Got this from Samudaya website.
Well said..
"
Historic DC Rally of May 15, 2005: some resentment
--Somnath Ghimire

I wanted to let you all know the outcome feelings of the people who attended
the Historic DC Rally.

More than 80 percent of the DC Rally Demonstrators have the following
queries: DC Rally became successful in quantity but not in quality.

1) What was the main agenda of the DC Rally?

2) Was it for the Pro-King, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Political Parties or for
Opportunists?

3) Why Speakers were not sorted out? Why were they not given a certain
boundary/topic to present in their speech?

4) If King Gyanendra suppressed the freedom of Speech in Nepal, why did
not we do that to all Mandaless/King's Supporters in their speech in the
Rally? Why was Prem Raja Mahat given a chance to present his speech instead
of singing a song? Is he a Pro-Democrat or Pro-King?

5) As it says in WWW.DCRALLY.ORG, DC Rally Committee, who are in the
committee? Why the names were/are not disclosed? Or the committee without
any names??..?

6) Was the DC Rally for launching ceremony of the book "Broken Pen"?
This was unknown to all of us. How did Murari Raj Sharma become the Chief
Guest in the middle of the Program?

7) Why & How was Murari Raj Sharma given a title of the Commander of
Democracy?

8) It was announced that, "it's raining now we have sorted our speakers
including Sherpa's": Why we need to say that, demoralizing lower caste
people, and we say that we need to be in diversity. Again, right after the
rain stopped and Sherpa was called back to podium, what is this nonsense? As
pointed out that T.Kumar of AI presented his speech under an umbrella, why
not Sherpa? There were people from Tamang, Rai and Gurung as well. Where is
the trend of respecting the all strata of life irrespective of all caste,
color, creed, gender, origin, religion and nationality?

9) Why Murari Raj Sharma got half an hour time to present his speech
and not others? Why did not we get the idea of "INCLUSIVE" instead of
"EXCLUSIVE"? People were frustrated.

10) Why people from NJ, MA, RI, Maine, Ohio, and South Carolina were not
given a minute to say their words of Democracy? As it was announced that
every representative from each States will be given a chance to speak, and
few got their chances including Girija Gautam, single man representing from
Tennessee. Isn't it a biased?

11) Why Nepalese Democratic Youth Council in USA became the platform for
the Opportunist and the Pro-King People? Why and how the NDYCUSA is
established? What is its aim? Why NDYCUSA is being used by Middle Ground
People? Can't NDYCUSA become in the Top Ground? We don't need the second
best; we need to be in the "First Best".

12) Why our people heard the words "Shree Panch Maharaja Dhiraj" in the
vote of thanks speech. Is this in favor of the King or against? Listen we are in the 21st Century."

सरदार जी मेरो बा राजा को भान्छे अनि तिम्रा आमा बाबुरामको भान्छे - ओहो क्?या मिलेको

सरदार तँ चुतिया भएर बा - आमा को कुरा नगर बुझिस?

सरोज भाइ नरिसाउन यार् , तिम्रो भाट चरित्र उदाङ्गो बनाइदिएको । भ्रष्ट नेताको रिस किन टूप्पिबाट पलाएको होला।

Sardarsing your character is pretty evident in your personal attacks when I was only expressing my opinions.

Your character: Personal attack such as accusing me of raja ko ghuda chusne
Bringing up my "ba" as raja ko bhanche

Even to bathroomcoffee you said " I will ask you one! Who is your FATHER? How sure are you that your Father is your Father. "

Such is your character which you have made pretty evident. Let's agree to discuss on issues without getting personal. Unless your character refrains you from doing so.

So much for चरित्र उदाङ्गो बनाइदिएको

सरोज भाइ तिमीलाइ मेरा कुरा सबै प्रोपोगान्डा लाग्छन भने, तिम्रा कुरा मलाई तिता लाग्नु स्वभाभिक नै हो । तिमी पञ्चायतका हिमायति होइनउ भने त्यसरी नै कुरा गर। जहा सम्म बाथरुमकफिको कुरा छ, मेरो भन्नुको तात्पर्य प्रश्न जस्ता पनि हुन सक्छन, उत्तर नहुन सक्छ हो । तिमी गाँठी कुरो बुझ्न खोज्दैनउ त मैले के गरऔ।

sardarsing just because we dont' agree with each other doesn't mean you have to stoop low to prove what you are made of.

धेरै फुर्ति नलगाऊ , तिमीले newuserलाई गालि गरेको पनि पढेको छु ।तिमीजस्ता पञ्चेलाई म पञ्चे नै भन्छु ।

हैन, के जाती, ई-मेल सी-मेल भनाउँदा व्यक्तिगत सम्पर्कका माध्यमहरु बिग्य्रो कि के हो?

हुलाकि ठेगाना दिए नि यी दुईले, बरु लेखनदास चईं मेरै गामबाट झिकाईदिन्थें।

तिमी जस्?तो चुतिया संग time waste गरदिन.
At least discuss with valid points rather than calling names and getting personal, otherwise you're free to waste your time and mine :)

Sardarsingji तपाईंले नि अव न्यूयुजरलाई नतान्नुस भो। आफ्नो कुरा राखौं, अरुको नाम नजोडौं। साझामा राजनीतिक टिप्पणी गर्ने को लोकतन्त्रवादी हो, को निरंकुशतावादी हो भन्ने कुरा उसको लेखनबाटै प्रष्टै वुझिने हुनाले विवाद गर्नुको अर्थ पनि रहन्न।

लोकतन्त्रवादीहरुले डटेर लोकतन्त्रको पक्षमा र निरंकुशताको विरोधमा कुरा गरौं, प्रजातन्त्र विरोधीहरुले जे सुकै भनुन, त्यसबाट हाम्रो लोकतान्त्रिक आस्था र विश्वासमा रौं पनि असर पर्नेवाला छैन। अव हामीले व्यक्तिगत झगडा भन्दा पनि तार्किक र विचारोत्तेजक विश्लेषणहरुमा आफ्नो समय खर्चौं जसबाट अहिलेसम्म राजाको चिप्ले कुराबाट अलमलिएकाहरु चाँडो भन्दा चाँडो हाम्रो कित्तामा गोलवद्ध हुन सकुन। जो वर्षौं देखि राजाकै खटनपटनमा वाँचिरहेका छन् ति बाट हामीमाथी युक्तिसंगत र विवेकशिल आलोचना या टिप्पणी ज्यान गए आउने वाला छैन। न त औंलामा गन्न सकिने त्यस्ताले प्रजातन्त्रको अवश्यम्भावी लडाइंलाई रोक्न नै सक्नेछन्। लोकतान्त्रिक आन्दोलनको पक्षमा दिन प्रतिदिन बन्दै गइरहेको माहौलले निरंकुशताका पक्षपातीहरु अत्तालिइरहेका छन्, तै यसलाई रोक्न सकिन्छ कि भनेर तर अव केहि समयमै तानाशाहीहरुको त्यो धरमराउँदो आशा खरानी बन्नेछ अनि निरंकुशताका पृष्ठपोषकहरु दूलोभित्र लुक्न जानेछन्।

Just like you can't tire of repeating your intolerant statements, I stay fixed to the fact that I do not support the King nor the Politicians. BUT, I have relatively more faith in the King than the politicians. I think in present political circumstances, it's better for the country to have ONE ruler than 50 different politicians who have more potencial of ruining the country because of their personal conflicts. If two people here who are both proponents of democracy can't agree to disagree, then imagine the state of Nepal when politicans will not agree to disagree.

It seems like you two don't understand the meaning of RELATIVITY. Tyetro prajantra ko theory aune lai RELATIVITY ko theory nabujhda it seems pretty stupid. That's all.

And as far as your hatred towards the King, since you have him so much why don't you have the balls to do anything about it? Ok so you hate him, fine, I don't like him either, but at least I don't go around expressing my hate like a broken record. Because, if you can't do anything about it, it's better to shut up.

If there is noone in the 20 million people in Nepal who can do anything to the King, your cowardice shows clearly when you keep expressing your hate yet are gonna do nothing about it besides YAP YAP. My point is there is nothing you are going to accomplish by yapping here when there's not even one single person among the 20 million who can do anything about it. If you really have so much conviction on your belief, why don't you go there and be that person. If not, cool down.

सापेक्षतावादको कुरा पो उठेछ फेरी यहाँ त। म त सकियो भन्ठानेको। कुन चैं परिभाषा चाहियो मित्रलाइ। Special relativity कि General relativity. Illustrate गरेर दिउँ कि equations मा?
Theory of democratic relativity भन्दिउ भो अहिलेलाई।

1.The definition of democracy is same for all people, irrespective of where they live.(therefore don't tell that Nepal can't embrace democracy)
2. The law of democracy are the same in any geographical (and or historical) frame of reference.This means that the laws of democracy observed by a Nepali in Rolpa must be the same as those observed by an observer who is living in Amsterdam or Washington.

Ajhai bujhena bhane Gaussian coordinate ma sachitra describe gardiula sir lai.

newuser ji,

I am not as well read as you, nor a first rate analyst as your good self. However, after seeing all your highly analytical posts here, I have a few comments/questions, I hope you won't just dimsiss those and take some moments off of your precious "analysis" time to respond to my queries/concerns.

"जो वर्षौं देखि राजाकै खटनपटनमा वाँचिरहेका छन् ति बाट हामीमाथी युक्तिसंगत र विवेकशिल आलोचना या टिप्पणी ज्यान गए आउने वाला छैन। न त औंलामा गन्न सकिने त्यस्ताले प्रजातन्त्रको अवश्यम्भावी लडाइंलाई रोक्न नै सक्नेछन्।"

You know better than me, but as far as my limited understanding/knowledge of politics goes, you never underestimate your opponents, let alone dismiss them as "illogical" and "irrational". Sometimes people on the other extreme too are rational and logical, and no matter how much you disagree with them, it doesn't harm to listen to them and take notes of their valid, legitimate questions and concerns. It not only helps you know and understand that there are many people who believe in something else, it also helps you refine your arguments, which only adds to your "analytical skills".

Now,
" 1.The definition of democracy is same for all people, irrespective of where they live.(therefore don't tell that Nepal can't embrace democracy) "

Yes, the definition of democracy is the same BUT THE DEMOCRACIES ARE DIFFERENT. The differences are due to among other factors, the economic and ethnic/social divisions in societies. What works in one place does not necessarily work in the other, and each and every nation/society/culture has its own version of democracy.

Yes, Nepalis can embrace democracy but you cannot expect to transplant European democartic ideals in Nepal and expect it to work. Why democracies work in some countries and does not work in others? Scholars are divided in this question. Some argue that democracy can sustain itself and there are no preconditions necessary for democracy (Amartya Sen, Robert Kagan etc) where as some others argue that democracy needs certain preconditions to sustain itself (Minxin Pei, Fareed Zakaria, Robert Kaplan, Kishore Mahubani, Lee Kuan Yew, Amy Chua etc.). If you look at the neo democracies (nations that democratized in the 90s), many are in a bigger mess than they were under "undemocratic" regimes. Why? The new scholarship fouces on this question. One of the reasons is poverty (economic). And another reason is the lack of institutions necessary to sustain democracy. So to have a fully functioning democracy, you have to create the institutions necessary to sustain democracy. You have to have a consensus of the domestic players, you cannot simply democratize a nation by force and Nepal was forced to democratzie due to external pressure, more than internal demands for democracy. As one Washington Post article published last year puts it: ?democracy does not come about when external powers anoint personal favorites. It is produced by the creation of new political processes and institutions that foster ongoing bargaining, compromise and consensus among all the major domestic forces" .

If you are still reading my long post:

The problem in 1990 was, there was no major internal demand for democracy in Nepal, and in my PERSONAL OPINION, there is no major demand for it today either except among some city elites. The majority of the population which is poor, just wants peace and money. They want economic oppurtunities, not political rights at this point of time. As I wrote in my reply to Poonte a few weeks ago (and Poonte hasn't replied me yet due to his other commitments): Nepal's problems are not entirely political, they are for the most part, economic. People talk about democracy when they are really poor. Its when you are poor, you want to know who is taking your money, why you are not getting to eat like your neighbor, and this leads to conflicts and divisions in society. The Europeans before democratizing (or fully democratizing) themselves bridged the income and ethnci gaps in their societies, that's why their democracies are free of problems. Whereas the other societies (especially the neo-democracies like Nepal) democratized without bridging this gap (and how could they? They didn't have any mechanism to do so). And because of the vision deprived leaders, Nepal did not make any real progress in economic terms (You can contest this. The best article you can counter me in this point is Kanak Dixit's Bastabik Chalang published in Himal Khabarpartrika). Anyways, getting back to my point: Although the nominal wealth might have increased but the real wealth/income was the same as the pre-1990 era (take inflation and other factors into account).. And in this context there enters a focre that promises better life and unsurprsingly people come under it's sway.

If you ever get a chance, please get a copy of The Dust of Empire: The Race for Mastery in Asian Heartland. Ignore the whole book except for the conclusion, if you are not interested in Central Asian history. Just read the concluison, there Mayer (an ex NYTimes and Washington Post journalist) quotes a scholar who fouces on mountain conflicts and if I didn't read it wrong (my angreji is khattam), he attributes the problems in mountainous countries to poverty and ENVIRONMENTAL factors, than political.

Of course, I am not saying we cannot embrace democracy. We can. If the Japanese could democratize themselves overnight in the late 40s, we can too, but we have to be patient. There is no short cut to democracy in today's world (blame it on globalization). We have to democratize, but before than we have to focus on rule of law and creating institutions necessary to sustain democracy, side by side, we also have to focus on economic reforms and this sounds a bit socialist, on equal distribution of land. There has to be a major lad reform (read it land redistribution) program first. Then once the people are engaged in small scale private economic activities (no matter how small it is), then people become aware of their rights and they are willing to die for it... and when people are this conscious of their rights, then you can expect to democratize Nepal, that too in a step-by-step, phase wise manner. Anything else would result in more chaos.

Feel free to disagree.

When victorous Gen. Douglas Macarthur landed in Japan in 1945, he had one thing in mind: He wanted to democratzie Japan with inspirations from George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ. Yet, when the new Japanese constitution was drafted in an ad hoc manner in the GHQ, going against some of the allies (primarily Australians) he decided to retain Hirohito in the throne!! And mind you, Macarthur and the US govt. knew all about Japanese decsion making and hierarchy after the Meiji restoration of 1868 and who was responsible for the Japanese war of aggression in Asia from 1937-1945. Yet, they needed monacrhy to stabilize and liberalize Japan. So sometimes you just have to retain the existing system to stablize the nation than have a new system and create a power vaccum and throw the nation into an abyss of civil wars and political feuds.

Another lesson from history, which resembles Nepal is, Russia in the ealry 20th century. There were political parties and there were Bolsheviks, both against the Tsar. But when the Tsar was forced to step down, the liberal parties lost to the Bolsheviks and as a result Russia became a communist empire, and all those liberals who were against the Tsar were either sent to the Gulags or had to flee the country. And the old regime was more tolerant and more liberal than the new totalitarian regime of the Bolsheviks!!

Yet another lesson of history is: Sometimes authoritarian leaders are good at democratizing than the liberal political leaders who come through elections. Look at Pakistan. There is hardly any denial that Pakistan is more liberal today in the absence of fanatical and radical islamist groups, than it was under the liberal leaders (Nawaz Sharrif and Bhutto). Sometimes you need a leader to clean up the mess. I believe that's what the King is trying to do in Nepal. I also think (NOTE I SAID I, I am speaking for myself, not for the MASSES as some democrats do), its too early to judge the King. You have to give him some time. At least give him a year. If you all could give all those corrupt rulers 15 eyars (and are willing to give them more time), why not give at least a year to the King?

This will sound too harsh and if it hurts you, I am sorry: Its much easier to talk about democracy and freedom when you are abroad. Can you claim to be speaking for the people of Nepal? For the masses? Maybe people in Nepal at this point want to give the King benifit of the doubt, maybe he can deliver what the political leaders failed to deliver for the last 15 years. Berry Wiengast has done a study on this: he looked at many Latin American countries and their dictators opr authritarian regimes and concluded: that people are willing to support extra constitutional or unconstitutional means to resolve crises, if they think that this will lead to better conditions (Weingast, 1997).

la mero bhannu yatti ho and I am speaking for myself here, I don't claim to be speaking for the masses! I repeat, these are my views and might not make any sense to you, and in that case, my apologies.. I am not an analyst or a firt rate writer, so correct the grammatical/factual and analytical errors as you read it.

Isolated ji,
First I have always respected your comments, you are one of the top commentators of sajha and I have learnt many aspects of international affairs from your posts. I have already stated long time ago that you are a better read person than me.Therefore, I couldn't understand what the jeers concerning well read, analysis etc are all about. There is no need of picking up the points that I have used to discuss with somebody else, which do not have relevance to be quoted in a discussion you want to have with me. When I reject some staunch disciples of King Gyanendra's dictatorial enterprise, kindly do not take it personal; as you know that you do not support dictatorship. The problem with other guys is also the same. I criticise the Kings undemocratic moves and they take it as something that is directed at them. When you are clear that you do not stand for a tyrannycal regime in Nepal, why should you feel pricked from my comments? You aren't feeling pricked though, are you? You were just urging me to ''take notes of their valid, legitimate questions and concerns''. I got it sir.

Again 'my angreji is khattam': Don't worry, more khattam is my angreji.As I did my schooling from a 'sarkari school' and sarkari college, I don't think my angreji will ever improve to a basic standard. Hence, I prefer to use Nepali, time and again. Honestly, I dont understand top-notch sarcasm so could you do a favour to me by not using them when you are discussing with me?

Regarding your concerns about Nepal not being ready to embrace democracy,
transplanting European democratic ideals in Nepal do not work etc. , I am trying to start a new thread in Nepali (as my Angreji is below par), I hope I will address your concerns in there. To say the least, I do not think that Nepal will/can be as stable and prosperous as Europe or America by adopting their style of political system/democracy overnight. Europe has exercised democratic values (civili liberties, press freedom and freedom of expression,sovereignity and state-power in the hand of the public etc.) for centuries to arrive at this point. They started the process in the 12th century. So when do we start if not now? Thats my point. And will our democratic endeavours be realized when some basic freedoms that we had achieved are also robbed? Does these backward steps help you to move forward??

You have a very valid point here which I couldn't have agreed more:''To have a fully functioning democracy, you have to create the institutions necessary to sustain democracy'' . But the fundamental difference between you and me is, you think King G is going to create institutions necessary to sustain democracy and I think he is resolved to create the institutions necessary to repel democracy.

ALthough I am NOT a student of international relation, I have read the success story of some authoritarian regimes in the world. But lets try to make some rational comparisions. Do you want me to believe that Gyanendra is a statesman comparable to Lee Kuan Yew or even General Musharraf? I am a big fan of Musharraf. Once upon a time, I had the oppurtunity to have a very short conversation with him (in Kathmandu during SAARC summit) and I have been his admirer ever since. For me, he is one of the capable and charismatic leaders ever born in South Asia. And he has done very well in Pakistan in both domestic and diplomatic fronts. He said borders in disputed Kashmir should be made irrelevant some months ago and now ManMohan Singh has gone one step ahead to opine that India wants a 'borderless' Kashmir. For a Pakistani leader, would there be any bigger success than this? Musharraf idolise Kemal Ataturk, perhaps the most moderate muslim leader of all time. King G idolise his own father Mahendra and Tulsi Giri, who are the resolute opponents of democracy. How can we compare Musharraf and Gyanendra? Musharraf has not ascended to power by inheritence, by mysterious/default succession of throne. Musharraf's Pakistan has not imposed restrictions on civil liberties, press freedom. Musharraf's Pakistan has nothing to do with communist insurgency. Sectorial violence and political insurgency are two different things as fas as I understand. So forgive me, I can't agree with you that he is doing in Nepal what Musharraf has been doing in Pakistan. Here, let me emphasize that although I admire Musharraf for being able to improve the situations in Pakistan, I do not agree with all of his political maneuvering.

Thanks for your referral on books. I shall try to read them.
And I have many interests- in politics, in literature, in sports, in showbiz etc. So I tend to comment /discuss in various threads with different individuals. I may express some views that you may not agree, but don't take them as personal or idiosyncratic. Isolated freak is not a subject of my discussion unless otherwise stated.

Sorry for this long reply and forgive me if you got bored. I appreciate your thoughtful arguments and welcome you to participate in my thread when ever you feel like having your say. :)

Isolated Freak,

When it comes to Nepal's politcs, Isolated Freak's signature has been falsehood. Not randomly in this or that, but completely false in every historical facts and propositions. Let me put these facts down here. These will speak for themselves. I am not going to argue more.

Before that, however, I want to give him compliments for his formal education in international affairs in Beijing. I am sure our country will benefit from the knowledge IF goes back with. However, I must tell this that recently I was terribly disappointed with IF's knowledge, rather instinct, on international affairs regarding Nepal.

In one of his debates with Poonte in early days of Feb 1, IF speculated that for the King to take Feb 1 step, India and the US must have supported him.

Need I say more ?

No offense meant, but I think IF failed when the moment of truth came. He failed the ultimate test of his knowledge on international affairs, in my humble opinion.

But I hope it must have been a learning experience for him.

Talking about knowledge, IF knows and talks a great deal about Lee Kuan Yew and wants us to believe that Gyanendra Shah (or, kunai bhabitabya pareko khandama, Paras Shah,) is the ultimate Lee Kuan Yew of Nepal. I don't know how many Sajhaites believe IF, but Poonte do not seem to be, despite IF's countless repetitions.

Now, IF wants us to see Gyanendra Shah as Parvez Musarraf and support him.

I don't know if Parvez Musarraf is the ideal model or even if a hereditary ruler like Gyanendra compares with non-hereditary General Parvez to make an analogy, not to mention lack of national and international support for Gyanendra, here is a better suggestion for IF, a learned man in world history.

IF, why don't you find at least a comparable example from the world history where a constitutional king takes the failing democracy in his hand, makes it right and gives it back to the people again to become a constitutional monarch or retire again ?

Do you have any ?

Whatever, for God's sake stop trying to convince your readers that Gyandendra/Paras/Hridayendra Shah are ultimate Lee Kuan Yew of Nepal.

And also, when you are free to call for supporting the King, do favor to yourself and smell the reality. Can you not see the dissent in the country and outside ? Do you think Gyanendra will be able to quell them and prevail ?

In the world of falsehood you live in, perhaps you believe that Gyanendra will prevail. In the real world, he is not going to. Here is my prediction, Gyanendra will show first sign of backing off before he can celebrate the first anniversary of his coup. I am ready to bet on that.

Now to the list of falsehood IF has presented in his small posting above. (I am not going to list the old ones, for which, I had called IF with a colorful name of 'Al Sahaf' on several occasions in the past.)

IF's fact:
Democracy came overnight in 1990 without history.

Historical fact:
The history of popular struggle for democracy in Nepal is more than half a century old. We had incomplete forms of democracy since 1950, only puntuated by tyranny of Mahendra Shah (by the way, IF is Mahendra bhakta) and recently of Gyanendra Shah.

IF's fact:
There was no internal demand for democracy in 1990

Historical fact:
In the referendum of 1980, two millions people voted for Democracy (abuse of state power, coercion, and outright dhandhali by the government, not counted). And the period between 1980-90 was the most vibrant period for anti-panchayat activism of semi-underground political parties. Lakhaun people participated in 1990 movement (it's a different fact that IF, in his most illuminating height of Al Sahafic avtar, has claimed in the past that there were merely one dozen aandolankari in Kathmandu city, that too Nepali looking Indians, brought from Assam, India !!!!!!!!!!!, Any takers ?). Half a million people alone in Kathmandu came for jubiliant celebration of the victory of democracy.

IF's fact:
There is no major support for democracy in Nepal today.

The current fact:
In an extensive survery conducted just before Feb 1, in totality, 95% people stood for democracy (only 5% chose absolute monarchy !), that too, when a "leading" question that invites bias in favor of monarchy was asked.

source: - http://www.asiafoundation.org/pdf/Nepal-ContemporarySituation.pdf

This is all for now.

Finally, IF, it is one thing to support this or that, it is totally different thing to falsify history and facts. And by doing the later, you are disgracing your academic credentials, if not yourself.


A well wisher,
Nepe

"I am a big fan of Musharraf. Once upon a time, I had the oppurtunity to have a very short conversation with him (in Kathmandu during SAARC summit) and I have been his admirer ever since. For me, he is one of the capable and charismatic leaders ever born in South Asia."

New user ji,

Be that as it may, General Musharraf undemocratically strong-armed his way to power through a military coup, yet you claim to be a big fan of his because of his charisma, statesmanship and capability, thereby implying your support of his leadership in Pakistan (your praise is so effusive). If this is what you believe, then you are, in effect, saying that the end justifies the means. And if that is indeed the case, then isn't it odd for you to, at the same time, chastise your detractors for believing and acting upon a similar impulse, a similar line of reasoning? Or am I misreading you?

Please do dispel the puzzlement of this passing observer who knows jack-shit about politics.

To Netazneta:
LOL. You have lived up to your username posing a serious question at me. You talk less but generally post something of substance. Hence, I am an admirer of you as well. See, I don't have problems with admiring people's unique traits no matter if they do not fall under a similar creed of mine.

To defend, first let me put you what I said in the end of the paragraph :
''Here, let me emphasize that although I admire Musharraf for being able to improve the situations in Pakistan, I do not agree with all of his political maneuvering.'' I think 'I do not agree with all of his political maneuvering' should have erased your cynicism.

Nevertheless, 'I am a big fan of him, his charisma and capability' doesn't mean that I have approved his military coup. It's his military coup, his constant denial of resigning as the Army chief and depriving Mr Sharif and Mrs Bhutto of politics etc that I dislike about him. Otherwise, he could be called a fine statesman.

Charisma, yes he acquires this trait, you accept it or not. It is a big bonus for every individual, isn't it? Otherwise how could a stern assailant of dictatorship adore (something about) a dictator. And CAPABILITY, he has turned many things around in Pakistan. Sectorial violence between Shias and Sunnis has plummeted, economy has resurrected, political system(although very biased) and parliament is functioning, relations between India has improved, US-Pakistan ties have also improved. Overall, Pakistan has achieved some stability. One cannot deny these success of Musharraf, and that was what I meant. Rememeber IF had tried to compare Gyanendra with Musharraf and my point was there is nothing comparable between the two dictators. Finally, I am against any forms of dictatorship. Although I admire his charisma and capability, I totally despise him for his undemocratic actions.

"Finally, I am against any forms of dictatorship. Although I admire his charisma and capability, I totally despise him for his undemocratic actions."

These unequivocal statements make things crystal clear, thank you, newuser.

(By the way, my username is actually a joke, given my general ignorance of things political. But I must say that I have learned much from just reading the likes of you, Nepe, IF (despite my disagreement), etc., for which I am grateful.)

newuser,

just my quick comments on your excellent post:

1. If you are comparing today's Nepal to the 12th century Magna Carta era England, all I have to say is, those days the nation(s)[ States] were isolated and could do anything without affecting the global/international system.The world has changed a lot in the last 800 years.

Yes, we have to start somewhere, but we can have a different way and not go through the crises that many European nations went through in democratization process. The new scholarship (again) is quite heretic, it does not subscribe to the overnight democratization, instead they focus on logical sequence: first economic development, then rule of law and then democracy (Joeseph Stiglitz belongs to this school of logical sequence). I agree with this new appraoch to democratization: First create a strong middle class base, then you'll have rule of law (as in HK, Singapore, Malaysia), then after having all the infrastructures/institutions ready for the transformation, democratize. It will be less messy, chaotic and problematic that way. THIS IS MY POINT. Sometimes you have to look beyond your democracy primer theories.


Yes, I BELIEVE that the King will create institutions to support and sustain democracy in Nepal. Its my personal opinion, you are free to disagree. We all can believe in what we choose to believe in, that's democracy.

I don't wnat you to believe (I was not being persuassive) what I believe in. But I do believe the King has potentials to emerge as next Lee and Pervez Musharraf. Remember, they didn't and they couldn't change Singapore and Pakistan overnight. It took almost 10 eayrs for Lee and slightly less time for Musharraf (thanks to America's war on terror). Neither you nor me can predict the future. Who knows, maybe the King will be our own Lee or Musharraf. All I am saying is its too early to judge him. He has already craeted a strong anti-graft body and the press is not as unfree as it complains. We are in a difficult situation and such difficult/extreeme situations require difficult and extreme measures.


Musharraf started with the same measures: anti corruptoion campaignhening the SOEs (State Owned Enterprises), clean and transparent bureaucracy and a responsible govt. It didn't happen overnight.

These are my VIEWS- MY PERSONAL VIEWS. I am not stating it as the ultimate truth, nor I claim to be speaking for the masses [ as you do]. FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE.

And thanks for your clarification regarding your comments on various threads.

Nepe,

I see no point whatsoever in discussing with you and I think I have made this clear on many occassions.

The new scholarship (again) is quite heretic, it does not subscribe to the overnight democratization, instead they focus on logical sequence: first economic = The new scholarship (again) is quite heretic, it does not subscribe to the idea of overnight democratization, instead it fouces on the logical sequence [of events/process]: