The disenchanted kingdom
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1415132,00.html

Despite King Gyanendra's strong-arm tactics, it is Nepal's monarchy rather than its Maoists that is under threat, writes Randeep Ramesh

Tuesday February 15, 2005

The King of Nepal's takeover of his country has seen the monarch become the mayor of Kathmandu.

Within the perimeters of the capital there is little doubt about the rule of King Gyanendra. Dissent is smothered, human rights activists are arrested by police offering neither a warrant nor an explanation, and politicians are placed under house arrest to protect democracy.

But beyond city limits there is little evidence that the writ of government runs. Schools, offices and shops shut at the whim of Maoist guerrillas. The leftwing rebels use strikes to demonstrate that it is they, not the government, who call the shots outside Kathmandu.

So while the chain-smoking royal sits rearranging his new cabinet and packing the administration with supporters of absolute monarchy, there is little sign that his promise to wipe out "terrorists" can be kept.

The Maoists, who have rejected talks with the king, launched a nationwide blockade over the weekend to mark the ninth anniversary of their armed struggle, in which more than 11,000 have died.

The result is much the same as last summer's blockade of the capital. Vegetable prices shoot up and essential supplies to the hill-ringed city such as petrol are disrupted. And all this from just the threat of violence.

Ranged against the 72,000 soldiers of the Royal Nepalese Army is an ill-equipped peasant force, numbering not more than 20,000. But the Maoists have the advantage of geography. Rugged mountains and dense forests can conceal bombers and snipers. Spectacular hit and run strikes on seemingly impregnable army camps have flatttened the morale of government troops.

The idea is not to take possession of any territory, but to encircle it. The Maoist strategy of surrounding cities has seen a number of alternative governments proclaimed in western Nepal and in the Tamang belt surrounding Kathmandu. The rebels roam much of the Himalayan state freely, often carrying weapons.

Diplomats from Britain, India and the US, who have coordinated responses to the crisis in Nepal, calculate that the king cannot win with his present strategy. Militarily he is not strong enough to claim an outright victory, but then neither are the Maoists.

The Bush administration, along with the British and the Indian governments, have been providing the Nepalese army with training and weapons to take on the rebels, but the three foreign powers say that this security aid was to make sure the leftwing insurgency was contained rather than defeated.

To justify the coup, the king's supporters use the argument that he had to move against political parties because they had been staging protests that were distracting the army and police from their fight against the rebels.

But, says one high-ranking Indian official, "at least 40% of the army's troops are now censoring newspapers and patrolling the streets. How can the rest of the soldiers hope to defeat the Maoists?"

The trio of London, Washington and New Delhi made up their mind long ago that the only solution would be to bring the Maoists back to the negotiating table. To do this, Communist party of Nepal, their democratic incarnation, needed to be given enough political space for it to win the internal debate raging over the merits of the bullet and the ballot box.

At the same time, an effort to alleviate the poverty and address some of the ethnic and caste discriminations that fuel the conflict was needed. Nepal has a per capita income of $240 (?127), making it the twelfth poorest state in the world.

The real failure of Nepalese democracy was to tackle some of these problems. But politicians had a dozen years, whereas the monarchy has sat doing very little for two hundred years.

Political parties had begun to take small steps in the right direction, but they were overwhelmed by the scale of the task and prefered to fight over democracy's spoils. It is only now that the county's politicians, exiled in Delhi, have coalesced to form a united front.

Michael Malinowski, former US ambassador to Nepal, was honest enough about the problems faced by the kingdom. In 2003 he told reporters that Nepal was "a troubled country we're concerned about it".

"One may ask why does the United States care? It's 8,000 miles away. I would say there's a number of reasons. On the ideological plane we want democracy to succeed. We don't want to see democracy fail ... by a group, a small group that is unwilling to contest its ideas in the electoral process or the parliamentary process but instead have decided to go the way of the gun, use terrorism, terrorist acts to get their will.

"There's real reasons why people have picked up the gun here. They're impoverished. There's a lack of access to higher levers of education. There's corruption. There's mismanagement. There's bad government. All of that. But again I would argue that Maoism is not the way to solve that."

Mr Malinowski was no dove during his tenure in Kathmandu. He frequently used undiplomatic language to defend US actions. Washington also placed the Maoists on the state department's "watch list", along with al-Qaida and Abu Sayyaf. In part, that driven by the fear of a "prairie fire" being ignited from the Himalayas if the Maoists took power and linked up with leftwing rebels on the plains of India.

Thanks to the king's actions, there is little chance that the rebels will be removed from that list anytime soon. In fact, it is the Nepalese monarchy, not Maoism, that is under threat. The Maoist's leader, Prachanda, has cleverly reduced his position to the simple question of whether the country wants to be a republic or a kingdom.

The result is that the extreme left and extreme right appear ready to face each other down in an increasingly bloody battle, with moderates left as bystanders or picking sides.

This is bad for a country where democracy has only existed for two short-lived periods in 1950 and the 1990s. Strategically situated between India and China, Nepal has been either under the Shah Kings or dynastic maharajahs since the late eighteenth century.

In 1990, following huge public demonstrations, the country became a constitutional monarchy under the leadership of King Gyanendra's older brother, Birendra. The palace ceded power to a parliament and prime minister, but retained Nepal's status as a Hindu kingdom.

The beginning of the end for the last phase of democracy came when the king and his family were assassinated in the palace by Birendra's drunk son. Gyanendra took over and made no secret of his disdain for elected officials, sacking the government in 2002.

With the politicians out of the way, the question is who else will take the blame when things fall apart? The answer, some say, may be found in a recent book on Nepal entitled Forget Katmandu: An Elegy for Democracy by novelist Manjushree Thapa.

In it she recalls a legend about King Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of the modern Nepalese state. He once met a god disguised as a sage who, to test his loyalty, offered him some yoghurt which had been vomited.

If the king consumed it, the Shah line would have lasted forever. Instead he threw it away, and some fell on his feet. So the dynasty would only last ten generations, one monarch for every toe. Birendra was the tenth Shah king.

Email Randeep.Ramesh@guardian.co.uk

I think this is one of the most honest and best article that summarizes the current situation in Nepal.

It sure tells the truth...truth out and straight forward...

I don't care and don't believe that sage story happened to Prithvi Narayan Shah.

Fawk, they write articles in big big magazines, and yet they push the funny legends as if they believed. This is 21st Century... come out of such superstitions.

how come the author forgot to mention the whole story behind the legend???? the vomitted yoghurt fell on his feet, so was the continuation of 10 shah kings till birendra..then after it was cleared by sage to clean the king Prithvi narayan - an indication that the next king will be immidiately cleaned for his wrongdoings..We all know that Dipendra was ad-hoc king for a while after the royal massacre....and then sage TOLD the king that a new lineage will emerge that will rule the country forever to bring peace and order and cleanliness in all aspects (discipline, corruption, pollution etc..)...Although the new king will have a few initial hiccups,he will get over it to bring glory to the hindu kingdom to propagate the doctrines of hindu philosophy to the entire world..even the neighbours will bow down to the glory the new king will bring to the kingdom....


now decide yourself...what will happen next?????????

Here's a thought,

Would you believe me if I told you that this story is created, expanded, exaggerated, expounded many many times in an effort to give legitimacy to Shah dynasty?

If I were to tell you that my forefather was given a prime directive to rule Nepal by a supreme being...

If I were to to tell you that one of my ancestors is a husband of a goddess (Grampa Ram Shah & Manakamana Devi)...

If I were to tell you that I myself am an incarnation of a god, that too not of any other god, but that of Vishnu...

And I am going to repeat it many many times. I will tell my minions to pound that thought into innocent public's head generation after generation. They will read those stories in their textbook, their grandparents will tell them those stories, they will talk about those stories. And they will believe it. If they don't, they will suffer my wrath.

But, but, my forefather made a mistake. Crafty that he was, he did not think far enough ahead when he decided to settle on a number. Number of generations that is. Because he probably did not think his family would rule that many generations. He settled on a round number ... 10. Yup, 10 generations is long enough. Now the proverbial s#!t has hit the fan. My roll number comes after that magic 10th mark.

What to do?

Ajsab01, first and foremost you are the worst of a kind of propaganda machine. And another, you vouch, pledge your loyalty and to one party and one party alone. KING.

Pardon me for asking a personal question. Does any of your family member work work inside the durbar? Any vested interest? I too am more or less 'for' king's action FOR THE TIME BEING. It seems to me that he alone has the clout to face the problem facing the Nation. But by god , as being born as a human and free by nature, I would not like to be RULED by someone who I have no right to choose. simply because he was born in certain family.

In my opnion a symbolic monarchy and a 'real' democracy when the nation shall be ready would be the best option. Symbolic, only out of respect of the fellow Nepalese who uneducated as they may be, are still Nepalese and STILL consider king are a holy reincarnation/representative of Lord vishnu. Once that generation is gone, we can re-evaluate the importance, relevance of monarchy.

Or monarchy can be KEPT as an attraction for tourist or to distinguish our nation to promote trade and tourism. Thus my opinion is we shall keep monarchy only if it serves good for Nepal, once we achieve peace and stability. Remember, Nepal is for Nepalese, and Nepalese are for Nepal, Not for King any personal interest group. Thus, Nepal will not, mark my word WILL NOT keep monarchy if it doesn't serve any purpose to Nepalese as move along from this dark period of Nepal.

After all this mess clears up, and we shall see a dawn of a new era, a beautiful Nepal shall wake up, where no one will be superior by cast, or by birth. No one can claim to RULE us like it is their birth right. We are free not by their choice, but by birth. Thus, monarchy as a SYMBOLIC figure, PERHAPS 'yes' after analyzing pros and cons for NEPAL, but as a absolute RULER for our fate, NO, on condition that Nepalese are educated enough to understand their mistake, and makes certain that pasts mistake are to be remembered NOT repeated.

Let peace prevail, let common sense prevail.
IndisGuise:)

"And another, you vouch, pledge your loyalty and to one party and one party alone. KING. "

And another, you vouch, pledge your loyalty and to one party and one party alone. KING. And not NEPAL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It seems to me that he alone has the clout to face the problem facing the Nation. But by god , as being born as a human and free by nature, I would not like to be RULED by someone who I have no right to choose. simply because he was born in certain family. "

It seems to me that he alone has the clout to face the problem facing the Nation. But by god , as being born as a human and free by nature, I would not like to be RULED by someone who I have no right to choose, simply because he was born in certain family.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Remember, Nepal is for Nepalese, and Nepalese are for Nepal, Not for King any personal interest group. Thus, Nepal will not, mark my word WILL NOT keep monarchy if it doesn't serve any purpose to Nepalese as move along from this dark period of Nepal. "

Remember, Nepal is for Nepalese, and Nepalese are for Nepal, Not for King or any personal interest group. Thus, Nepal will not, mark my word WILL NOT keep monarchy if it doesn't serve any purpose to Nepalese as we move along from this dark period in our history.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...on condition that Nepalese are educated enough to understand their mistake, and makes certain that pasts mistake are to be remembered NOT repeated. "

...on condition that Nepalese are educated enough to understand their mistake, and makes certain that past's mistake are to be remembered & understood, NOT repeated.

uh huh No Sir. :) hehe.

Alik check hande ko ni aja.. la hai ta.. No offence bro... But never heard you say for Nepal, but only for KING KING KING. Nepal bhanata baaaaaa, Ne- PA-AL NEpal. :)

IndisGuise:)

So whats really your point? whats the bottom line of your article? if you have to say the main theme of your article, besides, Gyanendra is mayor of KTM, which it is not, how would u say it if you have to say in one sentence?

As for Manjushree Thapa, it could either be my stupidity that i couldn't uderstand her point of view, in the message he has published in NY Times, or could be his retarted vision, to write an article, which he says he could escape to fly out from Nepal with a foreign diplomat, which is totally biased, and is written in favor of politician, and blaming the King. I undertand, she is the author of "Forget Katmandu", which by itself doesn't put her into the position where readers can be expected to believe her faulty views. I expect better from her next time.
Wish you both, all the best, no offense, ....thanks...

Whither Nepal? Serious Questions For The Monarchy

http://www.asianewsnet.net/level3_template3.php?l3sec=7&news_id=36093

The happenings in Nepal bring into sharp focus the fact that the most important personality in the hapless kingdom is King Gyanendra. He is unique in a variety of ways. He came to occupy the throne not once but twice: first in 1950 (when he was only three) and next in 2001 (when he was 54). On both occasions, his kingship, by a strange coincidence, became controversial and questionable.

In 1950, he was installed as the king by the then Rana prime minister (the real centre and source of political power), Mohan Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana. It was done against the background of the fleeing of the entire royal family of King Tribhuvan (1911-55) to India.

The Indian deputy prime Minister and home minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel made a very strong statement in Parliament refusing to recognise the Nepal prime Minister?s action.

Countries like the USA and the UK followed suit. Eventually, King Tribhuvan returned to his kingdom assuming a new and powerful political role ? indeed, by becoming the real source and centre of political power.

Behind the curtain
The Ranas, though, had acted quickly, and had also issued coins showing Gyanendra as the King. This had for long proved, as the stories go, very handy to Gyanendra to show to his elder brother King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev (1972-2001) to prove his importance.


Various stories do the rounds that Gyanendra would, by showing some coins, impress upon Birendra that the former had become king much earlier than the latter had. This mental make-up, it is widely believed, proved endurable.


It is said that during the entire reign of King Birendra, Gyanendra, behind the curtain, endeavoured to make the monarchy stronger and stronger so that he could use the fruits for his own benefit. It is altogether a different matter that after 1990 up to his assassination on 1 June 2001, King Birendra left no one in doubt that he was tremendously enjoying the status of a constitutional (ornamental, titular, limited and symbolic) monarch.

It is against this backdrop that King Gyanendra came to assume the throne in June 2001 ? after both the King and the Crown Prince (who was enthroned for mysterious reasons for a couple of days ) died. He lost no time in making it obvious that he wanted to concentrate more and more political and economic powers in his hands. He began to give all kinds of interviews to the media (both print and electronic, both national and international) which had almost been abandoned by King Birendra in his role as a constitutional monarch. In all such interviews, Gyanendra would emphasise the King was active and constructive.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), known popularly as Maobadis, had emerged in February 1996 as a significant and violent force to challenge the very system of constitutional monarchy and seeking to replace it by a system of one-party republic. The Maobadis succeeded in showing to various political forces within the kingdom and to the outside world that they had significant grassroot support.

Their base, though created through terrorist tactics, went on increasing throughout Nepal. And by now, some 11,000 people ? army personnel, policemen, political leaders and activists, Maobadis themselves and innocent Nepalis ? have lost their lives in the state?s fight against Maoist insurgency and vice versa. Earlier, various stories had done the rounds that Maobadis had been an indirect creation of King Gyanendra to challenge both the political parties and the then king, Birendra. It is a different matter that, with time, Maobadis became too big for Gyanendra.

?National betrayer?
The same Maoist leadership, which had at one point of time stated that it could only talk to the king and not his prime minister (who did not have any real power), has described King Gyanendra after 1 February as ?the national betrayer?. Maobadis have refused to talk to King Gyanendra and have intensified their agitational politics. They have even urged parliamentary political parties to work together to uproot the arrangement that came into force on 1 February.

In the era of multi-party democracy, particularly after the 1994 resignation of Girija Prasad Koirala and the second parliamentary polls in that year, Nepal did not witness political stability. Strange and undesirable inter-party and intra-party politics being played in Nepal left no significant parliamentary political party immune from split. And no split ever was ideology-based. There were several rumours that the palace had played significant roles in effecting splits in the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party and the Nepal Sadbhawana Party.

Indeed, rumours had also surfaced that Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai, the two main leaders of the CPN (Maoist) had parted company. Political parties hardly gave a good account of themselves. To them, government formation ? and not its running ? was of utmost importance. To make matters worse, political parties began to vie with each other in the game of commissions and corruptions. ?Pajero culture?, in which most of political leaders would show a keenness for riding and owning Pajero cars, became a prominent phrase. All this resulted in the disenchantment of the people with their leaders.

It was against this backdrop that the King sought to concentrate more and more powers in his own hands. The first opportunity came to him in the form of the recommendation of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to dissolve the Pratinidhi Sabha (the lower and popular house of the bicameral Nepali parliament) in May 2002. He allowed Deuba to occupy the prime ministerial chair in the Singh Durbar (the Central Secretariat of Nepal) for some time. But on 4 October 2002 he dismissed Deuba and assumed all executive powers.

After Deuba?s removal, he indulged in another kind of politics. He appointed two prime ministers of the panchayat era in succession (Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa). While Chand had always proved to be more loyal than the king himself, he was never known for his efficiency, Thapa was known as a relatively good administrator who had never shown any fondness for Gyanendra. When Thapa was removed from the prime ministership in the partyless panchayat days of 1983, he had without naming Gyanendra used sarcastic words for the latter. Gyanendra probably sought to show that he could tolerate Thapa if the latter could help solve the Maoist problem.

Power-grabbing Acts
By the time of the second removal of Deuba, King Gyanendra had become bolder. By this time, he had probably become overconfident. One wonders why he took three years to hold elections if he could not allow Deuba even a year?s time. In his address to the nation on 1 February, King Gyanendra stressed this commitment to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. But he has done so intriguingly by making the monarchy absolute and multi-party non-existent in the choice of his 10-member ministry constituted under his own chairmanship. King Gyanendra has been indulging in various power-concentrating acts under Article 127 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, which reads: ?If any difficulty arises in bringing this Constitution into force, His Majesty may issue necessary orders to remove these difficulties. The orders so issued shall be placed in Parliament?. He lost no time in dissolving Parliament?s lower house in May 2002. He made it a prestige point not to revive it despite demands from mainstream political parties. Worse, he never allowed any session of the Rashtriya Sabha, the upper and permanent house of the bicameral parliament.

What King Gyanendra has been doing has unified all democratic elements within Nepal. Besides, all democracy-loving people and governments are speaking in almost the same language. His throttling of the fundamental human rights have united all freedom-loving people within and outside Nepal. Worse, the Royal Nepal Army, with whose help King Gyanendra wishes to run the kingdom, has never given the impression of being an efficient and disciplined body. Indoctrination efforts by the Maobadis have made many of them politically conscious on ethnic, caste and regional lines.

King Gyanendra?s actions have put serious question marks before the institution of monarchy itself. The number of supporters of the republican form of government is on the increase. The history of the monarchy in Nepal itself has not been that of a service and welfare-oriented institution. Many, indeed, feel King Gyanendra is hastening the end of monarchy in Nepal.

What about this story?...... do you believe this is true?


xTof/f] 1fg]Gb|?f/f kmf;LjfbL rl/qsf] gf+uf] k|bz{g

x]lnsf]K6/jf6 klZrd g]kfnsf ufp?x?df Jofks jdjfl8{?

sf7df8f}+, kmfu'g @ ut]? klZrd g]kfnsf /f]Nkf, ?s'd, hfh/sf]6, ;Nofg, sflnsf]6nufotsf lhNnfx?df lxhf] lbp;f]b]lv 1fg]Gb| zfxLsf] cft+ssf/L zfxL ;]gfn] n8fs' x]lnsf]K6/x?jf6 eLif0f jdjfl8{? ul//x]sf] ;dfrf/ 5 . cfh ;f?em;Dd klg klZrd g]kfnsf ufpx?df x]lnsf]K6/jf6} jdjfl8{? ug]{ qmd hf/L /x]sf] 5 . n8fs' x]lnsf]K6/x?jf6} dfgj j:tLx?dfly hLkLPdhLjf6 uf]nL jiff{pg] tyf *! df]6f{/ jd v;fNg] ul/Psf] s'/f xfd|F ;+jfbbftfn] k7fPsf] ;dfrf/df pNn]v ul/Psf] 5 . pQm jdjfl8{?jf6 y'k|} 3fOt] ePsf] ;dfrf/ k|fKt eP klg cGo Ifltsf] ljj/0f eg] k|fKt x'g ;s]sf] 5}g .

dxfg\ hgo'4sf] bzf}+ jif{uf7 dgfpg] qmddf lxhf]b]lv g} b]ze/ ljleGg sfo{qmdx? ;DkGg eO/x]sf 5g\ . hgo'4sf] jflif{s pT;jsf] cj;/df klZrd g]kfnsf ljleGg ufp?x?df eO/x]sf hge]nf, ;ef, ;f?:s[lts sfo{qmd Pj+ d]nfx?df pkl:yt hg;d'bfodfly nlIft ub}{ o;/L x]lnsf]K6/jf6} jd k|xf/ ul/Psf] a'lemPsf] 5 . ut df3 !( ut] b]zdf kmf}hL s" dfkm{t lg/+s'z ;fdGtL ;Qfsf] cEof; ub}{ slyt ;+s6sfn / ;]G;/;Lk nfu" u/]/ hgtfsf] g/;+xf/ a9fPsf] 1fg]Gb|n] o;} xKtf kfNkf / lrtjgdf hgd'lQm ;]gf;?usf] k|ToIf eL8Gtdf cfkm\gf sl/j *) hgf ;]gf u'dfpg k'u]sf] lyof] . kfNkfsf] em'D;fdf hgd'lQm ;]gfsf] PDj';df kl/ zfxL ;]gfsf] @ j6f 6?sdf cfPsf em08} Ps;o ;]gfdWo] @) hgfdfq kms]{sf] s'/f :yfgLo jfl;Gbf jtfp?5g\ . ;f] qmddf Wj:t ePsf @ j6} 6?ssf cjz]ifx? cem} 36gf:yndf 5/k:6 5g\ . To;}u/L df3 @( ut] lrtjgdf csf]{ eLif0f PDj';df kl/ @@ hgf zfxL ;]gf dfl/Psf] a'lemPsf] 5 . oL b'j} 36gfsf] lj:t[t ljj/0f cfpg jf?sL 5 .

hgd'lQm ;]gf;?u ePsf ;a} eL8Gtdf g/fd|f];?u k/flht ePsf] xTof/f] 1fg]Gb| zfxLsf] ;]gfn] dfgj j:tLx?dfly jduf]nf jiff{p?b} eLif0f /Qmkft dRrfpg] jf6f] /f]h]sf] 5 . cfkm\g} bfh' /fhf jL/]Gb|sf] a+z gfz u/]/ ;Qfl;g ePsf] 1fg]Gb|n] u/]sf] lg/+s'z kmf;LjfbL rl/qsf] of] gf+uf] k|bz{gn] p;sf] cGTonfO{ g} glhSofPsf] c8sn sfl6b}5 .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

df]/?df eLif0f eL8GtM b'O{ bh{g zfxL ;]gf 7x/}

*! PdPd tf]k;lxt ef/L o'4 ;fdu|L sAhf

sf7df8f}, kmfu'g @ ut]?cfh ljxfg df]/?sf] hf?t]df hgd'lQm ;]gf g]kfn ;ftf}+ lju|]8sf] ljz]if sfo{bn / zfxL ;]gfsf] xTof/f] 8km\kmfaLr eLif0f eL8Gt ePsf] 5 . ljxfg ( ah]b]lv 8]9 306f;Dd rn]sf] pQm eL8Gtdf em08} b'O{ bh{g zfxL ;]gf dfl/g'sf ;fy} Ps bh{g hlt 3fOt] ePsf 5g\ . eL8Gtdf zfxL ;]gf k/flht ePkl5 hgd'lQm ;]gfn] *! PdPdsf] tf]k ! yfg;lxt 7"nf] kl/0ffddf o'4 ;fdu|L sAhf u/]sf 5g\ .

hgd'lQm ;]gfsf] ;ftf} lju|8 sfof{nojf6 k|fKt hfgsf/L cg';f/ zfxL ;]gfjf6 hgd'lQm ;]gfn] sAhf u/]sf o'4 ;fdu|Lx?df *! PdPdsf] tf]k ! yfg, To;sf] ;]n & yfg, hLkLPdhL 6f?Okf]6{ Ps yfg, OG;f; PnPdhL DofUhLg @) yfg, 6'OGr df]6f{/ ;]n % yfg, ;+rf/ ;]6 ! yfg, hLkLPdhL j'n]6 *^) yfg, OG;f; j'n]6 %!@% yfg, Pd !^ DofUhLg # yfg, unLn DofUhLg # yfg, P;PdhL j'n]6 %@ kL;, #^ Xof08 u|Lg]8 % yfg, OPg6L dfOg ! yfg;lxt /x]sf 5g\ .

pQm eL8Gtdf hgd'lQm ;]gf tkm{ sDkgL ;xfos sdf08/ ;d'Gb|, ;]S;g sdf08/ /fh', ;]S;g eL;L e"ldsfn] pRr zxfbt k|fKt u/]sf] tyf # hgf 3fOt] ePsf] yfxf ePsf] 5 . 36gf:ynjf6 hgd'lQm ;]gf lkmtf{ ePkl5 cfh ;f?em;Dd klg x]lnsf]K6/jf6 zfxL ;]gfn] cfkm\gf d[tsx?sf nfz tyf 3fOt]x?nfO{ cf];fl//x]sf] lyof] . ;f?em 36gf:yndf Jofks kmfol/? u/]sf] klg :yfgLojf;L jtfp?5g\ .

The artical was actually originated in 'The Statesman' ( Published in West Bengal)

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=3&theme=&usrsess=1&id=68878