History is often written in tears and blood, forged in darkness. But think what if those tears and blood did not flow? If that mode did not come? Kantipur has introduced a new debate series – 'Alternative History', in which we ask, 'What would have happened then...?'

If some decisive events in Nepal had developed differently, would we be a little happier today? Would you be happy? Or were we struggling to achieve this achievement?

In the first series, we are going back to the 2058 Darbar Massacre – a night that changed Nepali political history in an instant. From kings, queens, crown princes, the palaces fell together, the map of power changed, perhaps the pillars of the republic stood on that foundation.

But if that murder had not happened - what would have happened? Could King Birendra have negotiated with the Maoists and led the country to the path of peace? Would he, like Gyanendra, have killed Shakti and caused the downfall of the monarchy? Would the mainstream parties and the Maoists clash and destroy one or the other? And, would we now be witnessing development and good governance instead of corruption and despair?

Yes, we cannot change history. But we can think, understand, learn and draw a path to prosperity. So in this series we will include the arguments of analysts, historians, writers, sociologists, students and common citizens.

...

When studying high school in the mid-2040s, after reaching the 9th grade, one had to choose an optional subject. Elective mathematics was chosen by the smart students of the class. A large number of weak students who had little chance of progressing were sent to study history. At that time I did not understand the meaning of it. When I meet/listen to some young singer-artists who say 'I wish the king would have returned' or see senior citizens who say 'something was better during the monarchy', I feel like I understand the meaning of the educational system at that time. 

The system was independent dictatorship, but clever King Mahendra to sustain it and learning from it, Birendra employed two-four experts in policy-making. Perhaps that expert knew that the history of Nepal is not worth teaching to "brilliant" students. Or if such a renegade really understood history, it would not be in the interest of their system. However, in the important gap of two and a half hundred years of history with educational awakening, industrialization and modernization in many parts of the world, which part of Nepal is there in which Nepal has been able to become an example for other countries politically? It was not during this period that the nations seen around the world were formed and advanced, but when there was a 'golden Shah Dynasty' rule in Nepal. 

Aukat of Nepali intellectual history

It is understandable that the attempts of 'movement' made by the royalists from time to time to see if something can be done by playing amidst the frustration created by the political mismanagement. But I wrote last time in this 'space' of Kantipur that there is no possibility of return of monarchy in Nepal and the more reaction shown to that 'movement' was unnatural. What I want to see in today's article is the sociology of some such lines of Nepali society who seem to be doing well in their profession.

The school-college they went to and the reading-writing level is also moderate according to Nepali standards. But what would be the source of their consciousness that the monarchy was right, not even understanding the simple fact of history that looks so flat, not from the distant past but from the recent past? What are the social-familial circles in which they interact? What kind of topics are discussed between father and mother, sisters and brothers in their house and kitchen? What and whose books do they read? What podcasts do they listen to? How the history-consciousness of the contemporary Nepalese and especially the 'great people' of the line I mentioned above will be formed has now become a matter of intellectual curiosity rather than politics. 

To give a little background, two years ago, Setopati Digital magazine ran a series on the theme of 'How much has Nepal become, how much has it broken up?' In that, I made a small evaluation of this subject in 6000 words saying, "Where is Nepal in the history of intellectual history?" Intellectual history refers not only to political events, but to the totality of knowledge-science, culture, art-literature, etc. at that time.

If you look at it in that way, the intellectual-civilizational history of Nepal looks very weak compared to the speed with which the knowledge-science and art-culture developed in many parts of the world in the past three to four hundred years. In those periods, there were more kings and maharajas than prime ministers and presidents in executive roles around the world, but how the Shah Dynasty rulers after Prithvi Narayan Shah spent their days in Nepal is easily understood even from the history written by those courtiers later.

What is the source of that?

Due to all their governmental incompetence and personal weakness, the Shah Rajas of Nepal, who reached the position of taking the government from their hands, were able to return to their political role at once on the foundation of the democratic movement. But it is seen in the same history that King Tribhuvan started meowing before he returned. The democracy that returned his roleless father by respecting him as a constitutional king, in return, Mahendra swallowed that democracy and tried to reverse the course of history.

The reason why Rajawadi sings the praises of Mahendra is not only because he started two or four development projects. It is because he showed courage to return Shah dynasty power. If two or four development works were done by massaging the basic liberties of the citizens established by such a long struggle and friendship, they will evaluate it positively in history only because they have an authoritarian mind in themselves, not because they are democratic.

Like UML's Madan Bhandari, Panchayat's Mahendra is an 'overrated' character in history. It is possible to argue more than this, but it is not necessary. Yes, you know, there is a small group of people who say 'No, Raja Mahendra has done it' in the leftist circles since it is called democratic. The above two-three sentences are dedicated to them. 

To understand the history-(dis)consciousness of those who say 'the king would have returned' and 'something was better during the monarchy/panchayat', some theoretical questions must be analyzed to evaluate their 'intelligence'. First, there is no one who says 'I will fix everything if I come', which is needed in Nepal.

Because it is Mahendra in 2017 or the Prime Ministers of the elected party after 2047 and then in 2058-59 King Gyanendra of that time or the rebel Maoist at that time, did not all these come for the same? Not even the current Prime Minister KP Oli is adamant that all of them didn't happen and a decade ago? Remember when the UML and Maoists came together to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP). Where were the workers of those two parties when they jumped that the 'leftist dream' would now be fulfilled in Nepal? Isn't the prophetic assessment of even the "independent left enlightened" scattered at that time? 

Everyone knows what needs to be done in Nepal now. What we need is a policy that comes with at least a clear blueprint and a 'breakdown' of 'doing such-and-such in this-and-this area in a different way than now'. And, someone show me what kind of vision and program Purvraja Gyanendra has that he has the courage to mention in public.

If there is such a thing, is he hiding it? And where did the wisdom to start doing something good for the country go when they took over the entire government by doing a 'coup'? His choice in 2061 to trample on civil liberties and make a character who is irrelevant in history a search helper, did not his 'judgment ability' become evident right away? Not only that, even in the recent months, sometimes people like Durga Prasai, sometimes Navraj Subedi, sometimes people like Jagman Gurung, who think that they will return to the throne by 'movement', do not understand what the ability to think for the country can be understood. He didn't have any other ability, now if he doesn't even have the ability to "watch and sit" that is his personal problem, not the country's. 

The reason for remembering this incident is not because of thinking that Gyanendra will come again. This is only to appreciate the history-consciousness of those who say 'I wish the king would have returned'. And, to question - what is the source of their knowledge? Where will he get information from? Who will do the analysis for them? The question is therefore not only political but more sociological.

is not the concern of someone returning, the concern is the weak history-consciousness of our society. Why are some young people and others unable to see and read such simple truths and lessons of recent history? How, what would they think would happen if the monarchy returned? When you come back, if something had happened during the hundreds of years of its existence, the country would have been different, wouldn't it?  There needs to be more than the criticism of

political parties. There is no one at the 'top' level of the current leadership who should not be displaced. There is no need to be afraid to say that democracy is only 'cosmetic' so far because monarchists are excited. It is a fact that it has not been able to 'deliver'. But how to understand the background of some young groups following the same wind saying that instead of participating in arguing about what should be done to correct it, the system is another alternative? Democratic systemic change has taken place, but is not the weak intellectual foundation of Nepali history the factor for the transformation to the level of social consciousness? 

A society without logic culture

is an experience 24 years ago, 2001 AD. Many people remember that year as the year when King Birendra's dynasty was destroyed. There is another reason I remember that year. For the first time, MPhil in English Literature was started in the University of Nepal. Coincidentally, I was also one of the teachers in it from the first year. Until then, the common way of studying up to MA in the universities of Nepal was that the teacher would come to the class, come to a room filled with 100-150 students and tell what he had to tell, if one or two people had questions, he would act as if he had answered them. It was the same with almost all faculties of social sciences.  To break the story, the number of 30 students is large for MPhil, but it was very small compared to the 150 students taught in Kirtipur's class. Some sirs who had taught themselves in the university before were in the class, most of the other students were 'elder' than me. Maybe it is because of the zeal that he has just studied MPhil, how he feels even now when he remembers his 'failed' attempt in the early days to do a 'class like MPhil' in full seminar mode.

because to do so was to change the academic practice of Nepal for years. A small number of intellectual inquisitors, sitting in one place under the facilitation of the professor, looking at the subject from one side, going from another, refuting the argument raised by one, another defending it with another argument. Academic training should be such that everyone can later reverse every subject in the same way. He had to read books and reference materials at home. A professor's job should not be to come to class after reading a book, and return after an hour of reading it. 

There is no openness of 'space' for dialogue in Nepal's academic research centers and institutions. Social science and other 'undergraduate' level colleges are important places to 'shape' the country's future rather than masters. Were there any ideals behind the establishment of that college? Do they have any thoughts on how to make research on the major issues of society, how to prepare young people to take a serious view without being superficial, and do they have any strategy to implement it? Do the hundreds of these private college administrators have any thought on how to help the graduates they produce to think, reason and approach such matters? 

Looking at how the students who have studied abroad in Nepal are thinking about the serious issues of the country, I do not hesitate to make this comment to the directors of the institutions that teach A Levels, IB and Plus Two here. This is one of the reasons why some young lines that respond to a superficial matter in a serious matter. What is done now, everyone has said that he did not say, but the study needed what to say, needed seriousness. When you don't have anything that happens, then it was right first. & Nbsp;

Scheme: React Superfect & NBSP; The last two decades of the last two decades 'rewrite the history of Nepal in the last two decades, that the past two decades were so important that the last two decades were so important that the last two decades were so important that the last two decades were so important that the last two decades were so important in the level of Story Stracture'. The views looking at who they have made to Nepal who made Nepal as a country has accelerated rapidly. पहाडले मधेशलाई बुझ्ने, मधेशले पहाडलाई, पूर्वको एउटा जातीय समुदायले कर्णालीलाई कसरी हेर्ने–बुझ्ने भन्ने विषयहरू नयाँ ढंगले सतहमा आइसकेका छन् । What was the result of non-conflict in the future that there is only one country that is in federalism, now in federalism, and Kathmandu now that the country is only one and the wisdom that makes it alone is? Many have a question to be discussed. If you were a 'Dalit', how did you view this state and race-law? There are many serious questions to think about.

needs a seriousness to argue, argue, and reason for his argument, require a seriousness. It is not a seriousness to say that the other is the other hand, instead of now. Looking at the need for argument to argue in Nepal, it seems that it is easy to analyze other questions in society. More than generally, Nepal is a 'hiek' society where there is a 'knowing-listening "someone who is on listening to the sores.

such a 'knowing-listening' people are usually senior to the age. What happens to the discussion among parents, whether parents, and children, or their children or his children or his children or aunts or other nieces in his dinner table? How much would you have a serious family that sometimes a serious family who reads the parents' why you still 'still, not discussing it today,'? A daughter who is tailor in the kitchen 'I will call him in the house where I live at home, do you think?' How much does you have to say in a truly or imaginary landscape? Or it is common that 'Deckettical' Scenario 'with a son who wrote that a son has loved' my boy friend. ' If the answer to these examples are mostly negative, let us, in our society, are the culture of reasoning with patience in the basis of qualities facised by the attribute. That's what I claims if I think that it is because of the reasons for a variety of governments that govern was good in the past. Because they do not have no hypocrisy, no matter how to see the present. There is no reasonability to make persons. There is no intelligent raw material we need for rationalism. & Nbsp;

Chapter is also understood by 'government' called 'Government'. To all over the world, there are a little more than left in a country left in any country, in the middle where there isten your right inclinations. Light somewhere with strong dictatorship somewhere. But they all need their attention to financial programs, employment, employment, and how to strengthen their country in world competition. For that is that democracy leads to 'Fres' in each five-ten years. It does not mean that no society goes back. Story to Afghanistan has returned to Taliban in Afghanistan like

. But is that one such example is insignific and even when they return. As a whole, most of the society has advanced. The current irony of Nepal said, 'Even if the young smaller shrimp of the king is now,' Impaoror '. Questions that should be on urgent policy issues have been diverted elsewhere. It does not just think of the same 'top' in terms of word, such as him, saying, 'We preserve the republic,' we gave it a subserved opportunity.

is in the characteristically, the Nepali society is still in chapter 2065 BS. In order to reach ten years in September, a new constitution has now been over to ten years in September, a society has been rushed to the other. A dozen UML, Sher Bahadur, who seems to rise from Very Oli, stops the short-term scorers and Pushpa Kamal Dahara. Storyja-Break is pasm by the political elderly of the two dozen characters around power, Deuba, Dahal and the two dozen two dozen two dozen 'leaders of the two dozen' leaders, Dahal, and the two dozen two dozen 'leaders in his contemporary, Duaja, Dahal, is the time to leave in magazines, which His stale thoughts stopped being broad as news, 'The privilege that the king would return,' there will return somewhere somewhere.