Are you a royalist?

He was stunned by my question. Look left and right. He said in a harsh voice, "Don't talk to Fantus." How can I be a king?' he cleared, as if it meant nothing else. And let no one disturb the palace. I said, "Uncle, a republic is a system where every person can become the master of power." You can be president. Your children, grandchildren can become president. Is it better to be elected as the head of state or is it better to be born as head of state? Be the master of yourself, uncle, now the time of mastering others has passed. He started to say, 'When he was a king, everyone was a coward. Whatever we said would happen. Police administration was strong. Now chaos has increased. People left. Don't count the big ones. No one cares about anyone. Like all Panchas, his grief was eternal. When he came to the east on a development tour, his uncle had two darshans of the king. Remembering that divine vision, he was shocked and said, 'Everything is ruined now!' Why do you become a royalist louder than the king?' He roared, 'then this country will not be built, write it down.' After listening to my uncle, a question came to my mind - what kind of consciousness is this, which does not believe in itself? What is this idea of ​​politics, which believes in royal power rather than civil power? What kind of faith is there anywhere in politics, which believes in monarchy more than in democracy?

Uncle said, 'All our parties have become the stronghold of brokers. The leaders turned out to be corrupt, arrogant and incompetent. The looting of the state intensified. I supported and said, "If the leader has spoiled the country, then the leader should be changed, uncle!" If the politics is bad, then the politics should be changed. If the parties are bad, the parties have to be changed. Where the problem is, it should be treated. Is the fault of the leader given to democracy and republic? Democracy is the only system that has the power to purify itself. But is that possible in a monarchy?' With my question, the uncle-nephew discussion got longer. At the end, I said, "Yesterday, during the reign of the king, was the country Ram Rajya, uncle?" This was my last question of the day, which I am dedicating to the royalists, and now I am going forward with my words.

About Prithvinarayan

The royalists think that a king is needed because this country was built by Prithvinarayan Shah. Did the king alone make this country? However, let's say, that campaign was led by Prithvi Narayan. But what happened after that? Diss. The Shah dynasty that ascended to Kathmandu in 1825 built such a palace of conspiracy, which never gave us stability and prosperity. Neither the Shah dynasty made the whole country emotionally united, institutionalized and strong after the unification, nor just and developed.

Our entire century after the unification was spent in wars, war tactics and bhardari conspiracies. Clash of heirs. Step-Sister Struggle. Sister-in-law Khatpat. Kot Festival Bhandarkhal festival. As a result, the fagat conspiracy came to stay at the center of power.

The story of Gorkhali was connected with the unification of the country. Some of their own citizens were defeated, some were victorious. Of course, Prithvi Narayan Shah went down in history but his name was associated with genealogy. Gradually it became a glorification of dynasticism. "The king is the country, the country is the king." The role of the citizens in the construction of the state and nation was being overshadowed. It was said, 'The country belongs to the king, the people belong to the king, the power belongs to the king, the government belongs to the king.' Their focus was on power and wealth. Their interest was pleasure. As a result, conspiracy, power, wealth and luxury became the main character of Nepali power.

History says, Jung Bahadur himself was a pawn of the royal conspiracy. After Jung Bahadur, brutal and inferior feudalism took hold in the country. We became Raitis when civil rights were being ensured in the world. While the wave of democracy was going on in Europe, we were gradually moving towards Jahanian rule. While the foundations of industrial development were being strengthened in the West, we were promoting the caste system. While elsewhere the constitution and rule of law were beginning, we were being governed by orders. Thus our precious youth and life were wasted.

About Mahendra

Purpanchas consider Mahendra as a visionary king. What is visionary? Is the king who revived the dictatorial power by suppressing democracy and imprisoning public opinion called a visionary? A prejudiced and undemocratic dictator who does not see the growing democracy in the southern neighborhood, does not see the light of liberality and justice flourishing all over the world, ignorant of the basic principles of human rights, can be called a visionary? What is happening, a Lahdi king who does not care about it and makes his own name and power a moral ideal is called a visionary? While China, India, Singapore, Malaysia were climbing the mountain of development, King Mahendra's royal carriage was driving us to Akkar. While the world was opening the door to freedom, Mahendra was closing the door. Let alone democracy, Panchayati power itself was the mother of conspiracy, state exploitation and instability. It so happened that the Panchayat lasted for about thirty years and sixteen governments were formed in those thirty years. Darbar himself ran factions and gangs. The kingdom built by Mahendra was a paradise of plunder for the pancha, but the citizens could not speak. Criticism was treason. Therefore, we could not create our own independent sky of knowledge, science, consciousness and civilization. We couldn't be better. Our capacity has shrunk to an average level.

I am telling my experience. Even around 2040-42, we used to walk three hours in the morning and evening to go to school. It was a long walk to reach the health center, where even medicine for lice was not available. People died from malaria and measles. Most of the youth in my village used to go to Assam, Meghalaya and Sukkhim to work. Even my hands used to work there. About 70 percent of the village had to come to eat rice on Dasain. Madhesh was about to fall and tear the sack. There was not one km of road in the district. There was not a single college. They had to carry heavy loads for four days to bring salt from Dharan. Darbar, his relatives, underground gang bosses and panchas were above the law. They were allowed to kill.

The king's vassals and even his servants used to go out on the streets and travel on the maddened horses of power. Under the protection of power, idols were stolen, forests were cut down. Snake skins were sold. CDO taught how to write poems, stories and plays. The chief would order how the song should be sung. The news was edited by the police. Questioning, criticism was forbidden. Others used to decide which books to read and which not to read. No infrastructure, no economic prosperity. Neither human rights nor social justice. Not a fast university, not a good school.

Panchs argue, 'Those were not easy times like now.'Sure, but then there were trains in India. India was the center of education. Banaras, Calcutta. At that time, India had blown the trumpet of industrial and agricultural revolution. But we didn't have a moving wheel. As we can see, many universities in the world are standing with a history of a thousand years. Who stopped the Shahs from building a university 200 years ago? Build a hospital? Bring the train? Kulo, pani khan? Who stopped the Shahs from building big palaces in each development area to build theaters, libraries and cultural centers there? Who stopped the kings who kept their saliks in Chokchok to build a beautiful park in the city? The oldest cities in the world stand majestically with thousands of years of history. Large roads, open spaces, magnificent housing, orderly architecture. But who made our cities cluttered and cramped like slums? Looking at all this, it seems that saying that the country was heaven in the monarchy is an illusion of the servants. The truth is, monarchy has narrowed us from the great opportunity of global competition and we have been forced to remain poor, backward, marginal and helpless.

Constitutional Monarchy

So say the monarchists citing the example of the kings of other countries. , 'See Norway, England, Japan etc. Are the people of that country stupid?' Of course, there is a king in that country. The Communist Party is in power in China. There are religious authorities in Arabia. Let's consider, are we in an environment like Norway or England? Is it possible to have a religious authority like Arabs in our country? Do we want a communist system like China?

England or Norway have their own unique monarchies. Arabia has its own characteristics, China has its own and Nepal has its own. Monarchy became unacceptable in our country for three main reasons. First, we have a long history of political agitation. That movement was mainly against feudalism and the hero of which was the monarchy itself. Therefore, the continuous conflict between the Nepali people and the monarchy, in that sense, the monarchy has never been and is not the center of hope and expectation of the citizens.

Secondly, our monarchy has never promoted the plurality, diversity and collectivity of the country. It became a leader of ethnic, linguistic and religious bigotry. So it does not represent the unity and brotherhood of our pluralistic society. Thirdly, our monarchy has no weight and dignity. There is no wisdom, no integrity and morality. No knowledge, no generosity. Therefore, to say that the royal institution should be worshiped by showing Prithvi Narayan is just an insult to the civil power. This is not our solution.

What is wanted?

What do the royalists want? Explaining their proposal, the monarchists say, "What we want is a constitutional monarchy." A monarchy that has no authority. But, Thapana Raja. Why do they want a monarchy that has no rights? There is only selfishness in their reasoning. In this sense, when I see the royalist friends, a question comes to my mind, 'Why would someone turn away from the opportunity to become independent, empowered, and make someone king?' What is the royalist's fascination with the dynastic tradition, where they want a master? What kind of politics is it to declare yourself a Raiti?

Of course, the Federal Democratic Republic did not yield results. Parties went bad. Leaders are bad. They could not grasp the right idea, agenda. So what was the brilliance of the monarchy?

So today's debate is not king. Today's debate is not a palace. Today's debate is the complete democratization of democracy. End of party system. Citizen-centric politics. Because, monarchy cannot be an alternative to democracy. So today's debate is about strong democracy. Unfettered democracy. Progressive and inclusive democracy. Of course, it's not what we want right now. Power is dirty. Power is corrupt. That means, do we pick up yesterday's garbage to get rid of today's garbage? Making the state and politics more dirty by adding yesterday's garbage to today's garbage? A king can certainly be the king of one's heart. There was no objection. But if someone thinks that the king should be in charge of the country and the state, that is a nightmare for him. It sheds no light on our present.

So today's main topic is more democracy. Such a democracy, which should take the country out of the 260-year-old vicious circle of acquiring power, power and wealth. Which should awaken new hope in citizens. Otherwise this country will become a mass of disappointments. And then it will take many more years to get back into the creative rhythm again.

Finally, I make a request to royalist friends. Friends, there is as much difference between monarchy and democracy as there is between darkness and light. Do you love the dark or the light? It's your choice. All I ask is, darkness can never be a substitute for light.