Dear Maoist,

what nepal need is our own identity, strategies, ideologies and political framework to build a healthy and prosperous nation. Democracy is the only universal ideal; everything else is inferior to it. communism, socialism, etc they only sound great but are not practical at all. if it were practical i will change my point of view in a heartbeat because it will be heaven for everyone. but the fact of the matter is they will sooner or later fail as a system because they don't work it's not practical. do i need to cite any examples?

Dear Birbhadra,
So what are our strategies,ideologies,identities and political frame work to build a healthy and prosperous Nepal.Democracy is undoubtedly the superior system of all.We have seen it in last fourteen years of our healthy democratic exercise.You are right communism and socialism etc they sound great but not practical.Well democracy did practically sound right all these years.I am patiently waiting for the examples you are citing here...
Please keep us update...

I think the mistake people make is that they equate DEMOCRACY with CAPITALISM! But I think the best system, the caring system, for Nepal would be the system where by the political arena is DEMOCRATIC but economically we need socialism!! If we can't setup something like that, Nepal will fail!!! Maoist, King, or the parties ... does not matter who has the political control, Nepal will continue to fail. We need a system where bueracracy and academics are separate from POLITICAL parties. Untill then even Pashupati Nath can't protect us!!

RBT
Ciao

Dear Birbhadra,

It gives me a sense of pride when I think of what SOME of my ancestors have fought for, the ideas they had of Nepal for Nepal. In retrospect, no matter if some of us question the intention and mode of such ideas, of the larger, I however, remain steadfast in my belief that it was for something genuine, larger and better. Your name reminds me of one such warrior/patriot in Nepal's forgotten history who directly and gallantly fought the foreign intervention and tried to preserve what was Nepal and Nepali-at that time in history.

The last 250 years of Nepal's existence has been a constant struggle to reassert itself in terms of its identity, culture and existence. If the ?greater Nepal? vision of P.N. Shah was a boon that defined us by a geographical boundary, a cohesive society and a consolidated identity, later on, it nevertheless turned into a curse that was used as a tool to reduce our identity to, well, the monarchy and nothing else. It seemed that our identity survived only with that of the prevailing monarch. Somehow Nepal and ?Nepalitva? was meaningless in the absence of a King. No matter how corrupt, insane and senseless the prevailing monarch happened to be, we were destined to accept him as our lord.

All the revolution or at least attempts for such in the past-- 2007, 2046-47, and Maoist?s 1996 have been to define a Nepali identity independent of monarchy. It has been to understand Nepal not only as Kathmandu but outside of it--the ?pahar?, ?bhitri-madhesh? and ?madhesh? that ACTUALLY exist outside of Kathmandu. It has been to understand and provide ?Nepaliva? not as hierarchical system of caste and ethnicity, culture of suppression/oppression and social injustices, but a universal and common playing field where everyone at least had access for a fair chance to succeed. This Birbhadra and more have been the goal and aim of most of the past and current revolutionaries.

You talk about the impracticality of other ideologies besides democracy; I propose a customized democracy for Nepal. Democracy in terms of multi-party system, freedom of thoughts, expression, speech etc., those that usually accompany ?freedom?. However, to truly uplift Nepal we need several smaller ?democracies? within a larger umbrella of a Democratic Republic of Nepal. We should import ideas that make sense to a common man-be it from a communist manifesto or a socialist agenda. We need to create economic programs and policies that penetrate to the bottom-most level of economic ladder, which if we were to import the western version of democracy and capitalism and it?s ?trickle-down-effect? would fail to make way enough. Likewise, we need to implement social reforms that provide incentive to the less unfortunate and most under-represented so that they stand a chance of competing in the forming and creating of a modern Nepal-one that is proud and conscious of its history, and progressive and optimistic of its future endeavors.

Well said! If I can add my voice to the chorus, it appears the present struggle in Nepal is a struggle between the forces of modernity versus those of neo-fuedalism. PN Shah, in his own times, was proof enough that those who don't keep up with the times languish in the dustbins of history. One can only hope that those who seek inspiration from him today don't forget this invaluable lesson.

To peace, pride and progress.

Mystichacker,
Is it possible?

izen,

I thought there was no I in Zen?that they were mutually exclusive, but again I could be mistaken.

Anyway, you ask if such theoretical ideas are possible to be converted into realistic operation. My opinion, for all its worth is that it is possible. What really matters is how the people are represented. If representation means simply generating votes by force/coercion/bribery or what have you, then such process beats its own purpose. And as we become more centralized?decisions made for people by people who have nothing to do with those people are of little or no utility and power exerted by them a futile exercise who could care less what the ramification of that would be. A decentralized government will provide a proper representation of its people?their problems, strengths and possible remedy, at the same time seek accountability in the event it is abused or misused.

Further, if you look at Nepal, the majority of its people are poor and un-educated. But they have slowly understood what the real cause of that is. They have taken initiative to pull themselves out of that dark abyss, as evident by their motivation to join the Maoist and fight the system. I cannot vouch for all, but I am sure the majority of them are in the movement for the right reasons and not just adventure. Invitation of an open participation and competition for all as practiced in western countries again means the access of the same handful of Kathmandu elites (because our standard of a leader is one who is educated, cosmopolitan etc..) who have been juggling the life and future of many Nepalis in the past and would continue to do so. Hence we go again in the same vicious downward spiral--one that can end us up in a much worse position than what we have now.

Mystichacker,
Personally I thank Sajha for being there and allowing us to discuss this matter.For the first time I am reading an un-biased view on current political scenarios on Nepal.Your words reflect my views on what should Nepal embrace for its long term stability and restoration of peace.
I wanted to personally e-mail you and thank you for being realistic about the ongoing political crisis.I am impressed with your views.Yes,indeed.
It is only the matter of whether it materializes within our lifetime.
P.S:iZen,surely is mutually exclusive...had something else in my mind while...not Zen buddhism...thanks for the note.
And I wish everyone reads you post..I seriouly do.
Thank you Mystichacker.

Dear Izen, captain H and Mystichacker,

thanks for your perspective. i really think sajha is a great place to discuss. intellectuals like you guys can really make a difference. at least in changing the mindsets of people and their point of views. this is great.

happy discussing!!!

raybati,

you cannot implement two different systems withihin one framework. you can't have both democracy and socialism. maybe your definition of socialism is different?

Dear Birbhadra, izen

Is it not ironic that the people who thought Nepal was not ready for a genuine democracy because the people outside of a select group (Kathmandu elites/Kathmandu valley) did not understand what it meant to be democratic and free hence were politically exploited, that those same people are now questioning the democratic merit now while those outsiders are fighting day and night for the idea that was planted in 1990? To draw an analogy, the US Declaration of Independence, well, declared that 'All Men Were Created Equal...', but the blacks at that time remained unequal. Why do you think such was the case? Because All Men Were Created Equal ONLY as long as they were white men. Or, much potent, that the blacks were not men enough to enjoy the benefit of such declaration. Although I peronally believe modern Nepalis are beyond such pretence, I thought it was relevant just for the sake of arguement and that perhaps would generate some genuine debate in this forum.