I think, the Nepalese people have not got enough experience of democracy to know what to do in a protest. A Pakistani crowd would burn tyres. The Nepalese crowd set fire to Parliament. And they didn’t do this in furtherance of their demands, but after they had been met.
Well, they had been partially met, with Prime Minister O.P. Sharma Oli having already resigned. But the protesters burnt not just Parliament but the Supreme Court as well. Oli Sharma had to resign because there seemed no way to get past the corruption charges against his government. And there was also a lot of anger over a ban on social media platforms which had not registered, as they were required to do so they could be taxed. And remember, Nepal is under an IMF programme, so taxes are something it is desparate to extract. But try taking social media away from Gen Z. You get protests. And when the law enforcing agencies try to put them down, you get firing on the crowd. 18 Nepalese died in the protests, which was too much for the Army chief, who got the PM to resign/
There has been a takeover by an interim PM, Sushile Karki, who has followed her pioneering role as the country’s first woman Chief Justice by becoming its first female PM. Elections are on March 5.
It’s funny, but that’s what happened in Bangladesh too. The government tried to stay in Hamas leaders. You would have thought that if you were taking part in peace negotiations, you would be safe. I mean, I wonder what would have happened if the German delegation which had gone to the meeting in the railway wagon in Compiegne to negotiate the armistice in November 1918 had been killed by the French? Would World War I have ended just then? Or would it have staggered into 1919?
Or imagine if the Japanese delegation which came to surrender in August 1945 on board the USS Missouri had been killed, would World War II have lasted a while longer?
I suppose the problem has been that the Hamas people are on neutral territory, not Israeli soil, which would indicate their surrender. Or is Israel acting on the principle that the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian?
Let’s move from the general to the particular, from the mass deaths in Palestine or Nepal to the individual deaths in the USA that seem to be more important, judging by how the media is playing them up.
First is the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a rightist speaker, by Tyler Robinson, during an event on a Utah campus. The motive was initially thought to be political, but one source is now saying that there was a family dispute. I wonder if the Punjab Police has anything to do with the investigation, because that family dispute would be rooted either in the theft of a buffalo, whose turn it was to irrigate one’s field, or about the boundary markers. The only thing missing is the lalkara, in which Robinson would have given in detail his reasons for carrying out the killing. This long and detailed lalkara would be remembered word for word by one of the eyewitnesses.
Of course, the family dispute might have been a stitch-up by the police needing to explain why a Mormon kid from an all-Republican family would shoot a guns’ rights advocate. Especially with FBI Director Kashyap (Kash) Patel involved in the investigation. Understands. Patel was born in the USA, and practiced law, and was never in the Indian police/ But he must have heard stories.
He wasn’t the only Indian-origin American involved in a murder in America. There was the Texan Chandra Nagamallaiah, whose name screams South Indian origin, who was decapitated with a machete by an employee, Yordanis Cobos-Martinez,37, of Cuba, because he had asked another employee to translate for him.
My theory is that he did speak to Cobos in Spanish, but in a South Indian accent. Now some people are more sensitive than others when their native language is at stake. But where did he get the machete?
