Nepali Times
BIRAJ BAHADUR BISTA
Guest Column
Engage the monarchy


BIRAJ BAHADUR BISTA


In the last few months, the former king has visited various Tarai towns, drawing significant numbers of people wherever he has been. It was similar when he travelled across Nepal five years ago. I remember him walking from Kupondole to Jawalakhel then. The streets were packed with people. Some addressed the monarch as 'sir', others as 'hajur'. Some asked for autographs, others offered flowers or shook his hand. Some chanted slogans, yet others were mere spectators. They represented a myriad of perspectives on the institution of monarchy.

Soon after, I travelled to Jumla and got to talking with some Maoist youngsters. They told me they had gone to Surkhet just to see "what the monarchy looked like" and some of them had even planned to throw cow dung at the king, but desisted. In contrast to rallies organised by political parties, it seemed as though those people who came to see the institution of monarchy did not do so on the basis of ideology or party membership. If that were so, then RPP (Nepal) would have reaped the benefits in the CA elections. This phenomenon tells us that at its base, the institution of monarchy is not political. More recently, however, these crowds appear to be motivated in part by the ideology of Hindutva. This could have a negative impact on the future of Nepali politics.

The present coalition is indifferent to the fact that it has ousted the monarchy and doesn't even consider engaging it as a cultural body to build a new Nepal. This alienating attitude has led the monarchy to seek refuge in potentially dangerous ideologies. Recall the recent visit by Kamal Thapa and Khum Bahadur Khadka to India, following which they declared that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad would do anything to restore Nepal's monarchy.

The monarchy is first and foremost an institution that played a part in building the 'imagined community' called Nepal. Benedict Anderson says a nation 'is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion'. We are Nepali because 250 years ago the monarchy brought together all ethnicities under the sphere of a sovereign Nepal. In the minds of the people, there is an affinity between being citizens of Nepal and the institution that created it. The turnout to see the former king indicates that the monarchy's embedded identity still exists. But it would be a terrible mistake to mistake this identity for a political force. It would be wiser to engage the monarchy culturally rather than alienate it and unleash an unpredictable political force.

This is all the more important given Indo-Nepal relations since 1947. India has always played a major role in the shifting of coalitions within Nepal, and has gained more than Nepal has from these historical transitions. Nepal's incumbent establishment has always neglected to engage outgoing or minor political forces. This failure has left Nepal vulnerable to alienated groups seeking the patronage of foreign powers. The institution of monarchy could be similarly used by Indian political forces.

The monarchy will most likely be left out of the belated constitution to come. The process of building a new nation requires all sections of society to be actively engaged and trusting of each other. In the making of a new Nepal, the monarchy should be given a cultural role to bring together different ethnicities, religions and ideologies, extending the message of unity. Such a cultural engagement would benefit the Nepali nation, and would also nullify the risk of a disgruntled monarchy being used by foreign powers.

The author is a Phd candidate in the political science department of Seoul National University.

READ ALSO:
Politics abhors a vacuum, Publisher's Note
Ready, steady, no?, Dewan Rai
Flex-ible, Prashant Jha
Full circle FM, CK Lal
United we fall, Indu Nepal
Just questions, Ashutosh Tiwari
Two seconds to midnight, Ass
Whither constitution writing



1. Akanchhya Gurung

Yes, I agree 100% with the writer that "monarchism" should be used as a cultural tool to construct New Nepal.



2. jange
As a political science student surely the author knows that a monarchy is a political institution and it can only ever function as a political institution.


3. pravasi nepali
We need monarchy to be the uniting factor. we need hindu rajya as 80pc of us are hindus.

4. bhakunde kaji
We have to say frankly that Nepal needs monarchy as the symbol of unity, non-political. What would be that role? a new form of monarchy, which the writer is thinking of. For the sake of our nation, the need of time is to unite all the stakeholders and provide safe landing for every one including maoists. Monarchy in a different form should be established with consensus from all poltitical forces. then there will be no issue of integration of two armies and everything will be solved.

5. K, K, Sharma

Why would monarchy, that had been a show case for 104 years, be willing to go back into the cage again ? Would the Hindu King be willing to be in a position where he cannot perform the Raj Dharma.? Is  it a function of kingship, to just watch while the incompetent, Indo-servile politicians degrade the country.? 


6. Gole Bhai

Yes,if Democratic Constitution making fails,do,nt worry friends ,we are going to have an EMPEROR instead of a King and not cultural,but un-cultured.

#1 2 3 4



7. Siddha
Yes, agree 100% with the writer. better late than never, specially lookingat the stupid ruling class of politicians who control their parties like their pets.. 

8. rame
The monarch should constrain his movements. Mr. Gyanendra probably forgot that it was in Janakpur, a terai town, where the first bomb on Monarch was hurled. Monarch has no place in Madhes. They are part of bad culture in Nepal- all Raja saheb rubbish. Their acheivement-unity in Nepal, is proven bias in favor of Pahadi Bahuns and Chettris.


9. concerned citizen

At the present time of turmoil the idea of using the Monarchy simply as an anchoring factor to bind Nepali people together seems like an excellent idea. The author does not purport in his article that the Monarch be revered as the reincarnation of a Hindu God, but rather puts forward a more humble role of a unifier of the nation that their ancestors created. Unless the nay sayers have a better idea than to go back to the days when there was no Nepal and simply independant kingdoms, what better way to keep our country's identity intact. As the author rightly pointed out in his article, it is imperative not to allow the Monarchy to follow the Hindu rajya thread, as it will only alienate thousands of Nepalis, because being Nepali is not synonymous with being a Hindu.

@Jange- there are plenty of examples of  monarchies unassociated with political institutions and surely it doesn't require a political scientist to know that



10. Nirmal
Better G Shah constructs a beautiful hindu temple and become a pujari there this will save money time and energy to run here and there to impress hindu crooks...the man has no any charisma, mindset, and ability to be a king of democratic society. Period


11. Jiwan Bahadur Rana
Its very thoughtful article. There have been many issues in nepalese political environment in last decade. As deadlines looms but there have been no consensus in CA tenure, Nepali political parties have just failed to be an accountable to Nepali citizens to whom general public bestowed their confidence. And as writing of CA remains in imagination, future of Nepal remains in confusion. every stakeholders should have a role in the constitution that would be the solution for the peace and stability in Nepal.

12. Jeev
I agree with the gist of the article and it would have been nice if monarchy had remained a cultural aspect of Nepal. The truth however is, the monarchy used its cultural influence as a cover for its political, familial and other selfish motives. To maintain monarchy solely as a unifying agent from the past  isn't reason enough to restore it. It isn't sufficient to just blame away all of monarchies  failures on incompetent subordinates for  that would be poor leadership. Monarchy as an institution in Nepal is history, it should not be restored ( had it remained,it should been given a fair go through means such a referendum), restoring it now will only make things worse. With its failure to lead the country forward and provide a voice for all, I believe it is better off dead in the books of history.

13. Ekalavya Sharma

Absolutely agree with this article.

 

Thanks Himal media for giving some space to the views of silent majority who feel the same way as the writer of this article. Otherwise your paper is always full with left lean ultra liberal views imposed to Nepalese society by west buck

 

For the last couple years or so it seems that your paper has turn out to be a mouthpiece of mission journalism with hidden agenda of promoting – "Secularism, Federalism, Republican State" in Nepal in the outer cover of professional journalism.

 

For the sovereignty of Nepal one must prerequisite is constitutional/cultural monarchy with least  power and allowance as in Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

 

You can't ignore the feeling of more than half percentage of silent majority whose feelings are connected with Hinduism and monarchy giving platform to few active vocal minority views of CK Lal, Prasantbabu, Naraharijee and the west ultra liberal's views.

 

King might be good or bad but monarchy as an institution is the very necessary condition for sovereignty of Nepal. Moreover, in relative terms King G has shown finer and dignified character than today's so called leaders.

 

 

+



14. Ekalavya Sharma

Absolutely agree with this article.

 

Thanks Himal media for giving some space to the views of silent majority who feel the same way as the writer of this article. Otherwise your paper is always full with left lean ultra liberal views imposed to Nepalese society by west buck

 

For the last couple years or so it seems that your paper has turn out to be a mouthpiece of mission journalism with hidden agenda of promoting – "Secularism, Federalism, Republican State" in Nepal in the outer cover of professional journalism.

 

For the sovereignty of Nepal one must prerequisite is constitutional/cultural monarchy with least power and allowance as in Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

 

You can't ignore the feeling of more than half percentage of silent majority whose feelings are connected with Hinduism and monarchy giving platform to few active vocal minority views of CK Lal, Prasantbabu, Naraharijee and the west ultra liberal's views.

 

King might be good or bad but monarchy as an institution is the very necessary condition for sovereignty of Nepal. Moreover, in relative terms King G has shown finer and dignified character than today's so called leaders.



15. Anonymous
While contribution of Prithvi Narayan Shah as an outstanding strategic thinker, visionary leader and the founding father of Nepal (at par with General George Washington in America!) cannot be denied, for he fought against the Imperial China on the north and the Imperial British in the south that helped keep the sovereignty of Nepal intact while Indian kingdoms fell like domino and succumbed to the British rule; and no Nation can live in a historical vacuum; however, Nepal does not need to shed tears over the recent demise of institution of monarchy, specially, under the rule of King GS. All kings are not same. Monrachy, as a feudal  institution has not only lost its credibility and relevance, but has been a major obstacle to the fast-track development of Nepal, specially in the twenty-first century. Republican Nepal is a construct and product of the struggle of new generation of Nepalese. The feudal culture has to be radically transformed if Nepal is to enter modernity and gain a status of civilized countries of the world. We need to better understand the people and their aspirations. Nepal cannot sustain the 'white elephant', while vast majority of people are living on less on than 2 dollars a day. We need a new generation of leaders who love the country, understand the people and are capable to lead the Nation in the twenty-first century. Sadly, the leaders of Republican Nepal have not been able to provide that leadership. But let's hope that a new generation of leaders will emerge from the current chaos. I truly believe in the people of Nepal and am extremely optimistic that the Nation that gave birth to The Buddha and The Brave to the world, can give birth to a capable leadership.


16. saru
I agree with author that in Nepal Monarchy can become cultural king and symbol of unified Nepal as in our culture most of the ceremony is envisioned with Kings part. In old day in Malla time also King role was very ceremonial and King was almost like President who was in power with the will of powerful elites. Right now President should not perform any religious ritual in official capacity as Nepal is declared secular country and no state organ can participate in any religious functions in secular country. Therefore, the Idea of kicking out King and making country secular and even going to Federalism without consulting people and going for referendum was suicidal and this is the cause and effect of untimely demise of CA which was also uncompetitive as well.

17. Niraj
Biraj,

There is a saying in English - 'You cannot be more loyal than the King'. Nepalis have given the last King the benefit of the doubt more than once. But The King himself, through his actions, exhibited that he did not care for monarchy. Would it not be nice to have a 'cultural' King ? Sure - but our History suggest that soon enough they become 'political' King. Therein lies the problem. Bad as our political leaders, to bring back monarchy in any form would be - at best - adding chaos to confusion.


18. NM
Bahun and Co can have their Hindu King Gyan. Then Gurung will demand their own king. Then Limbu will demand their own king.So on Tamang, Rai, Magar, Newar, Sherpa, Tharu, Dalit etc

19. Niraj
Biraj,

There is a saying in English - 'You cannot be more loyal than the King'. Nepalis have given the last King the benefit of the doubt more than once. But The King himself, through his actions, exhibited that he did not care for monarchy. Would it not be nice to have a 'cultural' King ? Sure - but our History suggest that soon enough they become 'political' King. Therein lies the problem. Bad as our political leaders, to bring back monarchy in any form would be - at best - adding chaos to confusion.


20. Hari Thakuri

let the very limited bahuns/chetris and the former king's castes hallucinate that monarchy will come back. GET UP! He will never come back in any form - direct, constitutional or ceremonial. He was never a symbol of any unity.



21. Comrade Bhayankar
Monarchy should not be given any space. The government should take steps towards sending the former king and his family members on exile so that people can completely forget them. This so called 'institution' has never made things better in Nepal. They were blood suckers who amassed immense wealth and didn't care for the poor. When you think of history don't only think about Prithivi Narayan Shah, also think about the 10 subsequent generations of royal family which never cared for the people.


22. Comrade Bhayankar
The idea of cultural king is a construct of royalists and royal family members to establish their supremacy over common people. We don't need to stoop in front of them and address them as hajur and sarkar. Gyane is a common citizen like the rest of us and we need to help him adjust to this fact by treating him as a commoner.


23. Mike
however difficult the process may seem to attain a truly republican powered by the people, however long it may take, ultimately, that's the salvation for Nepal... a govt. by the people, of the people and for the people... it is th universal truth; as for feudal kings and emperors, they are like tigers who have tasted warm human blood... nepal is a case in evidence... once fuedal, always a feudal... culturally, economically and politically... it ain't gonna change... and who has the money to pay for these white elephants, good for nothing kind... surely not in Nepal, where we have so many other priorities to deal with our little money and wealth... we don't need such destructive unifying force... look at what's happening... at the base of it was he monarchy who fragmented our society and not united it...

24. Maharajadhiraj

Oh wow, Nepali Times' sanity is back with a bang? I thought they had vowed in a way that they would never ever give an inch of space to anything that has got anything remotely related to the monarchy. And we have this, a very pragmatic and level-headed piece. Never mind Gyanendra or his despicable son, it is an institution that deserves a raised public debate in this country if we are not prepared to see that ignorant Southern bully taking this country on a ride.

Biraj Bista sounds very astute and wise.



25. niceDreamUsa

In the making of a new Nepal, the monarchy should be given a cultural role to bring together different ethnicities, religions and ideologies, extending the message of unity. In the making of a new Nepal, the monarchy should be given a cultural role to bring together different ethnicities, religions and ideologies, extending the message of unity.

******

Above statement of the author is a cheap fantasy of a political scientist without any ground except the hired throng of Hindu extremists. The current CA is a people elected body that  first time in the country's history, it is representing the voices of all those marginized people of Nepal. How can institution of Monarchy become a symbol of cultural unity among all Nepali of various background if its socalled members are not allowed to marry any except chhetri and thakuri ?

If Nepali Monarchy had been a vortex of unity among all Nepali of different ethnicities, casts, religions, regions, culture and etc., Kamal Thapa, Surya Bahadur Thapa, Pashupati Rana, and Rabindra Sharma would have won at least "one sit" in last CA election.

These feudals still can not grab more than one seat for each of them in upcoming election if the election is free and fair.

The author says so as he is son or cousin or brother of the failed and unfit Keshar Bahadur Bista. The Author is chest-thumping on the  "hired throng" around lord - Gyanendra.

 

 



26. Love Nepal
Bull shit ...... Monarch & monarchy are both outdated medicines, which only kills ..... Choosing expired medicine to cure present ailment will only deteriorate the situation ....... We Nepalese do not want to go back 100 years back ......

27. Dilli
Friends, what would be our identity and status if Nepal disintegrates? Do we need to travel with Indian passport?

28. Bahadur

I am not necessarily a supporter of the institution of monarchy but this article has given me a different angle to think about. A very well argued and articulated article Mr. Bista.



29. Arthur
Nobody actually responded to the real theme of the article which is summed up in the subhead: "

30. Reb
The contribution of the King Prithvi and Bahadur Shah's are etched in our history and as founding fathers of current Nepal, they should always be given due honor and respect.   Given the present situation, even Mahendra and Birendra seem wiser than the jokers in power.  

In totality, yes the Kings along with the citizens saved Nepal from being swallowed by India, but besides the founders - no one did anything significant for the upliftment of the citizens and the country and root out fuedalistic attititude and behavior.

Now, common citizens are slowly realizing that they can assert their rights, but while excercising those rights some fail to understand that with rights there comes responsibility also.  That responsibility lesson needs to be hammered in also. 

Time has passed, Nepal should go with a Presidential system.  There are inherent dangers/flaws in any system but with proper checks and balances those can be minimized.

Or, if Nepal really needs a King to run and preserve the country, then elect one from the common people every 5 - 7 years. Nepal can have a elected King and chart its own model and destiny.  Prachanda could be a communist/maosits King one day! Interested?


31. Satya Nepali (I)

The author is right to point out that alienation of the monarchy is wrong. He argues that it is wrong because it may invite Hindu extremism. This is a valid point that the monarchy itself better be watchful about. However, the alienation of the monarchy is wrong for other reasons too.

I have long argued in this space that the so-called 'peace process' of Nepal is structurally faulty. For true peace to be instituted in the country, Nepal's peace process should have been a tri-partite one including Maoists, parties and the monarchy. By 2006, the conflicting sides in Nepal's war was the seven parties and Maoists on one side and monarchy and Army on the other. A peace deal is one that's signed between *warring factions*, not between *allies*! Yet this is precisely what happened in Nepal. An agreement between allies (SPA + M) was hailed as a "peace agreement". No wonder such an agreement has not been successful in delivering peace.



32. Satya Nepali (II)

In a recent interview with Bhusan Dahal (Fireside) the then COAS, Pyar Jung Thapa, has also claimed that when the Army desisted from repressing the People's Movement in 2006, it did so with the understanding that the monarchy would be included in future political equations. Clearly it saw this as a means to creating a true peace in Nepal. Instead, major decisions about Maoists integration and re-structuring of the state were undertaken between the allied (SPA + M) without including the monarchy (or Army). This was a mistake. And we are paying for that mistake with an endlessly dragged-out "peace process". Nepal's two allies dishing out a "peace agreement" between themselves is akin to the Treaty of Versailles signed among the Allies at the end of WW I. Everybody knows now what a faulty peace that was. It only led to an even greater war. Same mistake has been repeated in Nepal.

If we want true peace, it is necessary for it to be a "just peace". Nepal's peace process at the moment is not a just one. For this reason too, it is necessary to include the monarchy in the new constitution.



33. colon
This comment has been removed by the moderator.

34. sandman67
the thought that monarchy provides unity is completely unfounded and incoherent esp in the present socio-economic and political context of our country.so,why does nepal need to re-institute monarchy and be a hindu kingdom,how will that help us towards being a peaceful and economically flourishing nation?

35. Budabaaje
To #30: Well, the question is, if monarchy does not provide a symbol of unity, then what else will? NC, UML, Maoists, Pashupatinath? What's the better option? A "symbol" of unity is just that. A symbol. A point of reference. It doesn't wave a magic wand and create unity by itself. It is just meant to aid that process. Given its long history, entwined with the history of the country, the monarchy is the best institution to provide this "point of reference". That's the point.

Problem is that republicans like yourselves just have an incurable paranoia and hatred towards the monarchy. And therefore, even an institution that could be useful for the country is being treated as shabbily as it is! The problem in Nepal is not the monarchy, it is you, republicans!

Republicans are the biggest Opportunists in the country because they used the violence and terror of the Maoists to illegitimately get rid of the monarchy. They could never have done it themselves without their unholy alliance with the Maoists. And now all of us Nepalis are paying the price of this "unholy alliance"! You republicans are the problem in our country, not the solution!  


36. arun

Yes I want the monarch back. All the political parties have miserably failed to deliver.



37. Arthur
What a fascinating mindset in #31 - the monarchy is such a wonderful symbol of unity that it has united republicans in in hating it!

Another fascinating mindset in #27-#28. In gratitude for the Army and the King having surrendered without a last attempt at massacring the people, they should be allowed to rule again. Anything else is "unjust"!

For Nepal tourism year there should be a special museum established in which such people could be kept as exhibits for tourists to gaze at in astonishment.


38. Rabindra Maharjan
Good piece of article Biraj.
I am confident that it has opened the eyes  wide for a while.
The Monarchy was not thrown out by the Nepali people so most of the Nepali people still have a big space in their hearts for Monarchy.However, the Kings are the humans who are born to make history not do any other businesses to make money.The kings Dont need any money or property as their wishes are fulfilled by the state.
They should be engaged more in social and developmental activities at all times.
Better late than never.

Do you think the Monarchy will revive while the Ex King and the members of the royal family are not interested  for their safe return?
The ex King in his recent Tv interview also mentioned that he has no intention of getting involved in politics.

just a thought.

kudos to you for your article written on a different perspective Biraj.


39. concerned citizen (II)

It is interesting to note that this article seems to have generated as much of an assorted response as that the author claims the people of Nepal hold towards the Monarchy, with one particular disgruntled reader(nicedreamUSA) who seems to have gotten so riled by the article that he decided to try throw some cowdung the author's way too for good measure, perhaps all the way from the USA.

My personal take on the article is that the author doesn't seem to be advocating that the Monarchy be given a political role at all, or even supporting it and simply seems to be stating the obvious repercussions of leaving it and its followers disgruntled. Perhaps the author leaves the interpretation of what kind of cultural role the Monarchy could be assigned to unite the Nepalis to the reader's imagination.

Nonetheless, the varied responses to the article itself suggest that this is not a issue to be discarded nonchalantly and that it still evokes strong sentiments, both positive and negative among Nepali people. The people of Nepal have a right to decide even on the fate of the Monarchy, perhaps through a fair electorate . It is high time a selected bunch of people quit deciding everything for the Nepalis, be it by the tactics of bullying, or exclusion.



40. BILL FRIDAY
1. I think it is neither good for the Monarchy to try to come back nor it is good for the people to bring Monarchy back. 

2. For people of Nepal - Monarchy cannot help develop Nepal for the pace you need. It has some inherent limitation in the context of Nepal and you have already experienced it for more than two hundred years. 

3. For Monarchy - Royal Palace is more a place to enjoy Monarchy than a place to care for the people. After all you are not going to be the King or Queen of Great Britain. So, why do you want to be the King again. Read a Lonely Planet Travel Guide and find the place where you can enjoy your Royalty and Peace of Mind and there are many places in the World.        


41. Birdhoj T.

Absolutely no to monarchy. Shah kings were only for a certain groups. They did nothing to janajatis. I am from Tamang ethnic group and I see no reason for monarchy to return. It did more harm to my group than good. I will fight tooth and nail to oppose the monarchy and imposing extreme Hindutw in Shiv Sena BJP style. However, if Gyanendra and his cohorts can give reasons how they were also for my group in the past, then I will come back to have a dialogue, otherwise, no to monarchy. I see absolutely no reason for a Tamang to support the monarchy's return. Desite worshipping the king, the Tamangs were harmed the most in 240 years of the Shah dynasty. Let the monarchy RIP.

If Gyanendra is so much interested in serving people, turn his Soaltee Hotel into a trade school and be a candidate in the next election from the capital and let us see!! Bring Tulsi Giri and Kirtinidhi Bisth and Kamal Thapa gang to advise him and have a palace rasputin to find out an auspicious moment for it.


42. wtf

@#40: I wonder what that means:

" After all you are not going to be the King or Queen of Great Britain. So, why do you want to be the King again."



43. Thurpunsich
The writer is confused at best and glib at worst.

From the time Nepal got independence from the Rana autocracy to the dethroning of Gyanendra Shah, monarchy was anything but political. This was most notable during the reigns of Mahendra, Birendra and Gyanedra. That was when Nepali people were saddled with partyless Panchayat, draconian Gau Pharka, staged Referendum, handpicking of prime ministers, Royal coup that removed duly elected prime ministers twice (BP Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba). Author's glib commentary about monarchy as not being a political institution is revisionist at its core. It was a 100 percent political institution.

Author's confusion is quite clear for the reader to see--a cultural role in "New Nepal" for the ex-monarch to keep the country united? I'm sure the author, a poli-sci student, knows that an "institution" is nothing but a set of rules (written) and norms (unwritten). The only institution that will keep the country united is the Constitution which will spell out in black and white what citizens will be allowed to do and what they will not be allowed to do, including maintenance of territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Evidently, the author is influenced by Cornell's poli-sci emeritus professor Benedict Anderson's concept of "imagined nation". But that metaphor is hardly applicable for Nepal for the singular reason that Nepal is not a "nation". It is a nation-state of multiple nations within a state--the mother of all reason for the need of political institution to keep them all united. So, the author's assertion that monarch, as a cultural entity, will keep the country united holds no water.

Nepal's problem is political. An institution of monarchy that was confused between its political and cultural role can have no role in the future of Nepal. 




44. Thurpunsich
Correction: meant to say "monarchy was nothing but political".

45. Danny Birch
To claim that the monarchy isn't a political force is just defying reality. People are sick and tired of the Nepal bandh, hartal jan adolan type of rule. Face it, you are worried about "foreign" influence, but what is communism and what is parliamentary democracy? Are they not both "foreign?" Also admit that there would never have been a modern Nepal if not for the unification that was accomplished by the monarchy. If you think the the Congress Party, the Communist Party and the Maoist Party are Nepali, again you are defying reality. They are all of foreign origin and were originated, initiated and organised by foreign powers. Lastly, even the most ardent supporters of so-called "multi-party democracy", would do well to recognize and ponder why Nepal was so much better off as a Hindu Kingdom than as a supposed democracy. Can anyone claim that life is better now than under the Shah Bamsha?

46. OhComeOn!
Firstly,  it would be risky to equate the crowds seen on Gyanendra's visits as support for the restoration of the monarchy. As the writer himself acknowledges, curiosity, albeit about a dethroned monarch,  can be a crowd puller - whether it be in Jumla or Janakpur. 

Secondly, the article is short on specifics. How do you 'culturally engage' an ex-King? What will Gyandenra do as a cultural King that he is not already doing as an ex-King?  Cultural engagement sounds like a  cover for advocating a restoration of the Monarchy.

Thirdly, the idea the ex-King has been used by foreign powers to further their interests and that is the reason to bring him back is preposterous. That would be like advocating Paras  be made king so that he might just perhaps shut out the  demons inside him and stop his drunken rampages. If Gyanendra has been acting on the behest of foreign powers or allowing them to use him,  then the solution to that problem is to investigate him and put him on trial for sedition and treason - not restore him to the throne! To do so would be a total cop out and that is what this article in essence seems to be doing. 


47. Satyajeet Nepali

@Arthur #37: Any sensible reader can tell that I've never said the King and Army should "rule again". Such a charge is just another example of the devious Maoist methods of twisting the truth to fool and deceive the people.

What I am saying is that the Nepali people have been fooled into believing that an *alliance* between two allies is a "peace agreement". It is not. A true peace agreement should include *all * "warring factions", not just the "allies". Since Nepal's peace process did not include the King/Army it has not delivered peace. For example, isn't the sticking point today the issue of Maoist integration? If the King/Army had been involved in the peace agreement in 2006, this issue (along with many others) would have been covered and resolved then. But they were not consulted at all, and instead an agreement between allies (SPA + M) was unjustly declared as the "peace agreement". Due to this structural fault, the peace process has failed today! 

As we go forward, it is important to correct this mistake. All sides should be involved in a *true* peace process. Only an all-inclusive process will be just and can deliver lasting peace.

The peace process of 2006 was unjust. Truth be told, it is nothing but a BASTARD CHILD of Opportunism (parties) and Violence (Maoists) delivered by the mid-wifery of Foreign Intrigue (India). It's unbelievable that a process that has *deception* at its very core will ever deliver justice or peace. That process has failed, naturally.

Instead of endless talks and bargaining it needs to be given the burial (or cremation) it deserves. The new, and true, peace process should begin with REFERENDUMS on a number of major issues, including the monarchy. That's the way to achieve a true, inclusive and lasting peace.



48. Satya Nepali

…and as for "massacres", no surprise that you, Arthur, should bring it up. Bloodshed, mayhem, murder and massacre, after all, are what the Maoists "live" for! That's precisely what they'd hoped for (or planned for) during JA-II, isn't it? Bet you and your comrades were inconsolably disappointed that the King and Army didn't deliver what you'd so desperately wanted. Tsk, tsk. Believe it or not, not everyone, not even "feudalists" like the king, is as enchanted with blood and massacre like you people are!



49. manoj subedi
This is senseless. Plllleease.......no king or anything. This comes from studying politics in Nepal and Australia and seeing things from the outside. The monarch is a parasite although we do have to give credit that his family formed the current Nepal Janta.  Always there is thannnkks to PNS.  Pllleassse at the same time we have to remeemmber that our region was made of many regional kings, princes, princess, chiefs of all our ethinicc groups. Just Ktm vally had 3-4 little kingdoms. The shahs completed raped all the ethinic cultures and their languages, heritage and did very little in return.  there is no need for cultural king. What culture does her represent?

50. Makes sense
Symbol of unity?? the 10 yr war has thoroughly exposed this institution as benefactor of the elite while systematically marginalizing the rest. Monarchy's only consistent support is its own Kshetriya coterie of army elite, feudal rajabadis and some family ties in India. Its other beneficiary the Bahuns got too big for their shoes and finally succeeded in overthrowing it. In effect its really a racial war (as it always has been throughout human history), the natural tendency of "us vs them" and not trusting anyone outside your own. It will always remain this way esp in a diverse society like Nepal. 

This brings into question the very sustainability of statehood of Nepal. Example if I am a person from a ethnic community, I will question the very core framework of statehood with which I have been bound. I will think why should I identify myself with a state who wants to rule over me with the false rhetorics of nationalism that only end up serving the interests of the rulers. I would rather be a part of/ally with another state if it can guarantee preservation of my community, culture and give me a fair level playing field with constitutional guarantees.

India must be overjoyed in ethnic assertion of Nepalese, which have divided and weakened us. It looks more and more obvious we will either eventually be gobbled up or be kept in this state of rut.

After all everything is fair in love and war, so is in statecraft.


51. nepalidiot

@anonymous My personal view is that "Prithvi Narayan Shah" was a "King". During those days, it was the "duty" of "King" to invade neighbouring states and keep enlarging boundaries. That is what "Greeks", "Romans" & "Mughals"did. So, to me Prithvi Narayan Shah is not a "visionary". He did what he was expected to. Though we cant deny that it was because of him that a poweful state of "Gurkha" came into existence which now stands as our country "Nepal.

I think it was because of "Ranas" that Monarchy in Nepal lasted so long. Lets not make assumptions that if only East India Company had not made us sign "Sugauli", or if only Gurkhas had not been faithful to Britishers. This all would make up other big hypothetical stories.

I completely agree with "Makes Sense" here. I think in the days to come we will end up being used, misused and also abused by our so called friendly neighbours (I mean both of the big brothers). The politics of religion, caste, ehnicity would get worse.

I feel we genuinely lack smart "beurocrats" and "diplomats" beside our political leaders.

 



52. Jango
To suggest "the institution of monarchy is not a political one" is absurd and defies history. Kings have been involved with politics since the founding of the country. They have been politicking overtly for much of that time and covertly when the constitution has restricted their power. There is no institution in the country's history that has been more political than the monarchy.

Also, what makes anyone think Gyanendra Shah  will remain a cultural monarch if the cultural monarchists have their way? A cultural monarchy of sorts was proposed when the  late Girija Koirala brought up the idea of an 'infant King' which then King Gyanendra turned down flatly. Remember "I prefer to be a constructive monarch" ? Cultural monarchy can only be a pretext and precursor to a restoration of  the King's power in some form or shape no matter how diluted the powers of a cultural king may be.

The monarchy is history. It has been abolished, the people have established themselves as the masters of their own destiny and the future of the country is better as a result of it, even though the present might be a bit of a struggle.  It is time to move on to more pressing issues like law and order, constitution writing, economic development, education, health care etc and bury this part of our past behind us.



53. Arthur
Satyajeet Nepali #47,

You keep saying exactly the same thing. Just because nobody replies to you does not mean that others agree or that what you say actually makes sense to people who do not have the same mindset as you.

No democrat and no republican can accept that the Army and its King have any say whatever as a party to any peace agreement.

Only rulers enter into political agreements.

Because you believe the Army and King should rule, an agreement among opponents of their rule to overthrow them can never be "just" for you.

Only if they agree to be overthrown can they be overthrown!

But nobody gets overthrown because they agree to it.

As for referendum, I said before that it is a great step forward for royalists like you to be demanding a referendum on repupublic, federalism and secularism. Previously you would have simply tried to kill your opponents because monarchy and centralism are ordained by God. Welcome to the 21st century!

Just because you are now able to at least use democratic words does not mean that there is any significant support for your demands.


54. sameer
It is useless to fight over something that is not going to happen. Monarchy is over for Nepal. Period.  We all wanted that, now we just have to live with it.  The new palace has already shifted to Delhi and we have new maliks. Sorry to disappoint you.  Instead, focus on telling these useful idiots --Prachand/Baburam, Madhav/Jhallnath, and Sushil Koirala/Deuba-- to shape up and start behaving like sensible leaders. Otherwise, we all will be paying a larger price. 


55. hhss
this is machaevallian, there like..

56. toksang
Yeah: Down with Monarchy, we have had enough of them.! it's time to move on.


57. landline
I am taking bets that in 5 years Nepal will become South Asia's Yugoslavia. Parts of Nepal will be absorbed into India. Some parts may remain independent but will be dependent on India or China. Some of these independent bodies may vote to invite G Shah and his children to be their royalties. By 2015, the present-day Nepal will be described as "the country formerly known as Nepal or TCF-KAN". The Yugoslavian bodies are getting on fine. Why won't we after the break up? Forget making peace. Nepal in piece in 2015 is better than Nepal in peace in 2010. 

58. chasing_che
i have just finished reading "FORGET KATHMANDU" by Manjushree Thapa.and  I hate nepalese monarchy now more than ever...all the fuss that is going on right now is result of the incompetent and highly over rated king and his impotent ,self declared intellectual, courtiers.
neither they did anything nor let others do anything....same is the case with these so called democratic parties....we need development not freedom...


59. Harka

Because I see so many comments on this article, please allow me to ask slightly related question:

Why did the Republic Day Medal Awarding Committee bungle it?

Gachhedar (DPM), Rawal (CA defeated candidate Home Minister), former bureaucrats (that means full of incomepetance and lack of home work) and a former Police Officer consisted of the Medal Awarding Committee.

INCOMPETENCE is painted all over the head of this government. Could competent Rajendra Dahala, former Himal Khabar Patrika editor, and now President's advisor not have spotted the anomalies in time to save the government and President from such an embarassing situation? What was Nepal Ratna for? What did he do to deserve it? Even Sujata said she would not accept it on behalf of her father. Who is in the government?

All commentors: don't you see MKN is not just a lame duck but an .......

He does not even know how to write his resignation. Raghuji, please help him. No mohor is needed to be placed this time as MKN did to Gyanendra.

In my view, all those who were in the Committee to select the medals to be awarded to should be barred from any medals or a government appointments in future.

By the way, why take the medals back only from Durj Kumar Rai and Kuber Rana? Why not from Katuwal too? They are all included for action in the Rayamajhi Commission report to suppress the JA-2.



60. Arthur
Harka #59, your comment may be more closely related to the comments about this article "Engaging the monarchy" than is obvious.

This government cannot avoid such "blunders" because all its hopes rest on support from the monarchist elements like Katuwal to threaten the Maoists.

Articles in Nepali Times promoting a "cultural" monarchy and medals for people like Katuwal all have the same roots. They have no public support and so need support from the monarchists as well as India.


61. Satyajeet Nepali

Arthur #53: I don't care if no one responds to what I say or if there's no (visible) support for it. I'm not here to win a popularity contest. The amount of support for an argument, or lack thereof, is not necessarily the correct measure of its validity or legitimacy. I am interested in being honest and speaking the truth, no matter how unpopular it may be. Truth does not change with the weather. So if I'm saying the same thing, it's because I'm consistent and honest (more than what many can say for themselves).

And the truth is, Nepal's so-called "PEACE PROCESS" IS FAULTY. It was not meant for peace and it wasn't in the long-term interest of the country/people. It was only in the short-term interests of 3 parochial and politically-motivated actors: Maoists, parties and India. It was a vehicle for these 3 to gain power by eliminating the monarchy. This purpose has been achieved. But as it wasn't really meant for peace and development, it's no suprise that it hasn't delivered on these. Thus the so-called "peace agreement" may rightly be called the "republican alliance". But to to call it a "peace agreement" is DECEPTION of the highest order against the Nepali people. It's an insult not only to our intelligence, but to our very being.

A peace process can only be successful if it is just and inclusive. The Treaty of Versailles after WW-I, like the peace treaty of Nepal, was made among allies. It was unjust and non-inclusive. And it failed abysmally by laying the groundwork for WW-II. By contrast, Nelson Mandela ensured that the South African peace process was more inclusive and just, and it has provided much better results.

We, in Nepal, still have a chance to correct the mistake we've made in 2006. We still have the chance to make our "peace process" inclusive and just. Going to the people for REFERENDUMS is the best way to make it inclusive and just. Why those who truly want peace and development in Nepal should be against REFS is beyond me. It simply raises quesiton marks as to their true intentions.

And lastly, all that crap you say about me wanting King/Army rule is, for the umpteenth time, UNTRUE. It is simply your devious Maoist method of using scare tactics to deceive the people from seeing the truth. You're just scared people might actually pick up on the kernel of truth in my comments, so that crap is the best you can do to try to put them off-scent. Keep trying. I'm sure ppl will eventually come around.

...quite honestly, I do not even think that a REF will succeed in reviving the monarchy. (So repubs like yourselves who're dead against it, amuse me no end). But REFS should be held anyway because it is the right thing to do, and will be in the best interests of the country. 



62. Daniel Gajaraj
"People  without creativity build dead institutions."-J.krishnamurti. Awake.arise,...  ... learn.The road is difficult, crossing is as the  sharp edge of a razor. Kathopanishad III. A crown is no cure for a headache.He that is hated of his people,cannot be counted a king.Finally ,when a king makes mistakes,all the people suffer.says the Chinese proverb.

63. jange
Do medals matter any more?

Did they ever?


64. NewTrend
Nicely written article.  It is true that remanants of Monarchy still remains in Nepal as the author points out to the turnout of people during his visits.  It is also true that the Monarchy has been thrown without due process but one cannot also deny that revolutions around the world has thrown similar regimes out of the system.  In the context of making a new republic constitution in Nepal it is out of the question to involve the Monarchy.  It is this dillema the author points out which seems very realistic.  If the Monarchy has always seeked power then as the recent turn of events he will seek power but the author rightly says that Monarchy is seeking power in wrong idealogies that could probably threaten peace and prosperity of Nepal.  Thus, it would be wise for the present coalition to engage him culturally to disengage the practice of Monarchy to seek power and therefore distabilize the republic.  On another note there shouldn't be any reason why the Monarchy whose ancestors shaped the current Nepal be given its due respect.  If the current coalition in Nepal can make someone like Madhav Kumar Nepal who lost in the election the PM of Nepal, only they can figure out a way to involve the Monarchy culturally or otherwise.  The author has no doubt presented us with a convincing argument, due to the role of International players in Nepali politics also it seems imperative that all actors should be given space in Nepali politics.

65. Tashi Tamang
A king who believes in gaining power by sacrificing kalo bhoka and ranga at the shaktipeer, I mean a king who believes in blind faith by making lots of sacrifices when in the process of political struggle but finally failed after his wrong move by not shaking hands with seven party! I mean saath dhal! and finally Mao got in and he got kicked out of Naranyanhiti durbar.  So, now do the Nepalese again want that king who failed to stick with democratic norms?

Nepal only had a golden era during rules by Buddhist kings, specially during the Licchavi kings, at that time Nepal was like a heaven on earth. One can understand the reality if one carefully analyze the genuine history of Nepal. If Nepal had been ruled by a wise kings, Nepal would be in better shape at present.

Engaging Monarch in Nepali politics will bring more turmoil, it is too late for Gyanendra to come back! 


66. S B Bisht
the relevance of the article can be gauged by the number of comments it has generated. obviously, a thought provoking piece by biraj. thought provoking as in food for ,thought.


67. Harka

Nepalis have put the monarchy into the museum where it now rightfully belongs to. Monarchy was fully biased and it was not for all Nepalis. It was good only for a handful of "assay passay", advisors, priests, relatives and army bigwigs, and of course, their families. It fell with its own load on the head and body. The Ranas created, monopolized  and perpetuated a jungle raj for a century with the incompent raja on the showcase and with the tacit and explicit help of colonolists British ruling next door. Only those who had been a recipient of the monarchy juice extracted from the poor janata would want to revive the monarchy proven nicompop and useless hitherto. 

That said, is the insistence of the UML and NC concrete plan from the Maoists into the army integration for stalling MKN's resignation is their plan or these two ruling parties in the govrnment is doing so because outside (read prabhu and extra constitutional probhus like UN and western countries)??? 

It appears MKN is so willing to listen to prabhus in his last days to prolong his incompetnet administration.



68. Slarti

Utter nonsense. Some of the arguments are cooked up sorry saga of discrimination that did not exist anywhere other than in the minds of hollow communists. Others, take it as an opportunity to take cheap shots at Hinduism. The danger of the right and hindutva ideologues is being waved about without understanding the values that these groups stand for.

Monarchy has to come back and it will. I will be interesting to see who manages to stop the inevitable.



69. Sargam
I'm not trying to pile it on. Nepalese, how much you folks like guff. Why don't you bring forth all gargoyle of the past? That makes a good chat!

All you churn out is so much mind-bogging that you do not see the mistakes for yourselves.

It will evidently create some more cracks and fissures in this fragile Nepalese society. And there will be none to profit out of it because till then you 'd finish by killing each other in a civil war of your own making.

There is nothing more to dig into!?!


70. Budabaaje

Yes, monarchy should come back. All Nepalis have the right to decide the fate of an institution whose history is as long as the country itself.  Republicans are just afraid of referendum because they know secretly that they will lose!



71. Arthur
Satyajeet Nepali #61,

There is a kernel of truth in your argument. It is obvious that only one of the parties that agreed to an agenda of Constituent Assembly, republic, federalism and secularism really and consistently supports that agenda. For the others who agreed it was merely a deception.

But it is absurd to imagine the struggle in Nepal now is primarily over the monarchy. As you mentioned, a referendum would not result in restoration of the monarchy. If the struggle was still about monarchy then of course republicans would support your demand for a referendum in order to finally put an end to monarchist hopes.

But the simple reality is that since the elections that resulted in a Constituent Assembly in which only 5 people supported the monarchy, it just isn't a relevant issue for the mainstream in Nepal.

The struggle now is between the mainstream that really does want democracy, federalism and secularism and the parties that only pretended to while getting rid of the King who had put them in prison. Monarchists are even more irrelevant in that struggle than the other forces opposed to the new mainstream.

Whether it is in the form of advocating a "cultural" monarchy like the article or demanding a referendum, it is simply a distraction from the real issues being fought out in Nepal. The chatter about such matters among english speaking representatives of the old Nepal, whether still in Nepal or abroad, merely reflects their irrelevance to what is actually happening in Nepal as the parties of deception further isolate themselves from the mainstream.


72. Manik

#63. You have been consistent of your views man, as has been Arthur PERSISTENT!

I put a shroud on the points you lost in your popularity Arthur! i know u have been busy counting points. it gives me a little sense of the man you are. thuiiikkka!



73. nepaliketi
 Enough of Nepali MCP attitude, let's do away with the King and all his male brethren and install the Queen instead, or how about Himani, she is intelligent, poised, apparently can do some pretty athletic stuff like horse-riding and is known to be an expert in firearms and is a great supporter of social causes and is pleasing to the eyes to boot, our very own version of Princess Diana without all the controversy. Any takers, am sure Paras will have a heart attack if he hears of this...

74. Harka

Those who argue in favour of returning the monarchy, can you show me what good it has done for the common people (not for those lingering around the palace, so called high caste and chamchas and relatives, but for the majority of the common Nepali people)?

The good thing about Hinduism is that one can practice Hindutw without a phoney monarch dubbed as the incarnation of lord Vishnu.

The monarchy has done NOTHING, zilch for the common Nepali in its 240 years. Only those associated with the monarchy have benefitted from it. It is only because of the extreme tolerant behaviour of the Nepali people that monarchy lasted as long.

At this juncture when the country is fully engaged in writing a republican constitution, the talk of monarchy's return is only a distraction being caused by the beneficiers of the monarchy. Again, let the monarchy RIP.

I know many of the people who are used to getting the sauce and honey from the monarchy will miss it even more in the coming days and months and thus their voice will rise again in hunger for the honey.

If you are not happy with the functioning of the political parties and leaders, we should all work together to let them know in a way that teaches them a lesson. Bringing monarchy back is not the answer to the ills of the politicians.



75. Consolidation

I don't care for Bista's quote of Benedict Anderson as a basis to his article.
I think we need to question theory that denies the very reality that it exists in.. While we are questioning how imaginary the notion of a nation is, I think we also need to question how imaginary Anderson's existence is that he expects his imaginary relationship with his nation to be representative of everyone's relationship with their nation. And for that matter, how dare Anderson conjecture an ideology that he expects all his readers to take seriously though he has not personally heard, known nor met all of his readers. Anyone who insults me by considering my existence and my ideas to be an imagination has no business trying to represent my perspective. 

Benedict Anderson says a nation 'is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion'.
As far as the other parts of the article, this whole notion that "we better include so and so in the political process because if we don't, they may make trouble for all of us" seems to be at the root of the Nepali mentallity in politics. I suppose that is why the Maoists decided to make trouble. And they were right. Now they are smack in the middle of the political process. Now, it seems that the writer is suggesting that Maoists are in the center and that Gyanendra is not. So maybe we should include Gyanendra in the political process before he pulls a "Prachanda" by making trouble in Nepal, albeit, Maoist style. Hey while we're at it, let's make a merry-go-round that just keeps shuttling trouble makers from the the outside to the center of power and maybe we will have peace in Nepal. Is this what the writer is suggesting?



76. Manish

 King Gyanendra is smarter than anyone else in Nepali politics. I do not say this lightly. He carries a 250-year old institution on his back: he is well-read; he has travelled extensively around the world; he is well-informed and he has extensive, high-level contacts, both at home and abroad, particularly in India and in China. No one in Nepal has that kind of access and rapport. As far as the home front is concerned, he knows the country's political landscape very well. 

Also, monarchy itself can serve to tackle the worse of an elected representatives that were unable to be addressed in the conflicts seen for a tenure of previous one year.



77. Meteor
I was one of the peoples who supported the Maoists and political parties during the 19 day movement.  These days I feel guilty that I supported them.  For what?  To see what is happening now.  at the time I felt the king did wrong ...but now it seems that all along he was alwyas in favor for a sovereign nation.  These political parties are giving the country away.  I personally want to see the king back and our sovereignty retained.

78. wtf

#76. I think you've hit the nail. People often forget what a well-meaning , smart monarch can do. People ask questions like 'what did monarchy do in the last 240 years' well, what have the powers post-monarchy done? rather they seem to already have undone 40 years of development in my point of view, give them a few more years and they will do away with the next 200 years...there will be no more electricity, no development, no schools, no factories...only unions, 'high level' committees and random finger pointing. Even a basic thing like electricity, don't you think it's a sham to not have it for half of 24 hours?  So what is being done about it? other than blaming the monsoon?...oh! i remember, some talk about bringing in deisel powered generators for the 'short term'. This 'short term' is the problem here. There is no 'long term' politician. Everythig to do with them is a '5 year term till election time', at least you could hope the Monarchy to be above and beyond that and genuinely interested in a broader cause. Is that too much to hope? looking at the current state, I think not.

What did we let the monarch do? How much time did we give him? If I remember he openly invited the 'struggling' democratic parties endless time to come to the table and get the election going...people often forget the hidden agendas these parties have, and just see the carrots that they dangle. Now, how much time are we giving to these parties? evrytime time someone messes up, we say, ok, 'lets see' what the other guy does, and so the cycle continues.

A well meaning monarch balances geo-politics, and not everyday politics. Monarchy was the buffer that prevented fissures now being caused in the name of religion and caste. Lets not even talk about bringing in funds and development at the high level, exposure to Nepal. But again, I am only talking about what a monarchy can do, not necessarily what was done.



79. Examples

For those who said that the monarchy could not have a symbolical/cultural role but only a political one, I suggest checking the powers of the emperor of Japan, as well as of most of European kings.

Monarchy has proven to be a unifying force: UK, Italy and Belgium are outstanding examples. Belgium, for example, has survived for almost 2 centuries mainly thanks to the existence of the monarchy. Italy was forged by the monarchy and the loyalty to it helped it stay together. Since the republican institution (established in 1946) has never been seen with pride, more and more autonomous regions and powers have been created, to the point that political parties are now advocating secession.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Luxembourg are among the best-functioning countries in the world and they are all constitutional monarchies. So, I'll give the monarchy a shot.

Personally, I'd like to see Hridayendra as king, with Himani as regent. I wouldn't restore Gyanendra, as is reputation is not good among some groups. When you have a bad king, it's better to restore a new one. We just have to look at history (and we do not need to be political scientists, as someone said before): Pedro II of Brazil was enthroned after his father, who was an absolutist, was overthrown. He was seven when he became king and ruled for a staggering 59 years. This period is considered as the most glorious of the whole history of Brazil and Pedro II is regarded as the greatest ruler (both among kings and presidents) of the country.

I'd give these facts a thought before crying against the monarchy and praising the wonderful republican regime.



80. Nepali in the UK

Ha!!!Ha!!!Ha!!!

Absolutely brillaint to see all this bickering and the hatred.

Of Course we have the best democracy in the world where we are still ;what's the populist word(infant).(so we can pretty much screw up the country while we learn to do it )Our leaders are full of vision and direction and proud of the country.AND ABSOLUTELY FAULTLESS!!!

It is all the fault of the chettis,isn't it...

Enjoy New Nepal



81. Battisputali
"Of more worth is one honest man to society...than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.:- Thomas Paine


LATEST ISSUE
638
(11 JAN 2013 - 17 JAN 2013)


ADVERTISEMENT



himalkhabar.com            

NEPALI TIMES IS A PUBLICATION OF HIMALMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED | ABOUT US | ADVERTISE | SUBSCRIPTION | PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF USE | CONTACT