| ashu |
Posted
on 29-May-01 01:51 PM
Martin Chautari is one of the few institutions in
Kathmandu that is self-confident enough to invite
harsh criticisms about itself.
Basically, what MC is is: a discussion forum where
discussions on a specified topic every Tuesday
evening for about two hours or so.
Though I am NOT professionally associated with MC,
I do have a lot of personal affection/respect
for the place.
The democratic idea that, with reason, you can passionately/strongly disagree with a person WITHOUT badmouthing/speaking ill of that person is something
that's practiced every week at MC, and that makes it
such an electrifyingly exciting place to be.
Still, as MC prepares for its soul-searching
karya-kram next week at Godavari, some of the
questions, I would want to ask are:
1) Why is it that MC, for all its vaunted success,
is so hard to replicate even for a reasonable period of time
elsewhere in Kathmandu, let alone elsewhere in Nepal?
After all, if the MC model cannot be replicated for
the benefit of many other people, is our pride
really justifed?
2) The Kamaiya Movement has taught me that while
grassroots organizations such as, say, Dilli Chaudhary's
BASE and others are good at ground-level activism,
they could use a lot of solid help on matters
of strategy/policy/negotiations/media relations
and documenation.
From this lesson, could, in coming months, MC
look for ways to transform itself into doing
research for many other grassroots activists across
Nepal so that their activism becomes all the more
strong and credible?
3) Should MC just transform itself into a research
center -- doing research on assignment as well as
pursuing fundamental research on the social sciences?
4) Should MC just be a sort of a physical
portal or an infomediary on Nepal-related
social sciences?
Anyway, these questions are here as food for thought.
By typing these up, my own thinking too becomes clearer.
oohi
ashu
|
