|
Munde Munde Matir-bhinna
NP Upadhyaya
Munde Munde Matir-bhinna. Yes! This is a Sanskrit word, whose literal meaning is when heads differ, interpretations differ. This is a fact.
Nature has made the brains in such a manner that even two brains from within a family does differ and has to differ because it has come from two different and two sovereign brains.
Politics is no exception to this universal rule.
Moreover, politics is a subject that demands varied and justifiable interpretations and the best of which is accepted by the political animals or for that matter by the system.
Guided perhaps by this universal idea that any particular system anywhere in the world warrants the need for a variety of political parties so that the population can voice their own preferred interpretations on a particular topic for the consumption of the others. Indeed, the others have a right to differ, and they would differ for they too are guided by the same universal rule. But then the differing opinions too would want to push their own political interpretations on a particular topic for others' consumption. The process of pushing one's opinion over the others and vice versa thus goes on and in the process a system is established which is perhaps called democracy that allows interpretations to come to the front whether one liked it or not.
This is perhaps the beauty of democracy.
However, democracy perhaps demands also the truth. I presume, democracy warrants the facts and not the otherwise. Or else democracy would be a system wherein the rule of the survival of the fittest comes into existence. A rule of jungle then might prevail. The rule of might is right then prevails that forces the weaker section of the society to acquire or prefer to opt yet another dictum: silence is happiness. But this silence is not due to the dearth of ideas. It is indeed due to the weakness that some brilliant voices prefer to remain subdued. However, democracy to rule out such duplicity and distortions has devised certain fair and universal mechanisms that guide the interpretations coming as it does from different brains and manages all the brilliant ideas to come to one point so that ultimately the system benefits.
In fact I got prompted to pen this write up upon reading thoroughly the article penned by B'desh Ambassador, Shri Humayun Kabir, who very candidly and forcefully states that though political parties and politicians in B'desh differ on so many counts, however, when it comes to the strengthening of the democratic system or for that matter the preservation of national interests, all the politicians forget that they belong to diametrically opposing parties and converge at a point in order to safeguard the system and their genuine national interests. I salute the Bengali population for their oneness. I salute them all for their sense of nationalism. I wish the Ambassador conveyed my sincere feelings to his population if he feels that it were a stuff to be delivered to his people and the politicians.
Painfully, we in Nepal lack this sense of oneness on matters that are vital and crucial for us.
Let's learn from the Ambassador's country and from yet another country in our immediate neighborhood that has ever exploited this country since 1950 and yet our leaders prefer to sneak to that very country to seek blessings. Shame on them.
The second reason that guided this write up to appear in this form is a piece of news coming as it does from far flung Seoul, the capital of the Republic of Korea, wherein the president of that country while making a lecture at a world media conglomerate held recently there said of the media men.
Nepal's brilliant brains too had participated in the media gathering in Seoul. However, their news coverage of that meeting was simply one sided. Now I could conclude that we the media men are overly biased. We become at times paranoid. We see green to any thing that is of our preference. By implication, those thing appear or we present it as barren whom we define not to be of our political likings.
Is it also guided by the Sanskrit saying? Or should we the media men stick to some principles? I suppose some basic ethics should guide us all the time.
Read what the Korean president said at the Seoul meeting of the world's veteran media men.
"He urged newspapers to be more responsible saying groundless criticism should not be tolerated". The president further said, " Media's focus should be on upgrading its democratic governance responsibility. The press should not be given a free rein on any thing it wishes to do. Journalists must maintain and uphold ethics and self-restraint. The media must not exacerbate social conflicts".
Look what the president of the host country commented of the press. I recall those who attended the Seoul conference covered only those, which suited to their and their master's political interests. I suppose we the media men are not above the law and our place is the writing desk but not the streets.
|
