Suffering is an essential fact of life, but how and where they are manifest makes it helplessly surprising. Later in the article, I bring up a particular incident to illustrate the nation’s failing in its most essential task of basic service delivery against the backdrop of the larger political mood. The nation is caught up with constitution writing, debating federalism and issues of identity, and debates on securing enough electricity and petroleum. These are the larger issues in the even broader backdrop of democratic ideas and practices. The national mood thus sounds utopian.
We know that democracy has its extremes. But here, I do not seek to draw a list of pitfalls of a democracy. The extremes are inherent features of a democracy. If, on the one hand, governance within a democratic system allows us to consume immense time and money in constitution writing, Nepali democracy, on the other hand, does not have plans to fulfill even basic human needs.
A woman in Sindhupalchok was recently injured while working in the fields near a forest. Some pieces of sticks and slats penetrated her arms and she bled profusely. Her forearm skin was torn and punctured by sharp wooden sticks and the upper arm flesh was burst open by sharp slats. The farmers took her to a nearby hospital where the doctors were not able to take out all the wooden pieces. They took out some and discharged her with the remaining pieces stuck in her upper arm. She still does her household chores with one hand.
There are severe forms of human pain and suffering. Some of them do not have any remedy; but the village woman’s case is different. Our helplessness is justified if suffering comes naturally. But the woman bears pain within the very structures of governance which must protect basic human rights. The government is capable of ensuring these rights if the mood of the nation is not overwhelmingly devoted to writing constitution and debating federalism.
My proposition is that any government should be able to look after the basic needs of the populace, whether or not there is a permanent constitution, irrespective of whether federalism solves the problems of regional and ethnic identities. These cures and cares are within the scope of a country like Nepal. The problem is the extreme political mood of the nation.
My students were recently causally debating on the futility and necessity of abiding by national language rule while taking oath. Who wears a Western suit and who sticks to Daura-surwal! Which leader is a nationalist (by the dress code) and who speaks Maithali or Newari in various formal meetings! I am a Madhesi because I always speak in Maithali on formal occasions, a leader would claim. Another would boast that he is a ‘true’ Nepali because he wears Dhaka-topi. Aren’t there more pressing issues than these?
Where do we focus then: on writing constitution and defining nationalism and federalism or on the basic rights and needs? We have to choose, I believe, the woman first, only then the constitution. Furthermore, on the issue of nationalism, I have reservations: I read it as one of the excuses for inertia. Nationalism may be a mediocre political construct for some, and for others sovereignty survives on the ideals of nationalism. For me, I do not even want to use the term, but that is an ideal stand. My argument is that the debates and plans on constitutions, nationalism, and federalism do not impede basic governance, like the government’s ability to meet the basic health needs of its people.
How can a country fail to treat even the most basic injuries? Pains and sufferings are unavoidable; but Nepali political institutions ridicule human condition. Someone announces the revolution has failed, and the other shouts there was no revolution at all. In the midst of such debates, an ordinary injury inflicts unbearable pain, more than the most fatal diseases, because it is about the dignity of not having to live with sticks inside one’s body.
While the bulk of national energy is devoted to writing and un-writing the constitution, a citizen lives with sticks inside her body! The inability to uphold basic human dignity indicates the futility of all forms of grand narratives.
Meanwhile, the woman goes to the field, washes dishes, prays to the deities, talks to her family and neighbors, all the while with sticks inside her arm. No doctor is able to take out those wooden slats. This is about individualism, honor and citizenry.
Related story
ICC T20 World Cup: England set Nepal a challenging 185-run targ...
