How did the Shah kings actually live? And by visiting the palace, can one partake of their rapidly fading history?

Ravi has dim faculty to judge the history.

Conditioned, Customized and Cosmetic :

The encounter and the propagation of  history is always  personalized. When a narrator is involved, there are facts, judgements, expressions and thoughts never depersonalized, never seperated from our vey selves.

Some people say history is a documented fact�not fiction. Some even say history is something that happened certain time ago � like six of seven years ago. There is a cumulatively a large corsage of people interwoven in feeling that history belongs lives and moments in prominence � say monarchs, crown, prime ministers,..or Charlamagne, Vinchi, Picasso etc. But what exactly is history? If the factualization and documentation is involved, and everything looked at retrospect, isn't future a part of history? Or is future itself a history? Is present just a vantage point, or is it the most phasic enumerator and participator of history? What is Ravi Thapa's history, huh? And how his history relevant to espose the history which he writes? Is it not, maybe for himself and contingently to anyone involved, that he shares his history which includes people like his forefathers, relatives, friendsetc. , places like he was born, upbrought, educated, played, visited, etc., events like the day he was born, named, married etc. etc.? What about the history of Ravi's journey to Narayanhiti Palace? What is the history of Naresh's reaction to Ravi's column�which per se constitute an inseparable, be it tiny, chunk of history( may be it's the collective Kunda Dixit and nepali Times's history)?

My point is: first starts the history to judge any history, and then only, the history itself.

The Question of Fact:

I had repeatedly had duel with my father in question of normative role of fact in history? What exactly is fact? An atom is uncutable, was fact for Greek atomists? But now, retrospectively, it was fabrication (fabrication in that it was dessiminated with clarity, authenticity and emphasis). Two and four constitutes to sum up six? Your mind thinks that it's absolutly impossible to devise ways to prove it wrong. But, for any linguistic expressions (be it morphemic or phonic or syntactic symbol), and any mathematical operations, there is a human instrument in hand, a definational point, a n origin before co-ordinates are assigned. A symbol '2', spelled as two, if it was pronounced four since my Papa's and Granpa's days, would have been conventionally thought as four, linguistically. But the symbol '2' in itself is not equivalent to that that that abstract two. This inherent difficulty in expressing reality in language has a certain limit. Hence, certain aspects of history hust dissolve like papyrus in the water�unseen, unexpressed and unanalysed � certainly something insuperable and insormountable to retain and express. Thus, those who think they have the totality of history and those who lopside to tinker that history is theirs, shaped and sustained by them, are schizophrenic and wrong.

It brings me to the point�What is fact? Fact isn't objective explanation, for  innumerable frames of reference are cherrypicked in accordance to one's interest, will and motives. It isn't the search for truth, for truth is so adventurously multifaceted. Fact isn't what happened, since what happened last night and how it effected me changes accordingly its effects in th future? Fact pads on imagination since nothing is possible without presumables and a point of inspection and departure. Fact is not the word FACT either. The word fact itself is conditioned, conventional and agreed upon? So is the fact itself so accurate and relaible when, in fact, it is vaguely identifiable. If discrete, there is distinction is understandibility which means there is no fact and no fiction. Everything is anthropomorphic, and everytime our thoughts and expreeiveness inculcate certain complex mental symbol (Gestalt may be right term, yet complexities in human symbols active in thoughts are impossible to decode), our methodology is anthopogenic.

History is innumerable:

History encompasses the creation to what's passing by, now, right at this moment and this age. Here are countless lives, each hued with flux of characteristic manifestation, each paired up to constitute the bigger and samller events and happenings (actually the sense of value is adjudged by one's own ratiocination!). So is it necessary for us, if not purposive, that we bring our scholarship of history just because of scholarship? I think history should always be formative, and purposive; it must be vernacularly deciphered, for the encrytion are just to be meant to betterment of our lives.

This brings the roots of principium individuationis.

The Pluralities and Oneness:

Self-contradictorily, there are histories, not history. Not a history has one�a complete whole, a single grand missing pouzzle like Ultimate, or Elysian palace or Salvation. The very temporality of such quicksand  words are reflected in their inherent incapability to express in themselves.  

Please comment me at [email protected]

At any rate, we can see what Dipendra made of his home in the end. The foundations of the now demolished outbuilding where he mowed down his family, precipitating the eventual abolition of the institution he only presided over in a coma, provide a sobering coda to the tour. 

There is no any forensic evidence, court ruling, major investigation or authentic proclaimation (for example, clear documentation, audio/visual recordings etc.) in what happened that day. If a lacuna gapes open for pronunciamentosDeependra didn't do it, such equal lacuna breaks at some loose seams that Deependra did it. Newton was a physicist, but his version here may be that every claim has equal and opposite counter-claim, unless verified or justified by some concrete evidence indeed holds true for the speculation like yours. Hence, it's not Deependra did it as someone inside omerta say as he/she see it.

I personally feel how na�ve analysts, editors and writes are who polemically punch at the soft spot of public imagination � that deependra did it as they believe it.

Ravi! I'm damn sure that what you mean to reciprocate with such auguries. I'm exactly shadowy inside your mind. Come very clean. You couldn't write it just because Tara Nath reported as Bhatta ta ta�.. or Paudel baje resorted as Deependra the sole protagonist of that day's black top blur. To substantiate your claims, if you claim some Bohara or some Shah's media claims (in condition not to be asked), you are just refuting that grey line instinctually fixed inside you. Then, I was just some eight or nine years but as I paced through Khagendra Sangraula's Bhatig Deepenra Malai Maf Gara (Cousin deependra, I'm Sorry), I knew how that man Deependra blew the tizzies of folks like you and me. Your penumbra of emphasis means you ought to mend your mistake. You may be right, but you can't claim it unless you clearly substantiate it  with proofs. There's almost no platform left for speculative analysis to represent the truth.

My belief is that that days massacre is suspended inside the benighted fabric of elusion, illusion, sentimentalism and speculation.

#2 Rabi

"Thanks, Nabesh, for clarifying my dim faculty. It's all crystal clear now. "

This palce is missing a like button ;)