K. B. Shah: A Modest Tribute to a Patriot Scholar
Dev Raj Dahal
I often remember Kumar Khadga Bikram Shah asking me a question: Should
scholars detach themselves from their love and loyalty to the nation and people in the
name of objectivity? I could not presume any straightforward answer to this question. What
he asked me probably concerned the problem of moral duties among our scholarly community.
Perhaps he was also searching for a rational link between the Nepali scholars and the
ordinary public to define the intellectual, moral and material basis of the nation's
worldview. I pondered for a while and answered: "Not necessarily." The gaps
between scholarship and civic duty and between knowledge and social need are inordinately
costly for a poor country like Nepal. Scholars, like normal human beings, also join in the
rhythm of the nation, in its vision and its dreams. One can find a number of academic
books and articles combining both the virtues. Formation of patriotism and the production
of knowledge bear a certain internal unity. From this unity springs an inspiration for
writers, poets, singers, artists and the ordinary people to develop national
consciousness, consciousness that spreads like a blaze throughout the whole nation linking
the experience of every individual in the production of national will. Even the idea of
democracy, the ideology of public power, is closely bound with the national political
culture of scholars at large that shapes the future of public life.
Barring scientific truth, one might believe that social origin helps in the development
and expression of ideas. The conscious or unconscious exposure of scholars to social,
economic and geopolitical structures of the nation and their understanding of the freedom
of that nation in the regional and international space help them shape what Karl Mannheim
calls "sociology of knowledge." Scholars born in a particular nation belong to
that nation, not simply because they are born there but because they grow there, get their
sustenance, imbibe many of its features and are naturally inclined to be loyal to it. As a
rule, thinking based on the nation is considered supreme dharma in seeing all sides of
national life than thinking through class, caste, market, ethnicity, interest or
ideological interests. Patriotism is the product of modernity and stands above the
primitive instincts of human beings. The collective consciousness to act farsightedly and
broadly enables one to grasp the interest of diverse groups of society and offers a sense
of compassion, a criterion of self-conscience. Patriotism is thus by no means a kind of
impulse for national exceptionalism; it is holistic. A nation does not exist in isolation;
it coexists with other nations.
As one cannot transcend one's own cultural heritage, it is difficult
for scholars to detach themselves from their love and loyalty to the nation and people.
The grounds of the obligation and the strength of obedience to the nation set the process
of the final liquidation of primitive and parochial instincts. Kumar Saheb knew this very
well. But, he was seeking its reconfirmation. Partly because of his association with the
nation's historical institution -- the monarchy -- and partly because of his own personal
conviction, Kumar Saheb found the power of "tradition" a highly coherent and
valuable element of continuity in Nepal's religion, culture and history, which merits
attention in its own right. It has played a role for the safe adaptation of the nation in
the welter of tumultuous change taking place around the world. The historical continuity
of the monarchy, therefore, enforced its own potentiality of change. He also found the
meaning of democracy and development in the nation's "cultural discourse," a
discourse that provides a balance between the peaceful social life of the nation and the
modern paradigm of politics. As a liberal thinker, he was often found concerned with the
preservation of the social base of the nation and, consequently, abhorred a sort of
self-serving personal politics, a politics which does not take into account the legitimate
community interests. He argued that the commitment of the state to serving national power
in the domestic and international fronts, and the commitment of scholars to enhancing
popular understanding of the historical responsibility of taking this nation to the path
of progress and modernity are inescapably linked together.
I vividly recall his eloquent reinterpretation of Dibya Upadesh in one Kathmandu seminar
not long ago, in which he proclaimed the necessity of promoting a policy of geopolitical
equilibrium, economic mercantilism, social harmony and a shared consensus on peace to
bolster the strength of Nepali state. What concerns us today is the eternal, not the
temporary, tenor of his beliefs. The Dibya Upadesh is relevant, he asserted, both to
enable Nepali leaders to cope with the external challenges of globalization and the
internal politics of parochialism. The art of politics, to him, was the art of public
welfare, an art to rediscover and reclaim the historic mission of national independence
and sovereignty. Kumar Saheb had a good sense of history. Like a historian he once
narrated the fate of many Nepalese leaders being suspended from the course of history and
many more of them denied taking social roots. I still recall him telling, " A leader
is one who knows not only his aspirations but also his nation's, and knows clearly where
his nation is going and why." Perhaps, it was evocative of the problems of current
leadership. Corruption of self-interest in current political life, he so eloquently
sensed, forebode something terribly sinister to him.
Kumar Saheb had a clear vision of the nation. He consistently argued that "small
states like Nepal should have its own perception of security, identity and progress to
survive from the power politics of great powers." To avoid the perils of great
powers, leaders of small states must be wary of their passions. To realize this vision he
started an academic journal, Strategic Studies Series (SSS). The "strategic
studies" he defined was not narrowly conceived relating to defense planning of the
nation alone. He included the entire gamut of issues from peace to rural development and
all the pertinent questions that relate to a nation's viability, development and peace
under strategic studies. Two additional initiatives -- area studies and CNAS Year Review
-- bolstered his coherent thinking on how to keep abreast with the regional and global
trends and formulate the strategies for the nation's survival.
By all means, he was a lover of freedom and free articulation of thinking. "True
independence of mind and discussion," he once argued in a meeting, "is not
essentially context-free." To him, the condition of national freedom is vital for
liberty of an individual, whether a scholar or a layman. The CNAS Forum established by him
thus acted like a "protected space" where scholars of various political creeds
could freely vent their political convictions on issues of national and public importance.
It was his constant yearning that CNAS could reverberate its image as a think tank on
national, regional and global affairs. But, it was not designed to engineer consent on the
view of a particular leader or a regime. Therefore, even during Panchayat rule, he wanted
to encourage rational debate on issues of public importance that considerably helped to
flourish enlightened opinion-formation process. What is more important and worthwhile than
anything else we might have learned from him is the wisdom in approaching the conflicting
ways of reaching the truth and grapple with the solution of problems faced by the nation.
The strong infusion of patriotic and rationalist spirit and intellectual curiosity often
prompted him toward policy research and debate than typically academic one, though he
often argued, both are interrelated.
His articles are addressed to some vital issues in the political world of the day whether
they pertain to culture, institution-building, education, democracy, national security,
diplomacy, foreign policy, peace, regional cooperation or international system. He never
offered an abstract generalization, but a serious commentary on the contemporary
happenings. This rendered his style engaging and attractive: engaging because of his deep
reflection on issues and attractive because his style combined wit, humor, intelligence
and feelings. He maintained both a journalist's surgical precision and an artist's sense
of vision. After his sudden demise, a vacuum pervades in the nation's intellectual space.
For a long, long time to come he will be remembered. Not surprisingly, Kumar Saheb was an
adorable person among the Nepali intellectuals, regarded as a liberal and a paragon of
human virtues. His ideas and ideals, I am certain, will keep shining as a beacon to the
Nepali intelligentsia.
NO more cheap clamor please
Rajeeb Satyal, Kathmandu
During the last decade of democracy, all that political parties/leaders gave
the gullible voters of this country was nothing but- poverty, insecurities, violence and
injustice. They themselves were obstacles to Nepal's development organizing childish way
of protests, Nepal bandh, vandalism; obstructions, and other anti social ways go achieve
their political ambitions. They have proved that they do not even have very basic and
minimum qualification and quality to lead the country.
Now they have started clamoring about the democracy being in danger",
which is nothing but manifestation of their fear of loosing power and exposure of their
failure as democratic leaders to lead the country to prosperity. They also feared from the
unquestioned absolute public faith in Royal Institution, which they see as potential
threat of loose political power. The decade of experience in multi party has proved that
there are no real visionary leaders in Nepal, who can represent the country properly
except Royalties. If it is not so, then it has to be convinced to the public rationally,
not by gun, protest, or clamors.
Now only way for political leaders, irrespective of any parties or philosophy
to regain public faith is convince public of their honesty, commitment, and wisdom, by
their act and not by cheap clamor and protest. |
