| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 11-Nov-00 12:14 AM
Sparsha wrote:
Well, ashu, I wonder whether what you said is what
you meant. What do you mean by "As a Nepali citizen, I'd rather have some chaos in public than live under so-called Police state." What is SOME chaos?
********
Ashu's response:
Well, to give a minor example, I don't want
IGP Kharel telling me or any other private citizens
how short or long a hair-cut one should have or
how long I can or cannot stay out, and stuff
like that. Individual freedom (within the bounds
of the Constitution) in our democracy is much more
important than what Kharel and others think.
Anything less is "state terrorism", aided and
abetted by the Police.
*************
Sparsha wrote:
You mean Bhirahawa/Butwal and Pokhara were like East Germany when Kharel was there? I don't think so.
*********
Ashu's response:
Fine.
We all desire law and order to prevail in any
part of Nepal. But, I, for one, do NOT desire
it at the cost of basic individual freedom and
liberty, and by giving the police
extra-constitutional (too much) powers.
I am just wary/skeptical about the "saanti and surak.chya" stuff that Nepal's Police force
goes about implementing in various parts of Nepal.
Often, those "saanti and surak.chya" stuff comes
at a huge price to personal liberty and freedom,
and my point is that, all things being equal,
I'd rather tolerate a few goondas here and there
THAN Police ko ARBITRARY and UNCONSTITUTINAL "man-pari", even when that "man-pari" is not
directed at me..
A equivalent to this thinking from the field
of law would be: We would rather let go of convicted
criminals THAN throw even an innocent citizen into
jail.
If you disagree with this, then, let us
agree to disagree.
***********
Sparsha wrote:
You are blaming Kharel for being strict and also
blaming him for being liberal. How do respect norms
of democracy where vast majority has no clue what
that is.
********
Ashu's response
Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never
considered Kharel a liberal or a strict person.
I don't care how he achieved "saanti surakchya"
in Butwal or Pokhara as LONG AS he did not violate
the basic principles of freedom which the Nepali
janata won in 1990.
I wish I could be charitable to Kharel, but
evidence against him when he was a senior
police officer rules out such a charitable
characterization.
Still, if you wish to disagree, fine.
********
Sparsha wrote:
Why do you want to wait for some historians to write about kharel to evaluate him? and what
guarantee is there that the historians will be unbiased?
*********
Ashu's response
What Kharel does in private is his business.
BUT what he, as a public persona in the name of the
public, does is every Nepali's business, whether
s/he is educated or not.
I hope this distinction is clear to you.
Looking at some of Kharel's actions (as listed by
Biswo in another posting) IN THE NAME OF THE
PUBLIC, let's face it, Kharel doesn't inspire confidence or trust or even competence. This
is ONLY my characterization of Kharel, and
who knows, given how Nepali politics operates, I wouldn't be surprised if Kharel is elected as an MP in a few years!!
That said, you are free to insist that Kharel is a decent man anyway, and that's fine.
************
Sparsha wrote:
and why do you want to evaluate a person from his most recent act? what about the other acts that were performed earlier?
*******
Ashu's response
In PUBLIC, as a PUBLIC figure, your last act
determines your next move.
This is the way it always has been. And
things in Nepal are no exceptions.
Take Al Gore, for example: His 8 years in the
House, 8 years in the Senate and 8 years as the VP
mean NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, if he fails to
win the Presidency.
If Gore loses, the world will FOREVER remember
him as someone who lost to G W Bush, and that
will be that.
Now, is that fair to Gore?
No.
(Maybe historians, biased or whatever, will write
about Gore in full detail later; but in the meantime,
if he loses, sadly, his worldwide identity will
be that of a loser.)
like I said earlier, in PUBLIC, ONLY your
last acts count: what went on before do not
count all that much. This is sas, but true.
I see no reason why similar reasoning should
not apply to Kharel too, given that he too is
a PUBLIC figure.
***************
Sparsha wrote:
But I still beleive he is not the only to blame.
What about Home minstry and the minister(s)? where
were they when all these lousy performance were being displayed by kharel? what were they waiting
for? a chance to make him an Ambassador? What about
the entire cabinet or the government? What about the parliament? what about the people going to the
court? He is not alone.
************
Ashu's response:
Your point is well taken.
Because of the nature of Internet discussions, it may well appear that we are all ganging up on Kharel ONLY, while letting others go scot-free.
But, the truth is, Kharel alone is discussed here
ONLY for the purpose of this discussion. This does
not mean we all agree that people around and above him were all ramro.
It's just that we can't run simultaneous discussion threads all the time to discuss about everyone:
hence, the focus alone on Kharel in these discussion threads.
*********************
Sparha wrote:
Ashu, why didn't you write how would you have done better? What would you do if you were an IGP
now.
***************
Ashu's response:
Look, I am simply NOT competent to tell an IGP
in detail how to do his job well.
But as a Nepali citizen, who believes that the
Constitution should be the BASIC framework for
how the Police should work, I can tell Kharel
and all the rest, in strongest possible words,
how NOT to do their job.
Violating people's basic fundamental rights
in the name of some arbitrary "saanti surakchya" is
NOT a way for the Police in our democracy to do
their job -- no matter how chaotic and hopeless
this democracy of ours appears at times.
oohi
ashu
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 12-Nov-00 08:30 PM
Reply to ashu:
>Ashu's response:
>
>Well, to give a minor example, I don't want
>IGP Kharel telling me or any other private
>citizens
>how short or long a hair-cut one should have
>or
>how long I can or cannot stay out, and stuff
>like that. Individual freedom (within the
>bounds
>of the Constitution) in our democracy is
>much more
>important than what Kharel and others think.
>
>Anything less is "state terrorism", aided
>and
>abetted by the Police.
So, your "minor example" of police state is police telling you what to do/not to do. And all others should understand that whatever you do following your conscience is the best way you can behave. Well, I don't know if that's how a soceity should run, respecting everyone's way of thinking (good or bad). Every soceity has rules that are established for the betterment of the members of the soceity and also to maintain or enhance the glory of it(soceity). Even though those rules may not please everyone they prevail. Tell me one country where some sort of established authority that enforces the rules of that establishment does (not) tell what (not) to or do. Any country or just an establishment in that country?
However, I also do not agree that a police force should be dictating about the length of hairs a citizen can maintain.
The constitution also imposes so many restrictions, if you look into it. To enforce constitution is coercing people or not? Who made the constituion in the first place? is it absolute? definately not. We all know it's amendable.
>*************
>
>Ashu's response:
>
>Fine.
>
>We all desire law and order to prevail in
>any
>part of Nepal. But, I, for one, do NOT
>desire
>it at the cost of basic individual freedom
>and
>liberty, and by giving the police
>extra-constitutional (too much) powers.
How do you define or maintain that people will behave the way they should?
>I am just wary/skeptical about the "saanti
>and surak.chya" stuff that Nepal's Police
>force
>goes about implementing in various parts of
>Nepal.
>
>Often, those "saanti and surak.chya" stuff
>comes
>at a huge price to personal liberty and
>freedom,
>and my point is that, all things being equal,
Please explain, your version of santi surksya that also honors all so called "basic rights" in NEPAL in practice not in theory.
>I'd rather tolerate a few goondas here and
>there
THAN Police ko ARBITRARY and UNCONSTITUTINAL
>"man-pari", even when that "man-pari" is not
>
directed at me..
Have you ever felt or handled few goondas here and there? One real goonda is good enough to collapse all basic right of an individual including the right to live his/her own life. I didn't get how can someone talk about few goondas here and there concept so lightly and vaugely.
>
>A equivalent to this thinking from the field
>of law would be: We would rather let go of
>convicted
>criminals THAN throw even an innocent
>citizen into
>jail.
>
>If you disagree with this, then, let us
>agree to disagree.
I do not disagree on everything you say. Also do not agree on your version on everything.
>***********
>
>Ashu's response
>
>Please do not put words in my mouth. I have
>never
>considered Kharel a liberal or a strict
>person.
Didn't you talk about his strictness towards people in the previous response?
>
>Sparsha wrote:
>
>
>Ashu's response
>That said, you are free to insist that
>Kharel is a decent man anyway, and that's
>fine.
Here, you are putting in words in my mouth. Where and when did I say that Kharel is a decent man? All I wanted to know is how do we evaluate people. From one most recent one or by the combination of performed acts.
>Ashu's response:
>
>Your point is well taken.
>
>Because of the nature of Internet
>discussions, it may well appear that we are
>all ganging up on Kharel ONLY, while letting
>others go scot-free.
>
>But, the truth is, Kharel alone is discussed
>here
>ONLY for the purpose of this discussion.
>This does
>not mean we all agree that people around and
>above him were all ramro.
>
>It's just that we can't run simultaneous
>discussion threads all the time to discuss
>about everyone:
>hence, the focus alone on Kharel in these
>discussion threads.
>
>*********************
>Sparha wrote:
>
>Ashu, why didn't you write how would you
>have done better? What would you do if you
>were an IGP
>now.
>
>***************
>
>Ashu's response:
>
>Look, I am simply NOT competent to tell an
>IGP
>in detail how to do his job well.
>
>But as a Nepali citizen, who believes that
>the
>Constitution should be the BASIC framework
>for
>how the Police should work, I can tell
>Kharel
>and all the rest, in strongest possible
>words,
>how NOT to do their job.
I wish it was that simple.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 12-Nov-00 08:40 PM
Reply to ashu:
>Ashu's response:
>
>Well, to give a minor example, I don't want
>IGP Kharel telling me or any other private
>citizens
>how short or long a hair-cut one should have
>or
>how long I can or cannot stay out, and stuff
>like that. Individual freedom (within the
>bounds
>of the Constitution) in our democracy is
>much more
>important than what Kharel and others think.
>
>Anything less is "state terrorism", aided
>and
>abetted by the Police.
So, your "minor example" of police state is police telling you what to do/not to do. And all others should understand that whatever you do following your conscience is the best way you can behave. Well, I don't know if that's how a soceity should run, respecting everyone's way of thinking (good or bad). Every soceity has rules that are established for the betterment of the members of the soceity and also to maintain or enhance the glory of it(soceity). Even though those rules may not please everyone they prevail. Tell me one country where some sort of established authority that enforces the rules of that establishment does (not) tell what (not) to or do. Any country or just an establishment in that country?
However, I also do not agree that a police force should be dictating about the length of hairs a citizen can maintain.
The constitution also imposes so many restrictions, if you look into it. To enforce constitution is coercing people or not? Who made the constituion in the first place? is it absolute? definately not. We all know it's amendable.
>*************
>
>Ashu's response:
>
>Fine.
>
>We all desire law and order to prevail in
>any
>part of Nepal. But, I, for one, do NOT
>desire
>it at the cost of basic individual freedom
>and
>liberty, and by giving the police
>extra-constitutional (too much) powers.
How do you define or maintain that people will behave the way they should?
>I am just wary/skeptical about the "saanti
>and surak.chya" stuff that Nepal's Police
>force
>goes about implementing in various parts of
>Nepal.
>
>Often, those "saanti and surak.chya" stuff
>comes
>at a huge price to personal liberty and
>freedom,
>and my point is that, all things being equal,
Please explain, your version of santi surksya that also honors all so called "basic rights" in NEPAL in practice not in theory.
>I'd rather tolerate a few goondas here and
>there
THAN Police ko ARBITRARY and UNCONSTITUTINAL
>"man-pari", even when that "man-pari" is not
>
directed at me..
Have you ever felt or handled few goondas here and there? One real goonda is good enough to collapse all basic right of an individual including the right to live his/her own life. I didn't get how can someone talk about few goondas here and there concept so lightly and vaugely.
>
>A equivalent to this thinking from the field
>of law would be: We would rather let go of
>convicted
>criminals THAN throw even an innocent
>citizen into
>jail.
>
>If you disagree with this, then, let us
>agree to disagree.
I do not disagree on everything you say. Also do not agree on your version on everything.
>***********
>
>Ashu's response
>
>Please do not put words in my mouth. I have
>never
>considered Kharel a liberal or a strict
>person.
Didn't you talk about his strictness towards people in the previous response?
>Ashu's response
In PUBLIC, as a PUBLIC figure, your last act
determines your next move.
I don't think so. NOT ALWAYS. Your last act does not always determines your next move. MAY BE or MAY BE NOT. It's quite subjective and speculative.
>
>Ashu's response
>That said, you are free to insist that
>Kharel is a decent man anyway, and that's
>fine.
Here, you are putting words my mouth. Where and when did I say that Kharel is a decent man? All I wanted to know is how do we evaluate people. From one most recent one or by the combination of performed acts.
>Ashu's response:
>
>Your point is well taken.
>
>Because of the nature of Internet
>discussions, it may well appear that we are
>all ganging up on Kharel ONLY, while letting
>others go scot-free.
>
>But, the truth is, Kharel alone is discussed
>here
>ONLY for the purpose of this discussion.
>This does
>not mean we all agree that people around and
>above him were all ramro.
>
>It's just that we can't run simultaneous
>discussion threads all the time to discuss
>about everyone:
>hence, the focus alone on Kharel in these
>discussion threads.
>
>*********************
>Sparha wrote:
>
>Ashu, why didn't you write how would you
>have done better? What would you do if you
>were an IGP
>now.
>
>***************
>
>Ashu's response:
>
>Look, I am simply NOT competent to tell an
>IGP
>in detail how to do his job well.
>
>But as a Nepali citizen, who believes that
>the
>Constitution should be the BASIC framework
>for
>how the Police should work, I can tell
>Kharel
>and all the rest, in strongest possible
>words,
>how NOT to do their job.
I wish it was that simple.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 12-Nov-00 10:31 PM
Sparsha wrote:
>The constitution also imposes so many
>restrictions, if you look into it. To
>enforce constitution is coercing people or
>not? Who made the constituion in the first
>place? is it absolute? definately not.
Sure, any Constitution can be amended, PROVIDED
such and such conditions.
This is an obvious truth that we all know
whether we are for/against or not-sure-about
democracy.
You and I are free to question the Constitution
anytime.
But seeing that you have put, as your basic
premise, whether IN A DEMOCRACY "enforc[ing the] Constitution is coercing people . . . in the first place", then, it's obvious that you and I have a radically different view of what living and
working in a democracy means.
As a matter of making arguments, we can have a discussion PROVIDED that we share some basic premises and thought-platforms from which we can develop our thoughts, even if our arguments, with evidence,
lead to totally different conclusions.
Since, based on our postings here, we don't even
seem to share the basic premises, the basic
thought-platforms here, let us simply agree to
disagree and move on.
Thank you for your thoughts.
oohi
ashu
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 13-Nov-00 09:05 AM
Not so fast, ashu. Please Pause before falsely identifying someone. I am not undemocratic as you tried to portray.
You don't know me.
>You and I are free to question the
>Constitution
>anytime.
That's exactly what I wanted to hear from you. Even the constitution (set of guidelines) can be amended to benefit the country and the citizens. We agree here.
>But seeing that you have put, as your basic
>premise, whether IN A DEMOCRACY "enforc[ing
>the] Constitution is coercing people . . .
>in the first place", then, it's obvious that
>you and I have a radically different view of
>what living and
>working in a democracy means.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say enforcing constitution is coercing. I was only looking for your response. In fact, I am a genuine supporter of any constitution that is made for the people and by the people (those people who just do not run lip service or talk big on political agendas/idiologies but who truely feel that they are the actual citizens of that country and have the responsibility to dedicate as much as possible....I remember a Rastriya Geet here- don't know the exact words but says like this.. daura ra suruwal lagaudai ma kohi Nepali hundaina..Nepali huna pabitra mana Nepali chhahinchha).
>As a matter of making arguments, we can have
>a discussion PROVIDED that we share some
>basic premises and thought-platforms from
>which we can develop our thoughts, even if
>our arguments, with evidence,
>lead to totally different conclusions.
You know about yourself, but I am a democracy supporter. What basic commonness are you looking for, I am not clear. However, I may not be your "type" of democratic citizen. So, I couldn't let you go calling me an undemocratic person (just because I don't like red, red is not a bad thing, ashu.) who even says enforcing constitution is coercing, so is a supporter of a totalatirian establishment. WELL, NO.
>Since, based on our postings here, we don't
>even
>seem to share the basic premises, the basic
>thought-platforms here, let us simply agree
>to
>disagree and move on.
Very well, let's agree to disagree, but let's NOT draw a false conclusion about other people too. Let's agree on that as well.
>Thank you for your thoughts.
Thank you.
>oohi
>ashu
sparsha
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 13-Nov-00 02:15 PM
Sparsha wrote:
>Not so fast, ashu. Please Pause before
>falsely identifying someone. I am not
>undemocratic as you tried to portray.
>You don't know me.
I am sorry if you thought that I
identified you as "undemocratic".
I didn't.
All I said was: Since "you and I [seem to]
have a radically different view of what living
working in a democracy means" let us agree to
disagree.
Saying that does not make me any more democratic
than you.
oohi
ashu
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 13-Nov-00 05:05 PM
Lastly, ashu..
>All I said was: Since "you and I [seem to]
>have a radically different view of what
>living
>working in a democracy means" let us agree
>to
>disagree.
>
>Saying that does not make me any more
>democratic
>than you.
>
>oohi
>ashu
>"But seeing that you have put, as your basic
>premise, whether IN A DEMOCRACY "enforc[ing
>the] Constitution is coercing people . . .
>in the first place", then, it's obvious that
>you and I have a radically different view of
>what living and
>working in a democracy means.."
The above words in quotation marks are your words. I was refering to those quoted words when I felt that you are trying to portray me as someone who I am not.
Anyway, What I also understand is I don't need anyone's certification-as democratic or otherwise. My "aapatti" was on the "would be" false label. I don't like to be called an Indian Eventhough just because someone calls me Indian I do not become so. However, we can agree to disagree (your words).
We agree On one concept, I beleive. And that is we both want our Nepal to be a developed nation with peace. AND we want decent people represent us outside.
sparsha
sparsha
|
