Save democracy, please

By Rajesh Man KC

Today is the 51st National Democracy Day. The nation is celebrating the day with great joy and jubilation. A 251 member National Democracy Day Celebration Committee has already been formed under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to observe the occasion in a grand manner on February 18, 19 and 20. The committee has also decided to celebrate the golden jubilee of the establishment of democracy by incorporating the inauguration of various development and construction works undertaken throughout the year.

Every year, Democracy Day is observed on the 7th of Falgun. This day indeed has a great significance in the history of Nepal. On this very day, the century plus old Rana family regime was ousted and a democratic system established in the country through the joint efforts of the king and the people. History tells us that the Nepalese people have made great sacrifices for the sake of a democratic set up in the country and His late Majesty King Tribhuvan himself undertook the leadership of the people’s revolution in the cause of democracy. Intellectuals comment that such a cordial relationship between king and people in Nepal is rare and a unique example in world history. But unfortunately, this hard-earned democracy could not survive more than a decade. In 2017 BS, the late King Mahendra imposed a partyless Panchayat system after overthrowing the majority government of the Nepali Congress led by the late BP Koirala. One of the major reasons behind this political development is said to be internal squabbles between politicians and political parties. The Panchayat system thus prevailed in the country for more than three decades.

However, the Nepalese people could not accept Panchayat polity as a fully democratic system. The system was indeed totalitarian in nature. That is why the people began to express their dissatisfaction with Panchayat polity. Finally, on the same historical day of Falgun 7, they launched the Jana Andolan (People’s Movement) under the joint initiative of the Nepali Congress and the United Left Front. After a continuous struggle of fifty-two days, they succeeded in toppling the Panchayat system. His Majesty King Birendra, keeping in mind the people’s wish and aspirations, granted them the multiparty system of democracy and accepted the role of a constitutional monarch for himself. A historic proclamation was made at midnight of 26 Chaitra, 2046 BS. His Majesty then formed an interim Council of Ministers under the premiership of Krishna Prasad Bhattarai with the joint representation of the Nepali Congress, the Nepal Communist Party and royal representatives.

And following the recommendation made by the interim Council of Ministers, His Majesty promulgated the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal-1990 on the 23rd of Kartik 2047 BS. The Constitution that provides for the fundamental principles of mulitparty democracy, constitutional monarchy, people’s sovereignty, rule of law and fundamental human rights, is supposed to be the most democratic constitution in the constitutional history of Nepal.

More than a decade has now elapsed since the restoration of democracy. During this period, the Nepalese people have experienced different types of governments- government by majority, government by minority and government through coalition with this and that political party or parties. But we feel sorry to note here that not even a single government seems to have been capable of providing a right direction to the country and the countrymen. The living standard of the people is deteriorating day by day and the life of the common people is getting more and more complicated. Corruption is widespread, the problem of unemployment is rampant and prices of daily necessities have gone up, up and up. Billions have been received in loans and grants but the number of people living below the poverty line is increasing rather than decreasing. Even the official data shows that 42 percent people in Nepal are below the absolute poverty line. The reality is even more alarming!

In the meantime, the Maoist problem is becoming another headache for the country. The Maoists have been conducting their activities since the past couple of years and it was just few days back that they observed the 6th year anniversary of their so-called ‘People’s War’. Hundreds of innocent people have been killed in this insurgency and there is no knowing when and how this series of killings of innocent people will come to an end.

Well, this writer is not concerned with the political ideology of this or that party. He is neither a political worker nor is he associated with any political party. But as a responsible citizen of the nation, he just wants to make the suggestion that such serial killing of one Nepali by another Nepali must be stopped. Such killing is too much and perhaps it is the humble wish of every Nepali, be he aligned with any political party or not, to follow the motto "Live and let live."

Under these circumstances, the question naturally arises in the mind of the common people is, what is the use of a democracy that fails to address the problems and grievances of the people? Does democracy mean only access to power by a limited number of politicians and political parties? Or is it a license for them to misappropriate the nation’s funds and resources? People are seeking answers to these questions from our politicians and political parties. Democracy, definitely, is not bad in itself. Had democracy been bad by nature, the Nepalese people would not have made such a great sacrifice in its cause! It is indeed, one of the best systems of governance in the world. But it is the vested interest of some politicians and political parties that is defaming democracy.

It is not the intention of this write-up to blame all politicians and political parties. It is just an attempt to remind one of a well-known Nepali proverb- yauta kuhiyeko aanp le tokari ko aru aanp lai pani bigarchha (a rotted mango may damage other mangoes in the basket also). Democracy in its truest sense means achieving social justice, human dignity and economic prosperity that lead to a good quality of life. But it is not a license for anyone to do anything that he wants to. Democracy has its own norms and values that need to be adhered to by all sectors of life, particularly by politicians and political parties who have expressed their commitment to the protection of democracy in one way or the other. Political parties no doubt are the lifeblood of democracy. Democracy needs political parties because they are the means by which citizens get an opportunity to choose their representatives. But when politicians and political parties themselves ignore the norms and values, it may become difficult for democracy to take root in society.

So, it is and should be the first and foremost duty of our politicians and political parties to act sincerely, keeping in mind the norms and values of democracy. Lack of sincerity and honesty in our political parties may bring great harm to this hard-earned democracy. History is evidence that if democracy is lost the cost may be unbearable. So, save it well, please!

Judiciary 50 years after democracy

By Rudra Prasad Sharma

The Supreme Court (SC) of Nepal, formerly known as Pradhan Nayalaya, was established after the promulgation of the Pradhan Nayalaya Act, 2008. Hari Prasad Pradhan became the first Chief Justice. Even while serving at the apex of the judiciary, he never used his power or influence for pelf. Senior advocates still recall that the profession of lawyering as such was not yet established. People would name their bokaha (literally meaning supporter of litigator). However, in the early days of the establishment of the judiciary, BP Koirala was in power. Koirala trusted Pradhan as Chief Justice. It was he who had brought BP into the legal profession as his senior, in Darjeeling. Pradhan laid the foundations of the judiciary and justice in Nepal.

Although the judiciary was committed to dispensing justice to the people, its independent identity was affected during the Panchayat raj which was autocratic. It is not that the judiciary did not make any significant progress under Panchayat rule. One thing worth mentioning here is the contribution made by Justice Bishwonath Upadhyaya towards a separate and independent identity for the judiciary. For instance, in the case of Yagya Murti Banjare, 2027 BS, he firmly issued an order of Habeas Corpus. Formerly, successive governments would try to constitute special courts to impose stiff penalties on political detainees. Upadhyaya dissented firmly from such practice claiming this to be against the principles of natural justice. Similarly, Justice Upadhyaya issued a landmark decision when an individual's life and liberty were at risk. Another name worth mentioning here is former chief justice Nain Bahadur Khatri, the sitting chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. He was not only the longest serving chief justice but also served at the Law Ministry and on several commissions. Another important thing to be mentioned here is that the Nepal Bar Association (NBA) passed a resolution pointing out the necessity of multiparty democracy in the country and the lawyers also participated in the popular movement of 2046. The judiciary slowly and gradually gained institutional shape and enhanced its identity as an independent institution.

Since the restoration of democracy, the judiciary has become more powerful and, of course, an independent institution free to exercise its power as one of the three branches according to the principle of separation of powers. It is now constitutionally independent and is the sole authority to dispense justice as per Article 84 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990. Furthermore, the Judiciary in Nepal is also considered one of the strong judiciaries in south Asia. In practice also, the Nepalese judiciary has virtually come to be established as a major phenomena in the polity. For it was able to restore the House of Representatives (hereinafter the House) which was once dissolved by the prime minister. It had concurred with another prime minister who had dissolved the House by virtue of the same clause of the Constitution. The Supreme court has thus, through the interpretation of Article 53(4) of the Constitution in the two cases of house dissolution, established a tradition of "judge made law" somewhat similar to recent judicial trends in the United States.

To look at the other side of the coin, there are complaints that justice is becoming expensive and slow. "Justice delayed is justice denied". But the Nepalese judiciary is yet to heed this maxim in practice. The judiciary is now overworked. The number of cases filed in the courts is ever increasing. Unfortunately, some people in some of the remote districts have started to approach other groups of people, the so-called Jana Adult, for justice. What happens if this replaces the Courts there? It has now become a matter of serious concern.

Besides, the Nepalese judiciary has, through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), also exercised its influence over various burning social issues such as protection of environment in the Godawari Marble case, property right of women in the Mira Dhungana’s case, constitution of the Human Rights Commission in Advocate Bhoj Raj Aier’s case and so on and so forth. In such fashion, the Nepalese judiciary has played a prominent role in the protection of Human Rights and the Fundamental Rights of the people. To some extent, it has adopted the trend of ‘judicial activism’ somewhat similar to the practice introduced by the Indian Judiciary. The Supreme Court has given landmark decisions whether in the case of Tanakpur or an incident of human rights violation in Janakpur, any part of the kingdom.

I am very sorry to note the unfortunate attack on the judiciary by Maoists. They killed six persons including Registrar of the Appellate Court Surkhet Bal Dev Dhital and five security personnel while Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Keshav Prasad Upadhyaya had a narrow escape. Whether they made the attack intentionally or unintentionally, through negligence or otherwise, it is now a matter of research and verification. Whoever the assailants may be, the heinous attack against the judiciary is very deplorable.

Over the years, cases relating to Maoist activity have been increasing at the courts. What is to be observed is that the Courts are seen as fair even to the Maoists notwithstanding the government’s aggressive mode towards them. Many Maoist activists have been released through the decision of the Court. But it is not certain whether this has happened because of inefficient counselling and the poor capacity of government attorneys and police personnel when it comes to collecting proof. The courts have heard cases of alleged Maoists with fairness and legal counsel has vehemently protected the human rights of alleged Maoists also, protected them when the police attempted to arrest them in the periphery of the court just after their release, and even escorted them to a safe place (office of the Human Rights Commission) to save them from such extrajudicial arrest. They did all that not because the lawyers were Maoists, nor had any interest in their movement, but because they were committed to their profession, the protection of human rights and the adherence to rule of law.

If anyone including the Maoists want reform, it is not possible through attacks against the judiciary. Because the judiciary is the interpreter of the law and also the law giver in modern judicial practice. If the law is broken, there will came a disaster which might sweep away even those who break the law or the seeker of reform, even if it is done for the sake of reform. So, the law should be reformed and developed according to the changing context instead of being broken. For, example, Socrates, the most celebrated philosopher of the world, did not the break law when he was offered poison as punishment, even though he had known every injustice against him . He could easily have escaped with the assistance of his colleagues. But, he did not. Why? Because he wanted to obey the law rather than break it in the name of reform even though his pleas for reform were absolutely correct.

The judiciary in Nepal has undergone several experiences and is now established as an independent institution. People have expected much from this institution. Let’s hope the shortcomings seen in the judiciary will be checked in time.

Critique of the critique

By Ajit Baral

There are two characters in a story in Milan Kundera’s book Laughable Loves, a collection of short stories. One is Klima and the other is a not so young researcher-writer who has just finished a book—one he had taken so much pains in writing. The researcher-writer’s future depends on Klima’s review; an editor of a reputed journal says he can only publish the review if it’s by Klima. The researcher-writer asks and later assiduously persuades Klima to do a review of his book. Klima consents, willy-nilly. But the book has nothing to contribute in terms of originality—it is just a rehashed and plagiarized version of past masters. And this Klima wants to neither disappoint the writer by being too acerbic nor to compromise his professional ethics by being too cloying. What could Klima do then? Lie? Dissimulate? Slink? Yes.

Many Nepali reviewers, those reviewing English Fiction by Nepali writers in particular, have to go, at times, through the kind of situation Klima in the story, went through. For Nepali fiction writing in English, more often than not, is as bad as the book by that researcher-writer. Moreover, a critic wants the book he is reviewing to be rewarding and useful in some way to himself. So who would review the tripe? But this is not the sole reason why one would evade or shrug off doing a review. There is more potent reason behind this. Klima went through the travails of lying, shirking and all that because he could not call spade a spade and offend another person. Situation here is the same. Nobody wants to be, what critic and columnist C K Lal calls, a Chhucho, which is what you have to be if you are to be fair and objective in your assessment.

And as our English writers in particular are so prone to overestimate themselves (thanks to the fascination with the word English), they can’t even tolerate a modicum of criticism. So once a critic offers some kind of criticism, there is the danger of it boomeranging in some way. No wonder no one ventures even a restrained dose of criticism. But willingly foregoes doing a review of a book saying, "To do this book a favour is not to do a review of it."

But there are many who put their professional ethics on the line and trot out saccharine reviews time and again (much to the delight of the writers) lest they incur wrath. And there are others who are asked by their writer friends (and these writers are inevitably those who see the review as a tool of self-promotion) to review their works. You can’t displease your friend, can you? So what’s the result? Superficial but mellow review? Spun out of the reviewer’s own mind. Yes.

We often see the wishy-washy kind of review also because reviewers are not well grounded in the subject they are reviewing. This situation can be improved through vigorous debate or learning on the part of the reviewers/people. But how the other weaknesses of reviewers mentioned earlier can be rectified I don’t know.

What I do know is: a thin line has to be drawn between these two extreme tendencies—to evade review and to be too kind to the book— if our standard of criticism is to go some where. But will that be possible? I don’t know. Ha, that’s a critique of the critique of the critique.

Both of these critics— one who evades the books lest he has to review them and other who is kinder to the book than the book deserves—are doing a great disservice to Nepali writings and criticism. For good criticism leads to good writing and vice versa. And this is what our fledging writings in English and criticism need.

But here in Nepal, the reviews are done by a small coterie of writers, who are more or less on intimate terms with each other. So no one dares to be even a wee bit critical of another's work lest they antagonize and even place their profession on the line. There is thus a growing need to bring professors into the mainstream of the review.

There is a complete absence of debate on books. This has put a lid on our mind which can otherwise acquire knowledge ad infinitum. And the limitation of our knowledge, in turn, has incapacitated us in writing polemically.

Thus devoid of polemical foundation, our review/criticism can always be pooh-poohed conveniently. There is also a lack of strength to make the writers realize the strengths and weaknesses in their books. This is why our writers always live in lofty heights of self-delusion, growing more intolerant about criticism.

Struggling to make ends meet

By Nitya Nanda Timsina

Two kilometres from Nanglo Bakery near the confluence of a health post and a cluster of apartment buildings, you can see them strolling along the sidewalk selling their vegetables.

Notwithstanding the harsh winter morning, the two young boys barely 11 years of age, struggle up the bumpy dirt road with baskets full of vegetables balanced on a bicycle.

One should notice that before the big bellied men and some ladies come out for a morning walk, these two gentlemen take to their usual business- a duty that has no end.

I saw them last month doing the same thing and this time too. A trivial micro business it may have been in the harsh winter morning, but the touch of tenderness in manner and never fading smile about their lips while transacting business are something worth recalling.

Both of them are less sleekly groomed, often in battered jeans soaked in paraffin oil and shrouded in mist and their eyes half at rest.

Whether a burglar, peddler or a local loiterer or a passer-by pesters them, they seem to be perfectly happy going about their business.

One can also figure out a long trail of slime gushing in and out of their nostrils occasionally, yet no one has ever refused to purchase their stuffs.

Providing a healthy start in education is a priority for every family, but the gentlemen who work as vegetable vendors at so tender an age have their early start in business, a priority that was never asked for but simply forced upon their lives.

They must come of peasant stock or must have been unpaired from their parents, I thought. They visit every door like beggars and await customers to walk down the stairs sometimes scoffing at them for they appear too early disrupting morning slumber. They are helpless and could no longer risk squandering their jobs as handy boys at microbuses during the afternoon by selling their vegetables at a later stage.

One fine morning, I saw them slink down the narrow gully after I ventured out daring the cold sensing the trouble next door. This time it was my moody next door neighbour who had chased them away for disturbing his sleep.

It all depends upon the mood of the customers. At times their potatoes become choosy and picky to the same customer who was furious the other day and leave their basket dislodged by ransacking and letting some potatoes roll a few metres down the gutter. But they didn’t complain.

Sometimes, family members are awaken by their shrill shouts of "taja alu! baigun! at your foot steps, please come and buy!." And soon, the parents would come bustling out while their children peep through windows in a mixture of suspicion and acceptance. Their fierce enemies are often stray dogs that wander about the street eating anything that come their way.

Last time, I saw them at a microbus doing the job of a handy boy. It was heartening to see them scarcely clad and waving their hands at the crowd at every abrupt station and non-stations. After that, I saw them no more.

There are no official figures available for floating child labour in Nepal but the untimely start of business by these young gentlemen sounds encouraging for many workaholics unlike many of us who constantly struggle to make ends meet.

There seems to be legal loopholes in existing laws that allow child labour which is operating seemingly or unseemingly at our doorsteps. The employers always try to exploit them fully in their lucrative business because they bring profit through cheap labour.

I would blame our education system which is failing to prepare us for success in the new economy. Private schools are no antidote to children belonging to the peasantry and the poor as they are pretty costly. Government run public schools have no means to curb the dropouts .The result is a swarming of school dropouts.

This is the problem we are facing in the new century. The provisions for compulsory education guaranteed by our constitution are only on paper.

All parents want the best for their children whether in Kathmandu, the far-flung Terai or in remote villages.

The generation born during and after the dawn of democracy, is in no way better off except for the private schools with spiralling fees and the political leadership scrambling for office.

We are in some ways watching the birth of a belligerent Nepal in the new century as globalization hits our lives without borders. Let’s all resolve to see smiles in the faces of children and make their lives happier in the new century. Let’s work towards building their bright future while keeping ourselves prosperous.