we don't just want a new constitution, we want one that is more democratic and an improvement on the 1990 one. Otherwise what was the point, right?

As stated in the NT editorial a few issues ago, it was to appease the Maoists. 

Do you really have such a short memory?

The NC's ten conditions for the extension of the CA shows us the way out. They summarise the essential points of a truly democratic constitution. The only trouble is that the ten commandments come from a political party that has little moral authority left to be setting conditions because of its past governance failures and lack of accountability.

The NC makes the mistake of presenting the negotiations as between two political parties. It would be smarter to present it as a negotiation on behalf of democracy.

"For their part, the Maoists in the past three years have mislead, lied and broken promises on demobilisation"

And what's there to say that they won't do it for the next 3 months.

#3 Arthur

My faint guess is Kunda rerads your piece. If he could bottle-neck your road, then only can he save his six-lane highway drive of editorial pieces.

It doesn't yet stop me to rethink his last issue's piece, with a big concentric circles, with RESET written inside. Then, he sounded as if politics is a tertiary link, so why not priortize the primaries. But he thinks now, by virtue of his plastic rhetoric of self-denunciation, that Maoists are the main cradle of filth, and that int'l friends and int'l legitimacy are the main concerns. My goodness! When Maoists expond  A, Kunda says unA or deA or disA or antiA or misA or ShornA or NullA but the last remaining option if he counldn't the aforementioned answers, is B. Not yet C and�., for that's left for me and Arthur. Why so visceral malice when indeed your existence basically subsists inside the domain and protocal of the very server you love to antagonize.

Thanks Arthur�But who actually are you? 

Almost all of the ancien regime officer class had been drawn from the aristocracy. During the period preceding the final overthrow of the Monarchy, large numbers of officers left their regiments and emigrated. Between 15 September and 1 December 1791 alone 2,160 officers of the royal army fled France... Of those who stayed numbers were either imprisoned or killed during the Reign of Terror. The small remaining cadre of officers were promoted swiftly; this meant that the majority of the Revolutionary officers were far younger than their Monarchist counterparts. Those high ranking aristocratic officers who remained, ... were soon accused of having monarchist sympathies and either killed or forced into exile.

Revolutionary fervour, along with calls to save the new regime, resulted in a large influx of enthusiastic yet untrained and undisciplined volunteers ... The desperate situation meant that these men were quickly inducted into the army, where the ranks were seasoned by a number of veteran soldiers who had remained.

That is the typical history of the armies of the "foreign friends" who Kunda Dixit keeps hoping will support demobilization of the revolutionary army and maintenance of the army of the ancient regime in Nepal.

For other examples of the "traditional" process you could checkout the British "New Model Army" and the American "Continental Army".

"Democratization requires a paradigm shift from the conceptions held by and about a semi-feudal army dedicated to enforcing the old regime, to a democratic citizens army serving the people in a new Nepal." -Arthur

I'm exactly behind you, but I need to detect what your paradigm is, and how you mean the processual and procedural conflation will go by. I mean: how will you apply the salve of Kuhnian paradigm shifts to the wounds of un-democratized Nepal Army?

You are so right to point out the paradigm shifts in ancien regime, continental and new model army, but can we swallow such corrosive dose of total overhaul, or upensation (the process of something getting upended, a system overhaul, a new beginning in 'alpha and omega').

That's why Nepal Army has so less Madhesis (a politico once claimed that number pins around 1000), Tharus, Dalits etc. It doesn't need the absolution of nether world, thus not upensation, but it's still somewhat undemocratic. We can level the ground by recruiting cadets from all sections, but indeed, earth is round and so hierarchies will still persist.

Thus,

-PLA should be integrated with the Nepal Army so that the two coalesce to symbolize the representation of major subsections of Nepali Community.

-New recruitments standard should be meant not to preclude, or discriminate, any Nepali , who, by certain but distinct and impartial recruitment policies and rules, suffices such standards.

-Nepal Army should be totally dismantled of the political leverage. No press release, diplomatic kowtowing, phone-calls etc.

-Any potential mutiny must be crushed with force.

-Nepal Army must be disciplined, and political players must not lobby them to inspire their volition in political oeuvre.

-The journalese must be balanced, so that the heretical opposition to Prachanda's govt. inspiring Kattuwal to become a self-appointed opposition to govt. doesn't take precedence. But the intentions similar of Baidha should also come unalloyed, shorn of his jargonese.

Why is democracy negotiable? But how is it negotiable?

# Soni

I'm clearly not an impersonator here. If you pick me among the business-minded tigers, I can only say that I don't have such stripes of feudal or semi-feudal history.

I'm honestly a student, but I'm a cauldron of ego that makes me write in nepalitimes.com

I'm not an intellectual, nor aspirant to such phalanx of hypocrites. For who is such a man bestowed with blessings of intellect? I've assumed my girlfriend as such a philosopher that she can really browbeat some of the best lines of Russell and Nietzsche. The not-so-important distinction:  she is bereft of the mantle assumed by these lads in account of their exhaustive penetration in their outside world.

Sanjeev Uprety seems to have slung his ink in Kantipur that the only difference in one's assumption of post-modernism is that non-academicians are unaware but they find the constant relevance in their lives while academicians find the keystone of their academic rigor upon the altar of reasoning, philosophizing, interpreting and expressing to the audience from the well-known pulpit.

That is what delineates some egotistic doctorates from the sunalterned minorities in Nepal.

#Kunda

I understandably mean authoritarian rule is not acceptable, but this present world full of democracies doesn't suit your bygone clich�s.  

Don't fear of democracy in Nepal! The bottom line is:

What kind of democracy should we bring to Nepal? What kind of federation, economic liberalization, equities, resources allocation, and cultural identifications?

Thus,  your 'non-negotiable' kind of sounds like you are a medieval heretic. Beyond oneself, there is always a negotiation. Indeed, it's a new oxymoron I'd prefer as a marginalia.

"I doubt that COAS Katawal was afraid the PLA would be "hippies". In proposing that they be kept in a separate directorate away from most of the rest of the soldiers I think it is clear the army leadership fears that the PLA soldiers are highly disciplined and cohesive and would influence other soldiers in a democratic direction, just as Prachanda mentioned in the "notorious" Shaktikor tapes."

Nepal Army has called the Maoists' bluff and presented an option for "integration".  And what are the Maoists doing? They are finding excuses, as always, not to integrate.  The bottom line is they do not want integration or the so-called "democratization" of the Nepal army, a hollow term bandied about by the neo-Communists who have failed everywhere else in the world and are making Nepal their new playground to live out their warped fantasies.  To these mad acolytes of mass murderers like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin and a phalanx of other devil incarnates, Nepalis are nothing but a bunch of lab rats. 

The Maoist murderers do not want integration because they are getting billions from the national coffers financed by Nepalis, and benevolent, but erring, donors.  Just look at the real estate holdings and various business interests they have amassed since their violent means has been legitimized through a weak democratic process and total abdication by the state.  

And I am glad this self-proclaimed foreigner--seemingly on Maoist payroll or working feverishly on a never-ending doctoral thesis--has the chutzpah to mention the Shaktikhor tape where the murderer-in-chief openly talks about duping the Nepalis.  Based on that tape alone, and notwithstanding their millions of contradictions and hideous avatars, noone should believe they are ushering in a New Nepal.  It's a convenient slogan used time and again to masquerade loot, murder and  plunder.  It's a hollow promise of a future that doesn't exist.

Maoists are stooges of India.  They found refuge across the border duing their "people's" war.  They are beholden to their masters in Delhi.  They are, however, good at theatre and quite adept at projecting: Vaidya purporting to be the hardliner, Baburam the great mad scholar purporting to tread the middle road and Dahal, the ever flip-flopping egomaniac, doing what he does best, changing positions all the time.  Of course, this practice is publicized by their boot lickers as signs of a functioning democratic party.  What a charade!!

We see a bigger game at play in Nepal which has indeed become a hotbed for proxy war of enormous proportions where major international powers are involved.  The Maoists are nothing but pawns in this game, and therefore, they are busy amassing as much wealth as they can for they know all too well that their days are numbered. 

Democracy was negotiated away once when the 12 point Delhi agreement was signed and again when the elections were held without demobilising the Maoist fighters. Wholeheartedly and eagerly supported by NT and the Dixit brothers.

And now Kunda has the gall to say democracy is non-negotiable??

"Would it be possible for a person who thinks like that to actually understand Maoist policy on important national issues? If they want to think that Nepal Army wants integration and Maoists oppose it or that Maoists are stooges of India, isn't it better for such people to remain completely confused? If they had a better grasp of reality they might be capable of causing more problems. "

You seem to have a direct line to the Maoists.  Is that because they are your paymasters or are you just a commie romantic/apologist?  Maoist don't want integration...they want to extract maximum money in the form of golden handshakes which their goons have openly talked about on the Nepali television channels.  But you wouldn't understand it as those programs are in Nepali.  Perhaps your buddies can help you translate the transcripts with their ill-gotten wealth.

"Finally, I honestly don't know whether I am responding to your actual meaning. That is because of your style of writing. This style seems more like a "pundit" showing off words and phrases. The writing style of Nepali Times uses much simpler language in articles and is much better for comments as well. Clear and simple questions and comments make for much more useful discussion."

Do I sense an air of superiority from you?  So typical.  I am surprised you are not using labels such as regressive, status quoist...  you are responding alright because either you get paid to lurk around these sites and spread the red propaganda or you just enjoy stirring the pot.  I agree with you on one count though: it's futile to try to have a discussion with you because your stance is like that of your heroes--agree with me or else...