized, democracy has a fat chance to succeed.
|
| nayabato |
Posted
on 29-Oct-02 03:38 PM
"DHUPAURO" please explain as i am not certain
however in regard to the incident at the palace, well maybe the king and his son played the joker.. such question i am aware are not asked eaisly in nepal but the what good is this democratic system?
such a leap may not be what our country requires as it cannot harvest the raw materials required to better the lives of the normal nepali community..have the nepali janta grasped the concepts of democratic institution even though it has been around since 1990... or will they ever catch due to the beliefs they would rather hold on to?
timro bichhar
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 29-Oct-02 04:05 PM
Siwalik,
It is true that high ranking government officials are the most chaakadiwaaj people in Nepal and for people like us, chaakadi seems like the only way to get things passed through the bureaucratic gauze.
I beg to differ in your description of the Nepalese people. By "Nepalese people", I mean the people without out any "jack and jill", if I may borrow Ashu's phrase from another thread. They are not "mukh nabhayeko" but rather "mukh banda garidiyeko"; not "puchhar taauko maa gaa ko" but "puchchhar taauko maa puryaaidiyiyeko". We were not dumb by birth but rather we were MADE "dumb" by the system.
I was in Kathmandu when the palace messacre took place. There were sketicism everywhere. Student wing of the CPN (ML) did launch a julush. Many do not still believe in the Rambo Report. Although MaKuNe's withdrawl from the three member investigation committee can be interpreted as his trying to avert blame, this is also a signal that he did not want to come up with something that he may not feel strongly about. The outcome was obvious--whether it was right or wrong. It is good he did not ruin his political career although I would have appreciated him more if he had taken the job and made his stance/doubts clear.
Are Nepalese to be blamed for what they are now? Not entirely.
Are the Ranas to be blamed for what Nepalese are now? Yes.
Is the system of monarchy to be blamed for what Nepalese are now? Yes.
Is 12 years of democracy to be blamed? Partly. Partly because the people in the driving seat, our usual culprits NC, UML, RPP etc., did not have the control over everything. You cannt really reach to your destination when you have control over only the brakes, clause and the accelerator. The stering has always been controlled by the palace.
So, we can not really complain over what we are as long as we keep supporting the orthodox monarchy system. Look at the budget: "Rajdarbaar sambandhi kharcha" is the only budget that has been increasing almost every year in the last decade (aside from military expenditure in the last 6 years). Do we afford this? I do not think so. And more strongly not when the "black box" situated at the heart of Kathmandu behaves in the way it has been behaving!
Almost all negotiations between Maoist and the government are deadlocked at the same point: formation of a consituent assembly and of a republic. Mind you, other bhaare bhure demands are things that anyone could go to the street with. These bhare bhure demands would not have killed 5000 Nepalese. In a way, we are supporting the monarch at the expense of 5000 lives--over whose death we lament every now and then, publish condolences, organize sabhaaj--only to realize, when it is quite late, that law is only for people with money and power. This is ridiculous!
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 29-Oct-02 09:54 PM
How you characterize Nepali people, the point still comes out how they have no stance and how their action and speech has been muted, either through historical political supression or feeling of helplessness. They start worshipping those who ascend to power. The elites, who know of this attitude, find it beneficial to be complicit in the political "khichadi" at the top in the name of development.
Monarchy and Maoist are the two extremes in our political landscape at this juncture. The middle way is the democratic way. It is of utmost importance that we get it right, which means that wipe out any residual non-democratic institution and elements in the state.
It would enlighten all Sajhaites if you could post the numericla figures for "Rajdarbaar sambandhi kharcha". I would like to know, if you have the knowledge or access to this highly pertinent information.
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 29-Oct-02 10:52 PM
Siwalik,
I have access to as much information as rest of the 20million citizens of Nepal have [provided they can read and afford]. My assertion was based on one of the Himal or Nepal issues. I do not have time right now to search the whole pile of Nepal and Himal here but will certainly post the figures once I get them. It was not my story. [And there is a reason why I scrutinized the digits particularly this time: I had had a rigorous discussion with one of my friends on whether Monarchy should continue existing in Nepal a few months before the budget was out]. I had even calculated the percentage of total expenditure separated for the palace. Truth be told, the percentage was well below 1% [although significantly high for just one family] and I thought it would not contribute much to my argument then. Going through my posting earlier, I see that I was not certain whether it was "the most incresed component in the last decade" or "the only component increasing everyyear". In any case, I think it is not good and we do not afford it. Rest assured, even if I was completely drunk when I read that particular issue of Nepal or Himal or even if it was some other magazine/paper, I will post the figures here when I get them even if they contradict with what I am claiming.
I apologize if my point in the earlier posting made you too anxious to look at the data.
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 02:33 AM
Siwalik and MP:
Figures you are seeking:
Estimated government expenditure on "His Majesty and Royal Family" in Fiscal Year 2059/60 BS is: Rs. 387,900,000.
This is 0.4% of the projected government budget for this year.
Source: HMG Foreign Aid Coordination Department (FACD).
http://www.facd.gov.np
|
| well-wisher |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 02:55 AM
ke ho paschim ji...you still think that we belive you are not M. P. ? We ain't that dumb..
:-)
mero one million cuties ko kasam..
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 03:07 AM
La, hera hera...sansaar kahan baata kahan pugi sakyo, Wellwisher-ji STILL thinks MP is me! MP le tyetro karai karai ma Paschim hoina bhandai evidence prastut gari sake bichara, tapain lai ajjhai pattyar lagena?!
Yesto obvious kura ma pani dherai stubborn hunu bho bhane prem ma dukha paunu hola ni. MP pare Sajha ka talented satirist, aafu pariyo Purba ko pidit Paschim...
Deep Shrestha le gaunthe ni:
Timi aakash ko joon bhayau
ma dharati ko dhulo hoon
:)
|
| alnepali |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 09:06 AM
Don't have the right to question the king?
Is that like playing GOD? Shouldn't there be PEACE especially where GOD Rules?
Compensation?
"Estimated government expenditure on "His Majesty and Royal Family" in Fiscal Year 2059/60 BS is: Rs. 387,900,000". Man... that translates to approx Fifty(50) Million Deneros per Year. Are we playing the Annual Lottery Here? I bet that's TAX FREE too. I guess GOD does exist WITHIN the walls of Narayanhiti Durbar. I wonder how GOD works his way through the OTHER Twenty Five(25) Million or so NEPALI citizens?
And...These are my QUESTIONS.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 09:30 AM
alnepali,
the countries with moarchy allocate budgets to the monarch and the members of the royal family. it happens everywhere, so its not that it happens only in Nepal.
Siwalik wrote:
How you characterize Nepali people, the point still comes out how they have no stance and how their action and speech has been muted, either through historical political supression or feeling of helplessness. They start worshipping those who ascend to power. The elites, who know of this attitude, find it beneficial to be complicit in the political "khichadi" at the top in the name of development.
Answer:
Loyalty shifts. The whole asian philosophy revolves around " hierarchy" and respecting the "authority".
Ashu wrote :
The REALITIES of Nepal -- as I am discovering more and more -- do not fit in tidily
with the IDEALS of a democratic society, the stuff we learnt in political science/theory classes.
Ground realities, Ashu. You can't apply theories of politiocal science or univerally accepted systems in Nepal because they don't fit in the Nepali scene. Could it be a cultural thing, i.e, believing in hierachy?
Nayabato wrote:
have the nepali janta grasped the concepts of democratic institution even though it has been around since 1990... or will they ever catch due to the beliefs they would rather hold on to?
timro bichhar
mero Bichar: Cultural/traditions and beliefs shape the political system. So, i agree with you here.
The thing is, we experimented with the democracy and it was a disaster. And this is more like a clean-up campaign. If the King really wanted to, then he could have easily said that the constitution of Nepal is no longer valid. However, he didnot say that. This means, the King is committed to democracy more than you, me, Girija and Donor agencies.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 09:37 AM
Freak...we experimented with democracy????? When? How? I refuse to be naive to believe what we had for the past 12 years was democracy!
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 09:50 AM
Thanks M.P. and paschim. That figure is really outrageous, to me at least. Besides, when I was reading an article after the June 1 incident, this writer asserted that the Queen's personal "group" used to slough off $3 million from the foreign aid. What about the other couterie of the members of the royal family? Could that be the reason why the accounting system is all messed up?
All of you economists know that scarcity is the primacy constraint on humans. And Nepal is obviously a land of most scarcity. Political leaders being the rational actors (assuming) of course they would want to grab as much resources as they can while they have the opportunity. If they were allowed a respectable compensation, would it be possible to argue that there might be less reason for them to be as corrupt as they have been? Say, we allocate $10 million (arbitratry estimate) from the royal expenditure to the top leadership, would it help in curbing corruption? If the rest $40 million were similarly used to compensate the bureaucrats and then enforce strongest possible measures to punish
corruption, would it help streamline and creat an efficient service oriented state structure?
Osolated freak: Are you arguning that democracy has no place in Nepal? Hierarchy was created by man, and man can change that. Social justice is more important than welfare of one family. Individual responsibilty and consciousness will work far better than expecting a messiah to come save us. The reason the king can not outright dismiss the constitution is becuase he can not. International trend and environment will not let him supress democracy, even if he has some avid followers.
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 01:30 PM
Thank you, Paschim, for the figures. Most political leaders have been putting forth poverty as one of the main causes of the ongoing insurgency. I would think it is the disparity rather than poverty alone that has fueled the war.
Isolated Freak, yes, all countries separate money for the monarch. The question here is how much? 0.4% is a freaking lot of money for one family even if all members of the palace worked 24/7. My another question to you is: if the palace can use so much money that comes from people's taxes, why not you? Why not I? Don't you think it is not just fair for a single family to "exploit" the govt's budget just because its ancestor "unified" Nepal long ago?
Is the monarch creating stability? It would be foolish to think yes.
What are we keeping it for at so much expense? So that one person would kill rest of the people in the family and make an international news? So that people from outside ktm who can not make home during Dashain have somewhere to go to take the blessings? So that we have a Prince who can go to the mountain sthing summit and impress the world with his grandiloquent English?
The monarchy is Nepal can not be compared to anything in the world. No, you can not say monarchy works everywhere by looking at Bush's ally-by-default, the UK; that's what I prefer calling a --dormant monarchy. Besides the so-called constitutional monarch we have does not differ much from an absolute monarch. You can not question what King does...Rana's could have been liberal than this! True, the King does most of the things on the recommendation of the constitutional bodies. What if he does not? Can you question him? No. What if he appoints an Indian to the post of PM, can you question him? No. You can not by law. Forget about the cost of raring Monarchy. Even if we had Presidential system, we would have election expenditures as well although those will not, most likely, aggragate to 0.4%. The simple fact that 5000 people have died in the name of monarchy--do not tell me I am not making a wrong claim here--suffices to argue that Nepal does not need a monarch now.
Those who believe that the King is the last resort in the present crisis, I urge you to think twice. I doubt if the war would have perpetuated so long if Maoists did not have abolition of monarchy in their list of demands. You can not create trouble and later act as a rescuer. Even if you can, you can not deceive people for long with your tactics.
[PS: In a response to Joseph Stiglitz's "Globalization and Its Discontent", Kenneth Rogoff, Economic Counsellor and Director of Research in the IMF claimed that the crowded presence of IMF in some countries was because they were in trouble and because "where there are apidemics, one tends to find more doctors." In our case, the mess was created partly by the doctors themselves--the King]. He should not be given credit whatsoever for the mess he created himself!
alnepali,
Baburam was a Ph. D. When a person with extra odinary acumen picks up the "path less taken", there is usually something worth wondering! Tettikai banduk samaatera jungle pasna ta gaarai hunchha ni!
Well-wisher,
Hajur laai ta k bhanu? The Sinking Nepal ko editorial bhaa bhye "aankhaa jachaauna jaanu" bhanthen. Tesmaathi Paschim ko prasamsaa sunera lajjit huna paryo. Punishment ko laagi CIAA kahaa pathaaidinthe. Tara, afsosh....serious guff ko bichamaa k bhanne?
Yeti maatra bhanchhu: "Yi hallaa haru hun timile sunekaa, [MP ra Paschim eutai maanchhe hoina]."
Poonte,
You spoke my mind. May be the experiment is still being set up. Nepali time ho..tesmaathi yehaa jammai economist haru chhan jasto chha; "everything else constant" paarnai time laagchha! :)
Siwalik,
I do not think greed is the only or the main cause of corruption in Nepal. Baadhdhetaa pani ho. 12,13 hajaar ko talab le mantri-standard maa basna ta gaarai hunchha ni. "If they were allowed a respectable compensation", there would have been less corruption. We can not say by how much. If CIAA remains active as it is now, receives no "maathi ko aadesh", and continues arresting corrupts--we may not need that 50 [shouldnt it be 40?] million from the palace. Of course, leaving everything else constant:) I am sure other economists have a better answer here.
Jamarjite le haami sabaiko rakchhyaa garosh!
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 02:10 PM
Read the second last line of the 5th para as : --Do not tell me I am making a wrong claim here--...
In the 6th para, the last line should be:---given credit whatsoever for clearing the mess he himself created--
sorry!
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 03:19 PM
M.P. I do not think greed is the main or only cause of corruption. There must be opportunity and constraint. Where is the opportunity coming from? Low institutional checks. Where is the restraint? As suggested, using the royal expenditure to provide adequate compensation for the bureaudrats and executives would be a welcome change. At present, it is a totally inefficient way of resource allocation.
|
| SMR |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 04:41 PM
Greed is a necessary but not a siufficient condition.
Does anyone know how to post a piece written in devanagari? I tried doing a cut and paste in the Sajha Message Box, and it all came out mumbo-jumbo.
|
| SMR |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 04:42 PM
K|fltjfb
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 08:43 PM
Funny,
Talk is about SAVING DEMOCRACY!!!
1.What DEMOCRACY ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT???
2.HOW can one save DEMORCRACY when there is NONE!!
3.For most of you KATHMANDU represents NEPAL!!Go to villages and you'll still hear them curse" Congress tero gharma chirosh" (that's a frigging curse for Ganesh's sake).
4.Poticians can suggest the king to do sth unconstitutional and get by with it and when it comes to king going by the book, he's to blame. Remind you, in Nepal it's only the POLTICIANS who argue that King's move is unconstitutional.
M.P. You're not the King of Nepal nor are you the president of U.S. or head of any country. So you can't spend like them. Simple as that.
To: Those who think king is dispensable at the moment
You guys need to lot of research on Nepal!!
Regards
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 09:36 PM
Hi Kreep: Do you mean to suggest that you see nothing wrong with the present institutional set up of the monarchy? Do you support them to be above the low, funded by the poor people's toil, and not be bound by any rule of law? Is the King still a GOD to you?
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 10:40 PM
Thanks all for your valuable inputs.
MP wrote:
My another question to you is: if the palace can use so much money that comes from people's taxes, why not you? Why not I? Don't you think it is not just fair for a single family to "exploit" the govt's budget just because its ancestor "unified" Nepal long ago?
MP, as kreep alreaduy pointed out, I am not the King of Nepal. Your argument is like saying, if bush gets to fly on the air-force one, then why can't a poor dude from harlem do the same? The question is a rhetorical one that does not need any answer!
Siwalik wrote:
Osolated freak: Are you arguning that democracy has no place in Nepal? Hierarchy was created by man, and man can change that. Social justice is more important than welfare of one family. Individual responsibilty and consciousness will work far better than expecting a messiah to come save us. The reason the king can not outright dismiss the constitution is becuase he can not. International trend and environment will not let him supress democracy, even if he has some avid followers.
OK this discussion won't take us anywhere because we all have our own biases. But, here's my answer to the 4th line of the above paragraph (second from the last): The king hasn't done anything that can be labelled unconstitutional. Article 27 (3) of the constitution of Nepal isn't a hard one to crack, or is it?
Since you've hinted on hierarchy and ideals of egalitarianism this and that, let me tell you one thing, name a society where you don't have hierarchy, is there any? There's always the "priviliged" group (people who have authority) and commoners. Is Bush being dedmocratic by threating a war on Iraq when the majority of the American and world's population say its wrong?
MP wrote:
Is the monarch creating stability? It would be foolish to think yes.
My dear MP, I would argue otherwise. The King's recent move ahs helped in creating stability. stability is one of the most important factors for economic growth, the system (democracy, dictatorship or authoritarian) do not matter. Look at the cases of China, S'pore, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Kreep, i agree with you.
Poonte: Yes, we experimented with DEMOCRACY but it was a disaster. 14 govts in 12 years is "nepali democracy" . The multi-party democracy and westminster model constitutional monarchgy didn't really work in Nepal and it won't work unless and until we achieve 90% literacy.
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 10:52 PM
Kreep,
Raajbhakta/opportunists prop up every now and then. You could be one of them but I have nothing to say since I, as a citizen of Nepal, am, in a way, also responsible for how other twenty million citizens are. If supporting the winner is your culture, what can I say? I am not here to turn all Nepalese against the Monarchy. I respect democracy and I will respect your right to speak up even if you say Nepal should be under Al Quada.
You are right that there isnt democracy in Nepal. I did not speak about SAVING democracy; I spoke about GETTING one. Do not be mislead.
I was not born inside Pentagon! I do not know about others but I am from a village myself. There are people even in Kathmandu who do not like politicians. Blame the politicians for that; democracy in itself is not wrong. If you have a drunk driver and you fall into a river, you do not blame your engine. You blame your driver. We did not fix the engine well in 2046 and therefore, we blame both the driver as well as the engine this time! CIAA is grilling some of the drunk drivers but there is no point in taking out the car if we are going to run it without fixing it! And in my opinion, the best way to fix the engine is to remove the dirt accumulating on the bottom of the fuel tank since the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah. This dirt is soaking too much fuel (if you know what I mean)!
Politicians are the only people claiming the King's move unconstitutional. You are right. What were you expecting? Were you expecting those berojgaar engineers killing their time by playing Cricket in Maharajgunj to go to the court and file a suit? Everyone can not be as versatile as Dr Devendra Devkota, you know. Politicians do politics. Businessmen do business. It is as simple as that.
I am not saying I am the President of the United States. I am not saying I should be able to make lavish expenditure like the palace members. What I am saying is there should be equality. Trisuli ko kinaar maa gitti kutne haru ra raj pariwaar kaa sadasye haru le uttikai , or atleast comparable, opportunity paaunu parchha. Why not? Why should we be biased towards the King if he has done nothing but harm to the country? Please enlighten me!
>>Those who think king is dispensable at the moment
>>You guys need to lot of research on Nepal!!
Hare Shiva, tihar ko mukh maa k dekhnu paryo. First you make an assumption that most of us here are from Kathmandu, and then you assume people with different professions know politics well [to call the King's move constitutional/unconstitutional] and assume we have not done any research [which could be true] and finally you think we are wrong. Even economists would not do that, your honor!
That was a wonderful suggestion anyway. But what research have you done to justify that King is indispensable?
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 11:46 PM
I had been avoiding this thread for the longest time thinking it got started by some kingbhakta. Not so. Ashu can't be that, despite his pleas to look at ground realities!
This thread itself helps one understand why the monarchy still exists! No dearth of rajbhaktas yet......!
M.P. --- Hang on in there...... your time will come.........
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 11:53 PM
Nepal Would Be Better Off A Republic, India Style
by Paramendra Bhagat
June 29, 2001
http://www.geocities.com/bhagat266/a/republic062901.html
The royal family in Nepal have been a complex institution, subject to much historic momentum, veneration, a supposed symbol of unity for the diverse country, as well the powerhouse of autocracy, as in King Mahendra’s panchayat heresy, and also a source of embarassment once in a while. There is also this whole drama of the Hindu nation terminology which supposedly makes the King of Nepal the king also of all the Hindus in the world, numbering in the hundreds of millions, as some of the Hindu spiritual leaders based in south India have pronounced more than once. But as a constitutional figurehead, we might be better off with a sustained parliamentary democracy with a president who is a constitutional figurehead just like the king supposedly is. That would symbolize the next level of political maturity for the country.
There is a matter of principle. For all the respect or lack thereof that the royal family might have garnered, a belief that someone ought to be the constitutional figurehead for no reason other than their accident of birth is a lacking belief system, something the thinkers who came up with the idea of democracy would find inadequate to the extreme. It just does not make sense.
It is also a matter of expediency. A President would probably cost as much as a Prime Minister, if not less. He or she will have a salary that might be a little more than that of a Prime Minister’s, and the President’s office and residence would cost less than that of the Prime Minister’s, if only because the Prime Minister would be the real power center with real day to day responsibilities. The royal institution is obscenely expensive for the second poorest country on the planet. About 95% of what goes to sustain the royal family from the national treasury would be better off spent on health and education projects in, say, the remote hill and mountain districts in the country.
There is also an issue in egalitarianism. A non-Hindu could become President. A non-Pahadi could become President. A woman could become President. A SeTaMaGuRaLi could become President. Whereas the king is always a male from a particular caste with hill origins, and absolutely Hindu. That is a slap in the face of the dream to open up opportunities in the country for all, regardless of their background.
For the presidency to emerge out of the parliamentary framework would also take much of the wind out of the Maoists' hoistings. To those of us who are fundamentally dedicated to the cause of democracy, and still hope to sustain it with an effort to rid it of its deficiencies like rampant corruption in the state apparatus, it is important that we eat some of the Maoists' lunch and defeat them not only militarily, but also ideologically. The Maoists' grievances might be just - yes, there is too much corruption, too much poverty in the country - but their means are obscene. Poor people are being killed on both sides. And their prescription for the country is out and out horrendous. Communism does not deliver. World history teaches us that.
There might be some disadvantages to the effort though. Moving towards a presidency might instigate instability, Pratinidhi Sabha style, and it would be important to make sure the president gets a full five-year term, uninterrupted. Curiously, it might spur the Maoists' further. As in, well, now that we have a republic, let's also have a communist autocracy. More important, it might not be easy to figure out the road map to a republic. Do you rewrite the entire constitution, which might not be a bad idea after all, or do you expect the current parliamentary structure to bring forth a republic? Especially when none of the leading politicians in the mainstream have voiced their stance for a republic, it might be tricky even launching the debate.
The debate would come in two stages. One, do we want to continue with the king, or do we want a republic? Two, if we do want a repubic, what kind of president might we want? Like the one in the United States, or France, Sri Lanka, or India? The President of the United States is at one end of the spectrum. He is the president, the prime minister, and the king all put together, if you were to measure by the kind of powers he has. That of France and Sri Lanka are less so, but they still have major executive responsibilities. Whereas the President of India is closest to what we have in our king, a constitutional figurehead with no real powers.
I would like to suggest we want a president like in India so that we retain the fundamentals of our parliamentary democracy.
The two houses of parliament and all the elected representatives of the local governments would be able to vote. That is, everyone holding an elected office in the country would be a voter. And they would elect the president who would be our consitutional figurehead for a five-year period.
Overall, the country would be better off as a republic, or so I think.
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 01:26 AM
Paramendra,
When you told me to "Hang on in there", I was expecting two things:
i) That you would come up with counter argument for my claims. In that case, I would have had to delve into unnecessary research into your postings earlier and find evidence that support the fact that you had changed your color. This did not happen. I salute thee for adherence to your advocacy for a republic! Not that you have contradicted your opinions earlier.
ii) That, if you claimed Republic to be a necessity of the time for Nepal, you would bring forth racial issue. Thanks for including gender and jaatiye biasness besides your usual teraibasi-le-adhikaar-paauna-parchha rhetoric. You have certainly alarmed those for whom reasons to call for a republic are indiscernible.
I am happy that I predicted one thing correctly. Aba ma trikal ko maa jaagir khojna jaanchhu :)
I would like to comment on one thing:
You state: "Whereas the President of India is closest to what we have in our king, a constitutional figurehead with no real powers."
So, you still think the King of Nepal has no real power? Or was your "closest" supposed to imply plus/minus 100% error [meaning:it could vary from "in contrast to" to "exactly the same"]?
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 09:20 AM
M.P. At the time of writing - one year back - I could not have foreseen what King G just did. On the other hand, the President of India has the authority to impose martial law, only that noone expects that to happen ever.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 09:50 AM
Freak...multi party democracy, Westminster style...in Nepal for the past 12 years??? You must be kidding! A single person--from within the boundaries of narayanhiti...RNA under his thumb...no laws barring him from his will--a democracy?????????
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 09:56 AM
PS...you say we cant have democracy until we achieve 90% literacy rate...I say, we cant have 90% literacy if we dont have true democracy!
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 10:02 AM
"...you say we cant have democracy until we achieve 90% literacy rate...I say, we cant have 90% literacy if we dont have true democracy! ..."
I never said that. Actually I am with you.
|
| SMR |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 10:16 AM
A sample of Adult Literacy statistics:
Countries %
Russia 100
China 84
India 54
Pakistan 46
Cuba 97
Brazil 85
Saudi Arebia 77
Syria 75
Ukrain 100
Nepal 42
Mexico 91
South Africa 85
Source: World Bank
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 10:21 AM
Paramendra jee,
That was to FREAK...
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 11:05 AM
Hmmm.. Democratic system is inevitable, but it's all about timing.
Don't blame me for not wanting to ride with a drunken driver. I'd rather walk.
Land of equal oppertunities>> where is that??
President?? who?? Girija bau?? :)
http://www.dnsdk.dk/products/welfare/democracy.html check it out
Regards
|
| dirk |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 11:11 AM
How does Cuba fit your theory or the nascent democracy that is Russia?
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 11:32 AM
Exactly !!.. wrong person on the top seat and no one to check him. you'll have CUBA in nepal.. that's how important literacy is.
|
| mitra 2 |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 11:51 AM
Baleko aago sable taapchhan. Raja sanga aago baalne daaura chha. Hamile chadayeko 0.4% baanki luteko, becheko. (BTW, If you are in DC area, you can have saakshat darsan of bhagawan in art(?) museum, not in pashupati/buddha mandir). Ani aago ma ghiu haalne chai police, army, neta (girija, deuba dekhi chand samma). We have to remember that Raja never acted alone, ekikaran dekhi 7 saal, 17 saal, 46, ya 59. He always enjoyed support of gaddhar Nepalis. Yo seto haatti palne hamrai dosh ho. Satta sabko pyaro, jo hasil garna Gorkha bata lyako jamara launu parchha.
Aba Kume ra Gupta ko support ma ta julus niklane hamro desh, Raja ko ke kura. All politicians have shown in the past that they are opportunists. I think they are evaluating the current situation in terms of their political career, not about the future of Nepal or Nepalese. So, santhi ko naam ma what if the king rules the next 10/20 years? Will they support or oppose if that siutation arieses? I think people don't want to jump too soon to question the king for that reason. Akhir, hamro desh ma gaddhar ko kami kaha chha ra?
|
| SMR |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 01:36 PM
Sorry I had to run. Some more adult literacy statistics:
Malaysia 88%
South Korea 98%
Vietnam 93%
Mayanmar (Burma) 85
Bangladesh 41
Indonesia 87
Sri Lanka 92
Phillipines 95
Iran 77%
Singapore approx 100 (could not verify it)
Source: World Bank
|
| protean |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 06:31 PM
0.4% of the budget should go to the King is ludicrous.
First, he doesn't need the money.
Second , why does he deserve it --for being the "unconstitutional" monarch?
Recently, there was an article by Paul Krugman entiteld ,"For Richer", on the Sunday edition of NY Times (10/20 to be specific), where he was mentioning how 0.01% (13,000 families) were controlling at least 3% of wealth in the US, and that the US is moving towards plutocracy ( I did try to post this, but wasn't accessible owing to its size).
Is Nepal moving more towards plutocracy,or autocracy? Isn’t it ironic especially when there is an insurgency going on because of social inequities? That would cause more pronounced class differentiation and would be ground for more bloodshed.
In Nepal, the King and the Royal family have already amassed wealth that is going to last them for generations. Why don't they ever think of giving something to the land? Why do they always take?
Isn't the King (ideally) supposed to be someone (by definition) who is a provider? By contrast, the Royal family has always taken from the state and its citizens.
In a chess game scenario, I think, he used Deoba as a pawn. Making Deoba believe like a Mantri and assuring that he would be a strong Mantri and King G would be always acting like the passive Rajha in a classic chess game, King G. decided to win the game by sacrificng the pawn (Deoba). That's how I think it took control.
Now, the monarch has used his power and strategic means to thwart the democratic norms and values that exised with our democracy in its incipient stage.
Why did he do that? The operative word was ineptitude with former PM and his government. So, he used this to throw out a legitimate government--whose performance was dismal--but to assume power for himself.
Then, who does he bring in?
Same cronies that were even more inept.
What for?
To assume power himself so that his inept son and dynasty can keep on dictating the people and aggrandizing wealth. Well, that's how I see it. Des bachuana ta garya ho jasto ta lagadaina..
People were oblivious to this takeover as they were frustrated with a corrupt (yet a democratic) government on one hand, and the deep rooted insurgency (and the violence resulting from it0 on the other. I don't think this would be a good enough reason to assume power for oneself and think it is right. The fact is that king G found a way to usurp power when the moment was right. Unless, King G does something constructive, the days of no protest against his actions will be numbered. The current (lameduck) system should not fool itself to think that this is going to remain sustainable.
I see this as the following analogy: You're inside a dark and damp room. You long for fresh air, and light. Your windows are opened, and suddenly you find that you're getting fresh air. Along comes bugs, and dust. The bugs start really bothering you, and you want to see them go. Then, suddenly there comes a person that closes the window--the bugs might have gone for some time, but so as your chance to seeing any light and getting any fresh air. You might have got locked inside again in this closed room.
So, the people might feel that the bugs are not there for some time now--the corrupt leaders. But, it will be only a short while when people realize that they might have been shut off in the dark room, and they want to get some air. They'll either demand thta the window be opened, or they let out.
So, the King G. can't continue in this manner. Even the RNA lower cadres might defect if a perpetual war is waged to fight their own fellow sisters and brothers.
Yes, we should definitely question the King for his move and require that he comes under
the bounds of the constitution and under tax code like every citizen of Nepal. The Royal family shoudn't be getting any payments from the state. Instead , it could be propery utilized to build schools, hospitals. At least, trust and respect towards G. and his family would be built that way.
That Nepalis are not educated enough to be aware the value of democracy is a very counerintuitive and patronizing statement. I think, literacy rates suffice for a fully functional democracy in our land. Thanks SMR for putting the figures up.
The major reason the system was not being efffective was because of rampant corruption and abuse of power. It's not that democracy was failing, but that the wrong people got elected to run the system. But,improvements in other areas can be observed. Unlike the past, there were more schools, more participation, more businesses, more growth in presss and medi to name a few of the progresses resulting from a democratic system (as opposed to a party-less King based system) . It was just not the Radio Nepal talking about the King , and some businesses being run only by a few.
At least more people get a chance in democracy. It's certainly better than plutocracy. There are some abuses in a democracy, but at the same time ,there is chance for progress, too.
If democracy surives, I think due time will flush out some of the negative aspects of what we experienced after 1990s.
But, the last thing we can do is feel oblivious to this move by the King. We should question it and be critical about the role of the monarchy. We can't afford to have one person running the show.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 09:25 PM
Parmendra wrote:
But as a constitutional figurehead, we might be better off with a sustained parliamentary democracy with a president who is a constitutional figurehead just like the king supposedly is. That would symbolize the next level of political maturity for the country.
There is a matter of principle. For all the respect or lack thereof that the royal family might have garnered, a belief that someone ought to be the constitutional figurehead for no reason other than their accident of birth is a lacking belief system, something the thinkers who came up with the idea of democracy would find inadequate to the extreme. It just does not make sense.
**
What a lame argument parmendra. this does not make any sense (to me). What ould you call the British democracy then? Is it still in "it's" primitive form since they too have the institution of monacrhy?
Again, you wrote that a president will be less expensive. How did you calculate the figures?
Seems like yoiu are yet to take a intro class on World History, World History 1. Communism has delivered in many places.
The Maoists too have realized that they can't just do away with the institution of Monarchy in Nepal, so they have dropped their demand for a republic these days.
Poonte wrote:
multi party democracy, Westminster style...in Nepal for the past 12 years??? You must be kidding! A single person--from within the boundaries of narayanhiti...RNA under his thumb...no laws barring him from his will--a democracy?????????
***
Poonte, the King ahsn't misued his powers yet. The RNA is still away from the politics. I will argue that it was the King and the army who "protected" the constitution for the last 12 years. It was the leaders who propelled the King for the asoj-18 move.
You talk about democracy and all that, but here's my question:
The King has used the provisions 27 (3), 127 to sack Deuba and to form a new govt because Deuba failed to fullfill his constitutional duty. The King hasn't gone outside the constitution. My question now is: What would have happened if the King would have agreed to Deuba's proposal and had postponed the polls for 14 months? Is there a provision in the constitution of Nepal 2047 that says the PM after discussing with the leaders of major political parties can postpone the polls for 14 months? What Deuba proposed was, as far as I know, UNCONSTITUIONAL. If the King had agreed to this, then the constitution of Nepal 2047 would have been void and null. So, what the King did actually preserves the "achivements" of the 2046 saal's "jaana-andolan".
On democracy and literacy:
To achieve 90% literacy, we have to have stability. Only a stable governmnet can deliver. Its no where written that democracy leads to dedvelopment.
mitra2, Baleko aago sabaile tapchan!
I agree with you, however let me add one fmore thing: ahile 2 karod + nepali janta (excluding the maobadis) are enjoying the warmth of that "baleko" ago.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 09:45 PM
Protean wrote:0.4% of the budget should go to the King is ludicrous.
First, he doesn't need the money.
Second , why does he deserve it --for being the "unconstitutional" monarch?
My question to Protean, what makes him the "unconstitutional" monarch? What provisuion of the constitution he has violated?
You wrote: Unless, King G does something constructive, the days of no protest against his actions will be numbered. The current (lameduck) system should not fool itself to think that this is going to remain sustainable.
What are you, Trikal darshi guru to predict this? The thing is, exactly the same arguments were made when King mahendra assume power in 2017 saal. But, Panchayat lasted for 30 years!
There's some international touch to the asoj 18 gate, and you guys need to look into China's and India's policy these days. Domestic factor was favorable, and the international factor was even more favorable.
Bugs analogy: A good one, but what would you do if the bugs were say, mosquitos carrying "insephelitis" and you didn't have vaccination for it. What would you do in that case? Let the bugs infect you knowingly that your longing for frsh air and light will kill you or be wise and close the window?
You further wrote: That Nepalis are not educated enough to be aware the value of democracy is a very counerintuitive and patronizing statement. I think, literacy rates suffice for a fully functional democracy in our land. Thanks SMR for putting the figures up.
I don't think so. when you see Khume, bale, wagle and even DB Lama beocming your MPs, then its time that you seriously thouoght about the thinking power of nepali janata. Just because you got a good education and are aware of what's "constitutional" and what's not, does not mean that the majority of our population knows that.
You wrote: At least more people get a chance in democracy. It's certainly better than plutocracy. There are some abuses in a democracy, but at the same time ,there is chance for progress, too.
We waited for 12 years, and how long should we wait? 12 years is a long time my friend.
What we need now is stability and economic growth. Nothing more, and whoever can guaranty that should take control.
You wrtote: But, the last thing we can do is feel oblivious to this move by the King. We should question it and be critical about the role of the monarchy. We can't afford to have one person running the show.
My dear friend, too many cooks spoil the broth. Its good that the King is running the show now, or else, in 15 years or less, we would have been Sikkim. Refer to the "nagarikta bill" and "jansankhya ko adharma nirwachan chetra tokine bill".
And, no, we can't remain untouched ort oblivious to the King's move because we are seeing something constructive happening in Nepal. We shouldn't be critical, but be supportive of the King's move.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 10:25 AM
The arguement that one needs to have democratic values before one can have democracy is not teneble. Democratic values are cultimated and spread through practices of democratic system. The argument that there needs to be certain civic culture or values for democracy to work has been refuted well by subsequent findings. If 90 percent literacy rate was the requisite for democracy, why is India with about 52% literacy rate functioning as the largest democracy?
To institutionalize democracy in Nepal, undemocratic institutions and practices have to be removed and curbed. Authoritarian system is not a solution to democracy. If you analyze the situation at present, what is likely to happen is the king will give directives to the MP. Do this, do that. And when the PM cannot carry that out, and if the popular sentiments getting restless, he will sack the PM for being inept and nominate another one, mabe another former darbariya Panche. So the show will go on for a few decades until Nepal will have no legs to stand on. At a certain point, popular revolt will take place a la 1989. Then that will be the end of monarchy.
But people have heart. We do not need to wait for another Panchayati authoritarianism to develop. The way out is to bring the Maoist into the political folds. For that to happen, if we need to curn or rid the monarchy, we should be prepared. Afterall, the monarchy is not supposed to last beyond the 10th generation. I believe it.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 01:56 PM
Interesting remarks there, Isolated Freak. I understand your logic of giving chance to the current King to perform. But, I feel his strategy of usurping power has not been very democratic.
But, I still believe that it's better to have too many cooks combining their skills (democractically) to give us a variety of possiblities than one dictating cook who always makes us eat food that we don't like
In response to your questions:
***********************
Isolated Freak wrote:
My question to Protean, what makes him the "unconstitutional" monarch? What provisuion of the constitution he has violated?
He was supposed to be figurehead and not a executive decision maker. He should
have consulted with all the Democratic parties. He just saw a check mate scenario and
took control. I feel this is not very legitimate.
**********************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
*************************
You wrote: Unless, King G does something constructive, the days of no protest against his actions will be numbered. The current (lameduck) system should not fool itself to think that this is going to remain sustainable.
What are you, Trikal darshi guru to predict this? The thing is, exactly the same arguments were made when King mahendra assume power in 2017 saal. But, Panchayat lasted for 30 years!
There's some international touch to the asoj 18 gate, and you guys need to look into China's and India's policy these days. Domestic factor was favorable, and the international factor was even more favorable.
I don't have to be a Trikal Darshi guru for this. It is pure observation and some deduction that leads to this fact. Look all around you. Open your eyes. Even in Pakistan, there are already radical groups that are coming out that oppose the dictator in chief, Musharaff.
In America, I was surprised to read that 0.01% controlled 3% of the US wealth. In Nepal, it is even worse. 0.4% of the budget goes to an alrady bloated stomach and very very wealthy King. Couldn't he do better than pass this money to something more
constructive? Couldn't the Royal family have been more creative all this while instead of just sitting around being comfortable?
My whole point is that there is already an usprising because of social injsutice and inequities in our system. A plutocratic or an autocratic rule would cause further rift in the class structure in our nation, therebt aggravate the current imbroglio.
As the Pre 1990s era has revealed, the feudal systems and centralized systems are more encouraged. When I meant constructive, it was in line with these matters. Need for reform and positive changes. That would be something we should demand from the present (lameduck) govt while and till it lasts.
The last thing we want is continuation of this civil war. We all want peace and stability.
The awareness level of Nepalis can't be underestimated. It is lack of opportunities and frustration that has given us brough us here, not a failing democratic system. After the Panche years lasted for 30 years (and didn't deliver) , and as a result had already started to ignite the flames and passions for a revolution. It was just that it took shape now.
So, this present state of no opposition shouldn't be treated as submission. Rather, it is because people want some time to rest as they were fed up with a corrupt (yet democratic )govt, on one hand, and the revolution(unfortunately trhough guns) on the other.
International angle needs to be considered, and to India government, I don't think Nepal is that important economically and having one King as one with power might not matter that much. Remember, the Nepal-India border closure in King B's time? That just shows for India, having a loyal Nepali leader that is not so friendly with China, is more crucial.
China, in my mind, doesn't really get excited about happenings in Nepal--as it can't be influenced by these events.
*************************************
|
| protean |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 01:56 PM
Isolated Freak wrote:
**********************************
Bugs analogy: A good one, but what would you do if the bugs were say, mosquitos carrying "insephelitis" and you didn't have vaccination for it. What would you do in that case? Let the bugs infect you knowingly that your longing for frsh air and light will kill you or be wise and close the window?
You find that the bugs have started to infect you. But, you only find that the bugs are there afer you opened the window, right? Before, you were suffocating and about to die anyway, and didn;t realize that "bugs" exsisted, and the world existed in the first place. Now, you've more awareness, and if given a chance you'll try to get out of the house, get rid of the bugs, and also cure yourself. But, if you're locked with everything closed, you die suffocating and not being able to get out.
*********************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
*************************************
You further wrote: That Nepalis are not educated enough to be aware the value of democracy is a very counerintuitive and patronizing statement. I think, literacy rates suffice for a fully functional democracy in our land. Thanks SMR for putting the figures up.
I don't think so. when you see Khume, bale, wagle and even DB Lama beocming your MPs, then its time that you seriously thouoght about the thinking power of nepali janata. Just because you got a good education and are aware of what's "constitutional" and what's not, does not mean that the majority of our population knows that.
The awareness level is there, and in due time , it will get corrected. Education level is going up, and with it comes awareness and critical thinking. People had got tired of the corrupt politicians, and in the next elections (if we have a democratic one), this will make them choose a more effective leader.
It is like saying just because some of the fruits that you happened to chsose at a grocery market are bad, that doesn't mean that the grocery iself is bad. You still have a chance to go and try more fruits at this grocery. However, if the grocery is known to have a bad repute, the probability that most of the fruits are bad are high.
So, democracy is such--it is known to have worked and is a functioning democracy. People literacy level is going up and this percentage consitues a sufficent condition for allowing to exercise rights when they choose their leaders. So, they'll realize that they chose the wrong fruit, and will be more judicious in their selction of the next fruit.
Panchayat system and the people who were there in it (including the poweful monarch) are like a grocery store that is reputed to have not functioned for 30 years. Please tell me how you expect to have the failed system to operate again?
Ok, instead of some inefficient leaders , who did we get? We got the same inept and submissive , and ineffective person as the PM. I agree that some leaders were performing hopelessly, but there were that were of good standing in the past 12 years.
****************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
************************
You wrote: At least more people get a chance in democracy. It's certainly better than plutocracy. There are some abuses in a democracy, but at the same time ,there is chance for progress, too.
We waited for 12 years, and how long should we wait? 12 years is a long time my friend.
What we need now is stability and economic growth. Nothing more, and whoever can guaranty that should take control.
As I noted above In the "fruit example", we had some not so effective leaders and some that were performing. We tried a failing system that produced the class inequities, opression, and feudalism for the past 30 years before 1990s. We just tried democratic norms for 12 years.
You tell me friend, why should we go back to a system that had failed for the 30 years it was in operation? At least with democracy, we get a chance to choose alternative candidates rather than having to copmly and capitulate to the demands of one person.
**************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
******************************
My dear friend, too many cooks spoil the broth. Its good that the King is running the show now, or else, in 15 years or less, we would have been Sikkim. Refer to the "nagarikta bill" and "jansankhya ko adharma nirwachan chetra tokine bill".
And, no, we can't remain untouched ort oblivious to the King's move because we are seeing something constructive happening in Nepal. We shouldn't be critical, but be supportive of the King's move.
So, do you see a proven hoplesss "cook"--the PM at the behest of the powerful King-- trying to serve us food would be a fair deal? If you think it is constructive, that's good for you. You're entitled to believe that. You think that when someone takes power and gets rid of elected officials, that move is positive? I don't. However, I respect your opinion.
But, I still fail to be convinced. I beg to differ. I still believe that the citizens can't remain silent and oblivious forever as Nepal is a land for each of its individual Nepali citizens (and they all have their universal rights in it),and is just not one man's land.
I rest my case.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 03:31 PM
Interesting remarks there, Isolated Freak.
I understand your logic of giving chance to the current King to perform. But, I feel his strategy of usurping power has not been very democratic.
But, I still believe that it's better to have too many cooks combining their skills (democractically) to give us a variety of possiblities than one dictating cook who always makes us eat food that we don't like.
[For clarity's sake I'm sending this again.]
In response to your questions:
__________________________________________
********************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
Protean wrote:0.4% of the budget should go to the King is ludicrous.
First, he doesn't need the money.
Second , why does he deserve it --for being the "unconstitutional" monarch?
My question to Protean, what makes him the "unconstitutional" monarch? What provisuion of the constitution he has violated?
***********************
He was supposed to be figurehead and not a executive decision maker. He should
have consulted with all the Democratic parties. He just saw a check mate scenario and
took control. I feel this is not very legitimate.
Isolated Freak wrote:
*************************
You wrote: Unless, King G does something constructive, the days of no protest against his actions will be numbered. The current (lameduck) system should not fool itself to think that this is going to remain sustainable.
What are you, Trikal darshi guru to predict this? The thing is, exactly the same arguments were made when King mahendra assume power in 2017 saal. But, Panchayat lasted for 30 years!
There's some international touch to the asoj 18 gate, and you guys need to look into China's and India's policy these days. Domestic factor was favorable, and the international factor was even more favorable.
*****************************
I don't have to be a Trikal Darshi guru for this. It is pure observation and some deduction that leads to this fact. Look all around you. Open your eyes. Even in Pakistan, there are already radical groups that are coming out that oppose the dictator in chief, Musharaff.
In America, I was surprised to read that 0.01% controlled 3% of the US wealth. In Nepal, it is even worse. 0.4% of the budget goes to an alrady bloated stomach and very very wealthy King. Couldn't he do better than pass this money to something more
constructive? Couldn't the Royal family have been more creative all this while instead of just sitting around being comfortable?
My whole point is that there is already an usprising because of social injsutice and inequities in our system. A plutocratic or an autocratic rule would cause further rift in the class structure in our nation, therebt aggravate the current imbroglio.
As the Pre 1990s era has revealed, the feudal systems and centralized systems are more encouraged. When I meant constructive, it was in line with these matters. Need for reform and positive changes. That would be something we should demand from the present (lameduck) govt while and till it lasts.
The last thing we want is continuation of this civil war. We all want peace and stability.
The awareness level of Nepalis can't be underestimated. It is lack of opportunities and frustration that has given us brough us here, not a failing democratic system. After the Panche years lasted for 30 years (and didn't deliver) , and as a result had already started to ignite the flames and passions for a revolution. It was just that it took shape now.
So, this present state of no opposition shouldn't be treated as submission. Rather, it is because people want some time to rest as they were fed up with a corrupt (yet democratic )govt, on one hand, and the revolution(unfortunately trhough guns) on the other.
International angle needs to be considered, and to India government, I don't think Nepal is that important economically and having one King as one with power might not matter that much. Remember, the Nepal-India border closure in King B's time? That just shows for India, having a loyal Nepali leader that is not so friendly with China, is more crucial.
China, in my mind, doesn't really get excited about happenings in Nepal--as it can't be influenced by these events.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 03:39 PM
*********************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
Bugs analogy: A good one, but what would you do if the bugs were say, mosquitos carrying "insephelitis" and you didn't have vaccination for it. What would you do in that case? Let the bugs infect you knowingly that your longing for frsh air and light will kill you or be wise and close the window?
***********************************
You find that the bugs have started to infect you. But, you only find that the bugs are there afer you opened the window, right? Before, you were suffocating and about to die anyway, and didn;t realize that "bugs" exsisted, and the world existed in the first place. Now, you've more awareness, and if given a chance you'll try to get out of the house, get rid of the bugs, and also cure yourself. But, if you're locked with everything closed, you die suffocating and not being able to get out.
__________________________________
**********************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
You further wrote: That Nepalis are not educated enough to be aware the value of democracy is a very counerintuitive and patronizing statement. I think, literacy rates suffice for a fully functional democracy in our land. Thanks SMR for putting the figures up.
I don't think so. when you see Khume, bale, wagle and even DB Lama beocming your MPs, then its time that you seriously thouoght about the thinking power of nepali janata. Just because you got a good education and are aware of what's "constitutional" and what's not, does not mean that the majority of our population knows that.
************************************
The awareness level is there, and in due time , it will get corrected. Education level is going up, and with it comes awareness and critical thinking. People had got tired of the corrupt politicians, and in the next elections (if we have a democratic one), this will make them choose a more effective leader.
It is like saying just because some of the fruits that you happened to chsose at a grocery market are bad, that doesn't mean that the grocery iself is bad. You still have a chance to go and try more fruits at this grocery. However, if the grocery is known to have a bad repute, the probability that most of the fruits are bad are high.
So, democracy is such where there is a higher probability for improvement--it is known to have worked (in other parts of the world including India.
Peoplles' literacy level is going up and this percentage consitues a sufficent condition for allowing to exercise rights when they choose their leaders. So, they'll realize that they chose the wrong fruit, and will be more judicious in their selction of the next fruit.
Panchayat system and the people who were there in it (including the poweful monarch) are like a grocery store that is reputed to have not functioned for 30 years. Please tell me how you expect to have the failed system to operate again?
Ok, instead of some inefficient leaders , who did we get? We got the same inept and submissive , and ineffective person as the PM. I agree that some leaders were performing hopelessly, but there were that were of good standing in the past 12 years.
************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
You wrote: At least more people get a chance in democracy. It's certainly better than plutocracy. There are some abuses in a democracy, but at the same time ,there is chance for progress, too.
We waited for 12 years, and how long should we wait? 12 years is a long time my friend.
What we need now is stability and economic growth. Nothing more, and whoever can guaranty that should take control.
************************
As I noted above In the "fruit example", we had some not so effective leaders and some that were performing. We tried a failing system that produced the class inequities, opression, and feudalism for the past 30 years before 1990s. We just tried democratic norms for 12 years.
You tell me friend, why should we go back to a system that had failed for the 30 years it was in operation? At least with democracy, we get a chance to choose alternative candidates rather than having to copmly and capitulate to the demands of one person.
**************************
Isolated Freak wrote:
My dear friend, too many cooks spoil the broth. Its good that the King is running the show now, or else, in 15 years or less, we would have been Sikkim. Refer to the "nagarikta bill" and "jansankhya ko adharma nirwachan chetra tokine bill".
And, no, we can't remain untouched ort oblivious to the King's move because we are seeing something constructive happening in Nepal. We shouldn't be critical, but be supportive of the King's move.
***********************
So, do you see a proven hoplesss "cook"--the PM at the behest of the powerful King-- trying to serve us food would be a fair deal? If you think it is constructive, that's good for you. You're entitled to believe that. You think that when someone takes power and gets rid of elected officials, that move is positive? I don't. However, I respect your opinion.
But, I still fail to be convinced. I beg to differ. I still believe that the citizens can't remain silent and oblivious forever as Nepal is a land for each of its individual Nepali citizens (and they all have their universal rights in it),and is just not one man's land. We cant have one sycophant (Mr. C) running the systems of the countery at the behest of another authotarian ruler--the presnent King G.
I rest my case.
|
| nayabato |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 04:40 PM
Yes the king might be starting a good ground for the nepali janta to start questioning the affairs that surrounds them..for without encountering a solid wall, you will never work out how to get to the other side…the people will be educated in the rights that are bestowed upon them by the intuition of democratic system.. Until this path has been crossed, no will bother with the king, for if you don’t get rid of the pawns, how are you ever going to reach the end of the game? As for our bordering neighbours, well one side is Tibet, hence our chhimakiis might not be the correct term but china and India needs to be perceived as terrorists on a higher level then the moists..for they offer you the golden handshake yet produce the lethal stab which make tend to forget..as the government of the usa has made it clear that to disturb the smooth running of a constitute is no worse than the street robber, which you need to be vigilant of and to eradicate this pest(s) is the up most importance. Yes this may seem far fetched from questioning the king but one must look at who actually is pulling the strings in order for the puppet to dance….
one needs not to forget that even though one is not in the room doesnot mean that cannot tip the balance of the taraju....
|
| protean |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 04:40 PM
All
In light of the current political quagmire, please refer to the article on
"Nepal in Constitutional bind" as reported in the Asia times, that has just
been posted.
|
| dirk |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 04:55 PM
Protean:
As I noted above In the "fruit example", we had some not so effective leaders and some that were performing. We tried a failing system that produced the class inequities, opression, and feudalism for the past 30 years before 1990s. We just tried democratic norms for 12 years.
No kidding! Not so effective re...try grossly ineffectual "elected criminals".
After 12 years of misrule, rampant corruption, instability, political opportunism, jumbo-sized cabinets, "Pajero/Prado" perks, chicanery, a more than a decade-long unresolved refugee problem and a sanguinary six year-plus civil war has left more than 5,000 dead, the people are certainly not still rooting for them and their likes.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 06:39 PM
Dirk:
Thanks for the remarrks. Ok , I would say some of these that got elected were
ineffective and very corrupt--needing to be dumped into a dumpster.
But, what are we doing again? Going back to a system that has failed for the past 30 years, and a reason for the civil war?
Ok, the corruption did occur and the performance of the chosen leaders was dismal at best.
But, the six-year plus civil war which started as a revoltuion was very much a result of
the oppression of a failed and opressive Shah Dynasty rule that followed the an eqaully opressive rana rule. So, I say that the reason the revolution arose in the first place was due to the gross inequiies and the opression that reigned the Panchayat and the Rana regimes. The ineffective and corrupt system that we chose couldn't deliver and as a result fueled an already burgeoning revolt. The revolution that was always needed in Nepal, would have started any of these days, but gathered momentum in the past two years. It could have been less violent ,but it became one through guns culminating into a civil war.
Too many people have already died in this civil war. The civil war is a result of the failings of the fedual system of the Ranas and the 30 years of Panchayat, and recently the 12 years of misrule and abuse. So, it is not just one system that can be blamed directly.
5000 or more should have never died. It's too sad that people die everyday in our land.
But usurping power doesn't solve the problem here. Bringing back known to be ineffective people to power doesn't guarantee that things will get any better.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 02-Nov-02 05:03 AM
Siwalik wrote:
At a certain point, popular revolt will take place a la 1989. Then that will be the end of monarchy.
**
Its a strong statement my friend. I don't see this happening for another 50 years.
I don't understand why people keep on talking about the "popular revolt" 1989, when its already proved that it was orchestrated by the Indian government so that they can have a pro-Indian government in Nepal. My friend, Nepal isn't just kathmandu and Kirtipur. Tell me, if there was any big protest outside of the valley in 1990? was there any? NO. There were minor protests but nothing big happened outside of the valley.
The Indian government was directly involved in overthrowing the panchayat is proved by two "well-documented" facts:
1. S K Singh's proposal to the King (published everywhere, very recently in a book called "nepal-bharat sambandha which costs around 200/-]
2. When the Interim govt. was formed under the premiership of Bhattarai, a probe committee was formed to identify and compensate the victims/relatives of the "panchayat" brutality. You know how many "sahids" were from the "durbar-julus" incident, only 1. Something Shakya who tried to "deface" the statue of Late King Mahendra. Nobody else could be identified and later our forces and "other security related bodies" found out that those who died that day were mostly from Assam!
So, I beg to differ with you to call it a popular revolt because it was neither popular nor a "revolt" by the "informed/concerned" people.
Protean, our views are totally opposite, you are right in your own way and i feel that i am not wrong either. But thanks anyway for the time and effort you spent on replying to my questions. However, a question still remains. You wrote: But, what are we doing again? Going back to a system that has failed for the past 30 years, and a reason for the civil war?
Protean, how can you blame pamchayat for creating the Maoist problem? I think the Maoist problem has its root in the 2046 "Popular Revolt". BP Koirala always said no to the communists when they wanted to forge an alliance with the Congress to overthrow the Panchayat because he knew that once the communists become dominant players of Nepali politics, then they will do nothing but lead the nation towards instability and anarchy. However, by 2046 congressi leaders Ganeshman, Bhattari, Girija and others joined hands with the communists (of course both the congressis and communists were nothing but puppets of Chandrasekhar, the ex-Pm of India) and with the help of their comrades in arms and bade-bhaiya-bharat, they got what they wanted. This created serious problems in Nepal:
1. The leaders did not have nay vision or "grand design". They thought that as soon as they form their govt. things will dramatically take U-turn and everything will get resolved overnight.
2. Just as BP had thought, the communists started playing decisive role in the politics and many leaders, which were unknown/unheard of started entering the arena of Nepal politics. Of course, those who got their fair share of pie remained quiet, those who did not went and started mobilizing the people against the system.
The result: maobadi problem. If the congress leaders were patient enough to wait for the next 12-15 years, then they could have thrown Panchayat on their own--without any help from the communists or the Indian government.
Protean, I don't think you can that the Shah dynasty oppressed people and the Maoist rebellion is a result of that oppression. I don't see any validity in this claim.
All right folks, have a great weekend and wish me the same.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 02-Nov-02 02:03 PM
Isolated Freek: You seem to take it for granted that Nepalese "garib janatas" are not capable of popular revolt. You descredit the 1989 entirely. Well, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the Nepalese janatas who are fed up with the status quo and empty promoses have been taking up arms against the monarchy. It has already cost us 7000 lives by a recent account.
At least in democracy, we have the option to throw out the rascals. We do not have not option in Panchayati raj. So, I am going to place my bet on another popular revot if we go back to authoritarian rule. The world has changed and Nepalese people are more aware of power politics. There are lot of leadership amoung the marginalized people. I bet that no one can take them for granted anymore. Suppression will be met with revolt.
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 03:08 AM
I’ve long been a fan of Ram Krishna Dhakal’s song, “Hira kaatne hira mai rakhera”, and have sought to use it as an allegory in the many political discussions I have participated here on Sajha for the past 10 months. The thrust being that, our politics has disgusted us, but we have no choice but to cleanse the filth, new and old, from within the existing system -- any deviation in the name of quick fixes, irrespective of how colorful the promises of “regressive” royal roles or the “progressive” Maoism, they can be potentially calamitous. As an example, the laudable anti-corruption drive that CIAA has initiated in recent days IS a direct result of empowerment by none other an entity than the last elected *Parliament* (home to the very MPs like Khadka, Gupta, Wagle, Gacchedaar and others, who are currently being imprisoned or summoned for investigations).
I’ve read tens of political commentaries by friends here – but while I respect and have learnt from all differing views, in these polarized debates about the Raja and anti-Raja, it’s been really hard for me to find anyone with whose views I can personally identify with! That was until the arrival of one of the most articulate and rational Nepali columnists, Angaraj Timilsima (graduate student at RAND?), I have had the pleasure of reading in recent days. I don’t agree with ALL of what he says, but it’s been refreshing (and less lonely) to find myself sharing this man’s broad sentiments in almost every column of his that I’ve read so far.
Here’s the latest from today’s Kantipur:
Lula ra Lokendra ko aagaman: paribartan ki pratigaman:
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kantipur_html/kantipur_news4.htm
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 12:28 PM
Lula and Lokendra? Apples and Oranges. Or, rather, apples and tennis balls.
(Font problems ...... was not able to read the article......)
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 04:47 PM
I have been following the postings of Protean, Siwalik and Orion in this forum these days and it’s been my pleasure to find myself sharing most of their views. If Paschim says it’s been hard for him to find anyone with whose views he can personally identify with, am I luckier or what ?
I read Angaraj Timilsina’s article that Paschim referred. It is a good article, specially comparing it to the impotent and dhupaurey articles apprearing thesedays from Kathmandu based intellectuals (Read Prof. Dr. Jitendra Dhwaj Khand and Dr. Durga Pokharel, Nov. 1, 2002, Kantipur). However, I did not find anything new to learn from this 1600+ worded article. Everything is oohi purano ghisi-piti kahani that our easy-goer intellectuals say to avoid the tough questions. These questions are, 1. Did we have a democracy or a partial democracy ?, For the samajik kranti (Angaraj’s own words) to happen, is a partial democracy enough to proceed ? If yes, how do you explain the flopped past decade ? Is monarchy friend or foe of democracy ? What is the solution to the Maoist ‘problem’ ? Can we realistically think of a social revolution while we walk piggy-backing the monarchy ? and so on.
‘Dimond cuts diomond’ is logical. But it is not applicable in Nepal. We simply do not have a diamond, we have Zirconium which is not going to cut the diamond. Even if we have something better than Zirconium, it is of no use. If we are expecting our parliament formed under this constitution to eventually make the monarchy irrelevant, there was no reason why we should not have expected ‘Rashtriya Panchayat’ would bring down the Panchayat and bring democracy !
It is a time for asking tough questions and making a difficult choice for there is really no easy way made for anybody, particularly for Nepalis.
Not much organized thoughts. But that’s all for now.
*******************
A note to Protean,
I have been very much impressed by the level of the critical thinking you have pushed the discussion on the polity of Nepal to. With this in view, I would suggest you not to waste your time with the people whose purpose is not a scholar discussion but something else. I am talking about this 'Isolated Freak'. As everybody must have guessed by now, he is a PAID sarkari (royal army ?) agent in a mission in Sajha to do some spying and spread disinformation for the palace. He has admitted himself in some other thread that he works in a some 'policy making' body of bureacracy in Nepal. Read his one-sided arguments uncharacteristic of an intellectual discussion and misinformations. This time he goes as far as saying Jana Andolan ka sahidharu were from Assams !!!
|
| protean |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 06:48 PM
Thanks Nepe for the comments. I am deligthed that my views were very critical. And also for making me cautious of this character that I need to be watchful of . -:).
For Isolated Freak Ji,
Shah and Rana Dynasty always oppressed people to the point that it was either a plutocracy at best and autocarcy at worst. The feudal values that they instilled in the system are still prevalent in our society today. What simply happened is that democracy led more people to be aware, and made them voice their opinion and be critical about it. A revolt that was always needed was fueld by the malfunctioning 12 years of the elected officials. What we still need is democracy and reforms. What I alluded to was the fact that going back to a already have proven to failed system --failed for the past 30 years--doensn't guarantee any more probability of progress.
As you mentioned, we share two opposite views. I thank for sharing your insights and having had the patience to read my responses. Have a good Tihar !
Protean
|
| protean |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 07:29 PM
The feudal values that they instilled in the system are still prevalent in our society today. What simply happened is, that democracy led more people to be aware, and made them voice their opinion and be critical about it. A revolt, that was always needed, was fueld by the malfunctioning system (of the past 12 years) led by the elected officials.
What we still need is democracy and reforms. What I alluded to was the fact that going back to an [already proven to have] failed system --failed for the past 30 years--doesn't guarantee any more probability of progress or change.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 08:27 PM
Nepe: Thanks for revealing that Isolatred Freak is a paid sarkari agent defending the status quo. It is no surprise that some people will have hard time accepting the fact that Nepal can survive without monarchy. Among them we may find culturally imprisoned souls as well as some intellectuals to whose benefit it is to defend the status quo. But for a large part, there will be more than half the population of Nepal whose immediate concern will be to find their next meal--often malnaurished people who feed the ambitions of "elites" well-entrenched in a parasitic lifestyle. Changing the status quo will be a hard struggle, but something worth dying for, if need be.
As to the poignant questions you have raised, let me give you my take on them.
1. Did we have a democracy or a partial democracy?
We had a distorted democracy. The proof? Constitutional provision for the king's action not to be under the review of the Supremen Court. A democrati system cannot shelter an institution that has undemocratic protection. There was a time when it was thought that mere provision of elections will ensure survival of democracy. But subsequent insights have shown that electoral democracy is not a full democracy. Besides, Nepal has fallen in the trap of "illeberal" democracy where civil liberties have been severely curtailed and political liberties malfunctioned. For there to be a true democracy, there has to be accountability of all government institutions to the elected officials--including the army. We can say that democracy was under attack from the right wing, the left wing and the so called champions of democracy right from the beginning. The proponets of democracy believed their actions would be beyond reproach just becuase they were persecuted under the Panchayat regime. Nothing could have been more disastrous. Then came the left wing assault through the Moaists. And finally the right wing got the opportunity to strike it all down.
For the samajik kranti (Angaraj’s own words) to happen, is a partial democracy enough to proceed ?
By samajik kranti, I assume it to mean social revolution. Social revolution never occured in Nepal. 1989 was a political revolution, which is half way revolution. What emerged post-1989 was some power sharing agreement, not an adjustment of entire social structure. No, partial democracy is not sufficient to bring about social justice or social revolution.
If yes, how do you explain the flopped past decade?
The complacency of political leaders in believing that democracy had become infallible. There were inherent institutional weaknesses and defect in the constitution. The backbone of a prospering society is efficient bureaucracy and meritocratic system. The lack thereof meant, the triumph of "jasko shakti usko bhakti." In other words, Nepal being a scarcity-abundant country, political elites who held disproportionate means to distribute patronage, fought among themselves at the expense of democracy. The increased corruption and scandals turned the country into a dangerous path of cynicism.
Is monarchy friend or foe of democracy?
Any institution that stays above the law is no friend of democracy. Any institution that demands secrecy is not a friend of democracy. An ascriptive institution is an anatheman to the spirit of democracy. A monarch like that of Spain, however, can be a vital force of democracy; we do not have that.
What is the solution to the Maoist ‘problem’ ?
Everyone knows, the solution is political, not RNA. We will disregard this simple fact at the cost of years of misery to our beautiful land and people.
Can we realistically think of a social revolution while we walk piggy-backing the monarchy ?
Are we kidding? The monarchy wants to protect its "unjustified" bhattas and expenses. But I have faith that within my generation this institution will be irrelevant. We just need people to look out for traitors, reveal their identities and hidden agendas, warn each other and strengthen the hands of those who place national interest above self-interest.
|
| taha cha |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 09:00 PM
"If the system does not work, change the people. It is the people not the system to be blamed for failure. It does not matter what the system is.."
--Anonymous
|
| taha cha |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 09:02 PM
What a joke -- anyone defending the monarchy is a paid agent, any one not defending is a maobadi...
Grow up!!!!
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 09:09 PM
You have a valid point. People are the ones who mess up the system. Panchayat had grand visions too, where did it land us, eventually? So how do we deal with incompetent people for a system that suits us? Do you mean to suggest that there is no way out?
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 09:14 PM
Thank you Protean and Siwalik. I fully agree with you. The bottom line is that past 12 years have failed (Isolated freak and Dirk are right). But what failed is not the democracy but the distorted democracy (thanks Siwalik for more accurate term) we had. The constitutional Monarchy system has failed. It has nothing to offer.
I do not see anything other than the Republic of Nepal to be able to remove the otherwise unbreakable impasse of the present and to open up the possibility, if not guarantee, of socioeconomic revolution. No wonder Desh ley tetai tira koltey ferdaichha.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 10:12 PM
what is this: i posted a message and it disappeared!!
Anyway, nepe, being a monarchist does not necessarily mean that you are getting paid from somewhere, its my views and i have my rights to put it here on the web, just as you have your rights to express yourself here. its this simple, and if putting my views in public makes me an agent, then the same applies to you too.
On the one hand you guys talk about democracy, on the other hand, you can't tolerate the opposing views with evidednce. So, what am i to infer from your posts?
If I don't agree with yoiur views, defend yoiur views by attacking my views with evidence, don't accuse and attack me. This will make you lose your credibility. Not that i give a damn about your credibiluity on the web, but there are others who think of you as a mahan guru, and you want to give your chelas a good education, or do you?
when someone doesn't agree with your views, then he is a paid agent! WOW! what an intellectaul way to dedfend himself...my hats off to you, Nepe. Today, you have accused me, tomorrow you'll accuse someone of being from CIA, then day after tomorrow, you'll accuse someone of being a murderer, then, somebody else will be labelled rapist..So, what's the difference between you and MP? I don't see any difference.
If others want to believe what Nepe has written about me, please feel free to do so. Why should i worry about a freaky-than-me posting something really freaky on the web?
But, Nepe, it will be wise for you to stay away from my personal life, my career/work etc. I haven't really cared for your caeer/work, so you do the same. Unless you have proofs to prove what you have accused me of being, keep mum regarding what i do. What i do is solely my concern, not your's or anybody reading this thread.
others, i defend my views with points and evidence. I attack ideas, not the people.
And, yes, I discredit 2046 ko janandolan.
Yes, I think we need monarchy.
Yes, I believe that what the king did was, by every mean, constitutuional.
a happy tihar to you all.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 10:28 PM
Dear San,
Here's a request:
Will it be posible for you to locate the message that ui posted a while ago and which disappeared even without making it to the bulletin board? Will be you be able to post it or forward it to me?
Others too, if my message landed in your mailbox, could you just hit the repluy button and send it to me. I'd really appreciate that.
Thanks much in advance.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 10:32 PM
And, yes, I discredit 2046 ko janandolan (please refer to my previous post)
Yes, I think we need monarchy. (monarchy can guaranty stability and that's what we need for economic growth)
Yes, I believe that what the king did was, by every mean, constitutuional. [refer to articles, 27 (3), 54, 35 (1) and 127 of the constitution of Nepal, 2047]
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 03-Nov-02 11:10 PM
Isolated freak,
If you deny that you are not affiliated with a civil or army agency that deals with propaganda, then I am going to apologize. Otherwise, I standby what I said. The link of your postings to your affiliation is an ethical question, not a personal matter.
Nepe
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 04-Nov-02 12:24 AM
Nepe wrote:
Otherwise, I standby what I said. The link of your postings to your affiliation is an ethical question, not a personal matter.
--
It is a personal matter, nepe. I haven't asked you to post your institutional affiliation, so you do the same. Let's not try to find out everything about everyone. it's smiply not worth it.
Nepe, how hard it is to ubnderstand that if my postings make you think that i am some agent, then, others after reading your posts infer the same thing about you, i.e, that you are linked with the maoists.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 04-Nov-02 12:50 AM
Nepeji,
Welcome back, (because long time no see!).
As a long time reader of your keen observation, I just thought I should write something about those opinions too.It is only apt to write something especially when you disagree.
Yes, Gyanendra is power hungry. Yes, he takes off all those millions from our budget, I agree. But as a democrat, I feel unashamed to find him more reassuring than Maoists, and so I find it completely prepostrous to argue that his removal is in the interest of democrats now. It is also absurd to think that his removal would guarantee the peaceful state of Nepal because the jaggernaut of Maoism wouldn't stop at the republican Nepal, it would love to dash to the target. I would still befriend Gyanendra in this coalition against the tyrannical anachronistic force of Maoists because history is full of examples that a righteous person(group) should befriend less evil group when fighting against more evil force. Allied Forces, as one recent article in Time (I guess) pointed out, befriended Stalin in second world war, and the recent patronage of Musharraf by west to contain Al Qaida is also result of same principle.
Now, about your assertion that 'semicracy' failed in the last 12 years. This is again something I 'almost' disagree. First of all, our parties should share the blame. The leadership failed. Kings didn't interfere parties when they tried to do something 'good'. Please provide me any example if you think otherwise. The parties fluted inside Singha Darbaar, they indulged in all types of dirty games, let's face it. Dirt begets filth. What we have seen now is a mess, a mess resulting out of the avarice of a monarch, and inabilities of political leaders. King Birendra was bestowed with panegyric in his later life for his religious following of rule of law.If we want to see simple truth, that is the truth. Political analysis doesn't reach logical end if we make wrong assumptions.
I regard king Gyanendra as a powerhungry one who must be tamed. But he is 'to some extent' tolerant to his critics. I was reading this Kantipur (arguably a Hanumaan of royal palace now) article sometimes ago, and it was an open challenge to the king.I wonder if any communist leader would ever allow that much in their territory. Even UML guys fired one of their editors some years ago for not totally following party line. Gyanendra, however obnoxious he is, wouldn't go to kill a farmer just because he was ploughing his field on the day of "Nepal Bandh", and that makes him less evil rightnow. Gyanendra doesn't make alliances with Bihari bandits to provide conduits to ship the weapons to blow up Nepalese architectures and human fleshes. Lastly, I remember reading Khagendra Shangraula's "Junkiriko Geet" some years ago which I had found OK, but I heard that Maoist Supremo Prachanda issued scathing ,personally abusive (with all those usual proletarian epithets against the class enemies:-) ), and physically threatening statement against the writer after reading the novel. Khagendra Sangraula has been writing equally critical statements against the king, yet he roams unthreatened in KTM. That provides some good comparisons.
|
| aeiou |
Posted
on 04-Nov-02 01:51 AM
an example of the king interfering with democracy--the inclusion of vague language in relation to who the army is under in the 1990 constitution. the palace made sure that the army was not placed under a civilian government. right now the army is the king's only real ally.
you asked for an example, so i gave one...agree with you otherwise, biswoji.
but it isn't a stark choice between the palace and the maoists...not yet
there's a middle ground. just because the parties failed doesn't mean there aren't lots and lots of democrats in the country. they're just lacking leadership right now.
anyone up for that job?
|
| dirk |
Posted
on 04-Nov-02 07:26 AM
I nominate you....aeiou. It looks like you are the man...the main man with a plan, so forget about Amrika Samrika and head back home....and jump start your political career!
|
| aeiou |
Posted
on 04-Nov-02 09:51 AM
thanks, dirk, but i think it's better to back someone who's already in nepal.
can anyone come up with names of good (capable, clean) people in the congress(es) and uml?
i can think of narahari acharya and pradeep giri in congress...
if only we could force the old/corrupt (mentally and actually) folks out of these parties and get them to put up real leaders!
jaya nepal
|
| neel |
Posted
on 04-Nov-02 01:36 PM
Great discussions..
For me, it is a look back time. I am not too sensitive about the phrase 'democracy failed' in Nepal, as long as it applies only to the last 12 years and hopefully not to the future. It failed guys! Thats the reality. Something that did not work to produce the desired outcome is best described as failing. The label 'failure' is even more pertinent in this case because current outcome is real and undesired-power is not in the hands of the people or people's representatives.
Unless we get hit by this reality, a sensible discourse towards remedies for future is not possible. Let us advance our discourse with separation the argument 'democracy is good' from the issue of 'how to make democracy work'. The first one is settled i assume for most people here except perhaps for some isolated freaks. Given the great capacity for of probing analyses displayed here in this thread, why not direct our energies to the second issue. Maybe, this way, we might be able to contribute to remedies in future? I am personally inclined to think that things will never go back to what it was pre-1989. There are certain rights and economic freedom that people have enjoyed already and it would be hard to let go of that without protest. The mass is lot less amenable to authoratarian rule compared to 42 years ago, King G ceratainly knows that. However, a promise of multi-party democracy in the near horizon is equally elusive. What we might end up with is a compromise with a power structure distorted in favor of the monarch more that we we like to see. Whatever the outcome, there should be rooms for improving institutions that make democracy work. What are these institutions and how successful were the government(s) of the past 12 years in nurturing and developing it?
Some questions to start with
This applies to the educated in the Kathmandu Valley, leave the 'uneducated' folks in the village for the time being or at least give them credit for achieving much higher voter turn outs compared to lazy bums in the city who don't need to walk hours to get to the voting booth (voter turn out is higher in villages than in cities, i only 'remember' this fact, would be great if someone furnishes the data)
1. Did we elect the right representatives?
2. Did we even have a criteria for selecting the right representative?
3. What issues, policies did we approve or disapprove through the act of casting a ballot? (assuming that representative democracy has a market of issues and policies we can choose to support and allocate resources to)
4. Did we have any other incentive to vote other than to put 'this person-the kangres' or 'that person-the communist' in power in whatever level of government we were voting for?. Even if there was an incentive (support based on communist or kangres label), was that incentive based on 'known and seen' policies and practices. Or was it just heriditary or community/family induced?
5. Finally, did we have an issue or grievance that was articulated enough so that we could put it in the market for our representatives to champion or fight for. Bikas...building the road..pani lyaune, road lyaune...these are fine but got limited only to rhetoric and we did not demand specifics, leaving room for the elected officials to manouver.Where did articulated causes and issues like 'empowerment of anti-corruption bureau' slip? For an engaged and informed citizenry..at least in the city, this should have emerged as a premerier election issue long time ago.
So the question is not increasing adult literacy to 90% as some have mentioned earlier. It is educating ourselves! the so called educated in the process of articulating what is important and relevant to us and excercising our citizenry. The folks in the village have done a darn good job so far, they turn up for votes, and revolt when suppressed. The onus on us.
There are many more aspects of our 'democratic' experience of the last 12 years we can reflect on and learn from...lets continue adding
|
| taha cha |
Posted
on 04-Nov-02 09:45 PM
My point is stop blaming the system. System in itself is not bad, be either democracy or otherwise. This is the widely practiced principle of management.
Having said that, people should not be allowed to do "manatantra". There should be strong "check and balance" system. What system will accomplish this? The answer is any. What lacks in Nepal is the leadership and vision. We have a leadership vacuum. The current king has shown some leadership. He is not afraid to make decisions. This is the sign of a leader. I support it. Call me monarchist, call me panchayeti, call me what ever you want but I strongly believe that a leader (one single leader) can change the fate of Nepal. I am waiting for that person to emerge and I will be behind that leader be it the king, elected leader or anyone else. In my definition I do not consider maobadi leaders leaders. They are opportunists and are more cunning, manipulative and destructive than a cunning fox like we used to hear in our "danta katha".
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 01:02 AM
Biswo ji,
Yes long time no see. You are not much frequenting Sajha lately. Ke ma fasnu bhayo, Hajur ? (Sitara, maile hajur ko hajur chore hai, hajur ?). Je ma faseko bhaye pani, Sajha ma hajurko darshan frequently paiyos hai ? Your strong arguments have been missed.
Gyanendra ko yo unexpected kadam pachhi tapaiko dharana kehi ta badaliyo hola bhanne asha thiyo, tara tapai ta dagmagaunu nai bhayeko bujhidaina. So I do not expect to influence you. Nonetheless, here is my brief reply to the points you made.
1. Befriending the king to fight the Maoists.
It deserves quite a big brainstorming. But I will just leave it for now saying that I do not agree. The king is the 75% of the reason the Maoists are there at the first place. The more you befriend the king the more justification you give for the Maoists thereby strengthening them. So the way I see, good people like you, Paschim, VillageVoice and Arnico are actually empowering both evils, the king and the Maoists.
I think the duty of people like you and me is to reject both the king and the Maoists and work towards helping establish the democratic republic of Nepal. You think it is risky. Paschim says it is too difficult. The king will not give up without a huge bloodshed. I say nothing comes without a price. If sacrifice is needed it is needed. What we should do is to minimize it. If people like you, Paschim, Siwalik and others unite and stand up for the republic, the king will hesitate to do a huge bloodshed. If the king finds people like you and Paschim on his side, he will surely do a bigger bloodshed. If we have the republic, Maoists will automatically lose the legitimacy (in eyes of their supporters as well as the neutral parties) for their terrorism and the discredited ideology. That means they have two choices, to metamorphose into a pro-democracy party or to be written off from the history.
For all this to happen, our country is needing more support for the republic. A historical process has already initiated for the emergence of a strong republican force in Nepal. A huge number of now woke-up karyakartas of Nepali Congress, UML and smaller leftist parties, educated people (Kathmandu ka those *unco-operative* intellectuals whom you mistook for laughing at the failure of the royal army !) and Prabasi Nepaliharu will join it once it become more visible. I can go on and on. But I hope I made my point. The king and the Maoists have no future in Nepal because they are by their very nature unable to solve the historical deadlock Nepal is in. Only the democratic republic can move Nepal forward and to progress and peace. So will be it.
2. The king does not stop the political leaders to do *good* things.
No, it does. Let us not overlook the reality that the monarchy actually exerts its influence INDIRECTLY. The gravity of the king actually rubs the half of the oorja of our political leaders. With the energy left, they can not do any thoola thoola kam. The energy is only sufficient for doing bhrastachar, nothing more. Hence the corruption. Now, imagine yourself or Paschim as the president of the republic of Nepal. Can you see anything that you can not do ?
King Gyanendra has nothing to offer to us except the status quo. Camrade Baburam Bhattarai has nothing to offer to us except the misery. President Paschim would have so many things to give to our country. Please don’t be against our hope and dreams.
**********************************
IsolatedFreak ji,
Let me put in a simple English. I have not asked about anything of your personal life that is NOT related to what you post here. I repeat, I have not asked about anything of your personal life that is NOT related to what you post here. I simply questioned whether or not what you write here is RELATED to your job. If you are for an honest intellectual discussion in this public forum, you should have no difficulty to answer it.
As for me, I am neither affiliated with any political party nor any agency that may have interest to regulate information, you know what I mean. What I write here are my personal views and they are not compromised to promote the interest of my employer. Irrespective of this, I welcome any kind of criticism and questioning so long as they are connected to my postings. I don't mind if you ask me whether I am linked to Maoists or Al-Kaida. You will always get an honest answer.
I hope I made myself clear. Let's stop this exchange here. As you would agree, there is no point in talking when one of the parties is not honest.
Have a nice Tihar and good luck in your mission !
*************************
Neel ji,
You are absolutely right. Its time to examine what went wrong during past
12 years. The answer to our future path should come from there. Hoping to read
more from you.
Nepe
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 02:44 AM
Nepe,
Get this straight: When I say, “ my views”, they are my views. I defend my views—whenever necessary—with EVIDENCE (sources of my information that led me to believe in what I believe. Its none of your concern whether my views relate to my work. I do not think I need to provide you with any clarification or explanation regarding what I write here. Defend your views with your points and EVIDENCE, not with assumptions. I won’t ask you the origin of your beliefs. Who cares whether you are affiliated with the Maoists, separatists, Al-Qaida or the Shining Path.
This discussion was on whether or not what King did was constitutional. I SAID it was constitutional by mentioning the articles of the constitution of Nepal, 2047, that gives the King authority to do so.
Then on Jana andolan, I said, there are other views and provided you and others with enough information for furture research.
Then, you come and write that I am a paid agent on "mission sajha" because you simply couldn't digest the truth.
This is a democratic forum, skip my posts if you like, I am not FORCING you to read what I write.
First, without any EVIDENCE you accuse me of being a Paid Agent.
Then, You want to know whether my views have some connection with my work
Then, you come and say, I am in a MISSION.
All this leads me to believe that: Your definition of intellectually stimulating discussion varies greatly from mine.
A very happy Tihar to you too.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 09:45 AM
aving said that, people should not be allowed to do "manatantra". There should be strong "check and balance" system. What system will accomplish this? The answer is any. What lacks in Nepal is the leadership and vision. We have a leadership vacuum. The current king has shown some leadership. He is not afraid to make decisions. This is the sign of a leader. I support it. Call me monarchist, call me panchayeti, call me what ever you want but I strongly believe that a leader (one single leader) can change the fate of Nepal. I am waiting for that person to emerge and I will be behind that leader be it the king, elected leader or anyone else. In my definition I do not consider maobadi leaders leaders. They are opportunists and are more cunning, manipulative and destructive than a cunning fox like we used to hear in our "danta katha".
Obviously, the primary reason why democracy did not perform was because of our failure to understand what democratic system requires. This shows in some of the postings in this thread as well. For instance, democratic system does not equat with "checks and balances". And the notion that "any" system will achieve check and balance is also wrong. Example? Parliamentary system as practiced in the mother of all parliamentary systems in Britain does not function under "checks and balances". It has parliamentary supremacy, and functions according to the principle of "fusion" of power. This system is geared toward "efficiency" rather than "gridlock" as observed in United States presidential system. And no, not all system will achieve checks and balances.
If we had a leadership vacuum, it was because of the weakness inherent in the constitution. Democratically elected government leaders should have all state apparatus at his/her disposal. That is not the case in Nepal. Even though I do not support the idea that using the army, as Girija had wanted, was the solution to Maoist problem, that option should have been available to the PM if he has so deemed. BUT that was NOT an option. The reason the past 12 years failed is parlty because of corrupt leaders, but mostly it was due to an inability to understand the idea of democracy. The framer of the 1990 constitution assumed that electoral democracy was what democracy meant. They did fail to institutionalize democratic practices in the parties, and in the system and even provided grossly undemocratic provisions and instituion in the constitution.
Any democratic system of a modern state will start with this proposition: Everyone is equal under the law.
Further, when we talk about a system we might have to dig deeper into fundamental assumptions about the human nature. Do we believe humans are basically good, as in Hinduism, or do we assume humans are basically rotten? That is the starting point. If we assume the "good" proposition, we will have a different system. Like say, since we believe humans are good, we will not have the reason to ensure checks and balances. But if we go with Christian assumption of "sinful" humans, then we will develop a system that will try to minimize the "sinful" effect of human nature as in the US system. So that is the starting point. But if we believe in humans being basically "good", then without the institutional checks, we will have to rely on their "goodness" and hope they are not rotten apples like so many cruel kings in the Hindu mythology. There is no guarantee that we will have "good" kings one after another from dynastic rule.
That is why it is important to survive as a modern state to have an institutional system that will have elected officials to rule us, but will periosdically get the consent of the governed. No dynastic system is democratic per se. So perhaps, the first step in framing a democratic system would be to understand what democracy truely means.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 10:21 AM
Neel, you could not have put it better! Kudos!
Allow me, however, to differ with you on just one assertion that you make--democracy failed. What we achieved in 2046-47, at least as it is laid out in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047, is far from being democratic. Agreed that it grants few inalienable rights to the citizens of Nepal; but it utterly contradicts the norms of democracy in many other respects. It's not only what is printed on the constitution, but the entire system itself was created, built and put in place to protect the interests of the few, the residents of Narayanhiti being one of them, with some old crooks following closely behind. So, to those who claim that democracy failed in Nepal, I say we never had one to begin with! The right way forward would have been, as you brilliantly stated, Neel, to learn from our past mistakes, and work towards building a brighter future via the democratic means--relying on the knowledge and ability of ONE individual to correct the misgivings of a system that rules over 23 million people is only taking a huge leap backwards. It did not work for 30 years, and my convictions would be damned if it worked again in the years to come.
Freak jyu, you talk so much of stability. Authoritarian rule, be it religious or ideological, only gives an impression of stability. Similar to what Nepal had during the Panchayat era, things may look stable on the surface under an authoritarian rule; however, if one would dare to venture deeper, one would have found aplenty elements of destablization boiling, waiting to burst at any moment. I believe that is exactly what happened in Nepal. Panchayat created the elements of destablization by grossly neglecting to address the real needs of the people, especially in the rural areas, and the forces of rebellion got an opportunity to burst into violent actions after the "revolution" of 1990. Do we want a seeming stablity now and await the inevitable forces of destablization in the future? Or do we endure the painful process of democracy now and ensure a genuine and permanent stabilty in the years to come? I apt for the latter.
On literacy...The percentage of literate people in a particular country reflects the ability of number of it's citizens to read and write. That means very little as far as a kind of political system that a country has, or aspires to have. What is more necessary, as far as education is concerned, is the ability of the citizens to generate, and live wisely in, a civil society. The process of learning the methods of a civil society entails much more than just being able to read and write--it is a tedious and long process that can only be achieved through real experiments in life. Books and pencils can only teach you so much--only a free society can teach a person to live a respecful life of a civil citizen, through sometimes painful experiences.
I also do not question the legality of King G's actions, but the articles that you refer to are extremely vague at the best. I have said his actions were legal only because of the constitution's guarantee that the King should be placed above the law of the land. Ironically, this is perhaps one of the clauses in the constitution that need to be scrapped if we are to have a truly democratic Nepal.
|
| aeiou |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 10:54 AM
ok, there are the constitutional issues, and then there is the fact that the extreme left and the extreme right are just more organized than the centre.
even now, with the king and maoists knocking down the door, the political centre (congress and uml) are STILL not thinking about the greater cause of the nepali people. they're still just after power, power, power.
unless the centre becomes as organized as the king and the maoists, there's no hope for democracy in nepal.
we should kick out girija/sher/madhav/bam dev--all the tested (and failed) leaders and put new leaders into the parties. then maybe the center will be in business again.
because it really isn't a choice between extreme left and extreme right yet...no need to choose the king or the maoists, friends.
or so i think.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 10:57 AM
Poonte wrote: "Freak jyu, you talk so much of stability. Authoritarian rule, be it religious or ideological, only gives an impression of stability"
No, in my view, it actually stabalize everything. Its not just impression. Look at Singapore and Malaysia. Stability is one factor that is needed for growth.
Poonte wrote: Panchayat created the elements of destablization by grossly neglecting to address the real needs of the people, especially in the rural areas, and the forces of rebellion got an opportunity to burst into violent actions after the "revolution" of 1990. Do we want a seeming stablity now and await the inevitable forces of destablization in the future? Or do we endure the painful process of democracy now and ensure a genuine and permanent stabilty in the years to come? I apt for the latter.
A good question, Poonte (sorry, I am not into formality so I won't be addressing anyone jyu annd ji). i agree with you that in the Panchayat days, things were not "ideal", but things were even worse in the 12 years of democracy. Agreed that Panchayat ignored the rural population, but what did your ELECTED governmnet do for 12 years? couldn't they have worked to correct the mistakes of Panchayat?
You take on education and literacy is impressive. Has provided me with a new approach to look at this issue.
You also wrote: "I also do not question the legality of King G's actions, but the articles that you refer to are extremely vague at the best. I have said his actions were legal only because of the constitution's guarantee that the King should be placed above the law of the land. Ironically, this is perhaps one of the clauses in the constitution that need to be scrapped if we are to have a truly democratic Nepal. "
My friend, just a question: If we go with what you have proposed then who will be checking up on the parties. I strongly disagree with this view. I think, the King needs some powers to ensure check-balance system.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 10:59 AM
ABSOLUMENT, AEIOU, MON AMI!
|
| aeiou |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 11:05 AM
merci, poonte.
vive la democracy.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 11:09 AM
Part II
So, my friend, don't you think we need to actually make the King even powerful than he is now? Just my view.
The leaders of UML, NC, NSP, RPP have proved it themselves that they are a bunch of oppurtunists. Everybody wants to be in power. UNL has a very distinct way to put it's demands:
We want the king to form a governmnet that incorprates the "feelings" of artilce 128, but we are not saying that the king should use this article.
"dhara 128 ko marma ra bhawana anurup ko sarkar huna parcha, tara dhara 128 prayog garne bhaneko chaina"
Madhav Nepal, talking to Channel Nepal. Nov. 4th 2002.
So, do you still think that people believe in what these leaders say?
Somebody proposed that Narhari Acharya from NC be made PM of Nepal.
It was narhari Acharya who propsed that Sher Bahadur write a letter of clarification to the party on his decision to extend the emergency, and it was his idea to expell the PM from the party which led to asoj 18. This is caught on TAPE by NTV. I'll post the date tomorrow.
Girija: A super clown.
These dirty old bastards did not let the young generation to rise up. So, there is a leadership crisis in the parties. It will take at least 15-20 years for these parties to organize again and to win some credibility in public. Till then, they are in "hibernation". They won't be able to organize a small "kon sabha".
so much of nepali politics, i am off to bed.
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 11:14 AM
Nepe writes :
"The king is the 75% of the reason the Maoists are there at the first place."
Back up your statement if you can, otherwise I'll say "ppl like you are the real reason behind the insurgency". what the heck.. I need not back up my lines for you have not backed yours
Nepe writes :
The gravity of the king actually rubs the half of the oorja of our political leaders. With the energy left, they can not do any thoola thoola kam. The energy is only sufficient for doing bhrastachar, nothing more. Hence the corruption. Now, imagine yourself or Paschim as the president of the republic of Nepal. Can you see anything that you can not do ?
yes I can see myself doing whatever I want to do, and with army and police by my side, no one can stop me.
just lil note: you can get visa from american embassy if you pay well. That's how bad it is in Nepal. Even the american guys at american embassy are corrupt.There was this story in The Himalayan Times about a guy whose visa was turned down even when all his requirements were met. He was on scholorship. When asked why his visa was rejected, they had no clue, so they declined to answer.
I will never say that the democratic system is bad. It's the best system in the world! But how has it worked for Nepal? To tell you the truth I myself have no idea what my rights are in a democratic country. How much has it changed from what it was in panchayat system?For ordinary ppl life has become worse!
I come from Sunsari. where girija gets elected every time.. and I know for a fact that ppl there don't want girija.. then how the hell does he get elected? those of you who says that king should not have intervened answer me!! I know how.. let's see if you guys do too. Most who gets elected use the same method.
I was watching Madhav Nepal's interview on Channel nepal today.. and he goes "dhara 128 cannot be implemented, tara dhara 128 ko marma bujhnu parcha" what the heck does that mean? and he goes "deubalai asambaidhanik rup ma jaanu bhaneko thiyenau" for what I know the suggestion to deuba were given by these political parties.
The reality: All our leaders are powerhungry no good for nothing crooked selfish crooks. Talking for myself: I truly would have anyone who would fix these guys, I mean get these polticians straightened up, this is what I see the king doing at the moment. He hasn't said he is going to get Panchayat back, he hasn't said he's gonna take over and get rid of multi party deomcracy.
Atleast 12 yrs back I could walk anywhere in nepal without fearing anything. Atleast 12 yrs back I could work on my fields and had not to worry about my family getting not enough food.
I will support anyone and any system that would give me back those freedom!! Deomcracy is freedom, you say. GIVE ME BACK THE FREEDOM I HAD!! why has this so called Democracy taken what I had?????? answer me please!!
regards
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 11:26 AM
Stripped of the army's support, and a farced constitution's protection, I think Gyane-jee would make even less skilled leader than Girija, Madhav or Deuba. He can only be bold because he has the RNA behind him, and the constitution puts him above the law, not because is a skilled leader who has the mandate of the people.
Check and balance by the king? And who checks him and balances his power? I am afraid you have a misconstrued idea of a check and balance system.
Give Him more power, and you'll only sow the seeds for a greater bloodshed in the future.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 11:31 AM
There is no problem in someone being monarchist. That is only to be expected for various reasons.
One thing that comes up repeatedly is the need to pave way for new younger leadership. How is that going to happen? I have not seen any solution. Given the Nepalese culture where seniority has privilege, and younger voices required to conform, how are the younger generation to be at the helm of leadership? Leadership also requires experience on the realities of Nepal. Can the foreign educated leaders with litle knowledge of rural Nepal prove any better than other leaders?
How can we kick out the "failed" leaders? In parliamentary system, they have something called "safe seats". They will get elected no matter what. It comes with the territory. How can we get younger generation to get involved in politics? Simple, empower local level governance.
So to have a successful democracy, these are vital components, in my naive opinion.
1. Equality before the law
2. Transparency in all governmental, bureaucratic, party affairs
3. Land reform to strengthen peasants
4. Federalism that empowers local authorities for local development.
5. No privileges to unelected institutions.
These should be the top priority. New constitution is a must.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 11:37 AM
Siwalik, may I jump into your wagon too? I am all for your ideas!
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 11:38 AM
Poonte: He can only be bold because he has the RNA behind him, and the constitution puts him above the law, not because is a skilled leader who has the mandate of the people.
RNA stands for Royal Nepal Army (shahi nepali sena). Royal here does not mean that it belongs to the King. It's just a title to address the army. I am not sure, but i'll check into this tomorrow: that some countries with monarchy name their army this way. BUT I AM NOT SO SURE, so I'll get back on this tomorrow.
Royal does not mean it is loyal to the king. Royal nepal Academy, Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation, Royal Drugs etc.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 11:54 AM
Freak...if I had meant to stress the RNA's loyalty to the king based on it's name, I think I would have wrote ROYAL NA--you are way off of my intended point. Kya sanga kura ghumaidine? Or perhaps it was an honest misinterpretation.
It's not the name that matters, it's what they stand for that bothers many of us. It is only obvious that whose purpose the RNA serves--not your's (unless, of course, you belong to the royal circle), not mine, nor of any other sadharan Nepali's--it only serves the purpose of the royal palace. If it was meant to serve the purpose of the people, the onus of making the decisions on the army would have fallen into the hands of the elected government.
Again, perhaps Gyane is an able person--we do not know. If you are so sure that he is a capable leader, why don't you urge him to run for an election? I would salute him, honor his dignity, even kiss his ass if I may, IF he ever became an elected leader, and then proved to be a skilled leader who honestly wishes well for us Nepalis.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 09:13 PM
As Poonte, alluded , the RNA's loyality is towards the King and the palace.
Can you imagine, a substantial portion of the budget is being spent on the Army? The army has been "trained" ever since the ther Shah regin of the past30 years, to be very loyal to the King. It is supposed to be the key to the defence of the country and its citizens for any impending danger; rather for some reason it listens to the King than the jantas.
The namig convetion of all the institutions was absed entirely on what and how the royals desired. The reason they seem be termed Royal was because it was dictated to be so by the Royals in the Panchayat era. Just demosntrates how much they used to dicate at every level.
The fact remains that the army has to be reformed to look after the needs of the country. New leaders have to be welcomed; reforms have to be carried out; and democracy has not only got to be protected, but more so,democratic means have to be employed to inform the citizenry, and to bring about critical thinking and corrective actions.
The current move of Mr. G can't be overlooked. At the same time , we've to find ways to bring about change for the future by getting newer, and better breeds of leaders.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 09:21 PM
As Poonte, alluded , the RNA's loyality is obviously towards the King and the palace.
Can you imagine, a substantial portion of the budget is being spent on the Army? The army has been "trained" ever since the ther Shah reign (probalby before that) of the past 30 years, to be very loyal to the King. It is supposed to be the key to the defence of the country and its citizens for any impending danger; rather for obvious reasons, it listens to the King than the jantas, or even the elected officials. So, quite a portion of the budget is spent on the army (which is very King bhakta), and 0.4% goes to the King (who doesn't need it). This just shows how the system has worked. I doubt if King operates as before, it would get any better.
The naming convention of all the institutions was absed entirely on what and how the royals desired. The reason they seem be termed Royal was because it was dictated to be so by the Royals in the Panchayat era. Just demosntrates how much they used to dicate at every level.
The fact remains that the army has to be reformed to look after the needs of the country. New leaders have to be welcomed; reforms have to be carried out; and democracy has not only got to be protected, but more so,democratic means have to be employed to inform the citizenry, and to bring about critical thinking and corrective actions.
The current move of Mr. G can't be overlooked. At the same time , we've to find ways to bring about change for the future, by bringing in newer, and better breeds of leaders.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 05-Nov-02 10:53 PM
Kreep ji,
I am replying to you because you addressed me. Otherwise I wouldn't interrupt nice inputs of Proteanji haru.
Looking at the portion of your posting other than your questions to me, you look quite frustrated and genuine. Well, who is not frustrated these days, hagi ? The questions you raised are valid. We all are looking for answers. This discussion is a part of that khoj, haina ra ? But you confused me little bit, because you do not seem to be reading all the postings here. If you read all the postings, particularly those from M.P., Siwalik, Protean and Poonte, you should not be confused about democracy yet.
You asked me to back up my statement in which I said the monarchy is 75% of the reason for the Maoist rebellion. I do not get it. Are you disagreeing or questioning my knowledge about Maoists ? If later, does it satisfy you if I say I am an old (former) Maoist ? Okay that was very long time ago and I do not have any physical, mental, ideological or whatever relation with them. But I have been watching them as a concerned citizen of Nepal all along. I would like to believe that I do know a thing or two about them.
Let’s leave it aside. Let’s read pretty good notes coming from Siwalik, Protean and Poonte.
**********
Isolated Freak,
I think we are done with each other. I hope this little conversation was good for knowing each other better. In a way, that was the purpose I started all this with you. I am not offering you friendship though. I do not think I will be keen in discussing with you about the invented EVIDENCES/arguments you bring here either. But Sajha is a free forum. You are welcome.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 06-Nov-02 10:49 PM
Nepeji,
I wanted to reply you quickly, but I had to go out of town in this Bhaitika, so this delay.
Let's keenly observe how the politics of Nepal takes shape in the immediate future, how the king comports , and what the month of Mangshir is gonna bring. For now, I stick to my assertion that he is 'less evil' and deserves some kind of cuddling.
Have fun.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 08:46 AM
Hell! I am wid ya homie! Of all the evils we saw for past 12 years, Gyane seems to be the most harmless (I don't even want to say evil). I am with him. Does that make me a reactionary? I would say just a realist and maybe a bit pragmatist. Pragmatist, that I am.
You go Gyane! You have all my blessings!!
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 10:04 AM
Monarchy has a lot of things in its favor. let me analyze it this way. Let's say how things work in life. First, ideas are born, ideologies are formed. second, some of these become institutionlized, Third, institutionalization will lead its acceptance in civil society. Fourth, as the practice is accepted, it becomes culturally integrated. So anything that deepens to the level of cultural level becomes so engrained in individual's way of thinking and behaving, they will not even give it a second thought. It becomes as unconscious as breathing or gravity. Over the period of five thousand years, Hinduism has made monarchy its central institution. We can see the practices in Nepal reenacted, reinforced and reinterpreted through symbols and feitivities constantly throughout the year. It will be difficult for most people to think Nepal without its monarchy. It takes lot of courage and abilty to think outside the box to believe that nepal can be better off without such an institution. Besides, Nepalese have the cultural trait to accept things--mostly negative--until their limit or tolerance. That is the biggest factor in Monarchy's continuation.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 10:19 AM
Your "analysis" on the institution of monarcy was interesting to read. But, if I a may ask why do you say,"..Besides, Nepalese have the cultural trait to accept things--mostly negative--...?" That assertion is prepostorous, if i may say so, kya re ajha lasta ma!! [this is just great!]
and siwalik jiu another thing. if people start to think too much "out of the box" we might run out of all the boxes in the world. Then these outside-the-box-thinkers have to build a box just so that they can think out side of those make believe boxes. Do you remeber Enron? Do you remeber all those Capitalist cronies? All of them were hired BECAUSE they were all known for "thinking outside of the boxes."
A country can achieve success without throwing bathwater with the baby. Maybe not throwing the baby is a good thing. Well unless you happen to be a propnent of a infanticide! re kya ajha lasta ma!
|
| wy |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 10:28 AM
Siwalik,
Nice way of putting it. And also, thanks for not injecting your own judgement follwing the nice summary.
Now, some people would want to break out of the box and do away with the monarchy for the reasons you have so eloquently presented above. But, others would argue for a continuation of the monarchy institution for the reasons you have outlined above.
There are monarchs in countries like Japan, Malayais, Thailand, Belgium, Spain, and the Uk who actually have been a fixture of their culture and have played important role in providing stability.
The case like Iran is also worth remembering, where an abrupt removal of the Shah, with the help of a vast majority of the intellectuals, gave an opportunity for Islamic radicalism to move in and establlish their presence at all levels of their lives. The recent poll showed that about 75% of the Iranian do like America (and by implication democratic system of government, perhaps). It will take a long time to get rid of the Islamic fundamentalism.
So, are we taking a similar risk in Nepal with the moists, if we were to direct our energy in removing the Monarch?
I am looking for some insight rather than same old we need republic to save some money that goes into the royal coffers and so on.
Or do you think, Nepal would be better off with a weak version of Monarchy (without any executive power)?
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 11:28 AM
NK: What is preposterous and way out of line is your assertion: "unless you happen to be a propnent of a infanticide!" What in my posting gives you the right to make that statement?
wy: The monarcs in no country in the world now has the same level of power and political ambitions such as in Nepal. This point has been made clear by lot of postings earlier. About Iran, the revolution has a structural character, and can be attributed to a backlash against rapid modernization and alienation of an important sector of society--the bazaar culture. Maybe if you want more, I can elaborate it later. But it was the alienation of the society from the rapid westernization of the monarch, that fostered and strengthened the radical elements. The same can happen in Nepal. The present situation has the potential to strengthen the Moaists, if the forces of democracy is marginalized for a proponged period. The agitation, in phases, by the parties is about to begin. The security situation has not improved. Maoists seem to have learned pretty good from Moa's strategy of peasant guerilla warfare and maybe internalized Sun Tzu's The Art of War on how to fight with a larger opponent. The best way for Nepal is not the left or the right, it is the Buddha way--the middle way, the democratic way. But of course, as I have argued for ever, the present constitution is not appropriate for that. Constitution should also make it explicit that the political parties have to function under democratic principal. Nepal needs a strong institutional base of democracy and something like CIAA with teeth. If Nepalese people cannot live without monarchy, then it should be without any political component or power--just a symbolic anachronistic institution.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 11:35 AM
Disjointed reading or disjointed thought Siwalik?
|
| wy |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 12:04 PM
Thanks for the response,
Obviously, we all need to behave better to strengthen democracy in Nepal. The sudden rise of aspiration of the palace could well be due to the fact that the party politics was not living upto its expected norm, culture, discipline and so on. To many, the Maoists made a significant inroads as a results too. So, I am not totally convinced that the source of all of the problems in Nepal is the Monarchy. So, what is the Budha way?
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 12:31 PM
I also do NOT favor the complete removal of the monarchy in Nepal and sending them to exile. I fully support the CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY (which, BTW, we never had in Nepal even after 2047, no matter how much some people would like to believe so), where even the members of the royal family would pay taxes, be subject to the laws of the land if they violate any, and, most of all, would have a very limited (yes, VERY LIMITED) role in the day-to-day politics of Nepal.
After 12 years of frustration with the old crooks, I can understand the emotional sway that is making people resign to the fact that the king may be lesser of the two evils. However, I would rather choose to rise above the emotionality of the issue at hand, and think in terms of what is best for the country in the long run.
What autocracy does is it stagnates the mental and psychological development of the people by suppressing them; and in the long run, it will only make people more dependent and make them less likely to take risks, thus making them more prone to violence at times of change and difficulty. Only democracy can let people think freely, a crucial element in the creation of new ideas and hence the betterment of the society. I know what Gyane-jee did does not tentamount to a return to full-fledged autocracy (yet!), but it certainly is a step backwards from true democracy.
Ghoda chadne manchhe ladchha! Tara 2-4 patak ladyo bhandaima tesko ghoda nai khosi diyo bhane, tesle jhan kahile ghoda chadna sikne? I say, give me back my ghoda! Let me fall a few more times, perhaps even break few of my bones, so that eventually I will learn to be a an excellent rider!
Many buddhijivi(s) may have also thought that the late King Mahendra did the right thing when he sidelined the elected government in 2017. Well, look at where it has brought us now! I think the panchayat government of 30 years prior to 1990 is more culpable of what we are witnessing now, than the 12 years of democratic government. Panchayat only made it look like everything was fine--and underneath the veil of stability, there were forces of rebellion building up, looking for an opportunity to burst into action. Had they not taken away our GHODAS in 2017, I think the vast majority of Nepalis would have become excellent riders by now, which would have guaranteed a sound and stable democracy.
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 12:48 PM
Thanks for the great ideas, everyone.
All I have to say is:
" Haatti chadera sahar ghumne haru sanga
Jangal maa kandamul khaane haru ladirahechhan
Haami sakti ko bhakti garirahechhoun
Rolpa ko pasinaa le Narayanhity posirahechhoun
Ani aafai laai ainaa maa herera danga parirahechhoun"
Just wanted to poke my nose.....
By the way, this was an excerpt from a poem I wrote a year back. People
might think I am justifying the war. I am not; I never did.
For a republic Nepal I remain.
Oohi Sojho,
MP
|
| nayabato |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 01:24 PM
The king the king, people still want to keep him in power, alas what are you guys on? Maybe I am reading things wrongly, why talk about the present, for it is already taken course. There are works in progress, which will inevitably bring the moists to a halt; ok they are taking lessons from Mao’s ideas of warfare but surely Nepali janta is not that stupid. Take the example of the major, recent posting by ashu; do you think the people who have been affected by that incident will ever accept the moists? I know if I were one of them, well I would go and join the king and fight to get rid of these pests. The ideals they brought in their initiation period were great, what the people needed but they have reached a point of no return. As for the nepali army, bunch of ass licking b******s, they do not serve the people, it serves the monarchy and it is a fact due to the initialisation that has take over many years. The police, that is a joke, they have no feeling towards the public. As for the present person sitting on the throne, well the status of the king was lost with the palace incident. I hear he is a good business man not a good ruler, what a coincidence that his family is not effected as much as the last king’s. That still puzzles me. He may do good things but that does not mean I am behind him. The actions being carried out by him yes may benefit in the short run, but the future is with paras, and if he became the king, which is inevitable, then will you accept him? From the rumours that have gone around, he has killed many Nepali janta, also he was in the palace at the time of the massacre, why was he not shot? Do we need a monarchy, the answer f**k off, strong words but the truth is we have had no joy, and also this democratic system, yes it has been thrown away with the bathwater. Never been allowed to blossom due to the uneducated idiots that have run the government.
In regards to thinking outside of the box, well that is the future hence why not take steps towards it. And why cannot someone studying outside of Nepal not be allowed to rule or run my motherland? At least they will have knowledge of fairness, equality, and the basic needs for the public. Nor will they have grown up in a society that just adheres to stupid rules and regulation that is put in front of them, is truly biasised in terms of religion, caste, and most of all money. Here in the west we may think and act like nepalis but there are boundaries which must have come with education, the society, like not stopping your sister marrying to the person of her choice etc.
So the way forward may not be from within but from external input, and that includes all of us living and studying outside of Nepal, where the tears are in our hearts. Yes we do not know all the local ways but as a Nepali you will learn which the elected ones in Nepal stop to understand once they have achieved the power.
Your thoughts
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 01:26 PM
Enron debacle was result of thinking outside the box? As far as I know, but my little knowledge might fail me here, Enron was a result of corparate executives who felt, becuase of their political clouts, that the "normal rules did not apply to them," (sounds familiar?) and by their ability to hamper legislation that would have made accounting practices more accountable. So if rules do not apply to some and only to others, that is a reenactment and perpetuation of Rana reign. Why should a civil society let anyone get away with murder? Not in my book, no m'am. I do not live in a mideaval age. And if I am not willing to fight against what I perceive is injustice, then I blame myself for the consequences.
|
| Junkie |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 01:28 PM
hehe ....... To expense or to captialize, that is the question?
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 01:37 PM
Excellent point: Think of future trend and prepare to meet it half way. The trend is democracy. The path to full democracy is excercise of democracy at local levels, not reverting to authoritarian rule with one man deciding what is good for the rest of us. All of us should be given the right to decide what is good for ourselves. In the history of the worlds there have been successful revolutions and successful elimination of monarchy as well as preservation.
Will the Maoist win? Unlikely if they continue the present methodology. Alienating most Nepalese will not work in their favor. They might destroy all vital infrastructures of the state to weaken us to the point of anarchy, but neither the Nepalese nor the world will accept communism in Nepal.
Will the monarchy survive? Depends on how the durbar bahaves. If they align with democratic restoration with curtailing of their "privileges" then there might still be some relevance. But repeating the Panchayat tendencies will bring disrepute and irrelevance to its doors.
to you....
|
| smr |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 02:09 PM
Siwalik,
I am with you on the issue of democracy and its longevity. Demacracy may falter at times, but it will survive in the long-run for the betterment of the majority. Various institutional mechanisms however--political, admnistrative, and economic--have to be in place to start shaping the democratic culture that we all see in other strong democracies. Having a one-man show is going to be very counterproductive in the long-run.
At the same time, I have hard time convincing myself if the Maoists have anything better going. Similarly, I also need to see some openness and leadership quality coming out of the political corners. Monarchy is not the solution and an attempt to bring back the Panchyat regime will prove fatal, but what is out there that may give us some hope? Maoists? NC? UML?
|
| protean |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 02:43 PM
The King faces two choices:
1. Create a more democratic envrionment in the running of the system, try to bring stability in the country, and hold elections when the atmosphere has calmed down.
2. Create an atmosphere of oppression and an authotarian (right wing) rule--similar to the one that we observed to have been ineffective during the Panchayat era. This would be detrimental.
I think opting for choice one is a better alternative. As Nepe, Poonte, Siwalik, SMR, and several others have alluded, we've to give democracy a chance. That's going to be winning horse to bet on.
The challenges that are posed to all of us today are the Maoist insurgency. This took form during the past 12 years due to increased awareness, and freedom of press. A revolution to throw the fedual,oppressrive, and corrupt people was always needed in Nepal.
It was too unfortunate that it has taken a very violent and inhuman path.
Working with the Maoists, and ways of dampening their enthusisam is a key to create a stable environment. But the fact still remains. The people are aware of what they need, and how it should be delivered. The patronzing statement of, "nepal ka jaanta dehari sidha ra unphad , prajatantra ke garne, doens't have any solid grounds.
Ok, they're poor, but they are very aware of what they need ,are cognizant of party politics and its pros/cons , and above all are wanting real delivery.
So, I think, the King has to work out a plan to keep democracy, and ultimately give power to the people. The people , in turn should better candidates for the future, and be more critical about different moves. We do need serious reforms and the king has to be under the constitution.
Centralizing the power to himslef, trying to hold back to power, and becoming oblivious
to the needs of the hour, would be the most counterproductive move the King could make. However, if he is able to create a situation of stability,create an atmoshere where corrruption can be severly curtailed, and allow democracy to flourish,then he would definitely make a mark in history.
But, so far his intentions and actions, are not pointing to the more liberal, and progressive path. As Biswo pointed, let's wait for next couple of weeks to see how he handles the current imbroglio, and how he wants to address it.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 03:24 PM
Should have read:
So, I think, the King has to work out a plan to keep democracy, and ultimately give power to the people. The people in turn, will get to, and should be able to elect better candidates for the future, and also become more critical and watchful about different moves of the adminstration. We do need serious reforms in place. Another major call is that the Monarch has to be under the constitution.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 03:50 PM
>Haatti chadera sahar ghumne haru sanga
>Jangal maa kandamul khaane haru ladirahechhan
M.P.ji, with all due respect to your arguments, this couplet also applies to Virappan, let's face it. And, I don't know if the fellas are eating 'kandamul' in jungle, or going to village to coerce old women to cook for them.
It is fun, glamorous, and even a principled stance to talk about the ouster of much maligned 'Gyanendra Paras goot'. It is even better a pretext to protect democrats from the guilt of creating twelve years of mess by blaming king's meddling. But we know that is not true.Wrong assumption, my friend, is what I fear when doing political analysis.
Communism doesn't obliterate monarchy. It merely starts another one. Let's think about all those countries where communists overthrew monarchs, and please tell me which one you guys want Nepal to be. In one of Sherlock Holmes book, he says to Watson, not verbatim, "a fact can go this way, or that way, but the whole nature of things don't deviate much from its overall pattern, or so statisticians say", and that is applicable to Nepal's rebels too. They will be almost as same as their predecessors in other countries. So, to praise Maoists for rightfully struggling against monarchy is to delude ourselves.
Maoist supremo Prachanda just recently fulminated in anger when Gyanendra unconstitutionally dismissed Sher Bdr. "To protect the achievement of 2046.."he said, "democratic forces should be united." And this was another joke from the man who until a few months ago was forcing elected people to resign, this was the man who was so against election that he once beheaded one UML candidate who was very likely to win the election. With that much antipathy towards election, and popularly elected people, what 'upalabdhi' of 2046 is left to protect?
To think that we can piggyback on these fellas and throw monarchy and establish a peaceful Nepal is a mirage, and the faster we realise this, the better it will be for all of us. If we want to throw monarchy, we will do it on our own way, in due time, with due procedure, with the consent of overwhelming majority of Nepali people.Amen.
|
| nayabato |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 05:21 PM
to your thread...more productive solutions seeked...
but i do think that still the past that lingers with the monarchy will mean that it will need to end. maybe not in the near future but not too far. as for the rest agreed.
bed time... long day tomorrow.
:)
|
| Raktabeej |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 05:27 PM
Afu haatti chadhera sahar ghumnalai
Kehi maanis kandamul khaneharulai ladai rahechhan
Hami kandamul khane ra khuwaunaeharu chindainau
Aayaatit kranti kaa kura garchhaun
Shanti jati sappai niryaat garchhaun
Rolpa ko ragat arkai narayanhiti banauna pokhiyeko ho
Tyo ragat pokhineko jagat banauna haina
Hami kahilai atmalochana gardeinau
Hami kahilae ainaa herdainau
Aru ko anuhar ma afno anuhar khojera
Mao ko chihan ma afno astitwa khojera
Hami anavarat bhassiyirahechhaun
Ek anastha, ek sambhawanheenata
Ek lachari, ek bidrupata ko
Antaheen khadi maa
|
| SMR |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 06:17 PM
I just read two of the letters by Dr. BB (someone gave the link to them), I am worried how quickly he has changed his version within two weeks. I woder what they would do if they end up throwing the monarchy out to establish their brand of republic.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 07:30 PM
So, now we've been left in some kind of political quagmire.
On one hand, we know that the King usurped power at the right opportunity. I've a
feeling that he used Deuba as a pawn to grab power.
On the other hand, we're being squeezed by the Maoists with their terrorizing agenda.
We know we shouldn't be oblivious to the King and let the authotarian rule creep in again.
On the other hand, we also want to see that there is stability and peace in the
land. The elected people, who were very corrupt, failed to deliver, and were not able
to take the country that much in the path of progress. There was hope that they would bring the needed reforms in the country, and deliver effectively, which the oppressrive and fedual culture laid out by the institution of the Panchayat system wasn't able to provide.
Now, the King has power, we can't just kick him out. We can't completely accept him and his lame duck government either. On the other hand, we can't have faith in the Maoist leaders ,either. Isn't it a big quagmire?
Having said that the King striked at the right opportunity, doesn't mean we can be silent of his motives. Does the King have a big responsibility? Yes, he does. As he has decided to take the power unto himself, he better not be as ineffective. The other challenge that the future leaders face is in tackling the current crisis with the Maoists.
But ultimately, the power has to come to the people. But, the method has to more pragmatic, more convincing, and above all non-violent. Now, strangely enought, we've come to a point when we've rely on the monarch to work on a strategy to sustain democracy, and also bring peace to the land.
|
| M.P. |
Posted
on 07-Nov-02 09:49 PM
Biswo-ji,
I agree with most of what you have said, particularly your claim that "Communism doesn't obliterate monarchy. It merely starts another one."
Please do not misunderstand me. I beg your pardon that my posting actually left enough ground for misinterpretation. I never supported an appeal for a communist state. This poem was written at a time when the media in Kathmandu supported the declaration of Maoists as "terrorists" without perhaps understanding that the crux of Maoist problem was stationed right in the heart of Kathmandu.
True, I am an advocate of a Republic. But I do not want a communist state. Both communism and monarchism are extreme. The middle path--a republic with officials elected from different parties--is what I think suits Nepal.
I do not defend the present politicians but I still think they are not wholly responsible for the present crisis. The palace is equally responsible since that is where the root of the problem lies. First of all, its mere existence has been problematic. After the Maoist war started, it has been evident that atleast some people are against the monarch. If the palace honestly believed in wellbeing of the citizens, it should have gone for a mandate. It did saw that almost all negotiations between the government and the Maoists deadlocked at the same point--formation of a constituent assembly and of a republic state. Why did the palace turn deaf ear all along? Because it does not simply care about the Nepalese. If Gyanendra could seize power now and if he is truely concerned about peace and security in Nepal, he might as well have done so earlier and gone to the public for a mandate. Second, as many have pointed out, it is simply too expensive for the second [correct me if I am wrong] poorest country in the world. Third, despite consuming so much of national resources, the King has not done anything worth praising [some say seizing of power itself was a worthy act, but as I keep telling again and again, the King is simply cleaning his own mess and therefore, should not be given any credit for what he did recently. Rather, he should be condemned for jeopardizing the spirit of the constitution by interpreting it literally]. If we need the King to make headlines in the international media every now and then, to inaugrate festivals, to make speeches, to do business, then it does not have to be the King; anyone can do that.
It might be hard to dethrone the King and establish a new system. I agree with that. However, it is a job worth pursuing for the betterment of the country in the long run.
Sooner we can throw him away, better it will be and fewer deaths we will have to see.
M.P.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 08-Nov-02 12:40 AM
MPji,
(Oops, MP and M.P. are different here, kyare?)
I hate to sound like pro-king, I am not. I was just replying to your suggestions that 'some fellas are fighting against these rich rulers eating nothing but kandamul in jungle' :-)[How could you forget some fellas are looting banks and investing in Ghar ghadeir in Pokhara/Butwal, some fellas are sending their kids to foreign boarding schools while asking kids of other poor people to carry gun.]
Let's see how things unfold. The king has opened pandora's box. With the crutches of people like Mandal and Chand, the monarchy can't walk to the future. It needs some sharp minds, and brilliant supports.
Having said that, we are all talking about (end of) monarchy only. No one knows what the next step will be even if that goal is attained (or that is what is my perception). Let's not pin our hope on only one thing. Nepeji said people like Paschim take helms. Yea, that is good dream. Let's first analyze why people like Paschim couldn't be PM in the last 12 years. It is because in the corrupt system, not necessarily good people become head of the state. We throw Gyanendra, Lendup Dorje may well be the next leader.
And this thing really really is a possibility, given the readiness to be a stooge of foreign power among politicians in Nepal.
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 08-Nov-02 04:52 AM
Nepe and Biswo, my dear comrades, I know you are just giving a fond illustration and example, tara pls. malai yesari spotlight ma narakhdinus na yaar -- alli asajilo laagchha! I think a public phrase that has gained currency for such illustrative purposes is "Pratyoush Onta haroo". I suggest we use that :)
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 08-Nov-02 09:43 AM
I would like the "royalists" to argue what the next royal move should/would be. And how that is going to make Nepal a "ramrajya."
To you Isolated Freak...
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 08-Nov-02 10:51 AM
I read watch the leaders of our country blabber and it fraustrates me to hell. and I come here and read the postings of our republican friends.
What good is a Concord when there is no Pilot?
Don't tell me we should have republic first and then the leader will pop out of nowhere.
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 08-Nov-02 10:54 AM
just name one
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Nov-02 10:40 PM
Siwalik wrote: I would like the "royalists" to argue what the next royal move should/would be. And how that is going to make Nepal a "ramrajya."
To you Isolated Freak..
***
The problem with you educated folks is that, that you guys can't think out of the box. Although, 5000000 miles away from Nepal, you guys think that nobody understands Nepal better, except you and your breed.
This discussion is flawed from the very beginning.
You guys think of the short term. Has anyone come up with a "realistic" long-term policy? No.
I think it will be a good idea for you to spend a few more semesters in school and if its possible take a class on "critiques of the political theories 101".
****
My another question is: Is multi-party democracy is the only form of democracy? Aren't there other forms of democracy? In my opinion, there are two types of democracy
1. Democracy with reservation (s)
2. Democracy without reservation (s)
Democracies in Asian nations--China, Singapore and Malaysia belong to the first group, where as democracies in Europe an America belong to no. 2. Going by the development and growth that the Asian countries mentioned above, I say that's the best we can hope for, and that's what works in Asia, i.e., democracy with reservations.
And to what the King should be doing now?
My answer to this is: He should start reading the Prince. He should emerge as a strong and popular leader, who understands Nepal.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 08-Nov-02 10:40 PM
To Poonte:
The Nepali Army is loyal to the royals but you can't say that it hasn't done anything for the country and the people. From helping the disaster victims to building infrastructures, they have been helping in Nepal's development for the last 50 years. Just because it has ROYAL as prefix does not mean the Army belongs to the King.
Since, the King is "paramadhipati ati rathi param senadhipati" of RNA, the army has to protect the King and Army being a disciplined institute has to follow the King's orders because he is the Supreme COC of RNA. However, not a single King in the last 50 years has used the army to serve his purpose. In 2036, the army was mobilized to PROTECT the valley and the Late King issued orders not to shoot a single student.
Army was mobilized after the "singhadurbar" kanda too. But, that too was to protect the CAPITAL.
Who do you think is fighting the Maoists? Who do you think is being killed by the Maoists? If fighting Maoists is " army showing its loyalty to the king", then, I have nothing to say.
BTW, I looked at the World Book Encyclopedia and it says, "the monarch is the head of the army, the air force and the navy" in the UK. The British Air force is called "Royal Air Force'. Does this mean that the British Air force gets orders from the queen?
As kreep says, you guys think that leaders will pop out from nowhere once the system starts functioning. Come on, go think: Dow we want another 15 years of chaos, anarchy and instability? You being away probably can’t think anything except democracy, but my friend, how many people in Nepal now care about democracy? Not many. Everybody ants stability and peace. I am trying to find a Kathmandu Post editorial, published almost a year ago, just a day or two before the govt. declared the state of emergency. The writer also thinks that whoever can guaranty us peace, stability and growth should lead the nation. I believe in it. I can’t speak for every Nepali but after having witnessed Nepal’s democracy, I will say, we were better off in Panchayat days. And I still say, it was India who staged the 2046 andolan. Yes, I discredit it because there wasn’t a single big protest in other areas of Nepal except Kathmandu. Is Kathmandu only Nepal? Furthermore, no body knows the whatabouts of the people who died in the durbar julus except Shovit Man Shakya, all dead that day were not even NEPALI citizens!! (Please refer to the Mallik aayog Prativedan and read for yourself how many people i.e., Nepali citizens died in 2046, also read this excellent book called “Nepal bharat Sambandh.) You guys come and make big plans and make strong statements without any proof. If I come here and provide the reference materials, its “made-up” facts. Come on, you guys are no different than frustrated Marxists like Khagendra Shangraula who believes in “ruthless criticism of all that exists”
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 09-Nov-02 01:11 PM
Isolated Freak said: "The problem with you educated folks is that, that you guys can't think out of the box. Although, 5000000 miles away from Nepal, you guys think that nobody understands Nepal better, except you and your breed."
I argue that thinking outside the box is believing in democracy and its long-term liberating influence and not thinking that king has the solution to Nepal's problem. And I do not accept your characterization about no one else understanding Nepal better. Speaking for myself, I am in the USA because I was in remote villages working with poor people. The Nepal I have seen is not to the benefit ofanyone but some small section of the society. THAT HAS TO CHANGE!
Isolated Freak said: "You guys think of the short term. Has anyone come up with a "realistic" long-term policy? No."
Believing in democracy is a proof of thinking long-term. Af for the policy, I do not believe platform such as discussion would provide them. But if you follow the arguments carefully, you will find good proposals and pointers. And what will become clear is none of the proponents of democracy are supporting the present form of practices. Everyone I have read support new leadership to emerge and give new direction to politics in Nepal.
And thank you immensely for the suggested reading. It is always an excellent idea to read as much as possible. I would like to read all the critiques, but my life was changed by the rural Nepal. They taught me more than any book I have read so far, except maybe Jared Diamonds' "Guns. Germs and Steel". You can read an excerpt of this book here, if you so choose:
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring99/gunsex.htm
About leadership emerging out of vacuum--Leadership that is hereditary is not the most effective form of leadership. Ascriptive system is inefficient and anachronistic. I believe more democracy and starting at the grassroot level is the best way to ensure better leaders. Such leaders will have the "pain" of the rural nepal in their hearts complimented by the perspective of the modern world. They will be able to situate Nepal in the right international hierarchy and then adopt the best policies to take advantage of Nepal's strengths.
About your characterization of democracy as reserved and unreserved, let me just say this. Democracy with reservation is not democracy at all. There is another term for it--Illeberal democracy, which lacks an essential component of civil liberties. Without civil liberties, expecting democracy to work will be like trying to run with your legs all chained. The past 12 years did not work becuase of "distorted" nature of our democracy. Distorted because there was no institutional checks to curn the selfish appetites of political leaders. All political leaders and the King needs to be checked agaisnt arbitrary use of power. That is the bottom line...
to you....
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 10-Nov-02 01:14 PM
I believe more democracy and starting at the grassroot level is the best way to ensure better leaders. Such leaders will have the "pain" of the rural nepal in their hearts complimented by the perspective of the modern world. They will be able to situate Nepal in the right international hierarchy and then adopt the best policies to take advantage of Nepal's strengths.
YES YES, very true.. but how are you going to achieve that?. It's not that Nepal does not have a true nationalist leaders, but do you think the leaders that we have at the moment or the ones that are gonna follow will ever let that happen?
|
| lonely |
Posted
on 10-Nov-02 02:22 PM
Kreep.
Even the leaders from grassroot after they are in power forget their poor neighbours and concerntrate in gerenating good wealth for themselves. I have experienced these things personally, and known those politicians who did not have anything to eat and we used to help them in many ways possible. After the democrary, these very people refuse to recognise their neighbours and those who supported them in difficult times, I don't know why.???
But have generated a huge amount of wealth..and managed to build multi story buildings in kathmandu, just by being a minister for a short term....short cut to be wealthy?
Is that what you are refering to, or I have misunderstood. Please enlighten me in this matter..
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 12:18 PM
Yes, the future seems really bleak, and even "creepy". But it is better to start somewhere than give up thinking it can't be done, the hurdles are too great. I believe it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. We need change, we need to fight. "Adhikaar magera paindaina". That is the truth. We need a band of people who believe in some cause and they need to forgo their personal ambiltions in order to serve the community. Maybe that is not possible? I would like to believe there are many who would like to make a difference. Remember Bhupi Sherchan:
"Hundaina bihana mirmiramaa tara jharera nagaye,
bandaina desk dui chaar, saput marera nagaye."
We need some believers whose enthusiasm can rub off and keep spreading until majority of Nepalese will believe that THEY individually can make a difference. I believe, do you?
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 12:32 PM
Karaunda karaunda karaunda, mero ta ghanti sukera chup baseko...it seemed like the argument was running in circles, hence the silence.
However, I am with you, SIWALIK, forever! I wish we had more of your blood running in the veins of more Nepalis.
Always for freer Nepal!
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 08:25 PM
Democracy bhaneko in the long run it's inevitable. Tara yo discussion ma ta I thought we were talking about today ani if the intervetion of the king was right or not!! If the king should have let these corrupted leaders to go on and on.
Mero personal view.. what's wrong if he slaps couple of leaders and make them realize that they can't do whatever they want to. Ani pachi give it back to them. Maybe from next time they will be more cautious.
I am not in favor of getting rid of the king. There are these radical groups like limbuans, khumbuans, tamu, tharus to name the few who want seperate states (not just a republic nepal). Believe me, with no king, there will be lots who will join this forces. Lots of Nepalese still believe in the king!!
Like Biswo said, king seems to be the lesser devil of the lot. Let's see how he runs the show. What he does today might give us a better democracy tomorrow.. I aint against democracy.. but for REAL DEMOCRACY not. the one we have today. I think I am more optimist than most.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 08:43 PM
The King decided to teach few of his competitors, and beleivers of different ideology than himself, a lesson by punishing them. But, he brings back another incompetent
and palace right winger, who is both corrupt as well as subservient to palace protocols to power. That's the ironic bit of it all.
Is he doing so to get rid of mortal enemies? Possibly.
Will he continue to rule the way he has usurped power? Possibly.
Is that addressing the current need of the country? No.
The army has always moved at the behest of the King. That is what is giving him the
illusion of] power. In Britain, the army is not dictated by the palace, and the army operates unders the guidance of the Prime Minister. In Nepal, even during the last 12 years of democractic rule, the Army followed or relied on orders of the palace.
Although, we're at a very vulnerable situation in the country, what can be said, is that the the King should allow for a stable situation to be established, and democratic norms to be strengthened.
The leaders of the past 12 years haven't delivered. But, we can't say, we want to revert
to a system that failed for 30 years. We should strive for democracy (and not autocracy or plutocracy), and that will be beneficial for the the majority in the long run.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 11-Nov-02 08:47 PM
Should have read:
That is what is giving him the [illusion of] power.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 09:58 AM
Let's see, the royal family was allocated millions of dollars every year from the state coffers. If we assume it to be a constant through their reign, what do they have to show for it? Political voices were crushed and vox populi was suppressed. Nepal still ranks among the poorest country in the world. Percapita income incme still remains below poverty level. Did we get what we deserve? And some people want to continue this "facade?" Maybe this is the case of getting what we deserve?
|
| kreep |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 10:19 AM
PAISA!!!! PAISA!!!PAISA!!
|
| wy |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 10:27 AM
I am not a monarchist. But, Siwalik, somewhere I read that you were not a big fan of drastic change that does not take into account our own history, values, and social norms. I would also add the ground reality.
Monarchy, whether or not we like it, is still part of our cultural heritage, and is well backed up by the Army. Even Baburam and Co. has acknowledged this reality and has shown some interest in negotiating with the King.
We can go on and on about all the beautiful things a system like US can do for us. But it is not just going to happen. We cannot foget the fact that in the South we have India lurking to do whatever it takes to have a peaceful country in the North.
Plus the fact that the political parties and their leaders have utterly failed even to live up to some basic expectations leaves me to believe that a middle ground must be struck where the Monarch acts like the Spanish King and all the political bastards shape up and work hard for the country and the people. Put some strait jacket to tame these bastards. It should also include measures to restrict the King himself.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 11:56 AM
Yes, I do believe in "path dependence", but I would not disvafor complete social revolution, if that is what it takes to sweep away all the "dirt". I agree with your "middle way" solution. As for the argument for systemic solution as you put "beautiful things a system like US can do for us", I would say the ultimate solution is individuals themselves, but with systemic constraint to expose and punish corruption. I believe even if the best of systems were in place, Nepalese would make a "mockery" out of it. Ultimate responsibility for any system to work resides on the human agents. But we need some "good" men with courage and vision to step up to sweep away the corrupt bunch. My only reservation is regarding how much support will they have from the people. What do you think?
|
| jeevan gurung |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 01:55 PM
Isolated Freak:
I agree with you on most of the point. To begin with, I dont know whether we deserve democracy if we cannot practise it. The fact that people chose those netas who brought the whole nation into such misery means we the people are also responsible for the state of the nation. Funny thing is, they are still pretending as if they represent the majority and people are not doing anything even though netas looted everyone.
So my friend, we do nothing when they steal things from our home and keep bullshitting. Actually, this is the state and this is also a big problem. Now do we deserve democracy.
|
| smr |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 05:35 PM
Siwalik,
People in Nepal are hungry for new ideas and the new leadership. But, generally people tend to be silent bystanders. The vocal ones do tend to shape the agenda.
The current situation in Nepal is very exiciting in the sense that, if done right, a set of old paradigm can be changed and a new set can be put in place. Some unselfish intelligent leaders with a big picture can reshape the Nepali history for ever. People will watch them carefully and support them. The fact that not many people are coming on the street to support the current leadership (that does not mean they support the absolute monarchy) gives me hope that the people do not want old ways. This is the time for a big sensible middle of the road push. I believe that the politics in Nepal has already changed for the better. It is all because of the same people that we have been observing sitting on the sidelines. The question is, can we capitalize this opportunity to change the history in a significant way? Is there anyone with an ounce of brains to see this opportunity?
|
| protean |
Posted
on 12-Nov-02 06:48 PM
SMR,
I think the opportunity is ripe and people do see it. But, the return comes wih high risks. I think, currently, the reason people are sitting on the sidelines is a result of the risk, which jumping in entails.
The reason King G. stepped in, is because he saw a huge benefit, and minimal risk associated with it as he knew he had the backing of the army when the country was in a very vulnerable state, and the elected officials were confounded about the way of addressing the issues at hand .
But, I agree that the time has come for reforms, and we do seriosly need some highly intelligent, strategic, and honest groups of people to step up to this challenge at hand. As soon as the conditions stabilize again, I think, new democratic groups will and should come out, and we should support such initiatives. Without such moves, Mr. G. will still keep clingiing on to the power that he currently has.
|
