GRADUATES EUROPEN UNIVERSITY CYPRUS’08

HIGHER DIPLOMA IN HOTEL MANAGEMENT

Sagar Shrestha
Indra Prasad Bhattarai
Amit Kumar Das
Bin Subba Gurung
Govind Gurung
Hum Bahadur Rana
Pun Krishna Kaway
Niraj Khanal
Chandra Kumar Makhim
Dipendra Poudel
Pragnesh Kumar Prajapati
Bijay Sunar
Tilak Bahadur Thapa

BBA (HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT)

Bishnu Bahadur Kshetri
Durga Dangi
Binod Daya Ghimire
Nirdeep Joshi
Khadak Bahadur Ghale
Pema Yangzee Lama
Sujan Uday
Uma Pun

MASTER IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM MANAGEMENT

Prakash Ghimire
Raji Thapa

MASTER IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Atri Acharya

Source: The Observer
Please mail admin if you'd like your name to be published.

When the King took over, the country was in a “war” and was dealing with “terrorism”. Then, the national agenda suddenly shifts from fighting terrorism and/or settlement to ideological struggles about civil liberties. When your house is in fire and you know who the culprit is, do you invite him to go have a beer in a pub to debate ideals, call your spouse to continue fighting from where you left off while the house keeps burning, or call the fire brigade? A foreign country made a deal with a group that was under the terrorist banner in our country. How legitimate is that? The US bombed Afghanistan for allegedly supporting a group understood as terrorists. Can we bomb India? If the king is such a great dictator to deserve to be scrapped off his title, why haven’t we asked Prachanda to quit the Maoists’ Party and surrender to the authorities. He was responsible for more deaths than Gyanendra. Besides, Prachanda has never publicly expressed apology for the insurgency, whereas the King has asked for apology twice.

Sure, the government under the King made very bad blunders, but where’s the proof to suggest that every action of the government was taken by the King, or that the King should be held accountable for everything, or that the institution should be blamed for everything. If that is so, why shouldn’t we jail Prachanda for the killing of a businessman, rather than blame some YCL cadre? What’s more, they sign a 7-point deal with his family. Look at the concept of justice in our country? The King along with the institution has been scrapped and replaced by the Maoists who’ve been given a second chance, pardoned of their crimes, brought into mainstream politics, and given a license to spread the culture of impunity as the “deserving” James Bonds of New Nepal. Let me add that the Maoists haven’t adhered to any pre-condition to enter into mainstream politics. Look at our national logic. We embrace killers and punish lightweight dictators. What kind of justice does that give to the late King Birendra – the very popular monarch who made most people cry? He was also a King and protecter of the institution.

Some have found it convenient to blame the palace for Nepal’s historical shortcomings. A large part of that same history is contemporaneous to the Rana Oligarchy, Colonialism, the Holocaust, Slavery, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two World Wars and a Cold War. Was Nepal meant to be better than the rest of humanity? Nepal’s kings were no gods, except in myth, but should they have been perfect, nonetheless? And, was the post-90s era a paragon of perfection? More people have died during this transitional period compared to lives lost during the 1990 movement and the 2005 movement. Shouldn’t the SPA quit accepting its own logic of human rights abuses?

The former king’s actions during his direct rule were unbecoming of a king, and he lost a kingdom. The Maoists’ ten-year legacy of violence was unbecoming of human beings, and they’ve won an election. Look at the logic of the times. We certainly don’t want aspiring gods replacing mythical gods – gods that make women widows and get away with their crimes on grounds that minor errors shouldn’t undermine the grand scheme of things. If this isn’t godly arrogance, I don’t know what is. Prachanda - the new god of New Nepal!

Well, to make things clear..................................................................

According to people:

The King has no excuse and he can not even make simple mistakes. Why should he be allowed to? He should have been able to take care of the situation (the cvil war or people's movement or whatever shit you want to call it) right away. 24 hours should have been enough. And he asked for THREE YEARS. Now, that's just asking for too much.

Bomb India? Oh! aren't we already a part of India?? Oh my bad..

Prachadra can do no wrong. Whatever he did and/or is doing is what people want.

(I think couple of years ago I was watching his interview, two journalists asked him "what if that's not what people want?" His answer,"That's what people want and if it is not then we will make them want what people want." What I am curious to know is since when did 'people' = Prachandra?? Ah well..I guess I am just not educated enough to know that but now he has taught me the righ way..his way..only his way is the right way). So yes, no need to apology. Why should he??

People voted for them cause they had no choice. People who did not vote for them are being punished. And please don't say it is dictatorship. It is not. It is the freedom that the King could never give but what the Moaists gave.

Once again, it is what we ALL want..according to people of course..which means Mr. I love Nepal Prachandra.

Prachanda - the new god of New Nepal!

Oh yes, INDEED.

The Madhwari community have already started worshipping him as God so we should all join.

Jai Moasit!!

Jai Prachandra!!

The Royal Massacre & The Mystery Unfolding By Ashutosh Shrivastav

“Monarchy is over in Nepal ”. The same title is being used in fashionable ways by many media in this world—of course, only those who hold significant stake in Nepal . The biggest stake holder and the director of Nepal ’s devastation is Nepal ’s closest and sadistic neighbor, India . Even though the intellectuals are familiar with this direction, I would like to show why the world remains anonymous of this India ’s sponsorship of terrorism in Nepal . Quite surprisingly, the actors have created a huge mass of junior actors in the hope to make them a lead actor one day. In the mean time, the director is enjoying the show. Let’s trace back when the director thought to direct this inhuman movie that might not leave the director an option of bankruptcy if the truth is exposed.

As known to the world, Nepal was a Kingdom and the most peaceful country in this chaotic earth. While many may disagree, however, there was no extreme poverty in Nepal in mid 20th century. The Indo-Nepal friction started when the then Prime Minister of Nepal —Jung Bahaur Rana—supported the British India to suppress the Sepoy Rebellion. In 1857, India could have born, but since the Rana prime ministers of Nepal were strong allies of British, they supported British in their mission to crush any independence revolution. In fact, Nepal had already become an enemy of Indians then. Moreover, the strength of Gurkha army was the biggest obstacle for the Indians to overcome. Because of Rana’s support for British India, the later known India could not gain independence until 1947. Many of us forget to note, immediately after India was born, the Rana Empire was thrown out in Nepal in the year 1950. The then Prime Minster of Nepal —Mohan Shumsher Rana—was deposed who would later go to India on a self imposed exile. His titular successor—Pashupati Shumsher Rana—still resides in Nepal . His role would come into play post the Royal Massacre of 2001. Until 1950, Ranas were the prime rulers of Nepal and the monarchy was only symbolic. When India was born in 1947, the then prime minister of India was Jawarharlal Nehru—the same leader who kicked out Indira Nehru for marrying a Muslim, who would later become Indira Gandhi and the biggest enemy of Hindus and Sikhs.

There was another family who was fighting for the Indian state with the Indians—the Koiralas. Koiralas were Indians who were born in the Northern Province of British India –modern day of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh in India . Koiralas were three brothers who were born and raised in India . The family claims to be originally from Nepal , however, their roots and bushes have been found only in India . Even today, much of Koirala family resides in India —respecting the motherland. The Koirala brothers joined struggled to give birth to India . During the later years when India was about to born, Koiralas were suggested to form Nepal Congress Party within India . Finally India was born in 1947 with another new nation— Pakistan . Appropriate justice does not seem to be carried out looking at the area of India and Pakistan and the number of people residing. The most important factor was religion. Most of the princely states were to accede the Union of India. One of the biggest Kingdoms was the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir whose King Raja Hari Singh was a Hindu and the population majority was of Muslim. Raja Hari Singh decided not to surrender his Kingdom to either of the countries. However, illegally, India annexed the Kingdom into its Union . It is interesting to see how Indian text books claim this beautiful Kingdom a part of India . In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices demanding plebiscite. Nehru never proceeded with the UN resolution and hence, the ascertainity of the instrument of accession is questionable. The Kingdom—as falsely claimed by India and Pakistan —is still considered as the international disputed territory. Then India annexed the Kingdom of Gwalior , and the Kingdom of Hyderabad . By all means, they were illegal annexation. India ’s vulture eyes were gazing the Kingdom of Sikkim and the Kingdom of Nepal . The Indian Congress had helped create Nepali congress for a good reason. The Indians had foreseen their fortune in Nepal . The Koiralas were assured by the Indians that they would help Nepal merge into India if the Indians help throw the Rana regime in Nepal . India was lured with this Childish Koirala Deal. Even a newborn child would see the benefit in helping the needy brothers. Finally, in 1950, King Tribhuwan fled to India to seek refuge from the Ranas. The only Royal member left was the 3 year old, the then prince Gyanendra. The Ranas—who were expert in analyzing the future—were familiar with the Indian game. The Indians had thought to end the monarchy in 1950, but the Ranas, moving a mile ahead, crowned the 3 year old as the King of the Kingdom of Nepal . The Koiralas’ and the Indians’ dream shattered. The Ranas knew that India wanted to weaken Nepal by overthrowing monarchy. Hence, they took the wisest step to save Nepal , and we witnessed the result. Even though the Ranas were able to save Nepal ’s monarchy, unfortunately, their Empire was brought down. Since Ranas were the true Nationalists, their downfall encouraged India to envision a possibility to annexing Nepal into India .

Not that easy as the Indians had presumed. The King in Nepal was considered the reincarnation of Hindu God, and replacing the intuition of Monarchy was their far dream. They figured where the problem laid—Monarchy. Nevertheless, India did not stay quiet, and offered Sikkim and Nepal to sign the instrument of accession and join the Union of India Nepal’s the then King Mahendra got infuriated with the proposal, whereas the “Koirala equivalent” prime Minister of Sikkim offered Sikkim in the hands of India, only to be slaughtered. The three Koirala brothers became the prime ministers of Nepal on the recommendation and pressure from India . This paved an easy path for the Indians to intrude in Nepal's internal affairs . Nepal ’s monarchy was well aware of this Indian strategy, however, the then King Birendra had declared Nepal as the Zone of Peace in the 90s. This was endorsed by more than 110 countries of the world, except India . Intellectuals could smell the stink that was coming from the southern block. King Birendra’s popularity almost made India ’s dream a nightmare. Moreover, the future King Dipendra was one of the most popular figures of Nepalese monarchy in the history.

India’s dream was almost impossible. As the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi created LTTE in Sri Lanka , they thought to help launch a Maoist revolution in Nepal to break Nepal . The Maoists’ top demand was the abolition of Monarchy. Since the year 1996, India started funding Nepal Maoists to fight against state. As the Maoist party was formed in 1996, their leaders were backed up by the Indian government. Most of the Maoists leader lived in Darjeeling , Lucknow , and Delhi in India and masterminded their plan. These plans were executed by guerrilla who lived in Nepal and were dying to fight war. In other words, India created Communism in Nepal . They also were supported by the Indian Communist leaders and other Naxalite group who are fighting against the Indian government for communism. Surprisingly India never helped Nepal government in arresting those leaders and extraditing them in Nepal . When Nepali Maoists met Nepali Communist leaders in Lucknow , India in 2003, India government did not take initiative to arrest them, even though they were recognized as terrorists . Hence it is evident that India never wanted peace in Nepal . At the same time, international media was busy defaming the King Gyanendra.

The interesting chemistry was all political parties held discussions in India with the Maoists in the Indian’s presence. The irony was Maoists were able to kill Inspector General of Police of the Royal Nepalese Government, but were not able to kill any leaders. This does not digest well. These Maoists and leaders were in agreement not to kill each others leaders. Although India was successful in proving why they did not endorse “Zone of Peace”, they were unable to offer prayers to King. Then India played the worst game with the help of its own citizens—Koiralas, and Maoists to end the Nepalese monarchy—which the world today knows as the Nepal ’s Royal Massacre.

After the Royal Massacre, many speculations were in the air. However, immediately after the incident, media, which are funded by India , started to air against Gyanendra, who was the only heir left to the throne. India ’s, Koirala’s and Maoists’ strategy was to defame monarchy and most importantly, the monarch who was unknown to the world. India knew that King Birendra was most popular and if the blame could be dumped on Gyanendra, it would be the easiest way to uproot monarchy. And so was the story we witnessed. India had a sound plan to kill the Royal Family so that no one else would remain alive to keep the monarchy breathing. However, the massacre happened when King Gyanendra was out of town and allegedly was on the way back to the massacre site for the dinner. Gyanendra was crowned again as the King of Nepal, and India , once again, could not prove to be a successful director. India funded media were airing speculations about King Gyanendra. The love and respect for the King was then seen by the shaved head of all the Nepalese—who respected Nepalese Monarch as their father. Noticeably, the present Prime Minster, Girija Prasad, the same Indian Citizen, was the Prime Minister of Nepal during the Royal Massacre. He helped India facilitate the killings. Later, he also facilitated King Gyanendra, to be removed from the palace. In other words, the Koiralas were well aware of the killings, but instead of stopping India to kill the royals, the old traitor helped them successfully execute the plan.

The King wanted the then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to hold the elections but even after he was granted to extend the date of election twice, he was never motivated to hold the election. The underlying political reason was that he continuously wanted to be in his office by postponing the election. As a Chief of State, King Gyanendra could not wait to see his country devastated. This made him to sack the cabinet and impose his direct rule. Subsequently, in October 2002, King Gyanendra dismissed the prime minister and his cabinet. While stopping short of reestablishing parliament, the king in June 2004 reinstated the most recently elected prime minister who formed a four-party coalition government. The King, citing dissatisfaction with the government, dissolved the government in 2005, declared a state of emergency, imprisoned party leaders, and assumed power. The king's government subsequently released party leaders and officially ended the state of emergency in May 2005, but the monarch retained absolute power until April 2006.

When King Gyanendra ascended throne in 2002, Nepal has been going through civil war from the past ten years. Politicians of Nepal , as an easy excuse to take benefit from inexperienced King imposed blame on him. When King sacked the parliament for its inability to hold elections, the law was enforced, the administration was healthy and the environment was getting conducive. He acted tough on the people to enforce laws. The 12 years of democracy by then had made Nepalese lazy and incompetent, but the king wanted to abolish the ongoing crisis. While most of Nepalese were pleased to see this progress, the corrupted people were unemployed. The leaders of Nepal are barely educated to find a job, if they do not engage themselves into politics. The government employees who never showed up on time were forced to be in the office and corruption was strictly made illegal. How can idle Nepalese like that? Obviously it will make them revolt. These led the politicians ally together and form a coalition to fight against the King. Nepal and Indian media supported well these coalition leaders. Countable 10-15 people gathered for to restore democracy and started protest. It was not until April 2006, when Maoists joined the movement to fight against king. Truckload Maoists entered the capital city to revolt. As a way to spread violence, Maoists attacked on Maoists in the revolution process and charged King for their deaths. After 30 people were killed, the King gave up all the powers and reinstated the government. Hence, the King who wanted to make the country progress was iconized as a dictator. Following that, if anyone in Nepal supports nationalism, then they are labeled as royalists or a dictator.

Now that the monarchy is gone, common Nepalese who are die hard fans of King, are looking for their God. However, Hinduism and Buddism have not taught violence to Nepalese. Maybe that’s why common Nepalese are not on the streets yet. I remain unanswered, is Hinduism’s patience tested? Is Gurkhas’ blood tested? Are the Nepalese tested? Nepal has so far witnessed the Maoists crowd, not the Nepali crowd, there will be a day when Gurkhalis will be on the streets to show the bravery of Amar Singh Thapa, Bir Balbhadra Kunwar, Bhimsen Thapa, or another Jung Bahadur Rana…and who knows, another Prithvi Narayan Shah to Unify the breaking Nepal.

Ashutosh Shrivastav
Phone:(832)660-1527
Houston, TX
United States of America
source::http://www.nepalhorizons.com/beta/articles.php?newsid=261

History the Best Judge

Whether or not removing the institution of Monarchy was a good decision, history will be the best judge to that. But all of us who are neutral and don't belong to any political parties (all of which are corrupt), and can see and sense what has been going on in Nepal know that monarchial system should have been in Nepal for at least few more years. Especially at the current time, after the CA elections, when the unexpected victory of the terrorists-Maoits has taken place, the importance of existance of monarchy is high, mainly to check and balance the power and the system. Now, with the monarchial institution completely gone, the terrorists-Maoists and their corrupt political allies have a free license to do whatever they want. As we know, many analysts, both domestic and foreign (independent, professional analysts) , already have feared that Nepal is in the verge of becoming a Communist Republic rather than a Democratic Republic.

The rising Maoists and YCL atrocities and bullying are so common nowadays that any day without such incidents are News. Their over-confidence, fueled by assurances by their illeterate and arrogant leaders that the Maoists are above the law, have made them more violent and cruel. But, too much arrogance and excess pride are the symptoms of destruction. They have made so much bloodshed in the country, destroyed so many happy homes and families, spread so much terror and violence, and taken many, many innocent lives that they seem like a breed of some violent animals who do not posses even a bit of humanity. The big question is: How can anyone ever justify the killings of 15,000 + Nepalese people to bring a change in the country???????? They did not kill all 15,000 plus people, but they sure are responsible for it. And the second big question is: Can we trust such terroritsts who have always believed in the power of guns rather than the norms of democracy?????

Nepal's had democracy for some 18 years now, but what good has it done to the country??? I am not trying to say that Absolute Monarchial system is good, but recent history is the proof that there was peace, stability, prosperity, and security back then; there were developmental programs in different parts of the country; education system, especially the junior education system was what it was supposed to be-running up smoothly; basic infrastructures were being carried out; the economy was high; unemployment rate was way lower than the days after democracy; crime was also way lower than now; corruption was again, also way lower, than now. There is no doubt that the democracy is the best policy in the world, but, I think, just my personal opinion, that Nepal was not ready for democracy back in 1990. For democracy to flourish and its norms and ideas to be implemented, citizens need to be educated or else democracy will not have significance and instead have an adverse effect. Most Nepalese were and still are under the illiteracy rate, lack basic education, and thus lack proper judgement to see what is really right and what is not. Most people back then did not even know the meaning of democracy and just followed some cunning political leaders who were out in the streets to fulfill their selfish interests rather than to do some thing good for the country.

All of them had their chances to create and run their government, but none of them could last for even a full year term. Isn't it amazing that our great political leaders could not have a four-year full term in the government even once, no matter what political parties they belonged to, after democracy. They have done so much damage to the country and it's economy that it will take days to even list them. They have sold rights over our river to a foreign authority.....now this is pretty shocking...Mahakali river exists from the great holy mountains of the Kailash inTibet, from where it enters Nepal, flows through our land, and we do not have authority over it???? It is a natural entity given by the mother nature and all living beings have an equal right over it, and our leaders are smarter than all of us to judge that, that is not the case. 18 years of demcracy, mostly controlled by different political parties hungry for government positions and at end, what do Nepalese people get: terrorists Maoists. Maoists are the biggest proof of the big time failure of all the political parties and their leaders.

Then came former King Gyanendra. He also did some blunder mistakes during his reign and whatever he is today is all because of his arrogance and excess pride. But, he was a saint as compared to the terrorists Maoists and certainly better than the corrupt and incompetent political leaders. When these good-for-nothing political leaders who failed the country big time and these terrorists-Maoists can be forgiven, why not the King???? I think, he should also have been given a chance to prove himself, and I am more than sure that if he was given a chance, he would have performed a lot better being a Constitutional Monarch. But, too bad and too sad that he is gone. Like I said, history will be the best judge to whether abolishing the Monarchy was a good decision or not.

Finally, it was too sad to witness the unprofessionalism and ill-manners of our journalists at the Narayanhiti Palace during former King Gyanendra's press confrence recently. What was heart-breaking, to me, the ex-King was even verbally abused by some of them while exiting the confrence after the speech. The man had already stepped down and as a matter or humanity, should have been let go with proper respect. I guess it was too much for some people while they are happy to forgive the terrorists-Maoists.

God Almighty Bless Nepal.

Please do not believe in Indian Media Propoganda.

Hitler’s gift Daimler-Benz not in Nepal

BY KIRAN CHAPAGAIN

KATHMANDU, June 20 - The Daimler-Benz that has gone missing from Narayanhiti Palace was not gifted by Hitler, and the German dictator gifted a Daimler-Benz not to King Tribhuvan but to Rana Prime Minister Juddha Shumsher.
Juddha Shumsher's Daimler-Benz is in Deharadun, India and is now owned by his daughter.
A research has found that the car that got media attention a few days ago was not Hitler's gift. According to Juddha Shumsher's surviving kin, the 1936 Daimler-Benz was gifted to the Rana ruler in the late 1930's, and not to Tribbuvan.
"The gift was for my father Juddha SJB Rana. My father was the de facto ruler while King Tribhuvan was only a de jure ruler," said Janak Rajya Laxmi Devi Shah, 92, one of Juddha's daughters.

Juddha Sumsher was the seventh Rana prime minister and he ruled Nepal for 13 years, before abdicating in favor of his nephew in November 1945. He then left Nepal to settle in Dehradun, India. He took the Daimler-Benz along with him.
Shah inherited the olive-green car after the death of her father and mother in 1952 and 1954, respectively.

She is still owner of the car as she has not transferred the ownership to anybody else. However, as the car was never registered in Nepal, she could not bring it when she decided to move back to Nepal in 1966. "I left the car to my brother Sashi SJB Rana," said Shah, who is a DAV College law graduate.

Shah used the car while studying and living in Dehradun for 17 years. "I used to offer lifts in that car to my professors on the way home from college," fondly recalls Shah, who started her formal education at the age of 36 and yet became a lawyer at the Supreme Court of Nepal.
However, until very lately she did not know that her parents' gift to her was gifted to her father by Hitler himself.

Shah said the car was used by her father in Nepal and they used take it to Hanuman Dhoka and to big parties. She believes it was the first car to enter Nepal.
"I rode in cars since my childhood, and that car was just like other ordinary cars for us," said Shah, who is still active in social work.
There is no official document on why Hitler sent the gift to Juddha SJB Rana, but the latter's relatives have their own story. Lt. Colonel (retd) of the Nepali Army and former Military Attaché in New Delhi, Prabal SJB Rana, and Bedendra SJB Rana, son-in-law to Shah, said the gift was to persuade the Gurkhas not to support Britain in the looming Second World War. Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939 after Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Hitler had even sent a medal for Juddha, according to Binod SJB Rana, youngest son of Juddha. "But we are not sure whether that medal was sent along with the Daimler."
courtesy: ekantipur.com

Hitler's 'car' kicks up controversy in Nepal

Kathmandu: A vintage Mercedes rusting with disuse in Nepal's former palace hit the spotlight after reports that it was a gift from Adolf Hitler to the then King of Nepal.
The controversy started after Nepal's official media reported earlier this month that a car gathering dust in the Narayanhity royal palace was a priceless 1939 Mercedes Benz, gifted to deposed king Gyanendra's grandfather Tribhuvan by the German leader.
It was said to have been the first car in Kathmandu valley, carried from India on the backs of scores of porters in 1940 as Kathmandu had no motorable roads at that time.
However, a 92-year-old member of Nepal's aristocracy is refuting the reports, saying that Hitler did not gift the car to Tribhuvan, who was a mere rubber stamp king. Instead, she says, the German chancellor gave it to her father, who was the real ruler of Nepal.
Janak Rajya Laxmi Devi Shah, the daughter of Judha Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana, also says that the gift was not a Mercedes but a Daimler Benz. Moreover, it is not in Nepal but in India.Judha Shumsher was the seventh prime minister of Nepal at a time the Rana premiers held the reins of the country, having reduced the Shah kings to mere puppets. He ruled Nepal with an iron hand for 13 years, abdicating in 1945 in favour of his nephew. Then he moved to Dehradun city in north India, where he spent his last days.
His daughter, a former lawyer, says he took the olive-green car with him to Dehradun and she used it as a student.
There are only two models of the 1936 Daimler, made to order. While one was used by Hitler himself, the other was a diplomatic gift to the Nepali prime minister, probably in a bid to persuade Nepal not to support the allied forces against Germany during the war.
Janak Rajya Laxmi, who is the current owner of the controversial car, says she could not bring it back to Nepal when she returned in the 60s.
She says she left it in Dehradun in the care of her brother, Sushil Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana. It is still lying at their family mansion at Guru Road in the Indian city.
The Narayanhity royal palace, turned into a national museum after the abolition of monarchy in Nepal last month and the departure of the last king, Gyanendra, is proving to be a treasure hunter's delight but a historian's nightmare.
The sprawling palace is a trove of historic treasures, including priceless jewellery, paintings and documents.
However, records about the origin of many of them are missing.
The high-level committee formed by the government to take inventory of the heirlooms in the palace had suggested that the old car lying unused there be given pride of place in the museum when it is opened to the public in future.
Now historians will have to start fresh investigations to find where it came from.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/hitlers-car-kicks-up-controversy-in-nepal/67463-2.html