NEPAL politics: Now is the time to critically analyze the monarchy and democracy
By Dinesh Wagle on May 31st, 2005 in Wagle’s WebLog
Today’s issue of Kantipur has one of the most brilliant articles in it’s Op-Ed space. Written by Ramchandra Paudel, former speaker of the House of Representatives and jailed Nepali Congress leader, the article titled “Abhisapta Itihaaslai Ultaidiun” [Lets Revoke the Cursed History] explores the conflict between monarchy and democracy in Nepal.
“One day,” Paudel writes, “king Birendra questioned me while I was the speaker: ‘How to take constitutional monarchy in the context of country like Nepal?’” That was a very tough question. I answered with this question: ‘Your majesty, the country might be like Nepal or like United Kingdom or like Japan, shouldn’t the definition and usage of democracy be the same in 21st century?’ For some reasons king didn’t move forward this conversation. Kings talk symbolically, they don’t use much words.”
Paudel describes about another incident inside the palace. “Several palace men were gathered along with current king [then prince] at a party. I was the only outsider. For some reasons unknown to me, king and the Prime Minister [Deuba] were at another location. At that time, a no-confidence motion was registered against the government in the parliament and six ministers were in Bangkok. Several comments were dropped for that context. “Well, this is bahudal (multi-party democracy)â?¦we saw it. They were hitting hard against multiparty parliamentarian democracy.”
“I had to say something in the defense of the system.”Sarkar [probably addressed to the king or the then prince Gyanendra], I am also sad about this incident. This should not have happened. But our democracy is so young. Even in small and big countries in Europe and in UK, democracy has come through this kind of events. And what a coincidence! In the current house, three fourth of the members are from Congress and UML who fought for democracy. No one from that group have to be sent to Bangkok. Only those who were brought up in the 30-year-old Panchayat period. This should also be analyzed here. There were no answers to my counter-question.”
With these two incidents, Paudel, now in detention in Tahanu, argues that it was not democracy that failed in Nepal but the conspiracy of palace worked. In the democratic times, society was going ahead, in the progressive direction, he argues, but the palace was never easy with that progress. “Now is the time to critically analyze the democracy and monarchy,” he says.
This is one of the most argumentative, reasoned and stimulating articles I have ever read. I felt my blood circulating fast and energy coming up. As Paudel says at the end of the article, Nepal is waiting for a very powerful non-violent revolution to throw away this cursed history and sweep away all the dirt [that has been polluting this country for long time.]
Prominent journalist and activist Kanak Mani Dixit has translated the article into English. Read that here
Let Us Overturn This Accursed History
By Ram Chandra Poudel
When I was Speaker of the House, one day, the late King Birendra asked me, “How does one understand constitutional monarchy in the context of a country like Nepal?” I felt that this question carried some deeper meaning and replied in the form of a counter-question, “Your Majesty, in the 21st Century, whether it is a country like Nepal or Great Britain or Japan, should not the definition and function of democracy be the same everywhere?” For some reason, the king did not take the discussion further. In general, kings merely like to give indications of what they think rather than talk at length.
On another day, there was an event at the palace. In the western chamber of the Kaski Baithak, a meeting of high-level personages of the royal palace including the current monarch was happening. I was the only person from the outside. For some reason, the king and then prime minister were elsewhere. A no-confidence motion had just been introduced against the coalition government of the time, and some six ministers lacking in confidence had traveled themselves, or had been transported, to Bangkok in order to be absent during the vote. At the palace gathering, there was extreme criticism of this development. People were saying, “So, now we see what multi-party is all about. This is what it is, right, your democracy?” And so on.
I was in a difficult position, for extreme words were being used against parliamentary democracy. I had to speak up for the system. I said: “Your Highness, I too am extremely unhappy with this situation. This is something that should not have happened. But you must understand, our experience with democracy has been very short. England and other large and small nations of Europe only arrived at their present maturity after many unhappy chapters like the one we are experiencing. One more point is worth considering: how is it that not a single member of the UML or Congress, who fought for democracy and together make up three-fourths of the Parliament, has gone or been sent to Bangkok? How is it that those very persons who were groomed in the Panchayat system were the ones who have made it to Bangkok? This, too, must be analysed.”
There was no response to my challenge. But I did get a sense that the fury against the multiparty system had not abated in that chamber. An entire system of government was being tarred with the misdeeds of a handful. The only conclusion one could reach from the two incidents was that the royal palace had not been able to reconcile with the meaning of constitutional monarchy, and the palace people had not been able to shake off their prejudice against the multiparty system. The actions of October 4, 2002 and February 1, 2005 are based on this mindset. Since the hectic period when the Constitution of 1990 was being drafted till today, the royal palace has been constantly at odds with one all-important subject—sovereignty. Should sovereignty rest with the people or with the king? The royalists are determined that the powers of state should never get into the hands of the people and that the people should never be masters of their own sovereignty. This is the reason why games have been played since way back in 1950, to make popular politics unstable and to sabotage the democratic process. This is why the palace has given birth to so many villains over the years. This is also the cause for the break-up of political parties, the dissolution of governments and the games being played with the future of the people.
I do not say that there cannot be weaknesses in democracy, or that there will not be distortions in the operation of a democratic state. In fact, democracy is a system of government that learns from its mistakes and from criticism, an experiment that proceeds with constant practice. And that is how we were in fact progressing. We made a law against party-hopping, and applied that law. We strengthened the legislation against corruption. We gave teeth to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority. We made the laws that would serve as watchdogs on us, we had our own kind punished. We excused others who had done wrong in the past, in the spirit of forgive and forget. In politics, all had equal opportunity. Our democracy was correcting itself as it went along, with the goals of equity in development. We were all focused on finding solutions to the problems facing the nation through the Parliament. The committees in Parliament were active. They were intently examining the workings of the government at all levels, seeking out weaknesses. The courts were free. There was no pressure whatsoever put on constitutional bodies. The government itself was willing to be tied to discipline. Laws were being drafted to provide local autonomy in the spirit of decentralization, to take care of inadequate power delegation. But today all of these successes are being turned on their head.
Nothing made by humans can be without fault, and by the same token there can and will be faults in democracy as well. But among the systems of government the world has seen, democracy has the least faults. The weaknesses that crop up in the process of democratic governance tend to get addressed by the democratic process itself. This is what is so beautiful about democracy. And it was under the umbrella of democracy that we were moving on the road of tackling the challenges before society, on the road of creating a society marked by justice, freedom and equity. In terms of social security, we had established projects, corporations, foundations and development agencies working earnestly for the uplift of women, the dalit, the indigenous ethnic groups, the Madhesi communities, people in depressed regions, displaced persons, bonded labourers and other exploited categories. Consider the opportunities received by the languages of the tarai, midhill and himal regions to develop their own genius. Who can claim that the same opportunities were available during the earlier era, when the slogan was, “Eutai bhasha, eutai bhesh” (one language, one dress)?
In fact, a great transformation is happening in society. Whatever some may claim, when there was a people’s government there was a constant attempt to make “democracy” even more “democratic.” The country was taking sure strides forward. Village after village was getting lit up. Roads, electricity, water, schools, hospitals, telephone, were reaching the rural areas. People were experiencing some relief, and the living standard was going up. Statistics prove the point that poverty was on the decline. The GDP was up by five percent. The hillsides that had been denuded during the Panchayat era were once again becoming lush and green. There was a veritable revolution in the field of media. Notwithstanding the disruptions brought about by the Maoists, Nepali society was experiencing a full-scale transformation because of economic reforms, activism of civil society and the sense of empowerment amongst the population. The people from depressed regions and classes were feeling empowered, and the campaign was on to reach services to the most marginalized sections of the society. Amidst all this, at a time when we were gaining experience and correcting ourselves, why was our road blocked?
The kind of development we were promoting are not like the inventory of the king’s 100 days, where you find listed: “So many hens laid so many eggs, so many buffaloes were inseminated, so many vaccines were provided, so many persons were locked up and so many were let go.” What I say is that the king should also take responsibility for all that has happened since October 4, 2002. We, who believe in democracy, will take responsibility for the twelve years after 1990 and the eighteen months between 1959-60. The royalists should take the responsibility for the 220-22 years, the entire period after Prithvi Narayan Shah. Let us compare the two eras, and study the level of progress and regression in each. And in which era there was national betrayal. We will then also understand the sabotage that has brought the country down to its knees, and those responsible for it. The time has come to unflinchingly analyse the relative merits and demerits of democracy and monarchy.
There is talk now of rendering the press irrelevant. The attempts are underway to finish off the trade unions of civil servants and labourers. There are regressive amendments being made in the Press Act and the Civil Service Act. Exercises are underway to overturn the letter and spirit of the Constitution, through the application of ordinances in the absence of Parliament. Constitutional bodies are being rendered helpless. A royal commission on corruption control has been set up, with ill intent, to nullify the authority of the legitimate commission. The games played in filling the positions in the Election Commission and the National Human Rights Commission shed light on the true intention, which is to handicap all democratic institutions. Today, questions are being raised about the independence of the judiciary. Which authority today exercises more control, the military administration or the civilian administration? One must open one’s eyes and try to understand the direction in which this country is being pushed.
The king terms as unconstitutional the demands for the reinstatement of Parliament as the only way to bring back the Constitution derailed on October 4, 2002. Whereas the king himself is engaged in exercising the powers that are just not provided by the Constitution, is riding roughshod over the constitutional rights of the people. A king who is willing to finish off the representational system by putting even the existing Upper House in a coma for three full years likes to refer to the Constitution, even while trampling on all constitutional principles. The rampant application of Article 127, meant only for limited use to remove “difficulties” in the implementation of the Constitution, is making a mockery of the constitutional process. Where in this Constitution are there provisions for the king to get rid of prime ministers, appoint prime ministers, becoming himself the chairman of a council of ministers or appointing vice-chairmen? Who is engaged in the squashing of the Constitution, trying to convert it into a meaningless piece of paper? Is this how we are to understand the institution of constitutional monarchy?
While the attempt is to neutralize the Parliament as well as all constitutional democratic institutions, the world is being told that all this is being done to tackle Maoist terrorism and protect democracy. While this claim is being made for world consumption, in practice the Maoist issue is being used to strangle democracy. Is this how you confront terrorism, by sidelining democracy, filling the jails with all who plead for democracy, silencing the press, and demoralizing the democratic institutions? If in fact the intention was to protect democracy from terrorism, why was no effort made to have open discussions with democratic leaders, and why were the democratic governments of the past not given due cooperation? Why was there this willingness merely to watch the ramita, as if everything were a carnival?
How do we have this coincidence: on the one hand an attempt to destroy and upturn the democratic process under the pretext of tackling the Maoists, and other the other the insurgent leader Prachanda claiming back in the days of democracy that the Maoists had an “aghosit karyagat ekata” (undeclared working relationship) with the king. Was there some sense or logic in all of this? What kind of happenstance is this, that it is democracy that is targeted from both sides? If there is no conspiracy and in fact the intention is to save democracy from terrorism, then why were those very democratic minded politicians who were challenging terrorism targeted and herded into jails? Why was it necessary to make regressive amendments to the laws, and why was it necessary to destroy democratic institutions? Why was it necessary to restrict fundamental freedoms and civil rights? It is clear that the king only seeks the excuse to become an autocratic ruler. And it is for this purpose that there are different games being played and anti-people activities being organised.
All over the world, dictators destroy democracy in the name of nationalism and sacrifice the people’s rights in the name of development. But in reality, it is nationalism and national development that end up smashed. That is what has been happening here all along, the sacrifice of national interest for the sake of the regime’s self-interest, including clandestine signatures on dishonourable treaties.
Today, there is a new fashion to speak about terrorism or extremism. From the feudal rulers in the Gulf to Pakistan’s Musharraf, dictators rely on the fight against extremism to slake their own thirst for dictatorship. Today, Nepal is being made to stand in that same line-up. Those who believe in democracy are being jailed or finished off. As if to say, “The sheep with the sheep, and the goats with the goats”, the Nepali state with its altered character is being made to slide closer to countries with authoritarian systems. Our country is being distanced from the democratic world.
There tends to be an interesting collaboration between two opposing forces, those who seek to keep the people weak by keeping the state unstable, and those who try to keep the nation itself weak by keeping the politics unstable. The Nepali nation, the innocent Nepali people and the country’s democracy constantly get caught in this whirlpool, which is the invention of domestic and foreign conspiracies. This is why we have never been able to hold our head high. After all, what is the undisclosed truth behind the avatars of revolution who rise in the Himalaya with such loud reverberations, only to disappear like the morning’s dew? What, after all, is this Maobaadi “phenomena”? And what is one to make of the drama of divisions within its leadership even as we speak? What invisible hands are conducting this magic? The public is still kept in the dark regarding these games that are carried played out behind the curtain of Nepali politics. But today, the people want to know.
How long will the nation be waylaid by these games? How long will we allow ourselves to be cheated? Time and again, just when we think maybe progress is at hand, another whirlpool drags us down to the depths. Nepalis must investigate why, again and again, the path is blocked. In order to overturn this accursed history, in order to throw away the scum that has accumulated, Nepal awaits a forceful, bloodless revolution. For this, the political parties who have become agents of transformation themselves need a revolution within, for internal democracy and a change of outlook and image. The self-defeating antagonisms within the parties must also end. The dirt must be swept away.
(Congress leader Ram Chandra Poudel is in jail in Damauli, Tanahun district. This article first appeared in the Kantipur daily, Tuesday, May 31, 2005.)
20 Responses to “From Jail, Paudel Hits Hard Against Autocracy”
May 31st, 2005 at 11:53 am
This shows the intention of the autocrat gyanendra intention was to take handover to the satta.
May 31st, 2005 at 12:02 pm
And still the political parties wonder why the people donâ??t come out in their support
At a time when there is a lot of talk about the restoration of democracy and handing back leadership to the seven party alliance, let us remind ourselves what they were up to when they were in power. How can we forget:
1. We had 15 governments in 15 years.
2. Genuine statesmen were relegated to the sidelines as party bosses clawed their way to the top.
May 31st, 2005 at 12:15 pm
For these honchos, self-aggrandisement came first, the interest of the party second and national interest last.
4. Parliament was used as an arena to push personal interests not to fulfil electoral promises.
5. As soon as they came to power, party bosses started distributing posts and jobs as rewards of loyalty and not on merit.
6. They interfered with the administrative structure and politicised it so much that it became a haven for the corrupt and mediocre.
7. They paid lip service to democracy and abandoned nationalism.
8. “Democracy” became an end in itself, not linked to development.
9. Education was cynically abused through their student wings to further party interests.
10. Governance was characterised by lack of transparency and accountability.
11. State secrets were compromisedâ?? interest groups knew about cabinet decisions even before the state media announced them.
12. Nepotism, favouritism and corruption governed appointment of officials to key posts.
13. National assets were sold off at throwaway prices in the name of privatisation.
14. And how can we forget the foreign trips for medical treatment financed by the state and used for political horse-trading?
15. Parties colluded to use parliament sessions to sanction huge benefits to themselves paid by taxpayers.
16. Misleading citizens was developed into an art form. After having secretly signed the Tanakpur Treaty, it was ratified through parliament by calling it an â??agreementâ??.
17. Inconsistent utterances by the so-called democratic leaders have lent little credibility to party manifestos.
18. Parliament was abrogated time and again, with boycotts, walkouts and unruliness being the rule.
19. Despite talk of decentralisation, politics became even more capital centric, distancing elected leaders even further from the people.
20. Movement on social reform was so slow as to be imperceptible.
21. The proportion of higher castes in the civil service actually grew.
22. Frequent government change brought wild swings in policy and lack of continuity discouraging investors and partners.
23. Although corruption was democratised, top leaders were up to their necks in scandals: Dhamija, Lauda, Chase Air, China Southwest, Melamchi, Bakra Irrigation, teacher appointments.
24. Charge sheeted colleagues were given protection from the CIAA by political leaders in power.
25. When corruption became an issue it was turned into political vendetta and a witch hunt.
26. Democratic parties lacked internal democracy and sycophancy thrived. Dissenters were cast out into the wilderness.
27. Leaders even announced mid-term elections at the hint of opposition within the party, in the hope of garnering absolute majority.
28. Misusing state machinery to influence election results became the order of the day.
29. The police was politicised for electoral gain and political vengeance.
30. The use of criminal gangs for political activities elevated common thugs to the status of political figures.
31. Protests and bandas were the order of the day and were conducted with scant regard to inconvenience to the general public, the national economy and development.
32. The culture of political protests deteriorated into paralysing the education system, punishing the people to get back at political opponents in government.
33. Leaders who wantonly violated human rights, press freedom and civil liberties with impunity while in power talked of â??grand designâ??, â??regressionâ?? when out of it.
34. While in power they called the Maoists â??terroristsâ?? and tried to subdue them with force, but the moment they were out of power the same leaders didnâ??t hesitate to travel to India to meet senior Maoists.
35. When crackdowns were carried out, they were brutal and counterproductive, eg: Operation Kilo Sierra 2.
36. Political leaders are now trying to return to power on the back of foreign powers and donors rather than popular support. One has even gone to New Delhi to ask donors to stop aid to Nepal.
37. If that doesnâ??t work, they want to spark off a street unrest.
38. If that doesnâ??t work they are willing to come to power through the grace of His Majesty.
39. Every action of King Gyanendraâ??s is being labelled unconstitutional even though their demand of revival of parliament is even more unconstitutional.
40. After all this, the parties can only come up with a ragtag agreement promising peace and good governance in vague generalities. And still they wonder why there is no popular support for their anti-king agitation
May 31st, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Now the Nepalis have the opportunity to “define” DEMOCRACY as well as MONARCHY….
In the 50’s, after the 1ST DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION took a step toward democracy, the King decided that DEMOCRACY was not doing what the people or the Monarchy thought in the best interest of the people and Democracy was ended.
After much struggle led by the now aging leaders of the major parties, Democracy was restored in the 2ND REVOLUTION of 1990.
Now in 2005, many would argue before, the King again hoping to take advantage of the peoples’ disatification with the PERCIEVED CORRUPTION OF MANY PARTY LEADERS and OFFICIALS, suspended the democratic gains of the 1990-revolution.
The King now finds the Maoists at the door of Kathmandu, a government that will soon be without money for public-works, civil-workers, and the armed Police and Army.
The Monarchy also failed to see that the Democratic Parties would fight for a 3RD DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION..
If the Monarcy is to survive in any capacity and not like so many Kings, be thrown on the scrap-heap-of-history…. The King must stop his Feudal blunders and JOIN THE 3RD. DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION and INVITE THE MAOISTS TO THE PEACE TABLE !!
LONG LIVE A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC NEPAL & THE 3RD DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION………
WITH OR WITHOUT A KING!!
May 31st, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Kaji, how many governments were there in the last two years (since gyan. took control of the people: lok., surya, deuba, kg..)? i think kG should be praised for producing the highest rate of primministers in the world: one priminister every six months marvellous record! i think KG’s rate of the change of PM should be grater than his rate of diappearance of the people. the world should not call nepal the land of disappearance. Nepal should be known as the “land of KG’s PMs” (not the “land of disappearnce.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:26 pm
If these stuped corrupt politician and their hooligans student think they can fool nepali again they will get a are more fools then the nepali thought. They will be liched in street my people. These tretor politician and their hooligan student shoud be kicked out to India where they belong
May 31st, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Ramchandra Paudel had never in his life done a honest day work, he has all his life lived off by public donetion. And sone fools are talking about hin articel and some are puting them in blog. theis guys are all crazy.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Well said Raj, Politicans without having enough experience of handling Country will lead to nowhere. Now at least there is a king to rescue, imagine again we got democracy which is handled by politicans who themselves in reality are not adequately trained and much of the time keep themselves busy in fighting each other, only ‘Jana Gana Mana’ will be there to take care of them if KING is not in NEPAL . In my opinion in such a case Nepali Politicans will become POPPET of INDIA and I am readey to BET on this.
Tribal King Says:
May 31st, 2005 at 5:31 pm
When these people had time, they did nothing but enrich themselves. That is the reason why nobody trusts these people and no one believes in their crocodile tears. Serves these bastards right…keep on crying, lamenting about your stupid dreams turned sour…You had 20 million Nepalese in detention with your useless rhetoric and no work for 15 years and its your turn now to feel the heat…Best of luck and Happy Detention
May 31st, 2005 at 8:25 pm
This fellow who was made deputy prime minister and home minister did nothing to reslve the problem facing the nation. Actually, it was people like Poudel who are largely responsible for the state of the country today. Now, he writes articles. I bet, this is written by his secretary not by him.
May 31st, 2005 at 10:22 pm
I would like to thank dear Manisha for your interview in The Rising Nepal.Plz give some suggestion to Bihari Babu Udit Narayan Jha who has forgotten his nationality. Who use to say his native place is Bihar India.
June 1st, 2005 at 2:07 am
“Kaji, how many governments were there in the last two years (since gyan. took control of the people: lok., surya, deuba, kg..)? i think kG should be praised for producing the highest rate of primministers in the world: one priminister every six months!!”….
Raj you imbecile pig! Which world do you live in? Get your facts right. Its only been 4 months since KG took over, and you are already confused just like this Poudel guy.
June 1st, 2005 at 6:10 am
Everybody should understand that the kings and his feudal lackeys are the principal hurdles to Nepal’s progress and development. In advanced conuntries , these feudalistic institutions were thrown into the dustbin long ago and then only those countries could progress.
Paudel has ultimately got understanding that the cursed history should be revursed. That is good. We hope it would be in a bloodless way. But symptoms show something omnious.
Politicians who were indulged in profit making should also sweep through the revolution.
Down to feudal autocratic monarchy….
Long Live Republic of Nepal
In France people vote in refrendum. So is being done in the civilised Europe. Why not in Nepal. There must be choice to people to make their own disteny. Let them own their own soverignty. Let them decide what kind of the constitution they want. Let them choose the leaders they want. Let them control the armed forces.
There must not be compromise in that issue. The king, Girija or Prachanda should not decide our fate. Those who say constituent assembly are most democratic , whoever they are.
There is nothing two or three pillars in Nepal. There must be singular pillar which is but the will of Nepalese. They must be empowered to choose their own leaders.
That is basic fundamental of democracy. Everything else is but a complete illusion.
June 1st, 2005 at 12:55 pm
The past 15 years have clearly shown that in the hands of wrong people democracy serves no purpose, and becomes the means for exploiting the people. With a population that is less than 40% literate, and when half of these people do not understand what it means to be empowered, and to add to that, have 90% of the so called leaders who are dishonest, visionless and have no clue what they are doing…what the country really needs at this hour is someone who can lead and is willing to make an effort to run a “functional” government. A person who is willing to put the nation’s interest before him or his party. Given that democracy is here to stay, and for the last 10 years or so, Maobadhi movement has only grown stronger under our so called “democratic system”, I think the choice is pretty simple on how to eventually have a functional democratic system: Let Moabadhi come to power and indoctrinate all of us in a dead philosophy for a decade or so, OR give Gyane a chance. Sooner you fuckers realize this, the better off you all are! At this moment to support democracy is to support all the corrupt politicians like Girja and eventually let Moabadhi overrun the nation. I find it ironic that these same people who advocate democracy are not willing to let go of their leadership positions within the party for a better, younger and more able candidate. People like Girja has been president of the NC for how long? Clearly, there is something fundamentally wrong with our democratic system when they don’t practice what they preach. As for waiting for democracy to correct itself, 15 years is long enough and with my dear comrade knocking at my door with a gun in his hand, I think pretty soon it will be late to even have Gyane as an option.
June 1st, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Ok, under current context here are two possible scenarios that we must deal with in the future: authoritarian autocratic rule under KG and his croonies or authoritarian communist rule under Prachanda. Unless the politicians are able to garner popular support like they did in chayalis saal, the country is heading towards one of the above. Personally, since I love this country and want to spend the rest of my life here, I want to see the politicians do something constructive for a change. Let R.C. Poudel speak out. Let G.P. Koirala speak out. Let Ma.Ku.Ne speak out. I have been saying this earlier and I repeat- I’d much rather have an option to speak out than be forced to live in complete silence, helpless to do anything but watch and suffer. With KG and Maoists thats all we will be able to do- watch and suffer.
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Who the hell is Ram Chandra Poudel that we are giving him so much of publicity? How many Working Committee members does he have in the Nepali Congress? Only 1 and that is his own. ha! ha! ha!
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:12 pm
This fellow- poudel is a great liar. He used to do chakari of King Birendra to visit his constituency during election time. He hoped that by taking the popular king to Tanahuan, he would win people’s hearts. But the King refused seeing the political dimension of it. Now, he talks all nonsense of the late King since he is not alive. These kind of sub-standard leaders are responsible for the predicament of democracy in the country today.
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:36 pm
RP was slapped by Golche Sharkee and then his good luck started, this guy has not done a good day work all this life and some guys are trying to make hero out of him
June 21st, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Ram Chandra Paudel states an incidence which reclaims that current KG is also not liking to proceed that matter ahead. Here in his CoM there are people from the otulawed Panchyat. But KG is trying to revoke ths system and procedure his fatehr followed. Hence, let us revoke our own history of sat sal say chhayalis sal