One of my friends was making a very interesting observation about Nepal. He was saying that it is easy to be a gentleman in America where the system runs so smoothly. You can afford to be neat, clean and gentle and polite, because, at the end of the day, the system works. It will extend towards you.
In Nepal, if you want the system to work, you have to bend it towards you. The system does not automatically extend towards you. It needs to be "helped." You need the power to bend the system, through source and force to twist it in your favor.
Nepal's system is like an out of control bull. If you can't get on top of it and ride it, then get away from it because otherwise the bull will run over you. Someone who is too gentle and can't rough and tough in the system will get over ridden by the system.

Any thoughts?

satya tito huncha bhaneko yehi bro...unfortunately nepal ma jasko ni power ko hukum chalcha...the one who has power n money rules...nepal ma jasle rule banayo tyasaile break garcha...there is no proper system in nepal then how can u be systematic???

Not just Nepal, but any third world country shares this. From what I have seen, it is even harder to survive in India or middle east.

Stiffler,

Unfortunately, this also means that third world (developing) nations become havens for people like Osama Bin Laden. After Saudi Arabia took away Bin Laden's citizenship, he went to a country like Sudan that is poor and lawless. And he used his money to spread his influence and his organization. Nepal too is used by many under-world dons from India to organize themselves away from the tight grip of the law.

Bin Laden, as we know, then went to Afghanistan. Many of these guys take advantage of the lawlessness and disorganization in the state to establish their criminal empire. Charles Sobhraj, in many ways, was attracted to the East for that reason. Despite being a French citizen, he openly stated that he liked operating in Asia because it has so much more loopholes for someone like him to exploit.

Without arguing the political righteousness or lack of...in many ways, the Maoists took advantage of the the loose security situation in Nepal to organize themselves. If they could organize themselves, probably any organization could.

There are a lot of these kind of groups that thrive on the chaos in Nepal to grow their own criminal empires.

One of my African friend had said that everyone in Africa is a snitch. You either snitch someone or you get snitched out. There is no other way.

So every third world is pretty much same as Nepal i guess.

Yes, that is why when all these European dollars flow in to all these NGOs in Kathmandu holding up all these clean rules on human rights violations, it is such a joke. Many of these Western nations try to impose their clean and pure ideals when the ground realities are so different.

 so what was different in 80s Nepal? i remember when i was growing up people used to be scared of taking bribes and there were only few people you could count who were corrupted and they used to be treated as disgrace.  No system works 100 percent , but anything that would provide law and order and sense, justice and economic development should be considered success. I t would be very intersting to hear from some senior Nepali was in his 20s or 30s in 80s . 

Kalopani,

Here are the few differences i have observed.

The direct authoritarian rules makes it impossible for commoners to excercise frauds. Only people who could exercise fraud is the ones closer to the direct rulers only.

There was not enough wealth for everyone to excercise corruption about...i remember in the 90s somehere Nepal's budget used to be 30 Karod...now we are around 3 Arab i think.

Lack of information, lack of democratic due process ( in an authoritian rule it is much easier to accuse and punish someone for any cause), and higher social values ( fear of being know as a ghuskhor)

Smaller population and the world in overall was more moral than what it is now. Its just not Nepal's problem...the whole world is seeing more fraud and corruption including the first world i think.

You really don't think there was no bribery back in 80s do you?
I remember a bribery incidence in chaarkhal (mapping section) when I was a kid. It goes way back in our culture, even Prithvi Narayan Shah had to make a statement against bribery.
Back then it would be either nepotism or bribery. Nowadays it's party affiliation, followed by bribery, followed by nepotism.