 |
||
|
||
INTELLECTUALS |
|
||
|
||
INTELLECTUALS |
Critical Or Cynical? The views of the
intelligentsia defy comprehension of the common people By KESHAB POUDEL George Orwell said that some ideas and
opinions were so foolish that you had to belong to the intelligentsia to believe them.
Many Nepalese intellectuals, who have been switching political allegiances with the
adroitness of a chameleon, tend to provide daily proof of the wisdom of Orwell's remark. With the dissolution of the House of
Representatives and the promulgation of the state of emergency, Nepalese intellectuals and
political leaders have been voicing opinions that defy the comprehension of the common
people. Led by former prime minister and Nepali Congress supremo Girija Prasad Koirala, a
group of intellectuals is castigating Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba for exercising his
constitutional rights. They are also criticizing the constitutional monarch and the Royal
Nepalese Army for fulfilling their constitutional obligations.
"The order on the dissolution of
the House of Representatives was constitutionally correct. But, there is a smell of
political conspiracy of the palace," said Krishna Hatthechhu, at a recent seminar
organized by the Nepal Center for Contemporary Studies. Another political scientist,
Krishna Khanal, who served as a political adviser to prime minister Koirala, expressed
similar views at the seminar. Some prominent lawyers, teachers, judges
and journalists are making the same kind of accusations in what is a purely constitutional
matter. "Prime Minister Deuba recommended the dissolution of the House of
Representatives at midnight, when everyone was in deep sleep," 56 members of the
dissolved House of Representatives wrote in their Supreme Court petition seeking the
restoration of the chamber. It seems that the petitioners and their lawyers want
constitutional recommendations made in broad daylight and announcements made in full
public view. Senior Nepali Congress leaders and
well-educated MPs of the ruling party have endorsed such irrational and confusing
statements without pausing for a thought. They seem to have accepted the wisdom of the
intellectuals simply because of ideological affinity. This is certainly not the first time
Nepalese intellectuals have expressed views the common person is at a loss to understand.
The confusion and chaos the thinking class has bred in society has long made it difficult
for the people judge right from wrong. On the right of the prime minister to
dissolve of the House of Representatives, intellectuals have given four different
opinions, each contradicting the previous one. Political scientists, lawyers, politicians
and journalists who have been harping on the need to strengthen Westminster-style
governance are now calling for a reversal of the dissolution order on the ground that it
was announced at midnight. The opinions and ideas presented by the
intelligentsia are so loaded with commas, ifs, buts and sheer speculation that it becomes
difficult to understand the underlying meaning. As soon as anyone raises questions on such
contradictory opinions, intellectuals revert to the "conspiracy" angle. This
time, the conspiracy angle first appeared in newspaper headlines through the statements of
Koirala, who hitherto had been emphasizing the If we juxtapose the apex court's
interpretations in the last four cases relating to the dissolution of the House of
Representatives with the opinions expressed by intellectuals, glaring inconsistencies are
apparent. From the first dissolution by Koirala in 1994 to the fourth by Deuba last month,
lawyers, political scientists and other members of the intelligentsia have shown little
coherence in interpreting constitutional provisions regarding the prime minister's
authority to seek a fresh mandate from the people. The sudden U-turn Koirala and other
political leaders have taken in favor of restricting the right of the prime minister is
understandable. As politicians, they are guided by narrow electoral considerations.
Moreover, they might not have the constitutional knowledge of political scientists and
lawyers. What is strange, however, is the triteness of many of our experts and scholars. How can a constitutionally correct action
be regarded as a conspiracy? Until a year ago, intellectuals close to the Koirala camp
criticized the army for not obeying the orders of the elected prime minister. Moreover,
they criticized the palace for blocking the deployment of the army against the Maoist
rebels. When the King acted in accordance with the constitution and army was mobilized
under the control of the prime minister, the same brand of intellectuals and politicians
began seeing a "conspiracy". Most Nepalese intellectuals seem to have
short memories. Otherwise, they would have felt some discomfort at having to contradict
their opinions so frequently. There is always personal and political bias in the opinions
of experts and intellectuals. Albert Einstein wrote in 1955: "It is
also vital to a valuable education that independent critical thinking be developed in the
young human being. He must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their
illustrations, and their sufferings in order to acquire a proper relationship to
individual fellow men and to the community." Intellectual fickleness is so pronounced
that by the end of an article or a speech, one is no closer to understanding the issue at
hand or reaching a solution. "Nobody can predict the reaction of the
intelligentsia," says a political analyst. "If intellectuals are allowed to
address three seminars in a day, their opinions will invariably veer from one extreme to
the other." Instead of expressing opinions based on knowledge, experience and
beliefs, intellectuals operate along clearly palpable party lines. This grim situation is a product of the
systematic politicization of educational institutions and other organs of state over the
decades. New students are groomed to take active part in the student wings of various
political parties. Most professional organizations are based
on political ideology. Internal elections in Nepal Journalists Federation, Nepal Bar
Association and Intellectual Forum, student unions, Nepal Teachers Association, Nepal
Medical Association, University Teachers Association and Nepal Engineering Association are
contested on the basis of political ideology. Even after retirement, senior bureaucrats
and intellectuals are divided on the basis of political allegiance. From the school level, students are taught
to follow partisan politics. Teachers of all levels, too, are divided along party
affiliation. Educational institutions have become cadre-recruiting centers for political
parties. In a situation when political ideology is regarded as an important component of
the academic process, students are inevitably denied quality education. A few months back, a newly arrived foreign
envoy asked this scribe why Nepalese spend so much time in politics. It is not difficult
to delve into the root of the problem. During the Panchayat decades, when party activities
were banned, the Nepali Congress and communist leaders began using educational
institutions of Kathmandu valley and other major urban areas to recruit political
activists. With support from cultural sections of
foreign embassies, political parties taught hundreds of students the rudiments of
political ideology. Today the Rastriya Prajatantara Party, many of whose leaders were
leading figures of the Panchayat system, view educational institutions in the same way. When a student supposed to lead the nation
is groomed in a highly charged political environment, how can society expect to get an
independent and impartial citizenry that can take the side of justice and fairness?
Moreover, how can one assume that a bureaucrat, teacher, professor, or lawyer can take an
independent stand on matters of national interest? As long as education institutions remain
politicized, eroding the quality of education, there would be scant chance of building an
independent intelligentsia. Society has become so divided that many people have difficulty
contemplating a life of intellectual independence. With politicization having seeped into
all educational levels, Nepal may have to wait a long time to get a pool of thinkers who
can speak the truth. Dependent Intelligentsia The opinions and expressions of the
intelligentsia are always complex. In a country like Nepal, the economic situation makes a
great difference. Although the intelligentsia have the power to influence decision making,
they are not capable enough of standing on their own. As the economic conditions of most
of the intellectuals fall short of sustaining their social status, they have to compromise
to retain sources of income. Since power always determines the status
and fate of intellectuals, they feel compelled to take political sides. For economic
benefit, social gain and status, everyone is under pressure to join one party or the
other. Had the country had a sound economy, Nepalese intellectuals could have stood on
their own ground. To paraphrase Orwell, Nepal needs special qualities to understand the
opinions expressed by its intelligentsia. |
Send your feedback to the
editor: spotligh@mos.com.np |
