Let's start with the show of power of the alleged monarchist and the debate of the leaders of the republican party. Argument and debate can be done from anywhere and in any way. People in different situations analyze and communicate the same object, event and topic in different ways. For example, those who were in power six months ago say that their tenure was a fantasy and there was no corruption, corruption, but middlemen are in the driver's seat of the current government.

He says that the result of all the current frustration is this government that was formed 6 months ago. And the current ruling party claims exactly the opposite. And again, if the current opposition becomes the ruling party, the same cycle of debate will begin. 

Whether it is the debate on the constitutional amendment or the electoral system, whether it is the subject of inter-party democracy or the transfer of leadership, all the arguments and debates seem to be guided by the position or official status that I am sitting on. Such arguments and debates have sown seeds of despair in contemporary Nepalese politics. It cannot be said that the character or the speaker involved in such argument and debate did not understand this. But if he does not, he has no safe alternative. Therefore, he is speaking from the middle of the compulsion that people must speak whether they believe me or not. 

By forgetting the philosophical, theoretical and political basis of looking at objects, events and subjects, or by the helplessness that I and my official status will be saved no matter what the country's people and politics are, today's debates have become self-centered. As a result, so has society. The leaders and workers who are produced by the discourse of the emptiness of ideas and politics are gradually becoming devoid of ideas. In these years, efforts are being made to establish/get this position or opportunity not only as a commentary, but as a recognition that joining politics means getting this position or opportunity. Why are discussions, interactions and debates on deep topics such as the transformation of society, the issues of fighting the challenges created by global capitalism, the preparation and caution of the country in the rapidly developing environment of artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence) brought about by the use of science and technology, and the changing world geopolitics, not becoming a topic of debate from the ward to the center of political parties? Because, today Nepali politics is dominated by either populism or governmentism, oppositionism. They are trying to move the country forward in a hopeless and visionless manner as a group of mindless interests.

It seems that the popular topics of contemporary Nepalese politics are wrapped up in this sleazy, sloppy, and visionless bhumri. Attempts have been made to flog the dead horse to see if the horse of regression can be ridden into the abyss of ganjagol and attitude emptiness. A group of those who try and wonder how a dead horse walks, and another group of people sitting on the right and left of the road and looking amused, are also announcing dates and dates for the restoration of the monarchy. 

The monarchists, who wear the Daura-Suruwal and non-existent Sripech symbols on their chests to bring back the monarchy, think that the Nepalese people are a mass without consciousness and the monarchy can be easily returned by blindfolding them.

What is the big deal when the royalists say they need a king and will be brought? When the Nepali people's peaceful revolution overthrew the monarchy or when this constitution was promulgated, the monarchists had no power. She was dormant. But why is the monarchy that was thrown by the people's revolution trying to wake it up today? Or why is he trying to increase his strength? This should be the topic of debate. And why is the people's indignation against the republicans more than the monarchists regarding the issue of a one-day rally by the monarchists? If this whole aspect is not discussed at the political and social level, the power of the royalists will rise to the stage. 

can reach. But it would be wrong to conclude that the power of the monarchists has already risen. Scientific and established statistics say that even now, the royalist public opinion has not reached 10 percent, so it is still in a faint state.

Populism took some place in the last election in the muddy land where the issue of popular opinion and transformation was overshadowed by the division in the leftist political parties, which was said to be undivided, and extreme factionalism within the Nepali Congress, which was said to be undivided. It created a wave in Nepali politics. That populism, born in the guise of lack of ideas and vision and under the guise of mysterious power and resources, had no philosophical, theoretical and political basis on which it could grow and grow. As a result it is in danger of gradual disintegration as it was born, or it will also cooperate with regression and open its veil. In any case, populism no longer appears to be the basis for developing as an interventionist force.

 The royalists tried to increase their space in this environment where the main political parties' party management methods, their plans, organization mechanisms and worker production or leadership development and the journey from election to election and from appointment to nomination were captured. It is a frightening trend and a matter of concern to attack the republican leaders themselves instead of countering it from the intellectuals of the republican section or the civil society. 

The intellectual class or the civil society, who in the huge revolutions of the 40s or 60s, ideologically or materially, covertly or openly in favor of the multi-party system, republic or democracy, put their professions and daily lives at risk in the grand sacrifice of democracy or republic, are in a state of fainting and shame today. Regression from this state of affairs is seeing the nightmare of raising its head. In a country where the space of the intellectual class shrinks, that country cannot take the path of transformation and progress.

Where intellectual debates are discussed and researched, the intellectual world is upgraded. Generations of politicians can reap the rewards of that. Intelligence is not valued in the formal machinery of political parties, mass organization, appointment, nomination, election and other occasions. If his ideas and research do not find any place, in that case there are three options before the intellectual world - emigration abroad, inactivity or queue in devotional singing. 

Now it seems that the amount of political inactivity among most of the intellectuals of Nepal has increased and all the intellectuals close to the party seem to be angry with their own party and leader. This symptom that appeared simultaneously in almost all the intelligentsia standing at the stage of transformation and progress is ``intellectual syndrome''.

As political inaction increases, the level of natural outrage increases. As a result, even when the self-introduced republic is attacked by the party of regression, the intelligentsia of all parties are either inactive or continue to attack the leader of the republican party itself. If the republican parties are not able to change this 'intellectual syndrome' immediately, the anti-establishment forces will automatically get the benefit of it. 

The causes of the 'intellectual syndrome' seen now are the same. The intelligentsia close to the pro-republican party is now almost marginalized. There may be two main reasons for this. One, feeling that their intelligence is not valued. Secondly, the intelligentsia is not satisfied with the way the parties are run or run. Intellectuals naturally enjoy debating, debating, and arguing. They have a critical view. Likes truth established by facts. Similarly, they prefer that their intelligence is valued, that they are consulted sufficiently, that the knowledge produced by intelligence is used or that such knowledge is respected, and that they participate in social transformation policies, planning programs and opportunities. Similarly, the intellectual class becomes active and satisfied in politics when it is guaranteed that the inter-party democracy within the party has flourished, the relationship between the party and the society is harmonious, the party leaders and workers have conduct and ability that can be digested by the intellectual world and the society, and they do not have to be a party to the action despite having different opinions within the party.

The first beneficiaries of the activism and knowledge of the intellectual class are the leaders and activists of the Swayam Dal. But why are parties unable to use intelligence? There can be many reasons for this. For example, feeling that the activism and intervention of the intelligentsia would affect their position, reputation and knowledge. Anticipating that a situation may arise in which he cannot conduct a happy party. The activism of the intellectual class creates a fear that they can find a share in the distribution of opportunities, and there may be delusions that the workers of their group will be deprived of their share or similar reasons.  Whatever the reasons for the

, no one can deny the fact that a large part of the republican intelligentsia is now disaffected, disillusioned or on the run. This symptom is very harmful for the health of the Federal Democratic Republic. There are intellectual associations close by. There are also members but they seem to run more mechanically than politically. Vitality is not found in organizations. This is an alarming symptom.

The last decade of the Panchayat period or the first 10 years of the multi-party system was perhaps the golden age of the Nepali intelligentsia of the revolutionary class. At that time, there was a nationwide debate on the agenda of social change in close intellectual organizations. An article written by an intellectual would create waves. Leaders used to visit intellectuals' homes and interact. Takes written suggestions. He listened attentively to intellectuals. It was left to intellectuals to draft or conceptualize party and government documents. As a result, the intelligence of the party leader increased. Parties and mass organizations were active. The knowledge, reasoning and analysis of the leaders who were underground or in migration without having the opportunity of formal education was not less than that of an intellectual who had been educated in formal education. He was worth listening to and being proud of. Is that the case today? If not, what could be the reason? These are some of the questions that have caused the 'intellectual syndrome' to appear in all intellectuals.

But the intelligent classes of Nepal should not and cannot become silent spectators of the attack by the regressive classes on the federal democratic republic by choosing the path of despair, frustration, anger and inaction or escape. The intellectual class cannot remain absolutist from the fact that it is also responsible for playing an active and interventionist role in the improvement of the state of governance of the country and its party. The intelligent class should not forget that it is a civic duty to move the political parties on a strong and capable and transformative journey by sitting together and discussing the processes and methods of party management that have emerged within the major political parties of Nepal.

Remnants of feudalism persisted culturally even in the early republican era. And such remnants are naturally reflected in the leaders of the political parties or the intellectuals themselves who are members of the same society. Heartbreaking this fact, no intellectual can and should not escape from the great sacrifice of social transformation by improving his own class or leadership class as a good citizen. 

The country's politics is in danger of going out of line or the creation of a situation where the nightmare of regression is cultivated is another plight of the intellectual class of the country. As the living intelligentsia who have experienced and witnessed different periods of 30 years of Panchayat and 240 years of Monarchy understand very well, the intelligentsia should play an active intervention role to improve the country, system and political parties, not escape and passivity.

It is important to understand the fact that due to the inactivity of the good and intelligent class, the country and the transformative political parties will fall under the control of the corrupt, brokers and middlemen. Let's caution the political parties and leaders but let's not let inaction and despair. The intellectual class cannot escape from the age-old responsibility of building the country and delivering politics. To end the current 'intellectual syndrome', it is necessary for the republican leaders and parties to make an adventurous and transformative plan within their party. Asepase believes that only workers and intellectuals who are loyal to revolution and change can protect the party and democracy, not capitalism and middlemen. It is necessary to establish