Here is one of the ministers from Jana Morcha Nepal saying that our country does not need a military.

Jana Morcha Nepal (JMN) general secretary Navaraj Subedi on Saturday said that his party was in favour of bringing the strength of the army down to zero over time in keeping with the need to save the resources for other state priorities.
Subedi said that it was the opinion of the party that the resources, which are going towards the maintenance of the army should go to other priority area. He also said that the view has been passed over to the seven party alliance and the rebels.
"We are of the view that the strength of the army should be gradually brought down to zero. If the people of Costa Rica can take such a decision, why cannot we take it?" Subedi queried while speaking at a function in the capital.
He was of the view that Nepal should go for eventual disbandment of the army after signing non-aggression treaty with both India and China. Moreover he was also of the view that JMN has suggested that the nation should go for the concept of "civil defence force" rather than sticking to the army to defend the national borders.

You know I wonder if this Jack ass of a minister has seen our border areas where Indian gangs operate and harm Nepali citizen along with Indian military shrinking Nepal to 1/3 its size by next 30 years. But wait he talk about civilian defense force, now how many civilian defense forces would he put in border areas and guard the civilian. What if there is another uprising like Maoist who would protect civilians, our borders, and take care of the uprising. These ministers can not even tame the Maoists how can they figure out the defense of the country.

Lets me hear some opinion.

Chuparustam you are telling me that in case there is a major desaster like a big earthquake in Kathmandu, or someone like Prachanda comes along again to challenge the government 30 thousand army would do. You would need trained doctors, engineers, combatant soldiers, among other things. This can also be employment generating if managed properly. You guys are thinking of short term not long term effects.

Kathmandu_np you are right in saying that but here is the thing most of these army men are civilians being, they have same attitude as you and me so unless we change they won't change for better. These army men or as a matter of fact anyone can train to do anything but because we have corrupt society and old leaders who think of Nepal being weak as themselves, we can't get anywhere. We need young and visionary leader which unfortunately we won't see.

let me put my idea about the army,
In nepal we have 90 thousand army men. The people of Nepal feed these army men. But feeding 90 thousand men is a big thing~.

The 90 thousand army men are not productive. They are not doing some work that would gain some profit to the nation. Instead they get the salary from the government. Where does the money come from? The tax of common people. May be some part of it as donation from the developed nations but that is supposed for the people of Nepal. Of course, some of the army men are enrolled in british gurkha n indian army which is a good source of foreign income. But those number very few. The large group is there in the barracks in Nepal. What do they do?? Just combat practise. Would that bring any money to Nepal. a big NO!

Now think carefully. In one hand we are losing a large number of youth in military training. Those youth can be utilised to make doctors and engineers to build our nation. On the other hand, a large part of the budget is used for feeding the military. The money could have been used for the development.

One might argue that there are engineers and doctors in military but still they also number very few. Besides, I have never heard the military engineers involved in any development works. About the doctors, the chauni hospital is there. I dont know whether normal people can get their health check up there or not~ So, I cant say anything about the doctors. But still a BIG number of army is there doing combat practise which is not doing any good for Nepal.

A big military force is good only for the dictators. One thing a large part of youth are involved in something so that they dont have time to think of whats right and whats wrong. Other thing, they have a loyal army.

And one more thing in case of a disaster, army men prove to be a good human source. But it doesnt have to be army alone. The local people, students, professionals, etc should work together for the sake of humanity.

People keeping bringing prachanda and his army, the reason for keeping such a huge unproductive army. I say, army is necessary rt now but once the peace is established, and maoists are disarmed there is no need of army that big in nepal. Again, once the maoists problem is TAKEN CARE OF. Army budget can be used to eradicate poverty in nepal. That resource can me made available to locals for small businesses to build our economic infrastructure.

Army can be loyal, can be used in rescue mission in case of disaster, and is also a historic symbol for nepal but we cannot AFFORD to keep the army of that size. We need education, healthcare, and economic prosperity more than keeping our fancy army.

The growth in the number of army and expenses was due to to maoists.
If it wasn't of that then there wasn't too much expenses as people might think.

i see conspiracy from the maoists side when they say we don't need army.It is not some royals army it is nepalese people army.

If army was so useless why usa or any country needs more than suffcient army.USA infact do not even need big fleet.Just couple of push of buttons on their nuclear arsenals is suffcient enough right?then why they are keeping it.

Just think this way, at least we are employing 90k people .what are they going to do without it.Can anybody generate 90k jobs in years with equal paying jobs.If so then people won't join army .you don't have to worry about it!!!!

My point exactly Imi. Chuparustam and sidster tell the army trained 90k people take some of them out and leave them without a job then what do you think these people are going to do for survival. They are going to be another group of thugs with military training.

As far as training the youth as doctors and engineers most of these people would leave the country and never show their face. With being in military and getting the education throgh that would make people loyal to country as well as become doctors and engineers. Also you guys talk if the education system of Nepal is like USA. Do you guys know how much it takes for education in Nepal? I dont think so.

Tell me chuparustam you tell that army is not needed for helping people right and you say local people, students, professionals can help. Then tell me how many students have helped Nepal as of now. Tell me how many local people have come out to help their neighbor. Nepali people are not in place to help each other out. This is not a society that helps base on how much their people suffer. We don't care about each other at all. We are not western countries.

Also when disaster strikes it strikes all at one. For example you know if there was a major earthquake to hit Nepal at least 35000 poeple would die and 5 times as many wounded. Now tell how many of these people are local people going to help and build temporary shelter for these people. Are you going to worry about yourself and your family or because have a humanity within you, you will desert your family and help people in need instead. Also what if the country goes through lets say a mojor earthquake, robbery, ethnic fighting, lets say someone like Prachanda comes again all at once. Tell me are your students, professionals, and local going to come out and help or save their own lives.

Again I would like to say that people are rationalizing it based on short term effect and are not looking for long term effect. We don't look for future and make our decision based on rather take what we want and not know the consequeces for it later.

ImI,
U r right. USA needs a bigger army than this and they have been recruiting aggressively as well. U have probably encountered those recruters in Mall parking lot as well. U see the ads on TV about joining army and all. USA definetaly needs more army and the reason for that is for ground intervention . USA doent want to bomb countries, USA wants countries to do what it wants them to do. So for that they need more ppl who can patrol the street and accupy the country. So they need more army not bombs to invade and occupy the world. USA can afford million more army and would hire million more if ppl are willing to join. But thats not the case for Nepal. Nepal doesnt want to occupy any country and cannot defend itself if india or china really wants to take Nepal over.

And for employment, These army can be used in paramillatary force. Some can be used in law enforcements, some can be teachers, some can go on constructions, start their own business and mostly foriegn employment. They can be priortised for foriegn employment. Remember the pay in Army in grass root is not that great and " Rekutes" should be happy to do anything else. Cos Rikeutes life is worse in Nepal, given the social status and the abuse they receive by their senior officers. This will help the economic and employment issue. And also remember that the budget for army is not only salary for the army ppl . ITs the unnecessary weapon they purchase, clothings and attires as well. The money saved from that can be used to create other social goodness that will create more jobs like in education and healthcare.

Tell me sidster then your thought of letting the army go to foreign country for employment is very Nationalistic. It really show your respect for army who did a lot of things for Nepal. You want army of Nepal to go to foreign country and let them work in hotels, subways, indian resuturants. Wow this really does explain a lot.

Let me tell you something sidster do something for your country before you tell all these people what they should or should not do. You are talking for the people whose country you are not living in and do not know what going on.

Lets me guess you solution to trafficking in Nepal. Since we have so many women in Nepal some women being sold to brothel is not big problem since we can't do anything against it. Did you know that there were circus in Nepal's Bara district where the circus owner used Nepalese to perform dangerous act, and guess who is protecting them the local thugs in that district. Guess what police did not have manpower to rescue these people. Do you see yourself helping such people. I did not think so. For protecting agianst women and children trafficking you need military.

Another anology:

So sidster if someone big and strong came and beat you and will keep on doing it for rest of your life, how long before you do something about it? From what you are saying you will let him keep pounding you since you can't do anything against him. Won't file a police report, take him to court, or even find a gun to kill him. That would make you weakest among the food chain and you would be the first one to be extinct. This world is survival of the fittist as you can see and the more weak you make yourself the worst it is.

You know what a surviving person would do they would find weapons, they would make groups, they would do anything and everything to find a solution and adapt to it. That is what the western society is based on.

Nepe,
Dont feed me the crap of nationalism here. Nationalism has nothing to do with number of army personell Nepal wants to keep. But yes i would rather have Rikutes go for foriegn employment, learn few things outside of nepal, and see the world than be a servant for those high class army officers who use them to wash their wife's under garment, use them to take their kids to school and back, use them to grow vegetables in their backyard, and use army to build their lavish houshold.

U keep talking about what army has done to nepal . Please list few good things that army has done to nepal. Pls enlighten us with that. And please dont talk about Bir ghurkhas and all that crap. Gurkhas did nothing for nepal. They benifieted India and UK for nothing for nepal for a national pride. Some brought some foriegn currency in but that is outweighs the fact that 200000 gurkhas who died without knowing that the War was all about.

So ur version of nationalis could be different than my version of nationalism. When i was in Nepal i heard some leader saying" Bhoko Pet ma Rastriya geet gaaindaina" and i like that u know. Nepal needs food, shelter, education, and health care. I would give up those "khokro" nationalist that u intrepret with Army for those basic nepali needs. I think my views are more nationalistic than ur views. So i think i am more nationalistic than u r. But u can keep ur own view for the path to nationalism and i will keep mine. And yea pls dont forget to list things that Nepali Army has done to nepal, may be u know something that i dont know.

right now , whole nepal is talking in the tone of prachanda , a selfish bastard.
This guys knows two things:violence and divide..
divide divide divide.. never seen him talking about forgive and lets join hands for country's development.
Revenge and revenge is what he talks and nepalese vedas follow him.

Why do u keep talking about if someone big and strong beating nepal . I already answered that on my prev thread. This is not 18th century. Its very unlikely for any force to attack and occupy nepal. And even if they do then we dont have a way to resist. U think 100000 nepali force will stand china with 20 mil troops and nuclear weapon and india with 500000 troops with nuclear weapon? U must be crazy.

And how come u never talk about the internal enemy of our own nation. The enemy of poverty, illiterates, and healthcare that has crippled us from inside. Those things that led to the creation of thugs like maoists. U thing ppl wake up and just go join maoists. No ppl are forced to join maoists due to poverty, illiteratecy, and other social issue. Nepal needs to build a strong society first. And oncethose basics are met then may be we can afford to have 100k strong army again. Hell may be we can afford 500k army if we want. But rt now priorty should be other social issue not an army.

Sidster,
i do agree with you in that point.But certain army should always be in reserved for national disasters or any such causes.No that the world is different everynow and then .there comes some sort of rebels which police is insuffcient to handle.
Had we used army in 1997 to crush the maoist rebels we wouldn't have seen this day!!!
ok about point of transformation of some 40k army into civil lives there should be solid infrastructure to transform you cannot just lay off everyone .
US with ground invasion ..no i do not think us needs more army for that. USA has more than suffcient army right now to do so .it is another form of emolyement as well as to keep that patriotic feeling alive in young ones.
Do not say " yes" in whatever parchanda is saying .This guy is too clever and big manipulator.There is conspiracy which will be revealed in due time.
Do you have work everyday at work.i don't have loads of work everyday . why do employer keep you then???
because some days you have work someday you don't
Nepal army was active during the earthquake and natural disasters.They still gaurd the boundaries.When tibetians "khampa " came to nepal >they were active defending the borders.
We have already seen what happens to trained professional like police.what they do . they have already looting banks and stuff. Laying off 40 k-90k army. you are inviting big trouble.
.

I didnt say laying off army. I said transfering the resources to other things that the country needs the most. Like teaching, training, skilled workers such as carpentry, iron work, construction and such. Foriegn empoyment. I was talking about transfering ppl not laying ppl off. And those lower level armies will be better off doing these things cos the pay in army is not that great anyways. It should be a gradual transformation. may be in 4 - 5 years we can transfer all the army to other jobs most of them to foriegn employment. Foriegn employment is great. It brings foriegn currency in and leaves job at home for the ones who can go abroad.

I am not supporting prachanda's views. If prachand happens to agree with my views, then i dont really care. Its just a view. Let me state this again. I want this to happen once the Maoist problem is taken care of in nepal. Taken care of as in, once CA is established, Once maoists are disarmed and once a complete maoists issue is resolved. I dont want the army to be reduced before the PLA is taken care of. I dont mind UN assistance in helping PLA and NA settle things out. So this is my view , im not here to facilitate maoists propoganda.

I want u all to know that it is fun to have 100k strong army around. Its an honor and army can definetaly used for search and rescue missions. NA has carried a huge pride thru centuries and there have been great fighters throught the history who sacrifieced their lives for they masters and for their nations. It is also a great pride for Nepali to have Army fo that size in nepal. But we cannot afford to have such luxary rt now. NA is like a gold chain in nepal's neck rt now. We need to sell the jewlery to stand back on our feet and we can go and buy the jewelry back once we get back on our feet again. The metaphore is we cannot walk around with a gold chain on our neck when living in a house without a roof and no food in our stomach.

I may agree to downsize a amry little bit but compelete no army is out of question.It is just like demolising our heritage .We need to keep our heritage.

One thing i stronly disagree is foreign employment.That is you are just not interested in developing nation.You want to be ok we have food to eat so it ok .Just like what is going on in philipines and i read a long story about that in NPR.if you do not want to give incentives of politicians to develop nepal than that is the best solution.Just send everyone for foreign employment.

Second thing, now we have already seen the culture of violence.Who ever picks up weapons wins.Don't be surprise that there will be many rebels groups coming in the politics of nepal i almost can gurantee you of that with the things how it is going now.So to defend the state it is extremely crucial presence of army.
I know how you are thinking from economical point of view but when you run state .not every thing is economics.
(you may think i am contradicting my statement on the economical upliftment, i am not)

some of the comments posted are awesome.sidster bro i really do support ur views but it doesnt mean that comments posted by others are worthless......imi bro u ve done a good job in this...........
.......my point is that as sidster said we shud outspread the workforce that is ideal within the barbed wires of barrack to other sector.let the army go dig well or facilitate some rural community with education and health care. everybody doesnt need to be a doctor to provide health care to people.most of the emergency paramedics in USA are not even doctors but they do the jobs to the finest. why dont we have army personals in paramedics....or how bout firemen.instead of buying millions worth of choppers and armour proof vehicles why dont we get rescue choppers or ffire trucks or ambulance ......or troppers patroling the highways..or how bout assigning them the job of protecting the beautiful habitat for the rare endangered wild life we have in nepal. instead of having ideal why dont we add them to the police force to ensure all the civilian lives are safeguarded.......these are the only few options that i could think of to cut the number of army...we r not taking about cutting the job but we can outsource the skills they have............does it have to be thousand engineers to build a road ?i dont think so.....a handful would be enought...........and i dont think our army is incapable of producing a handful of em ...provided the right opportunity......instead of buyin sophisticated M-16 rifles or AK47s we can train them the right skill.....we definitely need army in our country because there are a lot of things that army can do that a normal citizen cant do because they r trained so.....i only option would be downsize it ..............................
peace and jai nepal

some points i would like to correct,
IMI said,
i see conspiracy from the maoists side when they say we don't need army.It is not some royals army it is nepalese people army.
--> may be you forgot it was royal nepalese army a month ago. it did change the NAME to nepalese army ...

Ne23pe said,
My point exactly Imi. Chuparustam and sidster tell the army trained 90k people take some of them out and leave them without a job then what do you think these people are going to do for survival. They are going to be another group of thugs with military training.
--> I want you to think carefully regarding this point.
Just imagine that from tomorrow, 90k army men are told that they are not army anymore but they still will be receiving the salary they have been. So, they dont have to train anymore, just go around and enjoy their life. Do you think the government can not do that???? The money government has been alloting for the army is not there because army is earning some moeny on its own!! mind it. The government`s income wont change one rupee!!!!! Do you understand this?? Think once again.
(Army lai dindai ayeko salary batta ko rup ma diye pani k pharak parcha? Tyo paisa government ko ho. Army le government lai paisa kamayera dindaina. Imagine nepal ama ko das jana chora haru chan. army nepal ama ko pyaro chora ho. aru chora haru le kamayera lyako paisa army bhanne pyaro chora lai nepal ama le pocket money ko rup ma dincha. tyasko bapat army bhanne pyaro chora khelera din bitauncha!)

One more thing. If you think army is a good employement source then why not make the whole unemployed population of Nepal into army?? Would that solve the unemployment problem???? Not at all!!! Remind you one thing again "Army is not productive".

So, my idea is that, reduce the combat army to a number which is suitable for a small nation like Nepal.

What are the benifits?
1. The money alloted for the huge army, including the salary and ammunitions, can be moved for developmental projects.
2. The huge number of young blood serving in army can be utilised in more productive way. One of the options might be foreign employement as sidster suggested. Other options might be doing social works...

I do know that No.2 is not an easy task. Saying is easy but, as we dont want so see a poor and helpless Nepal for time and again, so we should have the courage to take big steps, n big decisions!

I will give you one example. In shankhamul bagmati, there was a bridge which was broken in course of time and a new bridge was being made with the aid of Japan after about 15yrs!!! Well, do you guys think we need some foreign help to make a simple bridge? You might say yes and give reasons like we dont have money, materials, technology. But I dont think that is the case.

If we tried to make the bridge with whathever materials and technology we have, its just fine. May be it will prove to be delicate and break away in no time. But in that case we can follow up, study why it broke? make some changes and make a new better one. Repeat it again and again. What will be the result? We will be independant. We will have materials and technology of our own. Then what we can make bridges all over nepal, or even export the technolgoy to other countries.. I think it is the basic rule of evolution.
What do you guys think about this?? Why dont we involve in making a better Nepal? Start from where we are !!

man this thread rocks .we need to have some more arguments on this topic.lets make it more fierce.................fuel it up guys................
peace

There is no argument left ..now you come up compromising reducing army then removing.I already said reducing is fine but removing it is not possible.everybody agrees on that so what is there left.90 k army is now few years ago it was only 50k.Army are always kept on reserve by state this is how is it works everywhere.If you guys say 90k army is destroying national budget then i am not going to agree abit.There are millions other loopholes where national money is trickling.why not patch those first.

Well, I am also not in favor of removing army. I do think we need certain number of combat army. But I am not in favor of a big army sitting in the barracks.

I just came up with this article of kantipur.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=78815

this article talks about different things army can be utilised, and I totally agree with that. However, it does not give any figure like
1,how many armies are involved in the UN peace keeping missions,
2,what is the UN's demand??( if the UN can employ all 90k army of Nepal I dont have any headache with the current army!!),
3,also the number of army involved in singapore or brunei! (it evens says malaysia, but i doubt if there is any nepalese army in malaysia, if someone has a proof it would be helpful)
well, if the above numbers total to 90 thousand I have nothing to say about the army. instead i would say lets make it even bigger... may be it could be another sector after tourism which can develop Nepal.


going through this article I had a feeling what the writer wanted to say is that Nepal had a factory which used to produce low quality army men in 1991, but in 2002 it invested a lot of money to mordenise this factory so that the army men produced in this factory are of new model, with better capabilities, like a new computer with pentium V. And that we can import this new model to the world because this new model is uptodate in the context of the world standards.....