Many would share our VP’s sadness and frustration over the SC’s decision to annul his oath-taking in Hindi. But only a few would share his disrespect for the apex court. He says, he is willing to do what the “people” wants, but doesn’t want to be forced by the SC. If the VP of the country does not feel compelled to behave according to the apex court’s decision, why should anybody? And, who are these “people” anyway? It sounded more like an excuse to disobey the law, but continue on the post.
Our VP should express his sorrow at the decision of the SC, and make a compelling case for why he believes Nepali citizens should have an option to take oath in Hindi, and then resign.
The best kind of leaders are those who leads by example. Our VP should express his sorrow at the decision of the SC, and make a compelling case for why he believes Nepali citizens should have an option to take oath in Hindi, and then resign. Better still would be to for the VP to take the oath in Nepali, make a case for Hindi, and then resign.
Many would consider this behavior strange, but it will send a powerful message. He could say resigning without taking oath in Nepali was always an option, but he chose to take oath in Nepali first and then resign as a gesture of respect to the SC, as well as millions of Nepali-speaking folks who misinterpret his oath-taking in Hindi as disrespect for Nepal’s only national language for over two centuries. During his resignation speech, he could explain why genuine, whole-hearted embracing of diversity (which includes embracing Hindi) is necessary for the prosperity and dignity of all our citizens, and call for an amendment of the constitution. Such a gesture will set a much healthier (non-confrontational) tone, and will highlight the cause he is fighting for. For many, he could turn into a hero.
By resigning, and showing dismay at the SC’s decision, he will be sending two very important messages. First, that he respects the legal system of the land. Second, that he doesn’t shy away from speaking up, when he believes that the laws are unjust.
Let us take a moment to remind ourselves the role of various players in a democratic society. The job of the elected lawmakers is to make laws based on what they see is just. The job of the judge is to interpret the law handed to them by the lawmakers. The job of a responsible citizen is to abide by the law, and at the same time express his discontent in non-violent ways when he believes that the law is unjust. This is the bread and butter of democracy, and this is what makes democracy a self-correcting process. We need to encourage such practice. The best way to do so is to lead by example.
The current interim constitution was written with the spirit of creating a more inclusive society. The section on language was modified to make it more inclusive. To quote Part 1, Section 5 (1) of Nepal’s present constitution: “All the languages spoken as mother tongue in Nepal are national languages of Nepal”. According to the last census, there are 0.47 percent of Nepali citizens who speak Hindi as their mother tongue. However, there are other clauses in the interim constitution, which, according to our most qualified judges, makes it illegal to take oath in Hindi for the post of VP.
Did our lawmakers intend to make it illegal to take oath in Hindi when they wrote the interim constitution? So far, no leaders of major political parties have hailed the decision of the SC. This is an encouraging sign for those who hope to see a more pluralistic notion of what Nepal stands for. It appears that the leaders of major parties do actually believe in a pluralistic society. If that is indeed the case, our lawmakers should take this opportunity to amend the constitution and make their notion of just laws clear, in no uncertain terms. It will make life much easier for the interpreters of the law.
Of course, there will be many who would feel uncomfortable about embracing Hindi in a way that has never been before, but those naysayers may be won over, or sidelined overnight. Opinion writers in newspapers may not be able to sway opinion much, but if the major political parties unite, they can sway public opinion overnight. Nepal, a staunchly proud only Hindu nation of the world with 80 percent Hindu, turned secular overnight without much fuss at all. Of course, there were many who never understood the logic behind turning secular and were unhappy, but there was very little ruckus over the issue. If major political parties unite, the same could happen with the Hindi controversy.
This is an opportunity to show solidarity for a plural concept of what it means to be a Nepali. Let us hope that all top leaders of the major parties gather the courage, and define diversity as embracing all cultures and languages, even if it means embracing something that we have been taught to fear and loathe.
(Writer is an Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at Texas A&M International University in Texas, US.)
680anand@gmail.com
Related story
Supreme Court Bar against the election of former CJ as Presiden...
