Friday, April 30, 2010

My article in Gorkhapatra re सर्बोच्च अदालतको फैसलाले जनतामा निहित सार्वभौमसत्ता कुण्ठित

April 30, 2010

Mr Bihar Krishna Shrestha

Dear Biharijee

Thanks a lot for your solidarity.

At this time of instability and transition, an institution like Supreme Court would be expected to be more responsible and restrained. It should have contemplated very hard before issuing its decree as such. But that was not to be. I have come to know that some people are trying to drag me to the Supreme Court on contempt of court. I am prepared to face any such music. If I am to be penalized for saying out aloud that the emperor is naked when he actually is, I have no problem. In that case we will have to accept that we don't have genuine democracy yet.

We used to have monarchy as an institution above law and beyond questioning by his "subjects", which now has been eliminated. Therefore, my take is that Supreme Court cannot become another absolute institution which could be above criticism. I hope the justices are able to make distinction between malicious contempt of it and genuine criticism of its debatable verdict.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: bihari []

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 23:25

To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: **SPAM** Re: My article in Gorkhapatra on सर्बोच्च अदालतको फैसलाले जनतामा निहित सार्वभौमसत्ता कुण्ठित
Dear Ratnajee,

It is a great piece. It certainly presents an irrefutable stand as to the legitimacy of the CA after its 2 year term. Congrats.


----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:57 AM

Subject: Fw: My article in Gorkhapatra on सर्बोच्च अदालतको फैसलाले जनतामा निहित सार्वभौमसत्ता कुण्ठित

April 30, 2010
Mr Bihar Krishna ShresthaCc:
Dear Biharijee

Thanks a lot for your solidarity.

At this time of instability and transition, an institution like Supreme Court would be expected to be more responsible and restrained. It should have contemplated very hard before issuing its decree as such. But that was not to be. I have come to know that some people are trying to drag me to the Supreme Court on contempt of court. I am prepared to face any such music. If I am to be penalized for saying out aloud that the emperor is naked when he actually is, I have no problem. In that case we will have to accept that we don't have genuine democracy yet.

We used to have monarchy as an institution above law and beyond questioning by his "subjects", which now has been eliminated. Therefore, my take is that Supreme Court cannot become another absolute institution which could be above criticism. I hope the justices are able to make distinction between malicious contempt of it and genuine criticism of its debatable verdict.

With best regards,Sincerely,Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fcaSenior Water Resource Analyst
From: bihari [] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 23:25To: Ratna Sansar ShresthaSubject: **SPAM** Re: My article in Gorkhapatra on ???????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????????????? ???????

Dear Ratnajee,
It is a great piece. It certainly presents an irrefutable stand as to the legitimacy of the CA after its 2 year term. Congrats.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:57 AMSubject: Fw: My article in Gorkhapatra on

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

RE: Congrats for your broad outlook

April 27, 2010

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof. Lohani

Thank you so much.

Yes, we cannot afford to emulate Yugoslavia by getting embroiled in communal divide. If the cost of having Newa Rajya is pushing our motherland into disintegration and eventually obliteration from the map of the world, I would rather not have News Rajya. I earnestly hope that other ethno-cultural-religious-linguistic groups would also start appreciating this.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohan Lohani []
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 15:36
Subject: Congrats for your broad outlook

Dear Ratnasansarji,

Congrats! The following response by you to the so called proponents of Newa Rajya proves that you are against communal forces trying to divide this country as Yugoslavia has been thrown into an abyss of ethnic clashes and rivalries after its division.

Please keep up the spirit and regards,

Mohan Lohani

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

[NNSD] RE: Newa Rajya

April 26, 2010

Mr Ram Babu Nepal

Dear Ram Babujee

Thanks a lot for joining in the debate/discourse.

One thing seems clear: the proponents of restructuring of Nepal on ethno-cultural-religious-linguist groups think about their own ethno-cultural-religious-linguist group only and not worry about what will happen after fragmenting Nepal on those lines. There are already disputes as to where should the boundaries of each of these ethno-cultural-religious-linguist provinces lie. Newa Rajya itself is a good example. UCPNM has declared only Kathmandu valley as Newa Rajya while there are others who include more than 10 districts surrounding this valley. It will not be simple to settle such disputes. We will have further disputes when the ethno-cultural-religious-linguist groups that have not been recognized for the purposes of state restructuring demand states of their own; triggering creation of over 90 new ethno-cultural-religious-linguist states. At that point in time the ethno-cultural-religious-linguist groups that are being proposed to be recognized now will have no moral right to deny the same treatment to other ethno-cultural-religious-linguist groups. This will become a never ending process. Potential disputes also lie in locating capital of each of these ethno-cultural-religious-linguist states. We have seen disputes as to where should a new university be located or a new stadium should be built. State capital will be deemed of higher importance than a university and/or stadium and such disputes will be of higher magnitude. This tiny country will not be able to withstand all of these disputes and things could snowball out of control and may start unravel. Instead we should concentrate our efforts to take this country to higher plane of economic development rather than doing things such that this country will get entangled in the disputes that we can ill-afford from the perspective of time, energy and resources.

I have compiled following table to understand how tiny Nepal is and how tinier each of potential states with right to self determination will be.
If we are to accept proposed restructuring average area per state will be 10, 513 sq km only and with further division to accommodate aspiration of remaining ethno-cultural-religious-linguist groups, the average area per state will be 1,732 sq km only. One also needs to internalize this from the perspective of average population in each state. Russia and China are justified to have that many states even from the perspective of time zones. Same is the case of both India and China although they have only one time zone.

We also need to understand economic ramification of this centrifugal tendency. This year’s budget for the upkeep of one set of president and vice president, cabinet, parliament, judiciary, various constitutional bodies, etc. is around Rs 1 billion. There are indications that the actual expenditure will be a lot more than that. Therefore, if one is to assume that it will cost about Rs 500 million (Rs 50 crore) for each state for the upkeep of a governor, state cabinet, parliament, judiciary, various constitutional bodies, etc. the total additional outlay each year will be Rs 7 billion. What makes me worried is how can Nepal afford this additional outlay when we don’t seem to be able to afford to provide clean drinking water to ensure that people don’t die of cholera (quite a few have already met the unfortunate fate this year too in west Nepal) or some food to save them from famine.

Therefore, in my considered opinion this isn’t a path for us to follow.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: [] On Behalf Of Ram Babu Nepal
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 21:00
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [NNSD] RE: Newa Rajya

My sincere appreciation for your continued write-ups on the issues that affects all of us. In my opinion, the proponents of ethnic states are either knowingly or unknowingly pursuing the path of hatred among Nepali and different ethnic groups which is very much detrimental and unsustainable.. What can we gain by making ethnic states except limited glorification to a few. Are all people going to benefit from this confined provincial (state) system? It is very opportune time to strengthen Nepal instead of instigating division among us who lived harmoniously for centuries. There are ways to enhance backward and underprivildged people without looking them from ethnic division. In different parts of country, all ethnic groups even Bahun and Kshetri are in destitute condition. The role of state and leaders is to improve their living condition than dividing people on ethnic ground.

With best wishes,

Ram Babu Nepal

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Ratna Sansar Shrestha <> wrote:

Dear Proponent of Newa Rajya

Monday, April 26, 2010

सर्बोच्च अदालतको फैसलाले जनतामा निहित सार्वभौमसत्ता कुण्ठित

सामान्यतया सर्बोच्च अदालत लगायतका न्यापालिकाले बिबादित विषयको सम्बन्धमा मात्र फैसला गर्नुपर्दछ र मुद्दाका पक्ष बिपक्ष बीच अबिबादित विषयमा अदालतले नबोल्ने भन्ने सर्बमान्य न्यायिक सिद्धान्त छ । तर यसको उपेक्षा गरेर सर्बोच्च अदालत समेतले बिबादित विषय मूल मुद्दा बाहिर गएर फैसला गर्ने गरेको छ । यस सम्बन्धी उदाहरण जलश्रोत क्षेत्रमा पनि छ ।

संबैधानिक निकायमा नियुक्तिको संसदीय सुनुवाई
संबिधानको धारा १५५ (१) मा संबैधानिक पदहरुमा नियुक्ति पूर्व सम्बन्धित व्यक्तिलाई संसदीय सुनुवाई गर्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था थियो । पछि संबिधानमा पहिलो संशोधन गरेर संबैधानिक परिषदको सिफारिसबाट नियुक्त हुने सबै पदहरुको अलावा सर्बोच्च अदालतका न्यायाधीश र राजदूतको पदमा नियुक्तिको लागि पनि संसदीय सुनुवाई अनिवार्य गरियो । यस अन्तर्गत न्यायाधीशको संसदीय सुनुवाई गराउनु पर्ने व्यवस्था स्वतन्त्र न्यापालिकाको बिरुद्ध भनेर अधिवक्ता सुबोधमान नापितले दायर गरेको रिट निवेदनको पुर्पक्ष गर्दै सर्बोच्च अदालतका बलराम के।सी। गौरी ढकाल र भरतराज उप्रेती रहेको फूल बेन्चले बैशाख २ गते निर्णय सुनाउंदै यस्तो व्यवस्था शक्ती पृथकीकरणको सिद्धान्त बमोजिम नैं रहेको ठहर गरेको समाचारमा प्रसारित भएको छ ।

जस अनुसार जानेर वा नजानेर खराब आचरण भएको व्यक्ति राजनीतिक पार्टीमा आबद्ध रहेको वा "हाम्रो मान्छे" भन्ने व्यक्तिको सिफारिस हुन सक्ने भएबाट त्यसलाई रोक्न पनि संसदीय सुनुवाई हुनुपर्ने र यो प्रकृयाले न्यायिक प्रकृयामा हस्तक्षेत्र हुने स्थिति छैन भन्ने ठहर् याएको छ । प्रकृयात्मक त्रुटीहरु भने सुधार गर्दै जानुपर्ने आवश्यकता पनि आंैल्याइए पनि के कस्ता सुधार आवश्यक छ भन्ने तर्फ भने मौन रहेकोछ । तर औचित्यपूर्ण देखिए पनि यो प्रकृया अहिले एउटा हास्यास्पद नाटक झैं माचन भईरहेको तर्फ भने अदालतको ध्यान गएको देखिन्न । सुनुवाई समितिका बहुसंख्यक सदस्यले अनुपयुक्त ठहर् याइएका व्यक्तिको नियुक्ति पनि अनुमोदन हुने अवस्था छ । अर्को शब्दमा समितिका एक जनासदस्यले मात्र समर्थन गरेमा पनि नियुक्ति स्वीकृत हुन्छ र बांकी सबै सांसदले गरेको बिरोध निरर्थक हुने व्यवस्था प्रति भने टिप्पणी गर्न अदालतद्वारा आवश्यक ठानिएन ।

अन्तरिम संबिधानको धारा १५५ को उपधारा (१) मा दोश्रो संशोधनबाट यो प्रकृया अनिवार्य बनाइएकोले उक्त संशोधनलाई निवेदकले चुनौती दिएकोमा सर्बोच्च अदालतले संसदले गणतन्त्रात्मक व्यवस्थाबाट राजतन्त्रात्मक र संघियताबाट एकात्मक व्यवस्थामा फर्काउन वाहेक जुनसुकै धारा पनि संशोधन गर्न सक्ने ठहर गरेको समाचारमा भनिएको छ । यसबाट निवेदकले धारा १५५ को उपधारा (१) मा गरिएको संशोधन सम्बन्धमा निर्णय मांगेकोमा गणतन्त्र र संघियता बाहेक अन्य सबै संबैधानिक प्रावधान परिवर्तन गर्न सक्ने ठहर गरेबाट रिट निवेदकले मांगे भन्दा बढी विषयमा अदालतले बोलेको देखिन्छ ।

जनता सार्वभौमसत्ता र राजकीयसत्ता सम्पन्न
नेपाली जनता सार्वभौमसत्ता र राजकीयसत्ता सम्पन्न छन् र यस कुराको पुष्ट्यांई संबिधानको धारा २ मा गरिएको छ । संबिधान यस सम्बन्धमा मौन रहेकै भए पनि नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता र राजकीयसत्ता नेपाली जनतामा नैं निहित रहन्छ भन्ने कुरा निर्बिबाद छ । संबिधान सभा जनताद्वारा निर्वाचित हुनाले जनतामा निहित सार्वभौमसत्ता र राजकीयसत्ता यो सभालाई प्रत्यायोजित छ । तसर्थ यो सभाले व्यवस्थापिकाको काम गर्दा बिद्यमान संबिधानको जुनसुकै धारा संशोधन गर्न सक्ने भन्ने अवधारणा सस्रर्ती हेर्दा जायजै देखिन्छ । तर राजतन्त्र र एकात्मक व्यवस्थामा फर्कने अपबाद सर्बोच्च अदालतले कसरी कायम गर् यो भन्ने सम्बन्धमा भने अन्यौल छ । किनभने अन्तरिम संबिधानमा किहं कतै पनि कुनै पनि संबैधानिक व्यवस्था अपरिवर्तनिय बनाएको छैन । यस्तोमा सर्बोच्च अदालतले आफ्नो तजबिजले संबिधानको यो यस्तो प्रावधान चािहं संशोधन गर्न मिल्दैन भन्नु आफूमा नरहेको अधिकार प्रयोग गरेर ठहरमा पुग्नाले संबिधान सभाको अधिकार कुण्ठित पारेको देखिन्छ र नेपाली जनताको सार्वभौमसत्ता र राजकीयसत्तामा आंच आएको छ ।

सर्बोच्च अदालतको समेत के कति अधिकार र कर्तब्य हुने भन्ने कुराको निक्र्योल गर्नेे अधिकार सम्पन्न जनताद्वारा निर्वाचित संसदलाई यी कुराको अधिकार हुन्न भन्ने अधिकार सर्बोच्च अदालतले कहांबाट प्राप्त गर् यो भन्ने प्रश्न सान्दर्भिक र समसामयिक छ । अर्को शब्दमा अन्तरिम संबिधानका केहि प्रावधान जननिर्वाचित संसदले परिवर्तन गर्न सक्दैन भन्ने सर्बोच्च अदालतको पूर्वाग्रह देखियो जुन कुनै पनि हालतमा जायज मान्न सकिन्न ।

२ सय ४० वर्ष सम्म जनताले गोरखाबाट आएका शाह खलकको राजतन्त्रलाई नेपालमा स्थान दिएकै हुन । स्त्री लम्पट देखि आफ्नै हुस्सुपनाले जहानिया राणाशासन निम्त्याउने सम्मका काम पनि जनताले सहेकै हुन । अझ २००७ सालमा क्रान्ती गरेर राणाशासनको ठाउंमा शाहहरुको राजतन्त्रलाई पुनः सकृय बनाएकै हो । तर २०४७ साल सम्म नेपाली जनता नागरिक बन्न पाएनन् र सकृय एवम् निरंकूश राजतन्त्रको "प्रजा" भएर बस्न बाध्य भए । २०४६/४७ को आन्दोलनले नेपालीहरु "प्रजा"बाट नागरिक बन्न सफल भएकोमा २०४७ सालको संबिधानमा निहित छिद्र चोर बाटो प्रयोग गरेर ज्ञानेन्द्रले निरंकूश राजतन्त्र पुनःस्थापित गर्न सफल भए र समूल नष्ट गरिएको राजा बिरेन्द्रको परिवारको सम्पत्ति मात्र आफ्नो बनाएनन्, १० जनाको संख्याले घटेको राजपरिवारको खर्च वार्षिक ११ करोड रुपैंयाबाट बढाएर ६५ करोड पुर् याएर लोभ लालचको खुल्ला प्रदर्शन गरे । यस्तोमा नेपाल राजतन्त्रमा फर्कने कुरा सोच्न पनि सकिन्न ।

तथापि सर्बोच्च अदालतले राजतन्त्रमा फर्कने गरेर संबिधान संशोधन गर्न मिल्दैन भन्नु उचित देखिन्न । किनभने अधिकार सम्पन्न जनताले चाहेमा सर्बोच्च अदालतको यस्तो अंकूशले काम गर्दैन । आपुनो लागि संबिधान लेखेर जारी गर्ने सर्बोच्च अधिकार सम्पन्न नागरिकहरुको चाहना अनुसार संबिधान बन्दछ र उनीहरुले चाहेको शासकीय परिपाटी कायम हुन्छ । त्यसकारण सिद्धान्ततः यस्तो ठहर गर्ने अधिकार सर्बोच्च अदालतमा छैन । तर व्यबहारमा नेपालमा राजतन्त्र फर्कने अवस्था छैन विशेष गरेर ज्ञानेन्द्र र उनका पुत्र पारस लगायत बिगतका केहि राजाहरुको बिबादास्पद कृयाकलापको कारणले ।

अन्तरिम संबिधानको धारा १३८ को उपधारा (१) मा अन्तरिम संसदले संशोधन गरेर पहिलो पटक नेपालमा संघिय शासन प्रणाली हुने व्यवस्था गरियो । जनताबाट निर्वाचित नभएको यो संसदमा जननिर्वाचित संसदमा जत्तिकै अधिकार रहन्न । त्यसकारण निर्माणाधीन संबिधानले यस सम्बन्धमा स्पष्ट व्यवस्था गरेपछि मात्र यकिन निक्र्यौल हुन्छ र यस सम्बन्धी व्यवस्थालाई अपरिवर्तनिय मान्ने सर्बोच्च अदालतको फैसलाले अधिकार सम्पन्न संसद र जनताको यस सम्बन्धमा निर्णय गर्ने अधिकार कुण्ठित पार्ने प्रयास भएको छ । तर सर्बोच्च अदालतले आफ्नो फैसलामा यस्तो बोल्दैमा नेपाली जनताको अधिकार कदापि कुण्ठित हुनसक्दैन । संघियता सम्बन्धमा संबिधान सभामा व्यापक छलफल पश्चात निर्णय हुनुपर्छ र कदाचित निर्णयमा पुग्न नसकेमा जनताबाट जनमत संग्रह गरेर निर्णय गरिनुपर्छ ।

संघियता आफैमा असल अथवा खराब होइन । नेपाल र नेपालीको लागि के कति उपयुक्त छ भन्ने कुराको निक्र्योल जनताद्वारा निर्वाचित संबिधान सभाले गर्नुपर्छ । संघियताको नाममा यत्ति सानो देशलाई बिखण्डन गर्दा के कस्तो प्रभाव/दुष्प्रभाव पर्छ भन्ने सम्बन्धमा यथेष्ट चिन्तन गर्न पनि आवश्यक छ । कसैले भन्दैमा बिखण्डनको बाटो हुंदै मुलुकको नामोनिशान मेटिने गरेर संघियतामा जान नेपाली जनतालाई बाध्यता छैन ।

संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल
संबिधानको धारा ६४ मा संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल पहिलो बैठक बसेको मितिले दुई वर्ष हुने व्यवस्था छ र २०६५ साल ज्येष्ठ १५ गते पहिलो बैठक बसेकोले यसको कार्यकाल आगामि ज्येष्ठ १४ गते सकिन्छ । जनताले संबिधान सभालाई २ वर्षको लागि निर्वाचित गरेको हो । तसर्थ संबिधानको अन्य विषयमा संसदले संशोधन गर्न सक्ने भएतापनि जनताले निर्वाचित गरेको अवधि भन्दा बढी संसदले आफ्नो कार्यकाल कुनै हिसाबले थप्न मिल्दैन र ६ सय १ जना सभासद्हरुलाई पाल्न जनता बाध्य छैनन् ।

तर माथि उल्लिखित रिट निवेदनको फैसला गर्दै सर्बोच्च अदालतले संसदले आफ्नो कार्यकाल समेत थप्न सक्छ भन्ने भाव बुझिने गरेर निवेदकले अदालत समक्ष पेश गरेका बिबाद बाहिर गएर बोलेको छ र यसबाट संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल सम्बन्धी अन्यौललाई अझ घनिभूत पारेको छ ।

कतिपय कानूनबिद् तथा संबिधानबिद्हरुले धारा ८२ मा भएको "संबिधान सभाले पारित गरेका संबिधान प्रारम्भ भएको दिन देखि संबिधान सभाको काम समाप्त हुनेछ" भन्ने व्यवस्थालाई इंगित गर्दै कार्यकाल २ वर्ष भन्दा बढी हुने अपव्याख्या गर्न थालेकाछन् । धारा ६४ ले तोकेको मिति अगावै नयां संबिधान प्रारम्भ भएमा सोहि मितिमा यो सभाको काम सकिने भन्ने यो व्यवस्था हो र यहि व्यवस्थामा टेकेर २ वर्ष भन्दा बढीे कार्यकाल रहने अपब्याख्या गरेर म्याद सकिएको संसदको अधिनायकबाद लाद्ने प्रयास उचित छैन ।

नेपाली कांगे्रसका िसंचाई मन्त्री र एमालेका संचार मन्त्रीले सल्लाह गरे झैं संबिधान जारी नभए सम्म संबिधान सभाको म्याद कायमै रहने धारणा व्यक्त गरेका छन् जुन युक्तिसंगत छैन । नत्र अर्को ६ महिना वा ५ वर्ष, अझ १० वर्ष संबिधान लेख्ने काम सकिएन भने ६ सय १ जनाले तलब भत्ता लगायतका सुविधा पाउंदै संविधान सभाको सदस्यता कायम रहने अपब्याख्या हुन जान्छ । कतिपयले यहि कुरालाई नकरात्मक दृष्टिकोणबाट ब्याख्या गर्दै भनेका छन कि त्यसो भयो भने संबिधान निर्माण गर्ने तथा जारी गर्ने कुरा सभासद्हरुको प्राथमिकतामा कहिल्यै पर्ने छैन जुन कदापि नेपाली जनतालाई स्वीकार्य छैन ।

जनताद्वारा निर्वाचित संसदमा जनतामा रहे जत्ति कै अधिकार हुन्छ र सर्बोच्च अदालतले यो यी कुरा भने संसदले परिवर्तन गर्न सक्दैन भनेर त्यसमा हद तोक्न त्यसलाई संकुचित गर्न मिल्दैन । तर त्यसो भन्दैमा जनताद्वारा २ वर्षको लागि निर्वाचित संसदले आफ्नो कार्यकाल आफुखुशी बढाउंदै जान पनि मिल्दैन, जब सम्म जनताले कार्यकाल थप्ने सम्बन्धमा निर्णय गर्दैन । समानन्तर उदाहरण मानिसको शरिरसंग लिन सकिन्छ । मानिसले आफु खुशी आफ्नो शरिरको सबै अंग प्रत्यंग चलाउन आदि सक्छ, तर आफ्नो आयुर्दा आफैले थप्न/बढाउन सक्दैन । यो काम मानिस सृष्टि गर्नेको भए जस्तै संसदको आयु तोक्ने काम पनि संसद निर्वाचित गर्ने नेपाली जनतामा निहित छ । तसर्थ सभासद्हरु आफैले आपुनो कार्यकाल बढाउन मिल्दैन सर्बोच्च अदालतले असम्बन्धित मुद्दामा फैसला गर्ने क्रममा कार्यकाल बढाउन मिल्ने भावार्थ निस्कने निर्णय गरे पनि मिल्दैन । बढाउनु पर्ने बाध्यकारी अवस्था आएमा सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न जनताबाट ताजा जनादेश प्राप्त गर्नुपर्छ । तर यस पंक्तिकारको बिचारमा राजनैतिक दलहरु संबिधान निर्माण प्रति गम्भिर भएर दृढ निश्चय साथ लाग्ने हो भने बांकि समयमा संबिधान लेखेर जारी गर्न अझ पनि सम्भव छ ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
२०६७ बैशाख १३ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित

Re: [NNSD] RE: Newa Rajya

April 24, 2010

Mr Shyamal Shrestha


Thanks for a joining in the discourse.

Yes, its time for people to rise above ethno-cultural-religious-linguistic groupings and think about the matter from national perspective. People also need to remember that the identities of each ethno-cultural-religious-linguistic group will survive only if Nepal is to survive. For example Newa identity is intact because we are in Nepal. Outside Nepal it is unable to survive. We just need to look at people of Newa origin in India.

Therefore, first and foremost I am a Nepali and only then I am a Newa. Hence, I will do everything possible under the sun to ensure that Nepal doesn’t follow Yugoslavia’s path by fragmenting this tiny country into over 100 provinces on ethnic lines (although they have proposed only 10 provinces on ethnic lines now, but by going on this tangent we will be forced to have 90 other ethnic provinces to satisfy other ethnic communities as well).

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: [] On Behalf Of Shyamal Shrestha
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 16:42
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [NNSD] RE: Newa Rajya

I agree with you Ratna ji. While assertion of identity is a right, we need to look at the bigger picture as well. 'Two wrongs do not make a right' and the current demands for ethnic-based provinces neither is neither economically viable not pragmatic from an administrative point of view. Its simply seeking glorify in one's own ethnic identity rather than taking the entire country and its people forward.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Ratna Sansar Shrestha <> wrote:

Dear Proponent of Newa Rajya

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

RE: [NNSD] RE: Newa Rajya

April 20, 2010
Kishore Maharjan
Cheif Executive Officer
Civil Bank

Dear Kishorejee

Good to hear from you. Thanks for your solidarity.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Kishore Maharjan []
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 14:09
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: **SPAM** Re: **SPAM** [NNSD] RE: Newa Rajya

Dear Ratna Snasarjee,

I fully endorse your views. BINASKARI BIPARIT BUDDHI. That's what's got into all who have no productive work to keep them engaged and thus contributing to creation of a greater unified existence.

Supportingly yours,


From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Mon, 19 April, 2010 6:39:04
Subject: FW: **SPAM** [NNSD] RE: Newa Rajya

Dear Proponent of Newa Rajya

Monday, April 19, 2010

RE: Newa Rajya

April 19, 2010

Dear Proponent of Newa Rajya

I agree with you that if every odd ethno-cultural-religious-linguist group is to have provinces of their own, then it will not be tenable for Newa people not to have a separate province. This also will mean that Nepal will need to be fragmented into over 100 provinces to recognize all ethno-cultural-religious-linguist groups. Therefore, both of these propositions are unacceptable. Neither can we let other ethno-cultural-religious-linguist groups have their own provinces without us Newa people having our own. Nor can we stand idly by while our motherland is fragmented (first into 14, including 10 ethno-cultural-religious-linguistic groups and eventually over 100 provinces) and follow the path of Yugoslavia.

However, I have to disagree with you in as much as your statement that federalism is “the ultimate form of devolving power” is concerned. Provinces under federal system do continue to be unitary and expecting power to devolve after fragmenting a country in the name of federalism is like applying medicine somewhere else for a headache. A separate set of instrument is called for to empower grassroots in order to have power devolve to the grassroots which can be achieved without fragmenting this tiny country in over 100 provinces.

By talking about “non-bahuns and non-chhetris” you are ignoring and denying diversity that exists amongst Newa people. Ethnically there are Newa people who trace their lineage to Mongol origins and there are others that have descended from Aryans. Similarly, there are Hindus and Buddhists amongst Newa people. Amongst Hindu Newa people there exists four Varnas comprising Bahun, Chhetri, etc. For example, Malla kings of this valley are Chhetris (as most of the ruling class are) who have had marital relationship with other Chhetris from Palpa, Makwanpur, etc. (Khas Chhetris) in Nepal and even with other ruling class people, for example, in Cooch Bihar in India. Similarly, there are people of Brahman Varna amongst Newa people who intermarry with Khas Bahun community even now. Even amongst Buddhist there are priestly class and others. But I don’t know too much about Buddhists. Therefore, ignoring and denying such ethno-cultural-religious-linguistic diversity amongst Newa people is unwarranted. And seeking fragmentation of this country due to outrage against certain segment of Bahuns and Chhetris is like shooting at one’s own foot. I agree with you that Newa people in this valley have had to suffer in the hands of Khas people for last 240 years. But it was possible due to the active help and cooperation of a few Newa families who exploited their proximity to the palaces to the hilt and gained quite a lot in the bargain. You must be familiar with those Newa families and I don’t need to list the names of those families here.

In saying “if any body is so opposed to or so unsure about Newa Rajya, he or she may opt to live in another rajya” you have said a very serious thing without contemplating full ramifications and impact. First of all this particular attitude is unbecoming under democratic norms. In democracy people are entitled to their own views and nobody should be asked to leave a place of their domicile merely due to disagreement with the likes of you on any topic/issue. This kind of intolerance is highly inappropriate and smacks of attitudes under dictatorship, totalitarianism or autocracy. We in Nepal didn’t sacrifice so much to adopt regression once more. We have had despotism under monarchy and it is unacceptable to bring back the same in a republic after having eliminated the monarchy.

It’s not a mere case of for or against Newa Rajya. The issue is whether this tiny country should be fragmented into over 100 provinces or not. Moreover, this is not something that should be said lightly in such a manner as it could snowball out of proportion. If those disagreeing with Newa Rajya are to be asked to leave this place, one needs to contemplate the impact if the same is reciprocated by other ethno-cultural-religious-linguistic communities. For example, Newa people in Tansen may be asked to do the same by Tamu people, Newa people in Dharan to Chainpur by Limbuwan, Kirat, etc. I abhor this kind of stance personally and also as it can lead to ethnic cleansing. If you check the history of Yugoslavia you will be able to find out that this is what led to liquidation of that country.

With best regards,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
From: (deleted as the sender is reluctant to make his name public)
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 22:08
Subject: **SPAM** Re: My article in Gorkhpatra on moves to revive 2047 constitution

To conclude the debate on federalism or separate Newa Rajya I just want to ask the sceptics and opponents a simple question: can we remain 'rajyaless' when all the ethnic groups want - and will have their own rajya - within the federal democratic republic of Nepal?

Time has come to leave aside the doubts and work for a prosperous Newa Rajya. Indeed, no one can take away the credit from the Maoists for initiating the concept of federalism - which as you will agree the ultimate form of devolving power away from those who have held - and what all of us non-bahuns and non-chhetris have been complaining - power to date.

After all, if any body is so opposed to or so unsure about Newa Rajya, he or she may opt to live in another rajya and wish us who believe - and want a separate rajya - all the best.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Attempts to persuade people to adopt federalism wrongly?

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Some people have opined that “Nepalese People (not just Nepali people but including people from Madhes and Himal) have already adopted.” That is very far from the truth. So called federalism was brought in through the back door by unelected interim parliament by amending article 138. The constituent assembly was elected by the people of Nepal exactly for purposes as such and it is for this body to make a decision in this respect. Even those who don’t believe in federalism will be bound by the decision of this body if this body is to decide as such. I have had extensive discussions with majority of the members of constituent assembly and it is unlikely that this body will go for fragmentation of Nepal into over 100 provinces.

Some have implied that the “old system” without federal structure has “pushed Nepal into poorest countries in the world.” In an intellectual forum like this it doesn’t make sense to make sweeping comments in a generalized as such. People will believe only if you are able to substantiate the statement with empirical evidence. It’s unfortunate truth that Nepal is one of the poorest countries. I have no disagreement on this. But it’s not poor because it has not been fragmented into over 100 provinces in the name of federalism. As a student of economics I know why Nepal is poorest of the poor and none of the reasons have anything to do with not having gone for provincialization. I am prepared to accept the line of thinking justifying federal structure if people were to prove as such.

In my considered opinion, fragmentation of this tiny country into 14 provinces now (over 100 eventually) will result in unnecessary economic burden. I have already done an analysis about this and my article on the subject is published in the media and also uploaded in my website. But without being able to refute my analysis people have simply gone on to equate my statement with what “khas bhasha speaking people” will say. This is simply uncalled for. Again, if you are trying to persuade people with your line of reasoning, then you should try to disprove people’s analysis instead of, again, branding people like this or that.

It is unfortunately true that Nepal is suffering from “Rajaswa leakage”. But unfortunately, this will not stop even after fragmenting Nepal into so many provinces. Rather with the increase in number of ministers, members of legislatures, etc. in a number of unnecessary provinces, the leakage will increase instead; as there will more people with inclination to cause “leakage” and benefit therefrom. There are different sort of plan, policy and institutional mechanism that can be placed to stop such leakage. In the name of stopping such leakage, fragmenting this country will be like drilling many more holes to stop leakage from one hole in a vessel.

What people need to remember is that unitary system will continue to exist even in the provinces and the problems we have will be continued. It is true that what is needed is devolution of power to the grassroots. But that does not happen with fragmentation. People suffering from exclusion and marginalized people in various provinces of India are still suffering from the same problem because federal provinces continue to be unitary. There is a different of instrument that needs to be adopted to empower grassroots.

The examples of countries with successful federal structure needs to be supplemented with example of Yugoslavia that exists only in history as it went for ethnic federalism and which caused ethnic wars and eventual disappearance of the country. Similarly Soviet Russia used to be bigger than today, but with provincialization many of its provinces are no more with it.

Based on email discourse with supporters of federal structure for Nepal.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

RE: Fw: Interaction program last Friday on water resource

April 8, 2010

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani

Dear Prof Lohani

Yes, we in Nepal don’t have monopoly over mediocrity. There are “short sighted” mediocre people in these multilaterals and, more seriously, there are people in Nepal who worship such people in these institutions. This is our misfortune. Besides, there are self serving people both in these multilaterals and in Nepal, and the people in Nepal is caught between the two like between deep sea and devil.

Nepal’s powers-to-be blindly toeing the line prescribed by the such people in these multilaterals is at the root of the problem. We in Nepal should decide what is good for us ourselves and accept financing from these for the things that are in our interest. Not the other way around. But I wonder when will powers-to-be in Nepal learn and practice this!

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Mohan Lohani []
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2010 5:30
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: Fw: Interaction program last Friday

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Thanks for forwarding your comments which you made at the Interaction program organized by Lila Mani Pokhrel.Most of your comments are sensible and your information about Arun 111 is revealing.If we had accepted the terms of World Bank,there would have no power generation.This is how international financial institutions like World Bank and IMF throttle third world countries which have no clout in these institutions.

Tks and regds,

Mohan Lohani

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Interaction program last Friday

April 7, 2010

Mr Lila Mani Pokhrel
Chief, Water Resource and Energy Dept.

Dear Lila Manijee

I am sending this email to congratulate as well as thank you and your party for organizing the program last Friday on the topic “Hydropower Development in Nepal: Opportunity and Challenges” at Nepal Academy. Your party deserves to be congratulated for organizing this program as other parties, wallowing in the arrogance that they have infinite knowledge of the subject, have not organized any such program. You have started a consultation process with the people who have spent substantial amount of their lifetime in the sector and this is highly appreciable. I thank you and your party not only for organizing the program but also for inviting me.

I also take this opportunity to drive home certain points with regard to the comments made during the program about which I was unable to rejoin issues due to time constraint during the program itself. The comments made by Som Nath Poudyal and Ajit N Thapa are important to be left ignored.

What I find distressing is the fact that people, even senior ones, make very superficial comment without full knowledge of the ground reality (or rather ignoring it!). This becomes unfortunate as even possession of full knowledge does not make a person wise. It becomes well neigh impossible for a person to formulate opinion rooted to the ground reality and make prudent comment without necessary wisdom. In this backdrop, it becomes criminal when people talk very lightly about matters of national importance without being able to feel hurt (देशको लागि चित्त दुखाउनु) when things are done to the detriment of the nation. This is not to question people’s patriotism but to decry their apathy as to whether actually the motherland gains or loses, which impels people to infer on these lines.

I am discussing few of the important issues raised during the program, which got left unaddressed during the program, in following lines.

“Criticism Galore”: Som Nath Poudyal
It’s impossible to disagree with Som Nathjee that once a decision has been made, there should not be unnecessary discussion/debate. Like in Japan, the example he gave, we in Nepal should too move forward to implement the decision, agreement, etc. without raising further controversy, once an instrument as such has been executed. However, this mindset presupposes that we are able to learn from past mistakes and are committed to not to repeat the past. Unfortunately, in Nepal, we not only keep on repeating the past mistakes, but we have been successfully committing errors worse in comparison to the past.

Take the cases of Koshi and Gandak treaties. There is no doubt whatsoever that Koshi treaty was a serious mistake. But instead of learning from this treaty, Gandak treaty was signed wherein Nepal ends up losing more. Article 4(i) of Koshi treaty guarantees that “HMG shall have every right to withdraw for irrigation and for any other purpose in Nepal water from the Kosi river and from the Sun-Kosi river or within the Kosi basin from any other tributaries of the Kosi river as may be required from time to time. The Union shall have the right to regulate all the balance of supplies in the Kosi river at the barrage site.” Meaning Nepal is entitled to use Koshi water as much as she needs and in whatsoever manner, for whatever consumptive uses. However, right to unencumbered use of Gandak water is constrained due to the restriction imposed by the proviso clause of Article 9 of this treaty wherein restriction has been placed in the trans-Valley uses of Gandak waters in the months of February to April (there is no such restriction on inter-basin transfer of Koshi water). This is a clear case of inability to replicate stronger points of previous treaty; no sense in expecting improvement based on lesson learnt from the mistake committed in signing Koshi treaty. In the same vein, Mahakali treaty is the worst one of the three – due to its failure to ensure Nepal’s national interest.

In this backdrop, people of Nepal are unable to depend on powers-to-be of any time to not to compromise in the matters of national interest. Compromise with national interest happens at a number of levels. First, treaties, agreements, etc. have been signed time and again against national interest. Then these will be interpreted against Nepal’s interest at the time of its implementation. There are plenty of examples of this genre. Last but not the least, compromises will again be made at the time of implementation of such treaties. An example that stands out like a sore thumb is the canal network under Gandak treaty which is built for lesser quantum of water than what Nepal is entitled to under the treaty.

In this backdrop and looking at the history of last 60 years after the overthrow of Ranacracy in 1950s people in Nepal aren’t in a position to trust and believe powers-to-be of any time and from any political denomination.

“Current load shedding is due to cancellation of Arun III”: Ajit Narayan S Thapa
Ajit Narayan jee opined that Nepal would not have been facing this severe load shedding, had Arun III, 201 MW, not been cancelled in 1995. I have conducted an in-depth analysis of this and my conclusions, different from his inferences, has been published in the Hydro Nepal: Journal of Water, Energy and Environment which I have uploaded in my website and can be accessed by following the link below:

One does not need to invest too much time to refute this claim of his. Installed capacity currently is 695 MW and we have severe electricity crisis. In order for Ajit jee to be right, it will have to be possible to “have the cake and eat it too.” Meaning be able to implement Arun III and also have other projects built which isn’t possible on two grounds. One, the World Bank covenant put restriction on implementation of any project bigger than 10 MW until the commissioning of Arun III. Due to this very covenant, both Khimti and Bhote Koshi wouldn’t have been implemented if Nepal had opted to implement Arun III, simply because the World Bank would not have liked to flout its own covenant. Besides, Kali Gandaki A wouldn’t have been built if Nepal had gone for Arun III, as the former got implemented by using ADB fund earmarked for the latter. Similarly, Middle Marshyangdi was built with KfW money that couldn’t be used due to non-implementation of Arun III. Simply put, had Nepal gone the Arun III route Khimti (60 MW), Bhote Koshi (36 MW), Kali Gandaki A (144 MW) and Middle Marshyangdi (70 MW), totaling 310 MW wouldn’t have been built. With the implementation of Arun III total installed capacity would have reached 586 MW level only whereas due to cancellation of Arun III Nepal succeeded in adding 310 MW to a system of about 385 MW.

From the above it is not only crystal clear that his inference is completely far from ground reality but it also comes out glaringly that the magnitude of load shedding today would have been substantially higher if Nepal had implemented Arun III.

However, this type of surmise isn’t surprising when former minister of state for water resources, Laxaman Ghimire has gone on record saying that had Arun III been built, Nepal would not have had any load shedding for next 20 years. It is unfathomable as to how does he jump to such a conclusion when the demand in 2025, 20 years after the expected commissioning of this project is 3,176 MW!

Anti development people are part of “petroleum lobby”
It has become fashionable to brand critics, including yours truly, of present visionless, irresponsible policy, strategy and plan for so called hydropower development, as anti development. They further portray those critiquing mindless development of hydropower as a part of the petroleum lobby in Nepal. This scribe is highly critical of dedicating good projects able to generate high quality power at very low rates like Arun III, West Seti, Upper Karnali as export oriented project. If these projects are to be built in the national interest, Nepal’s dependence on imported petroleum products would have gone down significantly. In this backdrop, it is very clear that those in support of the named projects are not only acting against national interest but at the same time are condemning Nepal to dependence syndrome for times to come. Till the time people catch up with their two timing strategy, these people will continue to be worshiped as pro-development and in the meantime they will continue to serve petroleum lobby by forcing us to import petroleum product in ever increasing quantities.

Why rake up issues like national interest and national independence against hydropower project?
Some people make it sound as if it is criminal to be talking/worrying about national interest and national independence while, the people involved in signing away national interest or signing documents that compromise Nepal’s independence, go about strutting around as if they not only have won a battle or two but the war itself. In the context of water resource sector and hydropower sub sector references to national interest and national independence is not merely rhetorical, nor abstract. The detriment to national interest and impairment of national independence is quantifiable and the value could even be monetized.

National interest issue becomes relevant in the context of, for example, Mahakali treaty, in which Nepal’s entitlement to rainy season water is limited to 3.5% while surrendering 46.5% of water, that rightfully belongs to Nepal, to India while going about crowing that this treaty ensures half water for Nepal. The compromise in national interest becomes serious by a magnitude in the context of Pancheshwar project under which Nepal is get to irrigate less than 5.5% land (93,000 ha) from the regulated/augmented water stored in the reservoir, to be built, while surrendering 44.5% of water belonging to Nepal stored in the reservoir to India (India to irrigate 1.6 million ha), in the name of, again, equal sharing of the water. When national interest gets compromised as such, it becomes criminal on the part of Nepali citizenry if no voice is raised against such transgression of Nepal’s national interest. The division of augmented/regulated flow from Pancheshwar project, in the name of equal sharing of water, is so lopsided that it’s not even commensurate to inundation of Nepal’s land; 8,650 ha of (43%) Nepal’s land is to be submerged for the entitlement to irrigate 5.5% land!

With the increase in dependency national independence gets impaired. Nepal is suffering from severe electricity crisis which is likely to continue for decades, if current visionless plan and strategy is to continue. Nepal is surrendering projects able to generate good quality power at low cost for export while we are importing power from India at exorbitant rates. It is obvious that as long as Nepal is dependent on imported power, she cannot be self reliant and, hence, her national independence will stand compromised.

Moreover, due to the depedency syndrome, Nepal is getting mired in balance of trade as well as balance of payment deficits which is fueling liquidity crunch, flight of capital etc.

In this backdrop, it should not be difficult to understand whose interest the people castigating people concerned of national interest and national independence are serving.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Federalism: only way to prosperity of all communities?

Some people seem to believe that 'federalism' is the only way to prosperity of all communities” in Nepal. But there are no basis to belive in it for follwoing reasons:
  • First and foremost prosperity of any community does not come from fragmentation of this tiny country.
  • Secondly, they are proposing provinces for just 10 ethno-cultural linguistic communities and if prosperity is to come from having a province named after that community then other over 90 odd ethno-cultural linguistic communities will be deprived from the “prosperity” you are referring to.
  • If Nepal is to have 10 odd autonomous states/provinces on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines, aren’t other 90 odd ethno-cultural-linguistic groups too entitled to statehood on the same lines and the “prosperity” that you are referring to? I am told there are about 100 ethno-cultural-linguistic groups in Nepal. Why should these groups be deprived from similar rights? In India we are presented with a new state each day (it’s a bit of exaggeration!) but she can sustain shock/trauma of such centrifugal tendencies. Where will Nepal be if Nepal is to start hiving off new states on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines – a country equal to an Indian state or even smaller?
  • Initially other "ethno-cultural-linguistic groups" may not demand states/provinces of their own? Once a precedent is set, what will stop the remaining groups from asking for equal treatment? Won't that take a form of beginning of an unraveling process? Shouldn't Nepal learn lessons from the experience of India which is in a continuous state of throwing up new autonomous state? Will Nepal be able to sustain the shock/trauma of fragmentation of Nepal into state after state on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines? Won’t this lead us through to the path taken by Yugoslavia?
  • With the proposed provision for special privileges/rights to a specific ethno-cultural-linguistic group in a particular province, what stops the rest from becoming second class citizens?
  • Additionally, this will become more complicated in the proposed New Rajya, for example. Amongst Newa people there are people who are able to trace their roots to Mongoloid stock while there are Aryans too. Similarly, there are both Hindus and Buddhists amongst Newa people (I don’t subscribe to the theory that Buddhists are a part of Hindu). If this privilege is to be given to the first ethnic subgroup then the other will be marginalized. Similarly, if this is reserved for a Hindu Newa then, Buddhist Newa will be deprived of the opportunity and will be relegated to becoming second class citizen, officially.
  • Then there will be questions as to what treatment will be meted out to couples of mixed marriages?
  • Moreover, what will happen to the children of such mixed marriage? Will the children be entitled to the special rights/privileges following one parent or become second class citizen like the “other” parent. We already have many mixed marriages. I am close to a Limbu colleague of mine married to a Khas. I hope restructuring of Nepal on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines will not require banning of such marriages or initiate ethnic cleansing process as we have seen in many countries, both in Europe and Africa.
  • I am given to understand that in none of the proposed “states” on ethno-cultural-religious lines, the so called “main” ethno-cultural-linguistic community is in majority (demographers please speak up). If this group is to have pre-emptive rights – cuflwsf/ - in matters related to governance, wouldn’t it result in minority rule over majority?
  • As a legal practitioner, I am not against federalism per se. but, in my considered opinion, this is not for us in Nepal. The geographic area of this country is under 150,000 m2 while average area in a province in India is about 100,000 m2 and it is more than 200,000 m2 in Russia, more than 192,000 m2 in US and over more than 436,000 m2 in China.
  • Economically too Nepal will be unnecessarily burdened to pay for 14 governors, cabinets, legislatures, constitutional bodies, etc.

Monday, April 5, 2010

RE: My article in Gorkhapatra on on reviving 2047 constitution

April 3, 2010

Mr Bihari K Shrestha


You are, unfortunately, absolutely right that we never have had a statesman in the proper sense of the term. Actually, sycophants are busy abusing the term by bestowing it on people who don’t deserve to be called as such at all.

However, there is a saying that people get the leadership they deserve. In other words, as long as we the people don’t show the place they deserve to these people they will continue to rule (including misrule) over us.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the citizenry like you and me to point out if the emperor is naked. Even amongst the so called intelligentsia of Nepal very few people speak up against the wrong doing of these politicos. People like you are a rare exception. Therefore, it is also incumbent on us to spread the word, make our countrymen aware and persuade them to speak up against the misdeeds of this crop of so called leaders; there is rampant apathy towards these things. Unless this gets replicated (people speaking up) and a mass movement is initiated, we, the people of Nepal, will be condemned to wallow in “this” for ever and we will be condemning our future generations too.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: bihari []
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2010 17:51
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: My article in Gorkhapatra on

Dear Ratanjee,

Both Birendra and Gyanendra had opportunities served them in silver platter, but they were obviously not even aware of them. But the problem is that one can see of no single politician in Nepal upon whom any hope can be banked. The present bunch is composed of nothing but thieves, dacoits and murderers. Given such a situation, I consider this whole CA and constitution writing exercise an utter waste of time and resources, because at the end of the day, it is these same politicians who will find themselves at the helm to implement it. The question is not what kind of constitution, but who the statesman to lead the nation.



----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:59 AM
Subject: Fw: My article in Gorkhapatra on