I just visited The Nepal Digest ( www.thenepaldigest.org) site after a very long time, and found out -- much to my dismay -- that it has ceased publication as of last March.

The parting editorial implies that the editorial team quit over its supposed inability to implement free and fair editorial decisions, and hurls veild blame at other people (whoever they might be!)

My question: What happened, guys? Were the differences of opinion so great that
the publication had to, well, die out like this?

************

Likewise, sometime late last January, The NATION newsweekly in Kathmandu died out after the editors and the publishers had a falling out after only a few months together.

My question: Again, were the differences of opinion so great that the patrika had to be killed?

*********

My observation: While working in Nepal as a business advisor, one thing I noticed
again and again was this. That most business partnerships (among Nepalis), started
with great hopes among friends, eventually soured to bitterness . . . so much so
that people who were earlier friends had become sworn enemies by the time the
ashes cooled off from the corpses of their business.

********

My question: Are most of us Nepalis fundamentally incapable of working on a team that has people who hold different ideas from us?

Alternatively, when the going gets tough, is it easier for us to fight with one another than address the problems at hand so that at least minially amicable solution can be found?

******

My comment: Isn't it ironic that while we do everything nice and polite with one another to avoid conflicts and confrontations, our lives in Nepal and Nepali societies might well
be mired in unaddressed and simmering conflicts . . . ranging from that of the Maoists
to businesses gone sour?

oohi
ashu

so, WHAT HAPPENED TO TND?

यो धागो पढ्दापढ्दै स्कुले जीवनको अन्तिम समय तिरको याद आयो।

१० कक्षाको सेन्टअपमा नेपाली विषयको परिक्षा दिंदै थिएँ। प्रश्नपत्रको वाक्यमा प्रयोग गर भन्ने भागमा एउटा शब्द थियो '' धोति न टोपी'' ।

मैले लेखें: धोति न टोपी - विनसित्तीमा मध्यावधि निर्वाचन डाकेर गिरिजा प्रसाद कोइरालालाई धोति न टोपी हुनुप-यो।

कुरो के थियो भने मध्यावधि अघिसम्म गिरिजा स्पष्ट वहुमत सहितको कांग्रेस संसदिय दलका नेता र प्रधानमन्त्री थिए। मध्यावधिमा कांग्रेस, एमाले पछिको दोश्रो ठूलो दल मात्र बनेन गिरिजाका ठाउँमा मनमोहन अधिकारी प्रधानमन्त्री बने। अनि मैले पनि यहि प्रसंगलाई आधार बनाएर धोति न टोपीलाई वाक्यमा प्रयोग गरें। जाँचकी गिरिजा भक्त परेछन क्यार, पछि नम्बर आउँदा त जम्मा ५५ छ बा। कहिल्यै ७० भन्दा कम नआउने नेपालीमा जम्मा ५५ ? त्यसपछि कहिल्यै पनि जाँचमा राजनीतिको प्रसंग नजोड्ने अठोट गरें मैले र परिक्षाफलमा पनि सँधै राम्रो अङ्क आइरह्यो। अहिले म सोंच्दैछु यतिखेरको परिस्थितीमा मैले उक्त शब्दलाई यसरी वाक्यमा प्रयोग गर्थे होला:
धोति न टोपी - विनसित्तीमा तानाशाही लाद्न खोज्दा राजा ज्ञानेन्द्रलाई धोति न टोपी हुनुपर्ने खतरा बढ्दै गइरहेको छ।

अब मेरो उत्तरपुस्तिका जाँच्ने गुरु राजाभक्त भा'भए मलाई फयल गर्थे होला । अनि कांग्रेस, एमाले , माओवादी भा भे टन्न नम्बर दिन्थे होला।

भन्नुको मतलब, कुनै पनि राजनीतिक शब्दलाई वाक्यमा प्रयोग गर्दा अथवा भनौं परिभाषित गर्दा राजनीतिक विषय वस्तुमा लेख्नेहरुले सम्भावित जोखिमहरुलाई मोल्ने गर्छन। र हामी सबैजना यस प्रकारको जोखिमलाई मोलेर नै प्रजातन्त्रको व्याख्या गरिरहेका छौं। प्रजातन्त्रवादीहरु हामीलाई पास गर्लान। मकरतन्त्रवादीहरु हामीलाई फेल गर्लान। तर मकरतन्त्रवादीले फेल गरे पनि हाम्रो वाक्य शब्द रचना र वर्णविन्यासका दृष्टिले शुद्ध नै छ। हैन त साथीहरु ?

धोति न टोपी - विनसित्तीमा तानाशाही लाद्न खोज्दा राजा ज्ञानेन्द्रलाई धोति न टोपी हुनुपर्ने खतरा बढ्दै गइरहेको छ।

हँसाउछन् बा केटाहरु!

धोती न टोपी: न मधिसे न पहाडी, गिरिजा जस्तो भन्न खोज्या नि।

Ashutosh, so do you really think average Nepali are so dumb and stupid that we only understand "simple and clear" message that you think only the king has offered so far? I am asking this because you asserted "...who cares about the fundamentals?..."

Well, I am NOT surprised anymore with your STUTIGAAN of GYANENDRA MAHARAJ and his repressive moves.

You know what? You are now talking the similar, if not the same, language of the notorious dictators and the aristocrats of any other repressive regime, who believe the commoners are like "BHENDA BAKHRA." We don't even have to go far. The Ranas were under the same illusions until 2007 BS, so were Mahendra and Birendra under the panchayeti rule (or should I say, Mandale rule). They were so wrong back then and trust me your GYANENDRA is and will be wrong as well. So what makes you think that Nepali will get GYANENDRA get away with the current autocratic rule and one of the biggest misuses of the state fund in Nepal's history?

It is in fact the fundamentals that matter in the long-term; it may not look so in the short-term, but he cannot withstand what is inevitable: LOKTANTRA is here to stay and there will be no place for repressive, absolute monarchy like the way he has at the moment.

I do no want to go over your "?the RELATIVELY abstract loot of the Shahs in the last 200 years" at this moment. I think you were little carried away here. Let me just say, I give a chance to paraphrase or clarify what you are saying here.

Sure Nepalese are unconfrontational, but to the extent that we can forgive the Maiosts for what they have done, for mass massacres that have occcured, for looting, for misbehaving and raping our own women, for destroying basic public services, health, education, damaging infrastructures costing millions of rupees? While we continue to emerge out of the era of darkness in the great history of Nepalese society, fear factor is a massive political propaganda, and to allow these murderers to do what they want, is giving them an upper hand in the political agenda. And the idea that there is nothing that we can do and to allow them to disarm and join hands with the seven parties is something very hard for me to digest.

And Ashu ji, I do not have a problem with the King's decision to take over and I like many other Nepalese around the world and back home hope that he does good. the problem I have is with the time table that he has set up . I mean why the hell does he have to say three years? What if he does not do it in three years? What do you say then? Let him go on! Heading into imperialism, I suppose. The fact of the matter is, the message is not clear and simple. It is extremely complex. Just because he uses some time table does not make it clear and simple.

Also your notion that the wrong message from the King does not concern us is absurd. Wrong message is a wrong message, and so be it labeled. We will be concerned if he is lying, we ought to be concerned, regardless of what the situation right now is.

The seven parties are now going to shake hands with the same Maoists who came into existence due to their own incompetence. Conversely, the Maoists are joining hands with the same group that they were against. So who to trust here? People fighting for pro-democracy joining hands with pro-communist turned terrorists. And if they were to succeed in brining King Gaynendra?s totalitarian regime down, back-stabbing among themselves would follow. And seven-parties who hopefully Nepalese people have now learned not to trust, will lose, and the Maoists will come to power with the barrel of their guns. And not to mention bloodbath, the catalyst.
So in reality, the future of Nepal looks gloomy, if Gaynendra is brought down without first solving the Maoists problem. I see Maoists as the main problem. It is easier to get rid of Gaynendra than Maoists. If we get rid of Gaynendra, before solving Maoists issue, and let the seven parties leaders back on the lead, Maoists will seize the country.
So right now, the best thing to do would be to watch what Gaynendra can deliver in the time he has asked for, while working/planning on an effective demonstration, and the government to follow post Feb 1st, 2008, in case Gaynendra doesn?t stand up to his promises.

The state of Nepali politics is going down the drain. I can understand why the King is the best available option for now.

However, there is a mob mentality with the anti king posters here which is ironic since they are supposed to be the more democratic ones.

सब मिलेर आशुको खुटट्?ा तान्?ने कि द नेपाल डाईजेस्?ट लाइ कसरि जिवित गर्न
सकिन्?छ बिचार गर्ने ?

राजको फेब्रुवरी १ को कदमको कारक तत्व माओवादी हुन जसको हृसक गतिविधिले नेपालको राजनैतिक अस्थिरता बढ्यो। त्यसैले, प्रजातन्त्रको हत्या हुनुको पछाडि माओवादी नै पहिलो कारण हुन। दोश्रो कारण राजनैतिक दलहरु हुन जसको असक्षमताले गर्दा जनताले सही प्रजातन्त्रको उपभोग गर्न पाएनन्।

अहिलेका घटनाक्रमहरु:
१. आफूले गरेका कमजोरीहरु प्रति राजनैतिक पार्टीहरुबाट स्वीकार र आत्माआलोचना।
२. माओवादीहरुवाट सर्वसाधारण माथि हमला नगर्ने र राजनैतिक पार्टीहरुसंग मिलेर प्रजातन्त्रको लागि लड्ने।

मैले बुझ्न नसकेका कुराहरु:

शाही कदम नभएको भए, यी भ्रष्ट नेता र हृसक माओवादीलाई चेतना जाग्न कति समय लाग्थ्यो त? शाही कदमले यिनीहरुको घैटोमा घाम लाग्यो भने शाही कदम जनताको विरुद्धमा छ भनेर कसरी मानौ? के जनताले चाहेको शान्ति र सुब्यवस्था हैन?

पार्टीका कार्यकर्ता (दोश्रो पुस्ता) जसले प्रतिगमनका विरुद्ध जसरी ज्यानको माया मारेर आन्दोलन गरेका छन्, तिनीहरुले आफ्नो पार्टीका नेताहरुको कमजोरी देखेर किन विरोधमा उत्रिने साहस गरेनन् र केवल दमन खपिरहे? कि जनआन्दोलन भनेको राजाका विरुद्ध मात्र लडिने आन्दोलन हो?

अर्को कुरा आन्दोलित संसदीय पार्टीहरु जसले जनताको ९५% भन्दा बढी मत पाएका थिए र उनीहरुको दाबि अनुसार अहिले जनताले आन्दोलनमा साथ दिएका छन भने माओवादीको साथ किन चाहियो? अर्को तिर माओवादीले देशको ९०% आफ्नो कब्जामा छ भनेर दाबि गर्छन तर आन्दोलनमा ७ पार्टीहरुसंग मिल्नु पर्ने अवस्था आयो। यसबाट दुबै पार्टीहरु तथा माओवादीहरुको अवस्था कमजोर छ भन्ने प्रष्ट देखिन्छ। के हृसक माओवादी र भ्रष्ट नेताहरु कमजोर हुनु शान्ति र सुब्यवस्थाका लागि र जनताका लागि राम्रो हैन? हो भने यसको श्रेय राजालाई दिनु परेन?

अन्त्यमा, पार्टीका नेताहरु र माओवादीहरु समेतले केही पर्यो भने भारतमा हार गुहार गर्न किन जाने? के तिनै नेता र पार्टीहरुले चुनावको बेला भारत बिस्तारवादको विरोध गरेर नेपाली जनतासंग भोट लिएका हैनन्? तिनीहरुको असली रुप पर्दाफास गरेको श्रेय पनि राजालाई नै जान्छ, हैन र? कि उनीहरुको त्यो क्रियाकलाप पनि ठीक हो? हुन त सबै कुरा प्रजातन्त्रको नाममा भाको छ!

Dodhare, I absolutely agree with you.
It looks like Maoists and party leaders are serving India and not nepalese people. If not, then why do they keep seeking advice from New-Delhi?

* नेपालमा द्वन्दको दिगो समाधान र दिगो शान्तिको स्थापना भनेको पूर्ण लोकतन्त्रको स्थापना र माओवादीको लोकतान्त्रिक अवतरण हो । त्यो बाहेक अर्को शान्ति भनेको न थियो, न छ, न हुनेछ ।

* अहिले सम्म राजनैतिक दलहरु अलमलिएका हुन् । त्यसका कारणहरु पनि व्यक्तिगत न भै प्रणालीगत थिए । एक दुई अक्षम र भ्रष्ट नेताहरुले गर्दा यसो भएको होईन ।

* ज्ञानेन्द्रलाई धन्यवाद, उसका दुस्साहसहरु, असोजतन्त्र र मकरतन्त्र, ले गर्दा मात्र दलहरुका आँखा केही उघ्रिएका छन् । असोजतन्त्र र मकरतन्त्र नेपालको ऐतिहासिक आवश्यकता थिए, लोकतन्त्रको अन्तिम पाठ पढाउन र यसको पूर्णांश स्थापना गर्ने क्रान्तिको लागि प्रेरणा दिन ।

राजनैतिक दलहरु भ्रम, भ्रष्टता, साँघुरो स्वार्थन्धता र दिशाविहिनताको भासमा यतिका वर्ष के कारणले भासिएर रहे ?

मेरो ठम्म्याईहरु:
- http://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24

The incompetence or corruption of the major leaders of ruling parties has been perceived as the major explanation to the political parties' failures. Leaders are generally seen as abusers of the unlimited political power and freedom that democracy provided to them. However, of late, particularly after October 2002 when the executive power was held essentially by the King, the limitations of their power and freedom have been revealed. It is becoming clearer that the political parties have power and freedom enough to abuse, but not enough to challenge the King and his interests.

Does this inadequacy have something to do with the degradation of the political parties? If with great power should come great responsibility, then inadequate power perhaps brings an inadequate sense of responsibility.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .

Basically, the parties have been the victim of a compromise which developed into a national denial and started to eat up the system like termites. The 1990 revolution of democracy was an incomplete one, not because of some unintended compromise made but because it was started from the beginning with the goal of an incomplete democracy.

As a matter of fact, the goals were so modest that our leaders actually thought we disempowered the monarchy more than we had intended. Ganesh Man Singh, the commander of the 1990 movement, famously said, "We went to the palace hoping for a bowlful, but came back with a jarful."

That sense of gratitude overshadowed the awareness of an incomplete job, and sidelined the work of keeping up the fight for full democracy. Our international communion of democracy certified that what we have is an allegedly genuine and full democracy. The Constitutional Monarchy and Multiparty system were declared to be the two pillars of democracy in Nepal. We have heard that democracy is a self-correcting system. So we deluded ourselves into believing that there was really nothing for us to worry about. We became oblivious to the fact that what we had was still a quasi-democracy, and a quasi-democracy is not a self-correcting but a self-destroying system.

In this whole development of national denial, collective loss of memory, and general unawareness, the only guard should have been the Nepali intelligentsia. Why and how it failed is a good and timely topic for research. The responsibility of the Nepali intelligentsia in failing Nepal's democracy has yet to be exposed.

Nepe,

Just make u r instance clear on maiosts.

महान जनआन्दोलन २०४६ को सफलता पछि कुनै समयबाट राजनैतिक दलहरुको पतन शुरु भयो । ठ्याक्क कहिले शुरु भयो त्यो पतनतात्रा ?

मेरो अडकल :
- हttp://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24

When did this backward journey - this regression - started ?

Political leaders want us to believe that the night of Oct 4, 2002 was the Big Bang; nothing happened before that. Political pundits, among themselves, generally agree that the regression started much before. However there is no consensus about the exact date. Everybody is choosing their own date- to suite to their own position, association and interests.

Some say it was that midnight when Deuba dissolved the parliament. Others say, it was when Girija had done the same. Still others say it was when the Supreme court gave a verdict against such an act. And there is a strong quarter that blames everything on the day Baburam submitted the wish list of his party at Singh Durbar ! For many, it was the earlier year when old Pancha?s party, RPP, came to the government, or rather 2-3 years later, when old stalwarts - Chand and Surya Bahadur- were made prime ministers.

In my view, it started way too earlier than all of these- right at the beginning- when the democratic parties threw into the trash an ordinary but symbolically important document called ?the report of Mallik Commission?. All the developments that followed were simply our advancement to the direction we were heading. On Feb 1, we completed the circle by arriving at the starting point of our ?democratic? journey.

However, it is not to say that the abandonment to the Mallik Commission?s report was the cause or a bad omen for the regression of our democracy. This simply made it clear the power the old regime retained which in fact is the cause of the gradual degradation of the new power.

के २०४६ मा गणतान्त्रिक क्रान्ति सम्भव थियो ?

मेरो उत्तर: थियो ।
- http://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24

The movement of 2046 was indeed led to its climax by the common people. The political parties, especially the NC, had hard time catching up with them. The ULF, being graduated with an ideology that has no place for the King, had a natural ardor for ?maximum democratic achievement?. It was the NC which had never dreamt of a kingless democracy and had essentially kissed goodbye to whatever revolutionary zeal it had for democracy since BP Koirala?s submissive policy of ?National Reconciliation? with the King, that was on the way for the movement to catch a republican aspiration.

Could the movement have taken a republican turn ?

I think yes.

The crux of 2046 movement - that is - people?s spontaneous and explicit opposition to King?s power is not about the story of 52 days long agitation. Not at all. It?s about 10 years of semi-underground political activities of students (often to the extent of educational anarchy in schools and campuses), school teachers (more effective in towns and villages) and ?progressive? civil society to raise the political awareness of the people. This conscious people did the movement and they would have gone to any length.

This is not to say that the compromise the political leaders made with the King was a betrayal. The compromise was striked with a genuine sense of victory and people genuinely celebrated a genuine victory indeed. They simply thought that now the political parties have enough power to complete the remaining task of cleaning the country off the old system and start a new one and so they looked forward to a happening future.

के २०४६ मा गणतान्त्रिक क्रान्ति सम्भव थियो ?

मेरो उत्तर: थियो ।
- http://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24

The movement of 2046 was indeed led to its climax by the common people. The political parties, especially the NC, had hard time catching up with them. The ULF, being graduated with an ideology that has no place for the King, had a natural ardor for "maximum democratic achievement". It was the NC which had never dreamt of a kingless democracy and had essentially kissed goodbye to whatever revolutionary zeal it had for democracy since BP Koirala's submissive policy of "National Reconciliation" with the King, that was on the way for the movement to catch a republican aspiration.

Could the movement have taken a republican turn ?

I think yes.

The crux of 2046 movement - that is - people's spontaneous and explicit opposition to King's power is not about the story of 52 days long agitation. Not at all. It's about 10 years of semi-underground political activities of students (often to the extent of educational anarchy in schools and campuses), school teachers (more effective in towns and villages) and "progressive" civil society to raise the political awareness of the people. This conscious people did the movement and they would have gone to any length.

This is not to say that the compromise the political leaders made with the King was a betrayal. The compromise was striked with a genuine sense of victory and people genuinely celebrated a genuine victory indeed. They simply thought that now the political parties have enough power to complete the remaining task of cleaning the country off the old system and start a new one and so they looked forward to a happening future.

राजनैतिक दलहरुको आन्दोलनमा जनसमर्थन, सहभगिता किन नभएको ?

- http://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24

Now, our leaders want people to agitate again. Unfortunately, they also want that people do not agitate too much. They want people to agitate just enough to make the King agree for a peaceful co-existence with the parties.

People are refusing to agitate. And for a good reason. This time around they do not want to leave the job unfinished. So they are waiting for a strategic time and dependable leaders. And it is a worth waiting.

माओवादी बारे मेरो धारणा:
- http://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24

The Maoists are very clear about their goal and strategies. As a matter of fact, International Crisis Group in it's report on Nepal's crisis published on March 24, 2005 has this to say, "As Crisis Group has warned before, the Maoists are the only party in Nepal's complex conflict with a clear strategy."

The Maoists have their stated ultimate goal of establishing a "people's republic" (one party communist regime) in Nepal. So this should leave no room for any confusion or naivety about them.

The advantage the clarity of Maoist goals and strategies offers us is to allow us to determine precisely where and how can we stop them for good.

We know the ultimate goal of the Maoists is to establish a "people's republic" in Nepal. But we also know that they do not view that as immediately feasible--both practically and in theory, the Maoist one of course. And that brings Maoists' willingness to settle down with a "democratic republic"- a feasible, more progressive than present one
and a widely acceptable system.

This clarity was so dangerous to certain power and it's allies in the country, it actually became more advantageous to them to let there be a confusion about the Maoists in all kind of positive lights than to let negative clarity of the Maoists exposed to the public. Words of praise to the Maoists from very conservative and reactionary quarters of the country can be understood in this light.

So I do agree with you that there are all kind of naïve notions, theorizations as well as unfounded fears about the Maoists prevalent in the country. Nothing to be surprised of or even worry about if I may. Because the most important task for us is to stop the Maoists for good. And when we focus on that, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out which will work--to ask the Maoists to surrender to the monarchy or to ask the Maoists to prove their commitment to the democratic republic of Nepal.

We do have solution to the Maoist problem. But do we have guts? That's the question.

नेपालमा 'सम्वैधानिक राजतन्त्र' सम्भव छ ?

छैन छैन छैन ।

- http://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24

No, No and No.

It is not acceptable to any of three powers themselves, to begin with.

It is not acceptable to the Maoist. They are at war for last ten years to abolish the monarchy altogether.

It is not acceptable to the King. It's absolutely clear, unless you are fooled by his empty words. I am not talking about king Gyanendra alone. King Birendra was not happy with it. King Gyanendra is not happy with it. And King Paras will not be happy with it. It's a simple common sense. Who wants to be in a permanent house arrest with a permanent gag order ? Isn't that what Constitutional Monarchy is in essence to the King and the palace ? Hello.

And it did not work for political parties either. An ideal Constitutional Monarchy might work for them. Unfortunately nothing is ideal in politics. If ideal political institution can exist, communism wouldn't have failed in the world.

However, it is not a question of impossibility of idealism alone (referring to liberal intellectuals who believe in reforming the King to make him adhere strictly to the ideal "Constitutional Monarchy"). It is neither a question of past experience alone (referring to glaring flopping of it in 15 years of experiment in Nepal). It is a question of choice and so is intimately connected to the functioning of democracy.

All political parties except old Pancha's are for republican democracy.

I repeat (particularly for those North American Nepali intellectuals who have chosen to dismiss republican democracy for Nepal), all political parties except old Pancha's are for republican democracy.

It is only Girija, Madhab Nepal, Sher Bahadur and their close associates who are for the Constitutional Monarchy. The overwhelming majority of cadres and lower level leaders of all non-Pancha political parties are for a republic Nepal. Let there be internal democracy in these party and let there be free voting on the choice of political system, an overwhelming majority of party workers will vote for republican system. As a matter of fact, there has been poll and votings of this nature and the results were- an overwhelming majority of voters voted for republican democracy !

(On a side note, it is sad that some 'liberal democrats' of Nepal and diaspora have chosen to keep themselves ignorant of these developments and instead relied on biased data produced by commercial groups to trash the growing support for republican democracy in Nepal)

Yes, the support for republican democracy among the workers and supporters of non-Pancha political parties are growing everyday. And there is no going back.

It is only the strict internal monarchy, ok fiefdom, that these dear leaders have managed to keep practicing inside the party that has kept the pro-Constitutional Monarchy façade of these parties intact. Let there be internal democracy and, boom, the pro-Constitutional Monarchy façade of these parties will fall.

So, if it is not the technicalities but the reality is what matters, then the fact is that Constitutional Monarchy is not wanted by any of three political powers in Nepal.

So the bottomline: Constitutional Monarchy is not a proposition for national reconciliation among parties to the political conflict in Nepal. No.

नेपालमा सर्वस्विकार्य राजनैतिक प्रणाली, मेलमिलाप के होला, त्यसो भए ? त्यस्तो कुरो नै त छ के ?

छ हजुर छ ।

- http://www.freenepal.org:8080/FreeNepal/action/discussion.do;jsessionid=8558334079586C0ECBD7F91DE40F6633?currentContentId=24


So what the hell could be "a pro-democracy, pro-justice, progressive reconciliation that can bring all three political powers to one place and engage theme in legitimate, peaceful and constructive political activities" ?

Let's begin with the most powerful and difficult party, the monarch. (The Maoists and political parties are easy to please. Give them a democratic republic, they will be happy. It is the monarch we need to think carefully about). Let's try to find something the monarch can not refuse. I would rather go one step further and propose: let's find the thing the King is really wanting. What the heck !

What is monarch wanting ?

More and legitimate political power and dignity.

No problem. We can give him those.

Let's start with political power. How much political power he might be wishing to have ?

As much as possible.

And how much is as much as possible ?

Ummm? as much as the prime minister of Nepal has, or, had Nepal been a republic with a presidential system of government, ? as much as the president would have. How about that ?

Okay, no problem.

But how can we make that possible ?

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Let the King run in the election. For the president of Nepal.

But then Nepal will be a republic.

Do you have a problem with that ?

No. But the King ?

He has the [possibility for] political power of a president.

How about recently conducted poll that concluded that an overwhelming majority of Nepali people are against the republican democracy ? (pun intended)

:-)

How about prominent leaders and intellectuals who are dismissing and trashing republican democracy ? (pun intended)

:-)

Now dignity. A king defeated by popular movement for republican democracy might not see dignity in running for the election of the president of Nepal. But if the republic of Nepal is established by the King himself by his own great and noble sacrifice of the crown, there is no better dignity and honor than in participating in it.

Yes, the King will need a lot of support and persuasion too from everybody for that. And this exactly where we can and must do a lot and make a difference.

So I urge all the prominent leaders and intellectuals who are, may are dare say, wasting their energy in dismissing and trashing republican democracy, to use that energy in persuading the monarch to agree for a republic and preferably participate in it.

That will a glorious democratic and progressive reconciliation for Nepal. And sustainable one. And one in which all parties of the conflict and stakeholders will be able to come to one place and engage in legitimate, peaceful and constructive political activities.

What can beat this ?

If the King does not agree with it, it is he who should be lambasted, not the aspirants of the republic of Nepal. सबैलाई चेतना भया ।