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

also,

seems like in your version of democracy, its only the people who subscribe to your ideas are "non manipulated" people. and if you, god forbid, become a leader of Nepal, then based on your writings here, i would pray to the almighty lord to save Nepal from your version of democracy. Or the sajha version of democracy in which people have to put on a horse blinder and look and run in one direction! Because the democracy you preach does not let people look left and right. Some of your comrades even argue for "pure class" background democracy as evident by asking people their family backgrounds when they run out of arguments. Scaringly, all of which reminds me of my history lesson on China of the 50s- only the people who believed in the party's directives were democrats, only those coming from poor family backgrouds were real/true revolutionaries.. and everyone who came from a middle class family or who had western education a counter revolutionary!

Think of it. There is something fundamentally wrong with the brand of democracy you preach here.

Glad that I don't subscribe to your - the way I see it- radical, intolerant and rather nonsensical version of democracy.

namsate and so much for today.

or in other words, I won't replace one brand of radicalism with another brand of radicalism :-).

IF bro, I have been ignoring you for your own sake so far. But as you have indirectly catapulted at me, let me answer you directly. I don't know if it was your intention to drag me at debate, but your comment has done.So, lets be straightforward now.

The question here is not about respect to the royal family. Mausuf, gari baksyo, sri panch ko sarkar, Maharajdhiraj, His/Her Majesty, His/Her royal highness etc are all respectfull attributions for our royals. They have already got enough respect, very undeservedly for the role they have played in the last few decades. Now, if you think 'Khutta ma dhogne' or 'bhui ma tauko latarne' as a respect to the King and Queen, Jesus! Pardon me, I feel shame for your scholarly credentials. As a strong believer of स्वदेशे पु्ज्जेयत राजा विद्वानः सर्वत्र पुज्जेयत, your arguments have dwarfed your academic achievements, believe me or not.

As for the family background thing, It seems you have run out of your own logic to discuss with Anil and continously pull me, who Anil shares his minimum democratic ideology with; to support your arguments full of chakari and chaplusi to the royals. 'Sri Panch ko Sarkar ko jai' tells where you stand. I don't have to elaborate on this.

Raising concerns about family background, I was only trying to estabilish a bitter truth in the Nepalese society that our folks can't judge anything without separating themselves from the political affiliation of their family.I know this was a killer logic which has tremendously paralysed your sensation. That was quite an attack for an arrogant person, but a bitter truth indeed which hit the final nail on the coffin. I stick to my original conviction that you have been deliberately twisting the knowledges you have acquired in international relation studies to please the royals.For a pragmatic person as I am, It doesn't take much time for me to understand that you belong to a circle whose business is to please royals. How about Senate Shrestha getting a ministerial position? Unveil yourself now and get the reward. Or rather, your sajha postings since Feb 1 will help.
Sorry bro, truth tastes bitter.

newuser,

i have neither time nor intention to deal with you as of today. however, in the future, if you change your way of debating/discussing, i might reply to your posts, queries. Until then, we both are better off ignoring each other.

If Shive wants to be a royalist, let him be. Who are we to judge his freedom of expression ?

There is a big hue and cry about this bowing down in this thread because of the prejudices of few posters here.

I don't see much ideological difference between someone bowing to Shahi Baba or the King/Queen. Nobody give a second glance at people bowing to Shahi Baba even though he's been accused of being phony. But there's a big hue and cry about someone bowing to the Queen.

Everytime on King's birthday or Bada Dashai, there's couple of miles long line outside the royal palace to get tika.

People who are prejudiced against the king, get over it and accept the fact that there are people who think differently than you. Who are you to make judgement about someone's faith?

One thing that I have noticed around the clock here in sajha is that there is a anti royal group who have unmetered hate towards the royals in Nepal. At any point they will raise thier heads to denouce the royals.

My thought on this is, either do something about it, go back to Nepal and take care of them, become a shahid or something, or else stop boring us with the same shit everyday. Obviously you don't hate them enough to leave your present cosy lifestyle. If you really hate them my advice and suggestion is go to Nepal and actively work on getting them out of the country or take the power away from them.

All this negativity in sajha can't be good for you fellars. Ulcer hola ke ke hola ke ke. Tyehi kura hazar choti sunda sunne lai wakka lagi sakyo. Kati matra badbadauna sakney ho yo keta haru tyo pani tyehi yeuta kura.

All talk and no action makes jack look pretty stupid.

>>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. <<

I think Ashu makes a good point here. If it was Ganeshman Singh (god bless his soul) in the queen's place or Sonia Gandhi or Amitabh Bachchan or even Al Pacino then would we have reacted the same way?

I have a great interest in Royalty and its history be it Europe, Russia, Greece or even Nepal and it has been my burning desire to explore the past and the present Nepali Royalty and perhaps publish a book someday. but does that mean I support Monarchy? personally I don't. just wanted to add a few cents....

ISO,

You can -- and you have -- blame(d) me for trying to impose my opinion on you.

By the same token, I can also blame you for trying to impose your opinion on me if I want to.

That is besides the point, so let's not even go there. If free discussions of issues is seen as attempts to impose one's views onto the opposing sides, then that would kill the healthiness of the discussions. Attempts to persuade, perhaps. Impose? Absolutely not!

Having said that, I am afraid I cannot continue with this discussion without repeating myself now. I have said all I had to say, and I'd hate to engage in a never-ending cycle of debates with you. Particularly with someone who is willing to offer a DHOG to a filthy personality like Paras, there is nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise. I am sure you feel the same way about me too. No hard feelings -- that's just the way it is. I shall respectfully agree to disagree with you FUNDAMENTALLY and end it here before this political/ideological debate begins to take a toll on our personal relationship.

rang women gaoxing women di qubie...kanbeiii!!!!!! [I hope I got it right...eheheh ]

For the purposes of clarity, these were/are my arguments point by point:

1. Issue here (for me) was not Shiva Shrestha's personal choice of actions. The real issue here is what kind of deeper IMPLICATIONS his seemingly simple and trivial action has had in questions such as what it means to be a Nepali and what we aspire to become as a nation.

2. Offering an utmost respect by DHOG-ing someone who has earned that respect through his/her deeds is FINE by me. So, bringing in an argument of respecting cultures is pointless. I am just questioning why we should do that to someone merely because s/he is born into a royal family; and, in Paras' case, not only born into a royal family, but who has time and again proven himself to be not worthy of such respect.

3. Every action out of "freewill" has consequences too; and one of those consequences is that people will have varying opinions about it. Actions and consequences (e.g. opinions about those actions) are all firmly embeded in a democratic frame. Nothing undemocratic about them until someone tries to -- physically (by force), or manipulatively (by mental indoctrination) -- transform one's opinion into a way of life for others.

4. There is nothing belittling about saying someone is manipulated. It is not the victim's fault. The fault lies with the manipulator. The fact is that you and I and every other Nepalis were manipulatedby the Royal establishment to varying degrees, depending on how receptive each of us were to the process. The Panchayati indoctrination, through the ways in which they made us live our lives, has manipulated our set of minds to think in certain ways, and to believe certain things. Some of us are merely trying to free ourselves from such manipulative indoctrination. May I boldly add: Thanks to democracy of the 10 years or so, It is only a GOOD thing that many more are begnning to question BLIND FAITH and BLIND RESPECT.

Slavery was thought of as normal in the 1800's too, even by the slaves themselves. The fact is that is was NOT right, and the changes didn't begin to happen until few brave souls started to question it.

5. Finally, since you brought it up, shaking hands and wearing suits to visit the White House do not even come close to DHOGNE. Mind you, there is a Western cultural equivalence to our DHOGNE too: Kneeling and kissing the person's hand. This goes without saying that despite (what I consider) George Bush's sheer dumbness and arrogance, he is mcuh more deserving of people's respect than KingG or any other members of the royal family, anywhere in the world. People can hate him for their differences with him, but the fact remains that Bush was not born into presidency of the US. He had to work tremendously hard for it, and had to fight an election. Someone who comes to power by winning an election, and tries hard to EARN respect, is far more respectable anf honorable than someone who is born into power and DEMANDS respect.

My boss recently forwarded an article on What should you serve? written
by a Stanford Univ Professor who was ever a waiter in a restaurant in
DC area.

It says: You should serve "not what you want, not what she want, serve what she needs".

Similarly, Shiva Shrestha, I guess did not want that kinda DHOG,
nor Queen expected that kinda DHOG, but at this juncture of time,
that DHOG is needed for both of them.

So, you should remember this phrase.

GeoGuru

Ashu wrote:
>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

आशुको खेदो खन्या होईन, तर ओकेजी कृत मेरो र धेरै साझावासीहरुको अतिप्रिय धारावाहिक 'मन्जु मलाई माफ गर है' प्रति आशुले देखाएको मूर्खतापूर्ण असम्मान र शुन्य सम्वेदनशिलतालाई मैले सहन सकिनँ ।

"ISO,

You can -- and you have -- blame(d) me for trying to impose my opinion on you.

By the same token, I can also blame you for trying to impose your opinion on me if I want to. "

Anil ji, Yes I have. I take the responsibility for my words. I accused you, but I also pointed out the flaws (as I see it) in your arguments.

You are free to say the same thing about me. Like I said earlier in some other thread, we are not discussing ideas here, we are spreading our respective agendas and propaganda.

" Having said that, I am afraid I cannot continue with this discussion without repeating myself now. I have said all I had to say, and I'd hate to engage in a never-ending cycle of debates with you. Particularly with someone who is willing to offer a DHOG to a filthy personality like Paras, there is nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise. I am sure you feel the same way about me too. No hard feelings -- that's just the way it is. I shall respectfully agree to disagree with you FUNDAMENTALLY and end it here before this political/ideological debate begins to take a toll on our personal relationship. "

Yes we are repeating ad nauseum here. And I too have lost my interest and patience to discuss with you because of your self-righteousness and the way you tend to see yoursleves (and everyone who supports you) on a higher moral plane, and ridicule others as "manipulated people with slave mentality".

How I show my respect to the Crown Prince or other members of the Royal family is my business, and as long as the institution remains a constitutional institution, and as long as I retain my Nepali passport, I will follow what the society wants me to follow, what the norms and tradition dictates and what the people expect me to do in official functions or in public. I cannot and will not be a heretic and violate or go against the social norms and expectations, whether that pleases you or offends you. As a citizen of the Kingdom of Nepal, I will follow what the majaority follows. Its my tradition, my culture and I have my freewill to follow them as long as it is socially, culturally and politically required and accepted. I am not a harbinger of social and political change like you and your compatriots here. As of today, for the most part, I am happy with how the Nepali society functions socially, culturally and politically.

Look Anil ji, let me for the last time repeat myslef: I didn't have any objection to your views. Among 23.4 million nepalis, there are probably 3.4 million who share your views, and I have no objection to them thinking differently than me.

What I objected to is the way you phrased your sentence here in this thread. You KNOWINGLY or UNKNOWINGLY phrased your sentence in a way which insults the collective thinking and cultural practice of the majority Nepali. And in my view, this is not right. You can like the institution of monarchy, hate it, it does not matter, but when you consider who do respect the institution as manipulated, its quiteculturally insensetive comment to make in public. As a stduent of IR, I didn't expect to read such statements/sentences from a fellow IR student, and to be honest, your "generalization" of other cultures/peoples, similar to what the early victorian arm-chair anthropologists used to make, disappointed me. I am not being your advisor or anything because I fully know that you fully know what you need to do and know, but as a well wisher, let me offer an unsolicitaed advice: Why not pick up a book or two on socio-cultural anthropology when you have time and further your already wide ranging knowledge on culture and social values, norms and institutions? Ruth Benedict's classic, Patterns of Culture might be a good place to start. Just a suggestion.


Anyways, I don't want to waste your time or my time typing a lengthy reply. I think I made myslef pretty clear, and you did the same. Mercy Beaucoup. Like you said, let us be happy.. let us drink to our differences- Gan Bei!

" It is not our differences that divide us, it is our inability to recognize, accept and celebrate those differences " -- Audre Lorde

hahahahahaha..silly boys get over it..just thank god we're out here and thank god we're not japanese ..

then we would be dhoging and dhoging and dhoging and dhoging and dhoging...dAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN!!!!!!

For the Royalist toadies politics is matter is faith, so what is the use of ration, logic?

Bhagya Badi ko Tarka ? what a hokum there could be more than this?

Hmm...,

ISO writes:..."as long as the institution remains a constitutional institution"...

Now, you are contradicting here with your own statement.
How are you defining KG's move on Feb 1? Is he still a constitutional
monarchy or active monarchy? Well, if you call hin con.Mo. even
after he is the head of council of ministers, then its either your
ignorance or deliberate lie ... twist of truth.

GeoGuru

Geo Guru,

I meant as long as the institution of monarchy is there, and as long as the constitution of Nepal accepts and recognzies the institution, as a Nepali citizen I will show my respect to the institution, whether some like it or not.

Heard lot and read a lot....

We as NEPALIs are not worth anything.....

Everyone is so opinated....we have opinions for everything.....it seems we are all arm chair revolutionaries....from the comfort of our chairs we are able to change the world....change the views and the options...

I have been visitng Sajha for some time now and man the crap i hear....it's a good time pass..i admit that....but when it comes down to the real thing...everything just fizzes...it's all opinions...hahhahahaa.....ppl. suck out here...

Yes there are some writers...and writers by nature are good players of words...and they can really play around with words....i am really sad for the sorry state of affairs of out here....

Ok ppl. tell me one thing seriously...apart from the imported knowledge from crap sites and the articles.....where do u views and convictions stand?

Here i hear "Opinions" from leftists...from the royalist and the middlist.....and almost 99% are echoing their views from places afar...and yet....(No words)...no one's in the battle front and yet the voices are the most pitched...why?

I know i would and could be hearing lotsa but i am sure no one can justify his/her stand..so ppl. stop being so damn sure of u're convictions!

Hey morons what is your capability to understand what Shiva Dai was thinking when he performed that act, let him enjoy his fruits of an act so much hyped personally for a prejudiced groupism and a typical example of Ma.........

Returned to sajha after a long time.. Anyway..

I have no problem whatsoever if a person (e.g., not just Shiva Shrestha, but also Sachchit Shamsher, Bharat Keshar, Sharad Chandra Shah, Tulsi Giri, Jagat Gauchan... any other ABC perso or even Isolated Freak) says it's their "culture" to bow down to the King, Queen, or Paras the way Shiva is doing here on the picture. As long as they limit such practices to themselves or the followers who are happy to being patronized is fine, but my point here is what the people like Bharat Keshar and Sharad Chandra Shah are upto these days?

They do it by choice, but I find it appalling that some people here in the thread ignored the fact that the very feudal people like Bharat Keshar, metaphorically speaking if you will, have used the same concept to COERCE other Nepali to practice the similar acts in the name of 'culture' in the past (i.e., Rana and Panchayat Periods). And, this is where, I think, the problem lies. There no need to discuss how practicing such things would put the person in high moral (the benefits associated with it), and how anyone who opposed to such feudal practices had to run for their life. Look no further than Taleban?s moral policing as the worst example of such feudal, coercive cultural practices.

As much as anthropologists indulge the cultural relativity on observing certain practices, NO anthropologists that we know or read of, take my words on this, can accept or valorize for that matter, any COERCIVE cultural practice as the standards of certain cultural groups. One is, however, free to argue about the fine line between what defines a coerced practice. Monarchists best bet would be to get Shaubhagya Shah, an un-orthodox anthropologist, on this.

Having said that, if anyone wants to suggest others to read anthropological literature to have so-called ?cultural sensitivity? toward own?s culture (i.e., suggesting Anil to be sensitive to understand his own Nepali, not any other specific ethnic groups culture) s/he has to do much better job than listing some outdated concepts and the book ?patterns of culture? of Ruth Benedict: these are mostly dealt in ANTH101 and some ?history of anthropological theories?. Anthropology has come a long way since the context of World War II, which prompted Ruth to write the book. Interestingly, what many readers do not know is that Ruth was allegedly hired by the US Army to write about complex Japanese cultures, including their toilet training. But that?s besides the point here on this thread.

On a side note, I don?t think one can put the bowing down to the royals in the same level as the bowing down to husband or gurus like Sai Baba. The cultural meanings of their bowing down are entirely different. Here is an example:

" They do it by choice, but I find it appalling that some people here in the thread ignored the fact that the very feudal people like Bharat Keshar, metaphorically speaking if you will, have used the same concept to COERCE other Nepali to practice the similar acts in the name of 'culture' in the past (i.e., Rana and Panchayat Periods). And, this is where, I think, the problem lies. There no need to discuss how practicing such things would put the person in high moral (the benefits associated with it), and how anyone who opposed to such feudal practices had to run for their life. Look no further than Taleban?s moral policing as the worst example of such feudal, coercive cultural practices."

How can you prove that they (bharat keshari et. al) are coercing people to bow low to the royals? If they were coercing, then why it was only Shiva who bowed down to the queen?

" As much as anthropologists indulge the cultural relativity on observing certain practices, NO anthropologists that we know or read of, take my words on this, can accept or valorize for that matter, any COERCIVE cultural practice as the standards of certain cultural groups."

I agree, there is no way to valorize and glorify any coercive acts or practices, but the thing is, Shiva was not coerced, he did what he did out of his free will, out of his respect to the institution of monarchy.. and he decided to display his respect in a manner that suprassed the social and cultural practices and expectations. He was not coerced to do what he did.. so we cannot criticize what Shiva did (i am not saying you criticized his action), nor can we criticize and label the respect which Shiva and others have towards the institution of monarchy which makes them engage in such displays of respect as resulting from years of manipulation. This is where I differ. And when you label people's collective thinking, resulting from their unique cultural, historical and other factors, as "manipulated" and "coerced", I find it quite culturally insensetive. Of course, we can look at it from Etic-Emic perspective: What Anil engaged in was Etic perspective (if it can be called that) without any Emic perspective, which makes it no different than the first generation anthropologists. If Emic perspective was scientifically explained without being "insensetive" then I wouldn't have any problem with the explanation.

" Having said that, if anyone wants to suggest others to read anthropological literature to have so-called ?cultural sensitivity? toward own?s culture (i.e., suggesting Anil to be sensitive to understand his own Nepali, not any other specific ethnic groups culture) s/he has to do much better job than listing some outdated concepts and the book ?patterns of culture? of Ruth Benedict: these are mostly dealt in ANTH101 and some ?history of anthropological theories?. Anthropology has come a long way since the context of World War II, which prompted Ruth to write the book. Interestingly, what many readers do not know is that Ruth was allegedly hired by the US Army to write about complex Japanese cultures, including their toilet training. But that?s besides the point here on this thread. "

If you read my earlier reply to Anil ji carefully, I said, this book "might be a good place to START". Her explanation of the cocnepts of "normality" and abnormality" among the Hopi, Juno, Pueblo etc cultures of America, led to the development of mdoern anthropology/ethnographies. In my opinion (and I am not that well read in Anthro), this book is the foundation on which the mdoern day ethnographies rest. Of course, we can start by reading Sherry Ortner's PhD thesis, Sherpas Through Their Rituals, or Lynn Bennett's Dangerous Wives and Sacred Sistsers, or other famous ethnographies such as Nisa, Number Our Days, The House of the Lims, Idioms of Masculanity and others, but you will have a hard time understanding the concepts and methodology Lynn, Sherry, Margery and others employ to explain the cultures they are analyzing, if you don't know the basics that Ruth explains. Its like studying Machiavelli's the Prince to understand the basis of Realism in IR.

Yes, Beneddict was hired by the OSS to understand the japanese culture. She also wrote a book on Japan , Crysanthamum and the Sword.

a bon rat, bon chat!

Nepe writes:

"आशुको खेदो खन्या होईन, तर ओकेजी कृत मेरो र धेरै साझावासीहरुको अतिप्रिय धारावाहिक 'मन्जु मलाई माफ गर है' प्रति आशुले देखाएको मूर्खतापूर्ण असम्मान र शुन्य सम्वेदनशिलतालाई मैले सहन सकिनँ ।"


Nepe,

I did not know that I was showing मूर्खतापूर्ण असम्मान र शुन्य सम्वेदनशिलता.
What else was I showing, man?

I thought my reply was a response to OK's tendency to reach sweeping conclusions about other people with ZERO verifiable evidence.

Then again, I love the way you purport to read my mind, only to come out WRONG and WRONG again and again.

Keep it up!!

That said, first of all, I liked OK's Manju stories, and have already made some unsolicited suggestions to OK.

Second, on a conceptual level, even if I -- as a mere reader -- did not like it (despite others' liking it), I should feel free to express my dislike here without being labelled as someone showing मूर्खतापूर्ण असम्मान र शुन्य सम्वेदनशिलता . After all, just because many people like something is NO reason to like that something. Else, people like you will turn writings into fossilized idols, NOT entities to have critical dialogues with.

Third, despite OK's and my kich-kich, you noticed how OK appeared to have warmed
up to my reference to his Manju story. You probably saw that as a dangerous sign. That's when you knew that you had to do something to throw cold waters. Hence, you rushed in and had to paint my comments as मूर्खतापूर्ण असम्मान र शुन्य सम्वेदनशिलता so that the distance between OK and me would continue to widen.

Nice trick, Nepe.
But some of us can see through your tactics well enough. :-)

OK, your Manju stories are good.
Keep up the good work.

oohi
ashu