I must admit i didn’t read all 4 pages but it did make a enjoyable morning read. Much of what you said is not new and has been said before whilst your sources are questionable and heavily biased towards the main thrust of your argument. Yet, thank you for making the effort to understand the Nepali conflict because much of what you say does make sense and your right about HDI -Nepal has the lowest indicators in all of ASIA and is one of only a few countries from the 50 LDC outside the African continent.

With reference to the sources, I meant to say that their validity is dubious and biased towards the main thrust of your argument.

‘With reference to the sources, I meant to say that their validity is dubious and biased towards the main thrust of your argument.’

And you say it yourself that you did not read all 4 pages. And yet coolly speak of arguements,dubiousness and bias if any.

I have read all 4 pages in full since the morning. I still think the same thing. Don’t get me wrong, it was a good article but look at his sources.

Who is Ian?

Neil,

For a person who does not even initially read and jumps into commenting the article, oh after reading the bibliography ONLY, one need hardly be concerned about who/what Ian is. But just a heads up, here he is for you.

While he basically fails to provide ANY argument, this Ian makes quite an escapist remark of claiming to have read the article where the whole thrust of his argument lies on the validity of the article’ sources. Why doesn’t he actually point out the ‘biased view’ and argue against that, if he can, which everytime he drops his senseless comment here is obviously a reminder how such cannot be expected of a noble Oxfordian.

That is typical of Ian, when he blatently accused me of voicing Kantipur’s opinion when he himself fails to put the major points of his argument forward. If you visit his blog, you’d find that he has put up other’s article that apparently reflect his view, which only goes to show how incapable he is of extracting complex and sophisticated information regarding Nepali conflict, put em together and come up with something that is credibile, worthwhile and comprehensive. A desperate attempt of a man who has nothing original to say, unlike you, Neil.

Neil,

I am the man Mystichacker hates because he is unable to challenge the points i do make. I admit my above posts are not so substantial but i still have sleep in my eyes. If you look at previous posts you will see the reason why i use this name.

I have just been speaking to one of my friends who was demonstrating in Kathmandu and he said that there were about 10,000 Maoists demonstrating on the streets alongside the people. It seems predictable now.

just to make it clear, maoists have the right to demonstrate as long as they are not blowing people up in the process. in fact, if they do find demonstrations more effective than arming themselves in the jungle, that would be a positive indication, wouldn’t it.

While we attempt to get a ‘theoretical perspective’, I would agree with Chalmers that change is a catalyst for revolution, or vice-versa, depending upon one’s understanding of change—difference in degree of perception. However, what creates such change, resulting in disequilibrium of social system is not properly identified, only to point out that intrinsically there are two polarized forces which act as a ‘springboard’ to launching a revolution, mainly, forces that are loyal to the status quo and forces ‘interested’ in altering that status quo.

While Chalmers-Horning appropriately identify the elements or factors that are responsible for a fragmented social and economic system in Nepal and a consequent chasm that appear between the middle-class and the ‘rest’, I find that with some appropriate political and social tools that we have at our disposal, there should be ways to ‘fix’ them without running the risk of having the country go through a ‘revolution-like’ phase.

The idea of reform is well within our reach, I think, especially if viewed in parallel with recent political development. Whether there were serious effort for reforms made during the 90s but failed because what Nepal really needed was a ‘revolution’, or whether the bureaucrats and technocrats really lacked the expertise to define ‘social disequilibrium’ and address them equally is not clearly understood. While most believe the latter gave rise to the current effect, I also believe that lack of former—defining, understanding and tackling the root of problem also contributed to the failure of then democratic government, especially when Maoists relentlessly brought such ‘social disequilibrium’ into greater Nepali awareness.

Sarahana,

Yes it would be a positive sign and i hope for one that Parliament calls a constituent assembly and invites the Maoists to participate. I am cautious about what the Maoist response will be -esepcially since their initial reaction to the SPA acceptance of the Kings offer is slightly worrying.

Ian, I stated this elsewhere so excuse the redundancy, the Maoists have the responsibility towards their cadres of appearing tough and displaying some resistance, i.e. their show of “power.” My belief is that once they are cornered (ceasefire declared, CA announced), they will have little choice.

#2 I still believe that CA is the route through which the chances of the monarch surving are the highest. But I also believe it will be effective in significantly stripping it of its powers. It may not be a sure way of getting a republic, but it’s more important that we give the democratic promises of this method a preference rather than a few delcaring the country a Republic for the whole. As for the new constitutions itself, yes, I’m pretty sure the only one strongly proposing a republic will be the Maoists, and people will generally vote for Constitutions coming from the mainstream parties, which are likely/expected to offer a very weak ceremonial role for the king. Here again, I think the Maoists will accept it, but it will be a way of showing the cadres that their stance was still a full-fledged Republic until the end. Everything the Maoist leaders say/do publicly is two-forked, I believe; one aimed at their own cadres, the other at the rest of us.

Well Sarahana, let us hope that the Maoists play ball.

Neil,

You ask: “Who is Ian?”

What difference does it make who Ian is? What exactly is the point of asking this question, anyway? So what are you going to do if you uncover his id or address? Clobber him? If your objective is to trash him on some intellectual ground, then you don’t need to know who he is; you can do so through this very medium (Samuday, that is).

I find the tone of your question quite amusing — actually disturbing. Now I am not here to defend Ian (whoever he is); nor do I agree with his line of logic (see Mystic above who just beat me to the key board). Regardless, he has the right to express his views; I defend this right.

Now back to your piece:

What I distilled from it is what you stated in the ending paragraph: “The Maoists have made a commitment to multiparty democracy, but their inclusion in the constituent assembly will likely create a system more adapted to addressing the aspirations of ethnic minorities, women, and the lower casts. Inclusion of the mainstream parties in the constituent assembly and a future government that incorporates them into a functioning democracy will be likely to earn international acceptability. Much needed development aid will flow along with it. If Nepal is able to show a marked improvement in its overall development, as well as create new and appropriate roles for the marginalized, then a new equilibrium can be achieved. Is this rosy outcome to much for a war weary country to hope for? Time will tell.”

Let me offer some random zingers:

1. Maoist commitment to MP democracy: Depends on what you mean by “commitment.” (No, this is not a Clintonian argument!!)

2. Constituent assembly: Isn’t that just a sexy term to seduce the Nepali masses and democracy advocates into thinking that it is out democratic nirvana or it will magically lead to: a) the monarchy’s retirement (or at least complete constitutional defanging) from the Nepali political landscape and b) establishment of “a functioning democracy”?

First, the monarchy: it ain’t going anywhere, not as long as so-called leaders like Girija and Madhav Kumar are allowed to call final shots.

Second, “a functioning democracy”: let’s hope we have it (although I doubt we will see it under GP, MK and Deuba and others like them? Do you know what BP used to say (warn the Nepali Congress workers and local leaders) about his own brother GP: “He is the most dangerous NC leader; don’t trust him.” WHO IS REALLY NAKED HERE — THE EMPEROR (KING G) OR SO-CALLED PARTY LEADERS?

I hope I AM absolutely WRONG about what I think the CA will eventually result in. In other words, I sincerely hope, in terms of its outcome, the CA keeps faith with those who have vested their faith in it. Nothing would please me more than that as it is perhaps the last hope we have got left at this point for “a functioning democracy” to take roots in Nepal. But we’ll see…….

3. International acceptability of Nepali democracy: Wow, that’s a thought!!!! Whatever that means………. I suppose you mean, without it, Nepal will simply FRET, FART, FOLD, and eventually FADE……. (One vote for the 4F principle!!!).

4. Much needed development aid will flow: Now you are talking — and talking like a “development tourist” or “parachute journalist” (which I am sure you are not; I am simply applying a metaphor).

What are you talking about? Have you not already seen enough, over the past 55 years, with your own naked eyes what “foreign aid” (or “development aid” as you put it) has done to Nepal, i.e., how it has morally, mentally, and physically destroyed the country? It has eroded Nepali soul and a profound sense of self-reliance. Without it, the monarchy would not exist and be in a position to stash away tons of dollars in foreign accounts all over the world — from Cayman Islands to Switzerland — all at the expense of the general masses. Without it, the political parties and their leaders, along with the elite eschelon, would not be in a position to build fancy mansions over night and deposit dollars in foreign accounts. Nepal has been forced into such a debilitating state of entrenched dependency on FA that the country can’t even wipe its ass clean without it (after all the Bagmati is going dry except during the rainy season: who needs a fortune teller when the mighty Bagmati’s pending fate radiates as an ominous sign of the future facing Nepal!). Well, one more vote for FA and for continued western/foreign intervention — your vote, Neil — in determining the fait of Nepal’s development (rather destruction) and Nepali life.

Let me declare categorically that FA is a joke, one big joke, a nightmare, an instrument of external control — hail Truman, he was one damn smart president. He knew the easy path to taming and trapping the world; money is the biggest lubricant. That’s why he set the US on this path. (How unfortunate for America that Bush took the hard, undemocratic, impractical, or simply bull-headed road in the name of terrorism that only gave more justification to an autocrat like King G to abort the constitution and human rights in the first place). If you think FA is a source of hope or help for creating “a functioning democracy” in Nepal, we must be hallucinating. All FA does is only perpetuate “CONTINUED CORRUPTION” as it negates the necessity on the part of rulers to be accountable for their actions and be responsive to the needs of the people.

5. Time will tell: Yes, TWT indeed; I fully agree with you on this point. TWT is the only thing we can always count on as it never fails to reveal our naked faces, our damn lies to the whole world……

Let me end my zingers on a hopeful note though by quoting a Native American legend: “FOLLOW THE RAVEN INTO THE DARKNESS, AND YOU’LL SEE THE LIGHT.”

My point: You figure it out………..

Nandaji,

If we are to get into the pedagogical aspect of any language, we should perhaps start with the king’s himself when phrases like ‘will of the people’ and ‘in accordance with Shah dynasty..’ are thrown about so lightly. So much assumption embedded in those, don’t you think?

Whether Maoists MEAN to be a part of larger MP democracy or not can only be found out by engaing them in discussions instead of gun-battles.

The need for CA is the call of times I think, and if you wish to see revolution averted, we need to accept the reality of present Nepali political leaders, which you point as Madhav and Giraja being absolutely incapable of overthrowing king’s powers. The point I see is not whether king as an entity remains to be part of Nepali social fabric, but more like how do we define the role of king in this growing awareness and demand for a ‘republic’ in contemporary Nepal.

I am also of the opinion that Nepal regenerating its democratic activity is only a start. There is so much to be done, and to whatever basic democratic ideals we can subscribe to now will undoubtedly vouch as commitment of Nepali people to reign sovereign and decide their own destiny, providing basic ingredients for the growth of future Nepal.

Time constrained, i ref myself..attn:Nandaji

We need to go ‘Grameen’ and Maoists after they settle with their guns will be catalysts to my hope of better Nepal.
Mr Ian, somewhere refs Dr Khagaendra Thapa who rebuffs POOR NATION’S chances of developing under ‘democracy and freedom’, poor observation I say and I cudnt agree more M’hacker, its the ’ ACUTE CAPITALISTIC AMBITION’ that has brought down nations poor, Asiatic and sub-Saharan. And in times of Peace, with 20/80 theory, the 20 set on their ACUTE CAPITALISTIC or otherwise ambitions at the expense of the other 80 thus a nation goes down with them.

Not talking Guns for a moment, the Maoists have better understanding of the social psyche of the 80 than any in Nepal, outside of Nepal, almost all are paranoid. Thus, we need to assimilate Maoists for progression , peace follows. How, thats the challenge the 20 should comprehend and I am hopeful they will this time.
Paranoia of the Maoists shall not HALT the progression of our country, its not time to ponder upon history and parallels of other nations, we Nepali have our own history parallel to non.

We are at a point in time made possible by the participating population, way forward is to watch out for the likes of Mr Ian in general and work on the simple dreams and hopes sans pre-defined judgements.

refrain from personal attacks, please — sweeper

Whether Maoists MEAN to be a part of larger MP democracy or not can only be found out by engaing them in discussions instead of gun-battles.

The need for CA is the call of times I think, and if you wish to see revolution averted, we need to accept the reality of present Nepali political leaders, which you point as Madhav and Giraja being absolutely incapable of overthrowing king’s powers. The point I see is not whether king as an entity remains to be part of Nepali social fabric, but more like how do we define the role of king in this growing awareness and demand for a ‘republic’ in contemporary Nepal.

I am also of the opinion that Nepal regenerating its democratic activity is only a start. There is so much to be done, and to whatever basic democratic ideals we can subscribe to now will undoubtedly vouch as commitment of Nepali people to reign sovereign and decide their own destiny, providing basic ingredients for the growth of future Nepal.

Mystic,

First of all, thanks for the quick comment on my comment on Neil’s piece. We can talk about some of the bigger issues you have hinted at in your piece later, perhaps on the phone (I’ll call you). What I have provided here is a quickie:

1. Maoist decision: We don’t know at this point what they will eventually decide to do in terms joining (or not joining) the MP process. All we know is what they said in reaction to SPA acceptance of the king’s “peace offering” (or “tapari/punya dan” to honor his restless ancesters and satisfy his dan-hungry pujari[s]). Prachanda didn’t accept the offer; at least, that’s the Maoist public posture which is understandable given their position.

2. The CA: I don’t know if it the call of times, but it is now the inevitability of times as it is an impeding reality, a gift of popular protests (Sarahana alluded to this as well). The question is: what is going to come out of it once it is set in motion. Let’s all hope it generates something good — a genuine momentum for a genuine democracy that serves the need of the people rather than party leaders and functionaries (bafoonery and bafoons).

3. No, I don’t want to see a “revolution” (if it is genuine, not some half-baked senseless, callous violence) averted. In fact, a rebel in me who once used to follow/swallow every word BP uttered and who actively participated in anti-Mahendra movement in the 1960s, who knows first hand what it feels like to be beaten and detained by the police, still hopes that one day a genuine revolution will come to rescue my Nepali brothers and sisters and that “Revolution will be televised” as Gil Scott Herron, a jazz artist, said.

4. Girija, Madha, ….: Well, let’s not waste our time on them at this time.

5. King as part of Nepali social fabric: Well, the king is not just a part of the Nepali social fabric; he is the force. As long as the monarchy remains, the king is an undeniable force, in fact, the axis of Nepali politics and power, regardless of his constitutional status (a moot point).

6. Democracy: I am all for democracy and democratic processes; I spent half of my life actively fighting for it (when I lived in Nepal). I still lend my voice to it and to its cause. But the democracy I envision is not just some mask carved out of electoral victories and defeats, something through which self-centered leaders seem to, time and again, highjack the voices and will of the people, constantly dangling them with an ever illusory thread of “participatory” hope while choking them, at the same time, with hunger and deprivation, chaos and violence. The democracy we need is one in which the people not only have the right to vote, but also determine the course of their life and living, where their voices count.

I thought Gil Scott Herron sang ‘the revolution will NOT be televised’

i thought the not was the most important part of the song. anyway…

Nandaji,

A phone conversation would perhaps provide much clarity, although I cannot say your second post fails to do that either.

Anyway, to your points.

#1 is hilarious, Prachanda nails it when accusing Girija and Madhav (both Bahuns, apparently, coincidentally, a janjati would probably say systematically, get a life!) of subserving the king. The satire is so ancient but the accusation very contemporary ‘Nepali’.

#2 partly agree, especially when non-Maoists fail to point out the failure of current constitution beyond the aspect of ‘constitutional monarchy’.

#3 ok

#4 ok

#5 hmm. Thus the need to define KINGS ROLE and not the monarchy’s itself. If that makes any sense.

#6 ok

#2 partly agree, especially when non-Maoists fail to point out the failure of current constitution beyond the aspect of ‘constitutional monarchy’.

Could you give me examples to clarify what you mean by this?

r

I think you are absolutely right: a misquote indeed. But, hopefully, not the point I was trying to make. Yes, Gil’s point, if I recall it correctly (it has been a long, long time since I heard the song during one of his live performances), “revolution will not televised” as long as all the vested interests that the revolution targets have their way. My hope is that “revolution will be televised” which would signal the deafeat of the vested interests and the true victory of the people and their democratic rights and human cause.

In my opinion, there has always been a hovering skepticism/cynicism — whether parties ‘genuinely’ pushed for a CA from rigorous anlaysis of current constitution and its failure to address sweeping political, social and economic concerns of the people; or, was it only a tactical ploy to get on the side of the Maoists. Most would identify with the latter, however, as the ‘character’ and ‘intention’ of our king started showing its true colors over last several years, I bet those doubts swiftly disappeared even amongst the most skeptical.

Articles of this length should be accompanied by an abstract and please also consider peer-reviewing.

Well, it is a pretty open site which does not necessarily boast on being critically academic. But I do agree with the standard ‘abstract’ for articles that are unusually long for visitors with ADD like myself.

Ian

what is your blog?

1. I asked who Ian was because I thought I was accused of being him.

2. The sources at the end of the article look biased if you take them out of context. The Maoists sources are not used for Data.

3. Development aid underneath the king and parties may have contributed to corruption problems. The point though is that if the Maoists “take over” and have no international legitimacy then development aid will be cut off. Besides this there will likely be trade embargoes and sanctions.

4. I submitted this article on April 4th. Please take that into account while reading it.

Hi Neil, Good work on the article, just want to quickly ask you, What is your view of the Nepali media ?? Are they fair and balanced in their coverage ?? Are Nepali people getting an unbiased view of what is happening in the country ?? Or has the media been politicised ??

BCF:in today’s world we all speak media in one form or the other. i read that somewhere, can’t remember where.

re 11 - why so many are willing to give goodwill to the Maoist’s ways? why not hold them as much accountable to expected norms? somehow we’re supposed to simply take it that just because they are the Maoists, it’s ok for them to be hypocritical so they can appease their cadres? what kind of leaders are we asking for then?

re 18 - #1 is hilarious, Prachanda nails it when accusing Girija and Madhav (both Bahuns, … obviously you’re being selective in your interpretation. all three are bahuns, aren’t they? Nothing wrong with that, anyone with the brain to play the game gets to play.

let’s not engage in namecalling games, rather we ought to figure out a way to work together to save the country, and restore peace and security and prosperity for all the nepalis so the childrens can go back to schools again and people can go to their work and and they can shop around - you know all the usual stuff that you take them for granted. When people are willing to work together for common good through dailogue and peaceful means, there is nothing that they can not achieve. So let it shower - shower of peace, harmony and prosperity in Nepal.

‘obviously you’re being … with the brain to play the game gets to play.’

Obviously you fail to see the irony and get all defensive about bahuns rather than laughing away the humor, simply because one bahun characteristically draws parallel the current political development with traditionally bahun — thakuri relation, more specifically prevalent in Kathmandu than elsewhere. Prachanda being from ‘elsewhere’ only fits as a commenter or spectator rathar than ANOTHER bahun. Neither is he to consider himself as one of them, obviusly because he apparently was not compensated in similar manner — ‘tupari-daan’ parable.

Birbhadra,

My blog is ondemocracy.blogspot.com

Hope you enjoy it.

Neil,

I appreciate your article and have taken note of the fact you wrote it on April 4th. I might be overtly critical but i appreciate and wish you all the best.

Boxcutter’s Friend

I am pretty sure i know who you are.

Mystichacker, You are still a dickhead.

god damn amateurs — sweeper

I know quite a few people who read Samudaya and the general consensus is that Mystichacker is a fuckwit from Columbia University. Happy Blogging people!

Warning #1: User will be banned for further trying to perpetuate flaming — sweeper

Mystic: Are you a student/alumni of Columbia? If you don’t mind me asking…

Ian, one person is not few people. Let’s get that straight.

pundit, please ask him privately through the message board, and let’s try to stick to the topic here.

Basically it is true.

Its kind of ironic that the system has removed the insults directed against Mystichacker but not removed the insults against me. Indeed has made racist comments against me but he deleted them but that is neither nor their. It is hypocrisy.

This article is a good article. I regret my words yesterday. I suppose my morning grumpiness affected my comments.

Sarahana, do you need to answer mystichackers questions?

Sarahana,

You are right one person does not make many but many makes many which is the point i was making but maybe you didn’t read my comment properly.

‘Maoist militia could be incorporated in RNA’

Kantipur Report

KATHMANDU, April 26 - Chief of the Army Staff (CoAS) Pyar Jung Thapa has said the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) is positive about the merging of Maoist troops with the national army.

Speaking to CNN following the Royal Proclamation, Thapa expressed optimism that dialogue with the outlawed rebels would usher peace in the country.

In his seven-minute interview, Thapa also stated that the RNA was willing to work with any government and that it would continue to be answerable to the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister of the country.

During his interview, he said the Maoists could be incorporated into the national army on the basis of their capability and qualification.

Posted on: 2006-04-25 20:42:01 (Server Time)

I have a feeling that’s not how the Maoists will be incorporated into the army.

I’m back after a short hiatus. I’m still recovering from the shocking turn of events back in the cursed land. Shocked not because King G blinked (which I expected), but because of the speed with which the SPA accepted G’s “tapari/punya dan” (which I did not expect, at least not so fast, without any conditions and consultation with the Maoists to lure them into the process). Mahendra must be smiling in his grave and blessing his son for his ability to keep his political tricks alive (or for our lack of collective will to kick him out).

• A request to Ian and Mystic and everybody else (from a gray-haired peasant boy from Pokhara):

I beg you all to stop downing each other on a personal basis. I have no problem if you attack each other on logical or even ideological grounds (even that always with sound arguments and counterarguments). Remember the Hegelian-Marxian dialectical tradition when you engage in debates. You guys have gone too far now with your hot-blooded habits. Read what JM (#30) wrote on these pages.

• JBK (#15): I am sorry that I forgot to respond to your question/comment (I was not trying to ignore it at all). But anyway I am back to address it:

You said: “We need to go ‘Grameen’ and Maoists after they settle with their guns will be catalysts to my hope of better Nepal… . Not talking Guns for a moment, the Maoists have better understanding of the social psyche of the 80 than any in Nepal, outside of Nepal, almost all are paranoid.”

1) Going Grameen (rural-agricultural): I am with you JBK, but we have to work out a viable framework.
2) And (then going) Maoist (after their abdication of guns): This, too, is a serious issue and demands some serious and dispassionate discussions free of ideological biases and focused on what is good for Nepal. Also fundamental to this issue is the question of leadership (More on this later). I have personally no problem with the notion you propose if violence can be avoided and if the people are served in a manner they should be or are given what they deserve: political freedom, human rights, and opportunities for a viable economic livelihood at a minimum. Here is what they have claimed/pronounced:

“There is absolutely no basis to suspect and fear that we will impose one-party dictatorship once we assume power in Kathmandu… . It is thus not only in the current phase of bourgeois democratic revolution but also in the subsequent phase of socialist revolution that we want to develop a new model of democracy in which people’s right to dissent and rebel in an organised form will be institutionalised.” (http://monthlyreview.org/0605singh.htm).

Can we count on this promise? Some have doubts about this commitment on the part of Maoists and others tremble even at the thought of Maoists coming to power, while some are fully confident of it. Me … I wish I could see the future with a clear set of glasses…………….
3) Maoists have better understanding: Certainly if you mean from a historical analytical perspective. I certainly believe that the Marxist analytical tradition is much more penetrative than “positivist” analytical tradition in terms of understanding the root causes of social problems. Particularly, the Maoist analytical approach is even better suited to a peasant society like ours than most others. There is a fundamental weakness embedded in class analysis based on the relations of production, especially when applied to a society like ours where some 90 percent of the peasantry holds less than 2-3 hectares of cultivatable land. But Mao has resolved this weakness by focusing on what can be referred to as the 10 contradictions in society (rural vs urban, industrial vs. agricultural, etc).

Can they live with peasants and like peasants? They seem to have proven that, meaning this ability certainly gives them good grounding to have a better understanding of the peasantry and rural conditions.

Can they translate their understanding into a practical policy framework and then implement it selflessly, free of any personal/clan/elitist agenda (if — a huge if — they ever get to hold the leverage of power)? I don’t know; we can only hope. We’ll just have to wait and see. But if they fail to deliver on their promise and plan, we will have to kick their asses and bury them in their own political grave — something we have failed to do with the monarchy.

Welcome back Nandaji, I hope u cud have wallowed in ur short lull. Your memories that back date to my Grandfather’s days seem still reminiscent to you and it must be my YOUTH that I tend to over-ride such.
Definitely, YES, why wouldnt Mahendra smirk when there are lot of us Nanda ji haru who help King G stand where chosen to pedestal. I hope it gives as much hope when yet to grey gen. look see and are willing to strip likes of King G, inept,out-of-tricks and political life…POLITICAL LIFE,i repeat. And with the wit and experiences of grey hair gen., the yet to grey gen.’s, PASSION.ZEAL.DREAMS with other CV-Credentials can be trusted upon to have MORE THAN one eye on the GOAL and l’il elsewhere(Graves of Mahendra haru). Wouldn’t it be nice when the children play when grandpa watches and when we tumble, he laughs it away and dusts, and children play, grow ever strong. (wow)
So, where is the lack of collective will?…I fail to see. I believe collectivity is being aligned/structured and the yet intricate equation can be solved without any residue errors to account for that matter.

A quick read of the numbered comprehension, u do it well Nanda ji…i only wish i had enough time to reflect and respect them. I tend to snap past in Samudaya and I miss it while I do.

I heard CoAS’s commitments truly reflect his interview from some family friends…it sure excits me. Is Mahendra still grining?

JBK,

“Is Mahendra still grining?” This is the question of the year, at least up to this point in 2006.

Oh, boy, is he……! Yes, sir, he certainly is … more than you or I or anybody else can imagine. Actually, he is laughing his f…ing balls off at realists — perhaps dreamers — like us. I can hear him telling us: “You damn fools! Don’t you know I can pull more tricks out of my hat than you can shit through your asses” and then turning loose his gunda dogs on us.

Oh, well, that’s my King Mahendra (I don’t want to recount here what he did to me personally and millions of my Nepali brothers and sisters when he was alive … and now from his rotten grave). I must admit, though, he was masterful in his political witchcraft — one of the best I have ever seen or read about.

hahaha…it sounds scary Nanda ji, I myself am a big fan of very graphic movies, something my little brother tricked me into slowly. And when the GHOSTS grin, it doesnt scare me…smash them back…and some witchery…the ghost recollects itself..bash it again…and there is always a clue at the end…an Achilles heel..thump it there and job done.

Hail what u’ve been thru, still i live with my dream, u always did with urs didnt you??? Warfares change with time,be it a bullet or a book, and the ghosts holy or otherwise too have a certain life span, the dogs have greyed too, many strayed and the new dogs are orphaned without access to new tricks. The dogs are timid now, what remains to be seen is the strength of the collective dreamers.
Shall we not sleep at night to prepare for the day….while Grandpa looks out grumpily…dad says…dont mind its his age.

Another khaskhus i heard from a fam. friend…Kthapa and the CoAS almost came to blows.

re 31 - Obviously you fail to see the irony and get all defensive about bahuns rather than laughing away … Prachanda being from ‘elsewhere’ only fits as a commenter … what did i say - your interpretation is selective, and here again, you did exactly that. my point - nothing to do with their caste, more of their ability to organize and lead a group. if bahuns can do it better then others, so much better for all Nepalis. i’m no bahun. what you find funny just isn’t.

Excuse me, but you refer to ‘all three being bahuns’, which only tells me that you absolutely don’t mean functions (them being leaders) but rather their caste-identity as a common link. Else you would have clearly pointed out that ‘all three are leaders’ instead, perhaps. Their ‘leadership’ is only secondary, apparently. Thus your particular hang-up. Again, for your clarity, in ‘punya-daan’ methaphor, it wouldn’t have mattered whether a bahun Prachanda or a janjati ‘Prachanda’ made the observation. The fact that it linked ancient/traditional to modern/contemporay of something that was socio-religious ‘then’ to that which is socio-political now is what I find amusing/ironic/funny. Now that, is HARDLY being selective at all. Comprende.

Further, I absoulutely did not see the need for you to confess your lack of bahun indentity, as if it is something one need to clarify before engaging in quientessential ethnic portrayal.

Mystichacker, are you going to attend Steven Pinker’s talk on “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature,” today at at Columbia University?

Personally, i don’t think i will be attending because i will be celebrating the Maoist ceasefire with friends.

In reply to message 46, do you see how i might find it amusing that you should talking about the irrelvancy of caste when you, yourself, use racist language towards others?

Now, that is something i find amusing.

Nepal army chief helped convince Gyanendra

Kathmandu: What made King Gyanendra blink on Monday night? A combination of people power and pressure from the Royal Nepal Army. As the crowds in Kathmandu surged, the RNA chief realised things were spiralling out of control. He had two options: led things deteriorate to the point where there was a really possibility that his soldiers would disobey orders to fire on protestors. Or make sure the orders themselves were changed.

27 April 2006
The Hindu

NEWS ANALYSIS
Nepal Army chief helped convince Gyanendra

Thank you, Siddharthji, for posting this latest news analysis from The Hindu. Very helpful — and revealing.

[[“The king knows that actual constitutional change, if it comes, is still many months away,” said a source. “Please do not assume that he has had any change of heart. He remains the same old person. He will lie low for a while and try and manipulate things from behind.]]

1. Actual constitutional change, if it comes…: Oh, it will come, alright!! Let’s no forget that pointed Nepali proverb: “Hatti ayo, hatti ayo, phussa.”

2. He (King G) will… manipulate things from behind: No, he does not have to “manipulate things from behind;” he can and will do so right in our faces. He has ALREADY MANIPULATED us by subverting a revolution (at least anti-monarchy protests) raging in urban trenches and rural fringes. While we are all sent back to our sheds (looking like stray dogs roaming the streets of K’du), our king is tucked away cozily in his palace. And, on top of that, our king got the SPA by their balls. If that is not manipulation, what is? I am telling you (as I have said before), as long as he remains the king (or the monarchy survives), he is the central axis of Neplai politics and power. No question about it.

HISTORY IS FUNNY. NO MATTER WHEN IT OCCURS — WHETHER IN THE PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE — IT HAS ITS SURPRISES. JUST WHEN WE (MAY BE JUST ME) THOUGHT, NEPAL’S MONARCHY WAS FINALLY DESTINED TO END, HERE WE ARE, STUCK WITH THE KING AGAIN (at least until the next round of masturbational protests whose sole function appears to be to release the rising pressure of our youthful HORMON [rather than give birth to a new Nepal]; they are now A MERE FOOTNOTE IN THE TORTURED ANNALS OF NEPAL. By the way, why is it that the periodic masturbational protests in Nepal always seem to coincide with the spring season? Does it have something to do with Fagun 7 or the hormonal rise that comes with the spring blooms?)

Nandaji,

While you seem to continuously amuse us with your ‘punya-daan’ metaphor as it relates to current political development in Nepal, I would like to point out that ‘M’ in the infamous SPAM has also recently turned victim to the shrewd and crooked luring of luxuries to be afforded in lieu of unconditional surrender — pleasures one (those semi-enlightened) usually derive by venturing into the far left boundaries of human idealism. But throughout human history, men are generally known for succumbing to greater force of temptation anyway. Thus, with little cynicism and lot more optimism, we — those unfortunate enough, who are unable to draw parallel between Gyanendra’s recent overture with Mahendra’s strategic move, engage in the ongoing struggle of Nepal with a sense of ‘perpetual revolution’—one that did not end with king’s ‘transfer of power’; rather, began with acquisition of basic democratic framework for the country to operate under going forward, me thinks. Difference in perspective, wouldn’t you say?

Hello Dev Prasad(Ian)
It is very surprising to see you in Samudaya.org. I understand your desperation to catch that train where you will want to be accepted as a Nepali. The Nepali trains are not as easy as they look to you Dev Prasad, you can fool some people some time; you cannot fool all the people all the time. I suggest you sort out your ARROGANCE and the LITTLE Nepali knowledge is not going to buy you a 1ST Class ticket-aboard Nepali trains. You cannot buy Nepaliness and a CLAIM of thorough understanding of Nepal with attending an institution and trying to make friends with the advantage of the color of the skin.

You are a ‘PISOGLENTIS’ Dev Prasad Kukur.

please refrain from calling names! — sweeper

rm (and everybody else),

Please stop name-calling. I beg you. Resorting to such a tendency and temptation does not get us anywhere.

Ian,

You used to sound like an intelligent, reasonable person despite the “wow, I discovered Nepal” enthusiasm … but now you come across as a narcissistic child, fixated upon licking old hurts, able only to shriek personal insults whenever the cause of the hurting appears.

Based on your recent, overtly emotional behavior, it is apparent that Mystic has damaged your psyche quite deeply, perhaps irreparably, and we, or I at least, sincerely sympathize. Mystic, with his prodigious intelligence, insights, and his magical way with words, can be a beast, agreed, but your “he hit me first, so I must act like a whiny, childish idiot until everyone recognizes the fact and Mystic is punished” is beginning to grate. It is perhaps why people don’t engage you as much … or when forced to, do so in an annoyed, exasperated tone.

Look around, people have moved on, Mystic does not even bother to flick a few acidic pity words your way. I recommend you move on as well, please, back to saying the half-way intelligent things you used to. Give us your foreigner’s take on Nepali politics, but most importantly, respect yourself, dude.

Done with this digression, now carry on with the discussions people …

Word!

Exchanging personal insults with the likes of some samudayans will only give you ulcers and regress your intelligence. I should know ;)

Ian, some good advice from my baje that I pass on to you: “if you play in the gutter, everyone will come out dirty” (well something like that).

Nepali song

Ian: Ko ho tyo jasle malai mohani lagayo kasale aja manama mero khalbali machayo……kasaile sodhi deu meri mayalu lai

samudaya chorus: why don’t you ask hacker?-3repeat

SD,

My reply to message 54:

“You used to sound like an intelligent, reasonable person…”

Nice opening. You got my attention.

“despite the “wow, I discovered Nepal” enthusiasm …”

On what basis do you make that statement? Unsubstantiated and therefore irrelevant just like article 35 of the Nepali constitution is going to become by Friday evening. Perhaps i read to much into it but this statement also looks like an attempt to dissmiss my knowledge.

“but now you come across as a narcissistic child, fixated upon licking old hurts, able only to shriek personal insults whenever the cause of the hurting appears.”

Such strong words suggest you have put a great deal of emotion into the above sentence. Your use of language suggests that you have an ‘emtional’ reason for making these statements. The impartial observer does not use such language to calm down debate. If you are aiming to calm down debate you use non emotive words of pacification.

‘Based on your recent, overtly emotional behavior,’

Please can you give me examples of this. Ambiguity does not substantiate or make a point relevant.

“it is apparent that Mystic has damaged your psyche quite deeply, perhaps irreparably, and we, or I at least, sincerely sympathize.”

I enjoy slagging of Mystic because thats pretty much the only thing i can do with him. He never once engaged me in debate. I am not sure it is apparrent but if you would like to make that assertion thats please do so.

“Mystic, with his prodigious intelligence, insights, and his magical way with words,”

Now this is the point where i think you are either a.) Mystichacker b.) his partner c.) a family member d.)a fellow student from Columbia University.

Firstly, your use of language is so over the top that even i wouldn’t describe my father with such words.

Secondly, if that were true I am sure i would have felt the wrath of his thinking and put my hands up and said “mystic, god damnit you are right.” but instead i find myself being pulled into the gutter. Personally, I would prefer to knock him out and be done with it but New York is far away.

” can be a beast, agreed”

Perhaps at the dinner table and in his arrogance but where else? I don’t know him personally so i will not pursue this.

“, but your “he hit me first, so I must act like a whiny, childish idiot until everyone recognizes the fact and Mystic is punished” is beginning to grate. It is perhaps why people don’t engage you as much … or when forced to, do so in an annoyed, exasperated tone.”

Actually, I find it difficult to have 4 simultaneous debates at the same time with only Sarahana actually debating on topic. I might disagree with some of her views but i respect her willingness to engage her brain.

I haven’t spent much time posting these last few days I have things to do whereas for a couple of days i was regularly on here putting my points across.

“Look around, people have moved on,”

I agree with that. I left Mystic a few insults because i felt i hadn’t really pursued the blatant insults path. I had tried to refrain from it but you know I quite enjoy referring to arrogant people as ‘di**heads’ it gives me a certain amount of pleasure. Now if i knew him in person, i might have more sympathy.

“Mystic does not even bother to flick a few acidic pity words your way.”

Where is the acidic pity in references to the colour of my skin?

“I recommend you move on as well, please, back to saying the half-way intelligent things you used to. Give us your foreigner’s take on Nepali politics, but most importantly, respect yourself, dude.”

I always try to say half-way intelligent things but i can not change the level of my intelligence, can i? I wish i could raise it to your level but i am unable to do so.

I respect myself a lot and i understand that it is part of my character that enjoys arguing and debating and can do so on anything simply because i get an adrenaline rush. You will be surprised to hear that rather than be insulted by mystichacker i enjoy the arrogance and insults because they make me want to try harder to puncture his bubble and make him see reality. You see its boring when people agree with you, isn’t it?

The stubborn few who refuse to yield are the ones that i want to push against although its hard to do it with mystic beacause he doesn’t appear to be able to produce political debate and ends up with trying to use his “acidic pity” when a nice counter argument wouldn’t go amiss.

‘Done with this digression, now carry on with the discussions people … Indeed.

The list of people who to want to insult me is growing:

Mystichacker
JBK
RM
SD
Jhalak
Birbhadra
Sarahana

I obviously have a bad effect on people. It might explain why i am alone in my dungeon in Oxford.

I have nothing personal against you Dear Mr Ian. I always read INSULTS directed towards Nepali people in ur statements/observations/arguements; thus I puked, so will I whenever I see,read,infer INSULTS in what you have to say. Outside of it, well, if u r a rocket scientist>>>i salute u. A doc>>>i salute u. A professor>>>i salute u. Just a humble man>>>i salute u.
If and when we meet, things could change.
Bad effect???? or is it the observations/analysis u make Mr Ian???

rm

There is only one in Nepali train and it is on the border with India.

You make a lot of presumptions about me:

“It is very surprising to see you in Samudaya.org.”

How is it surprising to see me on Samudaya when i have been leaving messages for nearly a week now?

“I understand your desperation to catch that train where you will want to be accepted as a Nepali.”

Is that so? I have no wish to be accepted as Nepali when i am happy with my own identity.

“The Nepali trains are not as easy as they look to you Dev Prasad, you can fool some people some time; you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

Like i said, there is only one Nepali train and it is heading towards India.
There is never any point in fooling someone, I agree but how am i fooling anyone?

“I suggest you sort out your ARROGANCE and the LITTLE Nepali knowledge is not going to buy you a 1ST Class ticket-aboard Nepali trains.”

1. I never travel 1st class
2. Again, i repeat -there is only one train in Nepal and its not going any where interesting.
3. What do you measure my knowledge against? Yours? Mystichackers? Gods?
4. If my knowledge is limited surely the educated should impart their knowledge and not insult me for lacking knowledge.

“You cannot buy Nepaliness and a CLAIM of thorough understanding of Nepal with attending an institution and trying to make friends with the advantage of the color of the skin.”

1. I don’t want to buy Nepaliness. I don’t purport to be Nepali.
2. I am not sure whether you mean attend or not attend an institution but i don’t see how that is relevant.
3. How am i making friends with the advantage of the colour of the skin?
This just sounds peculiar and perhaps is a better reflection of where you are coming from than a comment on me.

“You are a ‘PISOGLENTIS’ Dev Prasad Kukur.”

Thank you RM for your comments, I hope you appreciate my reply.

JBK

I love Nepal a lot so why would i direct insults against the Nepali people?

That would be like cutting my heart out.

RealityCheck,

I agree with you on all points:

Exchanging personal insults with the likes of some samudayans will only give you ulcers and regress your intelligence. I should know ;)

I don’t have ulcers yet but i have a sore throat. As for my intelligence it regresses daily due to age and lack of stimulation.

Ian, some good advice from my baje that I pass on to you: “if you play in the gutter, everyone will come out dirty” (well something like that).

True, and i have been playing in the gutter and i regret the fact that i did so. Although to be honest, I enjoy getting dirty sometimes -there is a certain thrill and challenge there. But point taken nevertheless and i will apologise.

To Samudaya

I would like to personally apologise to each and every one on Samudaya who has found my comments to be offensive, upsetting, insulting and insightful. I will try and refrain from insulting you personally and just continue to debate.
I am sorry.

I have many accusations thrown against me and can not respond to each one but for the record i am sorry if i upset you enough to want to throw these words at me. Please accept my apologies and i will try to act more responsibily in the future.

In the spirit of good debate, I will now only respond to on topic and Nepali related questions and comments and refrain from responding to anything else that goes against the spirit of the debate.

On this note, goodnight people and happy blogging!

JBK=JhalakBahadurKumlagain.

I guess by now, I do understand your love of Nepal…and I have asked u in the past…what makes u love Nepal…rather what attracts you?….Anyways- the observations that u made regarding recent events in Nepal were not in-line with the common sentiments or i dont know if u cudnt express ‘em properly and seems MANY, poured upon u …that says sth doesnt it.
Anyway, I know its not good, it doesnt help me; Samudaya and Sarahana and other moderators have a hard time too, still its hard for me to refrain…and contain to what u say/said at times. And everybody appreciated ur interest/love of Nepal…dont u feel so??? Its how u expressed ur interests that didnt live upto our certain expectations.
We all know, most of the people here are fortunate with good education and opportunities and growing ups/and grown ups.
I purpose to leave identities and just get along…try to be nice and when u cannot be a beast. Simple.

JBK,

The gist of my analysis on the politics of Nepal is follows:

1. Everything serves a functional purpose in political events. The King risked his throne on success and he did succeed but not in the way that he planned to. He could have succeeded in his plan to restore strength to the state but for the failure of leadership around him and the fact that he is no politician.

2. The Maoists can not be trusted in full. The recent 3 month ceasefire is a positive and welcome action by the Maoists but so far they are making demands. “You give me a football and i will be nice to you.” logic. Secondly, the Maoists have continuously said one thing and done another they should not be taken at face value as many people on this blog are ‘just because they want a CA”

3. The SPA are responsible for the blunders and ineffective leadership of the last 16 years of government and i am sceptical as to whether politicians like Deuba, Madhev Nepal and Koirala have it in them to give leadership and sort the country out.

4. I strongly dislike Koirala but he has earnt my respect for his clever manipulation of events. He has been incredibly lucky with events and i hope he finds it in him to bring some peace to Nepal.

5. I believe that if the people vote on the king it will be for taking away his power and not removing the posts of monarch. Constitutional monarchy is a good thing if it is done properly.

6. I am very positive about the past 2 weeks of events. It has been a dangerous time events have unfolded naturally without a grand plan. The people flooding the streets has shown me that if the people remain vigilent they can stop the failings of the past in their governments.

7. I raised the issue of making the RNA into just the national army governed by the HoR and not the King since most of the generals are related to the King in some way and their own family members are lower ranking officials in the army. It is a very real question.

I am sorry if the above points in any way offend Nepali people or any one on Samudaya but they are my own observations and viewpoints even if you think them wrong.

I would like to add to 1. that i mean the King succeeded in uniting the people together against him. Giving strength to the loose alliance between the SPA and Maoists.

You choose ur jist well
What I gather of what u’ve said is:
1. People on the street were all UNEDUCATED, some hired,many Maoists…so it wasnt a people’s protest.
2. King had good intentions….’good intentions’ come with being King thus unifying Nepal.
3. SPA+M is a joke, farce.
4.SPA FOOLS/IDIOTS not to take King’s 1ST offer.
5. Maoists can Never Trusted.(leave them in the jungle, give them no oppotunity of mainstream politics and practice peace…harbor peace…safeguard peace.
6. Still, whatever is happening is fluke and sheer luck. huh?

You choose ur jist well
What I gather of what u’ve said is:
1. People on the street were all UNEDUCATED, some hired,many Maoists…so it wasnt a people’s protest.
2. King had good intentions….’good intentions’ come with being King thus unifying Nepal.
3. SPA+M is a joke, farce.
4.SPA FOOLS/IDIOTS not to take King’s 1ST offer.
5. Maoists can Never Trusted.(leave them in the jungle, give them no oppotunity of mainstream politics and practice peace…harbor peace…safeguard peace.
6. Still, whatever is happening is fluke and sheer luck.
and blah and blah…and blah
i gotta rush now! later.

I think you misunderstood me:

“1. People on the street were all UNEDUCATED, some hired,many Maoists…so it wasnt a people’s protest.”

It was a peaceful protest but like so many things it had many voices, many people with many views and many motives. I have many friends who were protesting and they told me that there were around 10,000 Maoists on the streets. He saw them with his own eyes. Secondly, the people who first took to the streets -many were hired and paid for by the SPA to start the protest. This is what i said.

“2. King had good intentions….’good intentions’ come with being King thus unifying Nepal.”

1. For a lot of the countryside the King still represnts unity, yes but not for every one.

2. I believe the King was largely well intentioned even if a.) badly advised and b.) unable to do anything. He wanted to strengthen the state for obvious reasons.

3. The Kings actions served a functional purpose. SPA and M common enemy was enough to bring the people on the street for democracy. Before Feb 1st it was King vs SPA vs Maoists vs People? Last week it was SPA, Maoists and People vs King. Serves a function.

“3. SPA+M is a joke, farce.”

Not sure SPAM are a joke or a farce but i am sceptical towards them as leaders and their capacity to solve or help Nepal.

“4.SPA FOOLS/IDIOTS not to take King’s 1ST offer.”

Not idiots. Unwise because one could not assertain to what lengths the king would be to not move his position. Plus, it was obvious that SPA had won. As it turns out we only had to wait a little while before the King announced the recall of parliament (which is what i predicted he needed to do if he was to retain the throne)

“5. Maoists can Never Trusted.(leave them in the jungle, give them no oppotunity of mainstream politics and practice.”

1. I never say never to anything because you just don’t know but we never evidence to trust them and the ceasefire is a positive action in light of events.

2. Keeping them in the jungle and keeping them out of mainstream politics does not solve the problem. You still have a maoists problem. I in favour of bringing them into politics but they need to give up the violence and bullying demands to get what they want.

“6. Still, whatever is happening is fluke and sheer luck.”

A lot of life is unintended and we respond to those events is what i was saying. There was no grand design that brought about these events. Even the SPa were taken by surprise by the number of people that poured onto the streets. It surprised every one.

Ian,

You, a serial name changer, suspect me of being Hacker, etc.!! No, you are not fixated on him at all, you only see him everywhere, even in my words. Boo!

Get a grip on yourself, dude, paranoia will etc., etc. Heed my public service message above, please, or that list will continue getting longer, and longer, and longer and ….

“I obviously have a bad effect on people. It might explain why i am alone in my dungeon in Oxford.”

There you go, you poor, persecuted thing, an encouraging crack of self-awareness. Ever wonder why you have that kind of effect? While you do, let me heed my own words and move on as well. Good luck.

SD,

Thank you for your comments but i do think it is necessary to correct you on some mistakes you have made in comment 70.

I hope no one minds me doing this since SD seems to have broughts us off topic again.

Some corrections and observations:

1. I do not specficially suspect you of being Mystichacker. Please refer to my early comment in full.

2. I don’t see Mystichacker every where which is probably a good thing for both us.

3. I don’t have a dungeon.

4. My name is Ian so i tend to use this name and i only ever use oh! or Dev Prasad. Dev Prasad is the name given to me by my Nepali friends and oh! is just me trying to avoid confrontation.

5. I think your ‘public announcement’ comes late in the day. Please see above posts.

6. I would like to ask you to personally stop throwing insults at me. I personally see no ‘public announcement’ in your comments and more a poorly veiled attempt to insult me.

7. I don’t wish to get drawn into tit for tat insults with you.

8. Your posts take me by surprise because we have never engaged in any form of conversation before so i really do not see where you are coming from.

Once again, I urge you to stop these insults. I am sorry if i have offended you in any way but it is time to stop and to get back on topic. Don’t you think?

SD,

My final question was a rhetorical question which basically means you are not expected to answer it.

I consider this issue closed and would like to get back to writing about the political situation in Nepal.

My apologies to every one for going off topic again.

In terms of gettting reliable information, Ian, you continue to insist Mystic is a Columbia alumni whereas you have obviously not bothered to verify this. This makes me skeptical of how you get the rest of your information (such as that on the “countryside” considering the proportion of people who believe the same in urban areas is probably the same if not more).

Sarahana,

Thank you for your comments but please
can we get back on topic?

“This makes me skeptical of how you get the rest of your information (such as that on the “countryside” considering the proportion of people who believe the same in urban areas is probably the same if not more).”

I do not fully understand the point you are making. Could you please clarify it for me?

Sarahana,

I think it might also be useful to you if i correct you on point from post 73.

Alumni is defined as someone who has graduated from the educationa institution and not someone attending the institution right now.

Just to let you know

I am on-topic Ian. From the way you state that a lot of people in the countryside still believe the king is a source of unity and that Mystic went to Columbia, or even worse that he is still attending Columbia, I am forced to make a judgement on how you examine the reliability of your information. If I know for a fact that Mystic didn’t go to Columbia, and that he’s been finished with school for a certain period of time, I am forced to question why it is that you haven’t verified the information given to you before repeatedly using it, and draw a connection to how carelessly or carefully you treat intake of orther types of information in general. If you aren’t the kind to operate heavily on hearsay.

In any case, your statement on the countryside implies two things:

1) itis characteristic of the countryside, not of urban areas, to think the king is a unifier

2) that the group which believes this in the countryside is somehow especially significant

i see two problems here. a lot of the more privileged people in urban areas have had the chance to go to schools and read government-drafted history books written before 1990. they have grown up to believe, like many of my privileged cousins, that the king is indeed a unifier, that nepal cannot do without a monarchy. these are also the kind of people who would benefit, because of their social class and circles, from an aristocratic system than a democratic one. if you were to compare the ratio of these people (to the area they cover) to the ratio of people who feel the same about the king in the countryside (to the area they occupy), my bet would be that the ratio would be higher in urban areas. further, a lot of people in the rural areas have neither felt the fruits of unity amongst nepalis nor the creation of modern nepal, they, who still referred to kathmandu as nepal not too long ago, have not had enough reasons to celebrate prithvi narayan shah’s conquest.

Sarahana,

“1) itis characteristic of the countryside, not of urban areas, to think the king is a unifier.”

This is not my observation but your interpretations of my observation.

My observation is that the Urban population who make up much of the anti-King sentiment do not represent the people of Nepal. They are in fact a minority in comparison to the overwhelming numbers of people who live in the countryside. My point is that the pro-republicans are Kathmanducentric which is a state of mind that has also contributed to the last 15 years of weak democracy

“2) that the group which believes this in the countryside is somehow especially significant”

In stating that i believe the people in the countryside are significant it does not mean that i do not think the urban population are significant. I think the rural population are especially significant because they have been largely ignored and have by and large not felt the benefits of economic development or representation in policy making by the government.

The comment about Mystichacker is irrelevant and off topic and i have committed myself to not engaging in off topic discussions.

Thank you for your comments Sarahana.

You have misinterpreted two things:

first, I said your statement implies these things, which is not to say you were conscious of the implications.

Secondly, I do not mean that you imply rural population in general is more significant, but that somehow the number of people from rural areas who believe the king is a unifier is especially noteworthy.

Hearsay is hearsay off-topic or on.

In any case, I believe I have made my point about why the rural population who has least felt the positive effects of a unified nepal has considerly less reasons to celebrate (or have an interest in) the unifier.

“1. first, I said your statement implies these things, which is not to say you were conscious of the implications.”

Which is why, i replied by opening with “This is not my observation but your interpretations of my observation.” For it is your observation and your interpretation of what i was saying which you have assumed to be true. In fact it is not remotely true or accurate.

“Secondly, I do not mean that you imply rural population in general is more significant, but that somehow the number of people from rural areas who believe the king is a unifier is especially noteworthy.”

This somehow implies that i think the number of people who believe in the king in the countryside is greater than the ubrban areas. This is something i suspect and not something i can quantify from Oxford.

Secondly, the thoughts of the countryside are noteworthy because Nepal is looking to be a represntative democracy and the people of the countryside need to be represented. In the democratic system what they believe is more important than the urban populous because they make up an overwhelming majority.

ps. the protests were kathmanducentric because kathmandu is the capital, the most effective site for a protest, which is why protesters were brought in from other areas of nepal. if you remember well, the maoists called off the-then blockade upon the parties request as they needed their supporters to converge in the capital for the protest programs.

secondly, kathmandu got the most media coverage precisely because of the above reason, whereas protests came out in a lot of other areas as well. read this post.

Sarahana,

Can you please stop amending your comments after you have made the post?

Because i wrote the above response to the originally posted comment which has now been amended and increased in size. How can i reply to you if you keep changing your comments?

I hope you will take this on board.

Thank you in advance.

ian, i only added the last paragraph to the previous comment before you replied, so i believe your response would still apply.

Sarahana,

Post 80 is pretty much irrelevant because I was not talking about the protests being Kathmanducentric. I was talking about the political representation of Nepal to be Kathmanducentric. A country divided by representation!

Secondly, I am not sure i care for the reasons why the media focused on Kathmandu. That much was obvious any way and irrelevant to the points i am making.

You really need to stop making assumptions about what i am saying and address the points that i am making instead.

ian, what makes you think everything i post here is a direct clarification of, or attack on, your comments? there are other people reading this page, and i would like to share with them my opinion on why the protests were kathmanducentric, the protests logically being a reflection of the anti-king sentiment. the statement that pro-republic is kathmanducentric can be challenged given the fact that pro-republicans at the protests had come from various places. furthermore, whether moaists be terrorists or not, the very large number of nepalis from rural areas in their party are pro-republic. in fact, what do you make of the fact that majority of the cadres are from the countryside? what would you make of their experience of unification from this fact?

“ian, what makes you think everything i post here is a direct clarification of, or attack on, your comments?”

1. Because you address me individually
2. We are engaged in debate
3. You respond specifically to my posts

“the protests logically being a reflectin of the anti-king sentiment. the statement that pro-republic is kathmanducentric can be challenged given the fact that pro-republicans at the protests had come from various places.”

There are a number of inaccuracies in the above statement:

1. You assume that anti-king protests are a sign of pro-republican views is not necessary the case.

2. The protest began as a pro-democracy demonstration but gathered into a anti-king protest. Again, pro-democracy does not necessary mean pro-republic.

You should not make these assumptions. I am basically saying that it is not so black and white as you would have us believe.

Nothing but Republic

Ian when Have i insulted you? insult is a big word. ido not insult people it is against my philosophy. if you think i insulted you you need to prove how and when. humor cannot be counted as insult.

As a matter of fact i am always civil most of the time. after checking your blog i ame to conclusion that you and I have a fundamental differences on issues regarding Nepal. On top of that you think you know better about nepal than rest of us. so no point arguing with you. Good bye and have fun.

p.s.- i will refrain from commenting on your post because you feel insulted everytime anyone disagrees with you.

i said, “the statement that pro-republic is kathmanducentric can be challenged given the fact that pro-republicans at the protests had come from various places.” one-on-one comparison here. not proetesters at the protest, not pro-democracy protesters at the protest, but strictly pro-republicans at the protests.

further, i have already challenged the notion pro-republic statements are not necessarily popular in the countryside by pointing out most of the maoist cadres, and even unarmed supporters, are youthful nepalis from the countryside. i am not referring to hearsay here. i am making this judgement based on the supporters and PLA soldiers i met.

and, i would never have you believe it’s black and white.

The PLA are not representative of anything thing other than the PLA. They claim to represent the countryside but all they do is oppress the people and make the suffer.
I have met people from the countryside who are in favour of a republic but equally i have met many more who are not and even more that it does not mean a great deal to because what happens in Kathmandu is like the events of a foreign country.

Furthermore, if you are not referring to hearsay (what people have told) then are you referring to? Have you done empirical research to show that 68% of the countrside is in favour a republic or monarch? If you have, let me see the results. I would be most interested.

The impression i get from you Sarahana is that you see everything in black and white and that you think me the same when i am not. I am only interested in outcomes and not whether there is a republic or a genuine constitutional monarchy.

You really need to read comments carefully.

PLA soldiers themselves are Nepalis from the countryside, hence by representing themselves they are representing that faction of the countryside population which wants a republic to the extent that have decided to join the PLA. Understoood? PLA soldiers are Nepalis from the countryside, and this is what I was saying is not based on hearsay, but my encounter with the soldiers themselves, as well as reading of well-research books, which I assume freely you have read. I did not say I have evidence of who believes what in terms of a republic, but (1) my point is exactly that you don’t either, so let’s work with logic in the lack of empirical evidence (2) I have logical reasons (you believe in inferences?) to argue (and I have just presented these to you) that republic sentiment, overall, is not an urban phenomenon. You are completely dismissing the demography of Maoist supporters and cadres. A Maoist-shaped hole in the universe.

।।इन�द�रा को अगाडी स�वर�ग को बयान�।।
।।नेपाली को अगाडी नेपाल को बयान�।।
।।छ�: ख: पासा? आयन।।
।।छौ बà¥?धà¥?दी à¤—न?।।

Logic obviously isn’t your strong point, Sarahana for you would know that:

1. Your encounter with soldiers does not equate with anything more than the individual voices of the PLA you met which are inadvertantly dictated by the ideology of urban voices.

2. It is simplistic to say that many of these PLA soldiers freely joined the army when so many have been coerced and abducted and consequently brainwashed into the PLA.

3. You assume that the handful of individual voices that you met from the PLA are representative of a greater audience is hearsay when they are not representative. It illogical to draw this conclusion.

4. It remains to be seen how the people countryside will respond to the idea of a republic and maybe they will be divided but only a CA will be able to test that.

You assume far to much from your brief visit in February but you must surely be able to work out that the PLA are not representative of Nepal for if they were they would not be waging guerilla warfare, surely?

and you assume from oxford, from a handful of your friends in nepal. all of your own 4 points can applied to your own previously-made statements.

I have already stated earlier that i don’t assume to know anything. I just make my obervations, predictions and respond the given situation. I know i am wrong sometimes but i also know that it is far to simplistic assumption to put everything into black and white.

i know things are not black and white. i knew this long before we started this site. is it your assumptioin that i think things are black and white, or your perception, and if perception, it is as invalid/valid as mine of you?

“ian, i only added the last paragraph to the previous comment before you replied, so i believe your response would still apply.”

Sarahana, that means your cheating on this grand discussion. Dont edit, dont add, once the post is posted, its posted. Democracy you see, rule of law. :)

Some comments on Chalmerisation of “the Nepali Conflict”

1. What does the author mean by the “The Nepali conflict”? It needs to be defined before considering any theoretical perspectives.

2.Figures on comparative Socio-demographics and GDP per capita

No doubt, life expectancy and female literacy in Nepal are worse than its two giant neighbors. Yes, in terms of GDP per capita, Nepal lags far behind the World/ Asian community. But how does this explain “the Nepali Conflict”? Or do gaps in socio-economic-demographics among different districts and communities within Nepal better explain the conflict? Importantly what are the factors that disproportionately affect the socio-economic growth and well being of different communities in Nepal?

3. Suicides per year

According to Benjamin Disraeli (credited by Mark Twain), there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. One must, therefore, be careful with interpretation of statistics. The figure shown portrays a temporal rise in absolute number of suicides in Nepal. Absolute numbers need to be converted into rates and adjusted for age and/or other risks, if any, before being interpreted. Are suicides truly increasing in Nepal or is this “marked increase” only due to strengthened surveillance systems (e.g, better record keeping or reporting)? Who and why are these people killing themselves and where in Nepal did they live? Unless, these questions are clarified- the “suicides per year” may not be used to explain the “rising degree of disequilibrium” in Nepal.

Achyut,

Good points and well put.

1. There is no need to define the term Conflict. I could have as easily said “civil war.”

2. The gaps between the different regions within Nepal do explain the conflict. That is why I include them later in the article. However, The overall economic statistics are used to show sources of exogenous change. A society that is static is in now danger of revolution. It would not matter that Nepal’s economic statistics were poor if other countries hadn’t shown such marked improvement. The disparity is contributing to disequilibrium.

3. Increasing suicide rate, according to Chalmers Johnson, is not a cause but an indicator of disequilibrium. It just so happens that Nepal was experiencing an increase, and a rather large one at that. I am showing a corollary not a causal relationship, and therefor have no burden of demonstrating the various causes of the increase.

ian
would recommend that you read two articles in http://www.peoplesreview.com.np
One by Dr Thomas Marks and the other by Pavan Shakya

nitesh,

Thank you for the recommendations. I have read the Dr Marks article already and i found it useful to me. I have not read the Pavan Shakya article yet but will make the time to read it. Cheers!

Neil,

Now you have gone too far in your argument/assumption (#98).

You contend: “A society that is static is in now danger of revolution. It would not matter that Nepal’s economic statistics were poor if other countries hadn’t shown such marked improvement. The disparity is contributing to disequilibrium.”

It is not the “staticity/staticness” that causes a society to explode. It is the “revolution of rising expectation” that sows the seed of revolution whose germination (of course) requires certain other conditions (sorry no time to elaborate on these conditions here). You need to read Paul Baran (1973) and some cultural anthropology/rural sociology literature from the 1960s and early 1970s.

True, you try to get to this point (rising expectation) indirectly — rather sheepishly — by way of your point about disparity causing disequilibrium (but be careful about how you define disequilibrium — hope not in terms of political application of Mashallian equilibrium in economics). But the internal-external (Nepal-China, for instance) “disparity” you focus on is not the real issue though; that’s not it.

The real issue is INTERNAL DISPARITY, my friend, i.e., widening socioeconomic gaps between classes/groups (rural v urban; rich v poor; etc) resulting from RAPID CHANGE not staticity. The pace of change has been highly compressed, both in terms of time and space — much too fast, in other words, for people to be able to adjust to it slowly. So Nepal is no longer just entrenched in “absolute poverty,” the kind of poverty I knew first hand while growing up, it is becoming increasinly mired in “relative poverty” (I-want-to-be-like-Mike syndrom). In short, yes, poverty has been always there (absolute) in Nepal, but now it is also being increasinly manufactured (relative), thereby causing disparity/disequilibrium and, hence, a constant (simmering) state of agitation/explosion. Almost anything has the potential to trigger it, but in an ephemeral manner (again no time to elaborate — hope you got my point).

Before I sign off, let me just add in passing one observation:

As almost every agitation/protest in Nepal seems to dissipate after a few rounds of street explosion, it does have the potential to actually subvert real revolution, one with the power to bring about tangible transformation in society and in people’s lives. Let’s hope this time — i.e., what has transipired in Nepal in the past few weeks — the revolution is real and enduring. But we’ll just have to wait for the time to tell us whether that is the case. Won’t we?!

Nanda,

“The real issue is INTERNAL DISPARITY, my friend, i.e., widening socioeconomic gaps between classes/groups (rural v urban; rich v poor; etc) resulting from RAPID CHANGE not staticity.”

I couldn’t agree with you more. On a more simplistic level one could describe Nepal as two countries. One that consists of 3 districts and one that one consists of 73 districts. The divide is HUGE and is growing faster each year.

Nandaji,

If argument can be made for ‘explosion’ of society due to ‘revolution of rising expectation’, I believe it is also worth exploring what those rising expectations are and begin to look — how they fit into the ‘relative poverty’ scenario that you propose. While rural Nepal is far from competing with its own population for limited access/resources, I continually see structural and institutional failure as culprits in overcoming such gut-wrenching poverty, even if we are to accept the ‘rapid change’ argument — lack of convergence between two diagonally opposite groups; not necessarily the argument based on ‘stagnancy’.

While ‘relative’ itself is a relative term, we should perhaps re-visit ‘absolute’ reasons that give rise to even ‘relative poverty’ which also seem to stem out of ‘social disequilibrium’ anyway. So, whether we wish to see Nepal’s economic and social crisis as borne out of something that is a victim of time/change or whether it is result of structural deficiencies across political, social and economic spectrum is worth a debate.

Ian: HUGE divide indeed and growing faster. You said. Absolutely.

This takes me to Mystic’s point: [[While ‘relative’ itself is a relative term, we should perhaps re-visit ‘absolute’ reasons that give rise to even ‘relative poverty’ which also seem to stem out of ‘social disequilibrium’ anyway.]]

My challenge to you (Mystic) and Ian and many other thoughtful Samudaya patrons (not to forget Sarahana, of course, who keeps us straight):

Why not each of you think seriously about how “absolute” reasons (poverty) give rise to “relative poverty” AND ALSO EXPLORE SOME OF THE FACTORS BEHIND THE REVOLUTION OF RISING EXPECTATIONS. (For a moment, SET ASIDE your personal/ideological/philosophical differences to bring forth your collective wisdom/intelligence/concern to bear on this issue. Nepal needs you all — collectively, that is).

We can then tally up these factors and later assess each of them carefully to determine their veracity/specificity with the hope/objective of finding some tangible and viable solution(s) for our lingering problem — actually unfolding human tragedy of poverty.

Peace and harmony, my friends!! As we used to say (way back during my days in Pokhara when I am many of my friends used to be actively involved in voluntary social service/public works), “haste ma hoste garera, nepalalai uchalau.”

Can we do that?

LEGACY OF INSANITY IN NEPAL
By Paul Danahar
BBC South Asia bureau editor

It required an act of insanity to put King Gyanendra on the throne of Nepal.

read more

dp,

I am not clear where your points start and where the article ends or is it all the article? It seems bizarre that the journalist should be so opinionated…

are u a retard?
put that question to:

By Paul Danahar
BBC South Asia bureau editor

not me!

It’s a typo people.

post 98 should read “a society that is static is in NO danger of revolution.”

Did you guys even read my article? I don’t understand how someone who read it would believe that I wrote something that completely contradicted one of the main points I was making.

I sincerely thank you guys for reading my article and responding. I really do, but it seems that a lot of the criticisms are just being done for the sake of criticisms. I have yet to see any genuine disagreement with what I was saying.

dp,

Yes, I am retard. Thank you.

Neil,

I am very disappointed to learn that you think I am criticising you (no, I am/was not). That’s really unfortunate! I have tried my best to engage in a constructive excahnge of views and ideas. This is the problem with most academic folks, their egos are so brittle. Somebody has to be patting them on their backs with some congratulatory notes. Anything less is automatically construed as criticism.

Why do we so easily inflate/deflate our egos? Why do we find comfort in living with what I would call “postmodern anxieties.” What a shame! We pursue our education under the assumtion (may it is just a farcial pretense!) that it is a grand theater, a free market of views/ideas/ideologies and where these ideas can be freely exchanged without being encumbered by the fear of criticism and self-criticism. Yet we fret and fart when somebody advances an opposing viewpoint.

Now back to your point, Neil: “post 98 should read “a society that is static is in NO danger of revolution… Did you guys even read my article? I don’t understand how someone who read it would believe that I wrote something that completely contradicted one of the main points I was making.”

Did I read your article? Don’t even go there … that’s a low-blow question, insulting to its very core, only suitable for a high-school dropout. Moreover, have enough guts to address the question to me directly as I did address you directly (I was giving you the respect you deserve. Obviously you lack that simple decency. Instead you pose an insulting question. Certainly, you did not resort to such an insulting tactic out of fear. In view of your approach, there is only one conlcusion I can draw: you suffer from a “master” complex. How sad that an intelligent person like you would choose to take a low road to get to a high plateau!!).

1. To answer your question, yes I did read your piece and did comment on it (see #13). Perhaps you don’t even remeber that. I am the same guy who did that. Now let me ask you: did you even bother to read #13 or digest what I said there. Knowing your attitude (thanks for the revelation), probalby not. After all, there were no “yes sir; great sir” type of congratulatory remarks in #13.

2. So you think I am supposed to recognize a typo on your part. That’s fantastic. Sounds so typically academic! Keep doing that, you will go quite far on your academic journey. Remember for Pete’s (perhaps for Neil’s) sake, it is not how much you know or publish, it is how you conduct yourself in public. That’s what matters most at the end of the day.

3. Did I think you flipped in your argument? Perhaps. After all, I have lived long enough to know/see enough people change course. Many of them are not a whole lot different from a sail boat that moves according to the direction of the wind. Plus I don’t see what you consider to be your main point to be the main point — at least to me. It all depends on how one sees it or what one focuses on

4. As a reader, I don’t assume, nor do I have any obligation to assume unless you warn me in advance.

5. If your ego is so easily deflatable (rather SELF-DEFLATABLE), you should not publish anything anywhere, at least not where the public can view your piece(s). Consider keeping your views to yourself.

6. I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHY I AM BOTHERING TO RESPOND. YOU DON’T DESERVE A COHERERNT RESPONSE, NEIL. I KNOW ONCE (IF) YOU READ THIS POST, YOU ARE GOING SIT THERE FUMING, BUT I CAN’T HELP THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE, NOT MINE.

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE WRITING AND POSTING ON SAMUDAYA. I PROMISE TO YOU THAT YOU WON’T HEAR/READ A WORD FROM ME ON YOUR FUTURE POST(S). I DON’T HAVE TIME TO WASTE MY ENERGY ON SELF-DEFLATABLE EGOS.

Now take a deep breath and relax. Or may get a life.

Neil,

I suggest u read the following STORIES of paranoia;

1.In the Name of Development

2.”Nepal’s Failed Development: Reflections on the Mission and the Maladies”

Must read read article

I posted 108 out of frustration that my ideas were being missenterpreted. I apologize for that. I must also point out that I was midway through a 3 day trip to Ireland and I was a bit strung out.

However, post 110 is venturing well into flame territory.

Can we call a truce here. I didn’t mean to violate civil discourse.

I’ll start by anouncing a three month unilateral cease fire. -Thanks.

Nepal, a Secular country or not?

Too much said but nothing done so far. It is my opinion that if Nepal is to remain as only the Hindu Kingdom on this earth, the country of 4 jat and 36 barna (4 caste groups and 36 tribes), the social problem will continue to prevail and subsequently obstructing the economic and political developments as well. As I understand, the Seven Parties Alliance has failed to raise the issue of Nepal being changed into a secular country as they had made the mistake in 1990. If this issue is not focused right now, nothing will change in Nepal; the situation will continue to remain so.

From Pashupatinath to Tirupati!- red corridor! Advani

tirupati ji,
there is a third force behind this issue?????

I think what you are asking is about a fourth force. We already have three forces in place- king, the parties and the Maoists. Yes, of course, there is a fourth force- India. And ironically, it is supporting all the players except the first. (Those fat asses in the South Block must be munching away laddoos right now.)

India’s brazen hobnobbling in New Delhi with the Maoists and her open encouragement at “regime change” whether via the activities of her ambassador in Kathmandu or through public advice to the dissenting parties to join hands with the Maoists-hardly paragons of democracy and liberalism- are nothing if not a prescription for more bloodshed, and turbulence in the region.

They certainly are not tantamount to a blueprint for peace, democracy and prosperity for Nepal or for the neighbourhood around Nepal.

Pegha

If we can have dozens of Christian countries and tens of Islamic countries, why can’t we have a Hindu nation? Or is it that you are ashamed of being called a Hindu?

tirupati,

Are you adamant that Nepal should remain only the Hindu Nation on this earth? How about the voice of those indigenous groups (Janjaties) in Nepal? Should they be not heard in your sense?

If others want to be religious states let them have. But let us not divert the issue somewhere else. In the present situation, should Nepal remain as a Hindu state? When I am saying this, am supposed to give my identity of my religion?

All right, I am not a religious person but all I want is harmony the societies and all I know is that this will happen only if there is secularism. This issue has always been a hot subject amongst those indigenous groups (Janjaties). Just because Maoist included in their agenda, this issue be prohibited from discussion?

pegh

I will give you some figures derived from the Nepal Population Census 2001 as to the percentage of population by religion in Nepal.

Hindu- 80.62
Buddhist- 10.74
Islam- 4.20
Kirat- 3.60
Jain- 0.02
Christian- 0.45
Sikh- 0.02
Bahai- 0.01
Other- 0.34

As to your question that if I am adamant that Nepal should be the only Hindu nation at present, my answer is that we would be all the more happier if more countries join the fraternity/sorority.

Dear Tirupati ji,

A very logical statistic you have displayed and I agree with you by all means. Your statistic table shows that Nepal is made of 80.62% Hindu, and I have no doubts about the fact you have put up.

Can we switch our discussion and attention towards India for a while? India’s population is more than 1 billion, and 80% of it is Hindu, but this country still embraces secularism. Is it right or wrong?

I think we are in a wrong webpage of this website for discussion on this subject of secularism in Nepal. Can we move to the appropriate webpage at http://www.samudaya.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/2006/05/nepal_to_be_a_s.php ?

For those of you who want to see more of my ramblings I have links to all my articles available on my blog. http://Neilsnepal.wordpress.com

In our attitude towards the war, which under the new government unquestionably remains on Nepal’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is permissible.

The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.

In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.

Until and unless government conforms to democratic values, handles the grants and loans with proper accountability, respects human-rights, ensures the rights of all groups, investigates into all human-rights violations and ends the culture of impunity, Nepal should be considered for putting under economic sanction by international community and donor agencies, as remedial procedure to prevent Nepal from turning into a fertile breeding ground of terrorists. AAAAAAAArrrrggh Koirala bhaanche bahun ko pariwar and Horning son of a b…. (who are you?) and his pie charts