June 10, 2010


[Responding to our previous posts on whether ‘greater Nepal’ and ‘constitutional monarchy’ should be the issues Nepalese people should be focused on, we have received a number of comments and some of them are posted below. The Chief Executive – (an unelected person can be a chief executive.) and other leaders in and around Nepal’s Singh Durbar offer an impression that they are either deaf or simply accustomed to not listening to the voice of the  people. Please forward your comments, we will post them (please write simple and concise).

The Himalayan Voice belongs to you all to raise your voice whether they fall in deaf ears of the concerned authorities. One of the Constituent Assembly Members recently emailed us saying that most of the members in the assembly do not have basic knowledge of computer, so trying to reach them through emails would not be a right thing to do. Whatever, we should keep on writing and posting our concerns whether they are heard or not.]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Subash Bista
Date: Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:22 AM

Re-establishment of monarchy is must:

Dear all,

Namaste to you all,

While reading some points of Mr. Nepal, Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Chettri, I personally felt like we shouldn’t give priority to republic/federal/secular Nepal rather, we should welcome Constitutional Monarchy. Given the situation in the country, constitutional monarchy remains the last resort.

I feel like Nepal should reinstate the Constitution of 1990. I even don’t support the re-entry of Panchayat System but Nepal is in need of a constitutional monarchy. Well, monarchy is not a PERSON in particular, it is an institution, and everyone should respect and honor the monarchy.

The demolition of monarchy was a big mistake Nepalese people have ever made. We should think about reinstalling MONARCHY again in the country like  the Spanish people did in Spain in 1978.

I personally don’t think Nepali citizen do have any faith in Maoists or any other political parties. The people do not believe those parties would do anything better for the country. Our country is sick now and she needs a full dosage of monarchy.

The ongoing interference of India, European Union countries and USA is simply understandable - Bhai Phute Gawar Lute – which literally means ‘brothers’ fight; others’ benefit’ (an internal family matters should not go out to the public to ruin the whole family)

Thanks and Regards,

Subash Bahadur Bista
Barcelona, Spain

From: John Kelleher
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:43:18 -0700

The reply of this Badri Nepal is notable mostly for his evident frank ignorance of the principle of constitutional monarchy.  The "examples" he chooses to provide certainly do not discredit the idea of constitutional monarchy and only highlight the flawed reasoning of those who would wish to consign the Shri Panch to a historical scrapheap.

I cannot imagine why Badri Nepal would choose to bring up Iran.  Surely, if anything, this is a cautionary example as to why a developing parliamentary system shouldn't scrap its hereditary head of state.  The Shahanshah was driven into exile in 1979 by a ramshackle coalition between left-wing Marxist agitators and the fringe-right adherents of the Ayatollah Khomeini.  Rapidly gaining control of the streets and of the organs of state, the Ayatollah's followers quickly managed to liquidate the left-leaning component of the revolution, sending Bani-Sadr into exile and killing Ghotbzadeh.  The "Islamic Republic" which Ruhollah Khomeini set up in the Shah's place is a complete travesty of a government, overseen by cruel zealots and unpleasant lunatics.  The Shah had his undeniable faults - yet the "republic" which took his place makes him seem quite good in hindsight.

The mention of Romania is truly puzzling.  Badri Nepal mentions the ghastly communist dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu as "almost like Nepal's kings" - a cryptic comment which he may need to explain to us.  In fact Romania did once have a constitutional monarchy, which was unlawfully scrapped by the abusive Soviet-aligned communist dictatorship which took its place.  After Romania was overrun by the Soviet Red Army at the close of WWII, the reigning King, Michael I, was forced to abdicate by the Soviet-created Romanian Communist Party.  When King Michael protested that there ought to be a public referendum to decide such a question, he was informed by the communists that such a thing would not be necessary, since "a peoples' republic was self-evidently in the peoples' best interests."

If that bit on the referendum sounds rather familiar in Nepal's own context, it most certainly should.  With the Crown out of the way, Romania's communists set up an abusive one-party regime which culminated in the patently evil Nicolae Ceaucescu.

The Afghan case, like that of Iran, only disproves Badri Nepal's arguments once more.  The late King Zahir Shah was a commendably moderate and democratic sovereign whose unlawful ouster launched Afghanistan onto the horrifying self-destructive course of the next three decades, a course which has unquestionably resulted in Afghanistan's failure as a nation-state.  Badri Nepal is apparently under the impression that NATO was trying to push the King's restoration, and the Afghan Loya Jirga refused.  This is a bit backwards.  In fact many members of the Loya Jirga were quite enthusiastic to have their King back once more - Hamid Karzai himself is a distant kinsman of the late King and was politically supportive of the King's restoration as well.

Ultimately it was NATO which was reluctant to endorse the idea of a restored monarchy, apparently believing [as does Badri Nepal] that a republic would be a better advertisement for Afghanistan's "democratization."  An unfortunate move, in hindsight.  The Afghan royal family is ethnically Pashtun, as is the majority of Afghanistan's population.  The Taliban derives most of its popular support from Pashtuns.  A restored monarchy could have given badly-needed legitimacy to Afghanistan's embattled government, and would have pulled popular support away from the Taliban terrorists.  This would have been a far better steward for Afghan democracy than the incumbent "republic" which, like Nepal's own, is failing day by day.

I've said before that no-one I know wants a return to 2/01/05.  Still less does anyone want a return to Panchayat.  But I do believe, as do quite a few others, that a parliamentary monarchy of the Westminster variety is the best bulwark of defence for the liberal democratic order.  Is it any coincidence that the Maoists - the principal architects of a republican Nepal - are contemptuously dismissive of the entire premise of a liberal, multiparty parliamentary democracy?  Personal arguments against King Gyanendra as an individual really do not give due attention to the potential utility of the institution itself as a much-needed stabilizing "ballast" for Nepal's accident-prone democratic development.

John Kelleher
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Swayambhu Nath Karki wrote:

Mr. Badri Nepal seems to be a brain washed person, because those three examples he gave don't prove his points.

 1. The status of Iran after Monarchy is horrible, all world treats Iran as crook. Only few Islamic countries show their sympathy towards Iran.

2. As for Romania, it was not ruled by a King, it was ruled by Communist a leader. So it is an example of failure of Communism not the Monarchy.

3.  All the international forces and even Afghani people persuaded former King to come back but he refused. It became a big news then but how should Mr. Badri Nepal have missed such a huge news?

As the allegation on King Gyanendra is concerned, can any one prove it even though he is now pushed to the corner?  First prove him guilty, and then say any thing you like.

Now will The Himalayan Voice forward this question to Mr. Badri Nepal to prove that he is not brain washed person. I will honor him if he proved it.

Swayambhu Nath Karki