Over the past week, there have been lot of anti King sentiments regarding his 'takeover'. There's been a big hue and cry about loss of democracy in Nepal.

We've seen democracy and what has it given us? Nothing. It's made the situation in Nepal worse day by day to the point that there was not even a glimmer of hope for Nepal or Nepalese.

The only hope for Nepal was for a powerful leader to stand up and take charge; and the King has done exactly that. Nepal cannot stand more bickering of these incompetent and corrupted politicians who are killing the soul of mother Nepal little by little.

We wanted democracy because that was in fashion. We tried it out, and we know that it does not work. Democracy is good for a country with a strong foundations and infrastructures in order to provide a good governance. But, for a country like Nepal without any foundations nor infrastructures, the hue and cry for Democracy is like trying to add floors after floors to a house with cracked foundations.

In a country where more than half the population does not even know the definition of Democracy - democracy is only a tool for the select few involved in politics - to show dissent towards the governing body - in order to fulfill their own little projects on the side. Nepal is not ready for democracy. Nepal will be ready when we have a strong foundation and infrastructure.

At this point who can create this foundation and infrastructure? Can the maoists do this with their killing spree and disrespect for life? Can the different political parties even make any difference - while being busy trying to cash in on their 15 minutes of power? The answer is NOBODY can do it besides the KING.

The king is human, he's made mistakes in the past. His son is not the ideal kind of person that we would like him to be. But, if you don't believe that this move by the KING creates some kind of HOPE for NEPAL, then you need to rethink your position and rethink what is good for NEPAL and the Nepali. This is the only hope that Nepal has in order to get out of the mess it's in right now. Instead of creating hurdles and creating more difficulty for the King, it's time for all of us to come together and lend a helping hand so that the King is able to do what he's set out to do. Let him get rid of all the corrupt politicians - we don't need them. Let him try to bring some highly awaited peace in Nepal - because he's the only person who has the ability to do so.

There are no other alternatives. I've seen people go into fanciful episodes of describing their utopias. But, they need to come down to earth and understand that their utopias are just a figment of their imaginations. This is reality. Only the King is capable of doing what needs to be done, and he needs us to be behind him not against him.

One of the most important undertaking for the King right now would be to build an EAST to WEST highway in Nepal that connects Nepal as a whole. In this emergency rule, he should be able to direct a chunk of the coffers and aids and the property of corrupted politicians into this project.

... to be continued

I agree with you saroj. We do not need democracy until every citizen is equally responsible for their country.

Democracy means people ruling and if people are corrupt and stupid, Democracy will be corrupt and stupid too.

Democracy is not solid iron that we get it and it is there. It has to be build.

It is like an engine of car where 99% reliability is still not good enough to run it safe.

ahile jati garna pairaa thiyo Democracy hunda
aba tyehi ni garna napaunda thaha huncha democracy ho ki Dwo yu Quasi ho bhanera

:)

Ahile jati garna paira thiyo aba tyeti ni garna paundaina ani thaha huncha Democracy ki Dwo yu quasi bhanera - its not about how people think corrupt - its about how u live together - It doesn't matter what the government thinks or does - the people wud still be corrupt n' no one can do nothin' about it....
They have to realize that peace n' harmony wud result in good life - If they don't fuk em'

Laterz y'all

The right to live securely is more important than the right to vote.

If you consider Maslow's Hierarchy of needs


you have to understand that we human beings need to first have our Physiological and Safety Needs met before anything else. Then there is need for Love and esteem.

The need for democracy comes only after all of the others are fulfilled.

Over the past years in Nepal's Democracy, the fulfillment of the need for security/safety has deteriorated to an alarming condition. The government which is supposed to provide that for the people was busy filling their own pockets and bickering over power and their personal corruptions. King G's current move will at least help nepalis to feel more safe while going about their daily lives.

It is not going to be the utopia than people talk about, but it will be better than what we have seen in the past.

... to be continued

2 class ma paddne baccha le gareko jasto kura garchau...

If king reallly positive about solving this issue, if king is really positive on bringing peace, why is there a cencorship on media? why was there such arrests of journalists and firing at students?

saroj, have you heard the pharse, "BEAUTY IS ONLY SKIN DEEP", this is the same situation nepal is going through right now, with few promisese,(which can be doubt) king has pulled all the neutral nepali janta towards his side. And how do you expect king to solve this problem, when problem itself is the KING? dimag chaina?? if you think killing those thousands of maobadi's is a good move, then wait and see, there will be sucide bombers in the streets of ktm. King made a brave but very ill fated move.

First learn, what is deomcray and its capability then only continue..otherwise DOnt continue and dont waste your valuable time posting crap!


and dude, sorry for being rude :)

confused you said "If king reallly positive about solving this issue, if king is really positive on bringing peace, why is there a cencorship on media? why was there such arrests of journalists and firing at students? "

When someone like the king has decided to take control of the situation so that he can work on the foundation and the infrastructures, he has to make sure that the old politicians who have sucked the nation dry don't rear their ugly heads and create chaos. Right now the king has to be strong and in control of the situation if he is make any reforms.

You can't be adding floors to a house with cracked foundations. You have to make the foundation strong then you can add the floors. In other democracies like USA they have a strong foundation so they can indulge in democracy. But Nepal is not ready for democracy as you have seen from the past 15 yrs. What good did democracy do?

"First learn, what is deomcray and its capability then only continue..otherwise DOnt continue and dont waste your valuable time posting crap! "

Confused let's try to participate in productive discussion without calling each other's postings crap. If you can't discuss in a cordial way then I suggest you read the admins notice and try again.

Politicians needs lots of tactis to be successful. If you are straight forward you are not called politician neither you will be able to do any thing to country.

Those people are called SADHUS.

People in Nepal get influenced by rumors very easily, that is the reason why there is censorship in press.

How do you like my debate on your opinion.

There is Pro's and Con's on every view so lets think positive.

If we think positive then only we all can develop our country.

Let us see what happens. Do you think if King retruns democracy we will be better off?
I don't think so, we don't need democracy. It is just a POPULAR word for the country which doesnt' make any sense. Inprevious 14 years also it didn't make any sense.

Writing rumor is not democracy, able to do what every we like is not democracy.
It requires being responsible citizen. being educated, be able to decide the right thing.
I am sure 90% of Nepalese don't know how to decide what is good for them.

And I'd say its responsibility of teachers to make a kid capable of doing that.
It is responsibility of parents to guide them in right path, not by showing how great they are and how much they earn. But how to live the life.

Peace

Ok Saroj ji, when will Nepal be Ready for Democracy? Give me a lenght of time. ??

actually i sud start a posting with that title...hmm

and again i am sorry to call ur posting a peice of crap. but hey, you are ready to live in Panchayat era so prepare yourself to be considered low and unimportant. I was just giving you some practice, and you dont seem to do good on it.:)

Politicians needs lots of tactis to be successful. If you are straight forward you are not called politician neither you will be able to do any thing to country.

Those people are called SADHUS.

People in Nepal get influenced by rumors very easily, that is the reason why there is censorship in press.

How do you like my debate on your opinion.

There is Pro's and Con's on every view so lets think positive.

If we think positive then only we all can develop our country.

Let us see what happens. Do you think if King retruns democracy we will be better off?
I don't think so, we don't need democracy. It is just a POPULAR word for the country which doesnt' make any sense. Inprevious 14 years also it didn't make any sense.

Writing rumor is not democracy, able to do what every we like is not democracy.
It requires being responsible citizen. being educated, be able to decide the right thing.
I am sure 90% of Nepalese don't know how to decide what is good for them.

And I'd say its responsibility of teachers to make a kid capable of doing that.
It is responsibility of parents to guide them in right path, not by showing how great they are and how much they earn. But how to live the life.

Peace

Confused bro (and others with similar sentiments, not to just single out Confused):

I understand your point and it is a very valid point. However, you must take into consideration that we here, at sajha, are well educated (ok, at least well-read) above averge (in terms of our privilege to live abroad) Nepalis who analyze this issue with a perspective not affored by the average citizen living in Nepal. I consider myself an advocate of democracy and an admirer of the US democratic system. But we have to be realistic here. Don't be naive yourself, yaar. You cannot just blindly follow an ideal.

If you study the history of US, it has taken this country over 500 years (from it's existence as a western colony) to semi-perfect the present democracy (believe me it's got a long way to go, to be perfect). And if you recall, this country started off by commiting genocide (wiping out the native people) and building an economy with slavery.

So, the question proposed to us is, are we willing to wait 100, 200 or 400 years to see our democracy evolve? And we also have social, economical and religious tribulations to overcome beyond just the political adjustments that are necessary. We cannot just yell 'democracy' and expect it to flourish in front of our eyes. For democracy to prevail and mature, the people must actively participate in it. And that is not possible in Nepal where majority of the citizens are illeterate and do not have a clue how a democracy is run.

It is easy for few of us, who have had the oppertunity to see America and it's system, to incorehently advocate a system that has evidently failed in Nepal. All 'democracy' succeeded in doing in Nepal, in the past 14 years, is filling the pockets of the few who knew how to take advantage of the system. So what we need now is a strong leader who can take command of the current political and economic fiasco. Just as an example, look at what singapoore was able to accomplish.

So, before we cry 'wolf', lets at least allow the current situation to unfold. We can bitch and scream all we want, because that is all we can do.

I agree with you ayo_gorkhali. Your thoughts are practical.

ayoo gorkhali bro, thank you for your input. Personally looking at the situation i am just confused and blanked out. So I do not know what i want, but i do know i do not want a Panche system that hurts more ppl then it benefits.

ANd on another personal note, if it had been someone else taking charge of a country, I wud be a little dissatified but wud have accepted the figure without hesitation, but look at the king, its tehi Gyanendra, a figure who has been guilty so many times, so unlawful, and yes ofcourse a previous SMUGGLER. And his son, worse than him. How can i accept such a man, why is he less than girija? My morals just doesnt allow me too cross such lines, sorry.

Confused, bro why don't we give him a chance.
We cannot find any one else who is corageous than he is.

Country without strong leader will be nobody's country. Thats what Nepal was for 14 years.

-With the Royal proclamation of February 1, 2005, Nepal has once again been thrust onto the international arena, grabbing headlines and courting controversy. The image portrayed has all the elements of international disapproval, dissention, and emotionally charged political rhetoric.

What is lacking, however, is a range of perspectives emanating from those to whom political developments in Nepal matter the most - Nepalese citizens.

At this critical juncture in Nepal's history, it is absolutely vital that the perceptions portrayed by the international media and select groups of Nepalese are not considered exclusively in influencing the decision-making process of the international community.

As the saying goes, there are always "two sides to every story," and where the recent events in Nepal are concerned, the risk that the predominant views of a well-organized and politically motivated Nepalese minority may inundate an opportunity at balanced, rational reasoning is becoming increasingly apparent.

The underlying rectitude behind the opinions expressed by various actors is not at issue - the chance at informed decision-making is. The question at hand is not whether those in support of or against King Gyanendra's proclamation are correct..

Given the prevailing conditions, the question is what the prescribed course of action for the international community should be, so that the majority of ordinary Nepali citizens are afforded a chance at peace. In an attempt to provide an answer, it becomes necessary to dispense with some of the more common mis-perceptions that mainstream media outlets have capitalized on, at the expense of what in effect, is on-the-ground reality.
First, media reports have been rife with official statements from foreign governments which have bluntly demanded the immediate restoration of "democracy" in Nepal.

-To name a few, the Australian Foreign Minister was quoted as follows: "Australia supports the immediate return to multi-party democracy and respect for civil liberties and freedom of expression." British Trade Minister Douglas Alexander called for "the immediate restitution of multiparty democracy," and US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called for an "immediate move toward the restoration of multiparty democratic institutions under a constitutional monarchy."

While these statements were undoubtedly made with best intentions, they are somewhat misleading.

Those who subscribe to the underlying ideals of democracy (and comprehend not only democratic freedoms but also associated responsibilities) cannot seriously insist on the re-establishment of a set of principles that did not exist in Nepal to begin with.

What Nepal had was a judiciary with the power to indict but not to prosecute; political parties with the ability to incite, but not to be held accountable; security forces with a broad mandate to protect but no clear objectives upon which to execute.

Surely, when world leaders call for the restoration of Nepal's system of "multiparty democracy," one would hope that they are not implying a move towards the status quo, ex-ante? Second, the right to assemble, freedom of speech, and the right against preventive detention (to name a few) are not the only principles enshrined under the broader democratic umbrella.

The right to peaceful co-existence without constant fear of extortion, the right to education without continuous political disruptions, the right to a proper childhood without being subjected to forceful indoctrination - these too are freedoms that every Nepali citizen is entitled to, independent of the prevailing system of governance.

And, if a temporary curtailment of the former can guarantee the latter, one could speculate that 90% of Nepal's population (the rural poor) would gladly "vote" for normalcy, peace, and sustained stability over a fleeting dream that has eluded Nepal for the past 14 years.

Third, it would be misleading for the international community to formulate its course of action based on the assumption that a minority 2% (representative of Nepal's relatively educated and politically savvy elite) accounts for the collective views of a nation of 24 million.

This is especially true when there exists no unified view within the 2% minority itself. The notion of possible mis-representation is amplified further when considering that a significant portion of the elite 2% reside outside Nepal, in functional democratic settings.

-Naturally, the desire to promulgate the freedoms enjoyed elsewhere to the motherland is always present. Unfortunately, what we have in Nepal is not what is present in functioning, Western democracies which themselves achieved stability through considerable violence.

Hence, to formulate one's opinions, by extrapolating the observed behavior of an insignificant sample size, unnecessarily exposes the decision-making process to the phenomenon of adverse selection.

If anything, the quality of "democratic" leadership that Nepal has produced over the past 14 years should prompt caution over the representative capacity of Nepal's politicians.

The height of hypocrisy has been a handful of politicians, preaching to ordinary Nepalese, the difference between "right" and "wrong," when they themselves do not possess the capacity to make that distinction.

Also erroneous is the underlying assumption that this same supposedly "representative elite" is guided purely by populist concerns.

No more need be said on this except to note their self-serving nature and absolute unwillingness to even begin to grapple with the problems of the country.

And although it is unfair to group all Nepali politicians in this inept category, it would also be a great dis-service to imply that there are more than a handful of respectable leaders, who in any case are themselves tarnished by the company they keep.

If performance-based evidence is insufficient, one may pose the question: for whom do our politicians actually speak? This query is particularly relevant when considering the fact that most politicians haven't ventured beyond district headquarters to meet with their constituencies for years.

If majority representation is the chief criteria by which the international community wishes to pass judgment on Nepal, the candidate of choice to rectify Nepal's problems is clear - the Maoists.

If elections were to be held today (whether through terror, coercion or intimidation), the Maoists would beat every single mainstream political party, hands down.

After all, by virtue of their unchallenged campaign of political cleansing, the Maoists face no political opposition in areas where they remain active.

Clearly, endorsing Maoism is not a viable option by national or international standards.

This is even more the case when considering the Indian position that has not swayed from its declaration of the Maoists as terrorists and the US government's addition of the Maoists to its terrorist watch list.

What sort of precedent would dealing with terrorists send to other so-called "freedom fighters" in South Asia and beyond?

Opposition to the King's move, based on allegations that the King cannot be permitted to "determine the fate of the political parties" or steer the direction in which Nepal is headed, is therefore a losing proposition.

Similarly, opposing the King on the assumption that he may become too popular at the expense of a democratic polity defies the most basic tenet of democracy itself - the right to self-determination.

Should the Nepalese majority opt for one system over another, it is their democratic right to do so.

Without a guaranteed minimum level of education for the majority of Nepal's population, the forced introduction of a system of democratic governance (that relies so heavily on the assumption of informed, rational decision-making) is a tall order.

It is precisely this realization, that has prompted democracies such as the US, the UK, and India to endorse a multi-party democracy and a constitutional monarchy for Nepal.

The need for a guardian figure to "steer" the nation in times of crisis is the motivating factor behind the promulgation of a "two-pillar" policy.

Based on the past 14 years, to think otherwise is simply naive. High Stakes for the Royal Palace Where internal Nepali politics is concerned, the King has played his final card.

This is significant not only because there is (supposedly) nothing else that can come out of the royal palace, but also because this move demonstrates the degree to which the situation in Nepal has spun out of control.

Granted, the King's move appears ill-timed and ill-advised. However, before jumping to conclusions, it is important to acknowledge that this move is neither risk-free nor a guaranteed "win-win" situation for the monarch.

To the contrary, the King's decision to assume emergency power is more hazardous to the institution of monarchy than any other actor in Nepali politics.

Personal opinions aside, debating the accuracy of the said statement is futile. Just as naive would be to speculate that King Gyanendra failed to account for the heightened probability of risk in his decision-making.

One's perception in this regard will likely be influenced by preconceived notions which could fall loosely into one of two major schools of thought.

The first school of thought claims that successive monarchs (and the current one in particular), have been responsible for the lack of political unanimity in Nepal.

Ironically, a lack of political unanimity was the very basis upon which the current system was disbanded. The crux of this argument is that a model of "constitutional monarchy" and "multi-party democracy" are incompatible in Nepal.

The second and opposing school of thought accords more blame to the political parties for Nepal's current plight. This group asserts that had it not been for successively more corrupt and immoral leadership (under democratically elected governments), the Maoist insurgency in Nepal would not have gained the cumulative momentum it currently has.

According to this group's logic, the cause for the demise of Nepalese democracy is attributable to the misdeeds of those who initially fought for democracy in 1990. Further, proponents who subscribe to this logic believe that Nepal's political leadership has betrayed the people - both in terms of moral responsibility and in safeguarding democracy.

Again, to which of these competing schools of thought one adheres is a matter of choice and political orientation. While evidence can be brought forth in support of the first school of thought, much of it is circumstantial.

To the detriment of the image of political parties (and particularly their leadership), substantial evidence exists in support of the second school of thought.

The availability of such evidence does not bode well for either the leaders of political parties or their recent calls for protests.

To think of it another way, the Nepali Congress (Girja faction) and associated parties have launched protests against "regression" through the fall of two successive governments.

Consider the amount of resources (time and money) that has been squandered in organizing meaningless protests, general strikes, and shut-downs.

Serious doubts arise as to whether ordinary citizens will heed their political masters' call to protest, especially if the King's move generates a semblance of "normalcy." Despite the overwhelming evidence indicting the misdeeds of past government officials, the King's decision to assume power does not appear to be based solely on this premise.

By eliminating the "political buffer" between the Royal Palace and the Maoists, the King has committed Nepal's security forces in a do-or-die duel against the Maoists.

Although the formality of proposing negotiations will undoubtedly be fulfilled, the likelihood of positive reciprocation by the insurgents is virtually non-existent.

The only option that remains is head-on collision between the Maoists and Nepal's security forces - a decisive battle in which the stakes on both sides are exceptionally high.

Should the RNA fail to bring the Maoists to the negotiating table by force, the future of the monarchy will be in question. By gambling the continuity of the Shah dynasty and the very sovereignty of Nepal, King Gyanendra appears to have placed tremendous belief in the capabilities of Nepal's armed forces and the resilience of the Nepalese people.

Only time will tell whether or not the King's moves will pay political dividends. What one is forced to recognize is the audacious personal risks this King has undertaken for the sake of Nepal.

His statement is clear - desperate times call for desperate measures, and 14 years are sufficient to gauge whether or not the same discredited group of "democratic" individuals can be relied upon to run Nepal again. Shock and Awe for the Maoists The Maoists appear to be temporarily disoriented by the King's unexpected move.

-They have lost their most significant bargaining chip - the political parties. This in turn, has severely undermined their "best alternative to a negotiated settlement" (BATNA). Long before there was any hint at the King's takeover, conflict resolution pundits had already begun to claim that resolution of the insurgency could be possible if the tri-lateral conflict (King, politicians, and Maoists) could be reduced to a bilateral one. The Western model for Nepal revolved around aligning the political parties and the King in a common front to face the Maoists.

Despite numerous attempts at fostering a set of conditions whereby the King and the political parties would join hands, such a situation failed to materialize. Rampant in-fighting persisted within and amongst the political parties, and between the parties and the King.

Although arguments can be forwarded that the King did not act in earnest to join hands with the political parties, it cannot be denied that all options were exhausted. On two separate instances, the King had asked the major political parties to forward consensus candidates for the post of Prime Minister. On both occasions, the politicians failed to forward candidates, simply because of their inability to subdue inflated egos.

This was made painfully clear in the behind-the-scenes efforts of the rival NC faction to block the reinstatement of Deuba, apparently even as the latter was driving into the palace gates. Be this as it may, a bi-lateral conflict has now emerged in Nepal - not quite the type envisioned by the US, the UK, India and leading conflict resolution think tanks, but a bilateral conflict nonetheless.

Provided that the spheres of influence where Nepal is concerned (India, China, US, UK -- in order of importance) publicly denounce the Royal move but privately condone it, the Maoists are in for a hellish time. Although the international media has done a poor job of outlining inconsistencies in Maoist statements, one is certainly long overdue.

When asked by the recent Deuba government to return to the negotiating table, for instance, Pushpa Kamal Dahal made a crude allusion to the possibility of negotiating with only the "master" and not his "servants" (translation - the demand to negotiate directly with the King and not with the Deuba government). Now that a government headed by the King has offered the Maoists an olive branch, the Maoists are screaming "foul play" and calling for all mainstream parties to join them in their struggle against the monarch.

For practical purposes, this call was merely a public statement announcing an alliance that has been in existence for months - the Maoists had mastered the art of manipulating political parties to undermine the King and the presiding government.

Plus, actually integrating with the mainstream political parties in practice would do more harm to Maoist organization than good. They know it, and so does the royal palace. Despite the inconveniences that have resulted from the King's proclamation, there have been positives also.

For the first time ever, the Maoists call for a three day nation-wide strike was humiliatingly dispensed with. Second, the Maoists application of the possibility of negotiations as a tactical maneuver, has been exposed. With two failed attempts at negotiations and a legacy of inconsistencies within their leadership hierarchy, serious doubts exist over the willingness (and capacity) of the Maoists to negotiate at all.

-Their view of "negotiations" is to agree upon the terms of surrender by the state. More to the heart of the matter, for as long as the Maoists believe that they have the upper hand, there is little reason for them to negotiate with the government. The Regional Player that Counts - India International media is rife with reports of Maoist cadre fleeing into India via the open border. Since most of the Maoist leadership is known to be hiding within Indian borders already, it comes as no surprise that the grass-roots cadre should follow suit.

Even the remote possibility that the Indian government is unaware of this reality is unfathomable. Aside from the standard objections raised at the nullification of a dysfunctional democracy, India's harsh statement towards the King may signify more embarrassment than practical considerations.

Although the absolute truth may never be known, India appears to have been caught completely off-guard by the Royal proclamation. As the regional power and a major contributor to Nepal's fight against the Maoist insurgency, India's annoyance/embarrassment is understandable.

The question now isn't whether India should continue to support Nepal, but how India should work to maintain its outward annoyance and simultaneously engage the King's government. India's initial statement appeared somewhat harsher than expected, perhaps a byproduct of India's concern at suddenly losing all of its political agents in Nepal.

More of this is to be expected, because now the Indian security apparatus is forced to deal with the Maoist problem on its side of the border more aggressively and seriously. Given India's own growing Maoist problems, there can be no more delays or excuses. As already noted by several Indian media outlets, India simply cannot afford to alienate Nepal at this critical juncture.

In doing so, India would be risking a campaign to its north that it cannot afford. If Delhi was to abandon Kathmandu, all bets would be off (including certain arms procurement covenants in the 1950 Treaty), which would then give Nepal a free hand to deal with the Chinese - a complete nightmare for the Indians and the US.

Simultaneously, it would be foolish of Delhi to even consider the possibility of military action within Nepal's borders. Doing so would run the risk of a Sri Lanka rerun, which cost India heavily, 1987-90, as well as a possible confrontation with China.

More seriously, it would open the door to the Maoists' long-sought Compact Revolutionary Zone (CRZ), wherein the Indian and Nepalese Maoists functioned across national and state lines in much the manner of the communists in Southeast Asia in their fight against the Americans. Where South Asia is concerned, the US government's policy will undoubtedly be closely aligned with Indian policy.