Thursday, 12 March 2015

My view on #IndiasDaughters Documentary and about Crime of Rape

Mending our business

The Lessons that we need to learn

(You can call it very ungrammatical mutterings. I have not been able to edit this. I started to write an article of 800 words and ended up almost writing 2500 words. Please read and do tell me whatever you want to tell.)

The Documentary “India’s Daughters” has been all in news in India in this week except the documentary itself. The British filmmaker Leslee Udwin, who is also the director of 'India's Daughter’, made the documentary on 2012 Delhi Rape for the BBC and it was supposed to run on different countries’ different Channels on March 8. As the news of the proposed telecast hit the stand, the voices for its ban in India were also raised immediately. The Union Government of India lost no time to act “swiftly” by banning its telecast in India. There is an outrage from both sides – from the proponents who think the telecast should have been allowed as it exposes the filthy minds of Indian men and make the society accept and change its dirty behaviour towards women. The opponents are equally vocal and especially outraged by the platform given to the culprits to justify his acts, to depict how he performed the heinous act. One of the rapists, Mr. Mukesh Singh, is not in a mood of any remorse and blames entirely the girl for their crimes. He preaches without any shame how women should wear, walk, and behave. The documentary also throws the light on the thinking of defence counsel who holds no different views from that of the accused.

There are media and social heavy weights behind calling for bans and equally big names who are asking for freedom to telecast it in India. The India’s prominent Channel “Times Now” Editor in Chief led the discussion on its ban calling it a “voyeurism”. On his show, the Chairman of Women Commission of India agreed with his views but other social commentators like Shobhaa De has argued for revoking of ban on its telecast. She even goes on to say that it should be shown in every schools and children in India. That is little pompous of her as she is known in the media circles.
Due to this brouhaha over the documentary and the concerns and interests raised by many, the BBC changed its program schedule and showed the documentary on an earlier date. Thereafter, video sharing sites like and have been inundated with its upload. Though the Indian government has initiated actions to ban it on internet from being accessible in India, it is going to be a herculean task. By the time it secures its ban on internet, millions would have already watched it and formed their opinion.

I, for the record, have not watched it and do not intend to watch any time in the future. I am among those who have been outraged by the platform given to a rapist to justify its acts. If it was the case where the accused expresses his concerns on denial of fair trial, then, the stage given to a rapist would have been justified. However, that is not the case before us. Though I am outraged by the documentary, I will not argue for its ban in toto. Actually, when the government secured the ban on the documentary, no one had chance to see it and decide what the documentary was in its entirety. As I said earlier, the chairman of women commission was herself, in favour of its ban on the ground that it glorifies the despicable deeds of the rapists, there were certainly some strong reasons to take the steps. However, outright ban is not the solution. What I feel in this case the Indian government could have done is to do a pre-screening or compel the producer/director to show it to the select audience. The select audience could be the most intellectual people of India, the social commentators, the media personalities and member from various commissions instituted in the large country. As India has no dearth of commissions like women, child, dalit, minorities etc. and headed by the best of the minds in India, they could be part of that select audience and would have recommended whether the documentary should be banned or has something so compelling in it that it should be shown to nation at large.

Let me take you through this discourse on “one documentary” to the real problem itself – the heinous crime of rape.

The people who are vociferous in telling us that the documentary should not be banned also have some more things to tell us why it should not be banned. The foremost reasoning advanced by them is that it will open the eyes of the society and make the society to understand the real plague of modern India. Really? I have my own doubts.

If menace of rape could be curtailed by a documentary, most probably, someone would have figured it out long ago and would have made it in India. If that was so, Delhi would not have been termed as “rape capital”. If someone argues that a documentary helps to reduce the crime of rape by sensitising or by opening eyes of people, then, we are taking the issue very lightly. Then, our discourse will not help to find the cause of the problem and to employ the means to fix it. By placing too much faith in a documentary to open our eyes and to help our society and men in particular to make a right call to abstain from crime is a kind of hands –off approach and is an indication that things are out of our hands and expectation of some “divine intervention” to curb this menace. By saying this, I am not advocating any pre-censorship nor denying the possible positive impacts it may have been made to the society. But, a documentary will have its own limits. The real problem is to stay on course – in finding out the causes of crime and its fix. Let us not be carried away from our discourse-path because of the amount of cacophony it has been generated. Let us not get distracted by sudden alarm which may give false assuage to us that we have found a solution – a documentary to curb the crime. No, we have not and let me concentrate on the real issue.

In our unequal society, men and women are not equal. They should be but they are not. We live in a patriarchal society where women are for household work and for giving births. Man should be the macho one who goes out, toils hard on sun or in rain and brings the bread and butter to the home. Since men work so hard and women have to rely on him for food and security, it is the men who have the say on how things are to be. He can demand, ask and order a thing and “good woman” should fulfil his desires, wants, needs, wishes. This is not a classic plot of the novel. This is our society even today and only a miniscule of things have changed. This inequality between men-women and supposed superiority of men aggravated by other factors make many men monsters. 
There is another inequality in our society. That is caste hierarchy. The people born in higher Brahmin caste are a superior one due to his good “dharmic” acts of previous life. He enjoys the best of the facilities of the society and earns his “due” respect. He will be governed by Manu’s laws in deciding what to eat and drink where to eat and drink etc. However, he will be completely oblivious of the fact of what Manu has to say in eying woman’s belly and bust. He glances at them at any opportunity he gets. Obviously, the women from a lower caste will be his first victim as she cannot raise her voice against a punditji, and even if she manages to raise her voice, no one will, anyway, believe her. She will become the subject of mockery and stigma if she does not keep quite. It helps to grow bigger monsters in men’s minds and in their underwear.

And the life in these monsters is pumped by our “ghatiya” system. Our corrupt police, administration, judiciary helps, indirectly, to ignite the fire within these “would be criminals”. First of all, there is ample chance that the crime goes unreported to the authorities as the stigma of being raped or sexually violence is too hard to handle for the women. It is not only her but her entire family feels ashamed if it is known that women in that home is violated without her any fault. Especially, imagine the situation, if two “behens” (sisters) need to get married. Who will come with any “rishta” (relation, marriage proposal) in that home if they know the shame she has brought! That is the thinking of our society. And the first step to do is to hush the matter. Most probably, after some thinking, the senior most male member (like father) may discuss this issue with some close confidants who can be rightly said to be “sajjans and Bhaladmis” (good and well educated people of the village) and may propose a honourable pact with the culprit – the marriage of the raped women. And that is how the things are kept amicably and honour are protected for some time until the daughter becomes destitute and returns to her “maitis(father’s home).

There would be some who are courageous to report the crime to the police. Depending on her caste, class, education etc. the First Information Report (“FIR”) may immediately get registered but in case of unfortunate ones, the reporting of crime will be another trauma. The immediate question would be asked: Where did you go? Why did you go? What were you wearing? What were you drinking? Was not it after sunset? Why she looked at the boy and smiled? Etc. etc. If she manages to answer these questions satisfactorily to the male chauvinist and returns from police office without getting sexually assaulted, she can console herself that she has won the half of the battle.  

I feel what happens thereafter is the main reason why we are not able to control the menace of rape. In most of the cases, the insensitive Thanedar (Head of the Police Station) draws a pre-meditated conclusion in his mind that the women invited the trouble and sees no further need to investigate it. For him, the matter is closed. It could also be the case that the culprit is the high and mighty of the society to whom this police is actually providing the security. He feels the need to protect his masters and actually may inform the culprits what kind of insinuating remarks are made by a woman. Now, it is up to the master/culprit to take care of the things. The tools are simple and they are another dose of violence, assault, intimidation on the victim to take the matter back, to withdraw the FIR. In some cases and in likely scenario, the culprits will be minister’s sons, Thanedar’s nephew or District Collector’s son from his paramour. When people and families of such connections are to be questioned, even an honest officer may think twice over it. He wishes that matter be closed expeditiously and it involves extra-judicial means. The Policeman will earn few more bucks by doing a great duty and women languish in a mental trauma.

In some cases, police are compelled to carry out the investigation as there will be huge media interests in the case. The matter gets snowballed and civil activists will have the opportunity to come forward. The pressure and vigilance make the police to act but still not “swiftly”. The culprits get the hourly tips and a suggestion from police where and how to hide. It will take time to investigate and charge sheet to be filed and most probably, media will have another burning issue at hand to concentrate upon.

If police manage to arrest the culprits, still the case does not come to an end. There will be regular hearings, witness examination, cross-examination, and bail hearings etc. in the court which has been plagued by its own problems. With a greater speed, things happen outside the court. The threat and intimidation on the culprits and witnesses continue so that at crucial juncture, the statements are changed or are told to the courts that they have been recorded by police with force. The victim may herself be compelled to state that she registered a false case against the accused. The matter collapses. Many will come out of the court smiling despite being guilty and the victim becomes the object of stigma, mockery, and curse. Hope she does not have to take extreme steps.

Even when the police work diligently, the things move so slowly. Unless there is strong media vigilance on the case, there are no fast track courts in India and Nepal where crimes relating to violence on women are heard on a priority basis. This gives the opportunity to meddle in the trial. It is not uncommon to see defence counsel and prosecutor agreeing in advance when another date will be taken. When the Court rises for its proceedings, one of the counsels asks for the “traikh” (another date of hearing/adjournment for the day). On hearing this the “Nyaayamurtii/Shrimaan”(the Learned Judge) look at the another counsel who meekly nods his head. The Learned judge throws a flash of smile for a second and checks his diary and another date is given. The Learned Judges knows what is going on outside of his court but he is so busy to clear the backlogs on his dusty table covered with files on disputes relating to property, to murder, to rape that he has no time to think why another adjournment be disallowed. In a hot and dark courtroom on those typical days when power does not come for hours, it will not be unkind to say that the learned judge is keener to get out of the courtroom and may actually suggest all the counsels in the matters listed before him to take another “traikh”. Yaha to aisa hi chal raha hai barso se! (This is what is going on for years in our country Nepal and in India which has more or less a similar system.)

Imagine a situation when every crime is investigated thoroughly and swiftly, and when police acts as a custodian of law abiding citizens. Imagine a situation when culprits are arrested and presented in a court in no time. Imagine a situation when courts strictly adhere to the rules relating to adjournments and do not grant it more often than prescribed by a statute book. Imagine a situation where special fast track courts are constituted to hear the crimes relating to violence to women. Imagine if these things actually do happen, will you still think that the monsters inside men will still not be in control? Definitely, it will be in control to a great extent.

So, where is the solution to the problem? First, the problem lies on the rotten system. Our rot in police administration, in legal services, in judiciary is so deep that the cosmetics cannot alter the results that we are seeing. If the culprits are convinced by the “Fly Now, Pay Later” attitude of law enforcing authorities, and of courts, then, they will let their monster to go free more often. Therefore, it is time to end the male patriarchy in our administrations, in our courts. It is time to end caste based discrimination and power structure in every strata of our society. There is a need to involve every race, caste, gender etc. in government services by a means of affirmative action and positive discrimination. Things are lying where they were many years ago and it is not going to change easily. But, let us spend our precious time on the deserving issue. It will be a long fight and each needs to be iconoclast in her own realm.

When the feisty feminists, irrespective of their genders, start coming out to deprecate the “ghatiya” administration, we can see appreciable changes in the society. I conclude saying that a documentary can produce infinitesimal impact on the society. Time is ripe now to work on the real issue by shunning the brouhaha over the documentary.

Sunday, 8 March 2015

एउटा छोटो कबिता - गजल

आज धेरै दिन पछि केहि लेख्न बसेको थिए. यो सानो कबिता वा गजल लेख्ने प्रयास स्वरुप यति लेख्न सके. लेख्ने बानी छुटेछ. धेरै कोशिस गर्दा यति लेख्न सकियो. तपाइँ कबिता भन्नुहोस वा गजल. यो मेरो रचना प्रस्तुत गरेको छु.

म आउदा दिनहरुमा यसलाई निखार्ने कोशिस गर्नेछु. 

समातेर हातहरु नछोडे है मेरी सानी
बेला बेला भुलीदिने यो चै तिम्रो कस्तो बानी /१/

अंगालोमा रमाएर प्रेमका गीत गाउथ्यौ हामी
मनका पिडा भुलाउथे सुन्दै तिमीलाई मेरी "आनी" /२/

एक्लो यो शहरमा खोज्छु तिम्रो साथ् हरपल हरदम
कयौ कोश, कति टाढा कुन गाउमा बस्छौ सानी /३/

आउनेछु तिमीलाई भेट्न सजाएको डोली बोकी
बिन्ती बोलाउन "कबी"लाइ तिम्रो आफ्नो पेवा ठानी /४/

समातेर हातहरु नछोडे है मेरी सानी
भन सानी कहिले आउ तिमीलाई म आफ्नै ठानी /५/

०८ मार्च, २०१५
नया दिल्ली

Thursday, 12 February 2015

कम्युनिस्ट बन्ने की नबन्ने - बाल्यकालको राजनिती

जुगल भुर्तेल सरको एउटा पुरानो ब्लग पढेपछि मनमा केहि लेखु जस्तो लाग्यो. अनि लेख्न सुरु गरे "बाल्यकालको राजनिती". हामीलाई सानामा राजनीति के कस्तो हो भन्ने खास केहि थाहा हुदैन तर चाख बहुत हुन्छ. कम्तिमा मलाइ चाही सानै देखि राजनीतिमा चाख थियो. धेरै राजनीतिक बिचार हरु सुनियो सानामा र एउतै प्रश्न मनमा सधै आइरह्यो, "कसले भनेको चाही सहि हो?"

मैले प्रजातन्त्र, बहुदल जे भन्नुहोस- त्यो जाने सुनेको भनेको २०४६ को जनआन्दोलन पछि मात्रै हो. त्यो आन्दोलनको बारेमा मेरो अनुभब र राजनीतिका अरु कुराको बारेमा केहि पहिलेका दुइटा ब्लगमा कनिकुथी केहि लेखेको छु. हेर्ने भए यहा छ. Part I Part II

त्यो आन्दोलन को सफलता पछि मैले के थाहा पाए भने हाम्रा बाउ त् सार्है क्रान्तिकारी रहेछन. कम्युनिस्ट भएर प्रजातन्त्र ल्याउन सिक्षक को सरकारी जागिर नै छोडेर हिनेका र सानोतिनो नेतानै भएका रहेछन गाउका. अब घरमै नेता भेटे पछी "बाइ डिफल्ट" कम्युनिस्ट भए म. मेरा बाउले राजनिती गरेर जीवनमा के पाए, त्यो उनैलाई थाहा छैन अहिले. अब बुडा भएका बाउलाई यो उमेरमा हिसाब माग्ने कुरो पनि भएन. तर उनको राजनीति को दौडाइले घरमा आय बन्द भयो. परिवार पाल्न हम्मे भयो. हामि पहिले देखिकै गरिब. छोराछोरी पाल्न झनै साह्रो भयो. अनि "गरिबको पार्टि" कम्न्युसिट भन्ने हाम्रैलागी भने जस्तो भो.

हामीलाई "बाइ डिफ़ल्ट" कम्युनिस्ट बन्न घरमै उपलब्ध नेता भन्दा पनि अन्य आफन्त का किस्सा र कहानीले झन् सहयोग गरे. मेरो दाइहरु बाट के सुने मैले भने बुवाका मावलीहरुले त बुवालाई झन् धेरै दुख दिएका रहेछन हाम्रा बाउ कम्न्युसिट भए भनेर. मावली ले नै पुलिसमा खबर गरिदिएर पुलिसले घरमा छापा मार्या थियो रे. सबै "राता गाता भएका किताब" पुलिसले लिएर गएर गाड्यो रे, जलायो रे. ति मावलीहरु प्रजातन्त्र आएपछि खर्लप्पै कांग्रेस भए. अनि हामीमा कम्युनिस्ट हुनुभन्दा अर्को कुनै बिपकल्प नै थिएन. 

अहिले सोच्दा हाम्रा दाजुहरु को कहानी मलाइ अलि हावा लाग्छ. तर ठुलो भएर अलिकति जान्ने सुन्ने भए पछि फेरी हामी दाजुभाइ साथ् बसेर कहिले पनि यो कुरामा छलफल गरेनौ. बेकारको "टाइम खराब" गर्न कसलाई समय छ र! सायद सबैलाई यहि लाग्यो. 

तर उ जमानामा को राम्रो, को नराम्रो भन्ने कुरा एउटा मै भर पर्थ्यो- फलानो कम्युनिस्ट हो कि होइन? धनि जति सबै कांग्रेस अनि खराब, अनि गरिब र सर्बहाराको पार्टी कम्युनिस्ट - असल पार्टी -हाम्रो बुझाइ त्यती थियो. सबै चार खुट्टे असल, सबै दुइ खुट्टे खराब भनेर ओरेल ले भने जस्तो. ठ्याकै त्यस्तै तरिकाले दिमाग मा कम्युनिस्ट को चित्र घुसाइदियेका थिए त्यति बेलाका जान्ने सुन्नेले. 

मेरो बुझाइलाइ अझै मलजल के ले दियो भने मैले मावल गएर बसेर पढ्नुपर्ने भो - घरको गरिबीले गर्दा. तर त्यो मावल मेरो मावल थियो - मेरो आमाको माइती. त्यो मैले माथि भनेको मेरा बाउको मावली चाही मेरा बाउकी आमाको माइती. म मावल आइपुगे चार कक्षा बाट पढाइ सुरुगर्न चन्द्रगढी - ३, झापा.

मेरा मावलीहरु अलिकति धनी थिए. धनी ता के भन्नु - खानको समस्या थिएन, मावली हजुरबुवा जजमानी गरेर कमाउनुहुन्थ्यो, अलिकति जग्गा र घरमा गाइ गोरु. गाउमा त्यति भए पछि जीवन चलिहाल्थ्यो त्यो बेला. छोरीको दुख सम्झेर मलाइ बिए सम्म पढाइदिन्छु भनेर ल्याउनुभो. 

रमाइलो के भैदियो भने कासी गएर पढेर आएका मेरा हजुरबुवा कांग्रेश, बाउको सिको गरेर मामा कांग्रेस अनि बिहे नगरेकी दुइटी छोरी समेत सबै अरु बाकी पाच छोरी र ज्वाइहरु कम्युनिस्ट. बाउआमा कम्युनिस्ट भए पछि हामी नाती नातिना (चल्लाहरु) हरु "उम्रिदैका तिन पात कम्युनिस्ट". हजुरआमा भान्सामै व्यस्त - राजनितीमा काला अक्षर.

पाहुना आएका दिन त्यो घरमा राजनीतिक छलफल गजबका हुन्थे. हुन् ता सबै आ-आफ्नो काममा ब्यस्त भए पनि सबैलाई छ बजे खाना खाए पछि नौ नबजुञ्जेल टुकी को उज्यालो मा आआफ्नो राजनीतिक दर्शन भन्न समय मिल्थ्यो. पहिलो आम निर्बाचनमा कांग्रेसले जितेको थियो, हजुरबुवा दङ्ग. सके सम्म सभ्य शब्द प्रयोग गरेर हजुरबुवा कम्युनिस्टलाई गालि गर्नुहुन्थ्यो. ससुराले जे भने पनि ज्वाईहरु, चुपचाप लागेर सुन्थे मात्रै - बुडा बाउ समानका मान्छे को आदर गर्न होला. तर मलाइ चाही भित्रभित्रै उकुसमुकुस हुन्थ्यो. एकदिन मैले मुख खोल्ने निधो गरे. हजुरबुवा र म छलफल गर्न थालेउ किन हजुरबुवा गलत भनेर. मलाइ थाहा पाए सम्म सबै कुरा भने किन कम्युनिस्ट राम्रा भनेर. जंगिनु भो हजुरबुवा - "तलाई  टाउको काट्ने मान्छे राम्रो लाग्न थाले? आरके (राधाकृष्ण मैनाली) र सीपी (चन्द्रप्रकाश मैनाली)  मिलेर गरिब राजबंशी को टाउको काट्या छन् अनि तिमेरु तेस्तालाई नेता मान्छौ!"

मलाई आरके र सिपीले गरिब राजबंशीको कहा कहिले टाउको काटे थाहा थिएन. अब बुढा मान्छे लाइ के जवाफ दिने? मैले जाने जति दर्शन ता अघि नै भट्याइसके. त्यतिकैमा तल भान्साबाट बोलावाट आयो सानीमा (आन्टी) को. सहि समयमा बचाउ आयो भनेर दङ्ग परेर आए तल. कम्युनिस्ट आण्टीहरु बाट दामी गाली खाइयो: हजुरबा सग आइन्दा राजनीतिक कुरामा बहस नगर्नु. म रनभुल्लमा परे. चुप लागे. तर सोचे के हो यो मैले ता आण्टीहरुकै पार्टीको बचाउ गर्या थिए. उत्तर थिएन उसबेला तर अहिले लाग्छ घरभित्र राजनीतिक गफ हान्नु भनेको चाही "कमन पिपल" का लागी "वेस्ट अफ टाइम" नै हो. त्यो जमानामा सानिमाहरुले पनि त्यहि सोचे. 

त्यो दिनको छलफल त्यति मै सकियो तर मनमा कौतुहल रहिरह्यो. सिपि को बारेमा ता मैले गजब का कहानी मात्रै सुनेको थिए - उनले कसरि जेल मुनि सुरुङ्ग खनाएर भागेका थिए रे. सधै उच्च सब्दमा पन्चहरुलाई चक्मा दिने नेता भनेर सुनेको हो उनको बारेमा. कसैले उनले टाउको पनि काटे भनेर त मलाइ भनेन. जान्न एकदमै मन लाग्यो.

तर घरमा राजनीतिका कुरै नगर्नु भनेर "फतवा" आए पछि मैले त्यहा केहि जान्न पाइएला भनेर आसै नगरे हुन्थ्यो. अनि बाहिरको सहारा लिन थाले. 

मैले भने नि अघि हाम्रो मावली धनी थियो. दुइ दुइ वटा साइकिल थिए घरमा. 

कहिले काही मिलमा गएर चामल र चिउरा कुटाउन सकोस नातीले भनेर साइकिल चलाउने छुट थियो मलाइ. साइकिल लिएर हान्निए. राधाकृष्ण र सीपीको पुरानो घर तिर. त्यो घरमा मेरो साथि (खड्का) हरु बस्थे. पहिले मेरै साथीले भन्यो जे जति उसले जानेको. अनि थाहा पाए दुवागढी/धाइजन/ज्यामिरगढ़ी कतै बस्ने गरिब राजबंशीलाई पुलिसलाई सुचना दिएको भनेर कमरेड हरुले सफाया गरेका रहेछन. मैले ता सुनेको थिए कांग्रेसहरु फटाहा हुन्छन, झुट बोल्छन. नाइँ. हजुरबाले बोलेकै कुरा ठिक रहेछ. अनि म कस्तो कम्युनिस्ट? कम्युनिस्ट भनेर गर्ब गर्न थाल्दा नथाल्दै सोच्नुपर्ने बेला आयो.


हजुरबुवासग बिबाद भएको दिन पश्चात हजुरबुवाको ब्यबहार पनि अलि बदलियो म प्रति. हकार्ने, झपार्ने भन्दा पनि अलि "सिरियस" कुरा पनि म सग "सेयर" गर्नुहुन्थ्यो हजुरबुवा म कच्चा केटाकेटी नै भए पनि. 

एकदिन पारिखेत दुवागढीमा धानबारीमा पानी लगाएर फर्कदै थियौ. हडिया खोला तर्नुपर्ने थियो. अलिमाथी डाडामै थियौ हामी. हजुरबुवाले भन्नुभो पुहातुबारी हाइस्कुल तर्फ देखाउदै, "नानी, त्यो हाइस्कुलको छानो देखिस नी, त्यो हामीले सिल्गुडीबाट लिएर आएका. त्यस्तो खालको बाक्लो सिमेन्टेड छानो यो गाउमै पहिलो चोटी हो". "राधाकृष्ण (मैनाली) हरुको पनि साथ् थियो!" म उहालाई सुनिमात्र रहे. हजुरबा भन्दै जानुभो, "एकदिन हामी सबै मिलेर यो गाउको बिकासको बारेमा कुरा गर्दै थियौ, आरके र सिपी जुरुक्क उठेर जंगिए मसग र भने हो! यहि बिकासको कुरोमा त तपाइँ र हाम्रो नीती मिल्दैन" 

"नानी! मैले बुझिन त्यो दिन उनीहरु किन कड्किए किनकि म ता उनीहरुले जिताएर नै चन्द्रगढ़ी गाबिसको प्रधान्पंच बनेको. अलि दिन पछि राजबंशीलाई मारेछन अनि मैले थाहा पाए उनीहरुको नीती"

हजुरबुवाले त्यति भन्दा हामी खोला तरी सकेर घर छेउको बारीमा आइपुगेका थियौ. साझ परिनै सकेको थियो. घर पस्नु पहिले हजुरबुवाले फेरी भन्नु भो बारीको एक कुना देखाएर, "जब उनीहरुले राजबंसीलाई मारे भन्ने थाहा पाए, उनीहरुद्वारा सम्पादित सबै पत्रिका मैले त्यहा खाल्डो खनेर गाडिदिये"... उहा गाइ दुहुन बाल्टी माग्दै भान्सा भित्र पस्नुभो, म बारीको कुनो हेरिरहे. 

पहिलो चोटि जीवनमा सिरियस भएर सोच्न बाध्य गरायो, "कम्युनिस्ट बन्ने की नबन्ने!".....बाकी अर्को अंकमा.

Sunday, 25 January 2015

सभामुखको निर्णय र लोकतन्त्रको आगामी बाटो - बिशेष सम्पादकीय

सभामुखको निर्णय लोकतन्त्रको आगामी बाटो
बिशेष सम्पादकीय
बिगत चार बर्ष भन्दा पनि बढी समय देखि संबिधान बनाउने नाममा रुमल्लिरहेको संविधानसभाले अब आफुलाई सुम्पेको कामलाई अघि बढाउन गति लिदै गरेको देखिन्छ. हिजोको सभामुख सुवास नेम्वाङ्गको साहसी निर्णयले अब संबिधान बनाउने प्रयास सही दिशा तरफ जाने नै . यसका लागि सुवास नेम्वाङ्ग धन्यबादका पात्र हुन् जसले लोकतान्त्रिक बिधीलाई "कनटीन्युटी" दिने साहस देखाएका छन्.
सुवास नेम्वाङ्गलाइ थाहा नभएको थिएन- उनको यो कदमबाट अजासु पत्रकार आफुलाई स्वतन्त्र भन्न रुचाउने उपग्रहरुलाइ थप मसाला मिल्नेछ - नेम्बाङ्ग लाइ एमालेको कार्यकर्ता बनेको आरोप लाग्नेछ. तर नेम्बांगले आफ्नो व्यक्तिगत फाइदा हुने, आफ्नो "इमेज" लाई उपग्रहहरुको "स्ट्याण्डर्ड" अनुसार "क्लिन" राख्नु भन्दा देश जनताले सुम्पेको ऐतीहासिक अभिभारालाई पुरा गर्ने तर्फ कदम चलेका छन्. यसले जनतामा संबिधान नबन्ने पो हो की भन्ने आसंका का बिचमा संविधान बन्न सभाले बामे सर्न सुरु गरेको आभास दिनेछ.
यो कुरा हामीले बुझ्नु जरुरि की संबिधान बन्ने यो प्रक्रिया सबैभन्दा उत्तम ता होइन, तर बिल्कुलै आवस्यक हो. सबैभन्दा राम्रो गतिलो संबिधान सहमती मै लेखिने हो. तर प्रमुख पार्टिहरु बीच सहमती नहुदा अपनाइनुपर्ने अर्को लोकतान्त्रिक उत्तम बाटो प्रक्रियाद्वारा संबिधान बनाउनु नै हो. सबै पक्षले यो बुझ्नु जरुरी थियो कि २००७ साल बाट नेपाली कांग्रेस पार्टीले उठाएको "संबिधान सभा" मार्फत संबिधान लेख्ने माग र पछि गएर माओबादीद्वारा स्थापित गरेको एजेन्डाका लागि धेरै जनताले आफुलाई समय समय मा आन्दोलन मा उतारेका हुन्. अब पनि संबिधान बन्न नसकेको खण्डमा जनताको लोकतन्त्र प्रतिको बिश्वास नै धमिलो हुने सम्भावना प्रसस्त थियो. यो घडिमा सभामुख नेम्बांगको कदमले लोकतन्त्र नै उत्तम ब्यबस्था लोकतान्त्रिक बिधी बाटै जनताको चाहना बमोजिमको साशन ब्यबस्था स्थापित गराउन सकिन्छ भन्ने संदेश गएको . तसर्थ सभामुखको कदम अहिलेको परस्थितिमाडक्ट्रिन अफ निसेसिटी”बाट अघि बढेको देखिन्छ.
यो पनि स्पस्ट गरिनु जरुरी की सभामुखको कदम एकदमै विषम परिस्थितिमा बिपक्षिहरुको असहयोगको कारणले गर्दा उब्जिएको हो. जनताले बिर्सिएका छैनन् सबै पार्टीहरु संबिधान बनाउन दुइ तिहाइ माग्दै संबिधान सभा - को चुनाब मा होमिएका थिए. उनीहरुको जनतासामू माग प्रस्ट थियो की संबिधान सभा - मा दुइ तिहाइ नहुदा संबिधान बन्न सकेन दुइ तिहाइ पुगेमा बहुमतिय प्रक्रिया का आधारमा संबिधान बनाइनेछ. संबिधान सभा - को चुनाब लगत्तै पार्टीहरु द्वारा जनतासामु गरिएका बाचाहरुमा पनि यो कुरो प्रस्ट थियो की सकेसम्म सहमतीबाटै सहमती असम्भब भएमा प्रक्रियाद्वारा बहुमतीय/दुइ तिहाइ प्रक्रियाबाट समयमा नै संबिधानको निर्माण गरिनेछ. यस्ता बाचाका बाबजुद बिपक्षीहरुद्वारा सदनमा तोडफोड हुनु, सदनलाई चल्न नदिनु, सभासद चिनकाजी श्रेष्ठलाई प्रक्रियामा जाने प्रस्ताब पेश गर्न नदिएकोले नै सभामुखले हिजोको कदम उठाउनुपरेको हो. यसमा यदि कोइ जिम्मेवार छन् भने मुलत बिपक्षी पार्टीहरु नै जिम्मेवार छन् जो जनताको अभिमत (जुनलाई जनादेश या मतादेश जे भने पनि हुन्छ) लाइ चट्टक्कै बिर्सिएर नया सीराबाट आफ्नोमनपसंद” संबिधान लेख्ने मुडमा छन्. लोकतन्त्रमा बाहुबली भएकै आधारमा जनताको जानदेश लत्याउन मिल्दैन भन्ने संदेश माओबादी लगाएतका पार्टीहरुले ढिलो चाडो बुझ्नै पर्दछ
हामीले यो पनि बुझ्नु जरुरी की प्रक्रियामा जाने निर्णयले सहमती बार्ताका ढोकाहरु सदाका लागि बन्द गरिनु हुदैन. संबिधान जस्तो ऐतिहासिक राजनीतिक दस्तावेज - सकेसम्म सहमतीकै आधारमा लेख्नुपर्छ. सकेसम्म सबै बुदा दफामा यो सम्भब नभएमा धेरै भन्दा धेरै दफा बुदा सहमतीकै आधारमा लेख्नु राम्रो हुनेछ. यो कुरा सत्तापक्षले राम्रोसग बुझ्नुपर्छ बार्ता सहमतीको ढोका सदैब खुल्ला हुनुपर्दछ. नेकपा माओबादी अन्य दलहरुले पनि सहमति भै सकेका हुन सक्ने बिसयमा नया बखेडा झिक्नु सही हुनसक्दैन. तसर्थ माओबादी अन्य मोर्चाको बार्ता नै नगर्ने हठले नेपाल नेपाली जनतालाई कनै फाइदा गर्नेछैन. यदी यस प्रकारको असहमती संक्रमणकाल बढ्ने हो भने बिदेशी शक्तीहरुले फेरी खेल्ने मौका पाउनेछन.
अहिलेको समयको माग भनेको देशको राजनीतीबाट आजित भएका जनतालाई सबै वर्ग, क्षेत्र, जात, बर्ण लिङ्गको अधिकार सुनिचित गर्ने राजनीतिक दस्तावेज - संबिधान - समयमा नै निर्माण गर्नु हो. यस दायित्वलाइ प्रजातन्त्र, लोकतन्त्र जनतन्त्र मा बिस्वास गर्ने कुनै पनि पार्टिले पन्छाउन मिल्ने कुरै होइन. जनताले दिएको अभिमतलाई सम्मान गर्दै प्राजातान्त्रिक पद्धतिद्वारा संबिधान निमार्णले नै आजसम्म प्राप्त सबै खाले सफलतालाई सस्थागत गर्न सक्छ. प्रक्रियाबाट बटारिएर जोरी खोज्नेहरुलाई भने अर्को चुनाबमा जनताले हिसाब बुझाउने नै छन्. यस कुराको हेक्का राख्दा नै राम्रो हुनेछ
यो बिशेष सम्पादकीय टुङ्ग्याउनु अघि भन्नैपर्ने अझै दुइटा कुरा के हो भने सामजिक संजालमा जानी नजानी उपग्रहको स्वरुप लिन खोज्नेहरुबाट बारम्बार सोधिने दुइ प्रश्नको उत्तर अविचलित भएर भन्नु जरुरि . पहिलो प्रश्न हुन्छ: के पेलेरै संबिधान बनाउनु ठिक हो की, सहमतीमा बनाउ भन्ने गलत हुन्? फर्स्ट थिङ्ग फर्स्ट: पेलेर संबिधान? असम्भब. बिल्कुल गलत. तर लोकतान्त्रिक प्रक्रिया द्वारा संबिधान बनाउनुलाई पेलेर संबिधान बनाउनु भनेर बुझ्ने राजनीतिक चेत अझै धेरै गलत. अनी सहमतीको नाममा हलो अड्क्यायेर संबिधान सभा लाइ "निकम्माहरुको क्लब" बनाउने प्रयास झन् धेरै गलत. राजनीतिक सचेतता भएकाहरुलाई यो कुरा बुझ्न गाह्रो नहुनु पर्ने हो.

अर्को बारम्बार सोधिने प्रश्न यो हुन्छ: समाबेशी गणतन्त्रात्मक संबिधान चाहिएको की केवल एक थान? अहिलेलाई उनीहरुको उत्तर प्रतिप्रश्नले दिदा नै ठिक होला: केवल एकथान संबिधान चाहिएको हो भने ता २०४७ को छदै थियो नी, हैन र? गिरिजा बाबुको नेतृत्वमा २०६२-६३ मा गरिएको शान्तिपूर्ण आन्दोलन त्यसपछिको मधेश आन्दोलन केवल एकथान संबिधानका लागी मात्रै गरिएको थिएन. यो कुरो अहिलेको संबिधान सभामा प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने पार्टीहरुले बुझेका पक्कै छन. तब  उनीहरु सिए - लाइ असफल हुन् नदिन लोकतान्त्रिक बिधी अपनाउदैछन

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

My review of “Prayogshala” of Sudheer Sharma

My review of “Prayogshala” of Sudheer Sharma

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

The Chief Editor of Kantipur Daily, Mr. Sudheer Sharma has written a book in Nepali called “Prayogshala - Nepali Sankraman ma Dilli, Durbar ra Maobadi” (Laboratory - Delhi, Royal Palace and Maoist during Nepal's transition) herein after referred only as "Prayogshala". It hit market almost one year ago but I got to read it only during holidays of Dashain – Tihar of 2014. The book is about how India experimented (s) different things by using Maoist, King and Political Parties during the period of 2052 BS to 2063 BS and even today. The book was an instant hit and Sharma garnered a lot of praises and citations. His main focus was to analyse India’s intervention in Nepal’s domestic affairs in different phase of #Maoist movements and how #India tried to tilt the movement in its favour. In this process, India’s equations with different power sectors have changed and Sharma has tried hard to link every event with India’s interventions. I will come to this issue little later in my review.


Before I will write more on Prayogshala (Laboratory or House for Experiment), I would like to make a mention of two notable books among others which I read during the vacation. The first one is: Manjushree Thapa’s “Seasons of Flight”. I have stopped reading MST long time ago because of her questionable contributions to literature. I had bought this book long time ago as a mark of respect to Nepalese writers but now, have stopped doing so. The book is just an average novel without anything much to offer to the readers.

Another book that I read is “Open Secret” of KP Dhungana published by FinePrints. The author tries to show that Indian establishment was involved in various crimes in Nepal to eliminate Pakistan encouraged terrorists/criminals. The book also shows that Nepal Police and Government turn a deaf ear to investigate such incidents. To derive this conclusion, author has done a good research but the references are regularly repetitive. In many pages, completely unnecessary, irrelevant, mundane and boring details have been provided making the book an ordinary one. Nothing much one can say about the book.


Coming back to review of Sudheer Sharma’s book Prayogshala, the book was an instant hit. It garnered wide appreciation despite being ordinary chronicles of events. No new fact or new details having any significance have been revealed by the book. The book suffers from the myriad of drawbacks.

It makes continuous attempt to link anything and everything with Indian establishment and Research and Intelligence Wing of India. In the process, it throws some facts based on the interviews given by retired Indian “babus”. The book works hard to give credentials to rhetoric that nothing happens in Nepal without India’s expressed permission. This is a very sincere effort by Sharma to instil inferiority in Nepalese People. As stated by KanakMani Dixit sometime ago (in different context, though), this is another building block of that systematic game plan to show that Nepal is subservient to India.

While writing the book, there is hardly any first person account of the author. As Sharma was not a party to any of the game changing power deals concerning Nepal and India, everything he mentions is based on interviews of retired Indian bureaucrats, various leaders from across the entire spectrum. To make the book little bit interesting, he inserts some juicy stories about the meeting of different parties. However, all these accounts are sourced from different people’s articles, books etc. This makes the book devoid of any new content.

If we have to compare this book with recently written book “Maile Dekheko Darabar (The Palace that I had seen” of Bibek Shah, Bibek’s book clearly stands out in terms of quality of information and in terms of credibility. Bibek was there making his hands dirty and he had certainly much more credible information with him whereas a journalist can only pretend that he too was there. This is where “Prayogshala” stands out lowly. In fact, Sharma has extensively referred work of Bibek to make any points.

Another aspect where “Prayogshala” miserably suffers is compiling information not from so credible sources. In fact, the research Sharma has done is to rely on anything and everything written on Maoists, King, India etc. So, without any distinction, he quite regularly cites Janadesh – Maoist’s mouthpiece to tell his views. There is no filtering of information and hardly any application of sound mind in gathering references. This further deteriorates the quality of writing.

In Sharma’s books, the heroes and villains are pre-meditated. It seems Maoist brought panacea to all ills created by political parties who were struggling to establish multiparty democracy. Hence, the book is well scripted to create stardom of Maoist, and to create larger than life picture of Maoist Leaders. The Author seems to be so much moved by Maoist’s vision that he treats the general peace loving public nothing more than a trash. This can be seen in his derogatory reference to people’s retaliation against continuous Maoist protests in Kathmandu. It seems author was shattered as Moist had to call off all their protests due to unimaginable public outcry in Kathmandu. So, the shattered soul has only the contempt to the people of this republic.

However, at one instance, Sudheer is very honest about himself. He recognises his fallacy of showing soft heart to Maoists and recognises his failure to come to any conclusion despite talking with and reading numerous sources. So, he, howsoever painful it might be to state this disclaimer, accepts his futile attempt at the very beginning that he has nothing to offer in his book. Painfully honest disclosure indeed.

To close the review, I borrow words from Vinod Mehta, a celebrated India journalist, who writes in Lucknow Boy: A Memoir (2010), “For a journalist, credibility is like virginity. You can lose it only once.” Sudheer may be a celebrated among his tiny amateur circles of journalists, many a times, his actions as an editor of Kantipur have come under scanner and this is hardly a first stance of his losing it. The book falls devastatingly short of hype it could luckily, managed to create.