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."

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

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.

Nepe,

I take my earlier comment back and will discuss with you on this because you need a lesson or two on international affairs: Yes, I stand by my BELIEF that without a go ahead signal by India and the US, the King wouldn't have possibly made the Feb 1 move. International politics which I study is looking beyond the offical rhetorics. There are many instances where the US has covertly supported "authritarian regimes". And Nepal is no different. The arms embargo and this and that, is not that important. The US can channel the fund/military aid through a third country (possibely European or Egypt, or even India). Recently the Egyptian asistant minister for Foreign Afairs was in Nepal!! See, you have to look at various factors, not just the official rhetorics and base you arguments on those. THIS IS THE FIRST LESSON OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS- RHETORICS AND ACTIONS DO NOT ALWAYS MATCH.

If you read that editorial of April 15 (or was it 16th) on NYT, it starts with, the US does not want a failed state in South Asia. Bingo! That's the point. If you read beyond the liberal-radical (Edward Said came up with this concept- Orientalism) stuff in that editorial, it says, one thing: Don't let Nepal become a failed state. And the US ambassador has toned down his rhetoric, as evident by his interviews. It will be outright silly to expect the US supporting the King officially in this context, but the US position WILL change over time. The Clinton administration didn't support Musharraf either in 1999 and decided not to sell the F16s that pakistan had already paid for!!! What happened: In less than 2 years, he became America's trusted ally.

Indians don't want an unstable Nepal either. There only fear at this point is what happens if the modern arms and ammunition of the RNA goes to the Maoist. That's why they placed an arms embargo. If the Indian govt. is persuaded that the RNS is capable of not letting the Maoists have the M16s or the Indian made SLRs, they will resume the militray supplies.

जनताको छोरो भएको कारण देउवाले चुनाव गराउन नसकेको आरोपमा दुई-दुईचोटी दण्डित हुनुपर्ने तर जिन्दगीमा एकपटक पनि वार्डको समेत चुनाव जित्नु नपर्ने डा.गिरी या विष्टहरूले विना जनादेश वर्षौं कुर्सीमा टाँसिरहन र प्रजातन्त्रका उपदेश दिइरहन पाउने ? यस्तो दोहोरो मापदण्डले निर्वाचनको मिथ्यावरण उदाङ्गो पारेको छ । तीन वर्षको अवधि जननिर्वाचित प्रतिनिधि र जनताका अगुवा राजनीतिक पार्टीलाई प्रजातन्त्र फर्काउन होइन, निरङ्कुशतन्त्रलाई संस्थागत गर्न र प्रजातन्त्रका रहेसहेका अवशेष समाप्त पार्न चाहिएको हो भन्ने बुद्धिजीवी नीलाम्बर आचार्यको विश्लेषण सान्दर्भिक छ ।

यथास्थितिमा राजासँग पार्टीहरूको संवादको अर्थ प्रकारान्तरले असोज १८ र माघ १९ को शाही कदमको अनुमोदन र अब हुने राजनीतिक सम्झौतामा राजाको सक्रिय र हस्तक्षेपकारी भूमिकाको स्वीकारोक्तिका साथ बहुदलीय पञ्चायतमा प्रवेश गर्न तयार हुने कुरामात्रै हो ।

- http://www.kantipuronline.com/nepali/kolnews.php?&nid=42068

Just to add more point so that Nepe sir knows how India is very supportive of the King:

If India was against (or the Feb 1 move had caught India totally off guard) the Indian PM would not have met the King in Bandung. And India would not have agreed to participate in the SAARC Summit to be held in Dhaka in November, nor it would have sent a speacial envoy to Nepal last month.

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 ?

Jordan's King Hussien in the 70s. Well documented in Robert Kaplan's Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos.

- I think I have passed your test. :-)

Sardarsing, Election jiteko bhandai ma deshai lutna paune?

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 ?

Factual error correction:

Jordan's King Hussien in the 50s. Well documented in Robert Kaplan's Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos.

- I think I have passed your test. :-)

Jordan's King banned the political parties, dissolved the parliament in the late 50s but in the 80s, late 80s, lifted the bans making Jordan one of the most open middle eastern societies. If he hadn't taken the extreme measures in the 50s, Jordan would be caught in endless civil wars/ethnic conflicts.

newuserji,
tapai Mushraff lai ta bhekeko manche,thulo thulo manche aru kati bhetnu bhaeko hola. tapai le Mushraf ko bare ma bhannu bhaeko thik ho- kaha Gyanendra ra kaha Mushraf - there can be no comparison. Mushraf ta muhajir ho ni, tapani Pakistan ko military head banyo. kasto ramro bolchan - ekdum articulate. Musalman bhaera pani progressive chan.

Antya ma tapai ko buddi cha, bichar cha. tapai jasto manish haru, IFji jasto manish haru agadi aunu paryo. Nepal ko bhavisya banauna. IFji jaslai mahile some one bhanthaneko thiye, waha ma pani kitabi gyan dehrai cha. Ma ta tapai haru ko #1 pankha (fan) hai.

Jordan ko raja constitutional monarch ho ra? Progressive ta Iran ka Shah Pahelvi pani thiye ni.

Isolatedji,
Due to time restrictions, I am unable to give a comprehensive reply to your comments today. We shall discuss on all of those issues next time.

First you haven't provided any basis of correlation between Lee Kuan Yew and King Gyanendra. You have totally ignored the pretext of events that led to Lee's success and at the same time you have ignored the differences in personality, style and ideology between the two people. If you repeatedly compare Lee with Gyanendra just because Lee suppressed his opposition while bringing prospertity for Singapore out of chaos, I can compare King Gyanendra with dozens of despots like Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, Hassan Turabi, Hafez Al-Assad, Charles Taylor, Idi Amin, Jonas Savimbi, Suharto etc because he has followed their path of dictatorship. While you have 2/3 examples to CHASTISE GYanendra, I can provide you with dozens and dozens of examples to VILIFY him. So lets not make exaggerated comparisons between Lee and Gyanendra.

I think you know lot more about Lee than me. However, let me bring some facts about Lee's career (My knowledge about him is very limited so I can present very few of them) so that you could explain me later how Gyanendra could be compared with him.

Lee is the son of a commoner.
Lee is a Cambridge university educated lawyer.
Lee is a witness of the atrocities committed in the world war II.
Lee saw colonial rule of Britain as well as he accepted merging with Malaysia.
Lee founded a political party, contested election and became an assembly member.
Lee held referendum and got an overwhelming majority (70%?) from the people to implement his decision.
Lee founded modern singapore.
Lee's Singapore suppressed communists but didn't forced ban on other liberties except freedom of political expression.
Lee opted the policy of neutrality and non-allignment. (I have put this one just to ask you to take note of how Gyanendra explicitly rejected Taiwan's existence)
Lee advocated a distinct political idealogy of Asian values.
Apart from being a successful leader, he is widely respected as a political thinker.

Now please enlighten me how Gyanendra can be compared with Lee. And did you forget that King Mahendra tried to become a South Asian Lee Kuan almost 50 years ago and desperately failed? If all dictators were as succesful as Lee, there would be no problems in Africa, Latin America and Asia today. Please try to convince yourself first about seeing Lee Kuan Yew's statesmanship in Gyanendra before trying to pursue me to believe you. Desperate insistence doesn't work my friend. Otherwise, I can provide you plenty of similarities between Gyanendra and infamous dictators of the world.

On rest of the issues, we shall discuss later on.

* Wanted to add few lines on this:
And did you forget that King Mahendra tried to become a South Asian Lee Kuan Yew almost 50 years ago and desperately failed? What more has Gyanendra done than duplicating his father's deeds and in more unplanned and undecisive manner than Mahendra? Experiment with Panchayat has a proven record of falure and you want to repeat the same experiment again with a less visionary man than the originator. And with the same people whom Mahendra bestowed his faith?

Let's not experiment a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen to yield radium. That will be a waste.

Now,

First you haven't provided me any thing whatsoever beyond the cold-war era textbooks definition of democracy!

Now to get back to you:

First you haven't provided any basis of correlation between Lee Kuan Yew and King Gyanendra.

I don't know what correlation you are looking for. I mean both came at different contexts, in different places and in different times. You are forcing me to compare apple and oranges here. However, since that you have forced me to, here's what I feel- correleation or whatever, you decide:

Both Lee and Gyanendra came to power at the most difficult times in history. Lee didn't want to break from the Malay federation, but the Malay Federation didn't want Singapore.. So he reluctantly had to agree to the idea of Singaporean independence.

We can say the same thing about the King. He wasn't crowned at happiest of the times. It was a difficult time for the nation and for him too.

Pretext to Lee's Success (if you insist)

- Was a strong leader, didn't tolerate any dissent. Even today, no newspaper that wishes to sell itself in Singapore can carry any offensive materials on him. He sues them, makes them apologize and if that doesn't work, he restricts their circulations.

- Because of his strong-ness, he could implement policies that no democratic leader would have even imagined to implement, such as evicting people from their "ghettos" and forcing them to live in a governmnet housing project. Many Malays, Chinese and Tamils didn't want to move out from their community and live with the others, but Lee forcefully made them live with each other.

- According to Lee: "Liberal democracy needs economic development, literacy, a growing middle class and political institutionsthat support free speech and human rights. It needs a civic society resting on shared values that make people with different conflicting views willing to cooperate with each other? .

and he still believes that Singapore is not ready for a full-liberal democracy as in the West. He has his reasons, and he is now, along with his UN advisor (now the dean of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, Kishore Mahubani) are promoting, what Huntington calls, Confucian ethics for East Asian Society. Both reject the idea of "implementing" the Western style system will somehow make the situation better in Asia. They want to fuse it with the Asian traditions, such as filial piety, family-community bonding and so on and needless to say, the idea of state being at the top.

And you got Pinochet's name in the wrong place: Chile under Pinochet's regime embarked on liberal economic reforms and it somehow led to rule of law, creating institutions that were necessary to sutain democracy after Pincohet. And today, Chile is, if not the only one, then one of the most successful FUNCTIONING democracies in Latin America.

The same can be said about Suharto. Suharto did lead the nation to prosperity in the 60s, 70 and even 80s. Of course his was a curropt regime, but he did suppress the fundamentalists and the communists and gave the nation the stability it needed.

Assad also cannot be compared with Idi Amin or Charles Taylor. He played by what Thomas Friedman labels, "Hama Rules"- its teh Boyedin tradition, either you go kill or you get killed. Nonethless in his regime, Syria became strong. He ruled with a strong fist and managed to promote the Syrian interests abroad (in teh case of lebanon. We can contest the morality of this but he did what he felt was necessary to protect Syria and its interests- no saints in international relations!). he was a dictator, no question but what would have happened if he was not the President of Syria then? Syria would have been screwed more@

"Lee opted the policy of neutrality and non-allignment. (I have put this one just to ask you to take note of how Gyanendra explicitly rejected Taiwan's existence) "

Nepal doens't have much choice in its foreign policy. And if you look at it: Lee was close to Chinese leaders too, because of his ethnic Chinese (fukkien) background. DEng Xiaoping stopped in Singapore Airport quite a few times in his trips abroad and liked Lee immensely, and Lee was a big fan of Deng. Lee could balance Singapore's policy because of his own background and personal rapport with the Chinese leaders, and had more leeway in conducting his policies than we have. And the Singaporean army was being trained in taiwan and australia. (i don't know if its still the case today) and the Chinese leaders didn't care about tihs.

On Taiwan:

Historically speaking, Taiwan is a part of China, which China lost to Japan in the 1894-1895 war. From 1895 to 1945, it was under the Japanese colonial rule. So when japan lost the war and surrendered, the soveirgnty of Taiwan returned to China. Otherwise, how on earth could Chiang Kai Shek would have flown to Taiwan and established the Republic of China there, if it wasn't the part of the Chinese mainland?

Alright, I have answered your questions and you have answered mine. It was nice discussing with you. Time permitting, will be discussing with you on other issues too. But for now, you made your points clear, I made mine clear (hopefully), and no need to continue further with any of this.

Have a good day!

And did you forget that King Mahendra tried to become a South Asian Lee Kuan Yew almost 50 years ago and desperately failed? What more has Gyanendra done than duplicating his father's deeds and in more unplanned and undecisive manner than Mahendra? Experiment with Panchayat has a proven record of falure and you want to repeat the same experiment again with a less visionary man than the originator. And with the same people whom Mahendra bestowed his faith?


I respect Mahendra, label me undemocratic or whatever you want to. Without Mahendra, we would have ended being another Bhutan, if not Sikkim. At least give that man some credit for what he did to PRESERVE NEPAL"S INDEPENDENCE.

And if you ask me, I'd rather have Nepal's independence under a dictator than become an Indian protectorate under democratic leaders.

IF, he wants the last word. Similarities between King G.

Sardarsing,

Good observation!

Sorry guys let me have my say again.

''And if you ask me, I'd rather have Nepal's independence under a dictator than become an Indian protectorate under democratic leaders. ''

But I believe we can have Nepal's independence without becoming an Indian protectorate under democratic leaders if Monarchy remains a truly constitutional institution or give way to a republic state.

The 21st century world order doesn't require the existence of a dictarorial monarchy to guarantee the existence of an indendent state. Please do not link the issue of Nepal's independence with the inevitability of an autocratic monarchy, just like any other staunch royalist, if you are not one of them.

Your opinion, we are here because of Prithvi Narayan Shah, so its his birta, so lets drink the water from the foot of his descendents.

I think if Prithvi Narayan Shah was not there, maybe the Angrej could have lumped the current parts of Nepal(excluding tarai), sikkim and other hilly regions. If Ram Bdr. is not there, there would be Sam Bdr.

If the Rana's were not there maybe the Angrej could have done something to Nepal, so lets start praising the Rana Regime....

So the point is, because the Shah clan made Nepal and we are able to say we are Nepali (although we have felt miserable saying we are Nepali at international airports), we should do bhaktipuja of them does not seem right.

Sardarsing, you are kidding right? Every country has history, which is written in favour of the powerholders. We are thankful to Pritivi Narayan Shah, was the dictator himself, he conquered the West and East Nepal, killing thousand of People. You never know, how much we have been developed if we have been colonized by English. At least, east-west railways would have been developed and the cable car transportation in the mountains. Do you think that India would have been so much developed without British influence. Please donot have the bottleneck in your analysis. Do you think that Prithivi Narayan Shah, other Shahs and Ranas has kept independent Nepal? But I think it was then British policy itself that they didn't see any benefit occupying Nepal. Do you think that they didn't exploit Nepal? In fact, they looted bigger resources from Nepal than India and in return they just gave us Gorkha-British citizenship and pension, in compare to such extended Indian development. Who sells their people to other country and being proud, perhaps we. They are using us from the Wrold War till in Iraq. Are you still not convinced what we lost?? What would have been better for Nepal.

Sorry guys, the topics Jump from DC rally to the history. Anyway, I am really proud to have part taken in the DC rally. At least I felt little satisfaction on my heart that I could contribute on chanting democratic slogan in the state than useless blogging on the net and with friends.

My point is, I don't want to go back to the history and base my conviction on it. I want to look at the situation now and for tomorrow.

Someone said few years back to me- Nationalism is only 2-3 generations deep. Look at the Americans. If not your kids, your grand-kids will be Americans in heart and soul. If they have to fight against the Nepalese, they will.

So me being a Nepali now, want democracy and rule of law in Nepal. I don't want some despot ruling under his thumb.