|
|
They are currenlty going through the next (effective and last) phase of harmonious action now. I feel that they have a poor agenda to assemble and pressure the mass. It is as though they are just bargaining and bargaining. Professor Dr. Brian Cobb said that most of the Nepali people are not educated but they are certainly not stupid, they know a bad thing when they see it.
At the moment, many youth have begun to join arms and have a unified vision and logic. They don’t just lead the agitation against the royal drive they have stated the open debate on “Need of Monarchy system in Nepal”, they want to develop institutional democracy not a constitute monocracy. One of the most popular youth student leaders Gagan Thapa said, “This movement is the last struggle for Democracy”.
We are being of the same mind; it wouldn’t be good if our future generations also had to devote their time to fight for democracy. International revolution shows that student and youth movements are the foundation of progress. Their contributions start the revolutions, obviously they should be lead the nations. It is youth who lead the movements and older faces who lead the nations.
The present situation demonstrates how the political parties and the royal palace are challenging each other’s power. King Gyanendra can’t solve the main problems of the country without the help of political parties who are reveling on the road for the re-establish of parliament and democracy. It is necessary that King Gyanendra progress with the advice of public representatives and the political rules in order to end this violence. I feel that the only solution to these issues is participant of the elections of parliament.
Evaluating the series of political crises within Nepal is critical. The contradictory statement by the Chief of the Army Staff, Prajjwal Shumsher J.B. Rana, at an army convocation program on March 27, 2002 not only displays the Nepali political crisis but also shows how he is an example of it. He said “The point to be considered here, who led the country to this condition? Is it due to the bad governance or the military? Is the state of Emergency imposed as per army’s interest or due to threats over the national security? We have to understand why we need it before we plunge into debate on it. Does a government enjoying majority in a multiparty system proclaim Emergency in army’s interest? Should the terrorist attacks against the Constitution, constitutional government and governmental mechanism along with the innocent Nepali people not to be considered as national crisis? Why were the suggestions put forward in terms of national security due to undesired political activities ignored during the last twelve years? We will have the reality exposed itself if these questions are answered.”
Publicly, his role as army chief did not allow him to evaluate his political situation. His every word reflects the twelve years Nepali political leaders’ negative governance. Political leaders are never concerned with what is happening beyond Kathmandu. Rana further said, “Are the elected representatives carrying their responsibilities actively in their respective constituencies? Why they are playing non co-operative role against the security forces boldly facing the terrorists in their own constituencies? Instead of working collectively to inflict defeat over the Maoist activities, there is a game going on to snatch power (among and within the political parties) taking advantage of the uneasy political scenario, which is against our national interest…”
In other words, political parties also have to leave the concerns of war and should try to fulfill the Maoist desires. Major parties are coming up with a new proposal to deal with the Maoist problems. It is important that they decrease the support for Maoists by making positive relationships among circles and areas that were not in line with their policy creation. According to the main political parties, “Key of political solution is in king’s hand.”
In Nepal, the royal palace has the Army’s power as well as the most effective and sustainable power, the moral support of Nepalese. The people of Nepal respect the King as a live god. The King is the parent of Nepalese, not a player of politics. In the king’s address to the nation on October 4, 2002, he believed, “The greater good of Nepal and the Nepalese people is our only goal. History is witness to the fact that the institution of Monarchy in Nepal has always been guided by the wishes and aspirations of the people. We have time and again expressed our commitment to democracy and we would like to assured our countryman that democratic ideas will always continue to guide us.”
His Majesty proves that the Shah Dynasty is flexible in public demand. He continues to say “It is known to all that in keeping with the tradition of the Shah Dynasty to remain ever dedicated to the paramount welfare and progress of the Nepalese people, the democratic multiparty polity was reinstated in the kingdom in 1990 in accordance with the wishes of the Nepalese people. It is also clear that during the twelve years since its reinstatement, a number of political exercises have been adopted for the consolidation of democracy”.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Shakti
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
