I think a journey through history and a train journey are the same. When the train reaches an unwanted track with a difference equal to a parrot, then it reaches a different destination. That is, with a small disturbance at Lick Junction, the Delhi-bound train reaches Varanasi. The train from Silgadi reaches Goa.

The journey of history is like that, a small incident turns its entire momentum and direction. Thus it turns, the effect of which lasts for years. If we think about it, if King Mahendra had not deposed the elected Prime Minister on January 1, 2017, what would have been the history of Nepal? If BP Koirala had called for reconciliation not with the king, but with the then communists, what would have been the picture of history created by that reconciliation? Had King Mahendra not passed away in 028 but lived for another thirty years? If the Congress and the communists joined together in favor of multi-party in the referendum of 2006? If the failed sector scandal (043) had not happened under the leadership of Mohan Vaidya and if Prachanda had not come under the leadership? What if Madan Bhandari had not had an accident? Had there not been a palace massacre and former king Gyanendra had not deposed Deuba as incompetent? These are only a few representative events, which have changed the entire map of our history. And, after that, everything has turned upside down. 

But history is not only influenced by events. Influenced by society's dreams. Influenced by the contemporary world environment. Affected by relations of production. Influenced by political conflicts. Leaders are influenced by wisdom and vision. That is, there are many dimensions that influence history. And, most influenced by political trends. 

What are the weaknesses we are seeing in Nepali politics now, where are their roots? At what point in history did we become immobile and why did our journey not proceed as expected? What were our historical weaknesses that made our state, politics and politics fail? And why is our politics and state failing? In this article, we will discuss four trends that Nepali politics has inherited from its historical legacy. Which will not only give us a reference to reflect on history, but will also give us some more questions and visions to look at the present in a new way. 

Indifference and confusion

The first weakness we inherited from the historical legacy of Nepali politics is apathy and confusion in preparing to institutionalize change. Whether it was 007, 046 or 064, our leaders were always ready for the movement, but the preparation for the subsequent power operation was nowhere and never seen. In other words, our politics wrote the document of the movement, but did not make any strategic preparations for Rajkaz. Our party and leaders have no plans to increase production, nor are there any preparations for job creation. Neither a plan for social justice was seen, nor a blueprint for development and prosperity. Neither a strategy for radical change in education was seen, nor a plan to make significant progress in health. Writing the document of the movement, formulating the slogan and executing it meticulously are two different things in themselves. Our leadership only knew how to write the slogans of the movement, but did not know how to implement them. As a result, since history we have indulged in gossip and change has been confined to speech. 

Obviously, for us, the revolution of 2007 was the first attempt to go towards a golden light. Who overthrew the Rana regime and brought democracy. It was such an event, which gave freedom to the people and gave many dreams along with it. But what happened? The leaders had no blueprint for the necessary policies, structures and strategies to institutionalize democracy. They certainly had a sweet slogan to drive the movement, but there was no 'bridge' to connect it to people's dreams. As a result, empty-handed they entered the lion palace and reveled in the status quo. For example, the work to be done after 2007 was the creation of a constitution, free elections and the establishment of a democratic governance system. Preparing for economic growth and job creation. Guaranteeing the rule of law. Extension of education. Analysis of threats to democracy and strategic homework to overcome them. But due to the lack of preparation, the priorities of the government were being neglected. The recession was rampant. The leaders got caught up in the chaos. And, the situation was completely different than expected, which the leaders had no idea, vision and master plan to solve.

The Nepali Congress under the leadership of BP Koirala won a historic majority in 2015. But it is sad to say, he does not seem to have a proper strategy to make power effective and secure. Due to the lack of preparation, BP could not use the security forces and information system appropriately even as the Prime Minister. Due to the lack of preparation, his leadership could not properly manage the ambitions of King Mahendra. Neither structural preparation was seen, nor strong security arrangements. Neither an effective geopolitical relationship was seen, nor a strong defense of citizens. Realizing this weakness, King Mahendra easily usurped power and the Panchayat came. This incident makes it clear that the leaders from that time were adept at talking big and abstract, but they had no special skills and willpower to make the intricate plans of the Rajkaz.

This weakness came back again through the years 007 and 015. The people's movement of 2046 overthrew the panchayat system. But what happened after that? And why citizens could not experience democracy? It comes down to the same thing, lack of strategic preparation. Neither the political parties and leaders had a detailed plan to democratize the state, nor an action plan for governance reform. The slogans raised repeatedly during the agitation were land reform, job creation, guarantee of good governance, separation of powers and independent judiciary. Qualitative improvement in education and health. Poverty alleviation and social justice. But it was confirmed that these were only slogans, when the leaders again entered the Singha Durbar empty-handed. They had no strategy to institutionalize change and connect it to people's lives. They neither had a priority of work to be done, nor a blueprint for prosperity. As a result, the discontent grew and on the basis of that, the Maoists started an armed struggle. 

The people's movement of 2063 established the Federal Democratic Republic. And a new constitution came in 2072. But the problem repeated itself. Because the leaders had neither a plan for federalism nor a republic when they were entering the Singha Darbar. What kind of federalism and what kind of republic? No one had any sensible homework. Neither the leadership had a mature approach to understanding the new regime, nor a plan for implementation. That is why, even after a decade of the Federal Democratic Republic, the basic laws could not be enacted. The peace process stalled. The condition of education and health was deteriorating. It has been forty years, the slogan of land reform, but land reform did not happen. 

was called Naya Nepal in a loud voice. But how is agriculture in the new Nepal? What about tourism? What is the infrastructure like? There was no plan. The Maoists, who had just returned from the jungle, spoke in a different tone, but in a late speech. They neither had the economic model of the new Nepal, nor the systematic blueprint of socialism. Of course the parties had talismanic plans written in the party documents, but how to implement them, there was no way around it. It happened that the leaders who wanted to write socialism in the constitution were themselves in a dilemma about what socialism is and how it works. And, over time, he himself became a broker and middleman. Thus movement and change were limited to slogans. No one did the homework to orientate it towards plans to transform it into a state.

continuous movement 

was the second historical weakness in our politics, the psychology of constant agitation. Since history, Nepali politics has been a victim of such inferiority complex and narrowness that some people are always hesitant to take ownership of change here. Democracy is not enough for them, democracy is not enough for them, republic is not enough for them, socialism is not enough for them. They need a movement with a new name. New new name achievements are needed. This problem is especially acute among communists. That is why they reject the achievements of some historical movements in Nepal and are afraid to take ownership of them. Let's be clear here, politics is definitely dynamic and it always tries to move forward. In this sense, the dynamics of politics must be acknowledged. But denying the achievements of every movement increases instability and results are not institutionalized.  Let's look at some examples where

fits this context. As such, the Communists never fully accepted the 2007 democracy. They saw it as a continuation of 'feudal' power. Because of this, the democratic forces and the socialists were like travelers on two shores. There was no cooperation, no friendship. As a result, the views of the Congress and the Communists on Raja Mahendra's 'Ku' were also different. And, it divided Nepali politics for a long time. 

In 046, multi-party democracy was restored. But UML never accepted that achievement wholeheartedly, instead it made democracy a tactical tool to achieve multi-party democracy. According to Madan Bhandarized People's Multiparty Democracy, the UML's strategic goal was multiparty democracy. They were partisans of the principle of accumulation of power through the use of parliamentary democracy and moving towards socialism through multi-party democracy. The Maoists went further and destroyed the parliamentary democracy and aimed to create a People's Republic of Nepal. Their philosophy was Maoism. That is why they rejected the achievement of 046 and armed conflict started.

Even now some Madhesh forces, tribal groups, fierce communists and monarchists are talking about this. They are not satisfied with the latest change and are motivated by the psychology of constant movement. But neither mainstream politics nor leaders have the strength to address these rebellious psychologies. Movements will be effective only with honest efforts to take ownership of achievements and deliver the dividends of change to the citizens. Otherwise the constant agitation leads to confusion in institutionalizing the achievements. The crisis we are facing today.

Hostile competition

was our third historical weakness, the paradoxical relationship between transformative forces. Paradoxical in the sense that our parties always seem to be on the same page in power interests. But political competition is always hostile and prohibitive. While Pushpalal once introduced a policy of joint people's movement against the Panchayat, BP on the contrary pushed for reconciliation with Raja. After 046 when the era of Girijaprasad Koirala started, he made the political polarization even more hateful by saying that Male, Mandalay and Masala are the same. The Communists, moreover, went further and listed the Congress as the main enemy in their documents. While doing all this, they forgot that they had cooperated in the movement together yesterday. And, forget the historical obligations to cooperate even more. 

Perhaps due to the global impact of the Cold War, the Congress was never soft on the Communists and the Communists were always prejudiced against the Congress. Due to this disagreement, 036 years escaped from the hands of the democrats and the Panchayat continued for another 10 years. Of course, these parties cooperated for democracy in 1946, but when the responsibility came to institutionalize democracy together, they deviated from that responsibility. After 051 years, time went by in such a way that for the Congress, the punches were dearer than the communists and the same punches were dearer than the congress for the communists. 

What did this polarization do? It undermined the national interest and the interests of citizens. Hostile competition between parties diverted politics from agendas. The parties backed away from the obligation to institutionalize democracy together. National policies could not be drawn up. The parties started to deviate from that role as they had to demonstrate national unity on a specific agenda. The geopolitical complexities were not properly addressed. Everyone made everyone naked and finally everyone became naked. Politics has become dirty and it is taking away the respect of truth. Due to the unhealthy polarization within the party, the social harmony at the local level was broken and the harmony between the citizens was destroyed by party narrowness. 

Lack of order

Another historical weakness of ours is self-absorption, narrow-mindedness and power-hungry. After coming to power, the Nepali leaders did not show any urgency to change, nor the ability and will. Neither integrity and ethics were seen, nor foresight and awareness. They were not agreed to Hurky Ramami Raga and no 'ramplary' attempt to change the people's life. & Nbsp;

, 2046, open the gate of multi-party democracy, but the Nepali Congress and UML became larger concern than democracy. The result, the leadership was involved in the arithmetic conditions. The party broke the party. That is why the middle of the middle of the middle. Because of this, the political syndicate was wandering. Therefore, the election was becoming costly. And so, the parties lowered and stubborn broiled parts. Neither laws have been made noter to them, nor policies have not become his head, nor became dominant, nor did the democratic values become headed. The leadership was also prepared to take the lead in taking so much politics so much, our leadership was also prepared to take the hue of democracy for the power. & NBSP;

2063 BS made the basis of the federal democratic republic. And, in 2072 BS, a new constitution came. But how to institutionalize the federal democratic republic, leaders were not interested in it. Instead, the sovereign rights leaders of 3 million people became centralized in leaders. Democracy was narrowed in the governance through the Government. The syndicate of the syndicate is stronger. The parties made stability slogan in this way that the day of the fabulum was made of stability. Of course, in the middle of the Congress leadership, the Nepali Congress leadership did some work, UML started decision of development through its own village. But it was neither leadership and leadership to rise above the self-suffering of the built. The results, the administrative structure kept. The pattern of service flow remained older. With not additional efforts in economic development. New resolve to create employment. The leaders did not look back on the agenda of making the living standards of the people, inclusive policy and return to the underdeveloped the geological balance. Federalism is limited to the temporary paper. & Nbsp;

is in the heart of the people in the heart of the people's heart, one of the sides of corruption. Yesterday, the skin of the snake skin was sold in the Panchayat, a forest, and the idol was stolen, this kingdom has come today. Milloweric lives have corruption, today, for taxes for UB today. It is constantly running out, and the federal democratic republic has not been broken. The last movements made the political grounds of modern Nepal, but the leaders failed to get up above corruption, morality, and standard of republic politics. The successful movement for them became the great day, that the achievement was great, all depression to make the achievements of human lives. Rajisma is the continued in a traditional affairs of traditional affairs. There was no visibility to break it and raise.

in this way our political history became the abandonment of power 'self-interest. The way to politics was one, caught another way. The way that was not right for us. Because we wanted to go to heaven, but the road is selected. So today's the main question, how to correct the historical weaknesses? Rejoice in the way of hell, or hand over the way of heaven? History does not give the answer, people must give. History only indicates us and motivates us to be alert. How to accept the signal of history? Let's decide before the time can, which way to hold? & NBSP;