| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post | ||
| Republic Nepal | Posted
on 24-Jan-03 01:55 PM
Pro-democracy, non-partisan Nepali Organisation established to help steer national politics towards the inevitable path of Republicanism seeks new members to create, distribute and publicise materials debunking the Monarchy in Nepal. We need volunteer programmers and writers to help hasten the organization's web debut 1st March, 2003. Please write to us at Republic_Nepal@yahoo.com to join or if you have any questions. |
||
| Torpe | Posted
on 24-Jan-03 02:39 PM
Yeah.....Finally someone is doing something! I am in guys. Best, Torpe. |
||
| Vision | Posted
on 24-Jan-03 08:00 PM
RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
||
| Torpe | Posted
on 24-Jan-03 09:01 PM
"RUBBISH" That's what people said when a guy (damn, I forgot his name) claimed for the first time that the Earth was round. Let people pursue what interests them. Time will judge the *rubbishness* of what they are doing, not you, Mr/Mrs Vision! Don't get discouraged Nepali Republicans. Way to go!! Arko ANA convention maa eutaa jod daar aamsabhaa pani garnu parchha; malaai nimtaa deu. Mero pani alikati rish chha yo raaja maathi!! |
||
| khimberly | Posted
on 24-Jan-03 09:56 PM
Where is come from this Republic Nepal ?I don,t want Republic Nepal , I want my Nepal Adhirajya . |
||
| isolated freak | Posted
on 24-Jan-03 10:34 PM
vision, you sure have a vision. |
||
| sagarmatha | Posted
on 24-Jan-03 11:13 PM
Count me in for Repulic Nepal. |
||
| Tick | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 08:13 AM
The RUBBISH is still a RUBBISH. Common knowledge matters like the world is round or the sun is hot statement does not make rubbish a jewel! |
||
| Tick | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 08:15 AM
The vision is comprised of future not the past. The idea of republic is based on the past not on the future. Vision Ji, You DO have a vision. |
||
| kalanidhi | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 08:37 AM
Vision, You are right !! |
||
| rajunpl | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 08:51 AM
Vision you are wrong.You have no explanation rather than corruption of the topic nevertheless i am wrong. I am not saying I am all after all. Yes,Republic jyu.There are many hoax about neplese govt. They will do this they will do that. I will make s'pore or other bullsh*t like nepal will be like this after republic, will be like that after monarchy, will be that after democracy uhh! Leave it as it is cos nobody gonna make it right and nobody gonna make it wrong regardless it is too wrong already. Hoax of maoist movement,hoax of monarchy,hoax of socialist.Nepal is nepal after all like i said"HIDDEN LEGEND IN THE HILLS AND MOUNTAIN". aND IT SUCH A MOUNTAIN THAT IS TALLEST IN THE EARTH. Nobody has gut to see in the same height.PRO-DEMOCRACY is other major hoax with more experience version of corruption.is n't it? |
||
| littlejhonny | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 10:31 AM
FOOLS ........... there is nothing as rupublic nepal ........ the day people try to do that .. nepal will be broken into small fragments .......... and then guess what nepal will be a part of a state in india .......... our national flag will tri colour and we will be singing india national anthem ....... so have some bloody vision .......... and nepal is just not ktm |
||
| jimpathi | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 01:24 PM
Little Johny.....to the point.. |
||
| kewl | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 04:06 PM
Can anyone please list the advantages we get if we go for Republic Nepal..? If there are, why not..but just because Girija or Makune wants to be in power..it does not make sense to cry for Republic Nepal... |
||
| suva chintak | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 05:16 PM
Nepali Republicans, I think our republicans might be barking at the wrong tree. If they are really serious about bringing a republic in Nepal, raising volunteers in the US does not help that much. The only guranteed success recipe is to follow the Sikkim example: first find one Lendup Dorje, Khatiwada Baje and Poudel Mukhiya Baje who will control the parliament. Then declare the king (Chhogyal) to be unconstitutional and illegal through the parliament; then make the next decision to merge the country into the Indian republic. Presto, then we will become a great republic overnight and we will be part of the great Bharat Mata and enjoy the many privileges of being part of a nuclear power!! I think this scenario is not very far...most of the mainstream newspapers are now carrying news stories and articles that laud the great achievement Sikkim has made since it joined India. Although it is not explicitly said that Nepal should follow Sikkim's example, the unstated conclusion is the same: in order to make progress, Sikkim is the best model for us. The media is subconsciously conditioning our mind that such an outcome is inevitable, or even welcome. Add to this chorus the now republican alliance between the Maoists, UML, NC, the republican state is not far off. I personally think that many of our leaders would be happy to pilgrimage to New Delhi for the Chief Minister's seat in Kathmandu. They already do so to go into power or keep their chairs...being a part of the Indian republic will make no difference to this group of people. While the Indian lobby and its intellectual and political supporters might be happy to realize their republican goal within the Indian republic, what will the majority of the Nepalis want? Personally, Nepali freedom and independence is far more important than all the promises of republicanism...Sikkim has more hospitals than Nepal (according to Kunda Dixit article in the Nepali Times), so what? Look at Bihar or UP, we are way ahead of them! If monarchy can ensure Nepali independence, long live the King...and no thank you Mr. Sikkim-type republic. Part of the anger of the Indian lobby with King G now is that instead of New Delhi appointing prime ministers and ministers, the King is nominating his own choices, without consulting the Indian lobby. So just to get back their plumb positions of loot, the Indian lobby raises the spectacle of democracy, republic, constitution, law, human rights and anything else that comes in handy to discredit the king. Despite whatever accusations the Indian lobby levels against the King, I still think he has the country's best interests at heart, and as long as he says that he is committed to multiparty democracy we should give him the benefit of the doubt. If his intention was to really usurp power, he would have dismissed the present constitution like his father in 1960 and brought in a new one. If he had wanted to he could have done it , but he did not do that, and that is a good sign. My own prediction is that after law and order situation (Maoist) is solved, he will hold elections and let parliament take over the show. So what he is doing now is a short term emergency measure to get the country out of the present quagmaire. But if the likes of Girija, Deuba, Madhab Nepal, Oli, Gupta, Khadka and rest of the Mafiosis were so concerned about the fair name of democracy, law, constitution, why were they blatantly raping the same values for the past 12 years? These are the same leaders who are not bothered one bit when their village and district level workers are being brutally murdered for the past seven years by a political force whose avowed goal is to smash multiparty system, civil rights, market economy and establish a Maoist one-party dictarship. These leaders see no danger to constitution or democracy from this quarter, to date they have not brought out one protest march or demonstration against the Maosits who are killing NC and UML workers. Now, how can we trust these leaders - who do not raise a finger to protect the human rights, democratic rights, or the very right to exist of their own party workers - that they are really concerned for the welfare of the general masses? Don't they say charity begins at home? These leaders are not committed for the welfare of the Nepali people, they are not bothered about the safety of their own party workers...all they want is their power and plunder. The very fact that Girija and Madahb Nepal can hang out with Maoist leaders and make secret deals for power is sickening...what will the spirits of their dead party workers think of this duplicity? Betrayal ...against the people, their party workers, and the country! |
||
| mirador | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 05:27 PM
Dear Kewl, In short, this is why democratic republicanism serves Nepal better than a monarchy - Monarchies tend towards authoritarianisn. In our context, the thirty year old panchayat regime is an example of authoritarian mode of governance. All this strives to serve is the few individuals who "run" the nation. Basic freedom like the freedom of expressed are prohibited. Human right is out of the agenda. You know this if you have lived through the Panchayat days. Even passive monarchies, like the constitutional one we saw for 12 years, exert too big an influence for a country to be run democratically. Now, the prevalent argument against Republicanist is that national unity will disintegrate in the absence of a King, although no one has bothered to do any research into the validity of the claim. No opinion polls, nothing. We disagree with this assertion. We think that the king is divisive force rather than an uniting one. Although we unreservedly condemn their modus operandi, the Maoist revolt is an example of this. Further, the Nepali Royals in Nepal elicit no sympathy from a common Nepali, especially after all the bloodshed that has occurred insinde and outside the palace. We believe that this is a myth purported to be the truth by some people, especially the pro-panchayatis, to further their interest. In short, if you believe that democracy is what we should aspire for, we are left with no choice but a cry for republicanism. We hope you will join us. |
||
| mirador | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 05:45 PM
>>If monarchy can ensure Nepali independence, long live the King...and no thank you Mr. Sikkim-type republic. A very sad scenario if it ever comes true. A lot sadder scenario now to see that there are educated people who believe this. ...That the king is somehow preserving our national sovereignty. What could be further from the truth! One nepali king, fifty-two years ago, offerred our country in a plate to the newly independent India. His descendant, rules the country without his people's support, and is justified in doing so, because his imagined absence conjures paranoia about national sovereignty. The indoctrination runs deeper than I thought. |
||
| kewl | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 05:55 PM
What could be further from the truth! One nepali king, fifty-two years ago, offerred our country in a plate to the newly independent India. His descendant, rules the country without his people's support, and is justified in doing so, because his imagined absence conjures paranoia about national sovereignty. Interesting....can we know more about it please...!!!!! |
||
| mack | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 06:02 PM
There elements that need to b eleminated immediately from the political picture of Nepal are: King, Mao, and Girija |
||
| suva chintak | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 06:30 PM
Miradorji, King Tribhuvan offered Nepal on a silver platter to India 52 years ago? Why did India not accept the King's offer from the silver platter? This is news to me, could you please give some dates and facts of the royal offer? And what might have been King Tribhuvan's motive to offer the kingdom to India months after getting it back from the Ranas? You say: " A very sad scenario if it ever comes true. A lot sadder scenario now to see that there are educated people who believe this. ...That the king is somehow preserving our national sovereignty. " Yes, I agree with you: it is even sadder when educated people engage in baseless accusations and slander without bothering to offer basic facts. In Peace! |
||
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 10:11 PM
mirador, you make no sense whatsoever to me. suva chintak, well written reply. i was thinking the same thing when i was reading the HImal mag's (*nepali) new issue. |
||
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Jan-03 10:14 PM
kIng Tribhuwan was far more nationalist than any of the congressi, UML leaders we have today (and we had then). |
||
| love_bites | Posted
on 26-Jan-03 12:39 AM
We have see all ya colors. Go, try u’r tricks somewhere else, the best place would still be the remote areas of Nepal where u can kiss the ass of u’r buddy maoist to regain u’r vitality and plunder this helpless nation once again. Democracy, republic, maoist and whatever U’r, have fun. May god bless ignorant and illiterate villagers of Nepal. |
||
| kalanidhi | Posted
on 26-Jan-03 02:14 AM
HEY GUYS AND GIRLS, I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THE MENTALITY OF POLITICIANS, BEUROCRATS, AND ALL NEPALI JANTA, OTHER WISE OUR COUNTRY'S FUTURE IS GOING "NO WHERE". IT WILL STUCK OR WILL GO BACK TO UNDER DEVELOPMENT. KALANIDHI UC BERKELEY |
||
| mirador | Posted
on 27-Jan-03 02:18 PM
To which Nehru replied, "sansar kya kahega?" You probably wouldn't believe my sources so I suggest you do some research of your own outside the Mahendramala. Capitalizing doesn't make your argument valid (given you have a argument to make) so it would make a better reading if you would stop doing that. Mr. Kalanidhi, I'm assuming UC Berkeley doesn't endorse your statement so please refrain from signing off tagging a fine school's name. Ahem! |
||
| suva chintak | Posted
on 27-Jan-03 08:09 PM
Mirador, You are wrong to assume that I don't believe your sources. I think your sources and references are absolutely beyond question. I read something similar in Bharatmala series, the book was called "Hindustan ne Nepal ko Kaise Nirman kia aur Bikas aur Fir Prajatantra aur Pradan Bhi Deea." If I am not mistaken, the book was published from Darbhanga by Supari Lal & Sons Prakasan. The author was Chaurangi Prasad Chaurasia, right? I had bought it for Rs. (IC) for 420 in Motihari in 1989. Anyway thanks for reminding me of the landmark scholarship on Indo-Nepal relations. While you are at it, could you also explain the motives of King Tribhuvan in wanting to hand over his kingdom to Jawari Lal? For some reason I don't think Chaurasiaji answers this issue. Mahendramala sure as hell wouldn't touch that, would it? Jawari Lal's "Sansar kya kahegi" reply poses one other problem though. If he was so shy about world opinion in taking Nepal, why was he so enthusiastic about grabbping Kashmir, Goa, Hydrabad, Junagad, and a whole lot of other similar kingdoms? The world opinion was so unfavorable that the UN had to issue a resolution on Kashmir! So why such modesty only on Nepal? Would love to hear more of your impeccable sources on this again. In peace! |
||
| Paschim | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 07:04 AM
Suva Chintak's humorous demand on sources aside, I think Tribhuwan's "offer" to Nehru is not purely fiction. I have also heard about this episode several times. But I also don't have hard sources, and don't know what the exact contents of the offer were. Separately, Ballav Bhai Patel, the powerful Home Minister is also said to have urged Nehru to annex Nepal. I also find it credible that Nehru would not have equated the status of Nepal with other Indian princely states. In his books (and at least one private letter to Indira in the collection of letters between the two that Sonia Gandhi has edited) he has talked fondly about Nepal being a centuries old, distinctive kingdom in the Himalaya; also the Ranas had long succeeded in securing special treatment in the Raj (like demanding 21 tope salute instead of the usual 19 given to the "other" Indian principalities). There was a huge controversy exactly two years ago when a senior BJP leader, Malkani, said "India should have annexed Nepal when Tribhuwan made the offer", and expressed sarcasm over Nehru's attributed retort, "what will the world say?" Malkani retracted the statement later. Google Malkani/Nepal to see the links on rediff.com, etc. ------ On a slightly different note on Tribhuwan, recently published memoirs by his own "samdhi", Nara Shumsher, portray a pleasure seeking, temperamental king who brutally ignored his eldest son, Mahendra. Nara Shumsher says the two were hardly in speaking terms after Mahendra's decision to marry Ratna. Other anecdotes of Nara Shumsher imply that Tribhuwan's humiliating treatment of his son might have played some role in shaping the personality of lonesome Mahendra (and the dubious political roles he went on to assume after 2011). Worried that Tribhuwan's brothel wandering trips across Indian cities might become public, Nehru is also said to have written a polite, private letter to Tribhuwan urging him to restrain his frequent visits to Indian cities, saying the "world sees you as a leader of a revolution and you have expectations to meet." BP Koirala says in his memoirs that his relationship with Tribhuwan worsened after Nehru wrote this, for he believed BP was the whistleblower. Tribhuwan to me is an ordinary aristocrat whose only contribution to Nepali history is that, pissed off with the Ranas, he played and went along the plans of some bold janata ka chhoras from Kathmandu, first from the Praja Parishad, then the Nepali Congress (which had plans to fly him to Palpa and declare a parallel government there in 2007). Tribhuwan's trump was that he was a descendant of Prithivi Naryan Shah, and thus the Ranas saw him as the "legitimate" ruler of the kingdom (Chandra Shamsher's confidante Ram Mani Acharya Dixit has fascinating memoirs that shed light on how seriously the Ranas took this issue). By just vacating the throne and escaping to Delhi, leaving an infant naati called Gyanendra behind, he hastened the inevitable demise of the Ranas. Unlike Panchayeti propaganda, Tribhuwan was no "father of the nation", no great neta, not even a nationalist in the sense Mahendra wanted to be styled. He was a hedonistic prince who took more pleasure in petty indulgences than lofty matters of the state -- quite unlike, for good or worse, his three successors. In this thread on the "Republic", it is also worth recalling that Tribhuwan's public address to the nation in 2007 actually promised a "republic". Drafters apparently didn't know how to translate "democracy" into Nepali. So they used "ganatantra" instead of "prajatantra" re. A declaration of the republic from the king himself -- folks, it has happened in Nepal! |
||
| Lalupate*Joban | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 01:30 PM
Regarding Tribhuvan, I could not agree more with Paschim. Although I have not had the opportunity to go through a veritable account of Nehru-Tribhuvan conversation regarding Nepal's possible infusion into India, I find it quite probable that Tribhuvan might have made the offer and Nehru rejected it. Nehru, always an introspective man with a keen sense of how history would judge him, should have found the prospect of annexing Nepal to India not-so-appealing. The princely Indian states are a different kettle of fish altogether. Combine geopolitics, Sardar Patel's drive, Nehru's vision of India and the actions of the princelings, and, voila, you get a holistic rationale for their assimilation into India. BTW, the Malkani statement came in the wake of the infamous Hrithik Roshan kaanda. |
||
| Biswo | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 01:41 PM
Actually, the 'offer' thing came in the memoir of former Indian foreign secretary Natwar Singh or something like that before Malkani shouted it loudly. I am not sure about the veracity of the offer. Also, I wonder the legitimacy of such offer. Was Tribhuvan authorized to make such offer? Tribhuvan needs to commended for his role in 2007 movement, although his action in 1997 kaanda was reprobable. With a little bit of courage, he could have averted the famous executions of the four martyrs. But Tribhuvan did a lot of good things afterwards. He hated, I mean looks like really hated, Ranas, and loved girls. This fella was also 'lucky' enough to marry two beautiful princess from the principality of Sitapur just across the border. When he was in New Delhi in 2007, when he was staying in Patiyala house after the flight from KTM, he reportedly asked Nehru to arrange for some 'mujura/tawaayefs'. On a lighter note, I like Tribhuvan for his fashionable aspect. He was the first head of state of Nepal to be clean shaved. In fact, until then, only presidents of USA used to be clean shaved. Most of the head of states liked to be hursuit, either Mustache or beard or both. Musolini was a famous ruler who was mustachiod before 1930s, but later became cleanshaved. Then Churchil came, Nehru came etc. Now, most of the rulers we see in Nepal/Foreigns are cleanshaved. Talibans, and Iranians try to reverse the trend occasionally, though. |
||
| suva chintak | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 03:04 PM
Trust good ol' Paschim to give an erotic twist to any discussion, even a sterile one like the one on da republic! There was this funny guy in our ol village. He used to say "Guff ramailo ki rajniti ko ki taruniko." I guess that old fart was right, we don't seem to get one without the other. So I join the stimulating discourse in earnest! Sure, Tribhuvan was raised by the Ranas to be a playboy from his childhoold. They encouraged and provided him with such carnal pleasure from early on so he would not be bothered with politics. This is how he came to father Mahendra when he was only 13! In this department, I think Tribhuvan did the Ranas proud - he was a sensous, hednoistic prince. But it is erroneous to assume that only people born in palaces are in sexual overdrive (sure they have more opportunites to quench their libido, while we just fantasize, repress it and make morality out of it). Look at Jawari Lal, he was the greatest Indian womaniser of the first half of the 20th century. His philandering are legendary - including Lady Mountbatten and wife of Harbans Ray Bacchan. These exploits got even more pronounced after his wife died during the 1930s. I find it so interesting to hear that of all the people Jawari Lal should be urging restraint on Tribhuvan! It would be like Bill Clinton preaching sexual morality! Nearer home, BP was no saint in this manner (again, since we have lowered the requirements for sources and ' I have also heard' suffices). He is reported to have indulged in several extra-maritial affairs, including one with a bhanji. After his wife died some 40 years ago, Girija has sought solace in the arms of several different women, and one very close at home. Sex and politics does seem to go together. Forget the degenerate princes and the bourgeois, even our progressive communists are not to be outdone in this department. Just a few years ago the ML factions spilled the beans on the Khadag Oli - Bidhya Bhandari scandals. And our firebrand revolutionary Ram Bahadur Thapa aka Baadal slept around with Comrade Pampha in the trenches...the Maoists actually took disciplinary action against the comrades in amor. But in the end, love prevailed and these two are now happily married (Baadal chucked his old wife out). So yes, Rajas, rajniti and ras-raang all goes together. After all if Ramana had not stolen Sita, there would have been no Ramayana to begin with! But to get back to politics, let us assume for a moment that Jawari Lal was too much of a noble character (ahem, ahem, we won't hold the parapatni blemish against him) to accept Nepal when King Tribhuvan offered it to him, because as you say, Nepal had a different status than the other kingdoms in the British Indian empire. But what would explain King Tribhuvan's motive in offering his kingdom in the first place, especially since we have said that Nepal had a very different status? We must establish the motive for such a offer of gift? Any sources or even hearsay on this? While we wait for a more learned discourse on this, how about an Freudian hypothesis? Since we know that this king was a sexual maniac and frequented Indian brothels all the time and even asked the Prime Minister of India to provide women for company, Tribhuvan was on very personal and informal terms with the Jawari Lal. One day during his visit to Nehru's residence, he lays his eyes on this slender beauty who walks very gracefully towards Jawari Lal and sits at his side, shy and demure...a la Kashmir ke kali. Tribhuvan's libido is set on fire, and says in a desperate, hoarse voice: "Your excellency Panditji, ya India mujhe dijiya aur iske badleme hum aapko Nepal bhi deneko taiyaar hain." To this outrageous proposal, the ever suave Nehruji replied "Your Majesty, ish prastab ke liya bahut bahut sukriya, lekin duniya kya kaheege?" The young lass blushed, giggled and dashed towards the large Mughal garden outside, but not before throwing a sidelong glance at the visitor from Kathmandu. Unable to control the fire struck deep in him by the dark haired numph, "Bhhand me jye duniya" the Nepali Prince grunted and made a beeling for the same doorway. Source: A nice little birdie once told me. Rest, as they say, is history. Sunne lai sunko mala, bhannelai fulko mala, Yo katha baikunta jala bhanne bela khuru khuru aula. InJest! |
||
| SITARA | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 03:14 PM
Suva Chintak ji I must confess, you have titilated my funny bones! he he! Great writing...! Between you and Paschim, you guys might come up with another "Gorus of Love"...for the interestingly erotic theme of Sex and the Politician! |
||
| M.P. | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 03:36 PM
By the way, did you guys know that Gyanendra is visiting my college on March 4, 2003? Read on. If he is a sex maniac like Tribhuvan, I tell him right now: you are coming to the wrong place! Please follow the link below to cnn to read more about his visit. --- | M.P. | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 03:39 PM
Oops the link: Gyanendra comes to Swat |
| psvfsolutions | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 04:53 PM
I think at this point and time - meaning human effort for the economic prosperity, global economy networking and laws and regulations that support such achievements which of course they most viable in a Multiparty Democracy or Republic - Nepal does not care for its independence and sovereinty established by the Sectarian Feudal king. If the king had been educated from Oxford or Yale or Princeton, we could expect the transcentalism as a revolutionary reform in Sectarian Feudal governance system. But such king has been riddiculed and murdered brutally we can not hope such transformation of any sort. The present king will drag Nepal with most undecisive policies and politics. He is trying to be most Sectarian Hindu king by doing all sort of Hindu rituals and dramas to spill magic in simple Nepali country people. It will be the story that I remember - "once upon a time in a remote district of Nepal people wanted airport to be build for many reasons such as medician, sick people transportation etc, but a Sectarian Feudal, the powerful Panchayet represent told the people is that airport is not a good thing to build in our village because it will make a noise and blow our paddies away. Young generation with hot blood hooted him but the old ones shook thier head. Police dicouraged young hot blooded men and women." His response to the need postponed the airport project for next 6 years. That is what is this king is and that is what you expect from him. He will drag the politician and parties to the death with slow poison by postpondeing not responding to the crises of the country which now he is fully responsible. He is making no decision for any better situation to be seen in Nepal. Foreign donaners are already deciding to postpond or cancel the financial commitments for the development that are programmed during Multiparty System or last twelve years. Most probably if Girja and other political leaders read the line between the tricks this king is playing, we will stand for the Republic Democracy. That's gonna be our choice and we have to knock down the valuse and believes of governance that are fabricated by the Sectarian Hindu values nd believes. We go for the Republic Democracy - Multiparty Democracy for people rule for economic opportunity, expolitation of global economy and humanly legilations, justice and execution. |
||
| Nepe | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 05:34 PM
Shuva Chintak, Pratibha bhaneko sattur ko bhaye'ni taarif garnu bhanchhan. Tesaile aafu khunkhar republican pare'ni I must say you have a terrific stye of writing. Majaa aayo ! |
||
| Parijat phul | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 05:35 PM
M.P. You better have some stinging questions ready for his royal visit to your college. By the way doesn't he have better things to do than trumping around the world visiting colleges? And I wonder why Swarthmore? May be you know some inside gossip since you are from there. Enlighten us. |
||
| najar | Posted
on 28-Jan-03 05:47 PM
Suvachintakji, you are one good story teller! Didn't think i would read this political details until actually started reading the last few postings...really interestin and amusing..hmmmm |
||
| rajunpl | Posted
on 01-Feb-03 04:16 AM
and a whisky on me to extract real vision off the virtual vision.hahahahaha. |
||
| khai_k_vanu | Posted
on 02-Feb-03 06:23 PM
Interesting thread....want to hear/ read more :-)! |
||
| paramendra | Posted
on 26-Feb-03 05:32 PM
Looks like I have been skipping this one! |
||
| rajunpl | Posted
on 01-Mar-03 04:26 AM
probably it is |
||
| paramendra | Posted
on 03-Mar-03 05:27 PM
Nepal Would Be Better Off A Republic, India Style by Paramendra Bhagat June 29, 2001 http://www.geocities.com/bhagat266/a/republic062901.html (I have posted this article before .....) |
||
| rajunpl | Posted
on 04-Mar-03 03:45 AM
ye mora bhagate milena |