last year around this time i used to be against king and hardly many people was for the democracy and i was asked a question about how people loved king regim and nepal needn't need democracy now the time has changed now king supporters are being less and people who believes in democracy and humanity has increased a lot. so guy do you people have anything to say?

प्रश्नमा democracy र humanity शब्दलाई एकै ठाउँमा राखेको अलि मिलेको छैन। अनिफेरि democracyनै चाहिन्न भन्या त हैन।

तरपनि राजाको माघ १९ को कदमको खुलेरै स्वागत नगरे तापनि "बाध्यता" हो भनेर घुमाउरो पाराले प्रतिरक्षा भने गरेको थिएँ र प्रतिरक्षा गर्दै थिएँ।

पछिल्ला दिनहरुमा आएर राजनैतिक समाचार र लेखहरु कम पढ्या छु। (यो पनि आफ्नो अस्पस्टताको घुमाउरो प्रतिरक्षा हो कि... ) तैपनि मोटामोटी उत्तर दिइहालुम्।

१- सात राजनैतिक दलहरु र माओबादीबिच भएको १२ बुँदे समझदारीमा राजाले सकारात्मक तरिकाले सम्बोधन गर्न नसक्नु, देखावटी बार्ता या सौदा नै सहि केही गर्नुपर्थ्यो उसैको प्रतिरक्षाको लागि भए पनि।
२- नगर निर्वाचनमा देखिएको न्युन जनसहभागिता। झरेका मतकै आधारमा पनि २१% मात्र सफल र ७९ प्रतिशत असफल भएको छ। यो त मैले नेपालमै प्रत्यक्ष आफ्नै आँखाले देख्न पाएँ।
३- "भ्रस्टाचार नियन्त्रण शाही आयोग"को बैधानिकतादेखि नै रद्द र खारेजी ।

यी ३ कुराहरुले राजाको प्रत्यक्ष शासनप्रतिको समर्थन घट्दै गएको छ।
भने अर्कोतिर,

१- नेपाल भारत पारबहन/ब्यापार सन्धिको निरन्तरता र भारत सरकारको दोधारे नितिको निरन्तरता।
२- शेर बहादुर देउवाको रिहाइ पछि उसको राजतन्त्रप्रतिको प्रतिको दोधारे र अस्पस्ट निति। अनि गिरिजा प्रसाद कोइरालाको पनि अस्पस्ट र दोधारे नितिको निरन्तरता।
यी कुराहरुले ७ राजनैतिक दलहरुको एजेन्डामा अस्पस्टता ।

यी कुराहरुले राजाको प्रत्यक्ष शासन कतै बाध्यता नै हो कि जस्तो पनि लाग्छ।

तर राजासित बाँकि हतियार- १२ बुँदे समझदारीको औपचारिक सम्बोधन, माघ १९ को कदम उल्टाउने या प्रतिनिधि सभाको पुनर्गठन गर्दिने त बाँकी नै छन्। केही गर्नुपर्छ जस्तो लाग्छ।म पहिलोमा जोड दिन्छु।

मेरो चैँ यत्ति नै।

No, the first one, I think Gynae will do the second one as you suggested.

Experience is a good teacher. And personal experiences are easier to use to make judgements about life around oneself than cling on to abstract ideals. Life, as they
say, happens.

10 years ago, I spent one year working in Dang district with some very good
Nepalis. It was one of the happiest time of my life -- I learnt a lot, by asking
questions, meeting people, working with people, travelling on foot across those
parts of Nepal.

For a Kathmandu-bred and then-studying-in-the-US boy, working in Dang, making friends with complete strangers, and travelling deep into the villages and the forests
of Bardiya, Banke, Kailali, Kanchanpur (and later,Baitadi, Rolpa and Rukum) was an
eye-opening experience in ways more than one.

I made a number of friends then: and, for several years, kept in touch with many of them.

Some, I later learnt, became Maoists, and have probably died by now. Others -- whom I later met in Kathmandu -- had been threatened/displaced/wounded and maimed by the Maoists or the security forces. They told tales of unspeakable horrors; and wept about family members and relatives and friends and villagers who had been killed, primarily by the Maoists.

Those tales affected me -- very deeply. When friends are hurt -- not once, not twice but again and again -- you believe them. And this experience remains too personal to brush aside to repeatdly chant slogans against relatively abstract ideals. It's fine if others want to shout slogans against the king.

But my intense loyalty to my friends (as indeed, my intense loyalty to all my friends) is that the system that brought death, destruction and mayhem among them and completely turned their world upside down negatively through bloody violence is
not a system worth giving a single benefit of doubt. Hence, my opposition to Maoist violence under any context. That comes first -- regardless of whether the king is
there or not.

To use my earlier methaphor, with or without the fox out there, we will have to take care of the crazy elephant. And taking care of that is going to be the hardest challenge in Nepal.

oohi
"ideology is fine; but it's intense personal experiences that shape political priorities"
ashu

yes, Nepalese were fed up with so called democracy and it's airhead characters such as Sher Badur, Makune, Girija, and so on. It is definitely true that they were not going to resolve the conflicts. Next, they did not have any vision of developing the country.

Something had to be done, and the King did one way of that something. There were obviously many ways. Anyway, it was bit positive than the standstill situaltion and hinted bit a outlet. But, Nepalese got disappointed immediately after King appointed Tulasi Giri and Bista. Both were very unpopular among those who knew them and most Nepali people of newer generation did not even knew them at the time.

This way, things went ahead and by the time we are talking now, I believe that not more than 5% Nepali truly support king. Some other supporters are just for benefits.

Is our Struggle for Democracy and Peace Futile?

By Dipendra Jha

Before going in demonstration every Nepali has to consider, why is he going, would his sacrifice bring any change in the country? The people must not act as the myth of Sisyphus, who pulls the rock every-time at the top of the mountain but it rolls back at the bottom. Why should the people do futile struggle for another Sher Bahadur Deuba to roll it back?

The present complicated issue is whether the sacrifice and struggle of Nepali people will be able to establish peace and democracy or not. The fighting against authoritarian king is not only sufficient to break to the whole undemocratic structure. If the struggle is targeted only against King Gyanendra, it will be futile. It is true that his actions are an attempt to bring back authoritarian rule in Nepal. But he is not only responsible for it; there are lot of invisible faces behind it including those who empowered him such authority. Even during the period of so called democracy for 12 years, the whole sphere of social, economy and political laws and practices were based on the power relations, hierarchy and domination, where the discrimination was deeply rooted at all level. The recent history has already shown us that every politician, who reached at the power position, used the undemocratic methodology to rule the country. The king has given only continuity of the system in a wider way.

Nepalis have not forgotten the ‘buying and selling’ of the members of parliament on the name of democracy. The representative democracy in Nepal has already shown us that only the elites were in power position, where the voice of the people was unheard. During those periods, election was free but not fair as a large amount of money had been used to buy the votes. Again if we are fighting for the same democracy, than it is useless to fight.

Nepali people have to reform "undemocratic" laws, practices and structure as a whole, which gives legitimacy to authoritarianism. As the undemocratic structures have been already institutionalized, it requires greater popular participation and community mobilization to overcome them. To break these types of traditional undemocratic structure from all level, it is necessary to educate those who are at the power position like judges, politicians, high-ranking governmental officials and military about equality, justice and non-discrimination. These are the power holding groups in hierarchical relationship. Institutional reform is necessary to strengthen democratic control over the legislature, judiciary, the bureaucracy and military. But the reform of this undemocratic structure of power is a big challenge for the whole nation. It is a big challenge for us to fight against the vicious cycle of elitism. Unless we reform the existing undemocratic structure from the grassroots level to the top, the realization of democratic environment seems impossible.
Unless we reform the existing undemocratic structure from the grassroots level to the top, the realization of democratic environment seems impossible.

The agreement between the seven political parties and the Maoists is really a good sign, which can start a new move. But the question is whether both the parties are honest or not. They have to consider about sacrificing their power position. Until they develop sacrificial and democratic views; nothing will change except a step down of the king, which does not keep much importance. If the Maoists have agreed with the views of the seven political parties, why should they fight when the parties were ruling the country making the king easier to grab the power?

If their agreement is for peace, peace does not mean only ending violence. It is more than the mere absence of war or even the absence of inter-state violence. It refers to a social condition in which exploitation is minimized or eliminated, and in which there is full realization of justice, which is impossible until the Maoists are ready to be accountable to their past human rights violations. Are they ready to be accountable for the crime they have committed over the last ten years? We have to ask this question before supporting the alliance between the political parties and the Maoists. What about the survival of the victims who lost their husbands and children, are they ready to accept those as their leaders who killed their family members? It is futile to fight for negative peace by surrendering justice.

The past experience under so- called democratic regime and present crisis under authoritarian regime all provide compelling reasons as to why another Nepal must be made possible. No single politician can be expected to provide leadership for change. Change must start from them by ending their undemocratic thoughts, which still exist in their minds and behaviours. The Chinese proverb is very much true in this context: the person who says it can not be done should not interrupt the person doing it.

Most of the politicians, diplomats including US, UK and present regime are emphasizing on reconciliation. But they are not clarifying what type of reconciliation, because it requires accountability on the part of both the state and non-state actors. On the one hand, the US ambassador in Nepal James F. Moriarty called for reconciliation, on the other hand he emphasized on sidelining the Maoists as part of the US’ ‘anti-communist’ foreign policy. But the Nepalis people have to think that sidelining the Maoists from the whole process will be a great mistake. In fact, reconciliation is the means to establish peace and justice, which are inter-connected in several ways. Denial of justice in itself is a denial of real peace and it is a place where all parties and things must come together.

Jha is a student of M. A. (Human Rights) at the Mahidol University, Thailand. Please send your comments to feedback@mos.com.np or jha_dipendra@yahoo.com

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to editors@mos.com.np)

http://sajha.com/sajha/html/openThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=29694#239084

Isn't it still clear that Deuba and Girija have dubious opinion about monarchy because they want to hold PM's kursi as soon as they are offered?

Isn't it still clear than they don't advocate for republic out open for the same reason?

Those are the main reason what led to Nepal's failure.

Let's list the leaders that needs to be removed from Nepali Congress with the main reason specified.

1. Girija Prasad Koirala -Kursi seeker and hawaldar. Pioneer of present state of the country.
2. Sher Bhadur Deuba -Kursiko lagi deshlai homeko haina yasle? He is as responsible as King and Moist.
3. Govinda Raj Joshi - Most Corrupt
4. Bijaya Kumar Gachhedar - Most Corrupt

... list others

I don't see any good leader in leadership. There might be some in lower hierarchy. They should be brought up. Can anybody point out good ones?