On History, Present and the Mahendra Nationalism

Time is very important. It is a dimension in itself to everything. In history- time is the only dimension.

The 1940s

Let’s look at the 1940s. In 1939, the Chinese people gained control of their country after driving out the Japanese. Japan and Germany were the two most important forces of the second world war the coming decade was to see. In India, freedom fighters were in negotiations with both German and Japanese rulers in order to form an alliance to defeat the occupying British forces. The British and Germans were enemies. After the second world war ended, a big dent was formed in the economies of countries like Britain, Germany and Japan. The British left the subcontinent.

In Nepal, we tried our own things too. Although we were not being ruled by foreign occupying forces, the Rana rulers would have never been able to rule the way they did without the support and recognition of the British. The Ranas supplied Nepalese soldiers to fight from the British side during the world war and they also helped defend the British colony in events like the Lucknow Sepoy Mutiny. So, when the British left, the Ranas too had to go. We must thank our democratic and communist leaders of that time, who had participated in the Indian Independence movement and made friends with India’s leaders- it’s because of them that we continued to exist as independent country and enjoy a change of scheme no later than it was enjoyed by people in neighboring countries.

The 1990s

Let’s look at 1990s now. The year 1990 was a year after the Berlin wall was brought down- described as one of the most important events in modern world history. At around the same time, the collapse of the superpower Soviet Union ended the bitter cold-war and constant threats of two world-powers destroying the world in their tussle that included an arms and nuclear showdown. That was also the time when the World Wide Web (the internet as we know it) was developed- this technology would go on to change the world in the next twenty years

In Nepal, after 1990 we curtailed the powers of our monarch and decided we’d also feel the winds of change in our faces. A few years ago, we decided we needed more and got what we wanted too.


Foreign powers ruled most of our region for many decades from the 19th to the middle of 20th century. From 1940s to 1980s, most countries of the region were very poor and undeveloped in the global standard. China and India had a huge number of poor people. They had driven away the foreign occupiers of their land, but were struggling with other problems. China adopted Chairman Mao’s version of communism and India took a democratic socialist path espoused by Pandit Nehru. But during the 1980s and 1990s, both of these countries took a different path- that of market-driven free economy and have now emerged as very formidable forces in the world.

Until the 1990s, similar to the now powerful India and China, we were doing bad too but we were at least at par with them in some indicators. Similar to Nehru and Mao, we were following the visions of our Kings.

Time is important. Disregard to to this dimension when explaining whatever absolute truth you can think of will most probably make me think that you are a waste of time.


In India and China, we don’t hear of a national hatred against Nehru or Mao. In fact, they are revered by a large majority and despite whatever ills the time they lived in had to see, both Nehru and Mao are respected today.

In Nepal, we have learnt to badmouth everything from the history. I will present my analysis of our history in some other post, but given that we were doing at least as good as countries at comparable states, what is the rationale for denigrating anything and everything from history? After 1990, we have had democracy and leaders elected by ourselves have been deciding things for us- at least they could have done so. More than 20 years have passed since and we are still blaming the history for our failures of today.


Even before the complete verdict statement is out, today I read news about programs organized by some political outfits to burn the court decision and the current national dress of Nepal. In reaction to the court’s decision to merely uphold the government’s recognition of a code of dressing for governmental occasions (the court spokesperson has said it’s not their job to decide the national dress), the political parties, especially the UCPNM and Madheshi parties have blamed “Mahendra Nationalism” once again for all the ills of the country.

“Mahendra nationalism” is blamed for many things today- and this is used to attack the Nepali language, the current national dress and so on. According to them, the reason is that late King Mahendra tried to propagate a slogan “one language- one dress” (I am not aware of it, but I can’t give it to them for lack of proof). Past rulers and their policies have to be seen in the context of the time they lived in, for example, see this article that tries to explain why Mahendra’s vision was brilliant in his time.

People who do not like to wear Daura-Suruwal-Topi have been in the helm of Nepal’s administration and governance for many years now. Communist and/or Madheshi leaders and parties have held many important positions since 1990s. It’s true that the present national dress (Daura-Suruwal-Topi) is not suitable for the people of Terai and they don’t feel a sense of ownership to it. I think this realization has already dawned upon those who wear and feel like they own the daura-suruwal-topi too. I, personally believe that there should be a respect for history and also a space all communities of Nepal to wear their dresses and speak their languages.

There should be no problem addressing grievances and fixing things in an amicable and proper manner if there is a will to do so (making law is parliament’s job, not the court’s). Disrespecting court-verdict and burning a dress that is not just the dress of the majority of Nepal’ population, but also the present national dress is only trying to save one’s face from failures. The present breed of political leaders and parties have had every opportunity to improve things for the last 20 years and they have failed miserably at it.

Some people blame everything on India, others blame everything on imaginary creations like “Mahendra nationalism.” On their part, they have done nothing.

Blaming history and it’s heroes for present’s failures is despicable. Even more worth contempt is the act of disrespect to the law and system; the way things are, daura-suruwal-topi is the national dress of Nepal and people who burn it should be made accountable for it.


  • The national dress was burnt in 2008 too, and a well-known commenter even thought it was justified.
    I think he’ll present some usual rigmarole to justify the recent acts too. Update [28th Aug, evening]: He’s already indicated so.
  • In their defence, people who wear daura-suruwal-topi claim that it used to be a perfect dress for war because it allows for free movement of body parts during hand-to-hand combat operations involving the khukuri. Given that the nation of Nepal was built through wars fought and won by these people, blaming them for making it a national dress in a system they built is only ridiculous.
  • To know some stupid reasons presented to attack the national dress: see this entry by one well-known humorist.

Group of activists affiliated to various Madhesi Parties burn a copy of Supreme Court verdict regarding national dress in Kathmandu on Friday. Picture source: ekantipur.com


9 thoughts on “On History, Present and the Mahendra Nationalism

  1. Could not help but just add few cents of my own thought to this beautifully written article. Of course you are free to reject my interpretation or opinion if you think they do not hold any water.

    You are very true when you mentioned that court’s verdict should be respected and it’s part in failure of very same parties who did nothing to stop Daura Suruwal being coveted national dress of Nepal. This issue needs to be seen from perspective of time, as you have mentioned as your premise.
    Before I dwell into daura suruwal scandal, let me try to put some of my understanding regarding “Mahendra nationalism”. According to various critics, with takeover of royal power in coup of 2017 and introduction of constitution of Nepal 2019 to further consolidate his rule, King Mahendra started planting his vision of nationalism. For the first time in history, Nepal was constitutionally declared hindu state though many previous laws were itself built or developed on religious bias. Acceptance of Hindu as official religion legitimized use of vedic ideas/thoughts to develop further laws just as biblical thoughts lead in developing many laws/policies in England. He also made Daura Suruwal Nepal’s official dress in 2017 BS after takeover. His introduction of party-less panchayat system reflected more as one man show. So he developed and promoted culture of one religion, one dress, one language and one country policy resulting in sidelining of other religions, languages and culture. It can be interpreted that he wanted one identity to introduce Nepal to international arena and use same one aspect to define Nepali and their nationalism. This is similar to Bhutan’s one language one culture policy which led to expulsion of more than one third of it’s Nepali speaking population. His official line directly, indirectly gave bias to “one ….” in administrative and other policies. Critics also argue that construction of Mahendra Highway was designed in such a way that heavily supported northern belt with Pahadi community and gave little benefits to southern belt of terai community. You have to read article by Chandra Kanta Jha (columnist for Kantipur: http://www.ekantipur.com/kantipur/news/news-detail.php?news_id=248211) Probably this is what critics call Mahendra Nationalism.

    Now coming back to your point of national dress: You are right, court’s decision was defined and interpreted for convenience by some group. Burning court verdict is definitely regressive act but its supporters would argue doctrine of necessity to justify the act. But i do not agree to you view when you said those burning national dress should be punished for breaking law. Though i am not a law student but as an enthusiast observer, I will try my best to make my points clear: on your argument of why people should be punished because it’s law, let me just one school of thought. This school of thought argue that a law becomes law only when citizens approve the law. Law doesn’t become law just because state impose law on people. To be law, people should feel ownership of proposed law or at least agree to the points, then only it can be enforced as law. And definitely daura suruwal case hadn’t got onwnership from Madhes based parties but also frm indigenous and other group of people who believe they were always oppressed and suppressed. They also participated in protest rally, of course led by Madhes based parties. The perfect example of this school of thought being true is King’s Media related ordinance of 2005. To consolidate his absolute power and to curb press freedom silencing his critics, then King Gyanendra brought harsh measures. But open rebellion from civil society and media sector resulted in failure of imposition of law which was later scrapped by Supreme Court. So, lets not jump on saying since it’s law, everyone has to follow blindly. Also I have no idea what legal measures are mentioned if such activities do take place, probably public order act would be in place. My assumption.

    Whether it should have been declared National dress post 2006 and how it was introduced itself is point for discussion. I respect your opinion that you respect all cultures and dresses. But I couldn’t help but insert few thoughts though your article many not ask for it.

    As this blog points out (http://www.mysansar.com/archives/2011/08/id/20903#more-20903) then Home Minister of Madhav Nepal government did bring the proposal but wasn’t even discussed in cabinet upon protest from Madhes based parties. Blog goes on suggesting Rawal inserted the issue in cabinet meeting minutes which was later published on Nepal Gazette. Now, lets discuss on timing and procedure that led to Daura Suruwal being coveted national dress of Nepal. The decision was not discussed and endorsed by the parliament. Nepal’s Interim constitution has acknowledged Nepali language as lingua franca for official purposes and all other language as national language. Nepali was accepted so because it was the language that majority understand and can use for communicating. Arguing constitution has acknowledged all costumes as national costume, CA Speaker also made ruling on this behalf (http://nagariknews.com/society/nation/30504-2011-08-26-06-25-25.html). So the announcement didn’t follow basic parameters of constitution as well as it’s procedure itself is flawed. Without proper consultation and discussion, decision was made to call it national dress last year. Hence it loses it’s legitimacy to some extent. The new Government headed by Babu Ram Bhattarai has already agreed to rectify it’s action and strike down the decision.

    This brings us to premise of this discussion, should this dress be defined national dress and is need of national dress so important to give our identity?
    If we see other countries practises, many countries have indeed declared their own national dress often based on different factor as this site points: Climate and geography, Marital status or social class, Profession, National colors or other symbols, Different time periods etc. (http://costumes.lovetoknow.com/National_Costumes_of_the_World) The site also acknowledged that when choosing a national costume, most countries opt for highly distinctive designs that can be applied to the majority of the population and will represent the nation’s values and heritage. So do Daura Suruwal fits into above mentioned categories and factors? Definitely we can see that there’s bias of then rulers to impose dress assuming since they wear it, it must be national dress of whole country forgetting diversity of Nepal. Many also point, if not deciding one what would be our national identity. My cynical answer would be if United Stated of America doesn’t need national dress to identity itself, why would we need? Yes USA doesn’t have it’s own national dress.
    Even if we see composition of daura suruwal, does it really reflect nepal’s identity? The suruwal is modified version of salwar kamij wore by Rajasthanis or Pasthuns and waistcoat is derived from English dress code. It seems only topi and Daura seems to be nepali-developed. So our beloved daura suruwal itself is fusion of various culture and imposing it on other culture forgetting the diversity it reflects would be injustice itself.

    At the end, only my point is: let’s not be blinded by thought that one dress can unify people and those who support this are true-nationalist and who oppose are anti-nationalist. A national identity should be something that do not divide people across but unites. Probably we don’t need dress to unify us at all.

    P.S. Please be assured that I do not come from Madhesh or terai. I was born and raised in Ktm by Pahade parents. Thought this is important to mention just because those who read this do not get influenced by ethnic/regional bias.
    P.S 2. history is written by winners and might not reflect true reality. Never in history books, King Prithvi Narayan Shah is described as ruthless ruler who never shied away from doing horrible things to his prisoners but rulers are always presented in positive light arguing whatever they did was for greater good of nation which itself is a fallacy. So let’s not stop questioning the history because questioning history would give us broad perspective and situation of those times/decisions that led us to today’s state. Present is outcome of yesterday and present’s failure/success is always linked to yesterday. If we cannot accept the past for it’s corrects actions as well as mistakes equally, we would never be able to understand the present complexities. As Nat geo says: live curious. Let’s keep our eyes, brains and ears open and be curious.

    • Rabin,
      Thanks for a nice comment. I’ll try to reply with my views in brief:

      1. If you accept a system and enjoy other benefits of it, you have to accept the confines of that system too. The people who are opposing the court verdict are in large number in parliament and have always been in the government. I do not know what stopped them from passing a law from government (if everything from the nation’s name, constitution, anthem can be changed, I don’t believe any discrepancies in the dress code cannot be)- only makes me think that the motive behind the national dress (also a dress of a majority of Nepal’s people) and the court verdict is even more condemnable.

      If you do not believe that this system of governance can solve the problems, then you should try to establish a new system- and of course be ready to face the consequences. And I believe that the state holds a monopoly over violence- so I think the state should try to quash any attempt to challenge that monopoly (of course the state can lose).

      That’s how things work in the natural progression of things in a modern society.

      2. Please read the link in the post about how Mahendra’s actions can be justified. India started improving only after Nehru’s doctrine was challenged, China started improving only after Mao’s economic policies were discarded- Nepal had also adopted new policies at similar times. It has been half a decade since we decided to get away with the monarchy and everything associated with the “old system” too- is it still relevant blaming Mahendra? Do the Indians, Chinese or Bangladeshis blame their leaders from decades ago for what problems they are facing today? Or do they fix things themselves and keep respecting the late leaders for whatever good they have done?

      3. I think you didn’t understand me. I have never written above that “one dress” and daura-suruwal should be enforced as the national dress of Nepal. I don’t even care if there is a dress or a national dress- I’m fine if people want to go to work naked (seriously- and you can try to convince me against this, I can justify my position)- why need any dress at all? But as long as there is some official dress, I will wear it in official occasions. I’d like to see all kinds of people being able to wear their own dresses, but it should come through systematic means.

      4. I am open to criticism of history and critical discussion about all subjects. But, there should be some premise to discussion. The premise established by the current political and intellectual culture in Nepal is that it is “regressive” to praise the unifier of our country- how is that critical? I refuse to participate in any discussion made under such a premise.

      And many things can be said for and against Prithvi Narayan Shah- but at the end of the day- he gave us a country, believe it or not. For only this much, he stands above you, me or any of the leaders I see in Nepal today. They have to prove themselves, do something in real before feeling so deserving as to tell me to disrespect all of my history. And yes, history is written by winners- and its not just in Nepal. There are bad things written about Gandhi too, but do you hear any argument asking to reject the whole of him, or asking to ridicule and disrespect the whole of him? You don’t hear any sense of guilt associated with praising him, do you?

      5. For these reasons, whatever is happening in Nepal today is fundamentally wrong- and needs to be corrected. I’d at least expect young and aware people to think rationally and make intelligent points while arguing. Look at Prashant Jha- what a big disappointment. Look at us, we take whatever trash is given to us in papers and TV- many of us have been made to feel guilty about our own history, language, dress, country and what not. Let’s grow up- lets reject this mad circus.

      • well i was trying to present you my understanding of what Mahendra Nationalism was, as you said that you don’t get and don’t care. Just thought this bits and pieces of information (mind you not authentic though) might help you, at least to say: I have faintly heard of MN and with these reasons I don’t believe in it anymore. And I do not doubt good things that happened during MS period. I only wonder whether the good deeds could have speed-up or slowed down if only he had allowed pluralism and ensured public participation.

        Secondly, as i have explained I am not saying you said so. My later points were not even related to your blog post directly but with the issue people are talking and understanding which i have clearly mentioned. I have pointed out that I respect your opinion of respecting all dress and cultures. Since I wont be writing about this issue anywhere anymore, I just thought to add more of my own thoughts in this comment, just to make background of this controversy more clear and also feed my own opinion. (Apologies for misusing your sphere though, you know Nepalipan aaula dida dudhulno nilna khojne bani :P)

        Thirdly, you are right when you mentioned no matter what we say there are some leaders who gave us our identity and these new breeds of leader need to prove themselves for that stature. I also absolutely agree that statesmen who proved themselves needs recognition for that and culture of signifying their praise as “regressive” is not progressive either. Their contribution should be acknowledged and so is their guilt/mistakes. At the end of the day, as J.S. Mill points out a man should be allowed to think, truth or lies, without fear of reprisal as human are intelligent enough to discard lies at the end. It’s not bad thing to be ashamed and apologetic for our forefathers mistakes and proud about their contributions. Any form of extremism should be discouraged and both virtues should be equally discussed and debated.

        Fourthly, like you or me, everyone has right to exercise his or her expression and this applies to Prashant Jha as well. If we can’t accept opposite view and hell bent on punishing someone for presenting opposite view, well we are no different than any tyrant. I am not trying to defend what he did or said, but merely pointing out that he has his right to express his grievance. There are due process to punish him if he had done contempt of court or obstructed course of law. Reprimanding him online for his views/actions being led by our own bias (judging on our own) is also not coherent to our democratic values and belief in system. The beauty of democracy is that it can accommodate opponent views and instead of discarding solely, tries to see some positive aspect and learn from that of course not accepting negative part. Risk are also there that majority could turn into majority tyrants which i believe has happened in this debacle

        Fifthly, The constitution has accepted all language/dress/culture as national thingy (as pointed by the Speaker), isn’t this systematic means? Well if my Bible has mentioned it, then i would believe it has come through systematic and due process.

        Lastly, Principle of separation of power does indeed keep judiciary above all which cannot be directly or indirectly charged. Burning of court verdict is definitely not democratic process since these very parties often give plea of democracy. Probably instead of burning verdict, more constructive measures could have been taken. But having said these, it doesn’t mean that court doesn’t make mistakes as it have shown it does on time and again. When mistakes are made, there should be some mechanisms to press for rectifying them. I don’t know what such rectifying process that are available for these protesting parties. (No disagreement to what you think here, just clarifying my own position. yes again hogging your sphere)

        Hopefully i made my points clear. Once again my answer to your last para would be: who is right or who is wrong, who believes in trash or rack, who are sane and who are insane. Let the sphere be available for free discussion without setting agenda, and our intelligent people shall eventually decide what’s best for them. “To each, his own”.

      • Thanks for the reply Rabin. It’s ok to use this sphere- after all I don’t place ads or collect revenues from this website, and there is no name associated with it- I love good discussions and thanks for starting one 🙂

        Again, in points:

        1. There’s a reason I expect the gatekeepers of national opinion-sphere to act rationally. It’s ok for Prashant to write what he feels, but go and look for your newspapers this whole week- do you see any diversity there? Do you see any sane and rational argument asking people to practice calm and adopt democratic means of protest? How many? Most of them make their arguments in the same premise I mentioned above (in comment), which is not acceptable to me.

        And believe it or not, most thinkers you see and read are not as independent as you might want to believe. Most thinkers operate out of the pocket of somebody who protects them- try investigating on your own or with any sources you might have.

        2. It is ok to use blogs to criticize opinions, and it is more democratic to do so, because anyone is free not to read, comment with his/her criticisms or publish his own different/same views. I am not forcing anybody to do anything here- I am only using argument, logic, evidences and spending my time writing them in a lonely blog that might be hardly read by people who matter. Why? Because in a democracy, there should be a healthy balance- but look around you, there is a an ugly cacophony of mad circus that only want things to happen it’s way. I’d love if people who consider themselves the gatekeepers of the national thought sphere take up these responsibilities- I wouldn’t have to write anything.

        But I think it is necessary to write, even for the purpose of setting the record straight- that in the future it can be said- there was not just one sided monopoly, but also people who thought differently and were unhappy at the failure of the gatekeepers of national opinion. Even for just that, I will write and ridicule people who have established a rigid premise for all discussions that happen in our country (esp about its identity, history, problems and solutions) today.

        I will not participate in tire burning or brick throwing if any hardline right-wing outfit calls for such a thing tomorrow (but sadly, there are only one kind of hard liners in Nepal and there’s no balance on that front too, so the mad circus has its way anyway), but I will keep writing. I will not call names and as far as possible, I will try to present evidence based logic, very objectively. I write for nothing(note: I don’t use my name, collect ads or get paid here).

        3. I think the constitution is silent about things like national dress, national sports (many people claim kabaddi and dandi-biyo are, but that’s another joke- burn whatever you like for making a “samanti” sports as a national game). I think the protocols for dressing are currently defined through government orders. The proper way to change is to either make it into a law, parliamentary resolution or a government order that changes it- but again, this can’t be done based on whims- it should be discussed and ratified by proper means.

        4. >>”Let the sphere be available for free discussion without setting agenda, and our intelligent people shall eventually decide what’s best for them.”

        –> Yes, but look at the sphere- is it available to all people- if it is, why is it so poor in diversity? So, is it wrong to try to make such space on the internet and the social media? Why?

  2. The biggest embarrasment is the flags being waved by these protestors. The uncanny resemblence to the Indian national flag says a lot about where their agendas are coming from. These people don’t represent the Madhesi community. Madhesi leaders to say the least are the biggest letdown among the politicos in this country. At least others make the pretense to care about sovereignty and national interest. But these people are so shameless, they openly advocate Hindi for their language. Have they ever expressed similar love for Maithili, Bhojpuri and Abadhi ever? It is the most ridiculous thing to say that people in Madhes use Hindi to communicate among one another. I have never seen a Bhojpuri speaking person communicate with a Maithili speaking person in Hindi. Any person with little interest in linguistics would be able to tell that Maithili, Nepali and Bengali are far closely related and have more similarities with each other than with Hindi. Most Nepalis understand Hindi because of being exposed to Hindi music, films and culture. A Maithili speaking person who hasn’t had such exposure would not be able to understand Hindi any better than he/she would be able to understand Nepali. In fact, because Nepali is spoken by neighbouring communities, it is likely he/she would be able to communicate in Nepali better.

    So much for absurd logics. These are nothing but mere pretenses. Yes Daura Suruwal as a national dress may not represent a vast majority of people living in this country. And people should be allowed to wear their ethnic wears as they dim fit in a national occasion, daura suruwal or dhoti kurta. But burning Supreme Court’s verdict over this is atrocious. This is contempt of court and those protesting should be arrested. The plans to burn Daura Suruwal as has happened in 2008 already are even more despicable. Most disappointing in all this is how some so called writers and intellectuals have chosen to support this move. It’s a shame. Have you in your hatred become so unmindful of the fact that daura suruwal happens to be the dress of a significant portion of people in this country? How do two wrongs ever make a right?
    If only this were a genuine grievance, we could have empathized with the protestors. But like their flags, their rumbling and awkward Hindi, this demand too is a southern import, pushed forward only to appease the Indian lords.

  3. Seems i can’t click reply to your response hence writing here. Very short one as I woke up late and my internet might go off any moment (sad can’t afford 24 hours hahaha)

    I wholeheartedly agree there is no real pluralism, no space for gatekeepers to act sensibly or even if there’s opportunity for such space, any hardly use beyond their own political and other benefits. Even if there is such diversity, it doesnt mean we should stop writing. As I mentioned earlier, no matter what we say or give example of which country, eventually the so called thinking cap would be of few elites who have reach and they present whole intelligentsia. See in Nepal now prolly 200 are such people who are quoted everywhere, given space to express their thoughts everywhere. We might increase it to 600 asking for pluralism but still they will always fall short of presenting our view. Still media or civil society would be clogged by only those 600. Sad aspect of democracy that talks about inclusiveness, openness and diversity. Anyway probably someday we can more discuss on pron and cons of this aspect. Summary you should keep writing no matter what the scenario.

    I am not saying he shouldn’t be chastised online for his views. There should be ample of spaces for criticizing and supporting. Logic should criticize the logic. Many times instead of we attacking the logic end up attacking person. Lets chastise actions not individual person. All I am saying probably we should be little more sensitive in using words. As you have used word he should be “jailed” (in your twitter as well), this is where i feel little uncomfortable. You can call me naive for this as you please of course. Probably you could have just used “you could face course of justice” or something like that. I believe words are not mere clusters of harmless alphabets, they legitimize and delegitimize.
    But of course, who am i to dictate you again.

    Apologies if i wrote some silly remarks that do not have any connection to your comments or thoughts. I am still half awake you see 🙂 Have a good day

    Of course this discussion would never see end of it’s day. We will have always some thoughts to agree or disagree haha. Probably it’s time to move on to next topic. hence, my last comment on this.

  4. Rabin,
    No disagreements with other points of yours, so I reply only one:

    1. Prashant Jha is entitled to his opinion and is free to do and write what he wants. But, contempt of court is a bailable offence- and he is merely taking advantage of the weak state of law enforcement in the country today. I still believe anyone who offends the court should be jailed (including Maoist MPs, who 2 years ago had done similar things against court decision).

    2. Daura suruwal topi is currently the national dress of Nepal. Sure, one can discuss how to make dresses of all people more accepted and so on, but there is no need to burn the dress of other people. Moreover, it is also the national dress.

    This is uncivilized. If somebody burns dress of other people, you’ll hear similar things. When stupid people burnt Indian flags in Nepal, Indians reacted bitterly. it is simple and obvious. I don’t welcome such acts with claps. I can address argument with argument, but barbarism and an intent of purely offending and stoking a communal fire should be condemned in the clearest possible words. There should be no space for such acts and motives in our society- and I don’t feel the need to be apologetic about it.

  5. Thanks for having the courage to say that Prashant Jha should be arrested. And not just him, a whole bunch of others like him who have harmed this country with their lies, manipulations and dishonesty should be punished. CK Lal, Khagendra Shangraula, Kanak Mani Dixit, the list is long.

    And please everyone, let’s not give in to the shit about people being entitled to have their opinions, no matter how destructive they are to the nation. Oh really? If a common person would have been punished for carrying out certain actions, why should people like Prashant Jha be spared under the pretext of exercising intellectual freedom?

    If only our intellectuals were honest in their op-eds, trust me Rabin half this country’s problem would not have arisen in the first place. People take their words seriously here. They can’t run an experiment on this country’s future over some pseudo-intellectual exercise or discoursing of theirs and say ‘hey sorry, didn’t work out.’

    What Prashant, CK and some other closet Maoist writers (although all of them support different factions) are doing is called as: intellectual terrorism. Pity it’s not a punishable offence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s