Editorial»
Right for good
DEC 27 - In this world there are only two things: right and wrong. There is no such thing as half right and half wrong. One can keep on arguing about the threshold between right and wrong forever. In all societies, there is a constant debate on the righteousness of an action permissible within those societies. The standard for a right action is set by a group of people, which holds highest moral authority, emanating from its unstinted record of serving as pillar of honesty and integrity for the upkeep of those values enshrined in the society. Although religion, primarily owing to the increase in extremism by some fundamentalists hindering smooth progressive advancement of a society, is generally kept at bay in modern times, almost all societies have inherited their values, beliefs, ethical and moral codes from the teachings of their respective religions in their purest forms. No wonder, there is a near similarity and universality of the generally accepted standard norms of good and bad behaviour.
By pooling together the commonly accepted values and norms of individual countries and their societies, the international community has produced several agreements and instruments for strengthening the ‘rights’ and discouraging the ‘wrongs’ globally. Examples are plenty. Consider the case of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the efforts of the international community to support the growth of fair, just and equitable societies within countries and regions. It provides an excellent insight into the standard of right and wrong, as accepted by the global community during 1948. Even after fifty years (now fifty five) from its declaration, the fundamental precepts of human rights, as known today, have not changed, except that a desirable balance has been achieved by incorporating the concept of “Right to Development” as an integral part of human rights.
It is this document ~ ~ and other such agreements that provide the necessary courage and moral authority to every individual to challenge the actions of persons, societies and countries that are contrary to the understanding and agreements reached in these international standards and applicable national document ~ ~ . To redress the grievances of the sufferers there are local and national courts and now the international tribunals. In spite of the clear national and international document ~ ~ along with designated agencies responsible for ensuring justice, there still are violations of human rights, some times gross violations in many parts of the world. It is also seen that the offenders have escaped punishments due to various reasons, the principal among them are supports coming from domestic as well as foreign governments to the offender or a group of offenders.
The foremost task for every individual and the like-minded group in any country, interested to take active part in social equality and equity, could start with careful understanding and analysis of the situation before a judgment is passed against or for an event. Although time is of essence, but making hurried, uninformed and biased remarks on a subject results in more harm than good and defeats the very purpose of such opinions, valued by the society at large. The problem becomes more acute when such utterances come out from the leaders of national stature in any country. However, one has also to acknowledge that in this complex world, the problems are seldom clear-cut and remedies easily accessible or available. Certain amount of value judgment is unavoidable despite the existence of clear and detailed document ~ ~ and supporting literatures on the subject. Thus, it does call for expert’s view or specialist opinion to help others in such value judgments, notwithstanding the fact that there is a highly likely possibility of divergent views on any given subject.
Presently, hardly a day goes by in Nepal without individuals, groups and societies claiming that the government, especially the military, has violated the human rights of Nepali citizens. Not long ago a high-level former government leader seems to have said, “Royal Nepal Army is not an anti-democratic force that undermines the 1990 constitution, but a force, which has blocked the restoration of democracy”. Such remarks coming from political leaders have several implications not only for domestic institutions but also for the international community. Just recently, another writer questioned the action of a foreign sovereign government squarely putting Royal Nepal Army under “armies that flout human rights”. Similar or even worse remarks are being passed everyday, which can only fuel up more confusion and challenge the sanctity of the constitutional organs.
In the meanwhile, several government leaders, including the former President of Finland Ahtisaari, and all knowledgeable UN experts, military as well as civilian, don’t tire of taking the name of Royal Nepal Army for any possible peace keeping operations globally. To remind that, recently, the American envoy requested Nepal’s government to deploy Nepali troops to oversee rebuilding of Iraq. How can a military force that flouts human rights be the one sought after by the international community at every step? It goes against simple reasoning. Royal Nepal Army, by any standard, is a well-trained, highly disciplined and professional military institution. They are second to none, and perhaps more than match the French legionnaires in valour.
Stray events do occur everywhere despite the best efforts employed by the respective institutions. What requires to be done is to correct the wrong act and try to prevent occurrences of such actions in future. Such incidents cannot be the sole measure of an institution. The only alternative, perhaps, would be to go back to living in the “Satya Yug”, the era that represents anything but good.
However, living in the twenty-first century would entail both good and bad things coming out of right and wrong actions. The complexity of present day’s actions usually take us around in a circle, when we try to find for ourselves the right from the wrong and the good from the bad. Today’s majority can easily turn in tomorrow’s minority and vice versa when it comes to supporting a specific action. Each country and its societies are better left with their own definitions and standard of acceptable ethical and moral codes leading to good and bad behaviour. The international community has come up with certain crimes against humanity, which, however, will not be condoned by others regardless of the preferences of any country. Notwithstanding these facts, good outcome is only possible from right actions, and wrong action is bound to produce evil effect. Sometimes it could be a chicken and egg problem: Does wrong action produce bad behaviour or bad behaviour results in wrong action?Posted on: 2003-12-28 05:10
Headlines
Advertisements
