Guys, Am I reading this right or not ... They are talking about splitting the country (states) by ethnic groups.... I know its not a true split but doesn't this create even more conflict. Go to page 60.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/constitution.pdf

yep thats right! thats a stupid move though..nepal has too many minorities and indigieous people to do that..omg haha. its best just to call everyone Nepali, like China does with Chinese. Hey..maybe they are trying to organize it like China..hmmm

Any more thoughts or insignts in this matter?

Insights ..hahahah..
divide and divide..these are the outcome of commie bastards way of uniting nepali people.

i support federal out look but it should not be in the basis of any race..
what is wrong with 14 states we had before..14 anchal why can't that be state???it wasn't named after any king ..it is named after rivers and mountains ..what could be anybetter..let these 14 anachal be states.

Dividing in the lines of ethnicity is the most stupid thing you can do inorder to solve the racial problems in Nepal..it creates more problem ..nepalese should learn to assimilate and live in harmony.united.

I totally agree with IMI. Why not just use the existing Aanchals as states. Trying to resolve this problem by dividing states with ethnicity will be very stupid and will create lots of race issues.

well, the new idea germinating is to create a federal republic. a federal republic is made of many smaller republics aka states. in most cases and for ease of governance, those states are normally created using the majority of ethnicity in that region. this has to be done in case of nepal, since symbolically, there will be no uniting ideology for their ethnicity, which in case of nepal has been the monarchy (of course after king prithvi made kathmandu the capital). now, if there isn't a central figure to suffice our need to see a unified leader, there has to be several leaders leading smaller groups of people, who are also represented in the congress (house).

just like the way the indian system, or the US systems. there are states and there is a federation. the states have their own jurisdiction over the local laws according to the customs, tradition and ethnicity (in case of nepal and india), which is of course is super ceded by the federal laws. for example in the united states, it is legal for a same sex marriage in MA, and illegal in the rest of the US. now, if the US congress passes a bill to ban same sex marriage, then it will also become illegal in MA. but for now, it is upto the states to decide that.

so, creating smaller republics in nepal should help progress the essense of republicanism much more easier than trying to establish one central govt in a republic to replace the current constitutional manarchy. but, i doubt it is even possible to come to consensus with the maoists (as in most cases it is mentioned that the consensus be reached between maoists and the political parties), because when is comes to communism, there is no such thing as representation. there is always a top dog, and there are his subordinates who will have more subordinates to rule over the people of the country.

each time, we discuss and think about situation in nepal, the conclusion we reach is to bring about a common consensus between two or all three political forces of nepal. because one does not accept the other. the proposed constitution seems correct in terms of preserving the culture yet moving forward with essence of republicanism, however quite contradicts itself in many ways.

the provision of head of state is vague, although it is left upto the referrendum. but how can the people decide when literacy is only 50%. half the people wouldn't even know the truth of what is written. they have to believe the other half to make their decision. we have experienced a referrendum - 2036BS. it is just a bad idea. instead, the three bodies should come to a unified belief and accept the facts that benefit the country, not themselves.

one of the contradictions i clearly find is its approach to people's thought process. ok, the national anthem is going to be changed, because it glorifies the monarchy, but they decide to keep the flag. historically, the flag of nepal actually glorifies the Shah rulers and the Rana rulers. the flag with the moon was that of the Shree Panch, and the one with the sun was that of Shree Tin. after the marriage of jung's son with surendra's daughter, the flag was united to make one that represented the whole country. i think the flag should be changed as well, that glorifies people's movement?

empty - New constitution of Nepal.

Not completed

I like what you have expressed sujans..with dumb fuc% maoist on the way ..nepal is going nowhere...they are the major obstacle on the road to success..these fuc%ers will take nepal down with them to death..untill then there thrist for blood doesn't satisfy.

Ok about examples of US and India for republic set up..you need to realize this:it was divided from beinging and later united ..not united and later divided on the lines of ethnicity.....there is big difference!!!

Let us analyze what the real wants of these three political forces are. I think, if we can give them some kind of thought process or idea or plan for the country which all three can agree, or possibly agree then, we can start other things such as development, because it is only the differences of these three that is stopping the country from going forward.

3 premier steps to go forward.

1. The King should agree to a ceremonial role such as in england and sweden. so the part 5 of the current constitution be scrapped, and replace with only 1 article that says, that the KG is the current king, and he has his own jurisdiction over his heir and palace. Of course he will be taxed on the profits he makes off his businesses. The democractic forces and the maoists must agree to the current constitution (1991) that sets up representation by adult suffarage, where everyone is given chance to elect and be elected to be led and lead the country.

2. make a clear path and opportunity for all individuals and institutions to the election. A consensus government led by (whoever), hold an election within 2 years. no excuses. let us elect our 205 representatives and eventually the government.

3. There must be a constitutional/non-profit institutional body more sophisticated than Akhtiyaar Durupayog Ayog and independent of the government, to keep records of daily activities of the 205 representatives (at congress level and government level). These records shall be available free 24/7 to the public via internet or may order text (written) for the cost of mail expenses. So, that these information can be used by the public in the next election.

If only it was so easy .maoist will not satisfy until Prachanda becomes the next king of nepal..you don't know what kind of biitch they are..

hmnn... yes. but, there has to be a solution...

there cannot be another communist state. we already know the results of a communist goverment. so, making prachanda chief executive is out of question unless he steps down to a more democratic rule. i mean, he must be an intelligent man to even question himself the consequences of establishing communist rule in nepal, which has only 17% arable land.

i must be a fool to even think of offering any guidance or suggestion to already experienced political leaders of the country, but how can i voice them to think quickly. i mean look at KG. He stepped down right. he though he could take care of stuff and started a direct rule. but, he eventually stepped down. but a hunge ensemble was needed to achieve this. there must be a way to make the maoists step down. i am not saying that their ideology is wrong, but it's 21st century. Looking back at 80 years of history, communism just doesn't work. It worked a little in infant modern china and the soviet federation. but, both countries have accepted the notion of going forward together by respecting others perspective on economy and politics.

so, this is the end of this discussion... i believe..

lol come on!