Sep 22, 2010

सरकारको स्वरुप (Ayn Rand's Nature of government को नेपाली अनुवाद )-भाग २

किनकी केवल व्यक्तिगत अधिकारहरुको रक्षा गर्नुनै  सरकारको सही उद्देश्य हो कानूनको उचित विषय पनि यहि हो ।यसैले सबै कानून व्यक्तिका अधिकार र तीनको रक्षा गर्ने उद्देश्य राखेर बनाइनु पर्छ  ।सबै कानून अनिवार्य रुपमा निस्पक्ष -वस्तुगत  रुपमा सही ठहराउन योग्य हुनुपर्छ  ।कुनै  कारवाही गर्नुभन्दा  पहिले नै व्यक्तिलाई यस कुरामा  स्पष्ट रुपमा जानकारी हुनुपर्छ  कि कानूनले उनीहरुलाई के गर्नबाट रोक्छ र उक्त कार्य गरेमा उनीहरुलाई  के सजाय हुन सक्छ भनेर ।

सरकारको कानूनी  अधिकारहरुको श्रोत हो -शासित हुनेहरुको  अनुमती  यसको अर्थ यो हो की सरकार शासक हैन बरु नागरिकहरुको रक्षक वा अभिकर्ता हो ।यसको अर्थ यो हो कि सरकारलाई एउटा विशेष  उद्देश्यका लागि नागरिकहरले  दिएको अधिकार बाहेक अन्य कुनै  अधिकार हुदैन ।

यदि व्यक्ति स्वतन्त्र एवं सभ्य समाजमा रहन चाहन्छ भने एउटै आधारभूत सिध्दान्त छ जसमा उसको सहमती हुन अनिवार्य छ -शारिरीक बलको प्रयोग समाप्त गर्ने र आफ्नो शारीरिक आत्मारक्षाका लागि सरकारलाई  अधिकृत बनाउने सिध्दान्त ताकि उसले यसलाई सुव्यवस्थित निस्पक्ष एवं कानूनी तरीकाबाट परिभाषित रुपमा लागु  गर्न सकोस् ।यसलाई अर्को तरिकाबाट यसो पनि भन्न सकिन्छ कि उक्त बल प्रयोग एवं मनोमानीमाथि रोक अवश्य स्वीकार गर्नुपर्छ--कुनै पनि तरिकाको मनोमाजी जसमा उसको स्वयं को मनोमानी पनि शामिल छ ।अब यदि दुई  व्यक्तिहरुको बीचमा कुनै कारोबार हुन्छ  जसमा दुवै संलग्न छन् फेरी यदि यसमा असहमति सृजना भएमा के हुन्छ त ?

एउटा स्वतन्त्र समाजकम दुवैलाई एक -अर्कासँग सम्झौता गर्नको लागि वाध्य  पारिदैन ।सम्झौताहरु स्वेच्छीक सहमति को आधारमा  वा अनुबन्ध मार्फत गर्छन । यदि एउटा व्यक्ति मनोमानी तरिकाले अनुबन्ध तोड्छ भने यसबाट अर्का व्यक्तिलाई  वित्तिय हानी हुन सक्छ र क्षतिपुर्ती  स्वरुप दोषी पक्षको सम्पत्ति जफत गर्नुको  अलावा अरु कुनै विकल्प हुदैन तर फेरि पनि यहा पनि बल प्रयोगको निर्णय कुनै ब्यक्तिको   भरमा छोड्न मिल्दैन । र यहा सरकार को अत्यन्त महत्वपुर्ण  एवं जटिल काम आउँछ - एउटा मध्यस्तकर्ताको भूमिका जसले निस्पक्ष कानून अनुसार दुवै  व्यक्तिहरुको झगडाको समाधान गरोस् ।

कुनै पनि सभ्य समाजमा अपराधि अत्यन्त कम सख्यामा हुन्छन् तर शांतिपूर्ण समाजका लागि कानूनको अदालतद्धारा अनुबंधको संरक्षण र प्रवर्तन सबैभन्दा महत्वपूर्ण आवश्यकता हो ।यस तरिकाको संरक्षणबिना कुनै पनि सभ्यतालाई विकसित हुन वा रहिरहन संभव हुँदैन ।

मानिस पशुसरह आफ्ना तत्कालका आवश्यकताका लागि काम गरेर मात्र जीवित रहन सक्दैन उसलाई विभिन्न समायवधिमा आफ्नो उद्देश्यलाई निर्धारित गर्न र तिनलाई प्राप्त गर्नका लागि काम गर्नुपर्छ ।व्यक्तीलाई आफ्नो पुरै  जीवनको लागि आफ्ना कार्य र योजनाहरुको लेखा-जोखा तैयार गर्नुपर्छ ।व्यक्तीको मस्तिष्क जति असल र उसको ज्ञान जति उतकृष्ट छ उसका  योजनाहरुको श्रृंखला त्यती नै लामो ह्न्छ ।कुनै सभ्यता जति कुलिन र जति जटील छ  उसलाई त्यतिनै लामो गतिविधीको श्रृंखला हुनजरुरी छ र यसै प्रकारले व्यक्तिहरुबीच अनुबन्धका सम्झौताहरु जति  धेरै हुन्छन् त्यस्ता अनुबन्धका सुरक्षाका लागि संरक्षणको आवशयकता पनि त्यती नै हुन्छ ।

यहाँसम्म कि कुनै अपरिष्कृत समाज पनि यसरी काम गर्न सक्दैन-मानैा कुनै व्यक्ति केही अण्डाको सट्टामा  आलु  दिने व्यापार गर्न सहमत  हुन्छ ।ऊ अण्डा लिन्छ र आलु  दिन अस्वीकार गरिदिन्छ । कल्पना गर्नुस्  यसै तरिकाको मनोमानी यदि कुनै औध्योगिक  समाजमा हुन्छ भने यसको अर्थ के रहला जहाँ व्यक्तिहरु खरबौं डलरको समान उधारोमा या अनुबन्धका आधारमा दिन्छन्-करोडौ  डलर पर्ने संरचना खडा  गर्नका लागि या ९९वर्षका लागि लिजमा सम्पत्ति दिन्छन् ।

यि अनुबन्धहरुको एकतर्फी उल्लङ्घनमा शारीरिक बलको अप्रत्यक्ष प्रयोग भइराखेको हुन्छ।यदि कुनै व्यक्तिबाट सामान लिन्छ र त्यसको सट्टामा  पैसा दिन अस्वीकार गर्छ र त्यस सामानमाथि दबाब -शारीरिक दबाब बनाई राख्छ जसमा उसको मालिकको  सहमति छैन् ।धोखादारीमा यसै प्रकारको बलको अप्रत्यक्ष प्रयोग हुन्छ ।यसमा मालिको सहमतीबिना व्यक्तिले सामान लिन्छ -झुठो  आश्वासन दिएर, धम्कीमा पनि बलको अप्रत्यक्ष प्रयोग हुन्छ ।यसमा सामाजको बदलामा केही पनि दिइदैन बरु धम्की र जबरजस्ती गरेर लिइन्छ ।

यस  प्रकारका कुनै पनि कार्य निश्चित रुपमा अपराधिक हुन ।अनुबन्धको एकतर्फी उल्लंधन अपराधबाट प्रेरित पनि हुन सक्छन् तर ती गैरजिम्मेदारीपूर्ण  वा अविवेकी व्यवहारका कारणले पनि हुन सक्छन् ।केही  यस्ता मामला पनि हुन्छन् जहाँ दुवै  पक्ष न्यायको गुहार  मागी राखेका ह्न्छन् चाहे कुरा  जे नै होस् ।यस तरीकाका सबै मुद्दा निष्पक्ष रुपमा परिभाषित कानूनका  विषय हुनुपर्छ  र यिनको समाधान निस्पक्ष मध्यस्तकर्ता  र कानूनी  प्रशासकहर वा  न्यायधीशहरु जोबाट  उचित हुन्छ उसैद्धारा हुनुपर्छ ।

यी सबै मामलामा न्यायलाई निर्देशित गर्ने आधारभूत  सिध्दान्त माथि नजर गर्ने हो भने यो सिध्दान्त हो कूनै पनि व्यक्ति अर्को व्यक्तिबाट कूनै पनि मुल्य  उस्को सहमतिविना प्राप्त गर्न सक्दैन र एउटा व्यक्तिको अधिकारलाई एक व्यक्तिको एकतर्फी निर्णय अविवेक या मनमानी स्वेच्छाचारिताको भरमा छोड्न सकिदैंन । 

सार रुपमा  सरकारको यही नै उपयुक्त  उद्देश्य हुन्छ  कि उसले व्यक्तिको सामाजिक अस्तित्वलाई सम्भव  बनाओस् उसको हितको रक्षा गरोस् र ती गलतीहरुलाई नियन्त्रण गरोस् जसद्धारा एक व्यक्तिले अर्कोलाई हानी पुर्याउन  सक्छ ।सरकारका महत्वपूर्ण  कार्यलाई तीन श्रेणीमा बाँडन  सकिन्छ जुन सबैमा शारीरिक बल र व्यक्तिका अधिकारहरुको रक्षाका मामिला शामिल छन् ।

पहिलो हो-प्रहरी अपराधीहरुबाट व्यक्तिहरुलाई रक्षा गर्नका लागि हुन्छ , दोस्रो-सशस्त्र सेवाहरु विदेशी आक्रमणकारीहरुबाट रक्षा  गर्नका लागि, तेस्रो-कानूनी अदालतहरु जसले व्यक्तिहरुको आपसी  झगडालाई निरपेक्ष कानूनद्धारा सुल्झाउन ।यी तीन श्रेणीहरुमा अरु पनि केही चीजहरु जोडिएका  हुन्छन् जुन  लागु गर्ने समयमा हुने  व्यवहारिक समस्याहरु र कुनै  विशेष कानून  लागु गर्दाका जटिलतासँग सम्बधित हुन्छन् ।यो विशेष विज्ञानको क्षेत्रसँग संबन्धित हुन्छ जसलाई कानूनको दर्शन भन्दछन् । कानूनलाई लागु गर्ने समयमा थुप्रै  गलती र असहमतीको सम्भावना हुन्छ ।तर लागु गर्नेपर्ने अनिवार्य सिध्दान्त हो कानून एवं सरकारको उद्देश्य व्यक्ति को अधिकारहरुको रक्षा गर्ने हो ।

आजकल  यो सिध्दान्तलाई बिसिईएको छ ,यसको अवहेलना भइरहेको छ यसबाट बच्ने कोशिश गरिन्छ यसकै नतिजा हो - विश्वको वर्तमान अवस्था ।क्रूर शक्तिहरुद्धारा बर्बरतापूर्ण  तरिकासँग कानूनहरु लागु गरिदैछ।मानवताको अवनति यस हदसम्म भईसकेको छ कि कानूनको शासन समाप्त भएको छ तानाशाहीको अवस्था  उत्पन्न भएको छ।

Author: Ayn Rand
Translation: Surath Giri

Sep 18, 2010

Liberalization for Progress

(Published in Republica of 18th September 2010)

Read this article published in Republica . I whole-heartedly agree to the author's views that liberalization is the only way forward if we really want progress. Nepali Congress being the party responsible for limited liberalization during the 1990s could spearhead the process of liberalization in other sectors of the economy as well. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. It’s ominous to see that instead of capitalizing on the benefits brought on by the liberalization, NC’s cadres and leaders are clamoring for socialism. All around the world, economic liberalization is lifting millions of people out of dire poverty. Post 1990’s India and China after 1980 are prime examples of how economic liberalization benefits the nation as a whole.  Even Cuba is reforming its policies to allow more private sector involvement in economy.

The limited economic liberalization of early 1990s has brought many positive changes in our country. Our thriving media sector, banking and finance, educational institutions and the recent surge in telecommunications sector stand as an outcome of liberalization. Contrary to what our left oriented politicians and intellectuals like to think, poverty and inequality aren’t outcomes of liberalization but of lack of liberalization.

Had the government privatized Nepal Airlines we wouldn’t be facing so much corruption and plunder of resources. Had electricity sector been liberalized we wouldn’t be facing world’s worst power crisis. Had the education sector not been opened up, we would still be getting pathetic, if any education from state run colleges and universities where the only thing that a student gets to learn is politics.

Critics of liberalization tend to look at the thriving sectors of the economy and conclude that it causes inequality but they forget the fact that it’s the lack of liberalization that’s causing the inequality. I can’t understand how left-oriented individuals could criticize liberalization when right before their face they can see the failure of state run enterprises such as Nepal Oil Corporation, Nepal electricity authority and even Janakpur cigarette factory.

Poor governance and corruption, the major causes of Nepali Congress’s fall from grace could have been lessened if it had extended the economic liberalization to remaining sectors of the economy and focused more on better administration of rule of law and justice. NC should realize this before it’s too late. A country where almost all political parties are left oriented, it could provide the country with a pragmatic party that learns from examples of other countries and promotes sound economic policies rather than ideology driven defunct policies.

Sep 16, 2010

सरकारको स्वरुप (Ayn Rand's Nature of government को नेपाली अनुवाद )-भाग १

सरकार एउटा संस्था हो, जोसँग निश्चित भौगोलिक क्षेत्रमा सामाजिक आचरणका नितिनियमहरु लागु गर्ने शक्ति हुन्छ । के व्यक्तिलाई यस्तो संस्था आवश्यकता पर्छ? पर्छ भने किन?

व्यक्तिको मस्तिष्क उसको जीवित रहन चाहिने आधार भूत साधन हो ।यसको माध्यमबाट उसले ज्ञान प्राप्त गर्छ जसद्धारा उसका सबै कार्य निर्देशित हुन्छन् ।तर यसका लागि आधारभूत शर्त यो हो कि ऊ स्वतन्त्र रुपमा सोच्न सकोस् र आफ्नो विवेकपुर्ण निर्णयशक्ती  अनुसार  काम गर्न सकोस् । यसको अर्थ यो होइन् कि व्यक्ति एकदम  एक्लो रहनूपर्छ र उसका आवश्यकताका लागि एकान्त ठाँउ नै सर्वोत्तम स्थान हो ।मानिसले एक अर्कासँगबाट थूप्रै लाभ लिन सक्छन ।उसले असल प्रकारले जीउनका लागि सामाजिक वातावरण सबैभन्दा उत्तम हो तर केही शर्तहरु सहित…।

समाजमा रहेर मानिसले दूई महत्वपूर्ण  मूल्यहरु सिक्छ ती हुन  -ज्ञान र यसको आदान-प्रदान ।मानिस एक्लो यस्तो प्राणी हो  जो पूस्ता -दर-पूस्ता मा आफ्नो ज्ञानको खजाना आदान -प्रदान गरेर यसमा वृध्दि गर्न सक्छ ।प्रत्येक मानिस अरुद्धारा अनूसन्धान गरिएको ज्ञानबाट असिमित लाभ लिन सक्छ ।कुनै  पनि व्यक्ति आफ्नो पूरा जीवन अवधिको दौरानमा जति पनि कूरा शूरुदेखि सिक्न कोसिस गर्छ त्यसभन्दा धेरै उसको लागि पहिलेदेखि नै उपलब्ध हुन्छ ।द्रोस्रो महत्वपूर्ण लाभ हो -श्रमको विभाजन ।यसले गर्दा प्रत्येक व्यक्ति कुनै  निर्धारित क्षेत्रका मानिसहरुसँग यसको आदान-प्रदान गर्दछ ।यस तरिकाको सहयोगबाट व्यक्ति आफ्ना प्रत्येक आवश्यकताका लागि आफू  एक्लै सबै काम  गरेर एकान्त स्थानमा रहेर प्राप्त गर्नेभन्दा अत्यन्त धेरै ज्ञान र कौशल आर्जन गर्छ । तर यसबाट यो कुरा पनि  पत्ता लाग्छ कि यस्तो किसिमको सहयोग  मुल्यवान ब्यक्ति र समाजबिच कसरी हुन सक्छ -त्यो हो केवल विवेकपुर्ण क्रियाशील  एवं स्वतन्त्र समाजका विवेकपुर्ण क्रियाशील  एवं स्वतन्त्र व्यक्तिहरुको बीचमा । (The Objective Ethics )

त्यो समाज जस्ले व्यक्तिको आफ्नो प्रयासबाट आर्जिएको सबै कुरा  लिन्छ ,उसलाई दास बनाएर राख्छ,उस्को मस्तिष्कको स्वतन्त्रतामा प्रतिबन्ध लगाउँछ र व्यक्तिलाई उसको विवेकपूर्ण निर्णय शक्तिको विरुध्द काम गर्नको लागि बाध्य गराउँछ र जस्ले व्यक्तिका आवश्यक्ता र आफ्नो आदेशबिच संघर्स पैदा  गर्छ, निश्चित तौरमा त्यो समाज नभएर  अव्यवस्थित जनसमुह-भीड हो जो अपराधिक नियमद्धारा संस्थापित हुन्छ  ।यस्तो समाजले मानिसको सह अस्तित्वको सबै मुल्यमान्यतालाई  नष्ट गरिदिन्छ ।योसँग न त क्नै औचित्य ह्न्छ न प्रतिवेदन र ननै भलाईको कुनै  साधन ।यीनीहरु मनुस्यका  ठुला दुश्मन हुन्छन् । सोभियत रुस वा नाजी जर्मनीमा भन्दा त वीरानो ठाउँमा नै जिन्दगी ज्यादा सुरक्षित  हुन्छ  ।

व्यक्तिगत अधिकारको सिध्दान्त

यदि व्यक्ति शन्तिपुर्ण , क्रियाशील  र विवेकपुर्ण   समाजमा आपसी हितका लागि साथ रहन चाहन्छ भने उसले केही आधारभूत  सामाजीक नियमहरु अवश्य मान्नु  पर्छ । यस विना क्नै नैतिक वा सभ्य समाज को कल्पना पनि गर्न सकिदैन ।

व्यक्तिगत अधिकारलाई मान्यता दिनुको  अर्थ यो हो कि व्यक्तिलाई जीवित रहनका लागि चाहिने समाजिक आवश्यकताहरुलाई मान्यता दिनु  र स्वीकार गर्नु  व्यक्तिका अधिकारहरुको उल्लंघन केवल शरीरिक बल प्रयोगद्धारा मात्रै गर्न सकिन्छ ।शरीरिक बलको प्रयोगले नै एउटा व्यक्तिले अर्को व्यक्तिको जीवन समाप्त गर्न सक्छ वा उसलाई दास बनाउन सक्छ वम वा लुट्न  सक्छ वा उसलाई आफ्नो लक्ष्य सम्म पुग्न बाट रोक्न सक्छ  वा उसको विवेकपुर्ण  निर्णय शक्तिको विरुध्दमा  काम गर्न वाध्य तुल्याउन सक्छ ।

एउटा  सभ्य समाजको अनिवार्य शर्त यो हो की  समाजिक संबधहरुमा शारीरिक बल प्रयोग नहोस् ताकि व्यक्ति यदि एक- अर्कासँग संबध राख्न चाहन्छन् भने उनीहरु यस्तो गर्न सकून  तर विचार-विमर्श स्वेच्छ राजीखुशी  र इच्छार्पुर्ण  सहमतिबाट मात्रै ।

व्यक्तिलाई जीवनको अधिकार  मार्फत मिल्ने सबैभन्दा महत्वपुर्ण  अधिकार आत्मरक्षाको अधिकार हो । सभ्य समाजमा बल प्रयोग केवल जवाफी कारवाही का लागि वा उनीहरुको विरुध्द गर्न सीकन्छ जसले यस्को शुरुवात गर्छन । ती सबैकारण जस्का आधारमा शारीरिक बलको प्रयोगको शुरुवात  हुन्छ  गलत हुन्छन् ।यहाँ शारीरिक बलको प्रयोग नैतिक अनिवार्यता बन्न जान्छ ।

यदि कुनै शान्तिप्रिय  समाज  कसैद्वारा  बलको प्रयोग हृदाँ पनि उस्को विरुध्दमा कारवाही गर्दैन भने उक्त समाज अनैतिक कार्य गर्नेहरको दयामा र असहाय हुन्छ । यस तरिकाको समाजले खराब कुराहरुलाई अन्त्य गर्नुको साटो यसको विपरित हासिल गर्छ ।यसो गरेर उसले खराबलाई बढावा दिराखेको हुन्छ खराबलाई समर्थन गरिराखेको हुन्छ ।यदि कुनै समाज कुनै बलको विरुध्दमा नागरिकहरुलाई संगठित  सुरक्षा प्रदान गरिराखेको छैन भने यसको अर्थ यो हो की उसले प्रत्येक नागरिकलाई शस्त्र उठाउन र आफ्नो घरलाई मोर्चाबन्द गर्न वा कुनै अजनबी उसको ढोकामा आइपुग्छ  भने मारिदिनको लागि वा  बदला लिनका  लागि बनेका नागरिकहरुको संरक्षक समुहमा शामिल वाध्य तुल्याइरहेको हुन्छ  । यसको नतिजा  स्वरुप समाज को पतन हुन्छ रअपराधिहरुको शासन हुन जान्छ र अपराधि समृहको बीचमा युद्धको स्थिति बन्न पुग्छ  ।

शारिरिक  बलको प्रयोगलाई पनि व्यक्ति विशेषको विवेकको भरमा छोड्न सकिन्न । यदि व्यक्ति लगातार बल प्रयोगको भयको बीचमा बसीरहेको हुन्छ की  उसको विरध्द कुनै पनि छिमेकीले कुनै पनि समयमा प्रयोग गर्न सक्छ भने यस्तोमा शान्तिपुर्ण सहयोग असंभव हुन्छ । चाहे छिमेकीको उद्देश्य असल होस् या खराब चाहे  उसको निर्णय विवेकपुर्ण होस् या अविवेकपुर्ण चाहे उ न्यायले प्रेरित होस् या अज्ञानताबाट चाहे उ पूर्वाग्रहबाट ग्रसित होस्, कुनै व्यक्तिको विरुध्दमा बलको प्रयोग अर्को व्यक्तिको इच्छाको भरमा छोड्न मिल्दैन ।

कल्पना गर्नुस्  त्यस स्थितिको ,यदि कुनै व्यक्तिको पर्स हरायो र उ यस निस्कर्समा पुग्यो  कि उसको पर्स चोरी भएको हो । उ एक-एक गर्दै छिमेकीहरुको घरमा पसेर आफ्नो पर्स खोज्छ र बेइमान देखिने पहिलो ब्यक्तिलाई  गोली ठोकि दिन्छ किन कि उसलाइ त्यो व्यक्ति दोषी लाग्छ ।जवाफि कारवाहीका लागि बलको प्रयोगमा पनि पहिले वस्तुगत मानानंकको अनुरुप साक्षीहरबाट अपराधको पृष्टि हुनुपर्छ  साथमा यो पनि साबित हुनुपर्छ  कि अपराध कसले गरेको हो । यसको अलावा  सजायलाई  परिभाषित गर्नुको साथै यसको प्रवर्तनका नियमहररु पनि जरुरी हुन्छन् ।यदि व्यक्ति यस तरिकाका नियमहरु विना  अपराध निर्धारित गर्ने प्रयास गर्छ  भने यसको मतलब साबित नभइकनै अपराध मान्ने काम  भयो । यदि कुनै समाज बदला लिनका लागि बलको प्रयोग गर्ने छुट  एक्लो व्यक्तिकोहातमा दिन्छ भने उक्त समाज अपराधिक शासन तथा रक्तपातपुर्ण  दुश्मनी -झगडमा अवनति हुन्छ  ।

यदि सामाजिक संबधहरुमा शारिरिक बल प्रयोगलाई समाप्त गर्नुछ  भने व्यक्तिलाई एउटा यस्तो संस्थाको आवश्यकता पर्छ जो सँग वस्तुगत मानानंक एवं नियमहरुको आधारमा व्यक्तिहरको अधिकारको रक्षा गर्ने जिम्मेदारी होस् । एउटा सरकार-एउटा उचित सरकारको यो उसको न्युनतम कर्तव्य हो।व्यक्तिलाई सरकारको आवश्यकता किन छ -यहि त्यो कारण हो र नैतिक औचित्य पनि ।

निष्पक्ष नियंत्रणमा आधारित शारीरिक बल बदलाको कारवाही गर्ने साधन हो । यो कार्य उसले वस्तुगत तरिकाबाट परिभाषित नियमहरुको आधारमा गर्दछ ।

निजी कारवाही र सरकारी कारवाही बीचको प्रमूख  भिन्नता-जसलाई आजकल वेवास्ता र पन्छाउने गरिन्छ-के हो भने शारीरिक बलप्रयोग गर्नमा सरकारको एकाधिकार हुन्छ ।सरकारको लागि यस प्रकारको एकाधिकार अनिवार्य पनि छ किनकी बलको प्रयोग रोक्न र यसको विरुध्द कारवाही गर्नको लागि उ नै अधिकृत हो ।र यिनै कारणहरु गर्दा सरकारी कारवाही पूर्ण  तरिकासँग परिभाषित सीमाबध्द एवं नियन्त्रित हुनुपर्छ  ।उसलाई आफ्नो काममा मनमानी गर्ने छुट हुनुहुदैन ।उ शक्तिले भरिपुर्ण यंत्रमानव सरह हुनुपर्छ । यदि स्वतन्त्र  समाज चाहिन्छ भने यसको लागि सरकारलाई नियंत्रित गर्नु आवश्यक छ ।

उचित सामाजिक व्यवस्थामा, एउटा व्यक्ति आफ्नो इच्छाको अनुसार जे पनि गर्नको लागि कानूनी तौरमा स्वतन्त्र हुन्छ जबसम्म ऊ अर्काको अधिकारहरु हनन् गर्दैन जबकि सरकारी अधिकारीले गर्ने प्रत्येक काम कानूनी दायरा भित्र हुनुपर्छ । एउटा व्यक्ति ती सबै कुरा गर्न सक्छ जुन कानूनी रुपमा प्रतिबन्धित छैनन्  र एउटा सरकारी अधिकारी त्यो बाहेक अरु केही पनि गर्न सक्दैन जसका लागि कानूनी रुपमा अनुमती छ ।

यो अधिकार लाई सामर्थ्यको दाजोमा बढी महत्वपुर्ण बनाउने  तरिका हो ।यो अमेरिकी अवधारणा हो-"कानूनको सरकार , ब्यक्तिको होईन "

स्वतन्त्र सामाजका लागि उपयुक्त कानूनको स्वरूप  र सरकारलाई यी कानूनहरुले  दिएको अधिकारको श्रोत -दुबै  को उत्पत्ति उपयुक्त सरकारको प्रकृति र उसको उद्देश्यबाट हुन्छ ।दुबैको आधार्भूत सिध्दान्तलाई स्वतन्त्रताको घाषणापत्रमा निर्देशित  गरिएको छ ।यी नै अधिकारहरुको रक्षाका लागि ब्यक्तिहरुबिच सरकारको गठन गरिन्छ र सरकारको अधिकार शासित हुनेहरुको अनुमतीबाट आउँछ ।


Author: Ayn Rand
Translation: Surath Giri

Sep 15, 2010

Banning internet porn!

(Published in Republica of 22 November 2010)
Sonja&David(Travelpod.com)
The intensity with which Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA) is persecuting internet pornography in Nepal is pretty surprising. It is hard to believe that the government finds internet porn so objectionable that it’s been given utmost priority when its hands are already full with all the kidnappings, murders and other criminal activities going on. The reason given by the government for the ban is national insecurity and increasing amount of vulgarism in society. It’s so ridiculous and outrageous that the government is lackadaisical about all the criminal activities prevailing in our society but is hell bent on blocking online porn. It another example of how common sense is at odds with governments (our government at least).

How is that if I or any general Nepalese for that matter watch porn it’s going to pose a threat to our national security? And how is that watching porn increases sexual violence in the society when no  concluding evidence has yet been found that suggests a positive correlation between internet porn and sexual crimes? Besides sexual crimes are least of the government’s worry presently. Why should what we watch online be of any business to the government? Who determines whether a society is excessively vulgar or not?

Since 30 to 40 percent of the total internet users visit websites for pornographic contents globally, it cannot be ignored that online pornography is catering to the sexual needs of certain people. United States alone has a staggering 244 million Web pages featuring erotic fare. I am yet to find a youngster (male) of my age who has never watched porn online. Does that mean every one of us is vulgar or morally corrupt? Is NTA morally superior to us so that it can dictate on us what is moral and what is immoral?

Internet service providers are saying that blocking all the porn sites is a job next to impossible and whatever can be done is going to be quite costly as site blocking will need extra manpower and additional hardware increasing the cost of internet. In other words, our government’s role-play of a parent is going to cost the ISPs heavily which in turn will surely have to be borne by the general customers. Not only government encroaching on our liberties but it’s also forcing us to pay for not watching porn. What an irony!

This Arabian country like Puritanism of government is not going to achieve anything else except  increased cost of internet surfing and curbed civil liberties along with more avenues for corruption, as the so called objective of preventing access to porn is going to be seriously undermined by the ubiquitous access of porn movies and DVDs in the market. If denied access to porn online, youth will vent their sexual frustrations out of the house and it will lead to an increase in sexual assaults on women. So much for the national security!

By:www.dreamstime.com
And by the way our temples and shrines tend to have a spectacular display of sexual acts and sexual positions to which even internet pornography falls short. Tudals and woodworks of temples and other religious structures are rife with images of men and women in various sexual activities. So what’s the government going to do about it? Ban the access to religious sites and temples as well?

Isn’t it time that our government started having some common sense and focus on providing security to our lives and properties instead of deciding for us whether it’s a good thing to watch porn or not, whether we are too vulgar or not?

Surath Giri

Sep 12, 2010

Are Nepalese youth patriot enough??

(Published in Republica of 11th September 2010 as "Youths head abroad in pursuit of better lives")

Photo Taken From:ktm2day.com
Nepalese youth can be categorized in two groups these days, those who left already and those who are left behind. It’s the prejudice against the first group and the desperation of the latter one that bothers me the most. Every other day, the world is shrinking more and more into a global village and along with it the barriers of division such as nationality, culture, and religion are crumbling. Younger generation is getting more aware of the global achievements and trends. In this context, it is not surprising to see that most of our younger generation is leaving the country for one or another reason and most of them will probably never return. I find it very outrageous when youth leaving the country are considered fleeing when in fact all they are doing is using their common sense for the pursuit of better lives and their dreams. The air of moral superiority that we feel while talking and judging about youth, who have left the country, is nothing more than our frustration in disguise.

When we are discussing the reasons for their leaving we need to analyze what the country has been able to offer them till date. The state till date has been promising to act like a parent promising to provide for from cradle to grave. Free food, free education, free health services, employment opportunities as if the citizens were not capable of doing anything on their own. Despite the lofty promises, the state has so far failed miserably to provide even the real necessities for youth to flourish i.e. peace and security, rule of law, freedom to pursue their entrepreneurial visions and generate wealth, safeguard of their lives and properties. Unemployment, lack of quality education, lack of basic necessities like electricity and water, lack of security are among the primary reasons compelling youth to leave. But if we dig deeper we’ll find that our policies are the main reason behind them.

We gasp with horror to know our youth are working as waiters in McDonalds and Starbucks and yet we fail to ask why is it that companies like them don’t open up their business in Nepal and provide us with employment opportunities here at our home. 

Our intellectuals find is shameful that thousands of youth stand in line for hours to fill up forms for employment in Korea and yet they never find it shameful that it is easier to commit a crime here than set up a business and run it freely.  

We find it shocking that millions of rupees are spent by our youth for their higher education abroad and yet when private universities or private educational institutions try to provide quality education here we accuse them of commercializing education, making profit out of education and brandish them as evil. 

We complain that some of our youth spend their productive years in developing foreign countries and return back here in their old age and yet we never question state’s plundering of our resources and our hard earned tax money. 

We cringe to know that our youth work in the so called “demeaning jobs” like security guards and domestic helpers and yet we forget if they were here all they would be doing was saluting political leaders and serving the rulers.

Rather than questioning their morality, we should be grateful to them for the reason that instead of venting out their frustration by resorting to violence they are working hard away from home and have been supporting our economy to some extent. Rather than judging them on the grounds of patriotism, we should understand that patriotism in the given context is nothing more than valuing an area of land, mountains, rivers, and woods more than the human beings born into them. Patriotism is just another tool in our rulers’ inventory of deluding us and toying with our emotions to neutralize our reasoning powers. As Leo Tolstoy once said, “Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable signification is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason, and conscience, and a slavish enthrallment to those in power.”

If patriotism is more than just the tool used by politicians to fool us or more than just the area of land, mountain and rivers, we should be proud of our youth working or studying abroad. The state, rulers and intellectuals should encourage youth to be global citizens instead of being ashamed of them. If there is one thing to be ashamed of then it’s that while the world citizen’s are aspiring for self actualization, we are looking up at the rulers to provide us with food, employment and education. No wonder we lag so far behind the world.

Sep 9, 2010

Good news from Cuba!

Couple of weeks ago, some good news had arrived from Cuba,one of the last remaining frontiers of communism. The Cuban government decided to stop subsidizing cigarettes in order to cut down the state's spending. Earlier it had decided to stop subsidizing  peas and potatoes. The communist government plans to eliminate all subsidies and allow workers to be self-employed or to set up small businesses. 

Recent addition to this series of good news is the Fidel Castro's confession that  "Cuba´s communist economic model doesn´t work." So, finally Castro brothers and their hoodlums are compelled to accept the truth. They had to accept that entrepreneurship matters after all. Communism isn't a good concept gone bad but it's a bad concept in itself for the reason that it completely ignores the aspect of human nature that covets private property and the self-interest that drives the civilization forward. However, the dog-headed Castros are still unwilling to depart from the socialist system. Their reluctance is understandable as no dictator has even been willing to give up his/her power too easily. But we can be hopeful that these small reforms in their system will attract more reforms and gradually transform the economy.

This news should serve as a lessons to almost ALL the political parties of Nepal whose political principles range from social democratic to hard core communist. It's ludicrous that when countries like Cuba are realizing their mistake and reforming their system our political parties and intellectuals are clamoring for the opposite. Despite compelling evidences from our neighbors and our own experience that economic liberalization can raise millions of people out of poverty and embark them in the path of prosperity, the process has come to a halt in Nepal and there have been attempts at reversing the process. Most of the so called intellectuals are fond of criticizing the little liberalization that happened in the early to mid nineties. Only thing their criticisms lack  is a small portion of common sense and learning from other countries.

A left inclined friend of mine is very fond of Cuba and thinks it's a paradise. Maybe I should tell him, his paradise of communism is crumbling down as common sense is advancing.

Sep 6, 2010

गल्ती भयो कल्यानी मालिक्नी । माफ गरिदिनुस्!

बागबजारस्थित श्री पशुपति कुर्ता पसलका शम्भु श्रीवास्तव सारै सोझा र अज्ञानी रहेछन ।  आजको पत्रीकामा यो समाचार पढ्दा पो थाहा पाएँ । बिचरा उनले सोचेका रहेछन देशमा साँच्चै जनताको शासन आयो,जनताका प्रतिनिधिहरुले संबिधान बनाउदैछन भनेर । जनताको प्रतिनिधी जनता भन्दा माथि हुन सक्दैन भन्ने सोझो बुझाईले गर्दा नै होला उनले "कल्यानी मालिक्नी"लाई "सभासद भएर के भो त ?" भन्ने प्रश्न गर्ने दुस्साहस गरेछन । ६ घन्टा जेल्मा बसेपछी शायद उनको बुद्धी आयो होला। शायद उनले अब बुझे होला "कल्यानी " हाम्री प्रतिनिधि होइनन हाम्री मलिक्नी हुन । मालिक्नीको बचन काट्नु हुदैन । 

तपाईं पनि यस्तै भ्रम बाट ग्रसित हुनुहुन्थ्यो भने समयमै आफ्नो सोच बदलिहाल्नुस् । जनताका प्रतिनिधि हुन भनेर सोचिराख्नु होला र कुन दिन कुटाइ खाएपछी चाल पाउनु होला। ती ६०१ जना भनेका हाम्रा मालिक र मालिक्नीहरु हुन । हामी त केबल उनिहरुका दास हौ । पत्त्यार लागेन ? रामशरन मालिकको सवारी हुँदा सडक खाली गरेर घन्टौ  सडक छेउ उभिनु भएको बिर्सनु भयो ? एकजना मालिकलाई नमस्ते गर्न बिर्सदा बानेश्वरमा एक्जना प्रहरीले पिटाई खाको बिर्सनु भयो? मालिक्नीले भनेअनुसारको गाडी नपठाउदा एक्जना जिल्ला अधिक्रितले रामधुलाई खाको बिर्सनु भयो । सकी नसकी कमाएको पैसाले कर तिरेर तीन बर्ष उहाँहरुलाई पालिराखेको कुरा बिर्सनु भयो ? 

मेरो बिदेशी साथी पौल भन्छ दुई थरी शासन हुन्छन् रे । एउटा कानूनको शासन अर्को कानूनद्वारा शासन । हाम्रो शासन चै दोस्रो किसिमको हो रे । तर म उसलाई प्रतिक्रिया दिन्न । कारण ? बेकारमा अहिले मालिकहरु रिसाउनु भयो भने कुटाइ खाइन्छ । अरु मालिकहरु सँग निहुँ खोजे पनि  झुक्केर पनि बाल कृष्ण मालिक सँग चाँही निहु नखोज्नु होला । उहाँ त मान्छे मार्न खप्पिस हुनुहुन्छ नी ।

Sep 5, 2010

Animal Farm, Windmill and the Republic Memorial

Our windmill is supposed to look like this
The recent news about the Republic Memorial reminded me of the windmill in George Orwell’s classic novel Animal Farm. The pigs decide to build a windmill which is more of a display of the grandeur of their rule rather than an object of utility. The mill construction gets costlier and costlier over the time forcing the animals to work even harder and give up their luxuries to bear the cost.

It isn’t a surprise that throughout human history, rulers have always been eager to create something to represent the grandeur of their rule mostly at the cost of their citizens. Grand structures and how others perceive their might is more important to them than the welfare of their citizens. No matter how much we are awed by the grandeur of infrastructures like Taj Mahal, Great Wall or Singadurbar, the sad reality is that they represent a ruler’s dream of grandiose more than anything else.  Republic Memorial is for me just another addition to this list of rulers’ fantasies.

The grand republic tower is said to cost about Rs. 500 million and take 2 years to be constructed. As is the usual case, the cost is very likely to increase for countless reasons. It is supposed to signify “our” victory over the monarchy. My question is, do we have so much money to spare for a tower when poor taxpayers are dying because they can’t afford a medicine of mere Rs. 5? How could anyone spend 2.3 million on designing something when millions of children are deprived of education for lack of money? Would anyone of sense that cared for others spend so much money for a monument? It is not only ludicrous but it is an injustice that our money is being spent on building a monument when we have so many urgent needs to be fulfilled. But again, it’s the way the rulers are! For a common Nepali, the new republic isn’t any better than a nightmare, the transition from being a subject to a king to slaves of 600 plus kings isn’t something to feel victorious about let alone spend millions on erecting a monument.

The fact that Mr. Dahal who calls himself the savior of the poor was eager to spend so much on something to symbolize his rule over us and Mr. Nepal was so eager about the monument that his cabinet decided on the day of the oath about the tower, signifies that their thinking is no different from the ancient emperors who built monuments by exploiting their citizens. Had it been their personal money or even their party’s money, I am sure they would have never even dreamt of such extravagance. But it’s not their money after all! It’s ours!  And guess what’s worse than this?? We are overjoyed that we are going to have a grand tower , something to take photographs against or maybe something to mention except Mount Everest or Buddha when in need to show off.

(Published on the Republica of 6th September 2010)

Sep 2, 2010

Where criminals make the laws!

Just read this editorial published in today's Republica . DB Karki, the CPN-UML lawmaker, who was caught red-hand by police while taking a bribe, has been sentenced to 20 days in judicial custody by the Special Court and that's all it's going to be.  CPN UML is explicit about its reluctance to punish him in any way or even suspend him from party responsibilities and from the post of lawmaker. So, in other words we are going to have a certified criminal as a lawmaker. Oh boy, it feels so wonderful to have a criminal himself make the laws. No wonder our laws are so criminal friendly! And what's more he is among the people drafting the consitution-the supreme law of our country!

You might wonder why CPN UML doesn't punish Karki despite the seriousness of the charge and the circumstances under which he was arrested. Well, it's nothing surprising, it's called brotherhood among thieves. Karki is no different from other politicians of our country, it's just that he got caught. Poor soul! When your alike is in trouble , you don't punish him but help him. And that's what CPN UML is trying to do. 

I was, however, surprised to know that CIAA demanded and the Special Court ordered 20 days in judicial custody as punishment for Karki. Ain't that too much? I think they should have slapped his both cheeks for the mistake, made him promise not to behave that way again and let him go. Oh boy, CIAA is too tough on poor souls!!!

And by the way, I am so grateful to Republica for pointing out our lawmakers' miserable conditions:

Most of our lawmakers come from very humble backgrounds-- they, like common Nepalis, struggle to make a living, to send their children to decent schools, and to meet the expectations of their cadres (sometimes this includes financial support as well). We are not naïve enough to assume that had our politicians been wealthier, they would have been less corrupt. But we all must accept that an environment of poverty creates pressures of its own in breeding corruption among lawmakers. One way to address the problem is to reduce the number of lawmakers in the next parliament and increase their salaries and benefits.

Our poor lawmakers make an average of 40 thousand per month whereas we, commoners make on an average of 6900 per month. Isn't that too unfair for the poor lawmakers?? Way to go Republica!! Thanks for bringing out the plight of our lawmakers!!

Anyway, congratulations to all of us for having certified criminals as law makers. It's a rare opportunity for us! My pen friend Paul says, he has never heard of such thing in his country! Poor Soul!!