2nd Impression The Telegraph

S E C O N D I M P R E S S I O N

Different brains different interpretations. Interpretations galore indeed, which is only but natural. My own contention is that when brains differ, interpretations must differ for different souls possess different thinking which not necessarily tally with those of the others. That way if Mr. A possesses a distinct view on a particular topic which differed with Mr. B's entirely different opinions there is nothing to panic. By the same token Mr. C could differ with both of the previous comments on a specific subject. It could be that the majority of the population either could join the wagon of Mr. A or Mr. B's or even those of Mr. C's. Yet another set possibly could reject all the previous views only to forward their own separate views which not necessarily be accepted by those whose views have been previously rejected summarily.

This means that every single person can float his or her own set of ideas on a particular issue immaterial of the possibility of it being solely rejected or accepted by others. This further means that a sort of debate then begins in and among both the supporters or for that matter the opponents who are obliged then to prove their interpretations. Here again it is not necessary that one have to accept in toto the explanations furnished by the other camp in favor of his or her interpretations.

In my opinion, such differences of opinions help create a healthy atmosphere for healthy discussions provide food for thought to the nation's intellectuals. Such debates or for that matter discussions on a particular topic arouse interest among the laymen even which later encourages them to participate effectively in the matters related to nation's overall interests.

For example, we see two sets of people who possess different views regarding the democratic system itself.

While the first set claims that the merits of a democratic system include, among others, ethical defense; common welfare; rule of law; democracy develops the spirit of patriotism; responsibility towards the governed; peaceful change of government; ensures equality and liberty; prompts men to abide by the laws of the nation; enhances education; provides stable government; guarantees freedom and what not what not.

The other set counts the demerits of a democratic system which is a long list. These include, among others, democracy lays emphasis on quantity rather than quality; inefficiency; prevalence of rampant corruption; mushrooming growth of political parties who mislead the laymen; provides a government of careerists, opportunists, self-seekers and demagogues; is an expensive system ; oligarchy of the richer section of the society; can't meet emergencies; is tyrannical; is a process of dis-education; curtails liberty; a difficult system of governance and finally this set opined that political democracy without economic democracy is meaningless.

I do not know which set and their explanations fit exactly into our scheme of political things. However, I find myself close to the former American Ambassador Carlton Coon who some two years back had said in Kathmandu that "democracy doesn't guarantee good leaders"'.

While subscribing to Ambassador Coon's million-dollar revelation, I just think of the Nepali leaders whose faces I could now see in my computer monitor while penning this short piece. It is awful indeed. The same Koirala, the same Madhav and now again Deuba! O! My lord, we the people are compelled to bear with the same face who in so many ways brought us to this abyss.

The rest I leave up to my qualified readers to decide. I suppose my valued readers too would differ in their respective opinions. This is the beauty of democracy indeed. It allows us all to differ with the other contending views. I wouldn't mind if some of my critics differ with me on what I have said of Nepal's top leaders. But differ with justifications!