Nepal without the king is just "a state of India" waiting to happen.

EOT

simon your mathmetics makes laugh. You say there are 200 countries and 99% doesnot have king. that means only two countries have king.

what about 4 countries of UK, japan, thailand, scandinavia, morocco, denmark,... this list just goes on and on

bornfree: I never implied Nepal will immediately become a state of India ... it will be a slow, gradual and subtle process .. whereby india with have total control over the state of affairs of Nepal and will rule Nepal by proxy of our "GREAT POLITICIANS' with the merging taking place over decades.

DemRepNepal: see above post. See Tibet, see Sikkim and Bhutan for the most part. See Afghanistan under Taliban.

naya lahure: as long as you see the king as a "malik", I have nothing to say. If you can see the Monarchy as a prominent identity of Nepal just like Mt. Everest .. that you will get somewhere.

Bathroomcoffee: if you are telling me that the current crop of politicians are better at ruling the country and for the progress of our country, I really want you to share with me whatever you are smoking.

बाउ मोरे तुहुरो हुन्छौ

अर्का को छोरा हुन्नो

के कुरा गरेको केटा हो?

simon11: you are worried about Parase ko grandson ... I am worried about the current crop of politicians that are sitting on the horizon waiting to seize power. Show us a better breed of politicians right now who can LEAD our country not ROB it.

Just to remind you Mr. Simon, rest 199 countries do not have neighbouring country India, curropt politicians that we have, and moaist problem which will give easy entry to US Army to Nepal with the apporoval of world community under current situtation.

nepalichhoro: haha ... you said - NEPAL is nowhere like sikkim and india knows that.
Do you really think India cares whether nepal is like sikkim or not. Do you really think indians doesnot have their eyes on Nepal. Maybe you should go back and read history and see what Indira Gandhi was doing to take nepal over in the not too distant past.

Simon 11,
WTF, Kingship is dictatorship ? he he If he is a good king and really cares about his people, it not NOT DICTATORSHIP. Personally I never felt Kingship was dictatorship, Except for not being able to talk trash about the king... You have all the personal freedom you wanted in Nepal. Its only Politicians(who want the fukin power for themselves) and disgruntled citizens that felt this way. AND You cannot blame Gyaney for his KUPOOT son.
Kingship is to dictatorship what Capitalism is to Imperialism. If democracy can with fourlish in Imperialism then it can in Kingship too.
And the whole theory and India will eat Nepal up is full of crap too. If it tries to eat Nepal it will have serious Diarrhea which could lead to its demise. he he he

Get your facts straight Mr. Nepalichoro, before British forced Sikkim's King to be its puppet under a treaty Sikkim has always been independent country, never a part of India. When British leave the country it declared Sikkim as independent state which later India acquired.

Shikhar dude i agree with you that rebuilding nepal would be slow and hard process and India would no doubt try to interfere with our internal affairs and influence our "netas" on their side for the benefits of India. So therefore once the Monarchy is out, what we Nepali should first do is get a new generations of politicians.
New generations of politicians who are educated, have desire to serve Nepal sincerely,
trustworthy and fair to all nepali people regardless of caste .
we should not put up with our same old netas. they should be kicked out of the politics.
and i bellievd that they are many of us willingly to serve our motherland...............especially now.

i don't see why we cannot have people of these qualities

Shikhar,
I am not saying one is better than the other. ALL I AM SAYING IS IF HE WAS REALLY A GOOD KING THEN PEOPLE WON'T KICK HIM OUT. In his own fukin interveiw with PBS he said,"King is like a father figure, who looks after his countrymen like their own child." WELL IF HE HAD TRUELY DONE THAT HIS OWN COUNTRYMEN WON'T BE UP IN ARMS ASKING FOR HIS HEAD NOW WOULD THEY ? HE HE

.
I don't understand why you all think that King is stopping India. Well if India wants to take Nepal, they can take it now, what the fu(k this king will do or can do? All you King lover in Sajha, tell me one good thing this King and his Son have done to Nepal and Nepali...Just One good thing.

India will never take Nepal. why ? it doesnot want another kashmir. Laaj lagdaina timiharu lai. Bir Nepali ko santati bhayera yesto Huti hara kura garna?

sikkim ra Nepal eutai ho? wht is the population of nepal? what WAS the population of sikkim at that time? Did it have any armed forces? If combined Maoist and RNA will be more than 300,000 armed personnel which is twice as much as US army in IRAQ.

are you fu(king kidding me? waht a lame excuse to save gyane's ass.

Yes nepali politicians always take indians advice. because they were freedom-fighters in india during "Bharat Chodo" movement. they are very respected i n India- kisunji, BP, girija etc. However the future politicians will not be associated with India in any way other than diplomatic terms.

Nepal will be better off withoiut king in the long run. Amonarchy will not survive for ever in a country where more than half of the people are dirt poor

View/Share this post only

BathroomCoffee: When Gynandera took over the country it was already in turmoil, and I agree with you that since he took over, things have actually gotten bad or even worse. I am afraid that if we, the people, take the power from the King and hand it over to the current corp of politicans, it will like throwing Nepal from the frying pan to the fire.
There should be an authoritive figure to keep these renegade politicians in check and right now I can only see the King as that kind of figure in Nepal becuase if it is not the King it will be the President of India who will keep that in check and we don't what that now do we?

deshbhakta bro, thanks for straightening that fact on sikkim

Tara maile nabujeko kura, raja sanga darayera india le nepal lai chhuna nasakeko ho ta ahile samma ?? if it was really intended to do so ??

RAJA + PARTY + MAOIST = ?? - impossible equation to solve
RAJA + PARTY = ?? Maoist cant be a redundant , ( Neither party nor king were able to
do that)
PArty + Maoist = ?? - pragmetic solution and raja can be thrown, that is what people
demand and need of time
Guys, wanna reduce the equation to simpler form or not ??

New guy !!
Tell me one good thing anyone else has done for Nepal. FACT: this king didn't bring the Mao problem. FACT: this king was literally handed the power to the country by incompetent politicians. FACT: this king has been sitting for his fat ass for more than a year and half doing nothing but increasing the radius of his ass---------> thus the current rebellion. FACT: He has a mentally incompetent son with a skewed sense of reality.

It is not that India do not wish to acquire Nepal but they can't do it at the moment because they do not have any ligitimate reasons to do so. They will be imposed by International sanctions. But once Maoist come to power they can use an excuse of saving their national interest as we border almost 1500 km to India and in the name of controling maoist they will enter Nepal with international approval. I guess you guys are not that dumb to understand this fact.

. Well Bathroom I'm not saying any of our Netas are good. That is why Nepal is still 200 years behind. If you read my thread, than I'm always against Netas and Maoists. No body to trust. However the questions the time I post my thread was about king stopping India and I said if India really wants to take Nepal than they can with or without king. Some were arguing that if we remove King India will take Nepal and make it another Bihar. That's just insane. I'm not going to defend any of our fu(ked up netas and give answer about the good thing they have done, coz there is not any. However to Mr. Shikar who thinks King is a priest answer to the following attachment. Now don't say that is not true, coz we all know it is true:

Desh Bhakta Nepali,
I DO NOT THINK ITS IN INDIA'S INTEREST TO TAKE OVER NEPAL. THEY ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH ON THEIR PLATE WITH KASHMIR, TAMIL, AND EAST INDIA. IF THEY TAKE OVER NEPAL MEANS THEY WILL INHERIT THE WHOLE MAOIST PROBLEM. AND I AM SURE THEY DO NOT WANT THE MAOIST PROBLEM RADIATING TOWARDS NEW DELHI LIKE KHALISTHAN DID. I think they are more interested in becoming an economic power in the international arena. Where they will harness more power and influence. Compre to that Nepal is like a Guppy in a 200 gallon fish tank.he he

BathroomCoffee,

I agree with you, if the king is a great king and cares about his people and honest then no need to worry. I think kingship in right person's hand is better than democracy for example hypothetical "Ram Rajaya” from Ramayan. On the other hand, if King is corrupt he can cause more harm than elected officials can because they are elected for fixed term but the King is for life.

Bidhan408,

You are absolutely right about my calculation. It was not based on the data. I will be more careful next time...LOL.

Balla yi darbar ka kukur haru alik santa bhaye, buju na sujo RAJA GAYE INDIA LE LANCHHA RE , mukha hannu jasto yaar, usai ta yo asssignment garna nabhyairakhwko bela ma tension