header banner

Ma Pa Se 2.0

alt=
By No Author
Last week I was stopped by a traffic policeman on a 'ma pa se' check wherein I had to actually produce my license instead of them taking my word for it. This is all very routine but what I hadn't expected in a million years was the sort of questions, suspicion and scrutiny one would generally assume to be reserved for the criminal classes.

All because my license had a teeny, tiny – it really is barely discernible – hole in it. You half expect other people to be judgmental about it but not the cops who surely must see licenses that look like colanders on a daily basis. Yes, I have a hole in my license and no I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed because it was an honest mistake and I wasn't really a danger to myself nor the general public when I was caught on my way home after having sipped half a glass of beer. I wouldn't even have this enforced sense of guilt if it were not for our zero tolerance policy. I've always assumed that there are hordes of 'one hole' license holders who feel the same way but like that badly judged half glass of beer I might just be wrong .


I'm not really the sort to go out drinking and driving/riding (the day I was caught my breathalyzer reading was 0.0012) but even then I can't really get my head round this draconian policy. I'm all for 'ma pa se' checking and there's no doubt that it has put the fear of God into drunk drivers and curbed drunk driving. The classes on the morning after have also been an eye opener for many and I can certainly say that it's made me a better driver. There's nothing quite like seeing horrific accidents at the same turns, roundabouts and roads that you use on a daily basis. But as police presence on the road dwindles, check points become predictable and people find ways to avoid cops – it's about time we revisit this policy and perhaps introduce a permissible limit.

There is a school of thought that says that zero tolerance should stay because we Nepali's don't know how to drink in moderation. While it may be difficult for a drinker to gauge the legally permissible intake and yet for others to actually stick to it, this sweeping generalization and logic for zero tolerance is both unfair and flawed. This current policy would be understandable and supported whole heartedly if we had effective means of public transport to get home or our cabbies were even moderately honest in their dealings. Ask anyone getting a cab ride home and everyone (never mind the drinkers) has their own story to tell.

We need to reconsider this blanket ban because what initially started out as an exercise in maintaining law and order has really morphed into an income boosting activity for our police departments. There are rumors that they even have targets (notice the pre filled booklets) creating undue pressure on cops to bend rules to achieve them. These checks shouldn't be treated as a source of revenue for the state but should rather go into helping keep us safe and allowing us the freedom to have fun at the same time. A limit would also give an immense boost to the restaurants and bars in hotspots around the city. On any given day in Thamel it's largely us Nepalis who spend their hard earned money drinking overpriced booze in the bars and not the 'khaires'. On what basis exactly are we planning to open Thamel all night long when we can't even sort out something as basic as a safe limit. What is the allure? Shops that are open all night?

A limit would further reduce the incentive to escape from police clutches through dark roads and alleyways and give people the freedom to leave early as opposed to sitting around until midnight (when the cops leave) and then making a move home. The policeman taking our classes on the morning after was of the same opinion but cited bureaucratic indifference and lack of resources. It's ironic because no one drinks like our bureaucrats especially when the booze is free.

If there was a union of drinkers (and one-hole license offenders) they would surely want to know just where all that 'ma pa se' money is going? I know I've been forced to contribute a Rs 1000 and many of us have contributed many times over (really not something to be proud about). It's not too much to expect them to be used to procure resources and make 'ma pa se' enforcement more reflective of the age we live in. Cut us some slack, I say! God knows life is hard enough in this country without the state trying to dictate our leisure habits. We do have bigger problems in the country at the moment but at least this change might make drowning our other sorrows all the more easier. Cheers!

gunjan.u@gmail.com



Related story

Related Stories