| Username |
Post |
| Garibjanata |
Posted
on 13-Sep-03 09:16 PM
Jusr received this content from a well respected human right activist.
At about 11 AM on the 9th September, 2003 succession of loud knocks from the front door of Daman Nath Dhungana terrified the family and neighbors. When Mr. Dhungan's son opened the door one masked plainclothes army personnel accompanied by several unmasked plainclothes army personnel forced themselves in and declared that they have come to search the house and its contents. They didn't have search warrant or any identity. 'However, one could easily detect they were from army personnel from the army vests and other clothing that were visible' - said Mr. Dhungana. As Mr. Dhungana had severe bout of Acute Peptic Ulcer Syndrome with high fever and sleeping with an advise of bed rest from his doctors, Mrs. Bhuwan Dhungana, wife of Mr. Daman Nath Dhungana came downstairs and gave the identity of Mr. Dhungana who had presided the first democratically elected parliament following the 1990 People's Movement for Democracy, an active member of 1990 Constitution Drafting Commission, one of the important facilitator during the both Dialogue for peace between the government and the Maoists and the one who have been active for the cause of democracy and human rights since 1950 revolution. 'Why you want to search the house of such a high profile public figure?', she asked. 'It is the order, and we will search all rooms, including the bed rooms, scrutinize all suspicious papers and articles, and seize any thing that will be necessary' - said the army personnel. Mrs. Bhuwan Dhungana then said that Mr. Dhungana is ill with fever and sleeping. He should not be awakened or disturbed. Apparently they agreed and proceed to search the house starting from the bedroom of Mr. Dhungana. However with the light and noise Mr. Dhungana woke up and ask for identity and of course search warrant. They identified as army personnel but failed to produce search warrant. They ransacked all cupboards and all corners of the room. Even the notebooks and papers under his pillow were searched and contents scrutinized. Following this they searched every thing in the house. They got hold a draft of Mr. Dhungana's article in the library and asked several questions to Mr. Dhungana in rather a harsh tone, 'Why he wrote such article?' She replied that the article was already public and duly published in journals and daily papers. After that the security personnel searched neighborhood. 'Compared to rough behavior that could be inferred from loud knocks, voices with slurs', said Mr. Dhungana, 'the army personnel presented themselves in my house in a much civilized manner'.
Earlier, another active democrat since 1950 revolution and ardent human rights activist, Miss Shanta Shrestha, 70 years of age, was searched in the middle of night by the similarly masked army personnel and abducted without any warrants or even explanations. Her whereabouts and condition are not known yet. Army has not made her arrest or abduction public.
There are too many human rights violation from the state side. Even the independent inquiry commission set by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) found the Doramba massacre in Ramechhap was unalled for and murder after the arrest of unarmed Maoists assembled for a meeting during the ceasefire. NHRC document totally refutes the versions of the army and the government broadcasted in TV and radio or printed in media as government statement.
Maoists too are engaged in gross human rights violation with several cases of abductions, torture and brutal killings of unarmed persons.
I hope that the solidarity and organized voice of the civil societies, human rights activists and thinking population over Nepal and the world against such atrocities, uncivilized behaviors and human rights violation will ultimately book these perpetuers against humanities, and force both the state party and the Maoists to shed their barbarism and revive the ceasefire and peace talk again. I also hope that both the government and the Maoists will take the Timetable set in the People's Plan of August 9 during the national conference of NGOs and civil societies on conflict transformation and peace. They have got to come to senses. Let all of continue to voice for human rights and social justice.
I also hope that the political process in Nepal will discard retrogation and restore democracy.
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 13-Sep-03 09:45 PM
Life is all about relativity.
So,
If you were an average Nepali citizen in these difficult times, which is a great evil: to have your house searched by the security forces, or to be shot in your shop by the revolutionary forces? More pointedly, would you care to be Mr. Dhungana t this point or Mr. Thapa and Mr. Shrestha?
Read this story from TKP and compare this with Mr. Dhungana's hardship and suffering.
BY BIKASH SANGRAULA
KATHMANDU, Sept 12 :
Similarly, four unidentified gunmen killed two people in Kathmandu Municipality-3, Basundhara, on Friday morning.
At 6:30 am this morning, four gunmen who arrived separately in groups of two at Basundhara, shot Dipendra Thapa, 28, and Ram Shrestha, 35. The former owned a stationary shop and the latter a cold store.
Thapa was a former central member of the National Democratic Students Organisation, the students wing of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, and was currently a political activist of the party.
"The two had just opened their shops and were having tea when the shootings occurred," Krishna Kumar Shrestha, cousin of the deceased Shrestha, said. Shrestha received three bullet injuries in his head and died on the spot while Thapa received four bullet injuries in his chest and head, and breathed his last while locals rushed him to the Teaching Hospital.
Shrestha has left behind a four-year-old son and his wife who live in Dhapasi-1.
On the other hand, the killing of Dipendra Thapa, an MA first year student at the Tri-Chandra College, has been linked with his affiliation with the RPP.
|
| mickthesick |
Posted
on 14-Sep-03 11:36 AM
F@#$ the army man!
|
| dautari |
Posted
on 14-Sep-03 07:02 PM
did someone in sajha here once remark that "all failed politicians go on to become human right activists"?
As for me, I have never respected human right activists in Nepal and never will. All they do is talk and create problems. And they actually do nothing.
|
| GP |
Posted
on 15-Sep-03 12:25 PM
Its bad that the army only raided the house that dishonest guy's home,
I would have enjoyed very much if Army would have short dead that
idiot cunning man.
Looking at the merciless killing of peoples and sabotage by Maoists,
I will not regret for death any one who has slight link with Maoists.
My suggestion to Army is shoot all bastards that have slight or more
links with Maoists. there will be no solution by talk or negotiation,
the only solution is to kill them as much army can. Last time
Maoists announed ceasefire because they had huge loss and they
will not stop as long as they don't have substantital loss.
F___ them off. Start sorting out supporter/sympathizer of Masoits
and rest. Finish these problem creaters.
GP
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 15-Sep-03 08:03 PM
Regardless of what one thinks of Daman Dhungana, it's just dumb to go through his possesions at his house WITHOUT, at the very least, a search warrant.
[The Army, let's face it, appears to have a bull-in-a-chinashop approach to public relations, and, I fear that in the long run, such an approach is likely to harm the
image of the Army more than assert its power.]
Though the present King-appointed government strongly denies that it's not just another Panchayati government and says that it is actually committed to upholding democratic norms (whatever they continue to mean in this perplexing country of ours!), its actions like the one above hardly inspires confidence and trust about its intentions.
Since the idea of compromise, the idea of finding a middle ground, the idea of giving-some and-taking-some through negotations, and the idea of tradeoff seem completely utterly ALIEN to the psyche of Nepali political netas of all stripes, I am sort of resigned to the fact that there's really not much to do except watch hardliners on the right and the hardliners on the left tearing this otherwise-brimming-with potential country asunder.
Surel, one or the other side will get its victory, but at a huge, huge cost, and our generation -- at least two generations -- will spend our time in Nepal, cleaning up the mess for the rest of our lives, like they are doing in Cambodia and Vietnam.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| bhunte |
Posted
on 15-Sep-03 09:19 PM
Why plain clothed Armed Police forces need to wear a mask to search Daman's house? It is very inappropriate act if it is by govt. It doesnt make any sense for govt to do any kind of 'khan talas' in the negotiator's home. This raises a serious question that who want to be a negotiator in future? Gov has to understand well that a negotiator may be affiliated either with gov or with the other party. Let the govt show its brevity by controlling over the people who r really troubling the people and the country, but not on the 'niriha prani' like Daman....
|
| yOuNgBlOoDz |
Posted
on 15-Sep-03 10:35 PM
i didn't even read the whole article up there.. but i did read what ya'll posted.. some feel its okie to search or possibly kill those who have lil or more link with maoists.. while other think "IS IT PANCHYAT SASAN"..
i believe, wuteva army did was a command that they recieved from those in the higher post. Yes!! it sound absurd that govt. comes to search ur house without any warrants. But looking at the present situation in nepal I think it must be done. I don't wanna speak for every nepalese citizen living in nepal...but i wouldn't mind army coming to my house n search for wuteva they looking for. N if the nepalese people cope with government at the moment of these crisises. i beleive the govt can successfully wipe the maoist frm the face of nepal. n once again nepalese people may go back to their normal life of peace and love.
yb
|
| RBaral |
Posted
on 16-Sep-03 06:28 AM
Why would an army person need a mask to perform a search? This news needs independent verification.
In times of national trouble, it is prudent for accomplished people like Daman Dhungana to let Army men search his house. I would gladly let them do that.
I would prioritize my privacy as secondary compared to national security.
Namaste, Rishi
|
| Chordaku420 |
Posted
on 16-Sep-03 07:06 AM
They Need to raid a house of corroupt leaders like Girije,Chiranjivi, Govinde, Bijaya, Purne not Daman Dhungana's.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 16-Sep-03 07:47 AM
We cannot belittle the long term impact of psychological/emotional violence just because it may not be apparent as immediately as the impact of physical violence.
Searching for weapons and/or suspected murderer-fugitives bhanya bhaye pani ali tolerable hunthyo kya, even though conducting such searches without a warrant sets a very dangerous precedence. Here, they are not even searching for weapons, ammunitions, or Maoists fugitives--they are trying to suppress the intellectual freedom of an individual just because he may be a member of the opposition.
I have also heard of numerous TU students being detained and/or arrested simply because they were found to have been possessing Maoist literature(s) at the time of random searches by the police and the army.
They did that for thirty years during the Panchayat rule. For thirty years, we were suppressed--not only physically, but intellectually, psychologically and emotionally. For thirty years they fed us with propaganda. For thirty years they ruled with absolutism. For thirty years we were denied an opportunity to learn to disagree, debate, and settle disputes non-violently. For thirty years we were told that there was only ONE WAY--either the King's way, or the highway!
And the result?
Here we have several generations of young and old Nepalis who simply do not know anything better than brutal suppression of those who may disagree with them--utterly unable to digest the notion of freedom, bitterly trying to settle disagreements using violence, and not having a single clue about harmonious co-existence of differing ideas. Hence, the Maoist problem.
At a time when the governement should be doing it's utmost to set an example of following the rule of law, they are only confirming many uneducated Nepalis' (of which there are aplenty) deep conviction that force is the only way.
If Narayanhiti's library itself doesn't possess any Maoist literatures yet, they better start subscribing to them soon. Afterall, knowing your enemies is a good start towards defeating them.
Mero syaano khappar ko dui shabda...
|
| eminem8 |
Posted
on 17-Sep-03 08:04 AM
I totally agree with Poonte.
And furthermore, atleast for the majority of us nepalese, have decided that the maoists are the 'bad guys' (ofcourse putting all the other factors aside,factors like the long history of how this problem come about to be this big), and that the army is trying to get rid of them. So, according to this, most of the people consider the army our 'friends', or the 'good guys'. This default vote of support and trust, i might say, would play into the benefit of the army, if they knew how to use it. They are supposed to play by the rules, and be considerate to some degre, we are not asking for the 'guilty until proven innocent', as we well understand that goes out the window in times of this big a crisis, but a little consideration and to show that they are in some way, any way, better than the ones they are fighting. We need something to hold on to, to keep on supporting the army and to keep on believing that they are actually out there to save us. But actions like this is really pulling on that deilcate thread of trust that we hold.
To make matters worse, they didnt find any terrorist harboring in the house so he could and kill someone later that day. And wearing masks dont make things any better, that just proves their own knowledge of immorality of their own actions, as hiding their own faces in disgust. Is the general public supposed to think that, that action was somehow moral, despite the fact that they just proved it to be false themselves?
-Shady
|
| Ruby |
Posted
on 17-Sep-03 01:08 PM
it is absolutely wrong for the army to raid anyone's house without proper warrant! to violate basic human rights like that is a form of terrorism.
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 17-Sep-03 01:44 PM
It is also possible to look at the house search in a different light:
1) Why did they wear masks?
Basically for two reasons:
a. It is now standard practice for elite anti-terrorism units all over the world to wear masks while conducting operations/searches. Because they usually work under cover, exposing themselves would compromise their ability to operate effectively in the future. If everybody knows who you are, how are you going to enter the enemy group? The SAS troops in UK use masks and disguise all the time. It is a professional necessity.
b. It is also a matter of personal security. If the Maoists know who these elite commandos are, they will start assassinating them and their families. It is a good precaution. Soldiers and cops who are identified have been regularly killed when they are off duty.
2. If you have nothing to hide, why object to a search by the security forces? I personally would not mind such searches if that is what it takes to eliminate terrorism and increase public security. In fighting terrorism, the security forces must also learn adopt to the new conditions. Even here in the US, FBI and bunch of other security agencies have conducted thousands of searches of suspected sites with or without warrant. If the FBI gets a tip off that a certain house may reveal important clue about Al Queda around 7 PM when the district judge who can issue warrants has already gone home, should the cops wait till the court opens next day to get the warrant so that they can then go and search that house? Me thinks no!
Because the terrorists do not play by the rules, the security services must also try to beat them at their games. That is why US, the bastion of personal liberty, had to imprision thousands of Muslims suspects since Sept 11, 2001. Many of them have no formal charges or warrants against them.
Similarly, in Guantanamo Bay prison, hundreds of 'enemy combatants' have been kept for over a year now...without any charges or any rights. So this is what it takes to keep the US neighborhoods and cities safe for us, right?
Why raise hue and cry when cops come to search our house, find nothing, and leave? They did not beat, chop, abuse, or abduct Dhungana. Everyone knows Dhungana is not a terrorist, but it could be very well that a group of terrorists had forcefully entered his house against his will and taking shelter there, or making his wife cook for them as they regularly do in rural areas. For all we know the guys might could have been forcing
Dhungana to hide their equipment or documents in his house against his will. The cops get a tip, so they search his house and find nothing, they leave. I know it is a little bit irritating, but there is a war going out there! How else are you going to fight the devil? Not all searches are going to find bombs, terrorists, or clues. But if you keep doing these things properly, you will come to a lead sooner or later. That is what police work is...there is no magical quick solution, it is a long tedious work with few rewards and many disappointments. But somebody got to do it.
For a peaceful, secure Nepal!
SC
|
| whine and chij |
Posted
on 17-Sep-03 01:45 PM
how can they be *plainclothes* army personnel if they were wearing army clothes? the son opened the door after the knocks. that probably implies an invitation to enter, possibly obviating the need for a warrant. if not, there should be a search warrant. did anyone besides the son witness the alleged *forced* entry? this sounds waaaay too fishy on both sides.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 04:20 AM
SC-jyu,
With all due respect...
The issue here is not whether Mr. Dhungana, or any other Nepali for that matter, would have anything to hide or not. The real issue here is whether or not the government should adhere to the rule of law while conducting such searches. The government of Nepal (with the army and the police as it's security tools), as an established institution to represent Nepalis to the international community, is, and should be, held on a higher regard than the "jungalee" Maoists. Or do you really believe that Maoists represent Nepal and Nepalis? Once again, allow me to reiterate what I had asserted above: these are the times when the governement of Nepal should be doing it's utmost to set an example of following the rule of law, thereby differing themselves from, hence setting themselves above, the "terrorist" Maoists. We cannot, and we should not, replace one form of tyranny with another.
Another issue that is raised here is that of the suppression of intellectual freedom. I don't think the army went to Mr. Dhungana's house expecting to find either the weapons destined for Maoist guerillas, or the Maoists fugitives. I believe it was an act of sheer intimidation (by force) of the opposition--confiscation of Maoist literatures, and sometimes even the arrests/detentions of those possessing such materials, is plain wrong! No matter how loathesome some information may be, every citizen of a free country is entitled to the rightful access to that information.
You also seem to imply that acts of tyranny committed by a state in the name of security is justified simply because some countries of the supposedly free world, particularly the UK and the US, does the same. Even though I do agree with you that the US may be a bastion of the most freedom in the world (mind you, most, not all!), I don't think what US has done in some instances in terms of suppression of individual rights and freedom is justified at all. What is happening at Guantanamo Bay is as abominable as what the terrorists sometimes do when they treat hostages with cruelty and deny them their basic rights. One evil does not justify the other evil. Two wrongs do not make a right!
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 04:45 AM
I am quite surprised that DND's human-rights ka friends in Nepal so far have not raised halla over this incident.
If this incident really happened, why on earth would they keep quiet?
And when they keep quiet, what happens when someone else's house gets raided tomorrow?
*************
Though conceptually I am with you on this matter, Poonte, let's also be aware of the fact that countries do NOT behave in ways a course in international relations (which usually has a liberal slant to its contents) would predict or say that they would or they ought to.
Even in the US, conservatives, influenced by the Pragamatists -- William James, Charles Pierce and John Dewey -- are mounting an intellectual case for giving more weight to pragmatic concerns (as they relate to issues of national security and what not) over any perceived loss of civil liberty.
Of course, let me hasten to say this is not to say that the conservatives are right per se, but just to point out that shades of grey exist.
(For more on this, please see Alan Ryan's review of Judge Richard Posner's latest book "Law, Pragmatism and Democracy" in The New York Times, Sep. 14, 2003.)
I would say that people would start protesting against the goverment's actions when costs to them start exceeding the benefits, but we'll have to see how that plays out.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 09:54 AM
Yes, Ashu, I am fully aware of the existence of the conservatives, here in this forum and beyond. While I have utmost respect for them on a human level, despite our differences on an intellectual level, their presence also fuels my burning desire to make the voices on this side heard too.
As for the conservatives calling themselves pragmatists/realists, I would have to say no way! I'd rather call them quasi-pragmatists, for they are practical in short term only. It seems their thinking is limited to short term gains, which sometimes can have damaging effects on the long run. The real pragmatists would think of the long term consequences of actions taken today--about setting bad precedences if wrong actions are taken today, and about the victory in the long run by winning the hearts and minds of supporters of their enemies tomorrow. Upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals can never be detrimental to the interests of any state in the long run.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 05:16 PM
Poonte wrote:
"their presence also fuels my burning desire to make the voices on this side heard too."
Fair enough.
The surest way to show your commitment would be to file charges in a court of Nepal against such a raid, and let the court make decisions and set a precedent and then push the government to respect the law.
Until then, name-calling will go on -- your calling the other side quasi-pragmatists and their calling you something else. Nothing good can come out of that.
>>>>The real pragmatists would think of the long term consequences of actions taken today--about setting bad precedences if wrong actions are taken today, and about the victory in the long run by winning the hearts and minds of supporters of their enemies tomorrow. <<<<<
Well, yes.
But this sounds more like a general "how to be good" lecture. The REALITY is that countries and rulers are NOT necessarily swayed by long-term considerations of what they do.
Once you accept such a reality, then, you -- as a member of civil society -- can be
able to intervene to make the state and the ruler pay attention to long-term considerations. I say this because the era of just mouthing principles from the
sidelines is over.
And this begs the question: Why on earth DND's friends keep quiet in Nepal when the state violated his human rights?
As for the word Pragmatists, that is with a capital P, it refers to uniquely American group of philosophers (based out of Boston in the 19th century). In recent years, Pragamatists have been making a strong intellectual comeback at law schools and political science and philosophy departments. Their approach to goveranance issues is based not on absolute terms (like your "Upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals can never be detrimental") but on a rather eclectic set of principles.
BTW, this is by no means to say that it was OK to have raided DND's house. Thsi is just to point that liberalism, if not tested against the ideas of critics, can become dogmatic,
rigid and hopelessly self-righteous in ways that does not address the issues in the world we live in.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| boke |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 08:08 PM
Excerpt from Suman Pradhan's article in Kantipuronline:
"Look around. Do you feel safe and secure these days? Can you influence government policy by lobbying your MP? Do you have to give less ghus to the official in the government office in your district? Can you travel freely anywhere in this country? Can you make a decent living without paying off the Maobadis or the Khaobadis? The answers should give you the picture of where we have arrived today."
How poignant!
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 09:02 PM
I remember 1970s' Chile when Pinochet had gunned down elected Marxist president Salvador Alende, and started a military regime. The regime was welcomed by a lot of people initially, mostly or only because it had putatively saved Chile from the Marxists.
Then Pinochet's army started rounding up its opponents immediately afterwards. In the name of oppressing the terrorists, it defined 'vague' terms for what makes a person a terrorist (or associate). Making 'vague' law always suits the oppressors, and Pinochet's men had that: they rounded up a lot of people whose only crime was to speak up against the ruler, the junta. Pinochet's rule goes down in the Chilean history as a dark era, despite the seeming stability and economic gain of that era.
The government has right to search Daman Dhungana's house, and that's fine. The objection is of course in the way it didn't even try to justify it: it seems no warrant was produced for that search. Warrant is not only a mere formality, it is a form of authority, without it, entering into someone's house constitute the breach of his fundamental rights to live unhindered in his own house. Warrant is also a way to tell the person that 'look, this is the warrant produced by the authority that you also (implicitly) delegated an authority to give permission to deserving ones seeking to enter your house." That's it. It to some extent respects an individual's liberty and dignity.
By defining its enemies vaguely, the government of Nepal has now started to see almost everybody who disapprove of its actions as its enemies. Indirectly threatening, apprehending, and brutalizing intellectuals and journalists is one of its 'loved' tools to fight with the menace of Maoists. While such actions may give pleasure to those for whom personal liberty is not sacrosanct, and who think acadamic environment can flourish under the evil cuddling of dictatorship, others can only shudder at the implications of such actions for the future of Nepal's slowly increasing and asserting intellectual circle.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 09:29 PM
Yes, Biswo.
I think it's safe to say that most people do know the principles involved.
But the REALITY is: That DND's colleagues in Nepal would raise NOT a single strand
of halla-khalla in Kathmandu about all this would indicate that they have -- perhaps opportunistically -- calculated that costs of speaking out far outweigh the benefits.
In such a disappointing situation, where the members of the civil society themselves keep quiet and close their eyes, isn't lecturing on civil liberty a bit like talking to the malnourished about what wonders proteins can do?
The interesting issue -- to me, anyway -- here is NOT what the State did or what it should not have done.
To me, the interesting issue is: why on earth would these friends of DND choose to keep quiet when they know/knew that such a thing could happen to themselves tomorrow too, further violating basic human rights? Do they not have the courage of their convictions?
If so, then, that I'd think is more worrisome development than anything else.
**************
Again, I would like to re-post what I posted earlier in this thread:
I am sort of resigned to the fact that there's really not much to do except watch hardliners on the right and the hardliners on the left tearing this otherwise-brimming-with potential country asunder. Sure, one or the other side will get its victory[eventually], but at a huge, huge cost, and our generation -- at least two generations -- will spend our time in Nepal, cleaning up the mess for the rest of our lives, like they are doing in Cambodia and Vietnam.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 09:44 PM
Why DND's frens didn't speak for DND? r they bunch of cowards?
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 18-Sep-03 10:15 PM
Ashu,
I am not in a position to know whether the colleagues of Daman Dhungana have spoken up against the rashness of this action. Still, it is reasonable to believe that they have calculated the benefits and losses of doing so in these times of uncertainty, and kept their calculated silence over this issue.
I am however very much hesitant to say anything against Nepal's intellectual class 'rightnow': mainly because I don't like to attack the beleagured group at the time of crisis, and Nepal's intellectuals are the one who are slowly bearing the brunt of speaking out their mind. I can't allow myself to attack journalists for not speaking enough when their comrades are vanishing day by day from the streets of KTM(by army) and in the villages(Maoists).I think if an intellectual waits for the suitable time to speak up his mind while remaining silent at the unpredictable time especially when there is imminent danger to his life, it is ok. In retrospect, I laugh at the fact that Nepal's journalists gloated that 'press freedom' was still allowed in Nepal even after the multiparty democracy was gone due to Oct 4, and at the fact that the intellectuals and journalists alike had time and again pandered to both the leadership of extreme right and left while attacking the ideological kins(pluralists).I mean we all knew it wouldn't pay off: milking snake wouldn't really pay off favourably.[One more tautological info: situation for intellectuals outside Kathmandu is just horrible!]
Yes, sadly, our sons and daughters will also grow up realising that they have to clear up the mess that their parents left. Our generation fought for the democracy and I used to think at least people no longer have to fight for democracy again.Sadly, another generation will also be forced to start from the scratch. They will have to make their own roads, their own curricula, their own bridges, their own parliament, and regret that their progenitors left so many problems to them to solve.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 22-Sep-03 10:09 AM
"I am sort of resigned to the fact that there's really not much to do except watch hardliners on the right and the hardliners on the left tearing this otherwise-brimming-with potential country asunder. Sure, one or the other side will get its victory[eventually], but at a huge, huge cost, and our generation -- at least two generations -- will spend our time in Nepal, cleaning up the mess for the rest of our lives, like they are doing in Cambodia and Vietnam."
Ashu,
There is the Right, and then there is the Left. The struggle between the two on political, social, economical--well, life in general--has always been there, and will always be there till life exists. Somtimes the Left is victorious, other times the Right; and yet some other times they come to a negotiated compromise. This dialectic dynamism of life, both from within ourselves, and in our dealings with others, is not only natural, but very healthy for a progressive society.
Therefore, I don't think we have anything to fear from the struggle itself between the Right and the Left, as long as one disagrees, debates and tries to disqualify the thoughts of the other in a dignifying manner with respect. Now, when violence creeps into the process, then one can begin to paint a bleak picture that you have chosen to present above. However, I see violence as a completely separate component merely attached to the dueling process between the Right and the Left for various reasons. Hence, I think when we are worried about the violent nature of the tug-o-war between the Right and the Left, we would be better of focusing on detaching violence from the process, i.e., bringing an end to violence distinctly, rather than trying to end the process itself.
The "gray area" that you've mentioned, I believe, is a fallacy--one is either Right, or Left, on a particular issue. "Well, I agree with the Left in general on this issue, but you know, being a pragmatist, I would support the Right" kind of attitude is confusing at best, or hypocritical at worst. One can lean to the Left on some issues, and then lean to the Right on other issues (the Centrist, the Centrist-left, or the Centrist-right, depending on how often one leans one way or the other), but one cannot have a "balanced approach" on a particular single issue. It's like filling a glass with a combination of oil and water: they don't mix, but we can still have a co-existence of oil and water in the same glass, either with more or less of either of them. So, I say forget about "gray"--it's either black or white, either together (like the Ying-Yang) or separate.
I also think that pragmatism is introduced into the picture by the right merely to justify their positions. However, like I've already said above, being pragmatic in the long run is more appealing to me than the short-sighted Rightist pragmatism/realism.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 23-Sep-03 07:25 PM
Poonte,
You can have your brand of liberalism.
Fine.
But the FACTS are: DND's house was raided without a search warrant. And, to my knowledge, NOT a single professional human rights activist in Nepal spoke out
against it.
To me, the more intriguing and even disturbing question is: Why, on both counts?
Now, given those facts, how would you reconcile your brand of liberalism (which seems to say how the world SHOULD be run) with what just hapened in DND's case?
My point is that just giving a mini-lecture on the role of the government is NOT going address the issue here. We all know that you don't raid people's houses without a justification.
But you know what, in the real world that we live, such raids do happen. Yes, the fact that such raids happen is NOT a justification for them.
But that fact should lead us to ask a larger question: Why do such things happen in the first place in Nepal where there is a putatively active and vocal human rights community, when the eyes of the media are on the players such as DND, and where the actions of the government are closely examined?
I don't have the answer.
And neither, it seems, do you.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 24-Sep-03 04:16 PM
Regarding concepts of "gray area" and "ambivalence", my views are similar to what Poonte ji have. When it comes to analyzing things, there is no staying at the a lower resolution which shows only gray shade. You've got to go to the maximum resolution possible so that you can see individual white and black cells of that gray area.
Black to black, white to white. Dudh ko dhudh, pani ko pani. That's what's called analysis. That's what called intelligence. That's what called honesty. That's what's called justice. Okay, let's skip justice.
The idea of "gray area" comes at the time when you are making a choice for yourself or, if you are a doing a judge, at the time when you serve the justice. It should not come when you start or are still analyzing things.
But even when you are serving justice, you should keep in mind that there are things, black and white, that do not mix to make a gray shade. They are like, how aptly Poonte ji has said, oil and water. They can be kept in the same container. But they do not mix. Of course, you can shake them and make an emulsion for a short time, and should I add, let your favorables 'fish in the turbid water'. But that's that.
I have used the following illustration before too. If a man has taken seven lives and saved seven other, the man should not be punished according to "gray area" theory. Is that acceptable ?
Not in my book. According to my book, that man will get seven medals for saving seven lives and seven life imprisonment for taking seven lives. The court is adjourned !
Next case. Ashu and some posters have got one more chance to ridicule the Human Rights activists of Kathmandu. I think this is more disturbing than the silence of HR activists in case of the raid of Daman Nath Dhungana's house without search warrant by the security force.
Ashu has remained puzzled by the silence of HR activists for unbearably long time. I will suggest him to look for various explanations instead of just keeping to be dumbfounded or, using my X-ray eyes, trying to suppress his loud laughter.
Let me help him. I have three theories about that silence.
Theory 1 (The theory of "Not Raid, General Inquiry")
It is self-explanatory. If you followed the event, you must have read what Daman Nath Dhungana himself told to the reporters of Nepalnews (or was it KOL ?). He said, "it was a general inquiry, not a raid."
I am not saying it was not a raid. I am saying that DMD said that it was not a raid, but a general inquiry. Of course, DMD lied. But if a victim lies voluntarily to his friends, will not it be a bit difficult for them to fight for him ? Just a theory. That's all.
Theory 2 (The theory of 'Who needs to light the burning candle ?")
The security forces raided the house of DMD, the architect of the constitution, the Speaker of the first parliament, one of the most prominent intellectuals, perhaps one of the rare uncorrupt politicians. The news itself is a burning candle. What's the point of lighting it with matches ? Just a theory. That's all.
Theory 3 (Theory of "Pragmatism")
It is no secret that almost all if not all HR activists are not neutral. Let's use current phrases. There is hardly a single HR activist who is ambivalent, like Ashu, about whoever holds the power in Nepal. Almost all HR activists have no faith in the establishment. Almost all HR activists are pro-change in their deep heart. So much so, Ashu and some right wing sounding posters in this forum on several occasions have accused that HR activists are very harsh to the establishment but not so with the Maoists or other anti-establishment elements. (I will not talk about it here, but these HR activists are a part of what I call the 'Fourth Power' in Nepal. See the thread 'Why Republicanism ?')
Now, back to the theorization. Who knows, these HR activists are now impressed by the right wing 'ambivalence' in Nepal. They have given up their secret desire and dream of change and a real democracy in Nepal. They have given in to the pessimism and become dreamless. There is no way the old power is going to give up. Let's become pragmatist. Let's not protest. Let's become one of them. Who knows ? Just a theory, ni.
Trashing not so neutral HR activists in Nepal is fine. But I ask you, what have you done yourself for human rights ? HR activist bashers, come forward and tell your story. Don't bash HR activists to compensate for your own inadequacies.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 24-Sep-03 07:17 PM
>>>>>Black to black, white to white. Dudh ko dhudh, pani ko pani. That's what's called analysis. That's what called intelligence. That's what called honesty. That's what's called justice. Okay, let's skip justice. <<<<
Wah, wah!!
Hell hath no fury like a Nepali gazal-kar scorned on grounds of ideology.
Nepe's problem with me seems purely ideological.
Because I dared to express ambivalence, because I dared to take into account of the grey areas, and adopted an "I am not convinced, let's wait and see" approach, and because I whole-heartedly did not buy into Nepe's various ideologies, I get this carpet-bombing lecture!!
And this lecture from someone who takes NO risk whatsoever, does NOT put himself in harm's way by conveniently assuming an anonymous avatar on Sajha . . . and from someone who seems to excuse any sort of stupid things committed by his friends
as long as they share his ideology.
But that's OK.
FYI, I believe in and am perfectly comfortable in the world of "gray areas", in the
world of ambivalence, ambiguities and contradictions and even in the world of doubts and uncertainties -- as copiously evidenced by the great works of art, music, literature and movies.
I worry about politicians who seem to have an answer to everything, and who are so certain about their ideology that doubts/disagreements are simply not possible, and who think that what they know is enough and that they do not need to know anything further, and who lable others in colorful terms.
I also believe that people change, ideas change and that nothing is constant and there is NO such thing as purely this and purely that, and disagree with the whole idea that if you are not this, then you MUST be that kind of black-and-white rigidity a la the Maoists.
Nepe says that I ridicule HR activists. The truth is: In these times in Nepal, and as someone heavily influenced by Russian dissidents (Sakharov, Solzennitsyn (sp?) et al),
I expect MORE from full-time Nepali HR activists to stand behind their lofty principles,
take risks and show the rest of us the way -- and NOT be pawns of the state and rise above the their narrow, leftist ideology.
Have I worked with HR activists?
Hell, yes.
Gave altogether three years of my life to work with them before retaining a profound respect for human rights (which, by the way, is full of 'grey areas' and some of the most exciting academic research at various law schools in the US is taking place in this area!) but NOT necessarily profound respect for ALL of these Nepali H-R wallahs.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 24-Sep-03 08:40 PM
Ashu,
"You can have your brand of liberalism.
Fine."
My last post was NOT about MY brand of liberalism; rather, it was about the dialectic dynamism of the process of a progressive society that I believe in. You can call it my (although I do not claim to be the inventor of this theory) version of the theory of how societies exist and move forward, and feel completely free to challenge some or all component(s) of it, but please refrain from labeling it what it is not.
Once again, I think there are only two positions that can be taken on a particular issue--either the Right, or the Left. The ambivalence, or the "realism" (this according to you), or "gray area" cannot be a position in and of itself--it is merely a by-product of a struggle between the Right and the Left. If I must reiterate it again, allow me: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT--WHICH IS NATURAL AND HEALTHY FOR A PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY. WHAT RESULTS FROM THIS CONSTANT STRUGGLE IS WHAT WE HAVE, AND WHAT WE WILL HAVE. THE CLASH OF INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE BIASES IS WHAT CREATES WHAT WE LIVE IN, EITHER BY THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT BEING VICTORIOUS AT DIFFERENT TIMES, OR BY THEM COMING TO A COMPROMISE.
Because of this, I say you should not fear anything from the process of the Left and the Right getting at each other in Nepal, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. When the process turns violent, there are ways to detach and exterminate violent distinctly from the whole process by which the process of dualism itself is unharmed.
"Now, given those facts, how would you reconcile your brand of liberalism (which seems to say how the world SHOULD be run) with what just hapened in DND's case?"
Again, not MY brand of liberalism--excuse me--"...which seems to say how the world SHOULD be run"? Come on, Ashu, don't we all have our own version of how the world should be run? Yes, I do, and I know YOU do too (by the mere virtue of you challenging my version), so does President Bush, and so does that GOTHAALO from Raamechhap! Some lean to the Left, some others lean to the Right, they clash, and they create the world that is, which may be left-leaning or right-leaning at different times, depending on who's won the battle. (The War is never-ending!)
"But that fact should lead us to ask a larger question: Why do such things happen in the first place in Nepal where there is a putatively active and vocal human rights community, when the eyes of the media are on the players such as DND, and where the actions of the government are closely examined?"
First of all, are we talking about the same Nepal ("...where there is a putatively active and vocal human rights community, when the eyes of the media are on the players such as DND, and where the actions of the government are closely examined") here? Hmmmm...
Anyway, what happened in this case of DND, in my opinion, is either it was a genuine mistake on the part of the government (highly unlikely!), or, more likely, the government felt powerful enough, for whatever reasons, to suppress an individual's intellectual freedom and get away with it. In either case, as a liberal, I admit defeat in the hands of the conservative Right in this particular case. However, even though I may have lost a battle over DND, I also know that the war is far from over--that the war is never-ending. For this reason, I will exercise my right to express my opposition to such raids more strongly than ever, so that I may hopefully defeat the Right next time around. It may have happened now, and it may happen again, but I think it is only inappropriate that someone as educated as you should downplay the rights of the opposition to try to prevent it from happening again, or to try to make it happen with less frequency in the future.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 25-Sep-03 05:04 AM
Poonte,
To illustrate my point, here's a real-world, fact-based news item for you.
********
Court ruling favours ban on pillion riding
Supreme Court Wednesday quashed a writ petition demanding dismissal of the government ban on pillion riding on motorcycles and scooters, court officials said.
A single member bench of justice Min Bahadur Rayamajhi quashed the petition, saying it was provisioned for security reasons.
Two lawyers Madhav Basnet and Sudip Poudel filed the petition claiming that the prohibition has violated the fundamental rights of Nepali citizens.
The government ban on pillion riding and the use of facemasks and the visor of helmets will be over on Friday, according to an official announcement. nepalnews.com mr Sept 25
*******
Far away from where you are, this is the REALITY we are surrounded by in Nepal
NOT that I agree with this reality, but this is the reality with which I, as a citizen,
have to come to grips with if I want to live in this country.
It's NOT an ideal state; it's a compromise.
And compromises are what we all make -- to bridge of the gap between our brand of liberalism and the cold, hard and harsh reality that surrounds us.
And so, what good is it to spout off liberal theories ALONE when courts, the interpreters of the law themselves, quite paternalistically, decide for you what those "security reasons" are WITHOUT even defining them?
Hence, Poonte, a need for a middle ground, a half-way point, a gray area -- if only to make sense of that gap between what your or my brand of liberalism says and what really happens in Nepal.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 25-Sep-03 02:59 PM
Ashu,
I appreciate your long contributions to HR activism. It is indeed a matter of pride.
My displeasure was to my own failure to understand why you and a few others have been bashing HR activists in very broad and general terms without actually giving any SPECIFIC suggestions. May be I failed in reading, but the displeasure of you guys is clearly for their left leaning, rather than for their HR acitivities or lack thereof.
Neutrality certainly should be the hallmark of HR activism. However, can not a HR activist also be a person with political views, if he can compartmentalize his HR activism and his politics ? Can we not view him as two persons, let's say a WHITE (HR activist) and a BLACK (a citizen) ? Why he has to be seen a dubious GRAY totality ?
My goodness, look at you guys, GP issues a fatwa to kill Daman Nath Dhungana under Ashu's very nose. And Ashu, not only says nothing, but goes on to ridicule the whole group of HR activists giving GP a solid ideological basis for his fatwa.
No further comments.
On my anonymity, I have admitted whenever I had chance that, yes, it is my cowardice. May be soon I will gather courage to reveal my identity and put myself in harm's way. In any case, I am not sitting here fooling myself that nobody can track me down.
Nepe
Standing by left leaning HR activists of Nepal for their honesty to their conscience.
|
| Bhunte |
Posted
on 25-Sep-03 03:03 PM
Nepe ji,
Congratulation for your article on "Why Rep." that is recently featured in Sajha. Good job and Keep it up.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 26-Sep-03 09:15 AM
Ashu,
In the example that you have illustrated in your last posting...
The position of the Left: The ban on pillion riding must be lifted because it violates fundamental human rights of the citizens.
The position of the Right: The ban must be upheld because it is a necessity for the state's security.
The verdict: The Right won, the Left lost.
I don't see the "gray area" here, Ashu -- there was no compromise, and it's all black -- the Right defeated the Left on this particular issue. However, this should not mean that the Left should now cross it's arms and legs and let the Right prevail over plenty more of other issues. In a battle, one wins and the other loses, but the war is on-going. Just as much as we liberals would like to see ourselves emerge victorious over the Right, we must also be ready and willing to take in few punches here and there, and possibly even defeat over some issues. There will always be other opportunities to win, even on the same issue that we may have just lost, at a different time.
Idealism exists on both sides. What is "cold, hard and harsh" reality for the Left is ideal for the Right, and vice versa.
"And so, what good is it to spout off liberal theories ALONE when courts, the interpreters of the law themselves, quite paternalistically, decide for you what those "security reasons" are WITHOUT even defining them?"
I sense a feeling of resignation steming from a single defeat here -- a feeling of despair and hopelessness. Ashu, especially at times of crisis, and given the political and social culture of Nepal, which I assume is very conservative still, the conservative Right will obviously emerge victorious more often than some of us liberals would have liked. However, this should serve as an incentive to intensify our efforts, with greater aggressiveness, to reverse the course in the future, NOT as a reason for complete resignation from the process.
Yes, one may feel so helpless that one may decide to withdraw from the fight and watch the show from the sidelines, which is perfectly fine too -- vast majority of the people in this world do that. However, this is not taking the middle ground, or being in the "gray area," which cannot be a position in and of itself in the process, but rather it is merely observing the process from the outside, and accepting whatever the outcome may be from the struggle between the Right and the Left.
|
