Elderly Care

Elderly Care is a website that helps you find a nursing home and nursing home services in general.

Educate yourself on senior care options before you make a choice for you or your loved ones. It is an important decision to be making. Invest some time.

Elderly Care has a lot of information you could use as you work to make a choice important to you. You are willing to spend the money. Spend some time before that.

A Discussion Thread From Ashutosh Shrivastav's Facebook Page

(I was not able to handle the format there: not conducive to a deep conversation. So I am bringing the material here. Let's engage through Disqus. I am very much into the conversation.)

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

You sound quite skeptical of federalism. Federalism means disunity? Come on. Federalism

Image by paramendra via Flickr

will mean greater unity, genuine unity, not sham unity where one small political class rules over the rest.

July 11 at 11:30pm

Vijay Singh

ASHUTOSH u tried a lot frm ur side for expressing ur thoughts for the betterment of NATIONALISM...

July 12 at 12:59am

Ashutosh Shrivastav

@ Paramendra: At this time, I don't believe Federalism is an answer. We need to know why Zones and Districts were created and if they could be replaced by federal states.

@ Vijay: It's just a clip of the speech. If I get a copy of full video of the speech, I'll post it here.

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

So you are not for federalism? Is that what I hear? Zones are so Panchayat.

July 12 at 5:41am

Ashutosh Shrivastav

I oppose federalism in Nepal. Too small for federal states...

July 12 at 3:12pm

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

Switzerland is smaller. 75% of the countries on earth are smaller populations than Nepal. There are states in America with a million people in them.

July 12 at 9:04pm

Birat Simha

Federalism on the basis of what? Ethnicity and language, which was the original proposal of the Maoists? That can hardly be a formula for unity. IF we are to be federal, much thought needs to be given to how each federal unit becomes economically viable. Horizontal federal units will not qualify for this criterion. Let us also keep in mind that our... Read More high-handed leaders have already declared Nepal a Federal Democratic Republic. Except for the democratic part, the other two need much thought, intellectual and political debate and, of course, the PEOPLE's views need to be taken into consideration. Ideally, whether we become a federal republic should depend on the new constitution. But right now, nothing in Nepal is ideal...

July 14 at 8:57pm

Image by paramendra via Flickr

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

(1) Federalism.
(2) Democracy.
(3) Republic.

We have already achieved all three in principle. Now we have to (1) bring the army completely under the parliament and (2) decide on the details of federalism: that is why we have a duly elected constituent assembly. ... Read More

The states will be demarcated taking many things into account. Ethnicity and language are among them. They played a role in Indian federalism as well, and India seems to be doing fine.

Federalism will lead to a greater unity. Nepal has never had unity. So far what it has had is internal colonialism.

July 14 at 9:24pm

Birat Simha

"Achieved...in principle"?? Whose principle? For instance, just because Girija, he was PM then, was "bribed" by the Maoists to declare Nepal a republic by promising him that he would be the first President, we are a republic in principle!! Get real, please.

Nepal was unified geo-politically by King Prithivi Narayan Shah in 1769. Its social unity ... Read Morehas become suspect over the past two centuries. If "One Madhes, One Pradhes" reflects constructive federalism, I beg to differ. That slogan is quixotic, unpatriotic and foisted upon the Nepali people by mischievous Indian elements.

July 14 at 10:51pm

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

There is no going back on federalism, democracy and republic. That is what I meant.

Prithvi Narayan Shah foisted internal colonialism. We are finally about to undo that.

As to the shape and modalities of federalism, the talk is on.

Image via Wikipedia

July 15 at 12:00am

Birat Simha

Democracy is universally accepted. Why no going back on federalism (which is still a concept and not reality) and republic?? Nothing to go back on. These issues are in the mandate of the CA to determine. Three Bahuns making Nepal a republic is nonsense.

You better look up the definition of "colonialism".

BTW, nice having a chance to engage you. We had met only once before - in my apartment in NY in March 2007 when I hosted Mr.and Mrs. Deuba.

July 15 at 12:23am

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

There is no going back on republic. As for federalism, there is no going back on that either, only option is to shape it right.

July 15 at 1:07am

Parimal Sharma

this was the best speech of the forum..should have silenced some of his critics

Thu at 11:23pm

Ashutosh Shrivastav

Thanks for the support, Parimal! For us, as the general public of Nepal, the CA election itself is questionable. Ian Martin seems to have been paid handsome amount of money to facilitate this heinous corruption in the name of democracy. The declaration of republic/secular state was done unilaterally without public referendum. As such, these decisions are null and void. Nepalese people reject all the decisions taken by 601 "Anguthachhaps".

Fri at 12:21am

Ashutosh Shrivastav

@ Birat Ji:

I'm with you. Disintegration of nation in the name of Federalism should be and must be opposed. The existence of nation is the utmost priority.

Fri at 12:38am

Image via Wikipedia

Riti Patel

I think it was really powerful speech and I hope it gets heard by right people who wants to join you in helping Nepal reach its goals.

Fri at 12:38am

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

The constituent assembly is a democratically elected body. The republic has been declared. Democracy is here to stay. Federalism has to be shaped.

Fri at 12:54am

Ashutosh Shrivastav

All the moves were unconstitutional. As such, no need to be honored by the "general public".

Yesterday at 1:40pm

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

A popularly elected constituent assembly is the supreme body in the country. Nothing above it.

Yesterday at 4:55pm

Ashutosh Shrivastav

And, it is imperative to note that people like you and I didn't vote these people. These anguthachhaps were voted by other group of anguthachhaps in terror (perhaps vote in exchange of their life). The only supreme body is the constitution--the law of the land, which was scrapped by a herd of 601 sheep instead of passing amendments and eventually... Read More turning Nepal into a lawless country.

If people advocate for democracy, they must know the democratic procedures to run the country. Referendum and amendments are parts of it. That's all!

Yesterday at 5:35pm

John M. Kelleher

>> "Federalism will mean greater unity, genuine unity, not sham unity where one small political class rules over the rest." --Paramendra

Why is it that people presume that the dichotomy of "centralism vs federalism" runs neatly parallel to that of "elitism vs equality?" Federalism is intended to act as a mechanism of administrative efficiency, ... Read Morenot class or ethnic equality. Federalism makes sense in a context wherein the federal units are able to function as largely self-sufficient economies, with limited coordination. That would not seem to be the case in Nepal.

Yesterday at 7:26pm

John M. Kelleher

>> "Switzerland is smaller." --Paramendra

You're looking at the wrong "size," I suspect. Compare Switzerland's GDP with Nepal's, and it should become plain as to why federalism is not viable in Nepal. Nor is Nepal likely to be

Image by paramendra via Flickr

come a "New Switzerland" itself in the forseeable future, irrespective of whatever verbal flatulence to that effect which Prachanda may issue from time to time.

>> "We have already achieved all three in principle." --Paramendra... Read More

If by "in principle" you mean "in name only," then yes, I agree!

Yesterday at 7:26pm

John M. Kelleher

>> "Now we have to (1) bring the army completely under the parliament [..]" --Paramendra

It is odd that apologists for the Naya Nepal always choose to bring this up, as though the Army were the principle stumbling-block on the road to eutopia. If the C.A. declared that henceforth all rivers shall flow upstream, would the Honorable Water Minister... Read More be obligated to concur, lest he be accused of flouting democratic accountability?

Similarly, why is the Army expected to submit to its own institutional evisceration? Because that is, in fact, the only likely outcome to the wholesale induction of brainwashed guerrillas into the Army. Irrespective of whether the Army is "morally" obligated to do as the CA says, no power-center, anywhere, has ever acquiesced to its own obliteration.

Yesterday at 7:27pm

John M. Kelleher

>> "[..] and (2) decide on the details of federalism: that is why we have a duly elected constituent assembly." --Paramendra

I've already discussed why I believe such "details" to be unattainable in Nepal's case. Ev

Image via Wikipedia

en if a workable form of federalism could be devised for Nepal by some subtly brilliant form of political alchemy, does anyone ... Read Morerealistically believe that such brilliance can be expected from the incumbent C.A.?

Nepal's current legislature is 61.5% composed of Communist parties, 38% of which hail from a particularly nasty, violent Communist group which still crops up on certain terrorist watch-lists from time to time. The remainder of the CA consists of a squabbling amalgamation of moderate parties and ethnic advocacy groups who can scarcely agree on the time of day.

Yesterday at 7:27pm

John M. Kelleher

>> "As to the shape and modalities of federalism, the talk is on." --Paramendra

... and on, and on, and on...

Nepal's current legislature can scarcely even PRETEND to function. You seem to believe that the C.A. is only months away from delivering a new & improved constitution and a workable federal mechanism. I would consider that about as likely as a 43-year-old female heroin-addict producing normal, healthy offspring with a full brain-cell count.... Read More

Nepal is inching closer by the day to the "failed state" category, if it isn't there already. The parties represented in the current C.A. are concerned only with maintaining their footing in the rapidly shifting parliamentary balance of power, and with claiming their share of the ever-dwindling supply of political patronage. Solving the unanswerable federalism riddle is quite nearly the last thing on their minds at the moment.

Yesterday at 7:28pm

John M. Kelleher

>> "Prithvi Narayan Shah foisted internal colonialism. We are finally about to undo that." --Paramendra

Image by paramendra via Flickr

This is precisely the sort of blind iconoclasm that I find so baffling in the Naya Nepal cheerleading squad. It is one thing to argue that traditionally subaltern groups ought to be given a stronger voice in Nepal's internal affairs. It is quite another thing to argue that every cultural, historical, and institutional underpinning of the state ought to be gratuitously torn down in favor of some abstruse mumbo-jumbo that we intend to make up as we go along.

>> As for federalism, there is no going back on that either, only option is to shape it right." --Paramendra... Read More

... and if it cannot be shaped, where does that leave us? With no option at all? I think you grossly oversimplify Nepal's political prognosis by presuming that the present settlement is unalterable.

Yesterday at 7:29pm

Ashutosh Shrivastav

John,

Thanks for "precisely" defining a lot of terms that have been vaguely defined by few Nepalese politicians so that they could rule on the ignorant population. I could easily see this trend at the ANA Nepal Forum where the "respected" politicians in Nepal looked dumb in front of the Nepali American audience and they were speechless when questioned by the people.

Ash

Yesterday at 9:47pm

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

Ashutosh.

The anguthachhaps gave us the magical April Revolution 2006. I have more respect for their political consciousness than that of the diaspora Nepalis who are asleep on immigrant rights.

Nepal never had a legitimate constitution that we should feel sorry one got scraped. We are about to get our first legitimate constitution. ... Read More... Read More

Referendums and amendments come into play after we get our first ever legitimate constitution.

19 hours ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

John. Federalism in Nepal's case IS about achieving greater equality for groups of Nepalis marginalized by the state for centuries. The political elite resides in Kathmandu, and so you have to devolve power away from the center. Federalism is a must is a diverse country like Nepal is to happily stay as one country.

75% of the countries on earth are smaller populations than Nepal. It is not too small for federalism, if any country is.

Federalism will also achieve greater administrative efficiency. ... Read More

Your second point comes into play after federalism is agreed to in principle already, as is the case in Nepal. As to the shape of that federalism, we are very much in discussion. Maybe you have a particular map in mind you would like to suggest.

19 hours ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

Democracy is not for the rich. Federalism is not for the rich. Like Amartya Sen has said, a country is not fit for democracy, a country become fit through democracy. Your argument that Switzerland might be a smaller population and less diverse than Nepal, but it is rich enough to have federalism, and your argument before that that Nepal is too ... Read Moresmall for federalism, well, define small. Your argument is prejudiced, not political.

Once only landowners could vote in America. Because they were rich. Your argument is a throwback to another era.

19 hours ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

I don't know how much you know about the army in Nepal, its ethnic composition, especially at the top, its opaque ways of functioning, its corruption, its bloated size. But know this, Nepal will not have fully become a republic unless the army is brought completely under the parliament and recomposed.

I am not for a wholesale induction of 30,000 ... Read MoreMaoists into the Nepal Army. I think the parliament should open up discussion on a bill, probably to be called the Security Sector Reform bill. That bill would decide if Nepal should have an army, how big it should be, what should be its ethnic and gender composition, and how to get there, how many Nepal Army and Maoist Army people you retrain for private sector jobs, how many you induct into the to be formed new Nepal Army.

I am not asking for utopia, I am asking for democracy.

19 hours ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

There are many people on Capitol Hill who don't know the difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Should we then go ahead and abolish the US Congress?

I wish you had a little more respect for Nepal's constituent assembly than you do. It would be respecting democracy.

Do you appreciate the gulf between the Maoists and the UML? Don't let the word communist fool you. Or the word socialist as associated with the Nepali Congress. ... Read More

It is very hard for an oppressed community to get organized. That the Madhesis finally have a few parties, small parties, that speak for them, that is a cause for celebration.

Democracy is messy, but it ultimately works.

19 hours ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

Nepal is in transition, and there is more lawlessness in the country than would make Nepalis happy, and the country currently seems to be going through a phase of political paralysis, but ultimately I remain optimistic.

There are 27 million people in Nepal and Iraq each. Bush spent a trillion dollars in Iraq to topple a dictator. The people of Nepal did the same thing with a street revolution in April 2006.

Do a trillion dollars mean anything to you?

19 hours ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

Prithvi Narayan Shah "unified" Nepal around the same time that America was born as a country. Look what democracy did to America, look what feudalism did to Nepal.

The details of federalism will be achieved too. I expect this constituent assembly to make a timely delivery. Not to say there will not be some drama along the way.

19 hours ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

Ashu.

You seem to join many diaspora Nepalis who make a hobby out of looking down upon Nepali politicians.

What I am saying is that the diaspora Nepalis are an asleep bunch. What have they done for immigrant rights, an issue that impacts them directly?

19 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "The political elite resides in Kathmandu, and so you have to devolve power away from the center." --Paramendra

Yet again, I fear you are grossly misapplying the actual purpose of federalism. If you want to use class, race, and ethnic egalitarianism as your justification for federalism, then India and Switzerland aren’t the models you should be referring to. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iraq might provide more salutary case-studies.

>> "As to the shape of that federalism, we are very much in discussion. Maybe you have a particular map in mind you would like to suggest." --Paramendra... Read More

Why does “we are very much in discussion” become your constant refrain whenever someone tries to point out the unfeasibility of federalism for Nepal? Isn’t it painfully obvious that the major parties in the C.A. are doing anything *but* iron out this federalism canard? And, how can I suggest a map for a federal model which I am inclined to reject outright?

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "Your argument that Switzerland might be a smaller population and less diverse than Nepal, but it is rich enough to have federalism, and your argument before that that Nepal is too small for federalism, well, define small. Your argument is prejudiced, not political." --Paramendra

In this portion of your argument you appear to use the terms “... Read Moredemocracy” and “federalism” interchangeably – this is specious. My objections to federalism in this case are not based on anti-democratic sentiment, but on my understanding of what is, or is not, an appropriate application for the federal model.

If you will indulge me by re-reading my prior argument, you will see that my reference to GDP was predicted on my statement that federalism only makes sense when the federal units are capable of acting as free-standing economic entities themselves. In most federal systems, including the U.S. and India, federal states are able to set their own macroeconomic policies for the most part.

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

This is only viable if the federal states can actually function as freestanding economic units in their own right. This is where the relative size of the national economy under consideration would either support or militate against the feasibility of federalism. Also, you seem to forget that bureaucracy costs are exponentially higher in a federal... Read More system. This, too, needs to be weighed in any cost/benefit analysis for the federal model. In a Lilliputian economy such as Nepal’s, it would scarcely seem worth the trouble.

>> "Once only landowners could vote in America. Because they were rich. Your argument is a throwback to another era." --Paramendra

This is a peculiar tangent. Where does the electoral franchise enter into the argument? Yet again, you seem to presume that the distinct concepts of federalism and democracy are joined at the hip.

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "But know this, Nepal will not have fully become a republic unless the army is brought completely under the parliament and recomposed." --Paramendra

“Recomposed... Read More” How do you intend to do that, without reducing the Army itself to impotence in the process? What you are suggesting is that the Army should be subjected to a massive top-to-bottom reform to cleanse it of its “elite” tendencies and make it solely accountable to the pluralistic and tolerant republic that you intend to conjure out of the mist.

Okay... giving that notion the benefit of the doubt for just a moment, *how* do you intend to do that without following the same course that the Maoists attempted, when they tried to force those 8 Brigadier Generals into retirement, and when they tried to unilaterally sack Katuwal? Why is it that Naya Nepal apologists invariably wind up echoing Maoist demands without even realizing it?

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

This is my point - it is impossible to subject the Army to such a comprehensive reform without emasculating it in the process, at least temporarily. I do not see Nepal... Read More’s political landscape as a passive grid of freestanding political entities which can be individually modified without affecting the others. I see it as a patchwork of competing loci of authority, most notably the Maoists themselves, the moderate parties, the Army, and the small nucleus of nationalists that still cluster around the Palace.

Given the extreme fragility of the balance between these loci of authority at the moment, I frankly do not see how it is either realistic or responsible to call for the vivisection of Nepal’s National Army. This would serve no interest save the Maoists’, by removing the last major institutional impediment to their own goals.

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "I am not for a wholesale induction of 30,000 Maoists into the Nepal Army." --Paramendra

Good to hear! I think most sane folk agree with you on that one. It... Read More’s just a pity that the Maoists don’t. What makes you suppose that Prachanda, Baburam and Badal have any interest in compromising on this point? That would presuppose that the Maoists’ own goal is to streamline the integration of their own cadres back into the mainstream. *Why* would they want that? Force is, and always has been, the Maoists’ trump-card.

The Maoists have NEVER abandoned the armed struggle – this is not idle speculation on my part, it is self-evident from the Maoists’ own pronouncements and policies. This is why they will not, and indeed cannot, allow their parallel army to be picked apart piecemeal. They have no reasonable incentive to do so, and every reasonable incentive to block such an effort.

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "I think the parliament should open up discussion on a bill, probably to be called the Security Sector Reform bill. That bill would decide if Nepal should have an army [...]" --Paramendra

*IF* Nepal should have an army? Honestly, Paramendra, what version of reality are you living in? In one of your replies to Ash, you... Read More’ve accused the Nepali diaspora of being “an asleep bunch,” and after reading some of your own statements I would have to concur!

I’ve already discussed above why I believe it to be recklessly irresponsible to destabilize the Nepalese polity by destroying one of the traditional loci of authority. Beyond that, I have to say that I find it shockingly surreal to see people proposing the complete reformulation of every aspect of Nepal’s political landscape by simple legislative fiat. It is naïve to presume that the C.A. can proceed with such measures with impunity as though these loci of authority didn’t even exist.

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "I am not asking for utopia, I am asking for democracy." --Paramendra

No, you had democracy already in the Constitution of 1990. What you are asking for now is an unattainable utopia, and you are willing to propose tearing Nepal apart at the seams in a misguided quest for the unattainable.

>> "Should we then go ahead and abolish the US Congress?" --Paramendra... Read More

Another odd tangent. I don’t expect the US Congress to reshape this country from top to bottom. In fact, generally speaking, the less Congress tries to do for me, the happier I am!

Yet refashioning Nepal from top to bottom, politically, socially, religiously, economically and militarily, seems to be precisely what you expect from the C.A. And as far as ignorance and incompetence go, I think the Nepalese C.A. is in an entirely separate class by itself. Why, then, would we realistically expect more from this body than from the US Congress?

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "I wish you had a little more respect for Nepal's constituent assembly than you do. It would be respecting democracy." --Paramendra

Oh, if wishes were fishes, we’d all cast nets in the sea!

Honestly, I fail to see how anyone who purports to respect democracy could find any inspiration in Nepal’s train-wreck C.A. It is a cautionary example, not a paragon! ... Read More

>> "Do you appreciate the gulf between the Maoists and the UML? Don't let the word communist fool you." --Paramendra

Yes, I know. That is why I was careful to separate the Maoist proportion in my prior post. MaKuNe has steered his party so far to the center that the “communist” tag is a joke now more than anything. The CPN-UML is, on most major issues, indistinguishable from the NC. This doesn’t seem to stop the two parties from blocking each other at every turn.

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

My purpose in pointing out those percentages was to highlight the ideological incoherence of the current C.A.’s makeup. How is a squabbling consortium of center-left, fringe-left, and ethnicist parties, plus one unreformed terrorist outfit, supposed to produce anything worthwhile?

>> "That the Madhesis finally have a few parties, small parties, ... Read Morethat speak for them, that is a cause for celebration." --Paramendra

I will refrain from commenting on the MJF and its fellow travelers. I will, however, have to question whether these parties have actually produced any tangible benefits for the Madheshi people, or whether they have only added another layer of disruption to an already-volatile situation.

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "Democracy is messy, but it ultimately works." --Paramendra

Democracy is indeed messy, and it doesn... Read More’t always work. Moreover, it is not some magic salve which automatically cures a nation’s ills. It is, in fact, a remarkably fragile system which requires careful cultivation and favorable conditions. Nepal seemed to be on the road towards such an outcome in the early 1990’s, with an exemplary constitution and a Westminster-style parliamentary monarchy. A combination of corrupt and inept conduct on the part of the major parties, in tandem with a violent Maoist insurgency, served to scuttle these hopes.

Now, we are asked to believe that the same aforementioned parties, working in tandem with the aforementioned Maoists, can jointly produce an improved constitutional settlement after managing to scuttle the last one. In what version of reality does this make sense?

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

>> "[...] the country currently seems to be going through a phase of political paralysis, but ultimately I remain optimistic." --Paramendra

Well, you just might be the only one! You seem happy to repeat your magic mantra “Meaningful Progress is Just Around the Corner.” Frankly, I think Nepal is witnessing the final days of an untenable turpis pax. Subsequent events will show who was right.

>> "Bush spent a trillion dollars in Iraq to topple a dictator. The people of Nepal did the same thing with a street revolution in April 2006. Do a trillion dollars mean anything to you?" --Paramendra... Read More

Does the phrase “non sequitur” mean anything to you?

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

This is a truly asinine comparison [I *hope* you are not comparing the King to Saddam?]. How does one context compare to the other? It would perhaps be illustrative to know exactly how much the ongoing failure of Indian policy in Nepal, and the spillover of that failure onto the expanding Naxalite insurrection, has cost the Indian taxpayer thus far.

On one basis however, I can perhaps see some justification to your comparison. Iraq and Nepal both share the dubious distinction of entering the “failed state” category in the wake of misguided efforts at nation-building.

>> "Look what democracy did to America, look what feudalism did to Nepal." --Paramendra... Read More

Another asinine comparison. Is there any geopolitical or historical overlap between these two cases at all? The accomplishment of King PNS and his successors was an independent, unified polity with the apparatus of a modern nation-state. That alone is a substantive accomplishment given Nepal’s unique context.

8 hours ago

John M. Kelleher

Paramendra, the only consistent thread I can detect in your analysis of Nepalese history, is your apparent conviction that it would have been better if Nepal had never been created in the first place. Have I mistaken you on that point?

>> "I expect this constituent assembly to make a timely delivery. Not to say there will not be some drama along the way." --Paramendra

“Some drama?” An understatement, at best! Frankly I will be duly impressed if this accident-prone, misbegotten C.A. manages to produce *any* constitution at all, even a slapdash cut-and-paste job.... Read More

If its performance thus far is to be taken as any sort of precedent, I think it highly unlikely that the C.A. will have anything to show by the time the due-date rolls around.

8 hours ago

Ashutosh Shrivastav

Guess what? Some people expect the constitution to be written by people who don't know even how to write their name. Do they know what constitution means? Probably their 3rd offspring will be able to know that.

7 hours ago

Tika Ram Ojha

Prithvi Narayan Shah foisted internal colonialism. We are finally about to undo that." Paramendra
You are right that PNS foisted internal colonialism -That is what we Called it Nepal and its our pride. Since he foisted it many tries to undo it throughout centuary,Even British tries and they failed.
And in 21st centuary we Nepali People will foist remaning colonies to form the Greater Nepal.(in your words)

38 minutes ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

Oh. So many comments. I'd like to read and all and comment back, but this Facebook format is limiting and inconvenient. But I will take a bite regardless.

2 seconds ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

John. Administrative efficiency, taking power closer to the individual citizen at the local level, if those are not purposes of federalism, what are? The two also lead to a more egalitarian, inclusive arrangement of state power.

Yugoslavia/Iraq or India/Switzerland. The way to avoid the former is not by imposing upon Nepal a unitary state.

The ... Read Morereason the Nepali Congress and the UML don't even have a map is because they have always dragged their feet on the federalism question. But then they also dragged their feet on the constituent assembly question, on the republic question.

2 seconds ago

Paramendra Kumar Bhagat

"In most federal systems, including the U.S. and India, federal states are able to set their own macroeconomic policies for the most part."

Factually incorrect. States do have their budgets, but the monetary policy is set by the central bank.

"....bureaucracy costs are exponentially higher in a federal system...."... Read More

You are on record saying federalism leads to greater administrative efficiency.

2 seconds ago