| Username |
Post |
| kewl |
Posted
on 27-Dec-02 10:06 PM
Open question to all of you....If you get it correctly.....consider yourself very smart..!!!!
Question goes like this...
Arrange the following names in order according to their contribution to Nepal...(highest goes first..)
Girija, King Mahendra, Madhav Nepal, King Birendra, BP, Ganesh Man, King Tribhuwan, KpBhattari, ManMohan
(You can add other name, if you think they need to be listed...)
Lets see who will be the winner!!!!
|
| LL66HG |
Posted
on 28-Dec-02 05:29 AM
here i go:
King Birendra, King Mahendra, BP, Ganesh Man, King Tribhuwan, KpBhattari, ManMohan Madhav Nepal, Girija
|
| safasaja |
Posted
on 28-Dec-02 08:05 AM
Among all, King Mahendra was a most visionary and effective leader. Rest of them (except kings) are nothing more than opportunist. I think most of us are not old enough to know about King T. But king Birendra was good in heart and liberal.
What I am hearing is people like King Gyanendra. There is a feeling that King M and King G has a similar instinct, management style. But it is too early to tell about King G. For sure, he is a timely decision maker. But only time will judge.
Lets see who will be the best before we all end of trying to seek asylum somewhere if things keep going at this rate.
|
| kewl |
Posted
on 28-Dec-02 11:22 AM
Well at least two of you took time to say something...Thanks...:)
|
| Vision |
Posted
on 28-Dec-02 12:50 PM
Girija and Madhav Nepal should not be in the list, even though they have made contribution, a big NEGATIVE one that is...they are downright ignorant.
Agree with safasaja, king mahendra probably made the most contribution to our country. He was a man with a vision and a strategic leader. King Birendra lacked the enthusiasm his father had, nonetheless, he was liberal, polite and always was for the people.
|
| rabi |
Posted
on 29-Dec-02 01:13 AM
Kewl:
You seem to imply that you have the golden list that puts these personalities in THE RIGHT order. Hmm...I wonder where you stole this golden list from! ;)
Anyway, instead of reducing these folks to a mere list here is what I think of each, not in any particular order--
Girija:
...WAS a mediocre leader for change, until 1990. My opinion: his emergence as one of the major opposition leaders before 1990 has more to do with the retarded Asian practice of "seniority based seniority" rather than "merit based senioirity." Since 1990, everyday he diminishes himself in the history of Nepal. His best contribution to Nepali politics today would be his absence. Why do I feel like that's not going to happen in his lifetime?
King Mahendra:
Born an aristocrat, but true statesman by nature. Of the three kings, the most gifted and able leader with guts to follow his instincts. His royal coup in 2017 may have been a powerplay or HIS sincere belief that he was acting for the best of Nepal; in Nepal of 40 years ago, I wouldn't criticize him for his grossly patronizing attitude. He was staunchly patriotic, was in touch with the common people, and definitely worked towards mordernizing Nepal. (Legend has it that he challenged BP to contest a national election with him, and even offered to give up the throne to have a level playing field). He had a relatively short reign, and **MAY** have done some more good if he had lived longer. Would be interesting to know what he would have done in the later years if he had lived longer to witness the stronger will of the Nepali people to curtail his authority.
Madhav Nepal, ManMohan: Get some credit for opposition politics pre-1990. However, they and their party is an old calendar that's still hanging because they hastily put a nice picture on the calendar just as the calendar became obsolete. Communism in Nepal today??? He, his party, and its 1000 avatars are indistinguishable from the non-communist parties in their ideologies and agenda. The choice is between this evil or that evil. The only exception with unique agenda is, unfortunately, the Maoists who are hell bent on turning the land into a communist republic, even at the cost of all living and non-living things on the land!
King Birendra:
A British gentleman at heart (legend: had to be coached in Nepali for his first statement to the country when the kingdom suddenly fell on his lap in 2028). He was probably the most well-intentioned of the three kings.
His deadly, unforgivable sin: act of omission, not so much act of commission. By all accounts, he was not corrupt or tyrant at heart, but was guilty of not being fully aware that those in his inner circle (his relatives and closest advisers) were sucking the marrow of Nepali populace. His quick submission to people's will in 1990 surprised his detractors and infuriated his cronies. But he made the move, anyway. I doubt there are many instances in the world history when somebody gave up absolute power like that before he absolutely had to. I can theorize that his continued reign would have at least not hurt Nepal, if not helped it much.
BP:A true leader with charisma, courage, intellect and sincerity. Too bad he didn't live long enough to see the fruits of his life's work. We can only guess that he would have been a blessing in post-1990 Nepal, and may have been the one person who would have made all the difference. What a mess we are in; our best hope are the ones that are long gone.
Ganesh Man: A tenacious and courageous opposition leader who contributed a lot more stamina than intellect to the cause of political change in Nepal. He was rightly given the honorary "supreme" status after 1990, but he struggled to maintain the dignity of that honor until he died shortly afterwards. I did a short interview with him, but he was so incapacitated by that time that I did not get him to say anything much significant. One thing I remember him saying is that he thought that having achieved political freedom/equality, the next battleground for Nepali leaders was economic freedom/equality for Nepali masses.
King Tribhuwan: Somewhat lightweight character in the history of Nepal [what did he do between 2007 and his death in 2013 (?)], but must be credited for his partial role in ending the Rana rule in 2007. Though the Rana rule was replaced by the Shah rule, the Shahs were at least not paranoid about the dangers of modernization.
KpBhattari: A tenacious leader who contributed much as opposition leader, and perhaps less as the leader of the ruling party. His greatest fault may be his centrist tendency, and lack of courage to follow his intincts and take bold steps. His silence on disastrous GP/Deuba feud has no excuse (unless he is significanly incapacitated...heard some reports of his medical problems). Leaders in his league need to understand that the 1990 change by itselft is not an end, but a means to and end. People turned out in masses to bring about the change so that their leaders could be in a position to truly work for them. People have done their share and installed the "democratic leaders". The democratic leaders (not that leaders are democratic in nature; just that people democratically elected them) have failed to deliver.
Peace! These are just my quick opinions!!
|
| Vision |
Posted
on 29-Dec-02 10:22 AM
Rabi Ji,
Excellent analysis...couldn't agree with you more.
|
