Though the Parties may have moved in a rather unexpected path to reach an understanding with the Masoists, the so-called alliance has an inherent risk of collapsing sooner than later.

The parties may need to do something more dramatic, may be just to bluff the Palace if for nothing else.

A very interesting article by Ashutosh Tiwari.

source: - http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue276/strictly_business.htm

The article may not follow the orthodox political path that many Sajhaites may be accustomed to. But thanks to the author's wide spectrum of knowledge and commonsense, this artilce is very interesting and equally persuasive.

'सम्विधान सभा' बाट राजतन्त्रको छिनोफानो गर्ने भन्ने कुरा राजालाई दिईएको एक सुविधाजनक विकल्प मात्र हो । राजाले सम्विधान सभा वा जनमत संग्रह जस्ता जनताले गर्ने फैसलाको विकल्प स्विकार गरेनन् भने गणतन्त्रवादी सडकले गरिदिनेछ राजतन्त्रको फैसला । र संविधान सभा क्रान्ति पछिको आरामसंग बसेर गरिने संविधान निर्माणको प्रक्रियाको रुपमा हुनेछ ।

राजाले 'संविधान सभा' द्वारा राजतन्त्रको भाग्य फैसला गर्ने प्रस्तावलाई स्विकार गरे भने चुनाव जरुर गणतन्त्रवादी उम्मेदवारहरु र राजतन्त्रवादी उम्मेदवारहरुको बीचको रुपमा हुनेछ । त्यस अर्थमा 'सम्विधान सभा' को सभा बस्नु अगावै राजतन्त्रको फैसला भईसक्नेछ ।

राजाको स्वभाव र क्रियाकलाप हेर्दा उनले राजतन्त्रको भाग्यको फैसला जनताबाट गरिने विकल्प स्विकार गर्ने सम्भावना झिनो देख्छु म । त्यसैले अन्ततोगत्वा 'संविधान सभा' संभवत: आरामसंग गणतान्त्रिक संविधान लेख्ने सभा र संसदको द्वैध स्वरुपको रुपमा बन्नेछ ।

I am a newcomer to Sajha.

I found this thread interesting because of discussion on analytical part. While reading the NT column by Ashutosh Tiwari (same as Ashu in Saha, right?), I also find some inconsistencies between his argument and the theory he invoked. When Nepe correctly pointed this and presented details of alternative model (from a student), I can see how upset Ashu was (though there seems to be an old account to be settled between Ashu and Nepe; sorry I do not know, I am new here). Yet, Nepe made a legitimate comment. I am particularly surprised to see the author of op-ed column (on application of game theory) terribly threatened by elementary math of game theory (labeling it as sexy math!). I do not know author�fs academic background, but I guess he is not trained as an economist or mathematician.

The tone of op-ed article gives an impression that the author knows, at least, the basics of game theory. Now it is clear that he is good only at the qualitative descriptions. This is in fact very common practice in Nepal among the professionals- invoke some high-sounding jargon or theory (without knowing the basics of it) and give an impression that �gI know something important�h.

Nepali-chanakya

In my earlier posting,

This is in fact very common practice in Nepal among the professionals....

Should read as:

This is in fact very common practice in Nepal among some professionals...

NC
--------------

Nepali Chankaya,

Look, let me make myself clear: I welcome the "student's contribution" WITHOUT
Nepe's commentary. As I said, I am taking my time to think more deeply about game theory, and see how it applies to various Nepali situations. Since I am published regularly, keep on reading my columns and other writings.

My attitude is: It's more useful to PUBLISH something, in this case, get people thinking about using game theory as a tool as a way of thinking about Nepal than to engage in ANONYMOUS kich-kich over who's right and who's wrong over this on the Internet.

So, yes, I was NOT upset by criticisms of my ideas; I was far more irritated by how Nepe
tried to reduce this whoe thing to the level of "Ashu versus the rest of us" for no reason. That was needless and stupid and utterly unbecoming someone who
professes a scientific temperament.

When I publish anything -- I expect criticisms, both for the right reasons and for the wrong reasons. If my ideas are not challenged and criticised and commented upon,
how the hell am I going to learn anything by myself in today's world where nothing but relentless self-learning matters?

So, hold your fire.

On a larger note, if you read history, you will see that those who have made remarkable contributions to advance our collective knowledge have been MORE wrong than right. It's just that DESPITE their being wrong so often, they developed the emotional strength/persistence to process the lessons, figured out what went wrong, and tried 100s of different ways to eventually go on to be spectacular successes in whatever they did. And, of course, once they were successful, no one cared how many times they failed before. This is how knowledge advances, and I totally buy this.

That is why, you do NOT need to be a chanakya to understand that being right one time or being wrong two times and being criticised will have little effect on my whatever productivity.

oohi
ashu

Ashu,

I can see your points, and look forward to reading more thought provoking op-ed articles.

NC

Very interactive thread, though some bad old memories seems to have infliltrated a bit, after all egoistic gene in we Nepalese (suppressed for so long) have somewhere to manifest itself.
Being a science major student, I would like to know comments from students and experts on the related field on "How will the environmental and natural happennings, play the role in our Nepalese situation as per this game plan theory?"
If my question is too vague or out of context, what I was reffering to is events unfolding in likeliness (God forbid) a natural calamity of massive scale in Nepal. The Achec peace deal, on verge of collapse of LTTE struggle do have some relation to the Tsunami.

Should the parties stand alone and bet on international intervention?



Tiwari highlights the parties' big problem: that they have descended into a rut. The parties merely shuttle between the king and the Maoists, thus reducing the impact of any shift in allegiances.

Let us consider the following �crazy� scenario. What would happen if the parties destroyed all alliances with both palace and rebels?

The parties have little power outside their moral authority within the UN and among democratic nations. Standing alone, the parties can urge external powers to cut off aid to the palace and Maoists.

If the parties place their bets on outside intervention, they should start talks with international or regional organizations. They may send representatives to campaign for a joint UN-Indian peacekeeping mission.

Standing alone is irrational: it leaves the parties open to attack from both sides. We've seen how the palace can hurt the parties, and the Maoists could do so as well.

Yet by standing alone, the parties would threaten both sides. The parties could reduce the military aid that other nations send to the king. Meanwhile, if the parties brought in a peacekeeping force, the peacekeepers would restrict the movements of the Maoists.

�
For acting crazy to be rational, the person must have a conscious objective. What goal should the parties seek?

An abstract goal of "restoring democratic government" means little. Few ordinary Nepalis put faith in the parties. If the parties just try to win back their legislative power, people will view their efforts as merely self-serving.

The parties should instead attempt to build popular loyalty. Popular loyalty is the only way to strengthen their position in the long term. When the parties gain any bargaining power, they should demand the restoration of the civil liberties the country has lost.

If the parties organize the citizens around the cause of civil liberties, they can prove themselves dedicated to the future of Nepal and not just their individual fortunes.