what do you think is RNA gyane's personal army or nepali people's army?
they work for the king but get paid by (poor) nepali taxpayer.

i would like to see inputs from both sides please, king's supporter as well as republic supporters.

thanks

Is there a doubt on that matter ?

Of course it's Gynendra's Army and no one can make a claim (not even the taxpayers) on RNA.

Agree 100% with Khaobadi. Those hounds should be immediately disbanded, especially for their "swamibhakti" towards another herd of cannibals called the "royals" and given the fact that they can not shake a single hair off our only two nuclear-powered bordering neighbours. We dont need to raise "legitimate" cold-blooded murderers.

This army never tried to become people's army. It is not professional too. Most of the senior ranks are filled with duplicate certificate holder, not capable anywhere else, spoilt
sons of shah-rana clan and bhardars. So there is no hope that it can turn really into a professional army in near future. Or massive restructring may be needed inside it.

The idea of disbanding it is not bad too. But for that we need very good and balanced relation with the two neighbors ( and Pakistan and other power nations too).

I read one article which says Nepal spends (percentwise) highest in security budget. What and for whom we are giving security for? I guess that still some newborn babies in Shahs or Ranas get the title of cornel of gernel like in the time of rana regime. It's really a waste of money. The spending for security is very unproductive way of spending money whether it's be nepal or US. It's specially too costly for poor country like Nepal.

expenditure highest in south asia (more than india and pakistan) in terms of percentage increase in recent years. All the money supposed to be spent for building schools, hospitals or other development projects are being spent on army in the name of giving security from maoists. There's very very less development activities going in Nepal recently.

Monarchy is as obsolete as communism in today’s world and it is no exception in Nepal. Maoist couldn’t take over Nepal and had to compromise to absolute democracy and now it is king who has to accept the reality. People are being unsympathetic towards monarchy and rightly so, if monarchy seems to be the only hurdle between peace and tumultuous. I strongly feel that no more human loss should incur to set aside one individual’s so called dignity, status and ego. And how long are royalist going to sing the slogan that monarchy is the unifying factor, because no one believe in it any longer. I would say peace is the only thing that can unite us. No dirty political principles should come in the way of peace.

If constitutional assembly is the demand of the hour than king should go for it. It is hard to fathom as to why king is so worried to face the people, especially when the army of the nation represents him and not the people. I sometimes speculate if this is the last battle the king is fighting for his post against the people. I don’t think monarchy has a long life in Nepal. Nepal has to move on, it is time to move past monarchy.

The only problem is that we don't have best faces to show. The people protesting against king's regime are same corrupted leaders. The new visionary and honest leader can get a wide support from all categories.

From where will you get visionary and honest leaders when the king and the palace begins to 'corrupt' them from their early childhood? May be Nepal needs to import some 'visionary and honest leaders' from Bihar, Somalia, Burundi and places like those?

Common guys GYANE can kill his own family. Forget about other Nepali innocent people. Time has come fight against royal army. Who can fight with them ? Mao !. it will be better if Maoist will finished the royal. We do not need kina and his army any more. GYANE can go UK and live rest of his life. Make sure to kill PARAS.

"RNA? KING GYANE'S ARMY OR NEPALI PEOPLE'S ARMY?" Is there any confusion? Isn't it very clear that Nepali people are king's subjects and they need to be kept in their places with a force loyal to the ruler rather than the ruled? Stupid people, stupid questions.

shaiva, u r being aggressive n' emotional perhaps.

shaiva,

you are forgetting the whole point here

my question was intended to invoke a serious discussion.
do you think anybody is that stupid to ask a question with such an obvious answer?