Abishkar Shrestha,
Grinnell Iowa, USA
Yet again, one read about an idea that everyone is expected to take at face value-the monarchy is the symbol of national unity. In 'In the king we trust.' (#158), CK Lal has failed to reason this is so. And I haven't found anyone so far who has provided a convincing argument in its favour. The conclusion one can draw from such an assertion is that Nepalis cannot live with each other and will be at each other's throats without a royal figure to hold them together. This not only denies the people of Nepal the capacity for rational thought, it also makes a mockery of the idea of a Nepali nation since it follows that the ties that bind the people together are not social interactions and personal relations, but a supposed common reverence for a remote institution. Nepali-speakers in India have proved that this need not be the case. That there may be a substantial number of people who have faith in kingship cannot be denied. But the question is how can a monarchy that identifies so passionately with just one religion, one caste, one language and even one region to the exclusion of all the others in the country, be expected to fulfil the role of a 'symbol of national unity'?Deepak Thapa,
Kathmandu