If the vote result from one of the threads is correct, the overwhelming majority there wants The Himalayan Republic of Nepal(HRN). That referendum is an immensely effective tactics against the tirant kingship. It is peaceful, participated by the literate people and simple. Another would be a referendum among the political leaders. Is there a referendum among the last ex-parliamentarians to decide which way the country should go now? Such a referendum will be an immense blow to the kingship.
Of course royalists like Girija will not want such a referendum but I think that kind of real political pressure is far more effective than destroying the country's infrastructure, which is by itself not to boast about. Probably better than torturing and killing innocent people. It will create chaos, though... things like distributing for name's sake passports, citizenship cards, ration cards and food thereof under the name of HRN. Of course it should be so massive that the military/police will get all they can handle. If it succeeds for a week or 2 then i guess the king is effectively fired!

What do you think?
What about a web-based referendum on this regard? I guess there are at least 10000 surfers out there

First the data..

Testdirector,

Let's not get excited about a Web based Poll. They are not reliable.

Even the campus "referendum" you are talking about has some limitations. However, it broadly tells what it shows. If you had followed the news coming out during these "referendum" last year, you must have heard about how they manage to conduct it despite the police दमन and धरपकड and, very importantly, against the directions from NC and UML not to conduct such referendum.

गिरिजा, माकुने र संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र प्रति अझै आस्था रहेका प्रभृर्तिहरुले गणतन्त्रप्रति आकर्षित हुदै गएका तल्ला तहका नेतृत्वलाई र विद्यार्थीहरुलाई निरुत्साहित र अपमानित सम्म गरे । यो सबै मुलुकको हरेक तप्कामा हुँदै गएको गणतान्त्रिकरण को स्वाभाविक विकासक्रम हुन् । त्यो दिन टाढा छैन जब गिरिजा र माकुनेहरुले राजनीतिक सिलटिम्बुर खानेछन् र पार्टीमा गणतन्त्रवादी नेतृत्वको विकास हुनेछ । यो कुनै wishful thinking होईन, बरु अवश्यम्भावी कुरा हो ।

पार्टीहरु गणतान्त्रिक नहुन्जेल ज्ञानेन्द्र उनीहरुसंग एक पित्को पनि डराउने छैन र सत्तामा आफ्नो पकड मजबुत बनाउदै लैजाने काममा अहोरात्र जुटिरहनेछ । यता फेरि त्यसो होउन्जेल पार्टीहरुले जनविश्वास, कार्यकर्ता विश्वास र आत्मविश्वास पनि गुमाउदै जानेछन् । त्यसो हुँदा पार्टीहरुलाई अस्तित्वकै निम्ति पनि गणतान्त्रिक नभई धरै छैन ।

एउटा विशाल ध्रुविकरण र अन्तिम टक्कर त अब हाम्रो निधारमै लेखिएको छ भने हुन्छ । रगत क्रान्ति कि मखमली क्रान्ति, अब छनोट त्यही हो ।

राजा आफैले गद्दित्याग गरेर गणतन्त्र लाई smoothly स्थापना गर्न मद्दत गर्ने (how about Gyanendra as a president of the transitional government ?) कुरा सपनाको लड्डु भएपनि नेपालको लागि सबभन्दा ठूलो भाग्यको कुरा हुन्थ्यो । तर क्यार्नु हाम्रो पुर्पुरो उस्तो, त्यस्तो त्यागी र बुद्धिमान राजा पाएनौं । ज्ञानेन्द्रको यस्तो बुद्धि भए, उ नेल्सन मन्डेला भन्दा बढी सम्मानित र स्मृत हुन्थ्यो । अहिलेको सत्ताको भोको ज्ञानेन्द्रलाई दुनियाँले, okay, सारा विद्यार्थीले थुक्या छन् ।

Anyway, National Referendum on Republicanism vs Constitutional Monarchy is next desirable way to reach to a decision. In my view, this is less messier, less confusing and less riskier alternative to the Constituent Assembly. I have made a quick meditation on this option in the final para of my epic "Why Republicanism ?"

- http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622

well ya'll can go suck on neta's big fat black khoi kunni ke ho.. if ya'll wanna fire king

Relevant excerpts from the link I pasted above
- http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622

A just and permanent solution to the Maoist problem

There is no doubt that we, the Nepali people, should do everything to stop Maoist from making Nepal a guinea pig of the second communist experiment of our history.

There are only two ways we can do that, either by a forced foreign military intervention or by an honest political sensibility. I do not think we are ready for the first option yet. In any case, that sounds like inviting more trouble than solving the problem. But it is interesting to note that some folks are already talking about it- it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. I very much hope that it's not gonna happen.

Some people may still be hopeful of Fujimori brand of solution, but the fact that Nepali Shining Path Comrade are not fighting against a bourgeois democracy but against a Monarchy and that Peru's wound is still open makes it very unconvincing option. And let us not forget our security forces already have failed us, well, of course for reasons explainable.

Then, the only option left is an honest political solution.

Now, some people might be feeling very uncomfortable with the adjective 'honest', which is natural, because honesty is an alien culture to us. Our culture is 'might is right'. Our culture is a tolerance to hanky panky of the mighty one. But friends, sometimes we should give up our culture. For our survival's sake. Ke garne ? Banchnai paryo !

So let's do it. Let's go to this.. our first experiment with honesty, this maiden voyage of truth, our pratham sahavaas with our future on an uncorrupted bed of bravery and sincerity.

One of the most popular phrases in the circle of civil society, particularly among those 'conflict management experts', since the first talk between the government and the Maoists took place, has been 'COMPROMISE'. I understand the diplomatic value of this phrase and that that's what happens eventually to the parties of a conflict. However, I feel this phrase is not serving it's purpose in the context of our conflict. As a matter of fact, I think, this phrase is doing the opposite- frightening the parties of the conflict and misleading the people.

A king is a king. He does not compromise. Got that ? He can sacrifice for the good of his subjects. But compromise ? What's that ?

Maoists are great revolutionaries, for God's sake. Sacrifice is their dharma. They don't do 'compromise'. That's a revisionism, that's a bourgeoisie ploy.

Now the ordinary people. When you say compromise.. compromise.. possibly what message goes to them ? That both parties we are talking about have legitimate positions. That they have a minor and solvable, but not a major and unsolvable disagreement. That the parties' slight flexibilities are all what is needed to solve the problem. That the people are supposed to accept them when they make an agreement between themselves. That that is even not a question. That people's huge participation has neither room nor is necessary in the process. And so on.

So I think 'SACRIFICE' is the phrase of the day. It is sexier, more powerful and telling than that dull phrase 'COMPROMISE'.

Now the honest, truthful, fare, fearless, bloodless, peaceful, democratic, economic and permanent solution to the Maoist problem and the answer to the other side of the coin, the question of the Monarchy.

We may chose not to thank the Maoists, but they have already tossed that solution in King's court.

The Constituent Assembly without any pre-condition about the Monarchy (the king is refusing it) and the Maoists (they don't have any) but with a guarantee of fundamental principles of democracy and freedom is the best and realistic solution at the moment.

While more and more people are mentally embracing it as the only exit from the present turmoil, some still have skepticism. And that is a good sign. Because our skepticism, concern and vigilance is what will make sure that there is no procedural flaws so that two extremists, the Maoists and the King, do not take undue advantage and that democracy remains intact or to be accurate becomes complete.

The king has yet to accept it, but he does not have too many choices. Either he has to resort to inviting foreign troops or give up. He may try to shield himself by putting political parties back to the 'chair' again. But that's just going back to the square one. That's not gonna change anything. I doubt he may choose abdication because he is enjoying the support of a major foreign power and, oops I almost forgot, deep ambivalence of some of our intellectuals. A simple referendum on Monarchy instead of CA is possible. However, it sounds harsher than CA to his prestige. So I am hopeful that sooner or later the king is going to accept CA.

Some believe that the king had given a signal of yes to CA or similar option to Maoists leaders, that's why they came to the capital. His current hesitation to accept it is due to friendly advice of foreign powers. This sounds plausible. Because why else would the King let Baburams come into his territory and, as I discussed above, spread their influence there for seven months ? I don't think he is that dumb to expect Baburam and Ram Bahadur come to his palace and say, 'Your majesty, here is our guns. Now would your majesty care to agree to make minor amends in the constitution so that we can satisfy our army and cadre?'

Whatever is the truth, the King's eventually gonna agree to CA or similar option. That's the only logical conclusion of the current balance of power of the King and the Maoists.

I did not talk much about the political parties. Because there is not much to talk about them. They don't have guns in their hands. And their equation with the King is more or less intact. The day Maoists questioned the authority of the King and the political parties failed to show they have authority to take decisions on that (that is from seven years ago until last Oct 4), they have lost their political relevance. Yes, they did not have political relevance all this time. Girija's and Sher Bahadur's attempts to solve the Maoists 'problem' was a joke. They merely were an elusive shield between the King and the Maoists.

It is the election of the proposed Constituent Assembly where our democratic political parties will regain their relevance. As a matter of fact, the success of CA to take out the country from the current mess and bring to a democratic path depends much on how our political parties succeeds to free themselves from the legacy of their corrupt co-existence with the King and how they succeed to snatch the agenda of a full democracy and other socio-economic agendas from the Maoists. Yes, our political parties with their purified hearts and changed role is out best bet. We just can not depend on a middle path automatically generated by the balance of two opposite and extremist forces, the King and the Maoists, although that is a safety net for success of CA to be in favor of the people.

There is nothing to be worry about CA per se. The only thing we should worry and therefore actively participate in public debate is about flaws, procedural or otherwise, that can creep in to sabotage it's very purpose, that is, not letting it to be a genuine expression of people's decision.

What are the chances that the Maoists or the King can abuse it to eventually establish their freedom-less regimes ?

Way too less than they will be able to do so by means other than CA.

What are the best, the worst and the most likely scenario of the election of CA and the constitution it will draft ?

In my view, the worst scenario is that we will have a better constitution than we have now. Now, before talking about the best scenario, I'd like to explain something first. It's about the likelihood of the King and the Maoists to accept democracy, yes yes, of course democratic republic of Nepal.

First the King. Assuming he is not a mad man and has some senses to know the objective world, it is safe to assume that once he accepts the proposal of CA, he knows that it is a public commitment to accept whatever is the result. He may hope this and that. He may even have some covert plan, let's say, spending kharabau rupaiya he has now to help elect his supporter candidates. Whatever he'd be thinking, he'd know that he has a public commitment to accept the result.

In case our honorable members of the Constituent Assembly decide to go for a republic, I don't think they will say 'now, take off that shripech, leave your money and leave the country'. Even the Maoists are not saying that. They are saying he will be given appropriate honor and he can keep his money. I personally don't mind even if he retains a title of the king (like bajhangi, Mustangi rajah) and keeps performing all cultural activities he is performing now- from exchanging the khadga with Devi to offering tika to thousands of people in Dashain. I am fine with giving him all the privileges except the political status. I do not know how much ambitious and greedy he and his family is, but to me, these proposals sound quite attractive, particularly when I inherit the throne by an accident (er.. accidental firing of a gun !). We will see when we come to that point.

Now, the Maoists. I do not have to introduce them here. Everybody, without exception, in this forum seems to know how ruthless they are, how evil their intentions are, how ferocious their determination is. They certainly deserve our condemnation, repugnance and curse that we have been expressing tirelessly here. Now, let's go one level up and try to identify what could have let them to be so, what could have let them be so and still be so God damn successful, what motivates them, both individually and collectively, where can we stop them, or shall we ever be able to ?

As I discussed earlier, a new illegal and political force (a Maoist-like, but pro-democracy and non-violent) was a historical need of the day when the Maoists emerged in today's form. Somebody had to come to expose the elusive power of the Monarchy and it's relation to crippling and degradation of parliamentary parties and a general national denial about the whole riddle. This need, this vacuum was filled by the Maoists. Had there been or emerged a democratic and non-violent force to do that job, the Maoists would not have emerged or even if they did, they would not be able to turn on so big mass they have now. Because what would they say to people, 'Hey people, let's go for a communist state' ? That does not sound very motivating.

I can't say with certainty what motivates the Maoists collectively. But let me share my experience of the time when I was an active member of ANNFSU (some of my colleagues are in the central leadership of the Maoists now, brrrrrr !!).

In brief, the central theme of our training, discussion and identification vis a vis other political parties and factions used to be our struggle to dethrone 'Samanti sattaa' and how others have inferior policy and programs to do that. The theme of communism was rarely a part of our meal. May be it was a post-meal desert, but definitely not the main course.

We all were clear about our democratic program- dismantle the Monarchy. But nobody was clear about our further communist program- establish 'Naulo Janabad'.

The basic difficulty was that nobody had an idea how the bourgeoisie democracy, once established, would give rise to a condition to establish the next 'Naulo Janabad', whatever that is, or further 'jana ganatantra', the full-flung communist regime. Was it by winning the election by majority enough to make required constitutional amendments or by winning the election by simple majority and then a coup d'?tat or by one more insurgency against whoever is in power was unclear. For this reason, nobody (among several factions of the communist party) had a clear khaka of 'Naulo Janabad' itself. It was a muddled concept with contradictory things. It was full of theoretical jargons and rhetoric but nobody had an idea how that will translate into the objective situation of Nepal. I suggest readers to go through the 75 points 'United Minimum Program' of the Maoists (a sajha poster had posted some parts of it in a thread), although the Maoists have shelved that for now, to understand what I mean.

My interpretation of all this is that the Maoists and all other communists of Nepal are actually never prepared for 'Naulo janabad'. Their vision ends at the bourgeoisie democracy, the democratic republic of Nepal.

And it shouldn't be surprising at all. Ousting the Monarchy first is already such a colossal, difficult and consuming task, they don't have time and energy to work out the things beyond that.

test direector ji tapai QA (testing) ma ho ? LLCC