| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Biswo | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:27 AM
Listening Girija Koirala's speech is not particularly arousing even if you discount the excesses during his tenure, but Mr Koirala is a man strongly liked by his followers and equally detested by his detractors. Yet, Mr Koirala remains the most formidable force in the nation now. Never had he been this much strong, almost peerlessly, in my opinion. He was a vulnerable guy even when he was the most powerful person in the nation. People could simple vote him out of his office. Now, increasingly it seems likely that he will be polarising the entire democratic movement. Part of his charisma is due to his long history, his struggle against totalitarian(Rana) and authoritarian(Panchayat) regimes, and especially at present people's collective understanding that our nation is in fact being run by the same mindset of people who ruled us before 2007. Hereditary claim to power is still prevalent in KTM, poors are still out of the loop, good education is still available to powerful and rich few, and plum posts are still reserved for blueblooded ones.KTM despite its filthy roads, and spooky air, remains the domicile of powerful ones, producing plethora of useless faceless wirepullers who try to set the agenda of the nation so as their interest is not jeopardized.In this context, the mantra of decentralization, chaired by no other than king Mahendra in Panchayat era, and its failure is easy to understand: No one ever wanted to give anything back to the districts: not wealth, not power. Kathmandu, like Devendra Raj Pande once wrote in his book (Nepal's failed developement?), is dirty, without good parks, yet remains the most attractive place to live in Nepal ,perhaps for this intriguing reason. Sticking to the point, Girija Koirala was collectively hated by the elites of KTM. Divided they are in thousands of other issues, but not in this one. People scoffed at him when he roared in front of the thousands about the intention of the king, but he remains one of the few people who still truly have some followers in our divided nation where people care about only themselves. He ruled in KTM in the past not because his father was in that position before, or not because his incumbent brother was killed , or not because somone picked him up, but because he was elected by thousands of people. King Gyanendra remains the most divisive factor in the nation.His actions dumbfound us, the way an english essay written by a second grade Nepali student confuses people. First, he doesn't know what the hell he is doing. Second, he has no idea where he is taking the nation to. Third, he is not willing to admit that. Years ago, we saw he was unable to control his son, now we are seeing he is unable to control his ministers. He is a helpless guy, sort of like the Vito Corleoni in his dying day, full of hubris but lacking ability to control anyone. In his arrogance and thoughtlessness, he resembles more and more like those forest-dwelling leftist leaders.It surprises me how the king, whose wife buys sari of more than Rs 1 crore from a sari palace of Hongkong, can lead the poor nation by example. Not today, not tomorrow, but one day in future, we will definitely see this monarch succumbing to the pressure of people. It remains to see when he is gonna do that, or whether he will do that after causing enough damange to himself and the nation or before doing that.I hope he will surrender soon, at least before UML goes to street because their protest can be very very violent even if slightly provoked(if someone dies in those 'peaceful' protest, a significant part of the nation may go to the jungle agaist the king). |
| HahooGuru | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 04:17 AM
Biswo ji, jach sach sab sakera ,k ho ni yasto grand lekh lekhidine hum.... After long time we got refreshment in Sajhapur. Girija "might" be doing honestly, but, he has to pass litmus tests. He better apologize for the past and then, move ahead. His mistakes in the past are not excusable as long as he does not confess them in public, that it was all part of his mistakes "mostly". This whole dilemma arised because of his chauvanistic acitivities in NC, that needs to written well in Nepal history. It is yet to see real intentions of his moves. He says one thing , and his party accuses press for wrong reporting. He should be more careful before his party spokesman "former Pancha" accuses Press. aru Pachhi!?! HG |
| Jayahos | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 06:41 AM
Biswo ji, Well-articulated thoughts there enough to whet one's appetite (particularly in the period when many STARS are in self-imposed hibernation from Sajha!). Allow me to meander! Girija: Performs well while in opposition. Is good orator from opposition bench and many still remember his speeches when Devendra Raj Pandey and he were mobilizing people for the cause of human rights during the last days of Panchayat. But while in office, he feels so insecure that he prefers Govinda R. Joshi than RC Poudel and instead of Devendra Raj Pandey (He did not let continue Pandey as finance minister) he goes for relatively new face like Mahesh Acharya (And when he gains some popularity, Girija is well prepared to cut his size too!). Even Girija shares same views as Narahari, he never feels secure with him and promotes Arjun NKC instead. BECAUSE GIRIJA IS MANDA-BUDDHI. As GURU jyu said, GIRIJA must go through acid test and when is the best time to do that than in the time of crisis! Kathmandu and Decentralization: I wonder how many top bureaucrats, how many SANSADS representing Kathmandu valley and how many Ministers are originally from Kathmandu!? Palace and political parties are equally afraid of any power center emerging from Kathmandu. From the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah, palace has intentionally played against any power center emerging from Kathmandu valley. So, I think, failure of decentralization has more to do with poor vision in planning and implementation, self-centered interest of parties (NC castrated the decentralization bill because at that time left parties had an upper hand in the local bodies) and immediate reason pertinent at that particular time rather than an orchestrated foul play by any quarter. Gyanendra: FOOTBALL (HAT LE BOKERA KUDNE KHALKO HOINA) BHA BHE, he deserves a RED-CARD. UML: To their chagrin, someone stepped in the cake when they were all prepared for CHEERS. |
| Deep | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 10:37 AM
Girija may be a leader, allright, but is an unpredictible one. He has no vision. As Jay hos says Girija is insecure. Regardless in or out of power. UML leaders are no less opportunists than girija and the gang. Why doesn't Makune go to rolpa and talk to the people there and let us know how they are doing ? why does not he speak for them? he is busy ringing a 60kg. bell in the capital but can't go even to his place and live there doing somthing good to his people. He has to stay in the capital. he does not want to miss an opportunity. jharla ra khamla bhanera basira chhan. Dakaharu are busy in kothe rajniti (kotha ma basera lok geet lekhya jasto). makune, girija and other so called national level leaders see nothing but singhdurbar and ghati sukne gari they call themselves as the representatives of the people. What kind of people do they represent? enjoying pajero, who were they representing? It's the unfortunate of nepal that we are lacking leadership in all quarters- sadan, sadak, jungle, and also in the narayanhiti. Yeah, let's snatch the power from king G then what? whom do we hand over the power? To the people is a good answer but not practicle. Power is not an ice cream. You just can't call anyone from the street and hand over. whom do we trust? |
| Shiva Shiva!! | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 10:44 AM
I agree with guru. When he is in 'Singha Durbar' GK doesn't see anything. When he is in Street, he sees 'Grand Design'. He is the most reponsible person behind all this. |
| Shiva Shiva!! | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 10:46 AM
>reponsible=responsible. |
| rajaks | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 11:18 AM
it's fun to read this discussion. thank you everyone.first of all all the political leaders wether they are cpn uml or congress they are all cock suckers.i am soory to say this but they are.when they were in power they didn't have time to built country, all they did was corruption ,jobs were all taken by their family members.now when they couldnot come in power they are saying they will do this and that .where was aLL those fellings about democracy when they were in power for 12 long years.these m@#@@er f@@##rs all crooks i don't know who to trust and who not to.my dad is a driver in nepal electricity authority for twenty years and he still is,although he has skills and experience he never got any promotion because he never beleived in any party, people who belongs to cong and comm party they get promotion whenever thier party came in power.this is just a small example.presently i am in u.s but i still remember those days when my dad had a hard time to pay my school fees.just because of all these m@#$%r f@#%er crooks . |
| wy | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 11:21 AM
KG did go out of the constitutional boundary, and there is no excuse for it. It must be fixed and it will be fixed. But, he dared to do so because of the moral breakdown of people like Girija and Deuba who ran the country like their personal frat house. Girija has always been powerful and will continue to be so for however long he lives. But, he needs to set aside his personal ego, get off the high horse, promote his competent subordinates non-Koirals if he has to, and stick to a few far reaching ideals --putting Nepal first. I would not be surprised to learn of his own involvement in conspiracy to fire Deuba. Remember, he defeated Sailja and KPB. He is shrewed, and that's why he is very dangerous to his enemy and an asset to his friends. He needs to sacrifice to gain the trust of the people. People who marched on the street in 1990 on a slightest of provocation are not paying much attentiona, and are not buying into his rhetoric; much of his rhetoric is quite legit, if I might add. But over time it may all change; you will never know . |
| batauli | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 12:16 PM
Shree Vidwan_varga, Keeping the GPK et al corruption episodes aside, would it have formed a different debate had someone other than GBBS done what he did... I am on the same page with wy in that someone had to step in, and GBBS did it. I guess I am in appreciation of the lesser evil.... batauli |
| Deep | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 12:23 PM
Wy, I agree king G went out of the way. "...But, he dared to do so because of the moral breakdown of people like Girija and Deuba who ran the country like their personal frat house....." Not just deuba and girija but also other leaders such as makune, thapa...and others. "But, he needs to set aside his personal ego, get off the high horse, promote his competent subordinates non-Koirals if he has to, and stick to a few far reaching ideals --putting Nepal first. " Yes, he needs to put Nepal first if he wants to be powerful and be remembered with resepct. "Remember, he defeated Sailja and KPB. He is shrewed, and that's why he is very dangerous to his enemy and an asset to his friends. " With a person like this (girija) how do you who is his friend and who is not? how can people be secure around him and how can he be secured around other people. He is an opportunist. He only sees opportunity. Give him singhdurbar and let him recruit his hawaldars for his cabinet, he will be seen doing swasti to king G in no time. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 12:27 PM
Hi Guruji and others, I am not here to defend Girija. In fact, if he is nailed by CIAA, that's fine with me. And I don't understand why people repeatedly assume that he is the one who is gonna win the election if the election is held today? It is not that Girija's right is at stake. It is ours, friends. The king is taking us to the brink of turmoil and despair.The king can't bring any solution because he himself is increasingly becoming a problem. His ministers are problems. And if people want to be ruled by Madhav Nepal, who are we to say no to their verdict? Why we repeatedly want to underestimate people's power to distinguish between the crooks and leaders? Do we want these clowns who are now in power to rule the nation? How come a riffraff gang of communalist bigots, deranged politicos and liars be better than the elected representatives? Or did we lose our sense of judgement? I would prefer Girija to the person who rules us because of his martial might. I prefer Girija to those who rule us without getting any mandate. But more than that, at present, our nation is lurching towards uncertainty. We can not tolerate more chaos. We need to converge towards the solution. And that is of national reconciliation. Ruling Nepal without consent from major political parties is not exactly a way to attain national reconciliation. Anyone who thinks it is his job to punish political parties for their mistakes is a megalomaniac.Only people can punish parties. That is the rule of the game. UML and NC is not only Girija or Madhav Nepal. They have thousands of honest cadres in the local level. I just read about Kishore Dhungana of Chitwan, a loyal NC supporter and prospective candidate for parliament, who was running a school for Praja kids with his own money.(His land is with bank now as a deposit). There are a lot of people like him, if we go to the districts and look around, whose integrity is unassailable. By equating Girija and democracy, or Makune and democracy,some of us here are making a grave mistake of underestimating people, and their right.People are the democracy.And they haven't erred yet. --- About KTM based power. Yes, some people in civil service come from outside. Some leaders came from outside. But it is increasingly obvious to us that the powerful one remained insiders. The one who are the head of military, the one who belong to the ruling dynasty, the one whose elasticity to rebound to the top of powers is amazing: they are all the ones favoured by Shah rulers and their Rana cousins, and they are all from KTM. |
| Deep | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 12:43 PM
"And if people want to be ruled by Madhav Nepal, who are we to say no to their verdict? Why we repeatedly want to underestimate people's power to distinguish between the crooks and leaders? " We are the people, Biswo ji. People don't chose their PM. It's the parliament that does the kharid bikri. Why should I accept Madhav Nepal as my PM? just because some people in Rautahat elected him for whatever reason? a lot of people come in from neighboring indian states to vote for some of "our?" leaders? why should I accept them as my rulers? Why should I accept corrupt and morally bankrupt people as my leaders? just because they got elected from somewhere doing whatever? No! I don't support them. They are not my leaders. I will follow only those who honestly try to lead the nation. I will not support all those dakaharu just because I don't like king G. I will reserve my support for those who put Nepal first. I will support them whether they belong to uml, nc, sadvabana, rpp...whaterver. |
| dirk | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 01:24 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with Deep...we need a leader who needs to put Nepal first..its sovereignty and welfare of its people. Biswo, most of the people in power in the last 12 years or so, were not Rana-Shah or the top army brass. They were Girija and alike's sychophants and close relatives. Don't try to blame all the ills of the previous government to the present government. You say you prefer Girija.....so what they got the mandate....did the people vote for them to line their pockets and rob them blind at daylight. Girija and his cronies were living large and driving around in their Pajeros when a simple hardworking laborer was having a hard time trying to get two square meals a day due to hyper-inflation. Why do you think the Maoist problem came to be? Because these peole didn't show any concern for the plight of the common man. You seem to be a pragmatic person yet you can't see Nepal that is not a Kangressi rajya. |
| Vision | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 01:27 PM
Agree with Deep. We must support those who put Nepal first. Biswo ji, I feel your rhetoric is only pretentious. And it is really unnecessary for you to get personal with King G. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 01:54 PM
To everyone else: Critize silly posts. To be perfectly frank and honest, what Biswo wrote is not well-articulated nor has nay thing except criticsm, pessimism and compares the King as a second grader! Now to answer of the issues he raised: 1. Girija a formiddable personality: c'mon, give me a break. Just because he talks abot some "grand design" does not make him a hero. What ahs he done for Nepal? anything constructive/productive? he is sreaming his throat off about democracy, grand design and this and that, but for what? have you tried to understand his grand-design? The CIAA is now investigating Girija's abuse of authority. His daughter was called twice for interogation. Chances of Girija and his daughter getting arrested for the abuse of authority cannot be ruled out. anything can happen. Girija understand this, so his way of saving himnself from the dsigrace of "corruption" charges: get arrested for speaking against the constitutional monarch. That's what he has been trying to do. Nobody, in Nepal now gives any importance to Girija's tato-bhutlo bhasan. Biswo further wrote: King Gyanendra remains the most divisive factor in the nation.His actions dumbfound us, the way an english essay written by a second grade Nepali student confuses people. First, he doesn't know what the hell he is doing. Second, he has no idea where he is taking the nation to. Third, he is not willing to admit that. Years ago, we saw he was unable to control his son, now we are seeing he is unable to control his ministers. He is a helpless guy, sort of like the Vito Corleoni in his dying day, full of hubris but lacking ability to control anyone. In his arrogance and thoughtlessness, he resembles more and more like those forest-dwelling leftist leaders.It surprises me how the king, whose wife buys sari of more than Rs 1 crore from a sari palace of Hongkong, can lead the poor nation by example. Yes, the KIng remains a decisive factor in Nepali politics, and this has been for the last 1500 years. His action did not dumbfound me (you talk about us.. who us? you and your friends?). The reccomendation to postpone the polls by 14 months was unconstitutional, and if the KIng had agreeed to that, then the constitution of Nepal would have been voil and null the very moment. He chose to do otherwise and tried to find the coinstitutional solution to that. No, he is not a second grade writing in English. He knows what he is doing and he is a brilliant strategist. If I were to believe Biswo, which I don't, then the King is the most unpopular person in Nepal. No, he is the most popular leader now. H eknows what he is doing and he knows how to do it. So, comparing the King to a second grader makes you a first grader trying to learn how to write (no, not even in english). Biswo, in real life situations, democratci ideals and this and that don't work. You ahve to be a strong, powerful and (un)popular like Machiavelli's Prince to run the nation. Popularity don't come overnight. It takes time. And what the hell are you criticizing about? This govt. has just coimpleted its 50 days. Don't be so judgemental. Let's see whether it can deliver in 5 moinths. Then we can judge this govt. very unpolite and politically incorrect, but bthat's what freak is all about. i hope you won't take it as a personal attack. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:05 PM
"Do we want these clowns who are now in power to rule the nation? How come a riffraff gang of communalist bigots, deranged politicos and liars be better than the elected representatives? Or did we lose our sense of judgement? " Who knows these people yoiu are referring to as clowns deliver than your heroes? "The king can't bring any solution because he himself is increasingly becoming a problem. His ministers are problems. " What does this mean? Just because he assumed the responsibility to run the state does not make him a problem. " would prefer Girija to the person who rules us because of his martial might. I prefer Girija to those who rule us without getting any mandate. But more than that, at present, our nation is lurching towards uncertainty" Biswo, you make strong statements without any proof. The Maoists have now agreed to hold talks. Biswo, in the course of workd history, natioonalists forces have always come together despite their differences. On the one hand we have the extreme right (the institution of monarchy) and on the other hand, we have the maoists (ulta leftists).. and what's the binding factor? they both are nationalists. And nationalits forces always come together albiet their ideological differences. When these two forces allugn, then all these no-ideology, no-nationalism parties of Girija and madhav nepal will vanish forever. we gave them chances (many many chances) to prove themselves and they failed miserabley. Biswo, statecraft is not a college test that you can take again and again. " |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:08 PM
sorry abouit the grammar, typois and spell errors. |
| Kumar Prasad Upadhyay | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:08 PM
I agree that Girija Prasad Koirala was an inspiring leader. Mark the work "was" because to me he no longer is inspiring. He lost the glow a long time ago.. [In the kind of debate like this one, I am concerned that we tend to take very theoretical postions on issues, without taking the ground realities into consideration, and end up reaching theoretically correct and generally palatable but absolutely idealistic and unworkable conclusions. I think that is happening also because Biswo-ji and some others in Sajhapur tend to make this an argument of democracy v absolute monarchy. It is not as clear cut, and everyone knows that. The focus of the debate should be: based on the record of the political parties--and the King--who is likely to restore order in present day Nepal. Forget democracy for the time being. It comes after order, and you and I can exercise our rights only if there is a semblance of peace.] In the early 1990s, when GPK became the Prime Minister for the first time, people did believe for a while that a stable Nepali Congress government, led by a leader who had spent over 40 years in oppositional politics, would bring about tangible changes in the country by institutionalizing democracy, initiating major development programs and launching social development activities. How foolish and unsuspecting we all were. Biswo-ji may find King G to be the most divisive force in Nepali polity today. For someone who has only been at the helm of affairs for little over a year, it could in fact be a compliment!! But to forget the divisive impact of GP and the series of internecine wars within and between the political parties that his personality caused could only be construed as a lack of desire to understand the 1990s politics in Nepal. Elected prime minister with a comfortable majority in the House, GP's first tenure as Prime Minister was marked by a virtual break-up of the Nepali Congress and an excessive polarization of political forces. His was a tenure which truly fits the charecterization of a lost opportunity. As someone who ruled Nepal for roughly 50% of the time during 1990-2002, what did Girija Prasad Koirala give to the country? His biggest contribution was a host of corrupt faces, who, openly and without any fear of law, plundered and looted from the treasury. His German-Nepali daughter who suddenly emerged in Nepal after he became the Prime Minister comes to the mind as someone who possibly deserves the first position on the list. Then we have the great maharathi haru like Khum Bahadur Khadka, Bijay Gachhedar, Jaya Prakash Gupta, Govind Raj Joshi and the like, all his hanuman haru until very recently (GRJ even now), who prospered under his political protection. His government always repeated that popular quote by BP about the need to remember a common Nepali every time a policy decision was taken at Singha Durbar. And yet, his government was on the whole bereft of any original socio-economic thinking--and was far from implementing what BP thought was right. The policy was merely to follow the prescriptions of the IMF and the World Bank. At the end of 12 fateful years of Nepal's experiment with multiparty politics, the leaders of all major political parties suddenly discovered three months ago that they had messed things up to such a extent that it would be impossible for them to even hold elections on time!! Then the King decides to move in, and take charge. And, people like Biswo-ji come up with the most theoretical of all arguments against the King's move. The political parties, including all the leaders of any height in Nepal, got over 6 years just to solve the Maoist problem and they did nothing. Absolutely nothing. I bet they would have done nothing even if the elections had been postponed as preferred by the political parties. During the same six years (1996-2002) the "people's war" grew in geometric proportions, with the political institution in the Centre and at the district headquarters losing effective control of much of Nepal's hinterlands. Now the question is, how long should the King have waited? Until how many people were killed? Until how many battalions of the Maoist army were errected? Would it have been justified if Comrade Badal's army was about to march into Kathmandu from all directions? Or, would that still have been a case of a power-hungry King trying the suppress the people?? As I said above, the debate about current day Nepali polity is not a debate between democracy and absolute monarchy. It is a debate between the effectiveness of one political institution or the other when it comes to fighting the Maoists. And, considering that the political parties were the ones responsbile for messing things up in the first place, what is there to lose if the King's active role can have some positive role to play? Lets give him some time. KPU. |
| Kumar Prasad Upadhyay | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:10 PM
I agree that Girija Prasad Koirala was an inspiring leader. Mark the work "was" because to me he no longer is inspiring. He lost the glow a long time ago.. [In the kind of debate like this one, I am concerned that we tend to take very theoretical postions on issues, without taking the ground realities into consideration, and end up reaching theoretically correct and generally palatable but absolutely idealistic and unworkable conclusions. I think that is happening also because Biswo-ji and some others in Sajhapur tend to make this an argument of democracy v absolute monarchy. It is not as clear cut, and everyone knows that. The focus of the debate should be: based on the record of the political parties--and the King--who is likely to restore order in present day Nepal. Forget democracy for the time being. It comes after order, and you and I can exercise our rights only if there is a semblance of peace.] In the early 1990s, when GPK became the Prime Minister for the first time, people did believe for a while that a stable Nepali Congress government, led by a leader who had spent over 40 years in oppositional politics, would bring about tangible changes in the country by institutionalizing democracy, initiating major development programs and launching social development activities. How foolish and unsuspecting we all were. Biswo-ji may find King G to be the most divisive force in Nepali polity today. For someone who has only been at the helm of affairs for little over a year, it could in fact be a compliment!! But to forget the divisive impact of GP and the series of internecine wars within and between the political parties that his personality caused could only be construed as a lack of desire to understand the 1990s politics in Nepal. Elected prime minister with a comfortable majority in the House, GP's first tenure as Prime Minister was marked by a virtual break-up of the Nepali Congress and an excessive polarization of political forces. His was a tenure which truly fits the charecterization of a lost opportunity. As someone who ruled Nepal for roughly 50% of the time during 1990-2002, what did Girija Prasad Koirala give to the country? His biggest contribution was a host of corrupt faces, who, openly and without any fear of law, plundered and looted from the treasury. His German-Nepali daughter who suddenly emerged in Nepal after he became the Prime Minister comes to the mind as someone who possibly deserves the first position on the list. Then we have the great maharathi haru like Khum Bahadur Khadka, Bijay Gachhedar, Jaya Prakash Gupta, Govind Raj Joshi and the like, all his hanuman haru until very recently (GRJ even now), who prospered under his political protection. His government always repeated that popular quote by BP about the need to remember a common Nepali every time a policy decision was taken at Singha Durbar. And yet, his government was on the whole bereft of any original socio-economic thinking--and was far from implementing what BP thought was right. The policy was merely to follow the prescriptions of the IMF and the World Bank. At the end of 12 fateful years of Nepal's experiment with multiparty politics, the leaders of all major political parties suddenly discovered three months ago that they had messed things up to such a extent that it would be impossible for them to even hold elections on time!! Then the King decides to move in, and take charge. And, people like Biswo-ji come up with the most theoretical of all arguments against the King's move. The political parties, including all the leaders of any height in Nepal, got over 6 years just to solve the Maoist problem and they did nothing. Absolutely nothing. I bet they would have done nothing even if the elections had been postponed as preferred by the political parties. During the same six years (1996-2002) the "people's war" grew in geometric proportions, with the political institution in the Centre and at the district headquarters losing effective control of much of Nepal's hinterlands. Now the question is, how long should the King have waited? Until how many people were killed? Until how many battalions of the Maoist army were errected? Would it have been justified if Comrade Badal's army was about to march into Kathmandu from all directions? Or, would that still have been a case of a power-hungry King trying the suppress the people?? As I said above, the debate about current day Nepali polity is not a debate between democracy and absolute monarchy. It is a debate between the effectiveness of one political institution or the other when it comes to fighting the Maoists. And, considering that the political parties were the ones responsbile for messing things up in the first place, what is there to lose if the King's active role can have some positive role to play? Lets give him some time. KPU. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:14 PM
just a quick question to everyone: how much time does it take democracy to flourish? a long time? OK. but what about stability and growth? who cares about democracy when you don't have enough to eat? do you? honestly? do you want democracy to nourish and flourish when a bomb goes off just 200 meters from your house? do you still want the democracy when the eocnomy is going downhill? do you stilll want political instability which barrs the foreign investments in nepal? do you want to see more and more people getting laiud off because the economy is not doing well, just for the sake of democracy and free speech? |
| Takura | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:16 PM
Biswo ji, If you think that Girija-the one and only 'ugly ass giddey-hawaldaar'- is one of the best leader of Nepal then I got nothing to say. That sick bastard has done enough damage to our country in 10 yrs. than 'panchayat' did in 30 freaking years. That hawaldaar-mentality holder Girija should be executed with electric chair. Just tell me one significant step that Girija had taken during his tenure. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:17 PM
Kuamr wrote: I agree that Girija Prasad Koirala was an inspiring leader. Mark the work "was" because to me he no longer is inspiring. He lost the glow a long time ago.. [In the kind of debate like this one, I am concerned that we tend to take very theoretical postions on issues, without taking the ground realities into consideration, and end up reaching theoretically correct and generally palatable but absolutely idealistic and unworkable conclusions. I think that is happening also because Biswo-ji and some others in Sajhapur tend to make this an argument of democracy v absolute monarchy. It is not as clear cut, and everyone knows that. The focus of the debate should be: based on the record of the political parties--and the King--who is likely to restore order in present day Nepal. Forget democracy for the time being. It comes after order, and you and I can exercise our rights only if there is a semblance of peace.] EXCELLENTO! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:18 PM
Herdaichhu, herdaichhu...hamra "RAJA" le ni ke garla herdaichhu...ahile samma not that impressed, let's see if he does anything concrete in the future...patience is running out, though :) |
| Biswo | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:33 PM
>who cares about democracy when you don't have enough to eat? Yes, Mr Freak, I do. This is rhetoric. In 1979, the world bank in its famous report said, "Virtually everybody in Nepal is poor. Except for some businessmen, professional and leaders" And that is , Mr Freak, twenty years after the king Mahendra so arrogantly assumed power from the democratic forces. Now, tell me how much does it take for the king to deliver? >do you want to see more and more people getting laiud off > because the economy is not doing well, just for the sake of >democracy and free speech? This is another of your nonsenses, Mr Freak. Democracy is not to be blamed for laid off anywhere in the world, except in your freakish corner I assume. Laid off is due to mismanagement. Where are not lay offs? And for your reference, please refer to Himal magazine's last Dashain issue, in which after travelling around the nation, the magazine concluded, "people are in a lot better shape now than before 2046 ". >do you still want the democracy when the eocnomy is going downhill? Yes, I do Mr Freak. Because only in Nepal, and only freaks like you say 'well, this company is going downhill, so let's take the people's voting right away.' And for your info, I didn't say King G is the most 'decisive' factor, I said King G remains the most 'divisive' factor. -- Like I said again, and again, there is no way I am supporting Girija. I am supporting people's right to exercise their authority.I am supporting the movement against King G and his gang of liar and rejected bunches.I believe that King G's bad moves are taking the nation towards the uncertainty and more chaos. Of course, people like IF pin their hope on Maoists and their baartaa committee. What a great moment, when extreme leftists come to rescue the extreme rightists to undermine the essence of democracy. -- Deepji, People of Rautahat voted for Madhav Nepal. and we select Prime Minister like that. It is clear in our constitution. TO become a PM, a man need to be elected in his constituency and then among the winner ones. Two layered process, in deed. -- Let's not forget, Maoists started their preparation long ago. In fact, it started when the nation was enjoying the economic growth rate of more than 5 percentage. To blame our democratic governments for the origination of Maoist problem is pretension. -- |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:50 PM
Biswo wrote: Yes, Mr Freak, I do. This is rhetoric. In 1979, the world bank in its famous report said, "Virtually everybody in Nepal is poor. Except for some businessmen, professional and leaders" And that is , Mr Freak, twenty years after the king Mahendra so arrogantly assumed power from the democratic forces. Now, tell me how much does it take for the king to deliver? Great. Great to know that you care abouyt democracy even when you ahve nothing to eat. I really don't care about democracy when i have no food to eat. His Late Majesty Mahendra did not arrogantly assumed power from the democratic forces. 2017 had to come (since we are expressing our PERSONAL opinions here, i have no hesitation whatsoever in posting my opinion. its even better i don't need any supporting/verifying documents). Biswo, get yoiur facts straight. from 2017-2028, nepal was in a lot bettter shape. there were bureaucratic reforms and King Mahendra brought forth many other reforms. Biswo further wrote: This is another of your nonsenses, Mr Freak. Democracy is not to be blamed for laid off anywhere in the world, except in your freakish corner I assume. Laid off is due to mismanagement. Where are not lay offs? And for your reference, please refer to Himal magazine's last Dashain issue, in which after travelling around the nation, the magazine concluded, "people are in a lot better shape now than before 2046 ". Yes, my nonsense, let it be. But, I blame democracy which only brought instability, uncertainity and anarchy in nepal for the detrorating economy of Nepal. The issue you are referring has a covver story "thulo fadko" or something like this, but again, being a freak, i don't see any argument in kanak's outright silly articles. yeah, another of my nonsense. Biswo: Yes, I do Mr Freak. Because only in Nepal, and only freaks like you say 'well, this company is going downhill, so let's take the people's voting right away.' Economy and politiocs are intertwined Mr -oh-so-intelligent jyu. Polirtical stabilty=economic growth=increased employment and vice versa. Look at China's example. Biswo wrote: And for your info, I didn't say King G is the most 'decisive' factor, I said King G remains the most 'divisive' factor. Yes, His Majesty remains the decisive factor and what i am saying is: The institution of Monarchy ahs remained a decisive factor in nepali politics from the time of the early Kirata rulers (or even before that). |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 02:53 PM
Biswo: Of course, people like IF pin their hope on Maoists and their baartaa committee. What a great moment, when extreme leftists come to rescue the extreme rightists to undermine the essence of democracy. This is a nonsensical statement on your part. as i wrote in my previous posts, the wto nationalists forces have to come together to end this insurgency and this will happen. Regarding your example of Himal: i remeber this funny incident: you were the one who was gaisnt the whole Himal media and you went even as far as to call Kunda atraitor! now, how can you ask me to refer to an artcile that "traitors" (your own words) publish? :-). paradigm shift, biswoji? |
| wy | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 03:29 PM
Biswo: KG may have made an unconstitutional move, but I am not about to follow Mr. G. Koirala either. Who knows, Koirala may have been involved in the ouster of Deuba. These are political games and everyone played them. KG did too. I know, I love democracy as much as you, but I am going to keep my option open. I am not ready to rush into accepting the same crooks who ruined Nepal for the last 12 years. If they want to rule me again, I want them to earn it. I am not going to make it too easy for them in the name of democracy. Let them squirm a little. I want Girija to run around begging for people's support. Trust me, democracy can be restored in no time. It is not 2017 or 2007. But I want some change in the political culture first. They have not done that for me. We need a set of fresh visionaries in Nepal who would put Nepal first. That is what I am looking for. You gotta do better than Mr. Koirala, Biswo. Newt and Gherpart pulled back from the leadership role in moral ground. I want Girija to do the same. Then I will get exicited. They cannot fool me again with the same Banarasi talk. Don;t get me wrong, I am not supporting KG either. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 04:07 PM
>Regarding your example of Himal: i remeber this funny >incident: you were the one who was gaisnt the whole >Himal media and you went even as far as to call Kunda >atraitor! now, how can you ask me to refer to an artcile >that "traitors" (your own words) publish? :-). paradigm > shift, biswoji? IFji, I was waiting for you to raise this issue, believe me, I know your desparation:-) I was never against 'whole Himal Media' nor did I say someone 'traitor' for publishing this report. I don't even ask you to produce evindences because you rarely do that:-). There is no paradigm shift in my part. I don't blame whole media for a person's particular act. Unlike you. Whose only blame against democracy is because it once had PM like Girija. If raising Kunda episode, in which he retracted his alleged statement, gives you an extra fun, that is fine with me.I don't expect you to stick to the point and have pointed and reasonable discussion. -- wyji, I agree with you that they erred, they must suffer for their crime and I wrote this in the last posting: "I am not here to defend Girija. In fact, if he is nailed by CIAA, that's fine with me. And I don't understand why people repeatedly assume that he is the one who is gonna win the election if the election is held today? " But I don't want people like Gyanendra to rule us in the pretext that democracy produced some miscreant leaders.I don't believe him either.I am damn sure that he is leading us to the uncertainty and chaos that he can very well avoid. |
| wy | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 04:54 PM
"I agree with you that they erred, they must suffer for their crime and I wrote this in the last posting: "I am not here to defend Girija. In fact, if he is nailed by CIAA, that's fine with me. And I don't understand why people repeatedly assume that he is the one who is gonna win the election if the election is held today? " But I don't want people like Gyanendra to rule us in the pretext that democracy produced some miscreant leaders.I don't believe him either.I am damn sure that he is leading us to the uncertainty and chaos that he can very well avoid. " You misunderstood me here. I am not talking about erring and commiting crime and punshing them for that. For that they have the CIAA. Nobody is blaming democracy here. Girija is not democracy, and democracy is not Girija. For me, I need to hear more than the same old rhetoric of crying wolf. I will not be fooled by their lecture on democracy. They have no moral authority, just like KG, to lecture me on democracy. I know and understand it better than those bastards. I need to hear from them some reforms that will make the electoral and public policy discourse more inclusive and less corrupt. Having Girija as a nightmarish fixture ain't gonna cut it for me. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 05:12 PM
Bravo! The great sajha forum is getting into some deep discussion without becoiming uncivil! Very interesting points, and I would just like to add my two cents, with all of your leave. of course. First, Bishowji's assertion that in a democracy only the people should punish the corrupt, and the way that happens through elections is a fine ideology to hold. But in practice, in the actual unfolding of politics, that never happens. The election is not the best system to choose between right and wrong, between a good man and a bad man, between a gentleman and a knave. Elections, as we can see from Western nations to the struggling countries of Africa and Asia, are easily manipulated by corporate money, corrupt money, or mafia money. They can also be manipulated by sheer terror...like calling in goons to capture ballot boxes, or beating the hell out of your opponet and his/her voters. I remember a case from the past election in Nepal when one of Girija's nephew, who is a medical doctor, was terrorising the voters at a polling both with a pistol!!! So if that was the way our corrupt leaders were being elected, reelected, rerelected on and on, is that how the people are supposed to punish them for their crimes? Clearly, the first function of a fair election, which is to select the best candidate, has failed miserably if the known thugs and goondas like the Koirala, Khadka,Gacchadar, Joshi and the lot keep getting elected every election. Don't get me wrong, it is not that the common people do not know how rotten these bastards are, but they are made powerless by the corrupt party machine and the mob rule that passes for an election in Nepal. So to say that the there is no problem with election system is to miss the whole point. If guys like Khadka and Koiala are managing to win the election every time, there is something terribly wrong with the version of democracy we are practising and the election system. It is system that disempowers the citizens under the guise of giving them the power to choose their rulers...in practice they have no choice but to endorse the most corrupt, most thuggish chap over and over again. Again don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we need an absolutist monarch. Far from that...what I want to emphasize is that the country is in a grave crisis. And during the crisis the normal democratic procedure does not work. We can take the example from America, when the country was threatened by civil war, Abraham Lincoln assumed executive powers. The powers he used were never mentioned in the Constititution, nor in any law. Should he have tried to be legalistically constitutional and deal with the grave situation in the normal way as a peace time president? No, he did the right thing in order to safe guard the unity and integrity of the country. In any democratic country, there is the provision of emergency power and the head of state has to use it to the best of judgement. If he succeeds, like Lincoln did, history will praise him. If he fails to deliver, the history will punish him. So, if we recognize that our country is in a grave civil war situation, we should not have quarrel with the king. If anything everyone should get behind him now so that the emergency situation can be sorted out at the earliest and things can return to normal course of politics again. The longer we oppose him and cause confusion, the longer it will take to solve the present mess. As we all know, the king can not delive alone, he needs huge public backing. In this moment of grave crisis when thousands are being murdered, should we oppose him just for the sake of opposing him? Should we oppose him just because he has Shah surname and not a Bahun or any other surname? Or just because he was born in Narayanhiti? I think that kind of response is very narrow minded and ethnocentric. If anything, the king has more stake in solving the country's problem, and making it a successful country...his direct ancestors made some contricution to forge this country. I am sure the king has some sense of that. After all, if this country becomes a failed country and becomes a part of another country, the king will suffer most, his throne and kingdom will be gone. But as citizens, we will still be citizens of a new country, and some of us will be asked to be the chief ministers and MPs and MLAs. We don't have that much to lose in the failure as the king does. That is why he is perhaps becoming proactive. So my suggestion is that everybody stands behind the king in sloving the present Maoist and corruption in as little time as possible, the more everyone cooperates, the faster the task will be finished. Once it is reasonably clear that the situation is normal, there should be fair elections and parliament runs the show again. If the king should delay after that point, we should then jointly agitate against the king...because there will be no more valid reason to continue king's executive rule. In the end, let us go for a democracy of substance, not of rhetoric. In peace! |
| Biswo | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 05:16 PM
>Nobody is blaming democracy here. Girija is not democracy, >and democracy is not Girija. Let's not say nobody. There are some people here who are blaming it all to democracy. I am glad you are not blaming, and I knew you were not blaming. >I need to hear from them some reforms that will make the >electoral and public policy discourse more inclusive and less >corrupt. I second you on this. They need to be more principled, and well informed and need to have some concrete policy for future of Nepal. |
| Kumar Prasad Upadhyay | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 06:17 PM
Allow me to play the devil's advocate here... Why are we all so apologetic when we try to raise questions about the suitability and working of democracy in Nepal? Why do we have to hurry up every time to add: "oh, it was only this leader who did not deliver; there was no fault of democracy." I say, the system of democracy could be faulty too...not only the leaders. Sure, it may be the best system to secure and protect the interests of the professionals and the upwardly mobile middle class population, which I assume forms the majority of the Sajapur debatees. And, therefore, consciously or sub-consciously, all of us may be advocating democracy, with a varying degree of intensity, guided by the selfish interest of our class, without realizing that for an over-whelming majority of the population, it may not mean anything at all. Just to draw a parallel...People argue that Communism as a system of government is unworkable and un-feasible. It just does not work, people say, because look at the number of societies where it did not work. It would sound preposterous, for example, if you and I were to argue that failure of Communism in Russia was not really a failure of Communism, but only of Gorbachev and his predecessors. Similarly, one might argue, Communism did not fail in Romania, it was merely the failure of Chauchesku (and his wife Elena who did not even have a high school diploma but loved to pose as a scientist)! However, when it comes to democracy, despite having spent 12 years watching how badly it works (or does not work), we are just not willing to even question may be there is something in the system that makes it unworkable in Nepal. If in case of all the former Communist countries, it was the political philosophy that was the real culprit, how come in case of Nepal (and several other newly democratized/post-colonial societies) it is not the failure of the system but only of some of the major actors of the system! Are we not applying double standards by being excessively harsh with Communism and very generous with democracy? KPU |
| khaja biscuit | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 06:34 PM
Kumar: Been visiting sajha for the past few months as a silent reader. Your postings are a breath of fresh air. Liked your postings on Dipak Gyawali thread and on this thread as well. Good work. |
| HahooGuru | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 06:44 PM
An important we have to note down is: KPU writes: As I said above, the debate about current day Nepali polity is not a debate between democracy and absolute monarchy. It is a debate between the effectiveness of one political institution or the other .... We should know what is the core of our discussion? Is it effectivness of democracy? No. Democracy has not alternative. Its already proved elsewhere. We are just trying to make our own plug to match our need: geographical, cultural, ethnic, and ecnomic ... Is it on effectiveness of democracy on Nepal? Partly yes, Partly no. We need to have more education to make democracy function well, but, it does not mean we wait till educated. Its like kids learning and growing up. Both things go parallel. We need more schools to accomodate all kids until age of 15. Scrap SLC, scrap going up in school grades based on exam, but, if its state funded school, everyone who has age should fit in the grade. The exam in state funded school until 15years age is useless. Let kids develop positive thinking .... No fail, means, no need to think things negatively. Positive thinking is foundation to democracy. Pessimistic thinking is foundation of anarchy and classical communist states. Is it on effectiveness of democratic leaders of Nepal ? Big "YES". It is the core of discussion. The guy from west nepal, in Deoba 's cabinet said that (after 12years) he was jailed, he was beaten, how come he can only be Assistant Ministers, and he rejected oath for few days. After 12 years too, he was trying to sell his work experience and he seems to have desert in last 12 years. So, our leaders have done nothing in last 12years, so they always wanted to use that work expeirence of 46days? It was biggest mistake on their part. Why could not they vouch what they have done in this 12years? Because they have immiserably failed, to deliver anything in last 12years, they only received, but, they never delivered. It is only Nobel prize that is given for the jobs done long time back, and it comes at the time of your retirement, usually. .......... They have failed. 1990 / 1990 / 1990 ... is not going help us, what we needed is what happened between 1990 to 2002. We need a fresh set of leaders who are educated, have vision where should nepal head Banaras or devasted countries like japan korea or singapore from where they arrived here in last 3-4decades. .... Girija does not have vision. My experience with in that 2 hours party gathering hosted by him at Prime Minister's quarter, showed he does not have vision. A friend of mine, who was also in the gathering said "Girija bhaneko kasto hola bhaneko ta yasto ranga na dhanga ko kura gardo po rahechha..." based on his talk with Keshar Rayamajhi just after his arrival in the lounge..... That 5 minute talk with Rayamajhi clearly hinted the quality of Girija, his vision and who he is. ...... ... Aur Pachhi!?! HG |
| Vision | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 06:56 PM
Suva Chintak Ji, I would like to harmonize on what you have to say: "So my suggestion is that everybody stands behind the king in sloving the present Maoist and corruption in as little time as possible, the more everyone cooperates, the faster the task will be finished." Biswo ji, Its' about time we leave our cynicism behind and get to work. How about sacrificing a little? |
| wy | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 07:05 PM
"Are we not applying double standards by being excessively harsh with Communism and very generous with democracy?" Comparison? It's a no brainer. Proof is in the pudding. Just look around. Cummunist civilizations have crumbled all over the world. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 07:38 PM
Shuvachintakji, Well, even if we allow the king to do job, and if he does that job well (btw, now that he is taking the job for himself, I only wish him goodluck!), do you think he is gonna give up his executive authority after the job done? Mighty powerful king Gyanendra who sent his cousin as ambassador to USofA as soon as he became the king, who trebled the royal expenditure the first year he became king, (we know he has to ask for it!), who furtively made his son CP on the day of Vijaya Dashami, who packed his council of minister with mostly inferior goods doesn't have that much sense of responsibility.And let's not forget the past, because almost 50 innocent lives were lost just to get "that much" from a god-like, valaadmi, civilized king Birendra, we all know. With Maoists gone, and all powers in his hand, King Gyanendra isn't gonna simply hand that back to us and say, "hey dudes, I did the job and thanks for giving me that chance!" No way. He is the person whose one of the first jobs after assuming executive powers have been to give himself free hand in carving up national revenues for his palatial expenses. Let's not hope that much from him. Dictators need to be checked, tamed, and chastised relentlessly all the times. -- Kumarji, Like wy said,if the comparison between democracy and communism is what you are asking for, then let's say we differ in the basic ideology. In my view, if we fail to agree on that modicum of thing, then all subsequent discussions tend to be acrimonious and dimensionless. I won't be arguing here why democracy is better than communism, sorry about that:-) |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 08:26 PM
Boshowhji, Exactly my point: by talking all the executive powers, the king is in charge. That means he is now directly responsible for all his actions, if he screws up the show, he can not now blame "grand design", or find another pretext of saving democracy like elected leaders. For an executive king like him, it is either show the result or face the music. His only salvation is performance now that he has put his throne on the line. I think that is courage and being bold. Yes you are right, maybe he will not give power easily once the Maoist mayhaem has been solved. If that happens, we will have to challenge him unitedly. We can then say with moral certitude: we cooperated with you when the job needed to be done, now it is time for us to take over. We were able to take back power from absolute rulers in 2007, then in 2046. What makes you think we can not do it again? If you are arguing from an absolute republican position like the Maoists, then my argument on why we need to support the king to get the job done is not going to make any sense, you are convinced that monarchy is a totally negative, useless institution that is nothing to offer. You are entitled to your view. But I believe that monarchy still has some useful function to play. I am of the view that even a king can have the welfare of the country at heart, the janata doesn't have a monopoly on wishing good for the country and people. After all it is his family who contributed to making this country possible...no offense but more than mine or any of our family. Simply by this fact he is bound to have some emotional feeling, attachments for this counrty and people. I do not doubt his good intentions, but we may disagree about the way he acts. But in a situation of total collapse and catastrophy, the emergency worker does not have the luxury of all the little niceties of etiquette and formality that we get used to in a well runing democracy like the US. Our neck is not on the line, so we can split hairs about what he should have done. But a firefighter rushing into a burning building to rescue a person may have to break the windown pane to get in..extradionary circumstances demand extradionary responses. As always, in peace. My simple reason is that if the king takes power, the people can always get it back, sooner or later. But if that power goes to a different country, like in Sikkim, the people can never get it back. As an aside, you say that Birendra did not give power back willingly until 50 people were killed. If that is the logic we are going to throw around, then why did the Girijas and Deubas did not hand over power to the Maoists when thousands of people have died. As 'democrat' leaders, they should have given it before one person was killed? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 08:41 PM
Biswo wrote: IFji, "I was waiting for you to raise this issue, believe me, I know your desparation:-) I was never against 'whole Himal Media' nor did I say someone 'traitor' for publishing this report. I don't even ask you to produce evindences because you rarely do that:-). There is no paradigm shift in my part. I don't blame whole media for a person's particular act. Unlike you. Whose only blame against democracy is because it once had PM like Girija. If raising Kunda episode, in which he retracted his alleged statement, gives you an extra fun, that is fine with me.I don't expect you to stick to the point and have pointed and reasonable discussion. " Biswo, I was neither deperate nor eagerly waiting to provide you and YOURSELF with that Himal media's example. Regarding me producing evidence, Biswo, we have been discussing this and that for 2 years and I am the one who supports his views with evidence, whenever necessary (whether be it jopurnal, newspapera rtciles or even mallik aayog reports). But on the other had, you with use yoiur choice of words to make your no-argument, no-evidence posts sound intelliegent and verified 20000 times!and people here at sajha have a bad habit, they come and prasie everyone. Biswo, you too need to learn to produce evidence and counter arguments. Be rude, that's fine. I am not being nice here, but what you write, supoort it with evidence. Now, about this discussion. Your very first posting was outright silly and nothing new to it. The same old issue again and again.Refer to the threads : Deuba Removed, Don't question the King etc. And everythin that needs to be discussed/argued are already there. Biswo, tone down your rhetoric. This is a PUBLIC forum and we are discussing what? MOnarchy vs. democracy.OK. In your very first posting you wrote many "things" without any EVIDENCE. Not that I ask you for any evidence, because youi have neither provided me with credible evidence in any thread, except that everytime i read your post, i learn a new word. that's it. OK. Getting to the point: This is a political thread. What grows in Florida doesn't grow in Nepal. So, what you eat at Rice University's dorm/cafeteria, you can't find in nepal (unless you eat daal bhaat everyday), so the system that works in AMERICA or EUROPE doesn't work in Nepal. OK EVIDENCES of how democracy have disturbed the world order: Read The Coming Anarchy by kaplan, a NY times best seller to understand this. Biswo, of course, when you are in America, you fall in love with democracy but when yoiu are in nepal, you don'rt care about it. Will yoiu be screaming yoiur throat off to sav edemocracy if the maoists abduct your siblings? no. Biswo: Political discussions are by their very nature OPINIONATED ones. Fine, you don't like Gyanendra Sarkar and Chand Cabinet, fine. Noone is forcing yoiu to like them, but when you make big statementgs in public without any PROOF, then you lose your credibility. You make big statements and use big words but the arguments are so lame. Now, without getting much personal: Whatever happened, has happened.Neither you nor me can predict the future. Whatever is happening is happening for good, if you are a nationalist. But, again, if you are a blind bhakta of Girija and Madhav Nepal, then, yah, its bad for you ebcause youcan't loot people freely as you used to. My friend, I realized that its USELESS to discuss with you on this matter after reading your very first post where you compared His Majesty the King to a second grader!! It was an opinionated statement and when you bring in such big/strong/opinionated arguments, then there is no point in discussing. Another thing: what do yiou hope to achieve by spreading this nonsense at sajha. J hunu bhai sakyo, no matter how much you writem, even 5 volumes of a book, you won't be able to change anything beccaus epeople in nepal don't give a damn. OK, I am out of this discussion with a note that: 1. People, criticize silly arguments and posts. You don't have to be always nice and "hajur" hajur to everything that gets posted. Please criticize mine too. Criticism has to be there so that Biswo can learn and I can learn. Its the readers like you who just prasie everything to be nice and good make the Kurakani less interesting. Be vocal, stand by what you bvelieve. CRITICIZE ME. Its hjust useless to argue Biswo, yoiu have your views and I have mine. Fine spread your views, but use approprioate words like the new fellow Kumar does. now I am out of this outright silly-old-same-nonsensical discussion. You all have fun. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 08:58 PM
Kumar wrote: I say, the system of democracy could be faulty too...not only the leaders. Yes, i agree. I always say that, democracy has failed miserabley in asian countries. why? because we tend to believe in hieracrhy/some sort of order. look at s'pore, malaysia, china, indoneisa.. I eman, you can find countless examples of other system of democracy at work and deliver. In africa too, as Kaplan writes in his book, The Coming Anarchy, many nations were better off with dictators and authoritarian rulers. as soon as they had "western style" democracy, things started to fall apart, for example, rwanda, mozambique, sierra leone and so on. I say, panchayat was democratic. Hell, yeah. Panchayat was even moredemocratic than the democracy wed saw in the last 12 years. even people like Padma Ratna, Golche Sarki, Ram Raja Prasad Singh got eelcted to the assembly. People could vote their leaders. Haribol Bhattarai became the mayor of Kathmandu. I mean, when was it undemoicratic and what make the multi-party democracy a true democracy? aren't there other forms of democracy? Kumarji, your very first paragrpah now gives me spome relief that i am not the only one who believs that the system itself can be faulty. |
| Kumar Prasad Upadhyay | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 09:12 PM
wy said: Comparison? It's a no brainer. Proof is in the pudding. Just look around. Cummunist civilizations have crumbled all over the world. I say: Of course, the proof is in the pudding, and I was raising the question based on how it tasted! Communist civilizations have crumbled around the world, perhaps with some exceptions like Uncle Castro's Cuba. And, as I say above, we do not attribute the unsuccessful application of the Communist ideology in a particular society to the incompetence of the leaders. Rather the system (the core political ideal itself) is questioned and dismissed as inapplicable. (On paper, the heights of romanticims that Communism takes you to is still extremely attractive and magnetic. Ask any Maoist, or even the centrist Communists). Why, I ask, do we not apply the same standard while judging failures of democracies? (Because, democracy too seems to have turned out to be a system that looked extremely appealing in the election platforms of political parties and the provisions of the Constitution, but not in reality in present day Nepal.) I agree, wy, that communist civilizations have crumbled all over the world. But barring the developed countries of Europe and North America (and some exceptions elsewhere), which, in most cases, became developed first and democracies later, tell me how many third world countries or post-colonial countries of the south have achieved the heights of capitalist development which democratic political literature claim can be achieved only if you are a democracy. I am not interested in listening to Australia and the Netherlands, both democracies, being great economic success stories. Tell me how many Nepals or Nigerias or Nicaraguas have achieved the economic miracle using democracy as the tool. We can both think of some East and SE Asian countries that seem to have made it without western style democracy, can't we? Biswo-ji said: Like wy said, if the comparison between democracy and communism is what you are asking for, then let's say we differ in the basic ideology. In my view, if we fail to agree on that modicum of thing, then all subsequent discussions tend to be acrimonious and dimensionless. I won't be arguing here why democracy is better than communism, sorry about that:-) I say: My argument was not that communism is better than democracy. My argument was and is this: just like we question the ideology of communism--because so many societies have failed because they tried to implement it--why can't we question the idea of democracy because our country, and so many other countries of the South in similar stage of development, seem to have been unsuccessful while trying to function as democracies. Biswo-ji: You seem to suggest that to have a civil debate on the present state of Nepal, I have to come to the table with my mind programmed and formatted absolutely for "democracy" with no storage space for any alternatives (or even alternative forms of representative systems). You are asking for a bit too much in that, and by attempting to make "democracy" an absolute basic necessity, you are making it a nir-bikalpa (alternate-less) concept. That reminds me of a great deal of literature that Panchayat Neeti tatha Jaanch-booch Samiti (and its predecessor the Gaon Pharka Rastriya Abhiyaan) used to publish during the Panchayat days, claiming how nir-bikalpa the system was. You and I know what happened to that claim :-) KPU |
| Biswo | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 10:14 PM
IFji, If you want to say 'good bye', fine. I am not going to force you to stay here. We will see you around. I am glad that you learn some word everytime you read my posting:-) -- Kumarji, OK, I somehow get your point: that democracies are not 'functioning' in the economic sense in third world countries. Why? About two countries you cited i.e. Nigeria and Nicaragua, they were never democracy until recently. They were ruled by ruthless Junta and Communists respectively. But let's see this way: when a dictatorial country opens up, people feel free, erupt with joy, like the one we witnessed in KTM in 2046, in Moscow in 90s, in Germany, in Europe etc. When this is other way around, only some people go to the street to enjoy, rest of the populace shut their door up in timorously or protest without regard to their life. Freedom is that much worthy! [Also, India is not totally a disappointment. Its post1950 progress in the amount of intellectuals it churned out, its diversity of opinion, has been tremendously better than that of dictatorial Pakistan.] In my opinion, democracy (should) provide opportunity to everyone regardless of their birth, origin etc. It is a culture. It is a form of civilization. A transition from life that resembles to the animal world of the forest and cave to the world of reasoning. This is a natural form governance of human society.This is a conducive conduit for free flow of ideas. That is it. Economic progress is abetted by it. Democracy is not the necessary and sufficient factor for prosperity. It is a factor that provides conducive environment to achieve the goal of universal prosperity and peaceful life.It respect human life, and values personal freedom. Its alternative forms, practiced in the world since thousands of years, are the form of organization of government formed on the basis of terror and duress, where a man is manacled , hounded and restricted while pursuing his goal:whether that is political or that is technical. -- Shuvachintakji, Let me say this much: let's not pin our hope on this king. Our country is our common. When the country is taken over by another country, the king may lose his throne, but people lose a lot. People are the one who are forced to live beneath the foreign boot. I don't believe Nepali people love their independence less than the king. King Prithvi Narayan, whom I admire a lot, said this in Divyopadesh, (we made this country)..Timraa(of common Nepali) Santan Ra Haamra Santaan Milijuli Yo Muluk Khaanyaa Chhan.. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that his santaan are going to 'milijuli' govern this country with the santaan of common Nepali. We will see. We live long enough to see this. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 10:55 PM
Night is getting long, but one last comment: This king waited a full two weeks for the political parties to come aboard in the government. The political parties had too much ego, so they spurned his offer of cooperation. What did the king do then? He just picked up normal Nepalis, some from parties, others without parties. So even if he does not have the support of the two parties (NC and UML), he is working with representatives of a lot of other parties and common citizens. So I don't think it is factually correct to say that he wanted to do it alone. I know our king is not God Bishnu, but I still have a lot more faith in him than Girij and Makune combined. Your description of democracy "as the natural form of governance for human society." No offence but what is "natural" about it, is it in our genes? What is the biological or organic basis of democratic naturalness? It is like saying that caste system is a natural system of hierarchy. Come on, things like democracy, caste, are human ideological creations, not natural absolutes. Just like any human creations, they have very serious flaws. How many years has it been that America claimed to be the bastion of democracy? Over two hundred years right? During this same period this democracy did not allow Native Americans, Blacks, and women to vote or participate in civic life even as it claimed the high horse of democracy and civilization. So what I am trying to say is that let us not be indoctrinated by the mantra of democracy, it also has its cruel and unjust history. Blacks can't always get their voting rights if you are in Lousiana, Alabama and the deep south, even now! To say that this is the only god given is like saying another way of our king is God. Let us learn to demystify all hegemonic claims, including democracy, free market, and civilization with a critical perspective. Let us not internalize them as blind and irrational faith. Since you bring up democracy as untouchable, holy cow, can I ask you to briefly mention which brand of democracy you subscribe to? I am sure you are influenced by the Western tradition. But within the western corpus, the idea of democracy is different in Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Montiesque, Hobbs, Locke, Rousseau, and finally, Ronald Regan. Which is the one you would identify with as the natural form? Hope to hear your thoughts, In peace! |
| HahooGuru | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 11:41 PM
Biswo ji, Before I stand behind Girija and Makune, I want them to publicly regreat or make a public apology that "whatever has happened we NC and UML party leaders are responsible for this. We honestly pledge from now onward that we will not let it repeat. It was lesson to us.". As long as they don't such public apology/regret, I have no reason to trust them that they will not repeat again, and I am stilll in doubt that they are truely for power and share in government but not really for peoples. Do they have guts? In democracy they should be accountable. Biswo ji you remember the case of Bhim Rawal, and GRJ how Makune and Girija protected them. It is just visible one, but, there remains a chain of invisible corruptions and nepotism. Unless, you dare to make a public apology, peoples are not going to follow you, when they already know that you have made a lot of mistakes which you could have avoided "deliberate mistakes". I am sure tiime is asking them to get equivalent punishment, and NC and UML will be on frontline only when they leave those corrupt bastards like Bhim Rawal and GRJ far behind. As long as they carry them together KUM ma Kum jodera, they won't get public support. Don't find excuses. Earlier the best they sort out these bastards. HG |
| Biswo | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 11:49 PM
Yes, Guruji, I agree with your demand. That's why I am saying let's pursue them, there is CIAA, there is judicial comittee on investigating assets, and there are people. What I am supporting is what they are standing for rightnow. In fact, my original posting is clear about that in its first statement. -- And Shuvachintakji, Since you know so many forms of democracy, will you please kindly tell me what they are also? Specially because I never knew Ronald Reagan was doctrinaire/philosopher also. If my use of the word 'natural' to you sounds like I am talking about 'genes', then well, please understand that way. As for king's giving 'two weeks' for parties to come on board, it was I guess five days, and even long after that, parties were ready to cooperate, but he furtively formed his own government of slavish rejects and opportunists. And for your information, I don't believe we are 'raiti' anymore, the king has no right to fire and hire PM, and the parties did right thing by snubbing the king. |
| dirk | Posted
on 06-Dec-02 11:53 PM
Biswo, "Mighty powerful king Gyanendra who sent his cousin as ambassador to USofA as soon as he became the king..." The Nepalese envoy in Washington is neither King G's cousin nor a relative for that matter. You may have assumed that because he's a Rana. He is quite an astute career diplomat who has had served as the permanent representative of Nepal to the UN as well as served in Washington D.C.., London and New Delhi in different capacities over the years. I think we need an intelligent and diplomacy savvy person to serve as our point man in D.C. and I think Mr. J.P. Rana is deserving of that position. I think you need to verify things before shooting conjectures around as the truth. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 12:22 AM
Dirk, I will stand corrected if Mr Rana is not his cousin. I would be more happy if he was nominated by HMG. As long as I know, he is a cousin of the king. But again, I don't insist on this, and will like to verify this in future. My agrim apology if I am wrong. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 01:31 AM
Dirk: I agree with you. JP Rana became the Royal nepalese Ambassador to the US because of his qualification, not because he is related to the King. Both narendra Bikram Shah and Jaya Pratap rana started their career as section officers at Pararastra Mantralaya. Also, JP Rana is one of the few career diplomats of nepal who attened the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (and he has a master's degree from there) and has negotiated on nepal's behalf with many countries, including India. As I said in my previous posts, some people have a tendency to assume, just asume and think of it as a reality because its their assumption(s). |
| wy | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 02:08 AM
"Because, democracy too seems to have turned out to be a system that looked extremely appealing in the election platforms of political parties and the provisions of the Constitution, but not in reality in present day Nepal.)" Wow. I remember reading in panchayat book: afno mato suhaudo bewastha-- panchayat and gaufarka. Hmmm. "I agree, wy, that communist civilizations have crumbled all over the world." Thank you. "But barring the developed countries of Europe and North America (and some exceptions elsewhere), which, in most cases, became developed first and democracies later, tell me how many third world countries or post-colonial countries of the south have achieved the heights of capitalist development which democratic political literature claim can be achieved only if you are a democracy." I don't know where to begin. Let me just say that the (autocratic) regimes around the world do not have a master plan of transition: first development then democracy. It does not work that way. Development or no development dictators eventually get over thrown and democracy takes its root. And, with it comes free market. To sustain such regimes some even resort to genocide: Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Cambodia's Polpot. Cuba and N Korea are still watching a one-man show. |
| Kumar Prasad Upadhyay | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 09:57 AM
Dear wy: You do a good job of mocking my assertion. You say that it reminds you of Panchayat. But you do just that: mocking. You don't address the essential argument in my assertion. It may sound like a quote from Panchayat book to you, but help me out, my friend. Tell me where the fault lies in the factual assertion of my claim, which I copy below with yours. ---- "Because, democracy too seems to have turned out to be a system that looked extremely appealing in the election platforms of political parties and the provisions of the Constitution, but not in reality in present day Nepal.)" Wow. I remember reading in panchayat book: afno mato suhaudo bewastha-- panchayat and gaufarka. Hmmm. ------ What I am trying to argue is that based on our 12 years of experience with democracy, it too seems to have turned out to be a great-in-documents-but-hopeless-in-practice kind of a system, just like Communism in so many different countries. No, I am not arguing that Nepal should have a system based on its geo-climatic compatibility, the way Panchayat was promoted, nor am I arguing we should turn into a Communist state. But please tell me, preferably without mocking my lines, how and why the failure of multi-party prime ministerial form of democracy to deliver in Nepal should be accorded a treatment different from failure of Communism anywhere else. My other point was: "But barring the developed countries of Europe and North America (and some exceptions elsewhere), which, in most cases, became developed first and democracies later, tell me how many third world countries or post-colonial countries of the south have achieved the heights of capitalist development which democratic political literature claim can be achieved only if you are a democracy." And you said: I don't know where to begin. Let me just say that the (autocratic) regimes around the world do not have a master plan of transition: first development then democracy. It does not work that way. Development or no development dictators eventually get over thrown and democracy takes its root. And, with it comes free market. To sustain such regimes some even resort to genocide: Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Cambodia's Polpot. Cuba and N Korea are still watching a one-man show. Based on which I conclude: You clearly don't have an example to offer of a non-western third world country making it big and remaining democracy at the same time! (Biswo-ji tries to argue that India has done reasonably well in the last 50 years, but he focusses more on the free flow of ideas and diversity of opinions, which we have in abundance in South Asia. What we don't have is development. China, to present a counter example to India, has had a terrible cultural revolution and a devastating famine at the time of the great leap forward but at the end of its 50 years of Communism in 1999, it was in a position to say: we started in 1949 as a nation where every second person went to sleep without food; now we have (almost) none. But I am not arguing for communism. Now compare the Chinese situation with India. At the end of its 50 years of independence in 1997, it had very few claims to make of development of the society generally--like how many computer professionals they had produced etc--and the focus was pretty much on freedom of expression, like Biswo-ji's assertion above. Well, nothing wrong with having a thriving society with different ideas, but if India is all you have to show as an inspiration to a skeptic in Nepal, I am afraid you won't be able to convince many that democracy in its 1990-2002 form is what works for Nepal!!) So, try once again. Tell me, why should we remain a democracy if it not only fails to provide any socio-economic well-being but also at the same time takes away whatever little security and peace we had in our country. This question, I am sure, will be raised and raised vigorously if we actually ended up having the constitutent assembly that the Maoists, and in recent times even some in the NC, are demanding. KPU |
| wy | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 11:20 AM
KPU: I am sorry if I mocked you. Your assertion about Communism beoing better than democracy was so outrageous to me that I may have used words to offend you. I apologize. Again, people have rejected communism around the globe and they all have fallen like dominos, and there is your proof. Democracy may not be the best system but there is nothing better. In the shortrun it may be messy but eventually it triumphs and it has. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 12:01 PM
>As I said in my previous posts, some people >have a tendency to assume, just asume >and think of it as a reality because its their > assumption(s). IF, The problem with you is you can't argue consistently. When you get a small point, you come back. Even in the last posting, you wrote a whole page of nonsense, and you said, something like "I won't be coming back, I am outta here..", so I let you go with last word. Unfortnuately, your intention was something else. You definitely would like to come again and again, but you don't want to be challenged. Something your love of active monarchy and your antipathy of democratic system can justify. [I am in hurry, and will be out for about two days. See you all then.] |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 01:47 PM
biswo: i did not come here to agree or answer vto yiour nonsensical writing. i came here to support dirk's info on JP Rana. I said, i am out of discussion with you, and your illogical, nonsensical arguments, not from the thread. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 02:51 PM
It seems like the fruitful discussion on the 'democracy' has exhausted itself, and we are left with arguing like religious fanatics, not with dispassionate logic and reason, but with irrational zeal and fervor. It is almost like saying my god is greater than yours, it is so because it is naturally so. You don't have to give any evidence for it, then it becomes religion, not politics. To bring up the example of India as the success story of democracy in the south is kind of a moral bankruptcy of sorts. A country where 700,000 troops have to force a population of 1.5 million to vote at gunpoint (Kashmir), where 20 insurgencies are spreading mayhem for decades, where hundred and thousands of people are slaughtered routinely in religious +political riots routinely, where untouchables and backward castes are routinely murdered by high caste private armies, where couple of brides are burnt each day, and where millions of people go hungry, begging and homeless each day...if that is the kind of 'democracy' our democratic leaders have in mind for us, thank you sir, I would rather do without it. I personally think that the system in Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Korea is far superior to the one prevailing in India. These 'authoritarian' countires have been far more humane and proactive about social justice than the Indian brand of democracy our leaders want to foist on us. What good is your right to speak when somebody else can kill you off with no consequence whatsoever for what you said (a low caste person asking for his human rights) or for what you are (muslim or other minorities)? Just becasue the Indians hold some kind of election tamasha in which hundreds of people are killed we want to copy that? I pity our barren imagination! If all we can do is copycat, then at least imitate a better looking one! I asked Bishowji this : Since democracy means many things to many people, because it is not a self evident thing (product of nature as you called it), but it is a social construct, what do you understand by it, or which version of it are you referring to? You can't just say democracy and expect people to understand? For example there are social democracies, market democracies, guided democracies, corporate democracies....All the stalwarts of western philosophy from Plato to Habermas have emphasized different aspects...many have not even called for the multiparty elections ...they ask for essence. So when you ask me to give an interpretation, I have a simple notion of democracy: the mantra of democracy means nothing, it is a brand name like Coca Cola. What I emphasize is the substance of governance: does the system respect and hold sacred the life of its citizen and all humanity and guarantee its security, does it give give them adequate economic and social opportunities to lead meaningful lives, and does it give them meaningful influence in the running of the country and setting its priorities. If these basic conditions are met, I am happy with the system, I don't care whether people label it democracy, Panchayat, Communism, Nazism, Zionism... The blind irrational insistence on 'democracy' mantra is like a shopkeeper who tells the a thirsty client must drink Coca Cola because it is the only natural remedy for thirst In Peace! |
| Kumar Prasad Upadhyay | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 07:08 PM
Dear WY, Your last posting said: I am sorry if I mocked you. Your assertion about Communism beoing better than democracy was so outrageous to me that I may have used words to offend you. I apologize. My response: 1. I appreciate your gesture and since your posting is so polite, I am having trouble pointing out a fundamental fallacy in your understanding of my assertions, but I must. Here is my challenge to you. Where, in which posting of mine, do I say that communism is better than democracy as a system (as you attribute to me in the above sentence)? Please tell me where I said that. It would be best if you could cut-and-paste that line. 2. If anything, what I have been saying (go to my first posting) is that the debate is not about democracy v. absolute monarchy. It is about which institution in Nepal can restore order and peace. We are at a stage where the political parties have failed us, and I believe the King should be given some time to try to sort things out. 3. I raised questions about the working of the democratic system in Nepal and whether it is a suitable system for our country at all, since based on our (yours and mine) experience during the last 12 years there is little to be proud about the achievements of democracy. 4. It was with reference to questioning the "nir-bikalpa" nature of democracy--which some in Sajhapur seem to be promoting--that I presented the case of failure of Communism in so many countries in the form of an analogy. And, my assertion is this: just as we say communism--as an ideology--has failed because it has failed in so many countries, why can't we argue that democracy--as an ideology--can be questioned because it has not worked in Nepal and so many other countries in similar stage of growth and development. In other words, just as fall of Communism in Russia was not only a fall of its politicians but also of the ideology of communism, why cann't one agrue that the failure of democratic governments in Nepal during the last 12 years is not only a failure of Girija Koirala or KP Bhattarai or Madhav Nepal but also of the system as such? I don't say we should have communism instead of democracy, or panchayat (but can you see the parallel between the common notion about Communism and my proposition about democracy?) 5. I brought the whole analogy into the debate because some in this forum behave like dogmatic democrats (which is not a compliment!) and can't see beyond the current system of government. I am trying to drive home the message that exceptions can be made in the system of government, if the situation so demands, and we should try to assess the actions of the King based on what the pressing necessity of the day is. As I say in an earlier posting, the King could not have waited until Ram Bahadur Thapa's army began to march into Kathmandu city or even King's Way. (It is sucidal for us to to be expecting that). Your second paragraphs said: Again, people have rejected communism around the globe and they all have fallen like dominos, and there is your proof. Democracy may not be the best system but there is nothing better. In the shortrun it may be messy but eventually it triumphs and it has. I say: Yes, I agree (again!!) that communism has failed around the world. What I asked for, however, was not another line saying communism has failed. I asked for examples of post-colonial third world countries that achieved economic progress through democracy. You are yet to give me an example of that category. And, some of the other participants on this thread have given you several examples of countries that did not opt for the "dogmatic" democratic system and have yet done much better than most democracies. Lastly, after all that the people have seen and suffered in Nepal during the last several years, do you really believe they will take your line seriously when you say things will be alright in the long run? I will leave you with what John M Keynes said some seven decades ago: In the long run, we are all dead. KPU |
| kreep | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 09:37 PM
loved going through the thread. KPU, IF, suva chintak & all.. you guys are impressive. |
| babaal | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 10:53 PM
Babbaal raichha ni ta hau yo thread ta!! Aanch!!! |
| HahooGuru | Posted
on 07-Dec-02 10:58 PM
yes, it its. Babaal ji, I liked your "Aanch!!!", as usual.............. Katiou Avatar ho mitra ko yo? Gyan prapti garne bela bhayena bhaneko ....? ki BiGyan ko khoj ma here and there ho ? |
| wy | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 03:13 AM
Dear KPU: 4.5 billion out of 6 billion on this planet have opted (give or take) to adopt some form of democratic system of government abandoning all sorts of autocratic regimes. And here you still are looking for a proof. They all can't be wrong, can't they? Don't take Nepal's 12 years of bitter experience and generalize it. Now about Keyensian's in the long-run stuff we all are dead statement, just don't forget there are real business cycle and long-run trend theories too. A half baked democracy like the one in Nepal that was mosty designed (as a compromise) to preserve a feudal system with a number of loopholes in its Constitution was going to fail. It is called a weak form of democracy. Political demacracy is just half the story, the other half is the economic democracy and freedom. These two should go hand-in-hand. Take for example Bostwana, which had a per capita income of $100 in 1960 has had a growth rate of more than 7 % over the last several decades ever since it embarked on a democratic system of government. Of course Bostwana has diamond mines, but then there are other basket cases with those riches too. The point is, a country must also adopt sound socio-economic policies and that is where a democractic from of government is more likely to provide a forum for sound policy debates. A corrupt society and elitist selfish mentality with a feudal roots holding a choke hold on the national resources for personal loot and benefit will certainly ruin any form of governance. To that end, one must put in place and implement a set of checks and balances. After adopting an open economic policy and freerer market, India to started making a push forward enjoying a string of almost double digit growth. We all know its rising status as a IT giant slowly next to the US... Democracy and a free market are a matched pair — you cannot realize one's full potential without the other. India is moving forward with it. I agree with you in one point as far as Nepal is concerned: it was more like Baadar ko haatma Nariwal. These guys (Girija and MKN, KPB) knew how to gripe about liberty and freedom, but they were clueless as far as it came to using appropriately the freedom of democracy to govern the country. On top of that they were morally bankrupct too. Thes two combinatons turned out deadly. That is why, I contend that these bastards have to move away to make room for a new generation. |
| wy | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 03:16 AM
Addendum: Bostwana's current per capita income is more that $4000. as compared to $100 in 1960. (But this is not the full story.) |
| Kumar Prasad Upadhyay | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 10:01 AM
Dear wy: Thank you very much for finally coming up with one example of a post-colonial third world country doing well (economically) as a democracy. Your example--Botswana--is very interesting, and it goes further to reinforce the assertion that you don't really have to be a democracy to do well economically. I applaud your honesty in accepting that Botswana's riches can be attributed to its mineral reserves--DIAMONDS, not only women's best friends but also a country's!!! I don't think you can present Botswana as a success story of democracy. It is a country of less than 2 million with too much diamonds per capita, and is not sufficiently representive of most underdeveloped countries like Nepal which are significantly over-populated. Plus, if you present Botswana as a success story--despite its population and the diamonds--what is to stop me from presenting Singapore (roughly double the size and no diamonds) as a counter example! Botswana's economic success (no where near Singapore's) is directly and fundamentally related to its diamond reserves, with a little help from the political institutions. The following World Bank site tells that some 35% of its economy is nothing but diamonds, and other bigger contributors to the GDP have a share of 6-7% each. So, it is diamonds, not democracy that gave Botswana the growth rate of close to 10% during the last couple of decades. visit http://www.worldbank.org/afr/bw2.htm Unfortunately for the people of Botswana, some 25% of the (adult) population is HIV+ (according to the WB figures which I would think is conservative). Perhaps because of the same, they have life expectancy at birth of less than 40 (which is pathetic by any country's standards!) And, I suspect, for the same reason, their population growth rate during the last couple of years has been under 1%. I would not risk saying the democratic system there is a failure, for lack of adequate information on the country (although I wonder what did the governments do besides digging the diamonds out and selling them!) In fact, I see a case here for challenging Amartya Sen's that famous proclamation: that you don't have famines in democracies (and my logical extention is, you should also not have a public health disaster of that proportion in a democracy). Sen's argument was that free flow of ideas and information make famines impossible because the government would feel the heat of popular pressure and act to prevent. Doesn't seem to have worked in your country of example with reference to the HIV/AIDS. You say, the proof of democracy being the best system lies in the fact that 75% of the world population has embraced "one or the other" form of democracy. I don't contest your numbers but since when did we start deciding whether a particular system was good or bad based on the majority or minority support for it? If that is your criteria, you would have to admit that until the late 1980s (when some 2/3rd of the world's population was either under communism or dictatorships) you believed democracy was not a good system of government. And, by extension, if a big number of countries were to turn un-democratic sometime in the future, you would be happy to accept that un-democratic system because the majority of the world is for it! My point is, as Socrates said so many centuries ago, you criticise or support something not based on how many people are for or againt it, but on the basis of right or wrong. You too come with the Indian example (like Biswo-ji did earlier) and their booming IT profession. But what is the necessary nexus between IT and democracy? Aren't there countries that have done better and are not democracies? The reason Indians (in fact South Asians generally) do well in sciences in he West, as I see it, is because of the English language advantage and strong Mathematical foundation (not because all of us had experience with one or the other form of British prime ministerial political system). Plus, what is happening in India is a result of the economic policies of the government, not political. A lot more impressive things are happening in China, which has no political freedom--they attract some 10 times of FDI compared to India's. I agree that political and economic democracies should go hand in hand, but I think the whole debate on this thread is that neither was doing well in Nepal. KPU |
| czar | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 10:48 AM
Playing the devil's advocate requires finesse and you've walked a fine line with it KPU. Interesting. In a similar vein, I point to the example of Singapore and Lee Kwan Yew. A society that seems to meet the tests of a democracy. Yet it is also acknowledged to be a benevolent dictatorship. A contradiction worthy of argument. Putting the political arguments aside, I urge firstly an examination of the accomplishments. Just prior to the economic crisis in the last decade, Singapore, a former swamp with insufficient potable water even for drinking purposes, was exporting goods and services worth $ 37 Billion. It was making 80% of the worlds' suply of hard disk drives. Quite a bit of the manufacturing from both there and Malaysia has since moved on to China. Still, Singapore hardly qualifies as a basket case by any measure. It has been argued that Mr. Lee succeeded aided in measure by the small size of his kingdom..er island redoubt. Projected on a bigger scale, his policies would not have succeeded as well as they did. If so, Dr. Mahathir in a Nepal sized country, for all his shenanigans, didnt do too badly for Malaysia by any means. As for political freedom ? Try criticizing the government in either place and one is likely to feel the clink of handcuffs. Economic freedom ? Malaysia has a ways to go, especially its bumiputra policies that served it well to escape the clutches of commies in the 50' but a hindrance now. For Nepal, the oft expensive exercise of elections only garners parliamentarians who have the muscle, money and ruthlessness to win at all costs, backed by criminals. Witness the welcome mat laid out by all major parties to the ex panchays post 1990. The so called leaders are beholden to the forces that got them into power, and hence must pay the piper. The price : a loot of the national coffers and rape of the country at will. The present system has no means of allowing in fresh talent, rather, it seeks to eradicate it by all means. Given half a chance, I am confident even a handful of sajhapur residents could immediately start to turn things around in Nepal. Will they get that chance under the present system ? Not a hope. I am particularly chary of the role of the monarchy and the system of feudalism, nepotism and outright criminal practices it both emobides and breeds. I can not but see it as the eye of the hurricane, the seeming calm hidden behind high palace walls and secretive members. A calm that is occasionally shattered by gunfire, as of recent, Or, historically, the swish of the sword severing heads. If Mr. G and his cohorts thinks they can salvage something out of this mess, its the final frantic acts of an institution that is desperately trying to survive. Clutching at every straw as it feels the life squeezed out of it. Historically they have been part of the problem, can they be part of the solution now ? Questionable at best. Most likely we are condemned to lurch from one disastrous experiment to another. While losing a few generations. Start praying fellers, cause Lord Pashupatinath, I suspect, is going to sit this one out . |
| hariyonepal | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 11:40 AM
One thing I have a problem understanding is why people still supportt Corrupted Netas. A nation has gone thru the hell and people are so tired of all the fiasco. People and nation are both bankrupted. Doesn't people in KTM still get a sense that they gota wrong netas and they need to kick those bastards out. Why do we still follow them? We should also have a surveyto elect the good leaders we have among King G, Girja, Makune, and others. Lets see what people will choose. |
| LamjungKunchha | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 11:58 AM
Czar Excellent arguments. By supporting an active monarch, are not we lurking into another Lion's den from the fear of the other. For poor people who are deprived of their power of voting, is their difference between Ram Bahadur Thapa's bandits and King's Military. I doubt there is. The difference between the "dictatorship of proleterates" as claimed by our Maoists and "the dictatorship of benevolent" king can hardly be seen. They both are dictatorhip who rule at own their will. One thing Monarchist people who say democracy has failed in 12 years seemed to forget is how many years of "glorious" reign we passed through before we get to this point. From Rana oligarchy which was the direct result of Palace feuds and Kings inability control them to the current choas in the country can be attributed to their selfish desire to keep their throne alive. Yet everybody seemed to forget these mistakes, somehow the king's slate is wiped clean. Current culture of Nepotism and corruption was not born twelve years ago. It has been there since long. They won't go away overnight. It takes reponsible demcracy (emphasis-responsible) with progressive consitution (i.e. which has the provision for the revision). |
| VillageVoice | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 12:16 PM
KPU, WY, SC, HG, IF, Biswo and others: Been quietly following your lively discussions. I am quite familiar with the last three names, and I believe KPU, WY and SC are relative newcomers – unless you are reincarnations :) Welcome aboard. You have a great debate going. Better still for keeping the dialogue civil. Here’s my two cents… First of all, I don’t come to Sajha with a programmed mind (re: KPU’s cleverly put “dogmatic democrat” who come here programmed). To me, this exercise has always been as much about learning from fellow posters as it’s about contributing to a broader dialogue – "Whither My Nepal?" And a catharsis of some sort…I believe every thinking Nepali is distraught at this point – whether he’s in Kathmandu, Kuala Lampur, or California. And pls excuse my digression, but it will not be too much off the mark…in so far as Sajha guff-gaaff goes. Despite some polarized viewpoints—Demcoracy Vs. Monarchy--I think they need not be mutually exclusive. At least they aren’t so, as envisaged by the Constitution of Nepal 1990. And that’s that. Enough has been said, and very well too, on whether the October 4 Royal takeover was constitutional. Personally, I have no hesitation in stating one more time: it was NOT. But the debate of constitutionality is almost redundant now. I will let historians take care of that. What I am more concerned about now is a more pressing question before us: Did the country’s politicial needs, and the gravity of the national security situation – “grave and imminent danger” - warrant the royal takeover? It’s more of a political question therefore. If yes, has the new cabinet and attendant political processes given momentum to the pledge to get the country back on track, claims made in the royal address? We all agree, in varying degrees, that the country is in the midst of a civil war. The nation is sharply divided. Maoists are waging a deadly battle where warriors have lost their honors (you may argue all’s fair in love and war!). And the country is in brink – politically, economically. The law and order situation looks hopeless. No man, woman, or child is safe. Worse, there’s no light at the end of the tunnel. We are caught in a vicious cycle. The other day there were reports that innocent villagers were gunned down by the security forces. I don’t want to single them out, but such incidents are symptomatic of a violent society. Soon, if it already has not, deaths will cease to shock us. What will. A dire warning has been issued that the poor security situation has hampered food distributions and parts of Nepal face severe famine. What next? I thought one couldn’t go beyond a rock bottom. But here, even the bottom sinks lower and lower. Wonder how far can it go. What’s the way out? Here are some quick thoughts. 1.The first and foremost problem: Maoist insurgency. Talk with the Maoists. Cajole them, coerce them; do whatever it takes, but bring them to the negotiating table. To talk about jalsrotko bikas, and education policy, without improving the security situation is almost futile. Look at the continued destruction of hydel infrastructure and now there’s a talk of closing down whole schools and colleges indefinitely. 2. Reinstate of elected bodies – VDCs, muncipalities, and DDCs. I sincerely hope the rulers in Kathmandu hold no delusions about running a nation with security forces, nightvision cameras, and helicopters - not forever. Unless we are trying to radicalize the whole political force that has so remarkably developed in the grassroots over the years. 3.Politicial parties should consider lending a conditional support to the new cabinet. I agree with what HG has been proposing - political leaders should stand up before the public and say, “Yes, we goofed up. Big time. We are sorry. But give us a second chance.” That said, I would also like to see the King embark on a genuine poltics of inclusion, instead of letting an occasional rightist take a pot shot at political parties and the press. 4. But that doesn’t mean that the anti-corruption campaign should be discontinued. In fact, it’s time the campaign broadened its scope to include non-Nepali Congress crooks and other establishments--the police force and the army (the latter should be the last one). How about Bamdev Gautam, whose deputy prime ministership saw one of the highest, if the not the highest, levels of corruption? Smugglers operated openly at Kathmandu airport. And how about Surya Bahadur Thapa and Pashupati SJB Rana? I certainly would like to see the RPP stalwarts and their relatives’ bank account examined. Or else, I will always hold that the current anti-corruption campaign reeks of political vendetta. 5. Very curious. Who are the King’s Men? I would like to hear more on this. I am told that Sharad Chandra Shah, and Chiran Thapa are among the King’s main advisors once again? |
| wy | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 12:52 PM
KPU: It looks like even if the whole 100% of the planet turns politically and economically democratic you will still be looking for a proof for something better. Good luck. If a Nobel Lauret can't convince you, I think I definetely have no chance. All I have to say about Nepal is that I hope we avoid further suffering through negotiation and dialogue and let the leadership go to those who put Nepal first. I hope we don't look for solutions in the wrong places such as the Palace and its Panchayati Raaj. If we did, it would be short-lived and we will be at again. What a waste! |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 02:08 PM
Are we comparing apples and oranges? Some of us in this thread are arguing that both the Maoists and Monarcy are dictatorships! Isn't this a rather unfounded assertions without any evidence? Come on, be real. Let us go by the evidence on the ground: the monarchy is allowing freedom of press, prople can criticize the government and the king; the political parties are allowed to hold demonstrations and meetings, organize and go to the people. What is more, the parties are free to even speak agains the king! Can you imagine the Maoists allowing this basic freedom to criticize them openly and publicly. One needs to visit hill districts to see the reality: a public act of opposition is a far cry, if they suspect that you are even thinking inside your head negatively about the Maoists, they will cut it off right there. Forget about respecting basic rights, the Maoists are even stopping the people from celebrating their traditional festivals and customs like Dashain, Teej, Bhai tika, Shradda and the like. If we think there is no difference between living under a king and the Maoists, we have no idea what the situation is back in those hills. They just come and pick your brother and sister and tell them to join their armed gang to do all kinds of atrocities. But if we only lived in Kathmandu or US of A, we would not know that, would we? So where do we get this faulty equation: Monarchy = Moaism? |
| VillageVoice | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 02:41 PM
...And here's to wy and KPU, who have been splitting hairs (i say this as a compliment!) over democracy - Singapore and Botswana... S'pore ranked - 25th in Human Develpment Report 2002 B'na - 126 "Polity score" (For the year 2000. The highest is 10, the lowest -10) "presence of instituional factors necessary for democracy" S'pore -2 (minus 2) Bna 9 (plus 9) Nepal 6 Press Freedom (lower the better. The worst gets 100) S - 68 B - 27 N - 57 (alongside Pakistan; India's 42) Law and order (in the scale of 1-6, the highest possible is 6) S- 6 B-3.5 N-NA Polticial stability and lack of violence (2000-01) (-2.50 to 2.50) S - 1.44 B - 0.71 N - minus 0.26 |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 07:18 PM
Knowing what I know about the three countries compared here, (Botswana, India and Singapore), I would choose be a citizen in Singapore. Which place would you choose...let us only choose among the third world countries. In Peace |
| bipin | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 08:18 PM
Put differeently: Where would you settle: China or India? India or Pakistan? Bagdad or Turkey? North Korea or South Korea? Cuba or Mexico? |
| bipin | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 09:04 PM
Plus: Bostawana or Mobutu's Zimbabwe? East Germany Or West Germany? Pre Aparthaid South Africa or post Aparthaid SA? Japan Or China? (Japan is developed, so the comparison may not be fair) Panchayat regime or Multiparty regime ????? For this, a referendum is needed. |
| bipin | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 09:08 PM
I am aware that East Germany no longer exists, but thrown in for a comparison. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 08-Dec-02 09:09 PM
Dear bipin, Nice enticement for us to be global citizens. Here are my choices 1. China over India: too much mess in India...too much violence, too much inequality, too much caste system. 2. India over Pakistan: While India has only failed in democracy, the Pakis seems to have failed both in democracy as well as dictatorship! 3.Baghdad or Turkey: Both of them have bad human rights record, especially against the Kurdish minority in Turkey. But I will take Turkey, I don't think it is a smart idea to be in Baghdad right now...I think Bush is out to make a mess of Baghdad pretty soon. 3. South Korea over North Korea: Simply, I don't want to starve! The first human condition. 4.Cuba over Mexico: Cuban baseball, volleyball and boxing rocks! I have heard they have a better public health and education system than the one in the US! And, I have always been in love with that country since I read Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea." Besides, Mexican soccer is getting nowhere lately...too many drug mafia types. In Peace! |
| bipin | Posted
on 10-Dec-02 01:32 PM
Suva: I like your Cuba selection. If I had a lot of money I could see myself retiring there. Between N Korea and the South Korea, it is a no brainer. It is not just hunger, I hate who is that guy's ---Kim Ill #2 --hair style. Between India and China, I would have to say India, because I am afraid of getting my kidneys yanked for sale if I spoke anything against the system. The Turks are pretty nasty bunch towards the Kurds, so is Mr. Hussaine though. If I were to get one of his palaces and a oil field and a promise from Bush that he would not bomb me, then I can consider moving there. I also hear that you could have upto four wives in Bagdad. South Africa without aparthaid over SA under aparthaid. I am brown so I cann't tolerate state sponsered racism. A comment on Bostwana: it's per capita has gone up from $100 to $4000 and the diamond is a big part of it. But there are other basket cares such as Sierra Leon, Congo, and even Nigeria with a lot of resources (diamond and oil) that have not done too well in sharing the wealth with the people. Thugs seem to be squandering much of it for thier private accounts. It is not Singapore, but give Bowtawana some credit for trying to take care of its people. As for the HIV infection, well people around the world are suffering from it. It does not care about the syetem, nor does it care what color of skin you have. Turning to Nepal however, I found an article published in TKP quite interesting; the clowns are out and the puppets are in. How fitting! |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 10-Dec-02 02:00 PM
bipin, that was a great article! I enjoyed it, very apt. by the way,check this lettet to the editor out in the Nepali times: http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue122/letters.htm#5 a very interesting take on the western ambivalence towards the Maoist insurgency. In Peace Ps: one good thing about retiring in cuba is you don't need a lot of money, the cost of living is less than in Nepal and you have absolutely free health care that is world class. my friend just returned from a trip. |
| bipin | Posted
on 10-Dec-02 03:33 PM
Suva: I read that letter too, and I am so thrilled to see someone to have said what I wanted to say all along. The only thing I have to add to it that this letter is so relevant to those who go overboard in criticising and bemoaning about democracy while at the same time they do everything they can to enjoy the maximum benefit while being sheltered by democracy -- material comforts, mobility, and free speech. About Cuba, I then just have to wait until I retire. I sure can't see myslef working there for a living. l am too spoiled. |
| gorkheni | Posted
on 10-Dec-02 04:05 PM
eso herda ta nepali haru seem very hopeful raja ma , hoina ta? Khai ke ho ke ho , afu ta palitikcs bujdina baaa. election chahi april ma hune re, hola ta? mero bichar ma ali dar lagdo situation cha. I mean, king takes all executive powers and leaves the politicians with nothing! Asti chahi Rajdarbar ma Raja le called all the cabinet members for drinks re, and told them to behave themselves! Most power in in the hands of raja, therefore rule of the people ta bhayena ni. One thing , hai, when was there ever democracy in Nepal? I think praja ko tantra bhaeko bhae , mero mind bata tyo event chahi slip garyo... |
| gorkheni | Posted
on 10-Dec-02 04:14 PM
King instructs cabinet members The King is learnt to have issued strict warning to all the ministers not to indulge in corruption and made it clear that anybody who is caught of wrongdoing would be subjected to stringent punishment. He also expressed his disenchantment towards some of the ministers for speaking carelessly on topics that they did not have any competence and knowledge. The King was not content with the tempo at which the five point agenda handed over to the cabinet was being implemented. King Gyanendra asked the ministers to hold prior discussions and work out a consensus view when speaking on topics such as multiparty democracy, Constitution, national interest and the Maoist problem. nepalnews.com am Dec 9 His Majesty’s informal ‘dos’ and don’ts’ for the ministers From Our Special Correspondent KATHMANDU, Dec 8 After nearly two months of patient and optimistic wait, King Gyanendra apparently gave a gentle but clear message to the Council of Ministers to deliver. There was also an apparent disapproval of the way some ministers were behaving in public. There was a general instruction not to denigrate political parties, which were an essential part of the present political system. During a social gathering of the ministers over ‘drink’ on Saturday night at the Royal Palace, His Majesty the King conveyed to the Prime Minister that messages coming across to him suggested that the ministry had not done much in realising the five-point agenda set for the Chand government at the time of its formation. Sources said His Majesty the King made it fairly clear that the ministry had got to implement the agenda. The social occasion was visibly a tough time as well for the other ministers who were clearly asked to follow the prime ministerial system. The ministers have to follow the Prime Minister and contact the king if necessary only through the Prime Minister. At least one minister was told to mend his ways in public. The minister has been in the controversy recently over the manner in which he announced government’s readiness to dispose a government undertaking for less than two billion rupees. In fact, there was a general message that the ministers should not be speaking in an unbridled manner on major national issues. Crown Prince Paras was a quiet witness to the ministers being given the ‘dos and the don’ts’ throughout. Despite political parties’ criticism of the king in public forum, His Majesty was clear that the political parties have a role undiminished and that their legitimate activities should not be curtailed in any manner, a source said. And finally, the soft words with a stern message were there that the ministers have got to be clean. No one knows about the political significance of the Saturday evening event, but one thing that one can make out is: The king is not all too happy with the performance or lack of it of the Chand ministry, the source added. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 10-Dec-02 05:29 PM
Hi all, Just a few comments after a brief break. Villagevoice, and czar have been pretty clear in their position about the indispensability of democracy, and I ,predictably, share their position. For those whose love to the king and his ability to manage the nation is still intact, here are some points. 1. Against the claim that the king is factor for stability: Contrary to what is thought, it is not proven. In modern Nepal, after the demise of Prithvi Narayan Shah, schemes and conspiracy played major role in day to day business of the palace. The only major stability the nation saw was under the 31 years of powerful rule by general Bhimsen Thapa and 103 years of dark Rana regime, both regimes NOT UNDER THE KINGS. After the death of general Thapa and before the dawn of Rana regime, almost every prime minister was killed.So, if stability is our only motto, well then we better count on Ranas rather than Rajas. 2. Against the claim that the king is a patriarch of the house and won't undermine its interest: Like someone said this before, the evidence is on the contrary. It depends on what type of the king you have. King Mahendra despite his theatrics did furtively sign the 1965 treaty that became headache to his son's regime in 1988.[King Birendra, however, deserve praise for not submitting to the Indian pressure in 1988 for another inequal treaty.] Saudi, Bhutani, and other kings who are active until now have advanced their personal interest first.Contrary to that, remember the democracy. When Girija did the Tanakpur thing, the whole nation vetted that treaty, the supreme court looked at it, and the treaty was revised somehow, and finally it was presented to the parliament. 3.About this living in Cuba thing: Yea, you definitely want to live in Cuba if you have American dollars to spend. As for the Cubans, the ones who churn out the finest cigars in the world do so for US$8.00 per month. I won't be living in a society just to feel good that when I am 70, I will be living in a good sanatarium. We don't work to die well, we work to live well, and we know how working Cubans feel. -- |
| wy | Posted
on 10-Dec-02 05:43 PM
KG was a businessman so he does not have patience for incompetence or loose talk. Even Bush was not happy when Rusmfeld and one of the Pentagonians clashed. So, yes, the ministers have to do their homework and be united in a coherent manner to express their views of the government within a certain parameter. The only problem is that it should have come from the PM himself. But then, what do expect from a non-performer! Active monarchy in Nepal at this day and age will only spell diaster sooner or later. Like Gorkhen, I am a little worried. I don't how long the clowns will be kept out of the stage by the puppets! |
| wy | Posted
on 10-Dec-02 05:51 PM
I meant: I don't know how long the clowns will be kept out of the stage by the puppets! |