Friday, May 4, 2007

The World Has Just 8 Yrs To Fight Global Warming

- Nitin Sethi
The world cannot remain a fossil fool anymore, oblivious of the environmental destruction wrought as it guzzles fuels like coal and oil.
The world has just eight years to act and bring down the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere if the rising global temperatures are be contained between 2-2.4 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era, a hard-hitting report of the UN’s apex body on climate change released on Friday said.
All countries, including India, will have to take drastic steps to shift from fossil fuels like coal and oil, which emit global warming gases upon burning, in order to avert a global crisis, the report said with a firmness and certainty that the experts of more than 100 countries have never asserted before.
It has warned that any delay in action would lead to the temperatures rising alarmingly.
Nailing all quibbles on climate change from sceptics’ chambers, the report warned that emissions of heat-trapping gases had increased alarmingly by 70 per cent between 1970-2004, with levels of carbon dioxide increasing by 80 per cent over the same period.
In an ominous prediction, it noted that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels along current lines, then the dangerous emissions would rise by 90 per cent by 2030.
The recommendations mark repudiation of arguments of both developing and developed countries.
Countering the argument of the developing countries, like India and China, that reducing emissions would hit their economies, the report says that at worst, the global GDP would be blunted by about 3 per cent by 2030 if it undertakes these emission cuts.
It, however, admits that some countries will bear the brunt more than others.
On the other hand, developed countries have also been bluntly told that they would have to change their lifestyles and alter consumption patterns. These countries, with a mere 20 per cent of the world’s population, account for 50 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. The message for them is that mere adoption of technologies won’t do.
Global Warming or Global Cooling?
Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.
Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.
Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.
The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.
Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.
In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.
We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.
Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.
That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.
The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.
I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.
Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.
Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.
Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.
We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.

Antinomies of democracy


The year 2006 marks the watershed in Nepali politics. People's movement has brought some sort of relief to the public and hope for a new politics - which was viewed as a key source of friendship in which moral excellence could be acquired and displayed (Aristotelian notion). It was expected that reality of power would not be the defining reality of political discourse. One year down the road however, a great deal of fear is lurking partly due to the fact that much admired loktantra - by the people is becoming more and more oligarchic, that is, of the few and for the few; society is entering into the state of nature and politics is shifting towards the place of contestation (containment of power) as in the Machiavellian term. The social frontiers of the state are changing day by day but the persisting tension and collaboration between political society and civil society has not been able to adjust with this changing pace. This is because the tensions and collaborations are driven by the dynamics of power politics rather than broader cause of political and social stability in the country.

Let me begin with current talk on the unification of professional political forces of different ideologies that is, communists, democrats and (far) rightists. The logic behind unification, being floated by the respective political party, is based on mere rhetoric of egalitarian society with republican system of governance in place. And political parties are proposing their own prescriptions. However, going by the run-down history of political events down the road of past twelve months - it looks that 'conditions' that could provide political stability in the country are still missing. It is because current political actors, like in the past, have failed to accommodate all societal forces into the institutional life of the state. Even if political parties are united, it is not going to make much difference in polity because the new system of governance is already forming its own neo-patrimonial classes on top of old classes.

Nepali state is dictated by the Hobbesian nature of element(s). For example, three factors that have immensely dominated Nepali state affairs after Jana Andolan-2 are eight political parties, civil society and mushrooming number of 'interest groups'. These element(s), in one way or the other, are engaged in preserving their political, social, economic, and to some extent, even personal interests (power seekers) at this historic juncture of political turn-over. What has been certainly missing from the current political scene are citizens (those who cannot or are not in a position to organize on their own) who are nowhere to be mentioned.

The embedded elitism in every sector of governance and mere ranting of loktantrik ganatantra (not exhibited in practice) by political parties and the civil society indicate that regime change came about through 'elite settlement' among political parties. Civil society though has played a crucial role for regime change but failed to instil civic values. The convergence between 'old class' and 'new class' of political leaders is motivated by the vested interests as against the common interests. The unstable and mushrooming networks of opposition, the lack of connections between civil society and citizenry at large and absence of nationalist agenda from the political discourse is resulting in the resignation of mass population from elite politics. And this certainly does not herald prosperous future for the country.

The expansion of political society and elite shift of civil society members to political society have corroded the very notion of civil society. In fact state and citizens have been colonised by the political and (un)civil society. The shift of civil society organisations and colonisation of public sphere by political society especially after Jana Andalon 2 (like in the earlier Andolans) is not considered normal pattern of democratic politics. It is rather somewhat abnormal condition and implies thin quality of state of democracy and civil society.

This shift of civil society from civic sphere to political sphere, mere expansion of political society and the rise of various interest groups are maintaining "revolutionary situation" in the country. The reason behind this phenomenon is that professional political class (political entrepreneurs) have grossly ignored the genuine interest of citizens. The political class is simply treating Nepali state as their personal enterprises. It appears that ownership of the state is shifting towards 'eight political parties' and the Kathmandu centred civil society members. Perhaps this could be the reason, among others, why citizens are forming their own groups and exerting pressure against the state on different themes (citizens against the state). Our political leaders have no dearth to understand this broader public uprising. In contrast, they have virtually closed channels of communication with groups who are outside the purview of parties and parliaments. The hijacking of public sphere by political society, urban middle class elites, official civil society and marginalization of peripheral civil society organizations (civic feudalism) also begs some fundamental questions on state ownership (the popular sovereignty for that matter).

The fundamental problem, in this regard, primarily stem due to (1) politicisation and elite shift of civil sphere into the political sphere and vice versa, (2) elite domination in civil society and missing link between members and leaders in civil society organisations and civil society and citizen and (3) patron-client relationship between civil society, political society and their masters (donors and foreign powers). These factors, indeed, are contributing towards incivility and civic euphoria of 2006 is slowly evaporating.

Summing up, prevalence of patron-client links between political society and civil society do not guarantee impartiality; the parties in power, collaborating with their client in civil society (the interest groups) cannot guarantee comprehensive state and civil society relationship that can promote democracy in the country. The existing relationship between political parties and interest group leadership is benefiting only the political parties and those elite with the suitable qualifications to shift into politics. This is how politically relevant social capital and cultural capital is transforming into political capital.

Nepal is now in the throes of a major turbulence and challenges that lie ahead of Nepali politics are multiple and immense. Changes are already taking place in different spheres of society but Nepali state is not prepared to deal with these changes. The wide-ranging upsurge of marginalised and oppressed strata of society has forced us to think beyond formal politics and tap the deeper dimensions of reality. Nepali state is losing internal sovereignty to varied interests groups mainly due to anachronistic political practice which is driven by the Machiavellian notion that 'political power' should not be shared? if the tension and collaboration between political society, civil society and others societal actors are tied up merely to maintain status quo or secure their own positions how can we expect to have a new Nepal? Hence imagination of a new Nepal under the existing scenario is just idealistic, not materialistic.

Source: Kathmandu Post

Monday, April 30, 2007

‘Education is too specialised today’

Excerpts from an interview with eminent film maker and theatre personality, MS Sathyu. Known for Garam Hawa and other films, Sathyu never completed his graduation, opting instead to join the world of filmmaking. He shared his views with M. Radhika.

What were your dreams and aspirations as a student?
Whatever I wanted to become, I have more or less become. I wanted to become a filmmaker. And I wanted to do theatre, which I still do. True, there is always the feeling that I could have done much more.

Did your education help you reach those goals? Did it hamper your achievements considering you gave up formal education to pursue filmmaking?
Education was not as specialised as it has become today. I could not specialise in anything. We had a curriculum, had to go through the syllabus. Then you went to college and opted for either Science or Arts. My father did not want me to pursue an insecure profession like filmmaking, so I opted for a least-chosen BSc. combination — Chemistry, Botany and Geology. Two years on, it was pointless for me. By then my interest in arts was more rooted. I went to Bombay to start work in 1952.

Was there anything that you wanted to change in the education system then?
I did not want to change anything, never gave any thought to it. It was a system that existed already. Besides, there were only a few specialised places that taught what I wanted. Bangalore’s Jayachamarajendra Polytechnic was the only institution that taught sound recording. Govind Nihalani, Murthy, Sathyan — they all came from there.

Were you satisfied with the education your children received? Was there any aspect you would have liked to change?
Seema Sathyu is a painter by profession. She did her MFA in Baroda and MA in painting at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi. Shaili is a qualified teacher. She dropped out of her architecture course to pursue education. They opted for whatever they wanted. I did not come in their way. My youngest daughter also pursued theatre. She runs the Indian People’s Theatre Association, India’s oldest theatre group.

What are your aspirations for India’s educational system today?
Education has become more of a business proposition; more for the elite and less for the general masses. There are no community schools. No concept of belonging to an area and going to the school in the neighbourhood. Our country’s education policy is wrong. We have followed what the British left behind. The economic divide is glaring. Yet we have done quite a bit — states like Kerala have achieved 100 percent literacy.

Do you subscribe to the concept of common schools for all children?
I am all for common schools. In cities, children have choices but in villages all classes of people go to the same school because there is no alternative available. In cities there is more disparity. More children are educated in cities than in villages.

May 05, 2007

Source: Tehelka

Sunday, April 29, 2007

सङ्घीय धरातल र दल

Girija Prasad Koirala and Prachanda signing Comprehensive Peace Agreement
- टुकबहादुर थापामगर
जनआन्दोलन-२ ले र्सार्वभौमसत्ता नेपाली जनतामा हस्तान्तरण गरे पनि देश एकात्मक शैलीबाट नै अगाडि बढिरहेको भान हुन्छ । अन्तरमि संविधान घोषणा भएको ३५ दिनभित्र संशोधन हुनु र संशोधित संविधानले पनि सङ्घीय व्यवस्थाका बारेमा स्पष्ट पार्न नसक्नुले यसलाई पुष्टि गर्छ । ऐतिहासिक जनआन्दोलन-२ लाई २००७ र ०४६ सालको भन्दा निकै फरक ढङ्गले लिनर्ुपर्दछ । ००७ सालको आन्दोलन एक सय चारवर्षो निरङ्कुश राणा शासनको अन्त्य र ०४६ सालको जनआन्दोलनको लक्ष्य ३० वर्षो निरङ्कुश पञ्चायती व्यवस्थाको अन्त्य गरेर प्रजातन्त्रको स्  थापना गर्नु थियो । तर, ०६३ सालको जनआन्दोलनको लक्ष्य दर्ुइ सय ३८ वर्षम्मको राजतन्त्रलाई समाप्त गर्दै लोकतान्त्रिक पद्धतिमार्फ देशको राजनीतिक, आर्थिक, सामाजिक र सांस्कृतिक रूपान्तरण गरेर राज्यको पुनःसंरचना गर्नु रहेको थियो । त्यसैगरी यसपटकको जनआन्दोलनको लक्ष्य १० वर्षो माओवादी 'जनयुद्ध' समाप्त गरी राज्यलाई सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस् थामा लगेर केन्द्रीकृत राज्य व्यवस्थाको अन्त्य गर्नु पनि हो ।

देशलाई जातीय, क्षेत्रीय वा सांस्कृतिक के आधारमा सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा लैजाने भन्ने मुद्दा अहिले एउटा प्रमुख चुनौती बनेको छ । जातीय र क्षेत्रीय आधारबाट सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्था बनाउनर्ुपर्दछ भन्ने प्रस् ताव चर्को स्वरले उठेको छ । सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थाको आधारबारे कुरा गर्दा जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र स्ाांस्कृतिक वा अन्य विकल्पलाई माने पनि अहिलेको आवश्यकता भनेको सङ्घीय व्यवस्थाद्वारा जातीय आधारमा समानुपातिक राज्य संयन्त्रमा समान सहभागी हुन पाउनर्ुपर्दछ भन्ने नै हो । किनभने, दर्ुइ सय ३८ वर्षम्म एउटै जाति र वर्गले केन्द्रीकृत रूपबाट शासन गर्दै आइरहेको छ । यस्तो शासन व्यवस्थाको अन्त्य गरी देशलाई सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा नलगी सुखै छैन । नेपालको यथार्थ भू-राजनीतिक धरातलको पहिलो समस्या भनेकै जातीय असमानताबाट निर्माण भएकोे सामाजिक बनोट नै हो । क्षेत्रीय, लैङ्गिक र वर्गीय रूपबाट निर्माण भएको सामाजिक संरचना अर्को समस्या हो ।

अहिले नेपाली जनताको मुख्य चाहना भनेको शक्ति र साधनस्रोतको व्यापक बा“डफा“ट गरी सबै तहमा जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र अन्य प्रकारले पछाडि परेका समुदायको समान सहभागिता हुनर्ुपर्दछ भन्ने हो । यदि र्सार्वभौमसत्ता जनतामा निहित छ भने शक्तिको बा“डफा“ट पनि त्यसै अनुरूप हुनर्ुपर्दछ । यसका लागि देश सङ्घीय व्यवस्थामा जानुबाहेक विकल्प छैन । एकातिर ठूला राजनीतिक दलहरू र्सार्वभौभसत्ता जनतामा निहित हुनर्ुपर्दछ भनेर जनताको र्समर्थन लिई आफू लोकप्रिय हुन खोज्छन् । र, अर्कातिर उनीहरूको भनाइ व्यवहारमा लागू नहुनुले दलहरूको शासन गर्ने शैली पनि एकात्मक, निरङ्कुश र सामन्ती खालको देखिन्छ । ठूला राजनीतिक दल नेपाली काङ्ग्रेस र नेकपा -एमाले) सङ्घीय व्यवस्थाका बारेमा स् पष्ट छैनन् । अझ कस्तो र के आधारमा सङ्घीय व्यवस्था कायम गर्ने भन्ने त धेरै टाढाको विषय हो । उनीहरूबाट सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस् थाको खाका बाहिर आउन नसक्नुको मूल कारण हो- उनीहरू सुविधाभोगी छन्, बढीभन्दा बढी सम्पत्ति आर्जन गर्ने चाहना राख्छन् र अर्को आफूस“ग भएको सत्ताको शक्ति हस्तान्तरण गर्न चाह“दैनन् ।

देशलाई माओवादीहरूले भनेजस्तो सङ्घीय व्यवस्थामा लैजाने हो भने पनि नेपालको जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र सांस्कृतिक विविधतामा कुनै परविर्तन आउ“दैन । किनभने, हरेक जिल्ला वा क्षेत्रमा बसोवास गर्ने विभिन्न जातजातिहरूमा जातीय र सांस्कृतिक विविधता छ । उदाहरणका लागि माओवादीले विभाजन गरे अनुुसार मगरात क्षेत्रलाई आधार मान्दा यहा“ विभिन्न जातजातिको बसोवास छ । यहा“ मुख्य बसोवास भनेको मगर, क्षेत्री, बाहुन र दलितको छ । यस क्षेत्रमा मगरको जनसङ्ख्या ३५।७ प्रतिशत छ भने बाहुन, क्षेत्री र ठकुरीको ५१.७ प्रतिशत छ । दलितको १२.४ प्रतिशत रहेको छ । यसका साथसाथै अन्य जातिको पनि उपस्थिति छ । पर्ूण्ा बहुमत कुनै जातिको छैन । सेती-महाकालीमा क्षेत्रीको बहुमत भए पनि अन्य जातिको पनि उपस्थिति रहेको छ । यस क्षेत्रमा क्षेत्री, बाहुन र ठकुरी ८५.७ र दलित १४.२ प्रतिशतको हाराहारीमा छन् । त्यस्तै, मधेशलाई हर्ेर्ने हो भने पनि मधेशीहरूको २६.२ प्रतिशत, मधेशी जनजातिको १७.१ प्रतिशत, पहाडे बाहुन र क्षेत्रीको २६.९ प्रतिशत, पहाडे जनजातिको ७.८ प्रतिशत, मधेशी दलितको २.६ र मुस्लिमको १९.१ प्रतिशत जनसङ्ख्या छ । फरक यति हो कि कुनै क्षेत्रमा कुनै जातिको बहुमत अवश्य छ तर पर्ूण्ा बहुमत भने सेती-महाकालीमा बाहेक अन्यमा कुनै जातिको छैन ।

जो केन्द्रीकृत शासन व्यवस्था कायम रहोस् भन्ने चाहन्छन्, तिनीहरूले विश्वको सङ्घीय राज्यको उदाहरण दिएर देश टुक्रिएको तर्क राखे पनि यहा“को यथार्थ राजनीतिक धरातल भनेकोे सङ्घीय राज्यद्वारा जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र लैङ्गिक असमानताको अन्त्य गर्नु हो । बीपी कोइरालाको प्रजातान्त्रिक समाजवाद होस् वा मार्क्सवादी समाजवाद वा माओको साम्यवाद नै किन नहोस्, सबैको एउटै उद्देश्य भनेको समतामूलक समाजको निर्माण गर्नु हो । जातीय र क्षेत्रीयताको मुद्दा उठ्नुका पछाडि राज्यले वषौर्ंवर्षम्म जातीय र क्षेत्रीय असमानताको व्यवहार गरेकाले नै हो । विविध जातजाति र विविध भौगोलिक क्षेत्र भएको ठाउ“मा जाति र क्षेत्रका मुद्दा उठ्नुलाई स् वाभाविक मान्नर्ुपर्दछ ।

देशलाई सङ्घीय व्यवस्थामा लैजानर्ुपर्दछ भन्ने विषयमा माओवादी अन्य दलभन्दा केही अगाडिजस्तो देखिन्छ । तर, व्यवहारमा उसलाई जा“च्न बा“की नै छ । कम्तीमा पनि माओवादीले सङ्घीय राज्यको खाका कोरेको छ र बहसको विषय बनाएको छ । तर, यसै आधारमा काङ्ग्रेस र एमालेका नेताहरू सङ्घीय राज्यको पक्षमा छैनन् भन्ने निष्कर्षनिकाल्नु भने गलत हुनेछ ।र्
भर्खरै संशोधित अन्तरमि संविधानमा पनि सङ्घीय राज्यको संरचना कस्तो हुने भन्नेबारेमा आठ दल स्पष्ट नहुनुले अझै पनि तिनीहरू सङ्घीय राज्य खडा गर्नेबारे स्पष्ट छैनन् कि भन्ने शङ्का जन्मिएको छ । तर्सथ, यस्तो शङ्का मेटाउनका लागि आठ दलले संविधानसभाको चुनाव अगाडि नै सङ्घीय राज्यको खाका कोर्नुपर्दछ । यस्तो खाका कोर्दा पारस्परकि सम्बन्धमा खलल नपर्ने खालको हुनर्ुपर्दछ । केन्द्रीकृत राज्यलाई सङ्घीय राज्यमा ढाल्दा जसरी एकात्मक राज्यमा अहिलेसम्म विभिन्न जातजातिबीच सद्भाव र समन्वय कायम रहिरह्यो, त्यसरी नै सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा पनि रहनर्ुपर्दछ । एकात्मक राज्य व्यवस्थामा असमानताको खाडल धेरै थियो भने सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा त्यो खाडल हटेर जानेछ । राजतन्त्रको अन्त्यस“गै केन्द्रीकृत राज्यको अन्त्य हुनेछ र पछाडि पारएिका समुदायको राज्यसत्तादेखि अन्य तहमा सहज पह“ुच हुनेछ । शक्ति र साधनस्रोतको समानुपातिक बा“डफा“ट हुनेछ ।

जातीय, क्षेत्रीय, लैङ्गिक र वर्गीय विविधताको न्यूनतम प्रतिविम्ब झल्किने गरी राज्यसंरचनाको व्यवस्था नगरनिाले अहिलेसम्म नेपाली राज्य पहाडे मूलका बाहुन, क्षेत्री र ठकुरी आदिको मात्र प्रतिनिधिमूलक संस् थाजस्तो बन्न पुगेको छ । राज्यको विविधता जसरी निर्माण भएको छ, त्यस् तै प्रकारको सुहाउ“दो शासन व्यवस् था अपनाउनुपर्ने अहिलेको आवश्यकता हो । त्यो भनेको सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थाबाट मात्र सम्भव छ । अहिलेको एकात्मक राज्य व्यवस्  थामा जसरी जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र सांस्कृतिक विविधता छ, त्यसरी नै देशलाई सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस् थामा रूपान्तरण गरेपछि पनि यी विविधताबाट सङ्घीय राज्य टाढा हुने छैन भन्ने विश्वास दिलाउनु जरुरी छ । नेपालको यथार्थ भू-राजनीतिक धरातल भनेको यही विविधता नै हो । मुलुकलाई सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा लैजा“दा राजनीतिक दलले देशको जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र लैङ्गिक विविधतालाई भुल्नु हु“दैन । यी पक्षहरूलाई ध्यान दिइएन भने सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्था नाम मात्रको हुनेछ ।

(थापामगर प्राज्ञिक अनुसन्धानमा क्रियाशील छन्)
सोर्स: नेपाल