Recently, the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has been in the news for trying to curb the social ill of “extravagance” by asking everyone to spend moderately in festivals like Teej and Dashain. This directive is supposed to discourage competition and ease off the pressure for those of limited means to spend lavishly in festivals. Several public figures are already known to have cancelled sumptuous celebrations. Though issued with the best intentions, the directive has stirred up quite a controversy.
On the one hand, many have welcomed this move as a relief from the mounting commercialization of festivals. The Western world is struggling to come to terms with every festival, from Christmas to Easters, ending in a pile of shopping. In fact, so commercialized is the US that their calendar contains several capitalism-created festivals solely dedicated to shopping: Black Friday, when everything is hugely discounted, and Cyber Monday, a day set aside for technological goods. Though Nepal has miles to go before shopping reaches such frenzied levels, globalization has seeped into how we celebrate our festivals. Most festivals are becoming eerily similar: ostentatious dress up, parties, and gifts, all of which require generous spending. Further proof of commercialization is given by the ubiquitous seasonal gift packs (tika and chura packs for Teej, masala packs for Tihar). The essence of our festivals, socializing and bonding, is slowly being superseded by the amount of money spent on these extraneous items.[break]
On the other hand, some have argued that restricting spending on festivals is counterproductive. It is meant to benefit those of limited means. But if more and more people cancel their celebrations, it will deprive many restaurants, caterers, and shops of business. This will actually reduce employment opportunities (as waiters, cooks, transporters, and daily wage laborers) available to those of limited means. The economy benefits by more spending from those who have money, not less. Money from the vegetables, fruits and handicrafts bought trickles down to farmers and artisans. In contrast, money that is secreted away does not benefit anyone.
At the end of the day, whether or not to keep up with the Joneses in terms of extravagance comes down to personal choice. But that still leaves the question of whether the government has the right to impose restrictions on celebrations. Nepal has many precedents of such restrictions, right from the Malla era codes which categorized metal (gold, silver, etc) jewelry according to castes, to the 1976 Social and Behavioral Reform Act that limited the number of invitees in marriage processions and the amount of gold in dowry. While government initiatives to curb social ills are appreciable, the CIAA’s focus on “extravagance” pales in comparison to the ills like dowry that the 1976 Act had targeted. Besides, as its name suggests, the CIAA’s duty is to investigate the abuse of authority. Spending itself does not involve abuse of authority, the CIAA would be better off staying within its jurisdiction and investigating how the money was acquired in the first place.
Related story
End the Protracted Stalemate
