| ashu |
Posted
on 03-Feb-01 11:57 AM
Though I do not agree with Chintan's political beliefs,
I support his right to express them. It's unfortunate
that mavericks like Chintan -- so essential to add
vigor to Nepali democracy -- get beaten up.
What follows is from The Kathmandu Post of about a week
ago. A really thought-provoking article.
oohi
ashu
******************
‘Chintan’, IT and growing intolerance
By Pratyoush Onta
It is the month of Magh now. It means that the marriage season is going full swing. One mahamela, of
the Nepali Congress, is over but another one - on information technology - has just begun. Between
expensive marriage parties in Kathmandu, the NC meet in Pokhara and the IT tamasha, there is no
dearth of analyses regarding what is ailing our country and what the medications are to make ourselves
rich and ‘developed."
It happens to me every marriage season. Relatives and friends who I do not get to meet that often but
who know that I live a life dedicated to the mind take pleasure in lecturing me about how "talking and
writing will not take us anywhere!" Last Saturday, for instance, when 20 fellow graduates met in
Kathmandu to celebrate the marriage of one member of the St. Xavier’s class of 1981, two of my school
friends told me point blank that generating conditions that would enable us to do better analyses of our
present situation - my long-standing project in life - is futile. "What we need," they continued, "is a
benevolent dictator". I have heard this before. However I continue to be amazed by the consensus on
this subject between Panchayati ideologues such as Dirgha Raj Prasai, supposedly liberal Green Party
member Maitalal Gurung (who emphasized this point in a radio interview with me in 1999) and my car
equipped friends who live comfortable middle-class lives!
The desire to grow under the benevolence of a dictator is an indicator of the authoritarian streak that is
pervasive amidst members of the comfortable classes in Nepal. Hence it is no surprise that there is so
much impatience with reasoned talk, informed arguments and the need to build intermediary networks
and institutions that would actually democratize our society. This is precisely why my relatives and
friends provide me unsolicited advice on how a life dedicated to the mind is not very useful. It is also the
reason why the likes of lawyer-activist Gopal Sivakoti ‘Chintan’ get beaten up.
Whatever might be his faults, personal and professional, Chintan has done a lot to raise issues
regarding the right of all Nepalis to live with dignity. He has been a pioneer in the right to information
movement. He has forced various big players - our governments, our corporate bosses, our donor maliks
including the World Bank - to seriously consider issues related to distributive justice regarding the
benefits of development projects. He has helped to form networks of numerous activists who want their
voices to be counted in the national and international arenas where decisions affecting them are
routinely made. As a teacher of law and legal practitioner, he has contributed significantly to the
movement of public interest litigation in Nepal. Through all of his activities, he has tried to give the
culture of open and reasoned discussions a firm foundation in our otherwise closed society. Of late, he
has forced the debate that it is not the job of NGOs to deliver bikas. A one-time left-party worker
himself, he has openly criticized the Maoists for their murderous ways.
Perhaps more than anybody else I know, Gopal Sivakoti ‘Chintan’ has continuously shown a mirror to
those who have claimed to lead Nepali society and forced them to see their ugly selves in it. That is
precisely why he has earned the wrath of so many people in our country. For years, members of the
media have routinely published unsubstantiated charges against him. The Police once fabricated a false
case against him and locked him up for a few days. And just some days ago, unknown assailants
attacked him, causing severe bodily harm. Had it not been for the timely intervention of passer-bys,
Chintan would have perhaps been killed.
The attack on the likes of Chintan is unfortunate and it must be condemned in the strongest terms
possible. However the incident also shows that precise analyses and network building - hallmark of
Chintan’s portfolio of activities - done to provide a life of human dignity to all Nepalis do matter. It
matters at a time when tolerance toward dissenting views is increasingly being dealt with in the safaaya
model by the Maoists, violence against Nepali Madhesis is being justified in terms of vacuous
nationalism of Panchayati vintage, and individual greed has overtaken the majority of the comfortable
classes of Nepal. And this brings me to the last argument of this essay.
In all the hype about the CAN Info jatra, I am yet to hear one well-argued case about the links between
information technology and the institutionalization of democracy in Nepal. IT-enabled services,
e-commerce, exporting software worth so many billion rupees a year - we have heard these mantras for
some time now. We have even been told about e-governance! But where is the IT-talk that would
increase the diversity (in class, ethnicity, and gender terms) of those who have access to instruments of
information technology in Nepal? Through the work of cyberactivists elsewhere in South Asia, it is now
clear that the one-machine, one-account, one-user model (the dominant model in the US) cannot work
in our part of the world. Low infrastructure density, relatively very high hardware expenses, and
expensive connectivity suggest that IT discussion in our country must be geared toward promoting
one-machine, one-account but many users type of models. This requires the innovation of courageous
individuals and intermediary institutions.
Is there a single Gopal Sivakoti Chintan amongst Nepali IT activists? If so let us hear from him or her
regarding how IT can be used to increase justice and human dignity in Nepal. And please do not give us
e-cliches!
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 03-Feb-01 08:00 PM
I liked Onta's message regarding the weird desire of comfortable
middle class to grow up in autocratic society, and their
dream of benign autocracy(modelled after Singaporean Lee Kuan Yew's
statecraft).It is inconceivable how people can act as if they are fed
up with the democracy,and are in want of some dictator.
Dictatorship is retrogression, and our society cannot afford any other
retrogression. The cure lies in the current system,and that we need
to look for that.
However,I don't understand how the writer himself came up with
strange notion regarding hitech world/people.It is intriguing to
read the following sentence:
>>
Low infrastructure density, relatively very high hardware
expenses, and expensive connectivity suggest that IT discussion in
our country must be geared toward promoting one-machine
one-account but many users type of models. This requires the
innovation of courageous individuals and intermediary
institutions.
There is no doubt IT promotes democratic institution, gives all
the impuissants a medium to spread their voice. It is also true
that Computer hardware prices are coming down,and every country
in the world has seen the computer use rate going high in very
short time,making its growth in itself an unique phenomenon.
Computer is powerful enough to have one-machine,one-account,many
users type(though I'm unclear about what he wants to say by using
this novel and unconventional techie word), cybercafe and library
computers are the example of that type.However, to personalize
use of IT,one need to have one account,one user system in many
cases.What is the use of keeping your files in public directory
,anyway?To me, It is somewhat obvious that Ontaji concluded his
really good article somewhat hastily.
|
