Nepal's ethnic battle is turning out to be a farce. As it is, nothing gets done there anyway and now to exacerbate the problem, this spineless govt is gonna create 18 more holidays. Shit, America has immigrants from all over the world, but they do not declare holidays for anything else except for Christmas.
Some new holidays.
Eid

 Bakr Eid

 Christmas

 Nanak Memorial Day

 Udhouli

 Ubhouli

 Goura

 Tamu Lhosar

 Sonam Lhosars

 Maghi

 Siruwa

So, now we might as well start celebrating Thanksgiving, July 4th, India's independence day, The Hritik Roshan Kand memorial day. For god's sake wtf is Nanak Memorial Day? Since when did Punjabis become a substantial minority in Nepal?? Idiots!

I am so much happy to know that here are many people, Like me  Loving their Nation and are aware of shit decision of these Bull shits"Netas".Sandai sanga ta mero 100%Kura milo yar sandai la haat milau na yar.Kya dami manche yar.Davechapelle is also not less Wow man u r great.Let's we won't have some "so called jwalasinghs in fact machhar singhs "Here.NEpal ma aru k k holiday banki rahyo ha?

i think they should do be like who ever have festival/religious crap can get excused holidays instead of everyone having all these holidays for no reason

making ppl more lazy reducing productivity how is that helping nepal if more ppl r sitting in their ass doing nothing

especially govt official

 

 

Loote-jyu,

 

I understand your point and I also agree with the conventional wisdom regarding general precautions.

 

However, for this particular issue at hand, I would consider the following specific circumstances for assessing the need and risks.

 

One, as I talked about earlier, it was not possible to stop it. Nobody could have succeeded to deny Maoist insistence and pro-republican civil society’s support to it.

 

Two, the Hindu extremism we fear actually does not exist in Nepal.

 

Few bhardars in Hindu garbs and a few dozens of hired Sadhus do not make Hindu extremism; a power to reckon with already or a potential power of future, by definition.

 

This dismissal, so to speak, of mine about Hindu extremism in Nepal is based on my take/observation that political and economic issues and political parties seem likely to be dominant over any other issues and any other groups in Nepal for next several years, if not decades to come. In other words, the extremism of Maoist and YCL are going to ward off any Hindu extremism, be it home brewed or exported from India.

 

Nepalis are undoubtedly religious. But the good news is that they are religiously (spiritually) religious, not politically religious.

 

I think the spiritual character of Nepali religiousness is not going to change in any foreseeable future, no matter how much and how hard the Hindu extremists of India and their political ally of Nepal try.

 

So, all in all, I think there is no realistic chance for secularism for being detrimental to Nepal. Au contraire, any attempt to reverse it is going to be fought vehemently and, if the past is any guide, successfully too.

 

Mero 2 aanaa.  

 

Nepe

Nepe bro,
I agree with your first point on Maoists insistence (not that it was completely unyielding and inevitable though, as I see, since they agreed to shake hands with their once most vehemently hated enemy king, if he agreed to remain as a ceremonial figure. What's more, secularism was not the hot button issue, or so I had thought, until they hurriedly brought the proclamation for the same. However, as I said, I am not against the issue, just the implications of it I am not sure of. I sincerely hope it will be all good).

About the second point, and I am saying this at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist however to look upon things from all sides and angles possible, I don't completely write off the chance of Hindu extremists or some Pharisaical groups (one such is already in India) butting in to create confusions, if not instant riots, among various religious sects of our society, especially since most of the people are not educated or thoughtful enough to know what secularism really means to their religious beliefs and to the country as a whole. A gradual transformation with adequate awareness among people about the need and direction of secularism would have been better in any case, I believe.

That said, I hope, I am wrong. I honestly do. I don't see the need of this discussion as well as we have already gone past the stage for brainstorming before action. The more we dwell upon it, greater is the risk of making it more complicated. So I rest my case here.

Loote-jyu,

 

It was a pleasure to exchange views with you.

 

In fact, this little exchange has made me ponder over the larger issue of the mode of transformation of Nepal.

 

A gradual and systematic change is undoubtedly a rule of thumb when it comes to choices. However, the complementary wisdom that that there is no one-mode-fits-all transformation in a real world looks more of a rule than an exception. Nepal’s modern history, particularly the recent one, is an attestor to that.

 

My personal philosophy about change is: “Change when it is necessary”. I like to brand it a “progressive conservatism”. The central question of this philosophy is: who determines what is necessary?

 

We all have ready-made answer: it’s the people. However, for practical purpose, I recognize three modes of decision: 1. democratic, 2. Academic (broadly defined), and 3. Combination of both.

 

Secularism in Nepal was an academic decision (of course ultimately a political decision). There was already a consensus about it in the academia (broadly defined) of Nepal. Opposition to it was a fringe voice and it was mainly against the modality rather than the substance.

 

A case that could be of our interest is recent debate over secularism and related issues in Turkey. The questions that could be relevant to us are: has the transformation of Turkey into a “modern” and secular nation by Kamal Ataturk at the beginning of last century been good for Turkey ? Do we need to be cautious about similar transformation ?

 

That brings me to another authoritarian agent of transformation of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. How much should we be cautious of that kind of transformation ?

 

Although this is a half-baked deliberation, I think, considering all experiences (of our own country and others), a combination of democratic and academic mode of decisions rather than pure democratic decisions (which most of the time are “indecision” and “rhetoric” rather than “decision” anyway) for the transformation of Nepal is more realistic and practical.

 

More when you join in.

 

Nepe