Across Nepal, Hindi channels will be closed tomorrow

[Viva]

Post number 170, para about 84th amendment. Explained quite simply, leave it to you to figure it out

And my ans to why mountain districts are also given min 1 MP is also explained there. Just like in Naga, mizo, sikkim, ladakh etc.
But consensus happens in every 10 yrs in India no?
Then why wait for 20+ years to re instate Ca constituents?
Dont you think thats unfair to Up and Bihar?
Just because they are poorer doesnt mean you can treat them as 2nd class citizens.

 

[dray]

Government hasnt officially even said 65 seats for terai. Thats how people guessed.
Districts in terai= 20
Districts in hills and mountains = 55
Now given that terai has 50% population = 165-(20+55) / 2 = 45 for terai. Hence terai gets 20+45= 65 is not true.

Why should they? Your government is playing sneaky. See brother, I gave you three links so far from BBC, The Diplomat and IDSA, two of them are clearly saying 65 seats and all of them are screaming blatant discrimination. You said that 65 seats is a wrong figure and it is actually 79 seats and gave me a Nepali link to support your claim, it turned out that even that Nepali link is saying 65 seats.

Now if you say 65 seats out of total 165 seats for Terai people who are 51% of the Nepalese population is just fair, then fair it is. Please go ahead and try to convince the protesting Terai people to accept the rule of mountain people in Nepal for perpetuity and continue to live like 2nd class citizens in their own country for eternity in the name of democracy, because the 49% of mountain people with 100 out of 165 seats will be in power for eternity.

Your Bangladeshi friend @bongbang is being sneaky here, but his country broke up from Pakistan over a similar but to a much lesser extent of discrimination against them. Just like the way now he is saying that Madheshis and other janjatis are lesser Nepalese than their mountain counterparts, west Pakistan thought the same about the east Pakistanis, results were disastrous. Ask him.

You too will remember India as your true well-wisher when things will go real bad.

 

[bongbang]

Your Bangladeshi friend @bongbang is being sneaky here, but his country broke up from Pakistan over a similar but to a much lesser extent of discrimination against them. Just like the way now he is saying that Madheshis and other janjatis are lesser Nepalese than their mountain counterparts, west Pakistan thought the same about the east Pakistanis, results were disastrous. Ask him.

It was Bangladeshis who made Pakistan a reality. So Bangladeshis deserved more privileges than the (west)Pakistani counterparts. So breaking away or leaving them was better idea. When those minorities attacked us or didnt agree with us. They should have agreed to the terms of real successors of Pakistan. So our stand is legit whatever we did to Pakistan.

But its not legit to demand of equal or more rights over Nepalese by the Madheshis. Because Gurkhas are the successor of the country and whatever they think is for better future of Nepal, as they made Nepal. These Madheshis shouldnt be like West Pakistanis. And agree on whatever terms dictated by they mountain counterparts or simply migrate to India.

 

[dray]

It was Bangladeshis who made Pakistan a reality. So Bangladeshis deserved more privileges than the (west)Pakistani counterparts. So breaking away or leaving them was better idea. When those minorities attacked us or didnt agree with us. They should have agreed to the terms of real successors of Pakistan. So our stand is legit whatever we did to Pakistan.

West Pakistanis and most modern day Pakistanis think otherwise.

But its not legit to demand of equal or more rights over Nepalese by the Madheshis. Because Gurkhas are the successor of the country and whatever they think is for better future of Nepal, as they made Nepal. These Madheshis shouldnt be like West Pakistanis. And agree on whatever terms dictated by they mountain counterparts or simply migrate to India.

And West Pakistanis and most modern day Pakistanis thought/think the same about East Pakistanis/Bangladeshis.

Your thought process is not any different from the thought process of West Pakistanis (no wonder, you were same country), it's just that during 1947-1971 you were at the receiving end of that thought process.

 

[salarsikander]

Countries which are born through voting are fake.

Hi,

Oh, So countries like where a bunch of suckers overwhelm the majority of population through subjugation are more real ?

Is that why (with no disrespect to other BD members sentiments) BD is so much dependent on India?

 

[bongbang]

Oh, So countries like where a bunch of suckers overwhelm the majority of population through subjugation are more real ?

Countries and boundaries should be born through bloodshed. By voting it means today they will decide to join this country and tomorrow that country. Countries will be formed and divided every 5 years.

Is that why (with no disrespect to other BD members sentiments) BD is so much dependent on India?

BD isnt dependent on India, like Pakistan is dependent on China or USA. BD and India has minimal relation with each other as neighbors like Pakistan and Iran. But Pakistani agents of BD may be spreading lots of news to brainless zombie like you.

 

[salarsikander]

Countries and boundaries should be born through bloodshed. By voting it means today they will decide to join this country and tomorrow that country. Countries will be formed and divided every 5 years.



BD isnt dependent on India, like Pakistan is dependent on China or USA. BD and India has minimal relation with each other as neighbors like Pakistan and Iran. But Pakistani agents of BD may be spreading lots of news to brainless zombie like you.

Hi,

Please try to maintain your civilized nature. Even though its hard for you !

So according to you, no bloodshed took in partition of 47? nor it was recorded as world's largest migration in history ?

Seems like Ms Hansena has quite grip on BD education system too.

BD has minimal relation ? LMAO joke of the century. When was the last time you even bothered to look at Haseena's slavish position ?

 

[bongbang]

So according no bloodshed took in partition of 47? nor it was recorded as worlds largest migration in history.

You should understand Pakistan was trying to born through votes of 1945. But it couldnt be possible other than Bengalis given blood in 1946 Calcutta direct action day. But no one won,loose,surrendered. After that Pakistan was born and boundaries were marked, those migration and killing during 1947 are secondary elements. Only what Pakistan occupied in Kashmir is legitimate. By bloodshed I mean war.

BD has minimal relation ? LMAO joke of the century. When is the last time you even bothered to look at Haseena slavish position ?

Enough BS. Just stick to topic.

 

[salarsikander]

You should understand Pakistan was trying to born through votes of 1945. But it couldnt be possible other than Bengalis given blood in 1946 Calcutta direct action day. But no one won,loose,surrendered. After that Pakistan was born and boundaries were marked, those migration and killing during 1947 are secondary elements. Only what Pakistan occupied in Kashmir is legitimate. By bloodshed I mean war.



Enough BS. Just stick to topic.

Hi,

Even though we went for more civilised method of gaining independence. Both sides carried out Unmentionable atrocities.

Imagine if WAR ( the mentality ) which you suggest would have taken place. How long before you would have got run over?

War ? and that is why we are still fighting for Kashmir Independence, If only plebiscite takes place, things would be lot different to what you see now. Kashmiris aren't looking to join either Pakistan or India, they want an Independent part

Too much of nationalism can kill oneself, do you know that ?

Regardless, you cant, based on your limited comprehension capacity disregard the bloodshed that took place
(quite manipulative)

 

[Peace Sells no one buying]

I enjoyed reading this thread. Thank you @Viva for explaining your side of the story. Being one of the only posters in this thread to speak up from a Nepali side I can only imagine how tough it is to reply to a majority opinion that is different than yours. (The sense of being 'ganged up on' can quickly stigmatize or ruin a good discussion on the internet, as we all know.)

I lurk, but rarely post. But in my opinion it would be better for the region if Nepal and India can mend their relationship. That does not mean that one side has to adhere to the strategic goals of the other nation. But consistency of behavior on both sides by the governing bodies would lead to a more unified international position upon agreed upon boundaries. (Intervention vs. Support)

Perhaps cooler heads will prevail and the massive history and cultural diffusion between the two nations will mean something. As always, it appears as though the main conflict either stems from specific governments trying to play a game, or non-state agitators who ruin it for the peaceful, co-operative citizens of both nations.

South Asia already has enough lines on the map dividing people on political, economic, military, educational, etc lines. Many parts of the world learn to work together despite the differences because with time the similarities are more meaningful. France and England fought countless wars. Germany was a unifier and aggressor at times. Polish people were constantly made fun of, Italians were criminals, Iberians lazy, and Slavs untrustworthy. Europe is strong even if they continue to fight among themselves.

South Asia will never be collectively strong if they don't move forward -- and this means the biggest nations playing nicely with the smallest ones. And vice versa. I'm an idealist and it took Europe thousands of years to figure things out. It would be silly of me to expect our region to figure it out faster than them. After all, many of the lines were made by them in the first place . . .