Constitution is Not for Glorifying Killing and Bloodletting

Ajay Pradhan | July 18, 2015

The Preamble of the preliminary draft Constitution of Nepal glorifies armed struggle. The Preamble apparently refers to the 10-year armed struggle from 1996 to 2006 between the government forces and the Maoist rebels. That armed struggle resulted in the killing of 15,000 Nepalis, many of them civilian non-combatants. Many citizens disappeared, are still unaccounted for, and are believed to be dead. There are cases of victims who were burned or buried alive and many were hacked to death. Victims’ surviving families are still living a life haunted by horror and terror. They are still grappling with the loss and trying to find some sense in the horrid outcome that some call collateral damage of the armed struggle.

And the Preamble of the draft Constitution unabashedly calls that horror and terror-filled armed struggle and in many cases barbaric killing and bloodletting a part of Nepal’s glorious history. Really? Glorious for whom? For the victims? For their families? The perpetrators should face the widows and mothers and children of the teachers, the farmers, the innocent citizens who were burned or buried alive, and ask them if they thought the armed struggle was glorious.

The glorification of armed struggle and the bloodletting is senseless and insensitive. We Nepalis accept it as part of our history, yes. But there is no need to glorify it. Those who are smitten with violence could wake up at night and gloat over it, if they wish. But, they should let the rest move forward, not drag them to the past. History is an important lesson. But history is not the pathway to the future; you must be courageous enough to chart the future course on the ideals on which to found your future.

If you tell me if armed struggle is not mentioned in the Constitution, then the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on, I have an answer for you: You want to glorify the armed struggle and the killing and spilling of the blood? Go ahead and write a book to do that. Fill every single page with gory details. Go right ahead and gloat over the bloodletting, puff-up your chest.

But leave the Constitution alone, and with it let the rest of the people move ahead. Do not sully the Constitution with glorification of violence. Violence was part of the history, but must not be the foundation of the country’s future. The Constitution is about the country’s future and its preamble is about the founding principles for that future. The preamble of a Constitution is to declare the principles and values we resolve to found the country on. It is not a place to gloat over and glorify killing.

Learn from other countries. America’s founding fathers wrote their Constitution in 1789, within five years after the end of the American Revolutionary War against Britain in 1783 for America’s independence. More than 25,000 Americans lost their lives and about as many Americans were seriously wounded in that war, which had gone on for eight years from 1775 to 1783.

You know what the founding fathers did? They had the good heart, good wisdom, and, above all, good vision to not dwell on the past, not to harp about the grievances against Britain or military agents of the colonial rulers, not to expect anything from the colonial masters who ruled them for all their history. The founding fathers mentioned nothing in the Constitution, not one single word, about the war that brought them independence. They left all that for history books. Why did America’s founding fathers not glorify the war in the Constitution, that set them free from Britain? Why do you think? If you are too entrenched in the idea of glorifying wars, I doubt you’ll ever know; unless you’re told.

So, listen up: Because a Constitution is not about the past, it is about the future and it is about the values and ideals on which to found the new nation.

Instead of glorifying war and armed struggle that ended merely five years before, they chose to not give any space to the war but chose, instead, to focus on insuring domestic tranquility as a founding principle of America.

They did not mention war not because they forgot it; they did it because they wanted to found the country on the ideal of peace.

Instead of dwelling on the historical injustices, they chose to found the country on the ideals of establishing justice and general welfare.

Instead of expressing grievances of the colonial rule that denied true representation of the Americans in the colonial government, they chose to resolve to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and for posterity.

And they, the people of the United States, wrote the Constitution for themselves, they charted their own destiny. The rich Americans didn’t write it for the poor, nor the powerful for the oppressed, not the elites for the marginalized, nor men for women. No such distinction was needed to write the Constitution; they were all equal. Unlike Nepal’s draft Constitution which gives every hint that it is written by elites and the powerful to bestow on the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, and, to borrow the words from the draft Constitution, the "helpless single women", America’s Constitution was written by the people for the people, each equal to every other, of the United States of America.

No wonder they were able to write a preamble that, with merely 52 words, is so succinct yet so vast, so accommodating, so visionary, so enduring, so forward-looking, and so full of hope for the future to create a more perfect Union that they didn’t have to split the hairs nor write with nuances, nor meaningless details.

With great brevity, instead of dwelling on the historical grievances, recounting all the historical wrongs, they chose to look forward and found the country on the ideals of liberty, justice and peace.

A Constitution is not a history book. It’s the soul of the future, yes, the future, of a new nation. If we want a new Nepal, we have to look to the future and lay our Constitutional foundation for that future with great courage and great vision. If we only want to dwell on the past, we might as well simply be writing history books.

This task of writing Constitution is not for those with small heart, smaller mind, and short vision. This is only for those with great courage, great mind and great vision.

Read more...

Nepali People Cannot Expect to Have A New Nepal and Leave Women Behind

Ajay Pradhan | July 3, 2015

In ancient Nepal and India, widows in some communities and princely aristocracies committed suicide by fire on the funeral pyre of dead husband, all before the approving eyes of the authoritative patriarchs and their docile women in the family, community and society. Widows who did not want to commit suicide were forced into it. Often, the wailing and petrified widows were dragged to the pyre, to be burned alive. Society determined that after the death of husbands, women had nothing to live for.

We’ve come a long way from there. In today’s liberal society, the mere mention of this odious, repulsive and abominable practice, called Sati, wrenches our gut and makes us cringe with revulsion. We cannot comprehend the true psychological impact of this practice on the society at large and women in particular.

Social practices die hard and slow on their own, unless a larger-than-life personality convinces the impressionable citizens of the society to discontinue them. Or, unless the State decrees an end to such practices through enactment of law.

Thankfully the repugnant practice has now long been consigned to the deep trenches of history, both because of gradual social change and the State’s proactive intervention through codified decrees.

This was an extreme form of socially-entrenched and socially-sanctioned deep-seated prejudice against women in a patriarchal society.

Things have gotten better. But not all better.

Still today, women are subjected to state-sanctioned discrimination of a different variety. How else can you explain the discriminatory citizenship codes in Part 2 of the Preliminary Draft Constitution of Nepal tabled in the Constituent Assembly on June 29, 2015? Despite the fact that the Draft Constitution has codified equal rights for men and women, the draft contains unequal citizenship codes for men and women, which clearly do not align with the equal rights code guaranteed by Part 3 of the Constitution. For details of the unequal citizenship rights coded in the Draft Constitution, read my separate commentary here.

Has Nepal really moved much ahead from the patriarchal society that existed in the times of Sati? The nature of discrimination may have changed, but the prejudice still remains. Men still call the shots. The Constitution drafted by chauvinistic men still see women as a lesser human being. Small wonder why female feticide still occurs in the society. Misogynistic policies compel girl child to grow up wondering why she was not born a boy, instead.

The discrepancy in the application of citizenship laws on men and women has raised the gender perspective at international forums.

The June 2003 issue of the Women2000 and Beyond, a report series published by the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women (UN DAW, 2003), added a much needed focus on women, nationality and citizenship. The series is published to promote the goals of the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action for gender equality and the empowerment of women. (You can download a copy here http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/jun03e.pdf).

“Where parents have different nationalities, laws can bestow the nationality of the father upon a child, but deny the child her mother’s nationality,” the report states (UN DAW, 2003: 2). This is exactly what the Draft Constitution is about to do in Nepal.

To be fair, Nepal is not alone in this regard. The UN report states, “Although the laws of most States now entitle a woman to maintain her independent nationality upon marriage, many States retain laws that discriminate between women and men with respect to the nationality of their children, particularly in the area of acquisition of nationality by descent. Most legal regimes that provide for nationality by descent accord the nationality of the father on his children, irrespective of the nationality of his spouse. It is less usual for such regimes to devolve the nationality of a woman married to a foreigner on her children automatically. In many States, nationality through descent from the mother is conferred only where she is unmarried or the father is unknown or stateless” (UN DAW, 2003: 8). Which country do you think is about to do this? You guessed it: Nepal.

Can Nepali women expect to be accorded equal justice? Can they expect to live in dignity as equal partners to men? Can a wife have equal status in society as a husband? Can a girl child grow up, with equal protection and justice guaranteed by the Constitution?

 

As the cliché goes, where there is a will there is a way.

 

The UN DAW report (2003) lays out the “scenarios in which inequality in the bestowal and retention of nationality causes particular hardships for spouses of different nationalities. International human rights standards to redress these inequalities exist within the human rights treaties, article 9 in particular of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 (CEDAW, 1979). Judicial decisions indicate how these standards can be used to challenge existing inequalities between men and women. However, there are many obstacles to the effective implementation of human rights standards” (UN DAW, 2003:19).

 

While international law recognizes the sovereign States’ discretionary power to enact laws and devise public policies with respect to conferral of citizenship upon individuals, the UN has made recommendations for actions at both international and nation levels (UNDAW, 2003: 19). At the national level, the UN recommends “legal and administrative reforms” in domestic law to ensure international standards that are based on the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979). So, in Nepal, which is on the cusp of getting a new Constitution, if we don't do that now, then when will we do it?

 

Nepal has to decide whether to stand on the right side of history and global community or on the wrong side. There is a choice to make. Does Nepal want to stand with the small community of discriminating States or with the larger global community that has fair citizenship laws based on gender equality?

 

The time to make that choice is now, when the Constitution-writing process is in the last lap. If not corrected now, it will be much harder later.

 

Nepali people cannot expect to have a New Nepal and leave women behind.

 

References:

 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 (CEDAW, 1979): http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

 

The Women2000 and Beyond, June 2003, a report series published by the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women (UN DAW, 2003): http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/jun03e.pdf

Read more...

Preliminary Draft Constitution Not Fair on Women and the Socially Marginalized - Part 2

Ajay Pradhan | July 2, 2015

After I wrote my first opinion piece on the draft Constitution on June 30, I read the Constitution some more. Here are some additional observations. The Constitution is long (a total of 128 pages) and in Nepali. So, I’m focusing on the Preamble, Citizenship and Rights and Duties. I do intend to read the rest and post additional comments.

Preamble

The Preamble cites armed struggle (sashastra sangharsha) as being part of Nepal’s glorious history. Really? 15,000 people dead, many of whom still unaccounted for, in Maoist insurgency and that’s glorious?

The Preamble commits to end untouchability (chhuwa.chhut). This is good, of course. But, the Preamble qualifies untouchability with a series of adjectives: class (vargiya), caste/ethnic (jaatiya), regional (chhetriya), linguistic (bhashik), religious (dhaarmik), gender (laingik), and all kinds of caste/ethnic untouchability. Very odd composition. Fluffy. And, likely untrue.

Untouchability is an abhorrent practice that has been unjustly applied on the basis of caste and ethnicity, but not on the basis of class, region, language, religion and gender. Untouchability and ethnic discrimination, exclusion, seclusion and marginalization is a big and an important social challenge for the nation and the country must put a sharp focus on this scourge like a laser beam. The current language of the Preamble waters this down. Clarity is needed. Each word must count. Constitution is not an instrument to use flowery language.

The Preamble declares establishing the foundation of socialism as a commitment. Socialism in and of itself is not, cannot be, should not be the goal. It can be a means to create a just society, but it cannot be an end in itself. Everybody should have the right to a just society, but they need not have a right to socialism. Socialism is only social-economic method that may work at a particular time in history. But its utility can change over time and the society may have to bring in a different system. Constitution needs to be visionary, not short sighted, which is what the current draft is. This is also repeated in Article 4 under Part 1.

Part 2: Citizenship

Part 2 is devoted to citizenship. As I identified in my previous opinion piece, the provisions in Part 2 are misogynistic and patriarchal. Those provisions must be corrected and gender-based discrimination and prejudice must be eliminated. If not corrected, the Part 2 citizenship provisions will directly contravene with the fundamental rights enshrined in Part 3. (For more details on how Part 2 citizenship provisions discriminate against women, read my other commentary on Citizenship here).

Part 3: Rights and Duties

Part 3 devotes on fundamental rights and duties. Article 23 under Part 3 provides for equal rights. Sub-article 1 of this article clearly states that all citizens will be equal before the law and no one will be deprived of equal protection and benefits flowing from the law. Sub-article 2 states that in the application of normal or regular (samanya) law, there shall be no discrimination based on, among others, gender. (It is not clear what is meant by normal or regular law and how it is distinguished from other types of laws.)

Despite this declaration of equal justice under law, Part 2 provisions on citizenship blatantly discriminates against women. The message of Part 2 citizenship provisions is basically this: In Nepal, it is better to be born a baby boy than a baby girl.

Every living, thinking, and breathing man and woman must oppose the misogynistic citizenship provisions under Part 2.

Sub-article 3 under Article 23 provides for equal rights for, among others, all castes and ethnicities. But, its “notwithstanding” clause provides for special privileges for social groups left behind socially and culturally. Oddly, enough, this provision includes the social grouping in Nepal that has been at the forefront of power structure politically, socially, culturally, linguistically, and in government administration—Khas Aarya, which includes Bahuns and Chhetris. Inclusion of this perpetually privileged group in the same category as the truly oppressed and marginalized defies logic.

This privileged group should not be lumped together with the truly marginalized and underprivileged social groups. Let me just give you one example. Let’s see who have been Nepal’s prime ministers since the fall of Rana Dynasty in 1951 (2007): Matrika Prasad Koirala, Tanka Prasad Acharya, K.I. Singh, Subarna Shumsher Rana, B.P. Koirala, Tulsi Giri, Surya Bahadur Thapa, Kirti Nidhi Bista, Nagendra Prasad Rijal, Lokendra Bahadur Chand, Marich Man Singh Shrestha, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Girija Prasad Koirala, Man Mohan Adhikari, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhala Nath Khanal, Babu Ram Bhattarai, Khil Raj Regmi, and Sushil Koirala. Many of them became prime minister multiple times.

Tell me how many of them were or are non-Khas-Aarya?

One. Yes, just one.

All the rest, Khas-Aarya. Out of 21 prime ministers (just based on head count, not based on the multiple, non-consecutive tenures), all but one were Khas-Aarya. (Two, if you also count Giri.)

So, no need to treat this Khas-Aarya group as underprivileged. No affirmative action for the privileged.

Focus should be put where focus is due: the truly marginalized, the truly dispossessed, the truly underprivileged, the truly oppressed. Unless that is done, the Constitution will only be providing lip service to them.

(More coming)

Read more...

Discriminatory Citizenship Provisions in Nepal’s Preliminary Draft Constitution 2072 (2015)

Ajay Pradhan | June 30, 2015

Yesterday, the Constitution Drafting Committee submitted to Nepal’s Constituent Assembly the preliminary draft Constitution, 2072 (2015). (You can download the draft Constitution here).

I gave Part 2 a read, which is devoted to citizenship. Part 2 contains Articles 10 through 20. This commentary only focuses on Part 2 of the draft Constitution. I do intend to read the rest of the Constitution and post commentary on other provisions of relevance to people's rights.

It doesn’t take you long to notice that the draft Constitution has discriminatory citizenship provisions based on gender. The gender-based discrimination applies to citizenship by descent and citizenship by naturalization.

Citizenship by Descent

Article 12 has provisions for citizenship by descent.

Article 12, sub-article 1, clause a (ka) requires both father and (not or) mother to be Nepali citizen at the time a child is born for the child to be able to obtain Nepali citizenship by descent.

Article 12, sub-article 1, clause b (kha) also requires both father and (not or) mother to be Nepali citizen, of which at least one is a citizen by descent, for their child to be able to obtain citizenship by descent.

These two clauses don’t quite look discriminatory, do they? Read Article 12, sub-article 4 and you’ll see that they are, in fact, discriminatory provisions           .

Article 12, sub-article 4 allows citizenship by descent through mother, if the father is unknown. However, this sub-article disallows citizenship by descent through mother, if the father is known to have foreign citizenship. Curiously, though, this provision does not apply if the gender is reversed. If the father is Nepali and the mother is a foreign citizen, there is no clause disallowing citizenship by descent through father.

Do Nepal’s political elites want to perpetuate a patriarchal society or what? What century are they living in?

This is not all. Read provisions for citizenship by naturalization. The gender-based discrimination becomes even more stark and reveals the misogynistic mindset of Nepal’s political elites.

Citizenship by Naturalization

Article 13 has provisions for citizenship by naturalization.

Article 13, sub-article 1 requires the foreign husband of a Nepali woman to spend 15 years in Nepal before he becomes eligible for Nepali citizenship by naturalization.

So, what’s the big deal? Let him wait 15 years and then apply for citizenship. Fair enough? Well, that’s now how it would work in the case of a Nepali man with a foreign wife. Nepali man gets the better deal than Nepali woman.

Article 13, sub-article 2 does not require the foreign wife of a Nepali man to wait 15 long years before she becomes eligible for Nepali citizenship by birth. The foreign wife of the Nepali man does not even have to wait one year; she is immediately eligible for citizenship.

Why this gender-based misogynistic discrimination? One can only assume that it is driven by politicians’ zeal of hyper-nationalism, fear against India and India’s perceived demographic pressure and influence in Nepali state. Do one thing. Call and talk to your Nepali politician uncle from Nepali Congress, UML or Maoist parties and your ultra-nationalist, chauvinistic uncle will explain that this discrimination is in the national interest.

Tell him, this is unacceptable in the 21^st Century.

Dual Citizenship vs. Non-Nepali Resident Citizenship Card

Article 18, sub-article 1, clause b (kha) ends your Nepali citizenship if you acquire foreign citizenship. So, no dual citizenship for you.

But, interestingly, Article 19 provides that Non-Resident Nepali Citizenship can be (not shall be or will be) given to people of Nepali origin who have taken citizenship of non-South Asian countries (i.e., countries outside of the South Asian Association Regional Cooperation or SAARC). The draft Constitution does not define the term “people of Nepali origin” and is silent on the status of a non-resident Nepali’s children, grand-children and their children who are born in a foreign country, live in a foreign country and are citizen of a foreign country.

Clause b (kha) of sub-article 1 under Article 18 appears to contradict the provision of Article 19. Clause b does not have a notwithstanding clause to accommodate Article 19, leaving the provisions potentially subject to dual interpretation before a court of law, killing the provision under Article 19.

As a non-resident Nepali, I think you should all voice your concern to the appropriate authority, directly, through media or, at least, through social media.

Silence is not an option.

Read more...

Events in Egypt and fear mongering: A cognitive status quo bias

Note: This was posted on a social media on February 13, 2011.

Ajay Pradhan

February 13, 2011 · 

A segment of the media and political pundits (mostly with conservative slant) likened Barack Obama's response to the events in Egypt to Jimmy Carter's handling of Iranian revolution that ousted the Shah in 1979. An American-friendly dictator's fall in Iran ushered in another dictator, Khomeini, who turned out to be an arch enemy of the United States.

For the U.S., Khomeini was unknown, undesired outcome; more importantly, his retrogressive theocratic agenda for the nation and nation's international relations was unforeseen and underestimated. Common citizens fell out of the frying pan, into the fire. Carter was roundly blamed for not doing enough to avert the ascendancy of theocratic dictatorship of Khomeini. People's revolution and clamor for freedom and human rights didn't yield the desired results.

Some conservative politicians, including Dick Cheney, and conservative media warn that fall of Mubarak's rule in Egypt could unleash an unknown series of pains for America; never even mind the instability that could ensue in the Middle East. In the days before Mubarak's fall, the message of this conservative punditry was that it is too risky for Egypt and the U.S. to see Mubarak go. Because the uknown, the pundits warned, was too risky and the change people wanted wasn't worth that risk.

In Nepal, just before the Shah Dynasty came to an almost abrupt end in 2008, political pundits warned that the end of monarchy would be too costly for Nepal, mainly because the risk was too great. The current political quagmire in Nepal probably does lend some credence to those warnings. The political pundits can say, "I told you so."

The subtext in the punditry about Iran, Nepal and Egypt is not hard to see -- averse risk; maintain status quo, even though status quo may mean having to accept and endure lack of freedom to choose.

In plainspeake, this is fearmongering.

In philosophy-speak, this is a form of a cognitive bias -- the status quo bias.

People whose decisions are influenced by this bias tend to be conservative in their thinking and behavior. They often tend to monger fear of the unknown as being too risky. To be fair, they do sometimes turn out to be prescient.

But, I think, just because the unknown is risky doesn't have to mean accepting and enduring status quo fraught with lack of freedom.

Because desire for freedom is a fundamental human right.

Read more...

Pointing Fingers at Wrong Direction

Published in The Republica (Nepal's broadsheet daily newspaper), January 20, 2010.

http://archives.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=14247

	Pointing fingers at wrong direction
	AJAY PRADHAN “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed—and hence clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” - HL Mencken When Mencken, the celebrated American essayist, journalist, satirist and acerbic critic of American life and culture, who died in 1956 at the age of 75, wrote the above quote, it seems as if he had a premonition about Nepal’s current politicians. Nepal’s contemporary politics is fast becoming a fairy tale of nightmare. Everyone has a tale to tell. In every tale, the hobgoblin is the country’s southern neighbor that often creates trouble for Nepal. For every trouble in every tale, many of ours index fingers seem to be automatically pointing towards India—as though India is to our north and our index finger is the compass needle. India is our southern neighbor and friend that we can’t live without. However, it is also a neighbor, at times, we love to hate with passion. Such seems to be the image of India, permanently etched in our national psyche—an image of a friendly but troublesome creature, just like the hobgoblins in the Seelie court of popular folktales. Such seems to be our indelible national psyché. It is the Nepali political leaders who mortgage the country’s dignity and run to New Delhi whenever the going gets tough. Our fairytale political ‘leaders’ from every political Seelie courts i.e. political parties of every stripe and color have done everything possible to create this national psyché. The purpose is simple. It is to keep the populace alarmed about a perceived threat from India and to keep it in unreasonable fear for being shielded from the mostly imaginary threat. say imaginary, not because there is no threat at all, but because the significance of internal threat that ignites within Nepal is potentially more lethal for Nepal’s integrity than of external threat from India. It is the Nepali political leaders who mortgage the country’s dignity and run to New Delhi whenever the going gets tough for them. Seemingly, dignified leadership has become all but a big farce. There is no leadership to speak of. There is a vacuum of leadership. Why else are the politicians treating the Constituent Assembly (CA), which we had to wait for nearly 60 long years to get after it was first promised by King Tribhuvan, as though it were merely a regular legislature? It is too bad that the political leaders were too shortsighted to saddle the CA with the twin burden of governing and re-writing a new constitution, when the CA should have been elected with the sole mandate of writing the constitution, leaving the task of governing the country for a separate, interim political mechanism. It is worse that the politicians and the purveyors of democracy and people’s interest are shackling the feet of the CA and preventing it from moving forward. The lack of political vision, statesmanship, pragmatic strategy, and perpetual ineptness in governing and apathy for common concerns can only be hidden from people’s eyes by baiting common Nepalis on a perceived threat from India. This is the purpose why the inept political leaders who have ruled Nepal throw dust in the eyes of the common citizens by blaming India for Nepal’s every foible. By doing so, they each must share the blame for surrendering country’s dignity and accepting India as their master. And, what do we, the people, do about this? Do we show outrage towards our inept politicians who have hidden agenda? No. We do nothing to make our leaders accountable. Instead, we allow our index fingers automatically point towards India, when we should be pointing them to our own leaders in Nepal. ajayspradhan@gmail.com
Published on 2010-01-20 00:30:05 LATEST COMMENTS writer is absolutely correct. we the people are being misinformed and led astray by our very own elected leaders and it is a sad thing. we the people ca only elect them but we should also have the power to boot them out if they become a nuisance. blame game doesnot benefit any body and only positive action on the part of people can set things right.[more] - ykbhattarai It is amazing how the author of this article is pointing fingers at a wrong direction himself. it is not the leaders that are to be blamed for the political chaos that surrounds the country right now. truth be told the Nepalese populous lacks political literacy, it lacks a will for progress and development, and finally it lacks a vision for a better Nepal. however we are really efficient like the author of this article at pointing fingers towards others. It is we, who are to be blamed because fo [more] - Aman makaju Ajaya Ji: Nice to see your analytical, short and sweet article. It has been a dilemma that after our leaders fail in governance, they blame others for own failure. Earlier it was a trend to blame to the royal palace, then the trend descends down at the party level and now to India. Though no political party is fair, some political party likes to land rockets on others´ foreheads. If its political cadre kills someone, this party constitutes a commission and concludes something funny. No[more] - K. Bhujel All comments

Read more...

Driven by Passion, Guided by Wisdom

Ajay Pradhan | February 26, 2011

The looming federal government shutdown in the U.S. sends me down the memory lane, back to the 1995/96 government shutdown in America. The episode taught me a lesson—about passion and wisdom, the two defining characteristics of a successful leader. I think it is a lesson that we, in communities small and large, can benefit from.

I remember the year 1995 vividly. It had already been two years since I had traded the balmy piedmont of North Carolina for the amber flatlands of Indiana.

President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was in the penultimate year of the first term of his Presidency. Newt Gingrich, a Republican, had become the Speaker earlier in the year, ending 40 years of Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, touting to the voters the Republican legislative agenda, the Contract with America.

Gingrich and his Republican colleagues vowed to implement the controversial legislative agenda that called for sweeping budget cuts in social programs like Medicare, public health, education, and the environment.

When the Republican-controlled Congress sent the budget bill laced with deep cuts to the social programs to President Clinton, he immediately vetoed it, saying that the cuts would hurt the average Americans.

In retaliation, Gingrich and his fiercely loyal conservative colleagues threatened the President that if he didn’t pass the budget bill, they would shut the federal government down rather than repeal the cuts from the budget.

If that happened, the Republicans warned Clinton, his Presidency and political career would be over.

Republicans expected the President to buckle under their pressure. He didn’t.

Republicans shut the federal government for five days in November 1995 and for three weeks in December 1995 to January 1996. Non-essential services were shut down and non-essential federal government employees were furloughed during the time the government was shut down.

Gingrich and his uncompromising Republican congressional colleagues were driven by passion – passion to cut social spending, in order to keep the corporate taxes low, never mind if it hurt the average Americans. It was a purely conservative ideological agenda.

Interestingly, to the dismay of Gingrich and contrary to his expectation, Clinton’s popularity soared and his own popularity plummeted in the public opinion polls. Public outrage was clearly against Gingrich. The public saw him as an arrogant, uncompromising and bellicose politician.

Clinton, whose popularity had gone down to low levels earlier in the 1994 mid-term congressional elections, regained his popularity—in fact, his popularity went through the roofs—and easily won the second term to his Presidency in the 1996 Presidential election.

Gingrich’s dream faltered, because he was simply driven by passion, but wasn’t guided by wisdom.

For a leader to be successful, it’s not enough for him to be driven by passion. His actions have to be guided by wisdom and his behavior tempered by tolerance and pragmatism.

One can be intelligent and educated, but still be unwise in actions and decisions. One can hold a leadership position, but still may not be able to be a true leader.

The one and only ability that a true leader must have is the ability to convince others to follow him, embrace his ideas. It’s not enough for him to limit his sphere of influence to a limited group of followers. It’s not enough to be a dreamer; one needs to be pragmatic and have the guts to cut across dividing lines.

To convince a diverse group of people with diverse sets of ideas to follow him, he must be open-minded. He must understand that diversity in ideas is not a weakness; it’s strength.

In simple words, he must have a big enough heart to acknowledge and respect ideas that may not necessarily conform to his own.

He must not—not ever, never—out of frustration, dismiss opposing viewpoints; let alone dismiss them with offensive and disparaging remarks, as did Gingrich when he defined Clinton as his adversary that he dreamed of sending into oblivion. In the end, Gingrich earned the label of a most uncompromising, haughty, condescending, arrogant, and dislikeable American politician in the modern history.

A leader that descends to the level of dispensing absurd, indecent, disparaging remarks on those who question his vision must correct his behavior… or step aside.

No matter how genuine his passion is for the causes he believes in, if it is only passion that he has to give, and not wisdom, then he cannot lead.

The cause is not as important as the trust of the people that he is trying to champion the cause for.

It is not enough for a leader to be driven by passion; he must be guided by wisdom.

An uncompromising, narrow-minded Gingrich with a passion for conservative ideology may be able to shut the government down, but that passion is not enough to win the trust of the people and lead them towards his cause.

It’s for each of us to decide, in our own places in little communities and larger society, whether we only want to blindly push for a cause when we are not wiling to let our minds guide our actions. 

Note: 

This article was published in The Republica (daily broadsheet newspaper published from Kathmandu) on March 16, 2011. The Republica article may have been edited and is copied/pasted below.

http://archives.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=28915

	Driven by passion, guided by wisdom
	AJAY PRADHAN The looming federal government shutdown in the US sends me down the memory lane, back to the 1995/96 government shutdown in America. The episode taught me a lesson—about passion and wisdom, the two defining characteristics of a successful leader. I think it is a lesson that we, in communities small and large, can benefit from. I remember the year 1995 vividly. It had already been two years since I had traded the balmy piedmont of North Carolina for the amber flatlands of Indiana. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was in the penultimate year of the first term of his Presidency. Newt Gingrich, a Republican, had become the Speaker earlier in the year, ending 40 years of Democratic majority in the US House of Representatives, touting to the voters the Republican legislative agenda, the Contract with America. Gingrich and his Republican colleagues vowed to implement the controversial legislative agenda that called for sweeping budget cuts in social programs like Medicare, public health, education, and the environment. When the Republican-controlled Congress sent the budget bill laced with deep cuts to the social programs to President Clinton, he immediately vetoed it, saying that the cuts would hurt the average Americans. In retaliation, Gingrich and his fiercely loyal conservative colleagues threatened the President that if he didn’t pass the budget bill, they would shut the federal government down rather than repeal the cuts from the budget. If that happened, the Republicans warned Clinton, his Presidency and political career would be over. Republicans expected the President to buckle under their pressure. He didn’t. Republicans shut the federal government for five days in November 1995 and for three weeks in December 1995 to January 1996. Non-essential services were shut down and non-essential federal government employees were furloughed during the time the government was shut down. Gingrich and his uncompromising Republican congressional colleagues were driven by passion – passion to cut social spending, in order to keep the corporate taxes low, never mind if it hurt the average Americans. It was a purely conservative ideological agenda. Interestingly, to the dismay of Gingrich and contrary to his expectation, Clinton’s popularity soared and his own popularity plummeted in the public opinion polls. Public outrage was clearly against Gingrich. The public saw him as an arrogant, uncompromising and bellicose politician. Clinton, whose popularity had gone down to low levels earlier in the 1994 mid-term congressional elections, regained his popularity—in fact, his popularity went through the roofs—and easily won the second term to his Presidency in the 1996 Presidential election. Gingrich’s dream faltered, because he was simply driven by passion, but wasn’t guided by wisdom. No matter how genuine a leader´s passion is for the causes he believes in, if it is only passion that he has to give, and not wisdom, then he cannot lead. The cause is not as important as the trust of the people that he is trying to champion the cause for. For a leader to be successful, it’s not enough for him to be driven by passion. His actions have to be guided by wisdom and his behavior tempered by tolerance and pragmatism. One can be intelligent and educated, but still be unwise in actions and decisions. One can hold a leadership position, but still may not be able to be a true leader. The one and only ability that a true leader must have is the ability to convince others to follow him, embrace his ideas. It’s not enough for him to limit his sphere of influence to a limited group of followers. It’s not enough to be a dreamer; one needs to be pragmatic and have the guts to cut across dividing lines. To convince a diverse group of people with diverse sets of ideas to follow him, he must be open-minded. He must understand that diversity in ideas is not a weakness; it’s strength. In simple words, he must have a big enough heart to acknowledge and respect ideas that may not necessarily conform to his own. He must not—not now, not ever—out of frustration or otherwise, dismiss opposing viewpoints; let alone dismiss them with offensive and disparaging remarks, as did Gingrich when he defined Clinton as his adversary that he dreamed of sending into oblivion. In the end, Gingrich earned the label of a most uncompromising, haughty, condescending, arrogant, and dislikeable American politician in the modern history. A leader that descends to level of dispensing absurd, indecent, disparaging remarks on those who question his vision must correct his behavior or step aside. No matter how genuine his passion is for the causes he believes in, if it is only passion that he has to give, and not wisdom, then he cannot lead. The cause is not as important as the trust of the people that he is trying to champion the cause for. An uncompromising, narrow-minded Gingrich with a passion for conservative ideology may be able to shut the government down, but that passion is not enough to win the trust of the people and lead them towards his cause. It’s for each of us to decide, in our own places in little communities and larger society, whether we only want to blindly push for a cause when we are not wiling to let our minds guide our actions. ajayspradhan@gmail.com
Published on 2011-03-06 01:00:29

Read more...

Nepal's National Psyché Sees India to the North

By Ajay Pradhan | December 27, 2009

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Mencken, the celebrated American essayist, journalist, satirist and acerbic critic of American life and culture, who died in 1956 at the age of 75, likely had a premonition about Nepal's current politicians when he wrote the above quote.

Nepal's contemporary politics is fast becoming a fairy tale of nightmare. Everyone has a tale to tell. In every tale, the hobgoblin is the country's southern neighbor that often creates trouble for Nepal.

For every trouble in every tale, our index finger automatically points to India--as though India is to our north and our index finger is the compass needle.

India is our southern neighbor and friend that we can't live without. But it is also a neighbor we love to hate with passion.

Such is the image of India, permanently etched in our national psyché--an image of a friendly but troublesome creature, just like the hobgoblins in the Seelie court of popular folktales. Such is our indelible national psyché.

Our fairytale political "leaders" from every political Seelie courts (read: political parties of every stripe and color) have done everything possible to create this national psyché. The purpose is simple. It is to keep the populace alarmed about a perceived threat from India, keep it clamorous for being shielded from the mostly imaginary threat.

I say imaginary, not because there is no threat at all, but because the significance of internal threat that ignites within Nepal is potentially more lethal for Nepal's integrity than of external threat from India that does exist.

It is the Nepali political leaders that mortgage the country's dignity and run to New Delhi whenever the going gets tough for them. Providing dignified leadership has become all but a big farce. There is no leadership to speak of. There is a vacuum of leadership.

Why else are the politicians treating the Constituent Assembly, which we had to wait for nearly 60 long years to get after first promised by King Tribhuvan, being treated as though it were merely a regular legislature?

It's too bad that the political leaders were too shortsighted to saddle the CA with the twin burden of governing and re-writing a new Constitution, when the CA should have been elected with the sole mandate of writing the Constitution, leaving the task of governing the country for a separate, interim political mechanism. It is worse that the politicians and the purveyors of democracy and people's interest are shackling the feet of the CA and preventing it from moving forward.

The lack of political vision, statesmanship, pragmatic strategy, and perpetual ineptness in governing and apathy for common concerns can only be hidden from people's eyes by baiting common Nepalis on a perceived threat from India. This is the purpose why the inept political leaders who have ruled Nepal throw wool in the eyes of the common citizens by blaming India for Nepal's every foible. By doing so, they each must share the blame for surrendering country's dignity and accepting India as their master.

And, what do we, the people, do about this? Do we show outrage towards our inept politicians who have hidden agenda? No. We do nothing to keep our leaders accountable.

Instead, we let our index finger automatically point towards India, when we should be pointing it to our own leaders within Nepal.

Read more...

Maoist's Attack On the Media Continues: Are YCLs the New Mandales?

By Ajay Pradhan | December 24, 2008

These are strange times. But these are not unique times. History repeats itself.

When in government, you're supposed to maintain law and order. What do you do when those who are in power themselves defend, even encourage, actions of musclemen who attack, intimidate with violence and death threats, vandalize, and carry out violent physical assaults on journalists who don't tow their line?

In Nepal, under the implicit protection and complicity of the leaders of the Communist Party of Nepal - Maoist, the party that leads the current governing coalition, the Maoist-affiliated trade union groups have got a free pass from the CPN-Maoist leadership to unleash with impunity a reign of terror on the free press.

Despite leading the governing coalition, Maoists are still continuing their insurgency-time mentality and behavior of using violence to intimidate free press that dare to report news that the Maoists don't like. Such attack on the free press is unacceptable and should not go unpunished.

On Sunday, approximately 50 Maoist-affiliated trade union members, most of whom are the defamed and feared Maoist-affiliated Young Communist League members (more commonly known simply as the YCL), carried out a vicious physical attack on the journalists, management and staff of Himalmedia, a Kathmandu-based media enterprise that publishes such reputable publications as the Nepali Times and the Himal Khabarpatrika and vandalized their head office. Many Himalmedia staffers were injured in the assault by a large gang of masked Maoist YCLs.

The attack drew immediate national and international condemnation. The embarrassed Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda put a political spin on the matter and blamed the attack on whom he called the "ex-monarchists" who he said infiltrated his party to defame them. The very next day, however, the defiant Maoist trade union chief, Salikram Jammarkattel, who is also a Maoist member of the Constituent Assembly, ironically rendered Prachanda's spin doctoring worthless when he threatened further, more vicious attacks on Himalmedia, if the media house did not yield in to the demands of Maoist trade union. That was an admission that Maoist leadership encouraged the attack. The two Maoist trade union leaders who led the attackers were reportedly safely ensconced in a YCL camp. Their demand was reinstatement of 22 non-journalist staffers who were let go.

Prachanda and Jammarkattel should know you don't settle labor dispute through physical attacks. If Himalmedia had let go those 22 staff members illegally, then the proper course of action would be to go to a labor tribunal or a court of law. Physical assault by a group that is affiliated with the party in power can only be construed as the government's intention to muzzle the free press. Maoists maintain that this is an issue of labor dispute. However, facts show that this is an issue of Maoists trying to muzzle the press. It appears that Sunday's assault was triggered by criticism of Jammarkattel the previous day by the Himal Khabarpatrika. This is deeply troubling. You simply don't muzzle criticism of a public figure by using physical force. Maoists must realize that their days of guerrilla insurgency are over. They must play fair and peaceful politics.

This is not the first time Maoist-affiliated labor groups have attacked Himalmedia. On October 25, Maoist perpetrators attacked with stones the Himalmedia CEO and his driver while they were in a van. On November 16, a group of Maoists burned 5,000 copies of a Himalmedia newspaper at a distribution depot. Then they made death threats against Himalmedia staffers the next day.

In October 2007, Maoists vandalized the offices of another large Kathmandu-based media enterprise, the Kantipur Publications that publishes such popular newspapers as the Kathmandu Post and the Kantipur for ciriticizing the Maoist party. Even after winning the Constituent Assembly election, Prachanda himself is on record for having warned Kantipur journalists not to criticize the Maoists and made unspecified threats if the media house did not comply with his demand. There have been many other attacks on journalists; some have even been murdered.

This is not how a government builds a nation. This is not how a government inspires confidence. This is not how a government builds trust. Without confidence and trust, the Maoists might as well forget about building a New Nepal.

Let's be very clear on one thing. Intimidation and violent physical attacks cannot and will not muzzle the media. Prachanda would do well for himself keeping this basic tenet of free press and freedom of speech squarely in his mind. Otherwise, the rising infamy of vicious YCL activities will engulf the credibility of Prachanda and his comrades, much like what the infamous Mandales did to expedite the demise of the seemingly invincible Panchayat system of government that had undemocratically ruled the country for 30 years from the 1960s to the 1980s, banning opposition political parties. That history is not very old and still fresh in our memory. The much despised Panchayati Mandales did then what YCLs are doing today.

If Maoists don't check the activities of YCL, they had better recall the fate of the despised and infamous Mandales of the Panchayat era that was, in part, responsible for the end of the Panchayat system. If YCLs are not the new Mandales, Maoists will have to show that.

Read more...

Maoists' Plan Will Reverse Progress in Education and Healthcare Sectors in Nepal

By Ajay Pradhan | November 6, 2008

Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai has reportedly asked the private educational institutions in Nepal to look for alternative means for making investments. The media reports quote him as saying today at a function organized by Maoist-affiliated student wing, that it is the state's responsibility to provide basic education and health to its people. His statement reveals what may be on the way in Maoists' education and healthcare policy.

There is something wrong with this picture. First, as if by the power of magic, Bhattarai appears to have curiously developed the ability and acumen of a financial investment analyst to advise investors how and where to invest their money. Bhattarai is no investment analyst. He's a politician. He's a politician with rigid communist ideology that has produced no beneficial results anywhere the ideology has been practiced.

Second, Bhattarai's plan (or is it just a wish?) clearly leaves no room for private sector participation in education and health sectors. It's not bad for the state to provide basic education and healthcare services (and actually, it is expected) and I'll give Bhattarai credit for that. But, for a country that needs to leap-frog if at all it wants to emerge from the shackles of poverty and underdevelopment, "basic" is just not enough. Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Bhattarai.

What does Bhattarai want to do? What now then? No Rato Bangala? No Budhanilkantha School? No St. Xavier's and St. Mary's? No AVM? No Norvic? No private school? No private hospitals?

To the extent that the government's role is to enable the state to provide basic education and healthcare, I agree with Bhattarai. But, his idea that private sector involvement is not necessary in either education or health sector comes off as a belligerent argument of a nut-case politician. I'm sorry for this harsh assessment, but Bhattarai has left no room for much else.

Nepal needs public-private partnership both in education and healthcare sectors. That is the only way Nepal will create centers of excellence. Just to provide fodder for ultra leftists within the party that are indoctrinated with unbending political philosophy that equalization is the objective, Bhattarai is simply trying to lower the bar for excellence. You don't need to destroy centers of excellence in the name of providing equal opportunity. Instead, government's focus should be increase investment in public school system and improve their quality. That's how you provide opportunities to the underprivileged, not by eliminating private sector participation. The government should leave private schools and private hospitals alone.

Eliminating private participation in education and healthcare sectors, or any other sector, for that matter, will not only stifle the spirit of promoting excellence, but will also be a bad economic policy. It will drive away capital investment from abroad. Nepal badly needs foreign capital investment to develop its resource base.

If Bhattarai has problem with certain run-of-the-mill private schools and healthcare centers whose quality of service is questionable, then he ought to be able to control them. He has the power and the wherewithal to do so. You don't amputate the whole limb if your finger is hurting.

Eliminating private sector involvement in education and healthcare sectors is the surest way of eliminating the basis for promoting excellence. Without excellence, Nepal government might as well forget making Nepal competitive in today's globalized economy.

Bhattarai also remarked that "the government is preparing to distribute academic certificates through open universities to those individuals who could not receive formal education due to their involvement in the Maoist war." Is Bhattarai for real? Has he lost his mind? Well, he might as well go ahead and distribute Ph.D.'s to all his Maoist "friends who could not pursue education due to their involvement in the armed conflict." This is too bizarre that it isn't even funny.

Read more...

Maoists' Plan Will Reverse Progress in Education and Healthcare Sectors

By Ajay Pradhan | November 6, 2008

Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai has reportedly asked the private educational institutions in Nepal to look for alternative means for making investments. The media reports quote him as saying today at a function organized by Maoist-affiliated student wing, that it is the state's responsibility to provide basic education and healthcare services to its people. His statement reveals what may be on the way in Maoists' education and healthcare policy.

There is something wrong with this picture. First, as if by the power of magic, Bhattarai appears to have curiously developed the ability and acumen of a financial investment analyst to advise investors how and where to invest their money. Bhattarai is no investment analyst. He's a politician. He's a politician with rigid communist ideology that has produced no beneficial results anywhere the ideology has been practiced.

Second, Bhattarai's plan (or is it just a wish?) clearly leaves no room for private sector participation in education and health sectors. It's not bad for the state to provide basic education and healthcare services (and actually, it is expected) and I'll give Bhattarai credit for that. But, for a country that needs to leap-frog if at all it wants to emerge from the shackles of poverty and underdevelopment, "basic" is just not enough. Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Bhattarai.

What does Bhattarai want to do? What now then? No Rato Bangala? No Budhanilkantha School? No St. Xavier's and St. Mary's? No AVM? No Norvic? No private school? No private hospitals?

To the extent that the government's role is to enable the state to provide basic education and healthcare, I agree with Bhattarai. But, his idea that private sector involvement is not necessary in either education or health sector comes off as a belligerent argument of a nut-case politician. I'm sorry for this harsh assessment, but Bhattarai has left no room for much else.

Nepal needs public-private partnership both in education and healthcare sectors. That is the only way Nepal will create centers of excellence. Just to provide fodder for ultra leftists within the party that are indoctrinated with unbending political philosophy that equalization is the objective, Bhattarai is simply trying to lower the bar for excellence. You don't need to destroy centers of excellence in the name of providing equal opportunity. Instead, government's focus should be on increasing investment in public school system and improve their quality. That's how you provide opportunities to the underprivileged, not by eliminating private sector participation. The government should leave private schools and private hospitals alone.

Eliminating private participation in education and healthcare sectors, or any other sector, for that matter, will not only stifle the spirit of promoting excellence, but will also be a bad economic policy. It will drive away capital investment from abroad. Nepal badly needs foreign capital investment to develop its resource base.

If Bhattarai has problem with certain run-of-the-mill private schools and healthcare centers whose quality of service is questionable, then he ought to be able to control them. He has the power and the wherewithal to do so. You don't amputate the whole limb if your finger is hurting.

Eliminating private sector involvement in education and healthcare sectors is the surest way of eliminating the basis for promoting excellence. Without excellence, Nepal government might as well forget making Nepal competitive in today's globalized economy.

Bhattarai also remarked that "the government is preparing to distribute academic certificates through open universities to those individuals who could not receive formal education due to their involvement in the Maoist war." Is Bhattarai for real? Has he lost his mind? Well, he might as well go ahead and distribute Ph.D.'s to all his Maoist "friends who could not pursue education due to their involvement in the armed conflict." This is too bizarre that it isn't even funny.

Read more...