Tribute to late king Birendra

Birendra may be a gentleman (I have never met him!), he never had a good family. He is killed by his family, whoever do it!!
Better the remained palace people get rid of palace and live peacefully before they are forced to do! That will be the true tribute to Birendra!

Suman Dhakal wrote: i belive in the saying that "kalo gaye goro aucha". birendra died, now we have gyanendra. if anything, i take birendra's death in a positive light. maybe it is an opening of a door for a new beginning.

----
Manchu Marnu ta sablai ek din chhadai chha. Tara pani kina yasto kathor sabda prayog garchou mitra. Kasaile Suman Dhakal mardiye huntho usko thau ogatna bhanema mitra Suman lai kati chot lagla? Birendra was King, and we were taught that King never dies (well king died in many countries or murdered), tara pani Birendra being King, he was also human being, he also had son. daught. and he wanted to see his grand kids . . . . . .play with them and finally die when he really deserved death from natural cause. Tyasaile kasaiko mrityu ma sajilai sanga u marera jati nai bho chahi nabhanou. Even 80 years old person has interest to live more, well, suman ji jasto sochai ka chhora bho bhane budho chadhai marera thikai bho sampatti khana paiyo bhanna ta hunna ni as a social man like Suman ji. Huncha ra? Janme pachi marnu ta cchha nai, tara not that way.

HG

Tiramisu,

If ‘tribute’ allows false glorification, do it by all means. Just don’t debate.

About the death of monarchy in Nepali psyche, I do not know how mature you are to understand and accept this. But I will suggest you to read Paschim’s postings. Somewhere he has written that amidst the tragedy, two good things happened last year- The palace and the army were demystified, people got to learn they are not holy cows. Here I am not arguing whether Nepal needs monarchy or not. I sense in Paschim’s posting that he is for a weak monarchy. I just wanted to state what happened in Nepal’s history last year.

You are free to interpret whether bondage with monarchy is a dark thing or not. No comment on my part.

Nobody is saying the king birendra did not die in a horrific circumstances. But the fact remains that he as the head of his house (ok palace) bears due part of responsibility. That horrific murder is the result of the corrupt (yes corrupt, no mystical/divine or whatever good adjectives used for the royals) lifestyle of the royals. Yes, nobody deserves to die like that. But people were not responsible for that. The life style of the royal family itself that Birendra nurtured and protected (or was unable to reform !) ultimately finished off his family. The fact is fact.

No need to bring up ‘wing’ here. Can we not discuss some facts as facts ?

The true tribute to Birendra is not to lie about him. False glorification is good on earth, but very bad in the heaven. They say ‘dudh ko dudh, pani ko pani’ kind of justice is served there. Trailokya Arayal in a related thread does not seem to be aware of this. Did you read him ?

hahooguru ji :)
tapain sandhai guru jastai kura garnu huncha.. and i enjoy ur postings a lot actually..
"kosaile suman dhakal mordiye pani hunthyo...." LOL
im not laughing at your response or at suman dhakal.. i just wanted to tell you that that line made me laugh a LOT.. then it made me smile. ekdam THIK kura ho guru ji :)

As for the topic - im really surprised at some of the responses...
I was really curious about what King Birendra has done to some of you that has caused so much hatred? or how Princess Shruti, Prince Nirajan or Queen Aishwarya have managed cause to much trouble in your lives. If you're just talking politics, then cursing someone's grave is quite perverted especially when you're saying it "just for the sake of opposing the monarchy."
After the Jana Andolan in 1990, Ganesh man Singh himself apparently said - "hamile ta lota liyera gako thiaun, raja le gagri bharera pathayo!"
Figure that out yourselves and you might have another opinion about whether the King was actually FORCED as you claim to give up the panchayat system.
About him being effective - his ideology was always to "give the people what they want." Ganesh man once suggested to the King that it was time to start calling them "tapain" instead of the conventional "timi." He just smiled and happily started saying 'tapain' to them without a single frown. This does not prove that he was being kind by respectfully addressing them which he shouldve have done in the first place, but it does reflect his ideology - "Let me be remembered as a true King", he used to say. "I want to give justice to my people."
Now the interpretation of a "true king" would differ from person to person...so if "effectiveness" is all you all are looking for, then you are asking for a keeps-it-all-together dictator. (which is perhaps what Nepal needs) An effective King in Nepal can never be a "considerate" one, a flexible one or one that agrees to the demands of dozens of those ministers.. at least not within the next 5-10 years.
Nevertheless, like hahooguruji said - mornu ta sabai lai kunai din chadaicha..
Tara kina mori sakya raja lai sarapera shanti line?
Lets just pray that those souls rest in peace shall we..

Hello HahooGuru, one of the "hasits" of gbnc. I have always admired your writing. Thanx for replying to my posting.

Your quote “Kasaile Suman Dhakal mardiye huntho usko thau ogatna bhanema mitra Suman lai kati chot lagla?” seems to imply that I was wishing for king Birendra's death. This could not be any further from the truth. Also in my posting I have not said that he deserved such a death or whether he was a good or a bad king. He may very well have been a good father, a good husband and a good human being. I have no second opinion on that. All I am saying is that since he has already passed away, why look at his death in a negative way. Why not in a positive light? Is that so wrong Mr. HahooGuru? My attempt was simply to probe the brighter side. Of course it hurts me too see another fellow human get killed like that. But we have to move on. His death should not mean the end of the world. That is what I mean by “kalo gaye goro aucha”. Yes he was our king, so what? Kings come and go Mr. HahooGuru. His death may very well be the beginning of an end of the shah dynasty. Maybe this marks the beginning of a new era. A better era for Nepal. Is it so wrong for me to hope for such an outcome? Is that being cold hearted?

Also u wrote “suman ji jasto sochai ka chhora bho bhane budho chadhai marera thikai bho sampatti khana paiyo bhanna ta hunna ni as a social man like Suman ji.”

I have never said or even implied such a point mitra HahooGuru. Actually, you have made it easier for me to get across my point by stating the above quote. Maybe the “budho” was not well managing his sampati. Maybe he could have done better. Which does not mean that I was wishing for his death. And if that sampati can be well managed under someone else’s management, is it so wrong of me to say that the budho’s death opened a door for a new beginning. A new mangement under which the sampati could now be used more efficiently. And this is exactly my point mitra Guru.

PS. Also mitra Guru, he was the KING. "with great power comes great responsibility" asy they say in Spiderman. Thus it should not totally shock anyone when I anylize king Birnedra's death in such a manner. Since he was held to such higher standards, he also most certainly be ready to recive such "harsh" judgement for he was no ordinary Nepali.

Suman Dhakal

Suman ji,

I read your version. We need to discuss all facets and come to
some practical conclusion. Instead of volleying postings between
us, I am interested to read others postings. thanks for your
clarification.

Your point " Since he was held to such higher standards, he also most certainly be ready to recive such "harsh" judgement for he was no ordinary Nepali. "

should be the core issue. Paschim once wrote on Ganeshman that history
writers should look at all facets of King Birendra. Lets not pick up certain
episode and judge him from single angle. He was also public figure and
it surely asks us look this side too.

HG

dear wxy,
i am replying to:'the lifestyle of the royals that King birendra protected and nurtured ultimately finished off his family'

the so-called Fact from your side is in my views a mere interpretation of hearsay. perhaps you are more knowledgeable when it comes to inner royal facts, and maybe i am wrong to assume that king Birendra was trying to reform/rehabilitate the wayward son, But would it be wrong to give the late king the benefit of doubt that as a father, he might have done his best to bring his son in line with his expectations? would any father revel with joy when his son becomes an alcoholic, an addict? Of course, the Fact is, He's No More, but, THE ACTION OF ONE PERSON IS HIS ALONE, AND IN THIS CASE, ALLEGEDLY, DIPENDRA'S. WHY TARNISH THE IMAGE OF A MONARCH WHO WAS REVERED UNTIL HIS UNTIMELY DEMISE? i may be wrong, and immature too, to think along that line. But while i applaud your view of tackling every adversity with optimism, when people suddenly start denouncing a man who was unbeknown to us - common citizens who looked upto him- personally as far as his mannerisms, insights,expectations were , in trying to ward off hurling accusations at a dead man, albeit him being the late king, is no glorification!

there is a ring of truth in paschim's mention of the demystification of monarchs after the royal massacre. i am not denying that FACT.

then again, some self-proclaiming, self-glorifying intellectuals in these forums think you and i are discussing trivial issues while ignoring the need to counter the real issues on hand, so let's put this issue to rest, what say you?