With malice to none
Tid-bits from here and there

Scene one:

Senior politicians were invited in a Terai village. The idea was to ask the politicians to share their views regarding the consolidation and the strengthening of a democratic system. The people were eager to listen to their respected leaders. But as the luck would have it, it started raining like cats and dogs. It was in fact a rainy season. The unnecessary and the most unwanted rain disturbed the lecture program and the leaders returned without making lectures.

The politicians concluded: Nature was against the Nepali democratic system. What was also concluded is that the nature favored “regressive” forces?

Scene two:

Two youngsters fought for reasons unknown to the villagers. During the course of the said quarrel, one was terribly wounded.

Local leaders converged and took sides of the ones of their choice. The side which was taking the side of the injured one maintained that “regressive and the reactionary” forces had spread their tentacles of late and hence some mechanism need to be devised to thwart the designs of those who wished the “democratic” system to collapse. On the contrary, the side which favored the one which created panic on the other side opined that “some” extraneous” forces had been fomenting trouble in the village and that the boy who was beaten must have been the “agent” of some powerful “intelligence” agency.

The villagers then brought it to the notice of their respective leaders in Kathmandu. Separate meetings were held by either sides and fortunately both concluded that countries that did not wish the democratic system to continue apparently have penetrated in the remote villages and that care must be taken to defeat such ulterior motives of some countries involved in such nefarious acts. The “unconstitutional” government was pressed to form a high level “committee” to bring out the facts behind the quarrel of the two innocent boys who were merely in their teens.

Some independent observers found the reason astonishing: the youngsters who created story had nothing to do with country’s system. In fact they did not know the existence of the system for whose consolidation and “preservation” the leaders created furore in Kathmandu. The fact that was later discovered was that the youngsters who fought were in love with one another’s sister. Later the villagers managed their respective marriage with the girls of their choices.

Scene three:

Two leaders from the NC and the UML were having their evening walk in Kathmandu’s New Road. The two leaders were understandably talking about the current politics and been expressing their respective solutions. In the process they both were advancing to the famous Pipal Tree. Here they saw an unimaginable crowd. Upon looking this crowd, they considered that it should be a crowd attracted by politicians from their own paraphernalia. This aroused interest in them. The occurrence of such political lectures, both felt, enhanced the democratic spirit and in more ways than one contributed to the consolidation of Nepal’s “nascent” democracy. Out of curiosity they wished to know which of their party leaders’ had been able to draw that sort of crowd in the heart of the town and in the process they penetrated into the crowd. However, to their utter dismay and displeasure, they could notice that it was purely a non-political crowd but a crowd drawn by a person who had two monkeys in his possession. The person was just making the monkeys to dance as per his instructions. The crowd was enjoying the monkey-play as they were tired of politicians’ political plays being played uninterruptedly in Kathmandu since twelve years or so.

The crowd enjoyed to the hilt when the owner of the monkey asked the monkey to exhibit how Nepal’s democracy looked like? The obedient monkeys suddenly picked up two fruit coconut and made circle and circles around the crowd.

The two leaders got the point and concluded that the monkey-man must have been the agent of some “reactionary” forces. They also decided to send one formal letter to the “unconstitutional” government urging it to bring about a total halt to such defamatory plays. They decided that such monkey-plays undermined the very spirit of the 1990 movement and the constitution.

Scene four:

The two leaders on the morning of 10 March, 2003, were having tea together. They met each other while they both were on a regular morning walk.

It was 7 O’Clock in the morning. Radio Nepal suddenly made this news:

“The British Minister for International Development, Ms. Claire Short, point blank said that if her country attacked Iraq, she might resign from her post.

This news came as a bolt from the blue to the two Nepali leaders.

They decided that Ms. Short who was in Kathmandu late last year must have met some top-hats of reactionary forces and having been quite influenced by this “secret” meet might have decided to pose a threat to her own Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It was then decided to send a petition to Premier Blair urging him to sack the minister who opposed British attacks on Iraq.

Upon receiving such a letter, Tony has assured these two Nepali leaders that he would increase the level of the continuing International Development Aid to Nepal should they came to power.

The British Prime Minister is also learnt to have invited these two Nepali leaders for a short trip to London.

The party colleagues of the two leaders appear afraid thinking what would happen to their respective parties’ if their leaders disappeared in the busy thoroughfares of 10 Downing Street.

Headline | National | 5 Question  | Editorial | International | Past