On Jan. 2, 2010, I participated in a tyre-rolling rally organized by the Nationwide Youth Pressure Campaign for Constitution Making. For the past seven months, young people from various walks of life have been coming together to pressurize the stakeholders to complete the constitution on time and conclude the peace process within the larger national framework of the “peace agreement” and “federal democratic republic”. As compared to many other past programmes, the tyre-rolling rally was distinct in many ways. First, it was innovative. Second, it carried a deeper meaning for the larger socio-political context.

The nature of mass protests has been largely destructive in Nepal. It connotes burning tyres, vandalizing public and private transportation, creating terror, harassing passers-by and compelling people to participate in the demo without allowing them to exercise their free will. Many offices have been vandalized by protesters on a number of occasions because their staff refused to cooperate. Yet these protests are claimed to be peaceful! What an age of terror, anarchy and mob rule we are living in. The tyre-rolling rally, however, neither burnt tyres, vandalized vehicles nor coerced passers-by. Instead, it challenged all those protests that burn tyres.

Second, rolling tyres represented movement of the socio-political process towards the right direction. Process always moves, as nothing is stagnant. However, an important question remains: Is Nepal’s process moving in the right direction? At the same time, society has become restless and is desperate to find a solution to the present deadlock. In spite of such willingness, confusion prevails at all levels and sectors: Align with what? As the social and political actors and stakeholders have created their own camps, the general public is finding it difficult to decide which camp is worthwhile. Is it the Maoists or the coalition of varied parties? Is it the camp that violated the Interim Constitution by unilaterally deciding the fate of the then chief of army staff Rookmangud Katawal, or the one that overturned the decision?

As the two camps squeeze us tighter, an important feature of Nepali society has been completely ignored. It has been forgotten that there is a larger Nepali society which is not Maoist but still progressive. A society that does not believe in violence, but is keen on transformation through major structural changes. A society which does not believe in Prachanda’s definition of nationalism, but argues that one-sided international domination is unacceptable. A society which believes that the Maoists were as wrong as the president in the case of Katawal. A society which argues that both the Maoists and the government have openly violated the comprehensive peace agreement many times. A society which is unflinchingly committed to the larger national framework of federal democratic republic that is the culmination of the 1990 Movement, People’s War, April revolution, Madhes movement and many indigenous, political and social movements that have happened in our history.

If we want supremacy of the common man, it is pertinent that we expand the base of a balanced society through open discussion and dialogue. If the political movements that occurred at different times in our history have ensured our civil and political rights, our leaders have limited the same scope to a change in the political system only. If our social and indigenous movements have helped to attain rights for the suppressed, it has also created a wall of mistrust and division. Though the Maoists claim to desire lasting peace, they have institutionalized violence which is the greatest obstacle to peace. And though the democrats claim to have fought for democracy, they are undoubtedly responsible for limiting the scope and size of democratic values and culture. Though the identity-based movements claim to have fought for the larger identity of their communities, they have limited their communities to a rigid sense of identity. If we look closely, we see elements of partial truth in all their claims. What is wrong in accepting that most of us are partially true and partially wrong? Such acceptance can ensure a larger basis for a much needed national consensus.

More importantly, we should begin breaking our clientele relations and dogmatic indoctrination entrenched within us. This does not mean that one should be devoid of the right to political participation or to pursue a career in politics. However; politics of dogmatic indoctrination and coercion turns people into fanatics. And fanaticism is the antithesis of democracy and freedom. A majority of us are fanatics. Our national and international friends claiming to be working for “development” and “diplomacy” have become fanatics for failing to break free from the dogmas of their perceived ideas and understandings.

Therefore, we impose our ideas as the only means of salvation failing to understand that there has never been one single idea that has saved humanity. We even go to the extent of legitimizing murder as a means of freedom. Through such legitimization, humanity has experienced many eras that were bathed in blood. Napoleon, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler are examples of those who rose to prominence through revolutions guaranteeing freedom to their people. They wanted to change the course of history through their ideologies and doctrines. And the reality is that whatever partial truth remained in Marx’s communism died at the hands of Stalin. Do Marxists have the guts to deny it?

Whether it is the invention of weapons, the divine dream of Marxism or the futuristic predictions of Hegel and Nietzsche, all have met the same fate. Through our self-glorified vision and ideas, we have made ourselves suffer. We need to break free from our suffering. And for that we have to revolt with our own “self”. Let us not completely believe in one-sided theories. Let us question all those social, political, economic and cultural doctrines, ideologies and claims that boast to be the ultimate truth and emancipator. Let us not completely believe advocates, campaigners and writers.

There is a seed of partial truth among all of us. And there is a larger truth beyond our claims and understandings. And the need is to bring those partialities together so that they could take a full shape. And only through such collective contributions can we grow as individuals, communities, societies and nations. No system, theory or ideology alone has been successful in alleviating the suffering of the masses. Questioning our false ideologies and understandings is a campaign that can only make us humane. Shall we begin a national campaign that can add a milestone to the entire humanity? Such a claim can easily be rejected as wishful thinking; but isn’t it that “new inventions” have materialized in the histories of nations at a time of the greatest despair? Are we willing to take such an initiative at this time of our despair?

(Sameer is the author of Unfinished Journey: Story of a Nation)

sharmasumit77@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.