When Facebook doesn't suffice!
Whether any body has noticed or not, but there's an interesting give and take going on for about a few weeks in The Kathmandu Post.
First there was the op-ed by Shradha Ghale "Whose Discourse?" - based primarily on academic work by Simon Robins - which put forth the view that fundamentally the truth and reconciliation discourse going on at that time in Nepal should be for/of the victims - from who the issue has been largely hijacked owing to, among other things, their socio-economic marginalization.
Then came this piece "Whose Reconciliation"? by two writers who were hell bent on disproving/disagreeing everything the earlier op-ed stated/implied/suggested. It went a notch further than that and established the writer duos' own agendas too, in the name of highlighting the flaws within Ghale's piece. I might have my biases here about not particularly liking this piece, as the writers' too see to have against Ghale's arguments. Somethings you don't like, and you do not like them at all.
About 1.5-2 weeks after, today (May 13, 2014) comes another piece, which is a response to the second article .The need to elongate this chain of back and forth was because according to the writers' own words "Conflict victims ... were shocked to see how they were characterised ( in the second article)".
For one thing, I was also very shocked to see the amount of ill logic that the second article had, all the while screaming that theirs was the one that was the most well argued and well put. Well put, yes. But well argued, no way. The most objectionable of the whole piece, it says it voices the voice of victims. As far as it has been known-neither of them are victims. Neither is it too good to make so many suggestions based upon fallacies. Advocating for some one you think are voiceless might be good-but rather than that-it would be better if you supported them in finding their voices and not be the voice itself. This, of course, is more a global problem than just a national or a small time newspaper article issue. There's so much money to teach people to voice other people's concern-while simply it would be immensely helpful if we paused our frenzied "development", and paused to listen to the concerns-it might be surprisingly helpful and much more effective to know that most people can articulate their concerns just as well. We just have to be able to listen. The writers of the second piece seem very earnest in spreading the goodwill of their intent-in asking for justice and prosecution-which must have prevented them from listening.
Ghale wrote on an academic basis, while the writer duos of the second article took a more old school approach about critiquing her writing. Things could have ended there, and it would have seemed to us-the general public-that the duos were probably right. This monopoly of opinions, this conditioning of our thinking. It has been going on for as long as we have enjoyed the blessings of "free, independent media". Results in that we rarely try to get out of our comfort zone and question what discomforts us.
Chaudhary and Bhandari, writers of the last piece, have jolted us-or at least me. Their article-and all these three articles-regardless of whoever is right or not, shows us that we have been slowly pushing that diameter outwards. I hate to borrow CK Lal's terms so much, but in lack of my own proper vocabulary, his is the closest I can find that resonates my sentiment.
This goes to convince me that CK Lal, one of the few Nepali writers I respect, was correct when he observed that it may seem like we are going in circles but progress is made when the circumference gets enlarged. And so, slowly but surely-times are changing as "New Nepal" ushers itself quietly, but sure-footedly. Monopoly in idea and opinion are no longer the norm.
Pundits are no longer the sole authorities about issues-who earlier would dictate opinion of the entire nation-because they had the hegemony to make their opinions translate into everyday state mechanisms. Now, they are being challenged, and made to clarify their stances. No longer can one get away with making illogical arguments-in the name of speaking for the general mass. Because, behold-the general mass can also now speak for themselves.
Little Note: this is a short-lived jubilation for me, which spilled over from the 140 limitations of twitter, and from my consideration of facebook friends who would surely close their account if they saw such a long status update. As I write this, there has been news of arrest of a certain conflict-era "convict". Despite whatever, the two poles on TRC continue to grow farther and farther apart. One pole's tactical loss is another pole's rejoicing. The rejoicing adds to the already bitter disagreement that these parties have. All of it wouldn't have mattered really, if "reconciliation" did not matter. For unless and until, these poles at least share some mutual ground of agreement, it is really hard to move on from the "conflict" era. "Feri tyo din kahile naaos" people who repeat this as mantra, wants the country in a limbo forever so that they can sell this mantra over and over and over and retain their hegemony. This circle cannot expand soon enough for me.
First there was the op-ed by Shradha Ghale "Whose Discourse?" - based primarily on academic work by Simon Robins - which put forth the view that fundamentally the truth and reconciliation discourse going on at that time in Nepal should be for/of the victims - from who the issue has been largely hijacked owing to, among other things, their socio-economic marginalization.
Then came this piece "Whose Reconciliation"? by two writers who were hell bent on disproving/disagreeing everything the earlier op-ed stated/implied/suggested. It went a notch further than that and established the writer duos' own agendas too, in the name of highlighting the flaws within Ghale's piece. I might have my biases here about not particularly liking this piece, as the writers' too see to have against Ghale's arguments. Somethings you don't like, and you do not like them at all.
About 1.5-2 weeks after, today (May 13, 2014) comes another piece, which is a response to the second article .The need to elongate this chain of back and forth was because according to the writers' own words "Conflict victims ... were shocked to see how they were characterised ( in the second article)".
For one thing, I was also very shocked to see the amount of ill logic that the second article had, all the while screaming that theirs was the one that was the most well argued and well put. Well put, yes. But well argued, no way. The most objectionable of the whole piece, it says it voices the voice of victims. As far as it has been known-neither of them are victims. Neither is it too good to make so many suggestions based upon fallacies. Advocating for some one you think are voiceless might be good-but rather than that-it would be better if you supported them in finding their voices and not be the voice itself. This, of course, is more a global problem than just a national or a small time newspaper article issue. There's so much money to teach people to voice other people's concern-while simply it would be immensely helpful if we paused our frenzied "development", and paused to listen to the concerns-it might be surprisingly helpful and much more effective to know that most people can articulate their concerns just as well. We just have to be able to listen. The writers of the second piece seem very earnest in spreading the goodwill of their intent-in asking for justice and prosecution-which must have prevented them from listening.
Ghale wrote on an academic basis, while the writer duos of the second article took a more old school approach about critiquing her writing. Things could have ended there, and it would have seemed to us-the general public-that the duos were probably right. This monopoly of opinions, this conditioning of our thinking. It has been going on for as long as we have enjoyed the blessings of "free, independent media". Results in that we rarely try to get out of our comfort zone and question what discomforts us.
Chaudhary and Bhandari, writers of the last piece, have jolted us-or at least me. Their article-and all these three articles-regardless of whoever is right or not, shows us that we have been slowly pushing that diameter outwards. I hate to borrow CK Lal's terms so much, but in lack of my own proper vocabulary, his is the closest I can find that resonates my sentiment.
This goes to convince me that CK Lal, one of the few Nepali writers I respect, was correct when he observed that it may seem like we are going in circles but progress is made when the circumference gets enlarged. And so, slowly but surely-times are changing as "New Nepal" ushers itself quietly, but sure-footedly. Monopoly in idea and opinion are no longer the norm.
Pundits are no longer the sole authorities about issues-who earlier would dictate opinion of the entire nation-because they had the hegemony to make their opinions translate into everyday state mechanisms. Now, they are being challenged, and made to clarify their stances. No longer can one get away with making illogical arguments-in the name of speaking for the general mass. Because, behold-the general mass can also now speak for themselves.
Little Note: this is a short-lived jubilation for me, which spilled over from the 140 limitations of twitter, and from my consideration of facebook friends who would surely close their account if they saw such a long status update. As I write this, there has been news of arrest of a certain conflict-era "convict". Despite whatever, the two poles on TRC continue to grow farther and farther apart. One pole's tactical loss is another pole's rejoicing. The rejoicing adds to the already bitter disagreement that these parties have. All of it wouldn't have mattered really, if "reconciliation" did not matter. For unless and until, these poles at least share some mutual ground of agreement, it is really hard to move on from the "conflict" era. "Feri tyo din kahile naaos" people who repeat this as mantra, wants the country in a limbo forever so that they can sell this mantra over and over and over and retain their hegemony. This circle cannot expand soon enough for me.
Comments
Post a Comment