To be precise, let us ask ourselves if Nepali people are spoilt. Think, how they want the best of both worlds, communist and democratic, with a guarantee of livelihood, food, shelter and health care, education and what not. Meanwhile, they want to enjoy freedom, equality and liberty guaranteed under a democratic system something that is not so normal even in the highly developed countries.
Contradictions arise when the leaders out of power make promises that they know they cannot fulfill. Do they deliberately fool people to bag their support at least by hustling? People have no choice but to vote for them even if they do not believe in what they (leaders) pledge. When the leaders in reality cannot fulfill people´s aspirations of basic needs juxtaposed with democratic freedoms, they try to fulfill that of their own, their families’ and their relatives’.
Nepal is clearly caught in the crossfire of democratic and communist ideologies, alien to their traditional values. The social values of both ideologies are community-based, community empowerment and community management. Since most of our educationists, scholars and intellectuals are trained at western institutions; they cannot help but articulate all that they have formally learnt. To remodel the society on alien values of democratic, socialistic, communistic, liberal ideologies is a new enterprise, that has the least chance to succeed like other enterprises in economic, political or other fields of human activities.
Difficulties arise when people in general show a preference for those that think alike. Leaders look around to find ways for people to like them, often trying to catch their mood and be popular. They are those who invariably succeed in realpolitik but are not the change makers and please people to stay in front and in power.
There are, however, leaders who think differently from the people. Their thoughts are different from that of the common man. People are scared of these types of thinkers. So they avoid making them the leaders. Thus the change makers are most often bypassed by the people who are happy with leaders whom, they believe, think alike. But they do not get the change they desire. It is the people, in the first place, specially in a democracy, whoare to be blamed for wrong doings. They have a choice to accept or reject their representatives. Reason: They have their interests uppermost in mind, which determines their choice. A self-interested choice can never be perfect. People want their interests fulfilled from their leaders, right or wrong. Those who succeed in it get support from the people and they do not get rejected by the people.
Can there be a sober and a cool voice that can speak out what is possible to achieve and what is not? Should not people in the public domain come together to cool down the rising popular temper and make them aware of what is sensible and what is not at the present juncture?
When people seek food for survival we can consider it right. But if they demand luxurious food, they are wrong. So is the question of shelter, education, security, social facilities, and services. People´s needs in these respects deserve to be fulfilled. But when their demands cross the limits of necessity and capability of the state, we should consider them wrong.
However, it is a difficult task to draw a line of demarcation between need and greed. Under a social-security arrangement, we find mostly food, shelter, health care, education, transportation, law and order, justice delivery, etc as essential needs. Countries providing these conditions are considered developed. Countries failing to provide them are considered underdeveloped. There is no doubt that all countries should try to fulfill the basic needs of their citizens for their physical, mental and spiritual development. But when people try to go beyond that, in the name of freedom, they create a problem, which upsets the order of basic provisions of survival. That is precisely the problem in America and Americans, crossing the border of needs and entering into dirty display of greed. This dilemma is reflected right in the not-so-peaceful conflict in Nepal as well.
Distinction between the two is better understood and realized internally rather than externally. "I need it ", "I want it," "I desire it," "I am dying for it" are different ways people feel about it. Except for "need" all the rest can be categorized as optional human desires.
The distinguishing judgment is a power that can be developed by spiritual pursuit. Those who are spiritually aware are endowed with the power of discernment of what is needful from the disposable. It is on this basis that man should be judged, more by himself or herself rather than by others in society. When people start acting and reacting, according to others´ judgment, leaving one´s judgment aside, things generally go wrong. And wrong things cannot bring about anything right.
It is under this temper that people are desperate to have a constitution as if a constitution would solve all their problems from birth to death. In fact, it is going to address none of their vital grievances. People will grow all the more restless, emotional and aggressive if and when they get one granted by the Constituent Assembly. Communists overnight want a people´s democracy, which the democrats are scared of. The emotionally resurgent ethnic communities want autonomy with a right to self-determination under a federal system that is more a chimera than a reality. The workers are striking for higher salaries and facilities beyond the capacity of their affiliated business and industry. Women are up with arms to get all injustices done away in no time. There is hardly anybody who looks calm and collected in Nepal.
Can there be a sober and a cool voice that can speak out what is possible to achieve and what is not? Should not people in the public domain come together to cool down the rising popular temper and make them aware of what is sensible and what is not at the present juncture? We can identify some people like Keshab Sthapit, an action-oriented man, who during his mayorship in Kathmandu demonstrated how things could get done from a public office. A political visionary like Gagan Thapa who speaks out his mind in public rather than from his party´s stand can be a big asset in this mission.
Look at Pradeep Gyawali who has maintained a balance between the intra-and-inter party conflicts. He will be appreciated more as an independent thinker rather than as a party spokesperson. There is yet another public figure, Anil Jha, who appears more like a prospective politician than a sectarian party leader. Even less publicized people like Rita Thapa, a silent and a compassionate social worker can enlighten and teach people to prove their worth with works instead of mere words. It is just a small list of people who could get out of their political affiliations, to bring the restless people to their senses at a time when the whole country seems to be running amuck.
Writer is associated with Nepal Studies and Research Center
adityaman@hotmail.com
Related story
Court sends five into judicial custody for NEA meter tempering
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
