NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like the pressure on the Nepal monarch Gyanendra by India, US and other countries have borne some results..

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/21nepal5.htm
King Gyanendra restores democracy in Nepal

Sheela Bhatt in Kathmandu | April 21, 2006 18:34 IST
Last Updated: April 21, 2006 20:32 IST

Nepal's King Gyanendra on Friday restored democracy in the Himalayan kingdom.

In a televised address to the nation, the king asked the Seven Party Alliance to suggest a prime ministerial candidate. It may be noted that King Gyanendra was unwilling to consider this option just a week back.

The beleagured monarch said power was being returned to the people and he would like elections to be held as soon as possible.

Pending the completion of the election process, Gyanendra invited the seven-party alliance, which has been spearheading a movement against his rule, to recommend a name for the post of prime minister. Until a new government is formed, the present council of ministers would continue, he said.

The new government is expected to hold negotiations with the Maoists, who are leading an often violent 'people's revolution' in the countryside. Sources said the SPA and the Maoists had agreed on a 12-point deal on this issue

The King's announcement will be the new beginning in the democratic process of Nepal. It's believed that it will also be the end of King's absolute power and will change the contours of the monarchy forever.

G P Koirala, former prime minister of Nepal, has already said that Maoists will accept such move for restoration of democracy.

Thousands of people who have gathered to demand democracy in Kathmandu are likely to celebrate the King's retreat in a big way in form of a euphoric 'Vijay Yatra'.

The announcement by a grim-faced monarch, in a 10-minute address to the nation on the state-run Nepal Television, came a day after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's special envoy Karan Singh bluntly told him to restore multi-party democracy and hold a dialogue with political parties.

The King said he was returning the executive power to the people according to Article 35 of the Constitution.

Another link
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1621100.htm
Nepalese King vows to restore democracy


Opposition and protesters claim it is not enough...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article359438.ece
Nepalese protesters dismiss King's pledge of democracy
By Justin Huggler in Kathmandu
Published: 22 April 2006

King Gyanendra of Nepal made a desperate attempt to save his throne as hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Kathmandu yesterday calling for his overthrow.

In a televised address, the King promised to restore democracy and hold elections, and revert to being a constitutional monarch. But his words were dismissed by the opposition parties which have been leading the protests as too little, too late. "The King has not clearly addressed the road map of the protest movement," said Krishna Prasad Sitaula, spokesman for the largest opposition party, the Nepali Congress. "Our protest campaign will continue."

On the streets too, the people vowed to continue their rallies. There were spontaneous demonstrations in reaction to the King's speech, with people chanting: "Democracy is coming! Gyanendra leave the country!"

Looking tense before the camera, King Gyanendra said: "We are committed to multi-party democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Executive power of the kingdom of Nepal, which was in our safekeeping, shall from this day be returned to the people."

He was speaking after the biggest protests yet in Kathmandu, which saw protesters breach many of the defences of the police and army and march deep into the city centre, which is under strict curfew. They marched in a column that filled the wide avenue and stretched for two miles. Local television news put the size of the crowd at 150,000, but that seemed a severe underestimate.

"Death to the monarchy!" they chanted as they marched. And as they walked, the people of Kathmandu lined the streets to cheer them on. This was a nation on the march. Several police lines fell back before them. Soldiers guarding the airport grinned and gave them signs of support.

At times, the crowd had a carnival atmosphere. They danced in the streets and shouted with joy that they had defied the curfew. "It is a tragedy for Nepal if Gyanendra lives," they sang.

At one moment, the crowd suddenly turned and headed for the city centre with a surge of purpose. Several protesters shouted: "To the palace!" But they met more sustained resistance from the army lines deeper inside the city, and several protesters were injured after soldiers opened fire with rubber bullets.

It was with these scenes raging outside his palace that the King made his attemptto defuse the crisis. Sitting in front of a backdrop similar to the one he appeared before when he seized the absolute powers of a medieval king last year, he said he was acting "in the greater interest of the nation and the people, and our unflinching commitment toward constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy".

He called for talks with the seven-party opposition alliance which has been leading the protests and asked it to nominate one of its number to serve as interim prime minister until elections could be held. Nepalese analysts said that was a clear attempt to split the seven-party alliance, which have never agreed on anything except their opposition to the King's rule.

The opposition parties said their leader would meet today to discuss the King's proposals. But the biggest parties were quick to dismiss them. "We haven't been demonstrating for the premiership," said one senior figure.

"The people will not accept this speech," said Chakra Sijapatki, a security guard at a hotel who was listening to the speech on a car radio. "We have been fighting for democracy and a republic."

Many on the streets complained the King had said nothing about bringing the Maoist guerrillas who have been fighting a 10-year civil war into the mainstream. The opposition parties have agreed a frameworks for peace talks.

There was positive reaction on the streets. "Now the King can become a ceremonial monarch," said one protester, Utsav Koirala. King Gyanendra has offered elections before. What people want is a new constituent assembly to debate whether Nepal should have a monarchy at all.

"How can the King remain? He must take responsibility for all the people who have been killed in these protests," said Prakash Dhidal, another protester. A protester who was injured by police gunfire in Kathmandu on Thursday died of his injuries yesterday, bringing the number killed in Kathmandu to four.

There is a huge swelling of anger against the violence used by police on protesters. Doctors at the hospital where the bodies were taken wore black armbands yesterday. On the spot where the police fired on the demonstrators, some one wrote in chalk "Martyrs' Square".

Kantipur newspaper yesterday printed the name of one police officer who it said shot an unarmed protester in the head and killed him - which may well lead to reprisals against the officer.

Changing regimes

* 1991 Nepali Congress Party (NCP) wins first multi-party democratic elections

* 1994 NCP government dissolved and replaced by Communist regime

* 1995 Communist government dissolved. Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) begins insurrection to abolish monarchy and establish a "people's republic"

* 1 June 2001 Royal family is killed in drunken shooting spree by Crown Prince Dipendra, who then shoots himself

* 4 June 2001 Prince Dipendra, declared king on 2 June, dies. His brother, Prince Gyanendra, becomes King

* July 2001 Maoist rebels step up violence. Sher Bahadur Deuba becomes Prime Minister, heading 11th government in 11 years. He announces peace with rebels, truce begins

* November 2001 Peace talks fail and Maoistsattack army and police posts

* November 2001 King Gyanendra declares state of emergency

* February 2005 The King dismisses the government and assumes direct power

* November 2005 Rebels and opposition parties agree on programme to restore democracy

* April 2006 Protests against the King lead to fierce clashes in the capital; at least four are killed. King promises to give power back to the people but gives no indication of how or when

He needs to give up the throne. I can fully understand the protesters on this - autocratic monarchies are not cool in the 21st century.

Good on the Indian government for being the only ones who apparently cared enough to get involved.

Good. The protests have born fruit.

w00t!

He needs to give up the throne. I can fully understand the protesters on this - autocratic monarchies are not cool in the 21st century.

Good on the Indian government for being the only ones who apparently cared enough to get involved.

Say the same for Fidel dictator for life, Neu Leonstein, Fidel who will not listen to your reasons or others to the same.

And would take all your rights to protest and disagree with him on any government policy.

To use your own words, dictatorships for life in the 21st century are not cool.

And would take all your rights to protest and disagree with him on any government policy.
*Notes that there are no mobs of Cubans protesting and risking getting shot in Havanna*

Hmm...or he could always rule behind a shadow government...

*Notes that there are no mobs of Cubans protesting and risking getting shot in Havanna*

I knew you would come back with that, you always underestimate me.

Government organized mobs against protestors, jailing and exiles of dissidents, a very strong security force,
committes for the defense of the revolution, who keep an eye on you and report you to other security agencys, and keep a report on your loyalty to the revolution or not.

A system of government used by real dictators where you cant trust the one above you, the one below you, or the one around you.

There have been protests before that have been put down.

I knew you would come back with that, you underestimate me.
I never underestimate anyone. ;)

Fact of the matter is that this state had all the same things that Cuba has. It's got informers, a secret service, a military and police ready to shoot on sight at protesters.

Fact is that these mobs disagreed with the king enough to go against all that, risk their lives and in some cases died for it.

Fact is also that to my knowledge nothing of the sort and of this size happened in Cuba (although I'll gladly accept evidence to the contrary), leading me to believe that the rational individuals of Cuba decided that they don't hate Fidel enough to risk their life fighting him.

There have been protests before that have been put down.

Care to prove any of that? Your bias is well known on this board, so you'll have to live with the fact that we won't take your word at face value.

Care to prove any of that? Your bias is well known on this board, so you'll have to live with the fact that we won't take your word at face value.

Whose word is taken at face value then?

Whose word is taken at face value then?

In today's world? Nobody I guess.

What are your thoughts on King Gyanendra stepping down under pressure? Should he be strung up? Will there be positive change in Nepal at last???

what are your thoughts on the current developing situation?

The situation's actually been like this for a while. I personally think that him stepping down is a good idea, I don't know about stringing him up.

And I really hope that it makes Nepal a better place to live.

It looks more and more like it's going to be a complete revolution, rather than a peaceful change. Which means that rather than a slow and steady transfer to democracy, there will probably be a strong 'reformer' seize control and then declare himself 'supreme ruler' because it's 'not yet right for democracy'.

Happens time and time again throughout history. :(

It's seems a lot like the French revolution. Except not as important, because nobody cares about Nepal.

Gyanendra should be deported (to some non-asian country, if possible). The U.N.should be invited to oversee elections to the constituent assembly, whose members would be drawing up a new constitution incorporating republican and democratic principles. My hope is that there would be a peaceful transition.

I hope the situation actually improves now.
Let that King rot in some remote prison cell.

Personally, I would say that the Nepalese people are now exacerbating the problem themselves. The King has offered to set democratic principles in motion and they are still protesting. I make no bones about being a monarchist and an imperialist and see no objection to the solution put forward by the King of Nepal.

I hope the situation actually improves now.
Let that King rot in some remote prison cell.

Why should Kings be imprisoned? What about Presidents?

Wow, then I guess that his whole plan to have his nephew kill everyone in the family but his son so that his son could become the king didn't work out so well.

Whose word is taken at face value then?

The trustworthy?

The king needs to step down. He's never been popular and no one wants his son to take over the monarchy after his death. His brother was so much more popular, but I think we all know the conspiracy theories around the massacre of his brother and a huge chunk of the family when Prince Dipendra went crazy a few years ago. Why wasn't Paras injured?

Nepal needs a new system. The monarchy is far too unpopular to represent anything Nepalese anymore.

Personally, I would say that the Nepalese people are now exacerbating the problem themselves. The King has offered to set democratic principles in motion and they are still protesting. I make no bones about being a monarchist and an imperialist and see no objection to the solution put forward by the King of Nepal.
The problem is the existence of the king. Once he's deported to some distant country, where worthless animals like him and his royal entourage don't face the risk of being flogged publicly and hanged in front of citizens, Nepal's single biggest problem can be considered to be solved satisfactorily.

It's a miracle that he and his family has not already been slaughtered for what he/they dared to do.

He needs to give up the throne. I can fully understand the protesters on this - autocratic monarchies are not cool in the 21st century.

Good on the Indian government for being the only ones who apparently cared enough to get involved.Well India has two big reasons to get involved. Their are also Maoist rebels in the North of India, which the Indians think have links with the Nepalese Maoist rebels. The Indian government does not want to see the Maoist rebels take over in a bloody coup as this will spur the Indian rebels if even if the Nepalese Maoists do not assist them.

The second reason, I think, is India subsidises the Nepalese government. No one likes to see their money being wasted. I could be wrong on this though. As it might only be Bhutan that they subsidize.

It's a miracle that he and his family has not already been slaughtered for what he/they dared to do.

For serious. Gyanendra is nothing more than a dictator and his son Paras is a perfect example of what too much power will do to someone (three vehicular homicides and no justice?!)

Kings are overrated. The less of them, the better. I'm all for the removal of this king, myself.

The king needs to step down. He's never been popular and no one wants his son to take over the monarchy after his death. His brother was so much more popular, but I think we all know the conspiracy theories around the massacre of his brother and a huge chunk of the family when Prince Dipendra went crazy a few years ago. Why wasn't Paras injured?

Nepal needs a new system. The monarchy is far too unpopular to represent anything Nepalese anymore.

Does anyone other than me remember what happened in Germany at the end of the Great War?

For serious. Gyanendra is nothing more than a dictator and his son Paras is a perfect example of what too much power will do to someone (three vehicular homicides and no justice?!)

But Nepal ain't got no oil so Bush isn't interested.

But Nepal ain't got no oil so Bush isn't interested.

Oh shut up.

I am no fan of Bush, but bringing Bush in every topic ad nauseum is grating...

FWIW, US did put lots of pressure on Gyanendra. It was the Chinese and Pakis who filled in the void of India refusing arms supply, that emboldened the King to continue his reign without giving any concession to democracy.

Well India has two big reasons to get involved. Their are also Maoist rebels in the North of India, which the Indians think have links with the Nepalese Maoist rebels. The Indian government does not want to see the Maoist rebels take over in a bloody coup as this will spur the Indian rebels if even if the Nepalese Maoists do not assist them.

The second reason, I think, is India subsidises the Nepalese government. No one likes to see their money being wasted. I could be wrong on this though. As it might only be Bhutan that they subsidize.

There is another BIG reason why India would be interested in a multi party democracy in Nepal.

With the loss of Tibet to China, Nepal is the only buffer state between India and China. Having a dictator/King in Nepal is very risky because he can be swayed by the Chinese. Gyanendra is very pro-China (IIRC, he studied there) and is now being supported by Chinese assurances. The Chinese are moving in on the void left by India refusing to deal with the King until he restores democracy.

Yeah money and maoists are a concern, but the loss of Nepal to China is a bigger concern.

There is another BIG reason why India would be interested in a multi party democracy in Nepal.

With the loss of Tibet to China, Nepal is the only buffer state between India and China. Having a dictator/King in Nepal is very risky because he can be swayed by the Chinese. Gyanendra is very pro-China (IIRC, he studied there) and is now being supported by Chinese assurances. The Chinese are moving in on the void left by India refusing to deal with the King until he restores democracy.

Yeah money and maoists are a concern, but the loss of Nepal to China is a bigger concern.Ooooh, interesting. I (obviously) didn't know that.

Yeah money and maoists are a concern, but the loss of Nepal to China is a bigger concern.

Just a thought, but would the Maoists sell out to China (if) they managed to take power? I'd have thought they would see CHina as betraying Mao's legacy.

Ultimately, what Nepal needs is stability, with a government supported by all anti-monarchy factions, and possibly UN peacekeepers until it is ready to hold elections.

Just a thought, but would the Maoists sell out to China (if) they managed to take power? I'd have thought they would see CHina as betraying Mao's legacy.

Well, there are allegations that the Maoists themselves are being armed and supported by Chinese. Their arms are definitely Chinese made so it stands to reason that they were supplied by either Chinese or their proxies (Pak).

What I think is that the Chinese have increased instability using the maoist insurgency groups and used that as a pretext to increase their influence with Gyanendra after India refused to supply much needed arms to Nepal following Gyanendra's suspension of democracy. The Indian govt thought that it would be a leverage on Gyanendra to restore democracy but Gyanendra turned to the Chinese and they were only glad to fill in. Pretty slick on their part. Part of their strategy in getting influence in countries around India - Bangladesh, Burma (from whom they leased the Cocos island off the Bay of Bengal for a naval listening post).

Ultimately, what Nepal needs is stability, with a government supported by all anti-monarchy factions, and possibly UN peacekeepers until it is ready to hold elections.

Yes, a fair representation of all groups is the right way. The Maoists do have some legitimate support from the disgruntled people although their methods of redressal (armed insurgency targetting the infrastructure and civilians etc) are not the way to go about it.

Does anyone other than me remember what happened in Germany at the end of the Great War?

I really don't think that the aftermath of World War I in Germany can parallel the current situation in Nepal. It was moderately peaceful in Nepal under Gyanendra's brother, Bipendra, and the people are responding to the militarism of Gyanendra and his declaration of direct rule by the abolishment of the position of Prime Minister. It seems to me that Gyanendra could parallel Hitler in that sense, which would mean that Nepal is on its late Weimar stage.

How exactly do you think that democracy in Nepal correlates to Germany at the end of the Great War? I'm interested to find out.

Everyone has seen on the News the revolt of Nepal against their King.
At time of post, neither side looks like a clear winner. My Point is, shouldn't the Western Major Powers be doing something to support the rebels? If you listen to the American or British government, you can see their very *keen* on bringing *democracy* to foreign lands. Does anyone agree that troops might be better spent on helping rebels in Countries like Nepal rather than invading various countries for oi- I mean invading various countries to hunt out terrorists?

Plus, on BBC news last night, it had the Queen's 80th Birthday on BEFORE the revolution in Nepal. I'm I the only one here who thinks thats the wrong way around?

Look forward to seeing your replies. Have fun!

BTW, this is a Second thread I've done... the first was an accident when I said Mongolia. If a Mod sees this, could you please delete it? Thankies

The problem is, the Maoist rebels are a) Maoists, b) terrorists, and c) mass-murderers. Now, the majority of the protesters in the streets of Kathmandu are not maoists, just pro-democracy people, and those are the people we should support. However, when the King goes (and I can assure you that by this december there will be no more King if this goes on), that means the Maoists will probably be swept into power.

The problem is, the Maoist rebels are a) Maoists, b) terrorists, and c) mass-murderers. Now, the majority of the protesters in the streets of Kathmandu are not maoists, just pro-democracy people, and those are the people we should support. However, when the King goes (and I can assure you that by this december there will be no more King if this goes on), that means the Maoists will probably be swept into power.

All the more reason for the West to step in and ensure only the goodies get power.

Too bad they don't have yurts in Nepal. I've always wanted to sleep in one.
http://www.bukhara-carpets.com/img/yurt/DSCN5872.jpg

All the more reason for the West to step in and ensure only the goodies get power.

Ha!

When have the west ever really got the goodies into power?

Ha!

When have the west ever really got the goodies into power?

Ill give you an example!

Germany after the First World Wa...... sorry... em....

The Very First Gulf Wa-sorry again... em....

The Spanish Civil Wa-... woops... one more go...

Berlin after the Second World Wa-... damn im bad at this...

Vietna-.... not again...

You've got a point actually :p

Everyone has seen on the News the revolt of Nepal against their King.
At time of post, neither side looks like a clear winner. My Point is, shouldn't the Western Major Powers be doing something to support the rebels? If you listen to the American or British government, you can see their very *keen* on bringing *democracy* to foreign lands. Does anyone agree that troops might be better spent on helping rebels in Countries like Nepal rather than invading various countries for oi- I mean invading various countries to hunt out terrorists?

Plus, on BBC news last night, it had the Queen's 80th Birthday on BEFORE the revolution in Nepal. I'm I the only one here who thinks thats the wrong way around?

Look forward to seeing your replies. Have fun!

BTW, this is a Second thread I've done... the first was an accident when I said Mongolia. If a Mod sees this, could you please delete it? Thankies

That's an interesting idea. A monarchy supporting a bunch of rebels crying for the blood of another monarch! Hasn't been done in years.

Too bad they don't have yurts in Nepal. I've always wanted to sleep in one.
http://www.bukhara-carpets.com/img/yurt/DSCN5872.jpg
what is a yurt?

what is a yurt?
LOL!
Look at the picture!

I really don't think that the aftermath of World War I in Germany can parallel the current situation in Nepal. It was moderately peaceful in Nepal under Gyanendra's brother, Bipendra, and the people are responding to the militarism of Gyanendra and his declaration of direct rule by the abolishment of the position of Prime Minister. It seems to me that Gyanendra could parallel Hitler in that sense, which would mean that Nepal is on its late Weimar stage.

How exactly do you think that democracy in Nepal correlates to Germany at the end of the Great War? I'm interested to find out.

At the end of the Great War, during it in fact, the Allied Powers forced Emperor William the Second of Germany to abdicate. This left a yawning black hole where power in Germany was concerned. The Weimar Republic was eventually established amidst much protest. Incidentally, that is why it was called the Weimar Republic: the new German Constitution had to be drafted in Weimar because Berlin was too troubled and violent.

Do you realise how many putschs there were in Germany during that period of government? That and a combination of other factors led to the election of Adolf Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Police State. By the way, Hitler did not abolish the post of Chancellor.

He needs to give up the throne. I can fully understand the protesters on this - autocratic monarchies are not cool in the 21st century.

Good on the Indian government for being the only ones who apparently cared enough to get involved.

One advantage of autocracy: there aren't any elections to fix.

All the more reason for the West to step in and ensure only the goodies get power.

It seems like this is a choice between a rock and a hard place; a crazy king or a bunch of village-burning Maoists.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/22nepal1.htm
SPA rejects Nepal king's offer; protests continue

Not in a mood to give in to King Gyanendra's gambit, the seven-party alliance spearheading the pro-democracy movement on Saturday rejected his offer of transferring executive power to the people and vowed to continue their agitation.

Grr, I misclicked. I meant to click on "no, it's not our place".

Hehe, apparently there's a legend surrounding the Nepali Shah dynasty.

The tale goes that King Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of the modern Nepali state, once met a god disguised as a sage who, to test his loyalty, offered him some yoghurt that had been vomited up.

If the king consumed it, the Shah line would have lasted forever. Instead, King Prithvi threw it away, and some fell on his feet. So the dynasty would only last ten generations, one monarch for every toe. Birendra was the 10th Shah king.http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1759402,00.html

The Prophecy has fortold of the end of the Kingdom! Gyanendra is going to be toppled I tell you!

Personally, I would say that the Nepalese people are now exacerbating the problem themselves. The King has offered to set democratic principles in motion and they are still protesting. I make no bones about being a monarchist and an imperialist and see no objection to the solution put forward by the King of Nepal.


This is almost offensive in its staggering ignorance.



At the end of the Great War, during it in fact, the Allied Powers forced Emperor William the Second of Germany to abdicate. This left a yawning black hole where power in Germany was concerned. The Weimar Republic was eventually established amidst much protest. Incidentally, that is why it was called the Weimar Republic: the new German Constitution had to be drafted in Weimar because Berlin was too troubled and violent.




There is a risk that rapid progress to a republic could allow the powerful Maoists to fill the vacuum; Nepal's party political planners certainly fear this possibility. The parties are demanding a new constitution but not necessarily a republic, so they are becoming nervous about the continuing protests.

However, the King is completely to blame for the present situation. He has succeeded in destroying the monarchy pretty much all by himself.

This week the US ambassador predicted 'a messy abdication with the king clinging to the wheels of a departing helicopter' whilst India's special envoy, though urging compromise, is thought to be less than supportive of the continuation of a constitutional monarchy.

This is almost offensive in its staggering ignorance.



There is a risk that rapid progress to a republic could allow the powerful Maoists to fill the vacuum; Nepal's party political planners certainly fear this possibility. The parties are demanding a new constitution but not necessarily a republic, so they are becoming nervous about the continuing protests.

However, the King is completely to blame for the present situation. He has succeeded in destroying the monarchy pretty much all by himself.

This week the US ambassador predicted 'a messy abdication with the king clinging to the wheels of a departing helicopter' whilst India's special envoy, though urging compromise, is thought to be less than supportive of the continuation of a constitutional monarchy.

1. I did specify that it was my personal opinion.

2. Germany: End of the Great War; rapid change to a republic; Spartacus League; new constitution; nervous government; unpopular government; National Socialist German Workers' Party; big mess.

3. In your opinion.

4. How delicious! An American saying that the situation in Nepal is "messy". When will America be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan "clinging to the wheels of a departing helicopter"?

1. I did specify that it was my personal opinion.


Yes, based on ignorance, clouded by elitism



2. Germany: End of the Great War; rapid change to a republic; Spartacus League; new constitution; nervous government; unpopular government; National Socialist German Workers' Party; big mess.


Erm...well done. And the point of listing all these was what exactly; seeing as I didn't disagree that there was some sort of parallel.



3. In your opinion.


Well it would take a fool to defend him in that regard. His behaviour in the last 14 months has inflicted perhaps terminal damage on the institution.



4. How delicious! An American saying that the situation in Nepal is "messy". When will America be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan "clinging to the wheels of a departing helicopter"?


This is just mis-representation. The US ambassador, who is merely an employee of his nation's government, offered a personal opinion in which he suggested a probable abdication would be likely to be 'messy', i.e. rushed and ill-coordinated. He was not describing the state of Nepal as a nation.

And 'How delicious?'...seriously WTF?

Yes, based on ignorance, clouded by elitism




Erm...well done. And the point of listing all these was what exactly; seeing as I didn't disagree that there was some sort of parallel.




Well it would take a fool to defend him in that regard. His behaviour in the last 14 months has inflicted perhaps terminal damage on the institution.




This is just mis-representation. The US ambassador, who is merely an employee of his nation's government, offered a personal opinion in which he suggested a probable abdication would be likely to be 'messy', i.e. rushed and ill-coordinated. He was not describing the state of Nepal as a nation.

And 'How delicious?'...seriously WTF?

You are ever so eloquent. However, what is the objection to constitutional monarchy?

Germany is a prime example of what can happen in Republics.

It is still your opinion, which you have a right to.

"Messy" as in 'lynched by the rioting mobs'.

A turn of phrase in the United Kingdom.

You are ever so eloquent. However, what is the objection to constitutional monarchy?


This is not a debate about constitutional monarchy in general, of which you are evidently a fan, but rather about the present state of Nepal's 16-year-old constitutional monarchy. It worked fine under a relatively benign King; once his brother took over everything went down the toilet. A relatively explicit illustration of the major flaw with the hereditary principle, particularly when positions of actual power are those to be inherited.



Germany is a prime example of what can happen in Republics.


Nice strawman logic. Take the example of one of the worst things ever to have emerged from a weak modern republic, during particularly difficult global economic circumstances, and then use it as an supposedly valid argument against republicanism in general. Try again.



"Messy" as in 'lynched by the rioting mobs'.


The was no mention of 'lynching' whatsoever and your point (do you have one?) still doesn't make sense in light of my previous post.



A turn of phrase in the United Kingdom.


Amongst people who want to sound like pricks, yes.

IMO, Nepal should become a constitutional monarchy. Don't give into the radicals. The French did back in the 1790s, and then, BAM, Napoleon.

IMO, Nepal should become a constitutional monarchy. Don't give into the radicals. The French did back in the 1790s, and then, BAM, Napoleon.

Become a constitutional monarchy? Nepal is a constitutional monarchy.

The urban protesters are not radicals, they are the ordinary people of Nepal who want an end to the current dictatorship of the King. Many are also demanding the establishment of a republic; something which has only emerged as a result of the King's repressive actions.

And more strawman arguments; if you haven't got anything intelligent to say why even bother?

Become a constitutional monarchy? Nepal is a constitutional monarchy.

The urban protesters are not radicals, they are the ordinary people of Nepal who want an end to the current dictatorship of the King. Many are also demanding the establishment of a republic; something which has only emerged as a result of the King's repressive actions.

And more strawman arguments; if you haven't got anything intelligent to say why even bother?

It's not really a constitutional monarchy; it's only labelled as one. The current king needs to be overthrown and replaced with the next in line.

And as demonstrated by numerous revolutions and rebellions, there is a fine line between "ordinary protestors" and "radicals."

It's not really a constitutional monarchy; it's only labelled as one. The current king needs to be overthrown and replaced with the next in line.

And as demonstrated by numerous revolutions and rebellions, there is a fine line between "ordinary protestors" and "radicals."
As things are going now, there won't be any reason for constitutional monarchy, because the entire royal family will be either hanged or deported. Nepal is sure to become a republic soon and there will be no turning back as the entire royal line will be extinguished one way or the other.

In Russia and Afghanistan, there were some attempts to restore constitutional monarchy. I don't know about Afghanistan, but in Russia, we all know there is no indication of that happening in the near future. I'm willing to bet that even in Britain, after the queen dies, others in the royal family will not dare to stake claim to the throne and Britain will also become a republic in this century itself. That will signal the beginning of the extinction of monarchies world over. That is an irreversible trend and any resistance to it will only accelerate it as Nepal is going to prove shortly.

deleted by author


Oh dear. Please try to ensure you actually know something of the subject you are attempting to discuss in order to avoid embarrassment.

I have not contradicted myself. Nepal became a constitutional monarchy in 1990; in 2005 the present King seized power for himself using the usual temporary 'state of emergency' pretext. He has not altered the constitution of Nepal so its political structure officially remains the same.

Given that we have witnessed the failure of Nepal's system to protect it from a Monarch of tyrannical bent, I'd suggest that alternatives are well worth looking into.

You, on the other hand, suggest doing absolutely nothing.






And as demonstrated by numerous revolutions and rebellions, there is a fine line between "ordinary protestors" and "radicals."



Another bland, meaningless statement.

Nepalis protesting against the King are comprised of civil servants, teachers, businessmen, shopkeepers, street hawkers, rickshaw drivers, etc. The Maoists rebels are not politically allied with them; they just share one important common goal. Beyond that, the fellow enemies of the King are hardly ideologically aligned.

You know, continually making generalist statements, betrays a serious lack of knowledge on your part.

It's not really a constitutional monarchy; it's only labelled as one. The current king needs to be overthrown and replaced with the next in line.


Well done for spotting your error and changing your post. Unfortunately, you happened to do it at the exact moment I submitted my reply and your original statement was overwritten.

Fortunately, you have replaced it with an equally ignorant assertion. The present Crown Prince is possibly even more unpopular than his father, thanks to his habit of running peasants down in his sports cars, so any suggestion that he should claim the throne will be met with derision. Indeed, it would hardly solve the fundamental problem in any case.

I agree with trying to overthrow their opressive monarch, but I think the Rebels Ideology will bring them closer to China and may become somewhat anti-western due to their Ideology.

Nepal has no oil and no nukes. Therefore irrelevent to the US

^ what's with the unnecessary US/Bush baiting.:rolleyes:

The US response in the whole issue have been on the better side...compared to China/Pak (actively backing the King) and Eu countries (indifference)...

I wonder what the role of UN has been in this fiasco. Did it actively threaten the king with repercussions like making him stand trial for crimes against humanity etc., if he continued his autocratic rule?

Fortunately, you have replaced it with an equally ignorant assertion. The present Crown Prince is possibly even more unpopular than his father, thanks to his habit of running peasants down in his sports cars, so any suggestion that he should claim the throne will be met with derision. Indeed, it would hardly solve the fundamental problem in any case.

Then we'll give the throne to the first likable in line. It's not like I'd have them with any power.

Koirala (ex PM) is going to be sworn in as PM..

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200604291021.htm?headline=Koirala~to~be~sworn-in~as~Nepal~PM~tomorrow
Koirala to be sworn-in as Nepal PM tomorrow

Kathmandu, April 29 (PTI): Nepal's Prime Minister-designate Girija Prasad Koirala will be sworn-in tomorrow following the postponement of the oath-taking ceremony due to his ill health.

84-year-old Koirala, the President of Nepali Congress party, is suffering from bronchitis because of which he skipped yesterday's meeting of the country's revived Parliament, the first in four years.

Koirala, who was to take the oath of office yesterday, will now be sworn-in tomorrow, Nepali Congress spokesman Krishna Sitoula said.

Though the veteran Nepali Congress leader's condition has improved, he is taking rest as per doctors' advice, Sitoula said.

Koirala was appointed Prime Minister by King Gyanendra after weeks of anti-monarchy protests in Nepal by the seven-party alliance, which unanimously proposed his name for the top post.

Meanwhile, Nepal Communist Party-UML has decided to join the all-party government to be headed by Koirala, party sources said.

It has chosen its senior politburo member K P Oli to lead the party in the new cabinet, they said.

All other members of the seven-party alliance are also expected to participate in the new Government.

During Friday's meeting of the House of Representatives, Deputy Speaker Chitralekha Yadav tabled a motion, on behalf of Koirala, proposing a ceasefire with the Maoists and elections to the Constituent Assembly. The House will meet again tomorrow to discuss the motion.

Maoists, who have been fighting to topple the monarchy for over a decade, want the Constituent Assembly to re-write the Himalayan Kingdom's Constitution that is likely to strip the King off his power to sack an elected government.

Yielding to large-scale protests against his direct rule after he sacked the Sher Bahadur Deuba government in February last year, the King ordered the re-instatement of Parliament on Monday night.

Parliament was dissolved in May 2002 after political wrangling over extending emergency powers to tackle the Maoist insurgency in the Himalayan Kingdom

I wonder what the role of UN has been in this fiasco. Did it actively threaten the king with repercussions like making him stand trial for crimes against humanity etc., if he continued his autocratic rule?

The UN can't/won't intervene unless there has been a big enough humanitarian disaster (should be bigger than Rwanda...as we found out when Rwanda happened).

If the UN should be intervening in Nepal for despots usurping power, then it has a very long list of countries that it should be intervening...:p

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1508199.cms
NEW DELHI: India is planning a "mega economic" package for Nepal to help hold up the Himalayan nation's faltering economy and prevent it from going into a fiscal tailspin, which could fuel popular unrest and put its fragile political stability under unbearable strain.

The aid package that India is considering includes huge cash and credit infusions to address Nepal's depleted balance of payments situation, rescheduling of short and long term loans, oil supplies at concessionary rates or on credit and communication equipment to kickstart governance.

"It is a huge package and one of the biggest ever offered by India to another country," an official said. Keeping in mind the delicate negotiations that are due to take place between the new government and Maoists, resumption of military supplies is not on the table.

India's immediate concern is to help Nepal ward off an economic crisis, which could erode its already frayed administrative mechanisms.

Deliberations in government have seen the view emerge that the cycle of inflation, rising prices and shortages could be very difficult to reverse.

The policy inputs that the group of senior ministers monitoring Nepal indicate that the current mood of optimism could change quickly if the new dispensation does not deliver.

The economic package has been discussed at various levels in government and also figured in the discussions PM Manmohan Singh had with India's special envoy Karan Singh, foreign secretary Shyam Saran and national security advisor M K Narayanan last week.

The need for assisting Nepal in recovering from ravages of a long spell of Maoist insurgency, popular protests, disruption of commerce and hardships for farmers found favour with the government.

"The PM's response to the proposal for an economic package was extremely positive," said one of the participants in the meeting.

Since India sees a role, not intrusive but supportive, in helping Nepal recover, it was important for New Delhi's own geo-political interests to help the new regime in Kathmandu, a senior bureaucrat said.