"Politics" can be defined as the science or art of governing by which a body of people are organized. On a more realistic level, it is a strategy of obtaining power, the methods or maneuvers by which onešs will and desires are made manifest. The general word used in Nepal is rajniti, and it glosses both these meanings.

    Yet, within this definition the word holds a wide range of significations. Most long-term politicians said "When we simply look at [politics], it is a part of life. And life cannot operate without politics. It is a mechanism for running the country." Almost all others felt that politics was corrupt, that the politicians were not living up to democracy. As a middle-aged shop keeper said, "In Nepal [politics] is a path for filling onešs pockets. In other contexts, it is social work. Some politicians get money, and those that do social work get fame." Yet, even with this disillusionment there was a sense that politics still contained a chance for social justice. As a high-level bureaucrat said, "It is an oath to achieve human rights." And as a local farmer said:

In action, [the politicians] are just reaching out their hands. Peoplešs needs are neglected . . . . The national government should complete land reform in all seventy districts. Because there are a lot of farmers in Bhaktapur, the government is always oppressing them. Here in Bhaktapur politics has been good for the people.

And as a young middle class left-wing intellectual said:

In Bhaktapur there are lots of farmers, and they have a hard life and much oppression in daily life. Išm active in helping to solve these problems. Politics in Bhaktapur has been good. But national politics is another story. For that reason, we in Bhaktapur have to look after our own interest.