Here's the link.
http://nepaljapan.com/gallery/DC/New_Folder/july/chalchitra%20mahotsab.htm

"HOWEVER, the fact remains that Nepalis in general are TAUGHT, i.e., MANIPULATED, to believe that we must do that to the members of the royal family just because they are born royals. It is about time we began to question NOT the cultural practice of DHOGNE PRATHA, but to whom we bestow respects of such grandiose magnitude. That's all. "

No, Nepalis are not taught to dhog the Royals. I don't know where you got the information, if they wree taught and manipulated to dhog the royals, then what Shiva did wouldn't make it to this board. It would have been so common that we wouldn'yt consider it a topic for discussion. We are taught to RESPECT the institution of monarchy and the immediate members of the royal family. We bow low to the King and his immediate family members. A simple Namaste with a slight bow is good enough.. If you want to show extra respect to the King, you just do "swasti" by bowing slightly and reciting: Om Swasti Shri Giriraj Chakrachudamani, Nara Narayanetyadhi Bibidha Virudabali... Shri Shri Shri Shri Shri .. Sada Samar Bijayinam" bhandai...

" The real and the only question, therefore, is on why he would do that to the individual concerned in the picture, namely Komal Shah. "

Because she is the Queen of Nepal, and for many she is a mother figure and or represents something divine.

" The point is, we need not show respect of that magnitude (by DHOGING) to someone merely because that someone happned to be born a royal."

You don't do it, and that's fine, but why do you have problems when others show their respect this way? Maile nabujhya tyahi ho? Why do you have to call who does something that you don't approve of as saying "manipulated people with slave mentality"?

OK, what Shiva did might seem "manipuulated" to you because you are judging the two scoieties here, but what seems "manipulated" and "abnormal" might not be seen by the natives in that light. For them its natural and normal. By loathing and calling the practice a "manipulated " act, what you are implying (as far as my understanding goes), that "only you or the view you subcribe to is freer and better". And this based on my anthro. classes I took as an undergrad student, is not a very good way to comment on societies and their social practices. Just my view.
---

Arko kura ni bhanu halu:

If you had written, "in my view/i feel an independent, free-thinking, and free-of-manipulation individuals NEVER submit to such humiliating acts, be it to the royals or anyone else" it wouldn't have sounded that bad, because its your individual thinking and by starting the setnence with "i feel/in my view" it wouldn't have sounded that "offensive" or outright insulting. The problem was with how you phrased your sentence. You phrased it in a way that implied that everyone in Nepal or who engaged in such act IS manipulated and is devoid of free will. I personally found this approach quite insulting.

Ma yahi mauka ma arko kura ni bhani halchu:


Anil jyu,

If somebody else had written what you wrote, I wouldn't have bothered myself with a lengthy reply. However, you being a graduate student of IR, and who has the potentials to represnet Nepal/or the organizations you affiliate yoursleves with in the international arena in future, criticizing (and "insulting") [note: I put insulting in "", because its MY view] the collective cultural traits of the people did not seem right to me. Not that you have to take care of my cultural sensebilities, but I decided to voice my concerns anyways.

Take it as a constructive criticism, not just criticism for the sake of criticism.

Newuser asked:

"So Ashu dai, as a real/practical democrat that you are, you won't hesitate to 'raja/ rani ko khutta ma dhogna' in the same way as Shiva Shrestha did? Yes or No? Do me a favour by replying short and precisely to the point. "


Thank you newuser bhai for your Bijay Kumar-like question.

Let me repeat my position: I FULLY defend Shiva Shrestha's RIGHT to do as he pleases in front Royal Family members or in front of anyone else, with the assumption that Shiva and Shiva ALONE, bears responsibility for his actions and with the further assumption that he does what he does out of his own choices and NOT through force and coercion.

I have NO reason to believe that Shiva did what he did through force or coercion.

Likewise, as long as no one forces me to do this or that, and as long as I myself bear FULL responsibility for all my actions, I would retain my right to do as I please in front of anyone as per what is context-dependent and what's culture-specific.

My job is NOT to please you, or please Nepe's or Anil Jung Shahi's political ideologies.

There may be intersections among our thoughts, and there may NOT be -- and that's perfectly all right for that way DIVERSITY of opinions exists in a democracy.

This Friday morning, for a cultural-exchange experience for instance, I went to a musque and kneeled down like everyone else there.

My action was voluntary, unforced, context-dependent and culture-specific.
Who's to judge it otherwise?

One of democracy's basic tenets is that people have a right to pursue their own happiness (without harming others, without breaking the laws and without being subjected to force and coercion).

Live and let live.

oohi
ashu

Hannetanne,

Some of my best friends are engineers.

My engineer-related comments here are directed ONLY to OK and OK alone for he is on record for saying many things with ZERO evidence. Just go back and do a careful reading of all my recent exchanges with him.

When people like me point that out to OK, he gets defensive, reactive and hostile.
Then again, I know that his reaction is TYPICAL of most educated Nepalis.

oohi
ashu

Iso,

Let us not lose focus of the discussion by presenting me with a disconnected lengthy lecture on Japanese history -- that is not the issue here. Neither is the issue here about respect to cultural practices. I have already explained these above, and I will choose avoid redundancy.

Once agian, in a short and sweet manner, MY issue with what Shiva Shrestha did was/is:

DHOGNE is a profoundly gradiose form of respect in our society. Therefore, is it appropriate to indulge in that grandiose form of respect to someone just because s/he happened to be born a royal? Or should we consider expressing such respect according to the recipient's deeds, not merely his/her birth?

According to you, yes, Komal Shah deserved that kind of respect "because she is the Queen of Nepal, and for many she is a mother figure and or represents something divine." What has she done to be considered a "mother figure" and "divine"? You failed to address. Nevertheless, it is your right to DHOGO someone merely because she was married to the King. Judging by your comments, you'd probably DHOGO Paras Shah too because he is the member of the immediate royal family. Suit yourself. I am not trying to stop you.

However, it is also my inalienable entitlement to an opinion that people who would fit into the category described in the preceding paragraph to be "manipulated". By choosing to DHOGO someone merely of his/her birth, and not out of respect to their deeds YOU (capitalized because it is a general YOU) have displayed admission to subversion. I still stand by my original comment that "independent-thinking and free-of-manipulation" individuals would not admit to ANY form of subversion to ANYONE.

I too grew up reading what THEY made us read, listening to what THEY made us listen to, and privy to information that THEY chose to provide. If this process of brain-washing is not manipulation, then I seriously do not know what is. True, Shiva Shrestha's action has become an issue on this discussion forum now. That is becasue some of us are at least beginning to question the conditions of our growing ups, and are trying to free ourselves.

Over three hundred thousand Germans stood at Brandenberg chanting "Hail Hitler" in 1933 too. Think about it.

This is what I do NOT understand about people like Anil Jung Shahi -- who are, if you do careful reading of what they post, too partisanally ideological to even talk about democracy (which is all about rights, rights and nothing but rights).

Let me give a fresh example.

On one hand, he tells Isolated Freak:

"Nevertheless, it is your right to DHOGO someone merely because she was married to the King."

Then, notice how quickly , he rushes in to pass a completely uncalled-for judgement about how some people might (oh, my God!) CHOOSE to exercise that very right,
which Anil himself recognized only a moment ago.

He now writes:

"By choosing to DHOGO someone merely of his/her birth, and not out of respect to their deeds YOU (capitalized because it is a general YOU) have displayed admission to subversion"

This is RIDICULOUS, insulting and too prissily sanctimonious.

I mean, once you recognize something as a right, why can't you ACCEPT that people may choose to exercise that right in ways that might offend your super-delicate
political sensibilities?

If you can't accept that, then, what can you really talk about democracy?

***

Let me give an analogy.

There's a guy in Ratna Park who sells soft-porn magazines.
The police have taken him to a court at least three different times.
Every time, he's haulked before a judge, the court has given him a clean chit, saying that he has every right to sell those magazines as a free seller.

But the Nepali police NONETHELESS arrest the guy again and again, harrass him and
try to throw him into jail.


I have always found this to be a ridiculous situation.

When the guy has clearly violated no rules of the land (and he's got a court statement to prove that), why the hell are the police harrassing him?

The reason is this.

The police CANNOT understand that once someone has a right to do something legally (and morally) in a democracy, that person may do something using that right that may well VIOLATE your or mine or his personal sense of what's good and what's bad . . .
AND THAT IS PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT. That's the very essence of having a democratic mind-set.

Likewise, sure, Anil J Shahi is ENTITLED to bring up his opinion about subversion.

But by juxtaposing it right next to "but they have a right to do so" comment, he gives
a clear signal that he's more interested in telling other people how to live their own lives as per his own ideologies than in expanding their overall degrees of freedom.

oohi
ashu

---- Sorry for getting away from the mainstream discussions to make a personal clarification---

Ashu,

FYI, it is YOU not ME who is hostile against others (Do not you think that you lost a significant numbers of your reading consumers because of your personal hostility?). My case, I am writing for my pleasure, which has NOTHING to do either with you or with anybody else here in sajha personally. So, for me, there is NO reason to be hostile against anyone. Mild hostility in the opinions are ALLOWED in my understanding. If you can not bear, please tell me in ADVANCE. To know, with PROOF, how much POPULAR you are in SAJHA as a long-time contributor (as defined by you), just go, see and realize in this thread (I am STILL NOT in such a position to designate you as such):

http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=22527

Congratulation man !!! You should be PROUD of it. Nobody believes your twisted apologies you insisted. EVERYBODY knows who you are. You, yourself, claimed to be a long-time visitors in this SAJHA and, pretend to discredit others saying a new or a naive one with NO REASONS and PROOFS, it is better for you to evaluate yourself FIRST. This is an well-wisher's suggestion. I DO NOT hesitate to say that I like your postings to know NEGATIVE points of any actions and opinions. I NEED these too, along with the POSITIVE ones, which I also want from you but failed till date.

For me, your ANALYSIS about me has ZERO influence, because you are WRONG and FUSE and KATTAM (again, this is your word!), related to your personal and professional evaluation against me.

I HEARTILY welcome your opinion-related criticisms.
---
OK
*Enjoying the only-negative comments from Self-Styled Professional-Commentators*

Ok,

A good show.

Now, put your hands in your ears, and shout "kukhuri ka" three times and jump and down 10 times.

Maybe Manju will forgive you after all.

oohi
ashu

Haha,

Ashu,

Do you really READ my JHAREJHURE GAUKO JHAREJHURE katha or, you just commented me from the thread name?

Muri Muri thank you, if you really read it (Please DO NOT forget to read keeping in mind that the writer is not a professional writer!)
---
OK

Lokman,

You wrote: "...Shiva Shrestha isn't necessarily expressing his reverence to the queen per se, rather the gesture is directed towards the institution of monarchy as the queen does represent it...Maybe Shiva Shrestha sees the monarchy as the ultimate guardian of the nation and people as many Nepalis do."

Even though I STRONGLY disagree with you on the relevance on monarchy in Nepal, I still consider your response a RESPECTABLE one. You have disavowed BLIND FAITH and BLIND RESPECT, and have chosen to argue on support of your case based on calculated judgement.

On my disagreements with you, I think I have made them abundantly clear on my numerous previous posts. Repeating them would cost me time and energy, and it could be a source of further irritation to you. :)

Ashu,

I am not sure whether I should thank you for the opportunity to repeat myself:

"Some of us are not questioning Shiva Shrestha's individual right to "DHOGO" whoever he wants. Yes, that is his own personal, democratic perogative. By the same token, though, it is anyone else's democratic right to criticize what Shiva Shrestha has done, for WHATEVER reason(s). The latter is NOT proposing a jail sentence for him, or torturing him, or banning him from acting in future movies, or harrassing him or his family members, or gang raping him, etc., for crying out loud! There is a HUGE difference between BEING CRITICALLY OPINIONATED AND ENGAGING IN FREE AND HEALTHY DISCUSSIONS, and UNDEMOCRATICALLY ENFORCING THOSE OPINIONS. I have not seen ANY of us opposed to Shiva Shrestha's actions in the above picture indulging in the latter in this thread. So much so for arguments on individual rights."

Now, would you kindly do the "kukuri kaa" drill? ;)

Anil,

If you have NO problem with Shiva's doing what he did, then, what is the BASIS of
your saying that he must have done so because of "manipulation" or because of
"social subversion" or because of any of the other arm-chair theories that you
have come up with?

Shiva's older than you, and can make up his own mind about his actions without being told that he is being "manipulated" and the like.

Shiva's example does NOT give you a window to make generalisations about our various societies of Nepal.

You talk about being critically opinionated, but an opinion that just throws generalisations and offers no basis for thinking what you think is NOT being
critical.

It's just being ideological under the garb of democracy.

Finally, trying to live in a democracy is also about living with people who do things that
one doesn't like but who have broken no laws and have harmed none.

oohi
ashu

Ashu, 'dai' was for the respect I had for you, which I will continue to have until you don't take a handpicked public position in any controversial or clandestine circumstances.

You said a Bijay Kumar type question. I can just laugh for your gesture. But any person can understand that I was simply asking if you would be 'dhoging' the queen or not in the same way as Shiva Shrestha did. Yes or No ?You said neither 'yes' nor 'not'. Your answer was marred by ambiguity as usual, your trademark in sajha.

Yours was rather a Dr. Bakili Muluzi (former president of Malawi) type answer. This chap is reknowned for never giving a precise answer to any question put forwarded to him. Even Sir David Frost, Tim Sebastian, Larry King would not get a plain answer from this man. If somebody asked about reforms in his country he would go - ''What do you mean by reform? Western governments think what they are doing is democracy and what they are implementing is reform. I don't believe in western democracy. You tell me what reform means'' He never ever answered a single question precisely.

So, as you have 'fully defended Shiva's right to dhoging the queen' and said nothing about what you would do, can I imply that you are ready to fall flat on the queens feet when the oppurtunity comes? (may be, this will be a Bijay Kumar type question- yahoo)
Let me ask again will you ever dhoging the King and Queen ko khutta agadi, by putting your head on the floor? Yes or No?

Let me ask again will you ever dhoging the King and Queen ko khutta agadi, by putting your head on the floor? Yes or No?
..........................................................................................................
Whats wrong with that ? Isnt that our tradition ? hmmmm correct me if i am wrong.

Newuser,

Ashu won't answer your question CONCRETELY because he is either preparing for another hostile personal attacks to someone here in Shajha or REALLY trying his "Kukhuri Ka" pratice. नेपालीमा उखान छ नि "नाच्न चाहिँ नजान्नेले आगनलाई दोस दिन्छ।"
---
ओके

I am surprised Shiva Shrestha's patal dhoging has generated so much of discussion here. I am surprised because, as I said earlier, this is a daily going on in Nepal for those sycophants and who foster and encourage sycophancy. In a way, I equate it with the use of sycophancy language such as, "khaisiyos, laisiyos". How many of you educated people use this sycophancy language that only confuses a common Nepali? Ask yourself first. If you do, shame on you. I have seen people, so called educated and in higher echelon of the society, who are ready to degrade and demean themselves and surrender to the royalties. I guess this is in expection of some gains or favour,but not out of genuine respect.

Why not we talk about elimination of feudal "mohor rakhera dhogne" custom that is still being used publicly? I would even suggest something that may sound radical, but more practical. What we should be discussing is about changing our calendar from BS to Gregorian so that we are part of the global village? Again, do look at the Thai example how they have customised it to their situation.

Your reactions???

DHOGNE is a profoundly gradiose form of respect in our society. Therefore, is it appropriate to indulge in that grandiose form of respect to someone just because s/he happened to be born a royal? Or should we consider expressing such respect according to the recipient's deeds, not merely his/her birth?

--

Look Anil ji, you didn't know about the Japanese Royals, so i posted a lengthy disocurse on the subject, so that you would know something new. And since we are comparing the practices in japan and Nepal, I don't my earlier post was out of place or context.

With regards to your above point, yes, sometimes people deserve RESPECT for what they are. No matter how much you hate or dislike the President of the US, you have to call him Sir or His Excellency when addressing him in peroson. Heck, you even have to wear certain kind of clothes if you are meeting him in his office. So YES, sometimes people get respewct for who they are POLITICALLY and SOCIALLY, not for what they are.

" According to you, yes, Komal Shah deserved that kind of respect "because she is the Queen of Nepal, and for many she is a mother figure and or represents something divine." What has she done to be considered a "mother figure" and "divine"? You failed to address. Nevertheless, it is your right to DHOGO someone merely because she was married to the King. Judging by your comments, you'd probably DHOGO Paras Shah too because he is the member of the immediate royal family. Suit yourself. I am not trying to stop you. "

Anil ji, calm down. I don't think I need to address what she has done or not done, but because the fact that she is the queen of Nepal as of today, she deserves the respect. Let me reiterate: She deserves the respect BECAUSE she is the Queen of Nepal. What I do to the crown prince is my matter as long as i don't force on you. But yes, being the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Nepal, he too deserves respect for his position. Don't stop me because you don't have any rights to stop me from showing my respect to the King, Queen and the Crown Prince the way I want to. You don't do it and I won't force you to.

" However, it is also my inalienable entitlement to an opinion that people who would fit into the category described in the preceding paragraph to be "manipulated". By choosing to DHOGO someone merely of his/her birth, and not out of respect to their deeds YOU (capitalized because it is a general YOU) have displayed admission to subversion. I still stand by my original comment that "independent-thinking and free-of-manipulation" individuals would not admit to ANY form of subversion to ANYONE. "

You are looking at the Nepali realities with your western glasses, and by being judgemental, you are insulting the collective wisdom of the majority of the Nepali population that still believes and RESPECTS the institution of monarchy. This is what I was trying to point out to you all these while. You decided to turn a blind eye to it, and that's fine. But just because you don'rt approve of it or you don't believe in it, does not grant you any AUTHORITY to judge those who engage in such displays of respect as "manipulated" people.

" I too grew up reading what THEY made us read, listening to what THEY made us listen to, and privy to information that THEY chose to provide. If this process of brain-washing is not manipulation, then I seriously do not know what is. True, Shiva Shrestha's action has become an issue on this discussion forum now. That is becasue some of us are at least beginning to question the conditions of our growing ups, and are trying to free ourselves. "

I don't know what you are complaining about. In Asia, in almsot every country, kids are taught to respect the institutions. If you consider this brain washing and manipulation, then I have nothing to say. In the monarchical countries, Kids are taught of the "glorious" history of the monarchy and are taught to respect the institution. God Save the Queen.. isn't this the national anthem of the UK?

Yes, we are manipulated, to use your word, to think and act the way the state wants us to act, and it has been this way for the last 2000 years. Question, free yourselves but at the same time, do not impose your beliefs and do not consider everyone whether because of manipulation or out of their free will choose to respect the institutions as "manipulated" people with "slave mentality".


" Over three hundred thousand Germans stood at Brandenberg chanting "Hail Hitler" in 1933 too. Think about it. "

Why people chanted Hail Hitler is still under a lot of controversy and the scholars are still deciding what made led to Hitler's rise. Hitler didn't manipulate (he was articulate) but the german population then, dishonored, destitute and deperate, supported Hitler and his "vision" for Germany. And for you, he was elected with overwhelming majority!!

point, yes, sometimes people deserve RESPECT for what they are.= for who they are

Why people chanted Hail Hitler is still under a lot of controversy and the scholars are still deciding what made led to Hitler's rise. Hitler didn't manipulate (he was articulate) but the german population then, dishonored, destitute and deperate, supported Hitler and his "vision" for Germany. And for you, he was elected with overwhelming majority= what led to Hitler's rise.

Why people chanted Hail Hitler is still under a lot of controversy and the scholars are still deciding what made led to Hitler's rise. Hitler didn't manipulate (he was articulate) but the german population then, dishonored, destitute and deperate, supported Hitler and his "vision" for Germany. And for you, he was elected with overwhelming majority!!

Ok rthis one got scred big time, let me edit it:

Why people chanted Hail Hitler is still under a lot of controversy and the scholars are still deciding what led to Hitler's rise. Hitler didn't manipulate (he was articulate) but the German population then, dishonored, destitute and deperate, supported Hitler and his "vision" for Germany. And for you,an overwhelming majority elected him in a democratically held elections. People due to teh circusmtances then believed in Hitler, at least this is what one school of thought tells. And I find this convincing. The victors of the first world war- the big 4- created a dissatisfied Germany and the result was Hitler.

Of course there are other interpretations too. Based on my readings on this as of today, I believe in this interpretation.

" I too grew up reading what THEY made us read, listening to what THEY made us listen to, and privy to information that THEY chose to provide. If this process of brain-washing is not manipulation, then I seriously do not know what is. True, Shiva Shrestha's action has become an issue on this discussion forum now. That is becasue some of us are at least beginning to question the conditions of our growing ups, and are trying to free ourselves. "

Ok let me reiterate what I said earlier.

Nobody is forced to dhog the royals. No where in our school text books we are taught or asked to do that. We are taught to respect the institution. What Shiva did was out of his free will.

If you do not want to respect the constitutional institution of the country, then that is your problem, not Shiva's, or mine or of other people who choose to respect the institution.