More often than not, in our pursuit to appear unbiased and balanced, we end up internalizing self-censorship and come up with articles that say absolutely nothing at all. For some of us, it is the fear that differing views won't be accepted for publication, but for the majority, going with the flow is the way to gain acceptance by appearing liberal. As such, we have become too formulaic, and very good at saying nothing new.
We don't want to ruffle feathers for the fear of being labeled rightist and as a result critical examination/analysis is almost missing in the opinion pieces published especially in our English-language broadsheets. It is safe to say that in our quest to make everyone happy (and use the media as a way to pursue our own political and personal interests) we are doing great injustice to those who buy and read newspapers every day and to those who will be researching Nepal's intellectual history in the future. It seems that only those with a leftist-tilt and self-declared progressives have the right to be critical and unbalanced, and everybody else needs to confirm to whatever they say and write. The word "balance" seems to apply to everybody else, minus the firebrand leftists and progressives.
How to praise your child?
Here are some examples of how we tend to go with the flow, rather than challenge and be critical of it. We have read a lot about why federalism is necessary but we have read very less on why federalism does not work in our context. In the same vein, we have read a lot on why we need a secular state, however, we have read little on the demerits of secularism in a Hindu-majority country. Interestingly, the majority has suggested doing away with secularism and federalism in the new constitution. Out of more than 3,000 suggestions received on the draft constitution as of last Thursday, the majority is for Hindu state and against federalism.
Just because some leaders want secularism and federalism for the reasons only known to them, we are afraid to remind them that they have no right to impose their ideas on us. Even when it is outright disrespectful to the people, as when Dr Baburam Bhattarai says "it is inappropriate to suggest anything against republic, secularism and federalism", have we read pieces/analysis/editorials reminding him that he cannot decide what the people want?
Moreover, we have read a lot about caste-based discrimination and the so-called bahunbaad (favorite jargon of the progressives), but we are yet to read anything against rampant discrimination against the Brahmins/Chhetris in today's Nepal—how qualified Brahmins/Chhetris are denied jobs and promotions just to ensure "proportional representation." And here's some more: You have to present the national army as detrimental to democracy. Feudal is the word you cannot miss when writing on pre-2006 Nepal. While writing on Nepal's relations with India one has to include a line blaming the Panchayat system for promoting anti-Indianism in Nepal (however, we are yet to read a piece that actually explains how Panchayat promoted anti-Indianism). And when writing on Nepal's foreign relations, rather foreign interference in Nepali politics, we have to appear critical of India and supportive of China. Perhaps, this is the reason we have read a lot on India's interference in Nepali politics but hardly anything on the growing Chinese interference.
The search for balance gets ridiculous at times. When our newspapers publish editorials on Dashain, for no rhyme or reason, they have to include a line or a paragraph arguing that the state needs to give equal importance to the festivals of all religions and about inclusion/inclusive state. Why can't an editorial on Dashain just be about Dashain? (Eat meat, visit your family and friends, drink in moderation and be happy!). Is it necessary to make those celebrating Dashain feel as if they are the hindrance to establishing a liberal Nepal?
The mistaken belief that supporting (parroting, rather) the post-2006 leftist narrative establishes our credentials as a "democrat" or a "liberal" has effectively killed our ability to argue. Everyone is saying the same thing all the time, whether they agree with it or not, whether or not they themselves understand what's being said. This is a dangerous trend. Despite being a democracy that allows us freedom of expression, we seem afraid or disinterested to exercise it.
This has only helped the left's cause in Nepal. Being liberal, modern and democrat does not necessarily mean remaining quiet when our history, tradition and culture are being challenged and questioned using theories, concepts and models that make no sense in our context. On the contrary, challenging the popular narrative with counterpoints without being derogatory is what is needed to establish a liberal society. Let's not forget; offering different viewpoints has been a South Asian tradition from time immemorial. Our canons, the Vedas and the Upanishads, were compilations of various contradictory arguments.
Therefore, all of us need to be biased when writing because it is a must to institutionalize freedom of expression. One has to be either for something or against it. One cannot always write, "A is right and B is right too." If writing is about expressing one's innermost passion (and passion is neither balanced nor unbiased)—and we all tend to get quite passionate when it comes to politics—why fear expressing what we really think in a non-abusive way? For every argument there are many counter-arguments, and instead of recycling the arguments, as is happening these days, it is about time we became argumentative Nepalis.
trailokyaa@yahoo.com
