Re­sponse on former King Gya­nen­dra's New Year mes­sage

People's Review - - NEWS - SUKH DEO MUNI @ SDMUNIApr 14 Ratna Sansar

The former Nepal King Gya­nen­dra wan ts 11 years' ac­count from Re­pub­li­can Sys­tem. First of all he must give Monar­chy's ac­count since Dec.1960.

Deepak Gyawali’s re­ply to Muni Dear Muni

It has been quite a while since we “dis­coursed” (but I still have fond mem­o­ries of our do­ing so at Queen El­iz­a­beth House in Ox­ford in the Spring of 1993). Since I have stayed away from the twit­ter-o-sphere due to its in­trin­sic shal­low na­ture and ill­con­sid­ered in­stan­ta­neous­ness, I guess there was re­ally no proper plat­form where we could do so. A tweet of yours, how­ever, found its way into my email in­box through mu­tual friends with the re­quest to re­spond and hence I am do­ing so: You know I am an un-re­con­sti­tuted monar­chist who has good rea­sons to hold – with a grow­ing num­ber of Nepalis from across the po­lit­i­cal spec­trum – that the Nepali monar­chy was side-lined not by the Nepali peo­ple but by the erst­while Mugh­lani rulers of Delhi vi­o­lat­ing due process, ig­nor­ing the Nepali vot­ers and in the process giv­ing more than a heavy a tinge of il­le­git­i­macy to Mugh­lani diplo­macy that haunts it more and more as the years go by and ‘anti-In­di­an­ism' grows in epi­demic pro­por­tions across these lands as it never hap­pened un­der the monar­chy (and by corol­lary, fondness for things ‘up North' grows as fast). You very much say prac­ti­cally the same thing in your cel­e­brated chap­ter in David Malone et al's in­fa­mous Nepal in Tran­si­tion be­tween pages 317 and 329 (and which I re­viewed in Delhi's book re­view magazine Bi­b­lio, as you are well aware). Our cur­rent pack of po­lit­i­cal jok­ers, the Cash Maoists and the Seven Dwarfs (CM+SD, in short and no pun in­tended in that part of it re­sem­bles your ini­tials) that were given the im­pe­rial ukase by the Sonia/Man­mo­han combo to­gether with the Mugh­lani ‘Deep State' of Raisina Hill to load them­selves onto the 12Point Delhi Deal band­wagon in Novem­ber 2005, were but mere third rate pawns in the game. I don't think you have been to Nepal re­cently, or per­haps have not ‘dis­coursed' with nor­mal Nepalis other than your stu­dents and acolytes not ex­actly bold enough to con­tra­dict you, as you do not seem to be aware of the way the winds are blow­ing: as King Gya­nen­dra's new year mes­sage which you are re­fer­ring to in your tweet clearly in­di­cates, there has been a crass “bish­was-ghaat” not only by the CM+SD of the agree­ments and un­der­stand­ing reached in April/May 2006 but also by the Mugh­lani ‘Deep State' against its own en­voy, the ur­bane Dr Karan Singh, a re­al­iza­tion that is dawn­ing on many new Indian com­men­ta­tors now who are not in thrall over the Ma­caulayite, Nehru­vian po­lit­i­cal ethos of yore. This re­cent ar­ti­cle in The Pi­o­neer is one in­di­ca­tor of it: http://www.dai­ly­p­i­ colum­nists/ guest- col­umn/ nos­tal­gia- f or- monar­chy- i nnepals-tur­bu­lent- times. html. An­other is the Face­book wall of prob­a­bly the more in­tel­li­gent and politico/cul­tur­ally sen­si­tive of Mad­hesi lead­ers, Sar­i­taGiri, ar­gu­ing for Mad­hesh to stand for con­sti­tu­tional monar­chy:

Sarita Giri April 9 at 11:27 pm

To di­rectly an­swer to your tweet, King Gya­nen­dra has long ago, more specif­i­cally in the speech at the Novem­ber 2005 SAARC sum­mit in Dhaka as well as when he left the Royal Palace in 2008, al­ready given a con­vinc­ing ac­count not just of his time on the throne, not just since 1960 but also for all the 240 years of Shah Dy­nasty rule. To­day, af­ter eleven years of him and the Nepal Army be­ing the only in­sti­tu­tions that hon­oured the “peace com­pro­mise” of 2006, a grow­ing num­ber of Nepali peo­ple are saluting him and the Nepal Army for their grace­ful and peace­ful sub­mis­sion to the then “pop­u­lar will”, and an even greater num­ber are now re­al­iz­ing that King Gya­nen­dra was right then, and are de­mand­ing that those who mur­dered 17000 Nepalis dur­ing the ten-year Mugh­lani proxy war as well as an in­cred­i­bly large num­ber since the start of the “peace com­pro­mise” with the 12point Delhi Deal (to say noth­ing of the neo-feu­dal nepo­tism and mas­sive loot of the coun­try over these last eleven years along the ‘Mukti Tower' ethos by CM+SD), be brought to jus­tice and damn the Delhi Deal!! This group also in­cludes your new, dy­namic and “non-crook” Chief Min­is­ter of Ut­tar Pradesh, whose views on what the Mugh­lani ‘Deep State' did to Nepal as well as Nepal-In­dia age-old re­la­tions can be read in pages 112-116 in Prashan­taJha's well-known book. Ch­hoteyMiyan im­i­tat­ing the Bade Miyan (a la Iraq, Libya etc) and try­ing “regime change” in the neigh­bour­hood has been a dis­as­ter ob­vi­ously for the Nepali peo­ple but also for both the Ch­hotey and Bade Miyans (the EuroAmer­i­cans, ex­cept the Ja­panese who have dis­tanced them­selves from it), and has ben­e­fited no one other than the very long-term think­ing man­darins to the North. Time has come for the new rulers of Mugh­lan to jet­ti­son that bit of in­fan­tile ad­ven­tur­ism, grow out of its security para­noia, and em­brace sta­bil­ity and de­vel­op­ment. I am sure we will con­tinue to dis­agree on many things po­lit­i­cal and I would be de­lighted to de­bate these is­sues with you in any pub­lic fo­rum, here in Kath­mandu or in Mugh­lan, (ex­cept in the twit­ter-o-sphere which I have stayed away from, and which I guess I will leave in Don­ald Trump's safe, small hands!). Warm re­gards and Jai Hos! Deepak Gyawali

Akhilesh’s re­marks:

Do you have to be an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen to dis­cuss Pres­i­dent Trump's ac­count­abil­ity or a Rus­sian to ask for Putin's ac­count­abil­ity? Nepali jour­nal­ists/press do dis­cuss In­dia and Indian leader's poli­cies and that's very good too. Akhilesh

Ratna Sansar’s re­marks: Dear Akhiles jee,

Thank you for shar­ing your thoughts. Def­i­nitely every­body has the right to dis­cuss the ac­count­abil­ity of any leader. But equally im­por­tant thing is that on what is­sue who can dis­cuss about the be­hav­ior of a leader. With re­gard to Nepal, al­most ev­ery Nepali ex­cept a few who have been run­ning the coun­try like their fief­dom since 2063 BS has been rais­ing the ques­tion on grow­ing se­ri­ous gov­er­nance prob­lem - our beloved is fac­ing now. As a cit­i­zen of the coun­try former King Gy­nen­dra has the right to raise the ques­tions to the present sit­u­a­tion of the coun­try. And those Nepalese who are not sat­is­fied with his ques­tion­ing can chalka­nge him. But how can we agree to Prof. Muni rais­ing the ques­tion to King Gy­nen­dra, since he is a per­son known for his bais­ness against cer­tain sec­tions in Nepal and her ef­fort to as­sert its sovereignty. Fur­ther­more he al­ways con­sid­ers Nepal as a pro­tec­torate of In­dia. In this con­text I think how can Prof Muni ask ques­tion to former King Gy­nen­dra to give Monar­chy's ac­count since 1960? Rather we Nepalese should ask him - why In­dia played dou­ble game dur­ing the Maoist in­sur­gency that has caused so much misery to our beloved coun­try - Nepal. Warm re­gards.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Nepal

© PressReader. All rights reserved.