Model 1: Girija Is To Be Blamed

The NC was in power more than most during the 90s, and Girija was Prime Minister more than most. But instead of consolidating the democracy, the Girijas of the world became the new establishment. Massive corruption was institutionalized. The aspiratinos of the Madhesis, the Janajatis, the Dalits, the women, the poor were not given proper channels. Things fall apart when the center can not hold.

Girija's inflexibility that served so well in his quest for democracy became his bane post-democracy. A party with a clear majority going for mid-term elections is ridiculous. Girija does not know how to save face: he only knows how to corner his opponents into desperation. He does not understand compromise and coalition building is the name of the game in a democratic framework.

Because the moderate center did not perform, the left and the right came in to fill the vacuum.

Model 2: King G Is To Be Blamed

The king gets neither democracy nor constitutional monarchy, or he would not talk of being a "constructive monarch." He has acted a mirror image of the Maoists in trying to fill the vacuum left by the political parties. That might be cunning, and possible in the murky waters of today, but it is not magananimous. The king patronizingly refers to the country as his family. That shows a lack of gut-feel for basic premises in democracy.

King G got Chand to almost double the royal budget. That is NC style brahmaloot many times over.

Model 3: Deuba Is To Be Blamed

Why get rid of the parliament, bro! In the first place....

Model 4: The Maoists Are To Be Blamed

Not even the Chinese are Maoists anymore. The haat bazar in a remote village in Nepal is the market economy in action. The ancient Buddhist republics were democracies in action. Those twins are the necessary engines for growth. Gorbachev knows more about communist theory than Prachanda or Baburam, and he has said the market is it.

The LTTE have been far more lethal than the Maoists can ever hope to be, militarily. And the LTTE were not able to take over Colombo even after 20 vicious years. So the military option is out.

It is laughable of the Maoists to think the king will willingly give over power. Not this king. If anything King G will want to expand his role.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not about to happen. Instead it is a game of who will blink first, and the two extreme sides do not care if the commoners suffer in the interim.

Supermodel 1: Panchayat II

There is a very real possibility the king decides he has had enough of it, and he plain takes over. Which will be the final blow of the right to the rest of the political spectrum. But such a move will, by definition, engineer a massive backlash. And more than Maoists will rally behind an all-out call for a republic.

Supermodel 2: "Jana Sarkar"

That does not exist in the rural areas either. It is more statelessness, lawlessness. And the urban centers hold strong. It can not be imagined Kathmandu can be taken over by the Maoists.

Not going to happen.

Supermodel 3: Constituent Assembly

This is the only option for quickie peace. But one suspects those now in power will not go for it. Instead they will wait and wait and wait. For the Maoists to possibly tire out. In the mean time, the people be damned.

Iraq will soon have elections for such a thing. And they will do fine for it.

Let the people decide.

But such a move will have to be simultaneous a total disarming of the Maoists.

Supermodel 4: Inflexibility

That Giriaj disease pervades the entire political spectrum. Mero goru ko barhai takka. This more than anything else is holding progress back.

GP, ashu and all,

Here, something more from Beirut to Jerusalem:

when you ask a man what is 2+2, if the man answers 5, then you can correct him and talk for a while. But if he answers 95, then you have to udnerstand that his thinking/logic is different than your's. There's simply no point in talking with him.

Wow, now it looks like the return of the old Sajha !

पुर्ण राजनैतिक कुरा पछि । अहिलेलाई अल्पराजनैतिक व्यक्तिगत कुरा मात्र ।

Ashu wrote:

"A quick search in databases does NOT establish you as a prolific or even remotely interesting scientific figure in any sense. So one can safely assume that other than
being just another apparatchik in a scientific building filled with 1000s of science PhDs, the existential question of "what should do I do with my life?" (well explored in Po Bronson's book of that same title) must haunt you for days, no? "

Ashu,

You are correct about the inadequacies of my professional life. I am not proud of these inadequacies. However, I am not ashamed of it either. Looking from where I come from (SLC एउटा अन्जान गाउँको स्कुलबाट second division मा पास गरेर I.Sc. र B.Sc. दुबैमा ब्याक लगाएर पास गरेको । M.Sc. पास गरेको कुरा मेरा पिताजीले सर्टिफिकेट नदेखाई पत्याउनु भएको थिएन !) I am doing fine भन्ने लाग्छ ।

You made mockery of my inadequacies. That's okay. Have fun.

You assumed I am frustrated with my personal life. You are wrong.

Obviously you and I have very different views about the measurement of success, we enjoy different things and look at other's life differently.

Different folks, different strokes, naturally.

Since last year it has been a standard way for you to trash my professional life to run away from my questioning your political position regarding the king/republicanism and, in a silly way, trash the republican ideology itself.

My personal inadequacies are my own. They do not disqualify Nepal for a republic. So stop disqualifying the republicanism in Nepal with Nepe's personal inadequacies. Will you ?

If my personal inadequacies interest you for other purposes, I don't mind. Go, make mockery of it. You don't have to do research about me. I can tell it myself. I am not ashamed to reveal it. Here is my resume. Plenty materials for you to play with.


Last name Khadka
Additional last name: Khandka
First name: Deepak

Academic Qualification: Ph.D. (Life Sciences, 2001, Ben-Gurion University, Israel)

Title of Ph.D. dissertation: "Identification and Characterization of DNA Markers and Genes Linked to the Sex of Dioecious Mercurialis annua


Employment Record:

Jan 2005-
Research Teaching Specialist IV
Department of Biochemistry
UMDNJ-RWJMS
Piscataway, NJ

July 2001- Dec 2004
Visiting Fellow
NICHD/NIH
Bethesda, MD

June 1991-Dec 1992
Junior Research Scientist
RLABB
Kathmandu, Nepal

July 1991- Nov 1992
Part-time Teacher
Central Department of Chemistry, TU
Kathmandu, Nepal


Conference/Symposium Attended

61st Annual Meeting of the Society for Developmental Biology, July 21-25, 2002, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

From Cells to Crops: Third Symposium in the Series- Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology. Sept 4-10, 1999, Stara Lesna, Slovak Republic.

International Symposium and Training Course on Molecular and Biotechnological Aspects of Sexual Reproduction in Higher Plants, Aug 24-Sep 4, 1998, Martonvasar, Hungary.

International Cooperation for Development of Biotechnology, Oct 30- Nov 3, 1994, Jerusalem, Israel


Bibliography:


Khadka DK and Sargent TD. The Role of Msx1 and Msx2 in Neural Crest Induction in Xenopus (submitted)

Luo T, Rangarajan J, Zhang YH, Khadka D and Sargent TD. 2004. Identification of Target Genes for Transcription Factor AP2a in Xenopus Ectoderm (submitted)

Khadka DK, Nejidat A, Tal M and Golan-Goldhirsh A. 2004. Molecular Characterization of a DNA Marker for Sex and a Related Gene in Mercurialis annua. Planta (accepted).

Khadka DK, Nejidat A, Tal M and Golan-Goldhirsh A. 2004. Cloning and Characterization of a Gene Encoding Ribosomal Protein L32 Family from Mercurialis annua (submitted).

Golan-Goldhirsh A, Barazani O, Wang ZS, Khadka DK, Saunders JA, Kostiukovsky V, Rowland LJ. 2004. Genetic relationships among Mediterranean Pistacia species evaluated by RAPD and AFLP markers. Plant Syst Evol 246 (1-2): 9-18

Tuna M, Khadka DK, Shrestha MK, Arumuganathan K, Golan-Goldhirsh A. 2004. Characterization of natural orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) populations of the Thrace Region of Turkey based on ploidy and DNA polymorphisms. EUPHYTICA 135 (1): 39-46

Khadka DK, Nejidat A, Tal M, Golan-Goldhirsh A. 2002. DNA Markers for Sex: Molecular Evidence for Gender Dimorphism in Dioecious Mercurialis annua L. Mol Breeding 9 (4): 251-257.

Khandka DK, Nejidat A, Tal M, Golan-Goldhirsh A. 1999. Molecular Analysis of a Male Specific RAPD Marker in Dioecious Mercurialis annua. Biologia 54(7):37.

Khandka DK, Nejidat A, Tal M, Golan-Goldhirsh A. 1997. Variability in the Pattern of Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA. Electrophoresis 18:2852-2856.

Khandka DK, Nejidat A, Tal M, Golan-Goldhirsh A. 1995. RAPD Markers for Sex of Dioecious Plants. HortScience 30(4):878.

Khandka DK, Nejidat A, Golan-Goldhirsh A. 1995. Polymorphism and DNA Markers for Asparagus Cultivars Identified by Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA. Euphytica 87:39-44.


Membership

Society for Developmental Biology
International Society of Plant Molecular Biology

Extra-curricular activity

Served as the President of the Student Union Council in Campus Sede Boker, Israel, Nov 1998- Nov 1999.

Dear Nepe Dude,

Don't forget me for going "HADTAL" (carrying playcards) in Capitol Hill, White House, and Our Embassy to bring republicanism in Nepal.

I couldn't join last time with you but I don't wanna miss this time. Keep posted here.

Hahahaha capital hill and White house ma Nepal ma republicanism launa HADTAL garna jane re.. LOL... ajai don;t forget me re,.. hhahhahaha.. last tyam miss pani gareko timle hamjayegaa... dhaat... arko pali pakkai nagara :p

Hamjayega bro... lala... bush le chiya pani garna bolayo bhane katha sunaam hai... dherai intelligent cha bush.. and besides he has nothing else to do. "Ekdaam Free cha uuu". Hehehe.. Yedi busy raicha bhane.. yeso group ma nabheyani.. single pic with playcards, post garam hai :)

Hehehehe... IndisGuise:)

( no offence... just " could not help but SMILE!!!")

LOL! hahahaha

ma ni mero resume tasum?? :P

Bhayo pardain confuse bro,
Bujdainam hola hamle.

Feri hami pani timi hola :P
Spare us.

Baru hamjayega le tascha ki... Nepe ji sanga HADTAAL ta janchu bhancha.. hahahhahaha LOL :)

Bhayo pardain confuse bro,
Bujdainam hola hamle.

Feri hami pani timi hola :P
Spare us.

Baru hamjayega le tascha ki... Nepe ji sanga HADTAAL ta janchu bhancha.. hahahhahaha LOL :)

Election talk. How so?

- http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-13-voa47.cfm

"The rebels control two-thirds of the countryside. Political analysts say they will be anxious to show that elections cannot be held unless the government reaches an agreement with them."

Ashu says: "This monarchy and republic ka kura is premature and diversionary in Nepal at this time."

Nothing could be further from the truth. To retain or not to retain the monarchy is the number one issue on the table. That is why there is all the chaos, the insurgency.

"The more pressing reality in Nepal is that all should aim to be united FIRST to completely defang the Maoists (who are NOT to be trusted at all) WHILE raising hell against the army's excesses."

This is highly unrealistic. You sound like the 1% in Nepal who feel like the Maoists are shaking things up a little too much to be of comfort to you.

This is not a "trust" issue. This is an issue of political solutions. You survey the reality (of the Maoists) and then you seek common ground. You negotiate.

Btw Ashu, I bet you get most of your "news" on Nepal from online sorces. That is most Sajhawasis.

iso freaking freak. This monarchist freaking lumps me with the Maoists.

I am a free marketeer, one person one vote, social progressive. Where I do see some light in Maoist politics is their voicing of the various ethnic greivances, which are legitimate.

I am a peace-first person. That is why I am such a strong supporter of the idea of a Constituent Assembly. After that, once a system of one person one vote has been established, let the various groups play out their interests and grievances through non-violent organizing.

"The change in the system at this point, or at this chaotic stage, means creating more chaos/anarchy."

This is the mindset that says, I'd rather people die than change the political status quo.

"Changes can be achieved from within the system."

Not true. The 1990 constitution is fundamentally flawed.

- http://www.geocities.com/bhagat266/madhesi/lawoti.html

"Everything was wrong from the very beginning. What we are seeing now is the fruition of peoples? anger that was suppressed for more than 200 years. One group always dominated the country whereas others never had any real political power. Democracy was letting the same elite group control the country in a more internationally respected disguise. So what the Maoists might be wrong in the ways, but they are not wrong in their demands."

Close to how I feel.

"See the problem is, we don't even have a common consensus on Nepal."

This diversity of opinions is positive, not negative.

Nepe.

Ashu and Go Da Baa.. LOL.

Man. You write damn good Nepali. Pokhta!

Ashu. Almost every posting you put out tends to have a predictable paragraph .... You disagree with me. And that is just fine. I am Ashu.

I would think that would be obvious. That it is okay to disagree.

"Sure, your job may be in molecular biology, but your passion clearly lies in molecular politics. And who do you fancy yourself as-- some sort of Nepali Ayatollah.."

This is cheap. In the era of globalization and the internet, participation in an online forum like this one is as much a contribution as any in offline Kathmandu. A lot of journos in Kathmandu read these Sajha threads. And these Sajha threads often provide room for more bold talk and disagreements than any in the traditional Nepali media, or even political discourse. Come to think of it, what do they do in the US Congress? They talk. That is what they used to do in the Pratinidhi Sabha. Talk is action.

I am appreciative of Nepe's presence here. Although I have no idea who he is offline.

"That is why, you are atavistically and viscerally unable to even accept the possibility that there may well be OTHER ideas out there that do not match your own. "

That might be, but Nepe's ideas are more progressive than that of most others.

"A clash of opinions, however vehemently expressed, need not frighten you or anyone else."

But half the time you are talking about the person and not his ideas or views.

nispaksha

Thanks for the larger font size for Nepali words. Much easier on the eyes.

Ashu: "..my disappointment with the political parties' repeated failures to rein in the king when there were opportunities to do so....Seeing how the fights within Koirala dynasty is playing out, it does make me wonder whether all we will see is the mere eplacement of the Shahs with the Koiralas! ..... Until we get out of this terrible fix, this strange impasse..."

This is insightful.

Ashu's/Deuba's SuperModel 5: Elections For A New Parliament: How feasible is this? How big a roadblock are the Maoists? Do they have what it takes to prevent it from happening? This is a question on facts.

nispaksha: "..problem with agitating party's agenda in terms of their inability to clearly state that they are there for a republican movement.."

True. They just have not been able to take that final step. If the king is as unreasonable as you say he is in not going with your demands, what good do you still see in him?


My latest thoughts on the monarchy:
- http://www.geocities.com/paramendra/2004/nation2.html

Ashu: "Why is it that when it comes to republicanism,
you guys are so CERTAIN about it .."

Those like Nepe who are die-hard republicans are saying it makes sense as a better, more democratic idea. This is presented as an idea.

I guess there will continue to be undercurrents of "personal" comments here. Despite that, we are managing to have a pretty thought-provoking discussion. Unlike anywhere else that I can think of online.

DadaGiri. A republican democracy would not be a cure all. It will merely be a tool with which am empowered people can better meet their challenges.

The whole child soldier thing is a major shame, a crime, a major violation.

I can live with this option.

Nepe. "M.Sc. पास गरेको कुरा मेरा पिताजीले सर्टिफिकेट नदेखाई पत्याउनु भएको थिएन !)" LOL. .... This kind of "personal" talk is welcome, b/c it is fun!

:-)

There is this other thread on the monarchy, although more tabloid style, at least the topic....

- http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openthread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=18676

Nepe,

Well, it's another day, and here I am back on Sajha.

Re-reading my postings above this morning, I -- upon reflection and after
discussing things over with a friend whose inputs I value -- say that I am sorry if I
went a bit overboard there, giving you no choice but to be on the defensive in
stark personal terms.

Sorry.

That said, I respect your right to fully espouse republicanism, and that aspect hasn't bothered me at all.

It's just that I wish you'd ease up on giving space to views that do NOT jive with yours WITHOUT unfairly and relentlessly painting others as royal stooges, when they are not and when all they are trying to do is find their own voice by taking conflicting and contradictory information into account to make up their mind re: what's what.

I am sure you will agree that republicanism, in practice, is not as straightforward and uncontroversial as one would like it to be.

****

Paramendra,

It's fair to say that most people in Nepal, at this time, just want to be able to:

a) go and live and work in their villages or towns without fear
b) run their businesses without fear, and
c) prosper doing what they love with minimum hassles.
d) have a government who can enforce the laws, and maintain security.

Political parties surely have their differences with the King, and that's good. But, in the scheme of things, those differences are comparatively minor.

Their GREATER differences are with the Maoists, whose aim, among others, is to ultimately finish off the political parties altogether.

One reason why the Ratna Park ko Andolan has not taken off is that the parties' resources to launch a vigorous andolan have been shrinking for a long time, ever
since they got out of power.

Last time, for a while, they got all those people from all over Nepal to chant slogans in Ratna Park, but could not provide -- either from the party coffers or through donations --food and lodgings to those karyakartas for long, and those people eventually went back to their villages, taking the steam off the andolan. [When the Maoists run out of food and lodging facilities for their karya-kartas, they simply plunder and loot villages!
Political parties cannot do that.]

Given this sort of state of affairs, it's too much to expect the political parties to launch a definitive republican andolan now. Either they need a lot of resources now or they need time. I am on the side of giving them time.

And so, as a matter of strategy, the parties can better marshal their resources now
by shaking hands with the king AGAINST the Maoists -- thereby providing, with the
help of civil society institutions, a legitimate check against the Army's illegal excesses in
this -- let's not mince words -- war to defang the Maoists.

Else, all that their their constant bickering, continuous fights and jhagada achieves is just dissipation of energy, goodwill and money, making them further vulnerable to
BOTH Maoists' and the King's "pee-tai" -- taking the country to either extremes,
closer to a 'failed state' paradigm.

Psychologically too, the joining of the two forces (king and the political parties) for a time being for the elections and for the formation of new government will provide a FRESH beginning to Nepal and Nepalis.

oohi
ashu

parmendra,

look, let's talk without being personal.

First things first: you say, you are for free market, one man, one vote many times. good. however, there's no one in Nepal right now to guaranty you that. also, there's no one in Nepal who is taking up the madhesi issue which is so dear to you, except for the Maoists or the factions close to the Maoists. All Sadhvawana party is doing is spreading durbhawana. so eitehr you have to denounce the close-to-maoists speaking up for their rights and taking up arms. or you have to simply support them. then that makes you close to the Maoists, if not a Maoist yourself.

2. This is the mindset that says, I'd rather people die than change the political status quo.

Parmendra, this has been the pattern, i.e., when you have a regime change in a chaotic situation, the succeeding regime is even more tyrranical and will not alllow you one man one vote many times. It will be one man, one vote, one time. Period. Look at what happened in Iran, Afghanistan and all over the world after 1990. How many of the neo-democracies are functioning properly? Not many. Why? Because the transition was made overnight without developing the INSTITUTIONS necessary to sustain the new system. So if you were talking about regime change in a more peaceful time, it would have made sense. If republican cause is that dear to you, then go back to Nepal, lobby and work to develop institutions that will somehow sustain the new system, when and if the old system collapses. If not, then instead of asking people to search for Sajha in google, go to the Carnegie Endowment for World Peace, Democracy home page and start reading the articles there. You don't have to remind anyone that "democracy is an universal value", having gone to a liberal arts school and having been a student of history and politics, I know that very well. And supporting monacrhy, which I am not at all ashamed of supporting, because there are many forms of demoracy, including many Monarchical Democracy. Englad is a democracy with Monarchy, so is Sweden, Spain, Denmark and pretty soon, Morocco will join the league. Look, you have your own raesons based on your experience to denounce Monarchy, I have mine to support it. Let's be clear on that. If you don't find that comfortable then ask yourself, what kind of democracy do you believe in? If you do not tolerate differences in opinions in a mere web boarsd, what would you do in real life?

Re: Constitution of 1990. It might be flawed. It might be perfect. You can't just make a broad general statement. If its flawed, what ammendments can be made to correct the flaws? Every constitution in the world has been amended. So why not ours. Just changing the constitution wouldn't make any sense. If changing the constitution was the remedy, then why you are seeing dictatorships and authoritarian regimes from Krgyzstan to Zimbabwe? Sure their constitution is un-flawed, but why the hell do Askar Akayev and Mogabe keep on doing whatever they want. Because they can. Just copying the constitution of Switzerland is not going to make Nepal as good as Switzerland.

3. Re: Diversity: Diversity is good but diversity of opinion at this point is NOT good. Nepal never went throgh a nation building phase like Turkey or other modern nations went throgh. After the unification, we kept on fighting the Brits. Then came the Ranas, who didn't do anything to unite the people, instead they borrowed the Brits' divide and Rule policy and divided the nation. So for many, Nepal is just a concept. They could have been in India or in what is today's China. Call it a historic accident, they were confined to the physical territory of what is today's Nepal. I don't exactly remember who, but somebody came up with the idea of "crowd symbol"- when you ask people what their country means to them, a image comes to their heads/minds/heart, and that's what unites the people, that's nationalism. People think in terms of US/WE, not THEY/THEM and instead of seeing themselves confined to the country's physical territory by a historical accident, they tend to think of it as a "divine" act. We are lacking in that. Right now, nationalism and one goal, whether it be supporting the Maoists or the Monarchy, should unite the whole of Nepal. Therefore, at this point different ideas on how to handle the situation will only lead to an even bigger disaster. First unite on the problem, then unite on the solution and when the problem is solved, then talk about diversity and other things. If Gandhi had not united the people of India for one common cause, and if the people from all over India hadn't thought of it as their common cause, then India would have been independent 20 years later. If Keman Attaturk of Turkey hadn't radically united the Turkish people by changing the script and even the Islam, and if the people hadn't seen the reasons for him doing that, then today's Turkey would have been no different than Iran or Syria. First unite for a common cause. And when the true unity has been achieved, then talk about diversity. It will make more sense then. Otherwise be ready to get your house searched by the Indian troops. And when that happens, we cannot blame India for sending its troops to search our houses because, we were not united and we ourselves made Nepal a failed state. India will do what it will have to do to protect itslef from a failed neighbor, just as many nations have done in the past.

Now you can disagree or not even read my lengthy post.

He is reported to have told BBC Nepali Service few days later that India could intervene if Kathmandu were to be threatened although no such situation had yet developed. (Janamancha, 26/12/04) Any such possible intervention would be by air or by commando. This was exactly what the fourth scenario in the scenario analysis presented in Delhi seminar had projected at a time when the situation would get out of control- From today's TKP.

Let me add something else here: Regime change in tdoay's world is not only due to bargaining between the political forces within any country. Of course bargaining and consensus is one major factor, but you cannot just dismiss the neighboring countries' or even super-powers' interests in that country. It is both an internal bargaining process and international support for that bargaining process based on interests. Our 1990 democracy was supported by India, otherwise there wouldn't have been any regime change. If you believe that revolutions are internal process then you are wrong. Revolutions and regime changes are international process. I mentioned Gandhi's contribution to free India. Gandhi united the people but it wasn't the only reason India became independent. When Frankilin Delano Roosevelt and Churchill were talking about American participation and help in the World War II, Roosevelt, who was against colonilization told Churchill to grant India independence after the end of the war. So you see, how internal and international factors are responsible for the transitions or regime changes in the world. And sorry to break this down to you, Nepal's neighbors and freinds want the monarchy to stay, for their own reasons. If you want the American policy on Nepal and India to change, start writing to the senators and powerful lobbies in America, India, UK and everywhere.

If you want the American policy on Nepal and India = if you want the American and Indian policy on Nepal

within any country= within a country

Republicanism is like a potential earthquake in Nepal:

(1)-Like an earthquake, it is impending and beyond anyone's control. It has become a systemic inevitability due to the failure of the existing system. The existing system has failed because
-It does not learn and adapt.

-It is incapable of expanding its boundary. In this age of globalization, no
system is an island.

-For a system to be stable, the regulator of the system must be part of the
system. Evidently, this is not the case with the present system. The
regulators have placed themselves outside of the system thereby leading
to the inevitable collapse of the whole system.

-The existing system uses the failure of its components as a metric of its
succcess. This cannibalization is necessarily suicidal.

-The existing system, according to the law of requisite variety, fails to
accomodate different cultures, languages and ideologies rendering itself
primitive.

The existing system has existed so far due to the following:
-In the begining, it did have some benefits to offer. The model (one central
regulation) abstracted many complexities and functioned smoothly for
some time. Furthermore, there was no benchmark to compare its
performance so its validity did not become a question.

-Due to the lack of exposure to the outside world (environment), the
system was able to create a boundary and hence protect itself.

-The system was efficient in creating inefficiencies so much so that its
components were not able to bootstrap themselves for a change.

-According to the law of inertia, there is always a resistance to change
whether it is physical or mental.


(2) Republicanism like an earthquake destroys many things. It destroys values both good and bad. The destruction of bad is surely a welcome thing. Change is a fundamental law of nature. If we do not change in time, change will be forced upon us. There is simply no escape from this "karmic" law of systems. Once we understand that the change is inevitable, then the wise thing is to prepare for it, not to doubt it. The purpose of this preparation is to protect good things that may otherwise will be destroyed during transition.

(3) An existing system change its state in two ways: (i) the present system is too dysfunctional even though the system it is moving to is uncertain and probabbly more disruptive than the present one. (ii) the present system is functioning well but there appears an alternative which is even better. All developed and democratic nations belong to the second category while primitive and feudal systems belong to the first one.

(4)There are two choices for the existing system: (i)Deny the necessity for change. Engage is a massive disruption and break all the functional components so much so that it reaches LEVEL ZERO. (ii)Accept the reality of change. Realize its systemic deficiencies and transform itself into a viable learning system. Observing the current mindset of the existing system which is too rigid, obstinate and unenlightened, it seems that the second option is too compromising and humuliating a choice for it.

Every thing stands with its own force and collapses due to its own weight. This is the principle of self-organization.

No. 4 (II) is a good option.

- The existing system, according to the law of requisite variety, fails to
accomodate different cultures, languages and ideologies rendering itself
primitive.

Which state has acocmodated different cultures, languages and ideologies in its working? There's always going to be one majority group, one principal ideology and one national culture. Others are reduced to the Sub-status. The problem in Nepal was/is, all things minority has been reduced to sub-sub status. However, this can be changed without changing the system itself, after achieving a national consensus on the problems and their solutions. Right now, the state exists even if its weak. It has certain decision making powers. But if we are to make a transition now, the new state will be really weak, because it won't be able to fight tribalism and regionalism because the transition was made without agreeing on the PROBLEMS and their SOLUTIONS. Instead oif all working together for a better Nepal, all will be fighting to establish their SUPREMACY because every group, every region sees Nepal based on its heritage and cultural tradition. So first a national consensus on the problems and what exactly needs to be chanegd, the regime or the workings of the regime, then go for any system the majority wants. Then the new regime will be legitimate, otherwise welcome to the Hobbesian Jungle! Enter at your own risk.

Also one thing that I don't udnerstand here in this debate: Everyone wants the system to change. They say they want a Republic but how is the Republic of Nepal going to solve the Maoist problem? Will the Maoist problem be gone with the institution of monarchy?


If yes, HOW?

An Alliance between the democracti Republican forces and the Maoists? Is it possible? Two extremes coming together? The Maoists want a "dictatorship of the proleteriat", the Republican side wants a functionaing one man one vote many times democracy, how is it posible in the Post-monarchy Nepal? Won't the Maoists be fighting the burgeoise (Sp?) Republican govt. too? What will teh Republican Nepal offer the Maoists taht will make them drift away from their central aim and objective of establishing a dictatorship of the proleteriat? What is that magic formula?

The Maoists do not want a burgeuoise (sp?) democracy, they want a totalitarian state based on the Leninist model, because this is the only type of state that will help them execute their plans, other forms of state do not exist or do not function in the Proleterian Dictatorship's first stage. Also the Maoist state will be opposed to one man, one vote, many times. The decisions will be made by the Party Central Committee and the General Council of the Politbureau. There simply won't be any direct voting in the proposed Maoist system. To get a glimpse of how the Maoist state will be like, read Dr. Baburam Bhattarai's reply to YUbaraj Ghimire translated into English on this week's Nepali Times. The Maoists have their own vision, own ideology and own strategy to run the state which is ocean's apart than that of the Republican democrats. So as far as I can see, there will be no lasting alliance.

Inmagine there's a Republican Nepal and the Maoist problem is still not solved, what then? Wouldn't the Republican side be fighting the Maoists for its survival like the existing regime is doing now? Or will it just handover the power to the Maoists? If it is going to handover the power to the Maoists to avoid further blooodshed, then why this drama of transition from Monarchy to Republic to The Dictatorship of the Proleteriat?

Also who is leading the Republican Movement in Nepal? Who is the leader? What party? Even if tomorrow people go out and rally against the Monarchy, which party is going to ofer them it's banner? As far as I see, there's no one leading the movement, there's no party willing to lend its banner to the Republican cause in Nepal as of today. Of course, there are certain writers and students but who is listening to them? How many supporters they have? OK they chanted anti-king slogans but it means nothing, absolutely nothing because they neither have any organziational base/support or structure, nor they have a leader. 200 people in kathmandu chanted anti-King slogans, 20000 people line up in front of the Narayanhiti Rajdurbar for Dashain Tika.

Alright this is from my side to this discussion. Since some of you here believe 2+2 is 95 and 200 people chanting anti-monarchy slogans in the narrow ratnapark strip to be a nationwide campaign against monarchy, i have to say, we have a very different way of looking at what's happening in Nepal.

One dangerous assumption on the part of the Republican intellectuals: They see the Maoist movement to be a social movement of the underprivileged people. So if the new system is more accomodating to the social-economical issues, the Maoists will disappear. No way. The Maoists are a political force too. Do not simply assume that they are fighting for bread and money and equal rights. They are fighting for a STATE. They are not just vanishing when there' a Republic of Nepal. They will be around and you have to confront them politically, and god forbid, militarily when the time comes. So solve the Maoist issue first or start negotiating with the Maoist leaders on the possible alliance, then you will survive for 10 years maximum. Sooner or later, the Maoists will take up their arms again and throw you out so that they can have their state, just the way you wish to overthrow the monarchy today.

Ashu

I greatly value your perspective, especially because you reside in Kathmandu. I will have to agree with you (not that I thought otherwise on my own) that most people would rather just get on with their lives.

I have been to all corners of America, and Americans are not different. Most people are just busy earning their living.

"Given this sort of state of affairs, it's too much to expect the political parties to launch a definitive republican andolan now. Either they need a lot of resources now or they need time. I am on the side of giving them time."

I think it is more like to the vast majority of Nepalis, the idea of getting rid of the monarchy just is not on the top of their agenda, or even item 9. Nepe might disagree. But that is my reading of the situation.

But I don't think if only the king and the parties can get together, then the Maoist problem will be solved. The Maoists just kept growing when that was the case.

"...the Army's illegal excesses ..."

This is a major problem.

"Psychologically too, the joining of the two forces (king and the political parties) for a time being for the elections and for the formation of new government will provide a FRESH beginning to Nepal and Nepalis."

I think this unrealistic though.

I don't think the Maoists are shooting for a communist state. They are not unlike the UML. The UML has not changed its name, but it is basically a social democratic party. The Maoists likewise are just looking to save face. They just want a Constituent Assembly. And they will live with whatever the Assembly comes up with.

isolated freak

"..let's talk without being personal.."

Your lumping me with the Maoists is personal. It is name calling. Because you do it with full knowledge I am nowhere close to the Maoists, ideologically speaking. So stop that.

"... the madhesi issue which is so dear to you..."

I am a Sadbhavana alum. True. But my political thoughts on Nepal are kind of with many dimensions.

- http://nepal.motime.com

I think more of poverty in Nepal than any other single issue.

"...so eitehr you have to denounce the close-to-maoists speaking up for their rights and taking up arms. or you have to simply support them. then that makes you close to the Maoists, if not a Maoist yourself..."

So because you believe in Madhesi-Pahadi equality, and hence you are a Maoist! What are YOU, a McCarthy grandchild?

Talking to you is like hearing an echo. You are a monarchist. Point taken. You have nothing more to say. You are no democrat.

"...then go back to Nepal..... instead of asking people to search for Sajha in google, go to the Carnegie Endowment for World Peace...."

Don't freaking tell me what to do! If I ever need career advice from you, I will ask for it, but I doubt that will ever happen.

"..Englad is a democracy with Monarchy, so is Sweden, Spain, Denmark and pretty soon, Morocco will join the league...."

Monarchy in Nepal is nowhere like those in England, Sweden etc. The British Prime Minister orders the British Army. In Nepal the king calls the shots. Major difference.

View/Share this post only