Surath Giri's Blog

May 15, 2010

Herod's Law (1999) : A review

May 15, 2010 Surath Giri— min read

I watched this Mexican movie after seeing it as a recommended viewing for libertarians in a couple of websites. And true to the recommendations, the movie bears a strong political satire of corruption in Mexico and the long-ruling PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) party. It aptly tells you about how governments without chains , checks and balances degenerates into an ever evolving parasitic creature that sucks lifeblood of its citizens. The movie is also notable for being the first movie to openly criticize PRI which ruled Mexico for more than 71 years. Despite of being a democracy, open criticism of PRI had been a taboo in the Mexican society, Herod's Law contributed in breaking that taboo and thereby raised a lot of controversy and interference from the then government. As George Orwell once said "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." , the film is said to have had a vital role in PRI losing the elections after ruling for 7 decades.

Juan Vargas, a lowly civil servant, gets appointed the mayor of a small village. All the past mayors of the village have either been lynched or killed for their excessive atrocities. PRI appoints him the mayor believing him to be naive and innocent (which he is at first) and hence a perfect puppet for the party. With good intentions , Vargas starts to build the village but soon realizes there is absolutely no funds left and working responsibly in the corrupt political system is not very practical. When asking for advice, he is handed a copy of the constitution and a revolver and told that only law is Herod's law. Vargas then begins to impose and collect taxes with the point of a gun. With this he assumes all the legislative, executive and judiciary power for the village. He soon turns even more corrupt then his predecessors and all hell breaks loose. Audience are likely to find his following actions too shocking and yet pretty close to the truth.

Though a strong political movie with huge significance, the film is poor in some areas like overacting, and the lack of coherence in the story towards the end. Otherwise, it's a great movie!

Highly recommended movie to all the libertarians and all the big government supporters as well, who tend to have a too rosy a picture of powerful governments!

Herod's Law (1999)

Director: Luis Estrada

Writer: Luis Estrada

Country: Mexico

Language: Spanish

Contains violence, sexuality and offensive language.

आफ्नो पैसा जस्तो ध्यान दिएर अरुको पैसा कसैले पनि खर्च गर्दैन ।

May 12, 2010 Surath Giri— min read

सिद्धान्त पाँच
आफ्नो पैसा जस्तो ध्यान दिएर अरुको पैसा कसैले पनि खर्च गर्दैन ।

कहिल्यै अचम्म मान्नु भएको ५ सरकारले ६०० डलर पर्ने हथौडा र ८०० डलर पर्ने ट्वाइलेट सीट खरिद गरेको सुन्दा ? तपाईले यो देशको चप्पा चप्पामा गएर खोज्नु भयो भने पनि त्यस्तो व्यक्ति पाउनुहँुदनै जसले आफ्नो पैसा भएको भए त्यसरी खर्च गर्नेथियो र पनि यस्ता फजूल खर्च सरकारी तथा जीवनमा अन्य अवस्थामा पनि भइरहेका हुन्छन् । किन? किनकी ती सबै अवस्थामा खर्च गर्ने व्यक्तिले अरु कसैको पैसा खर्चिरहेको हुन्छ ।

अर्थशास्त्री मिल्टन फ्रिड्म्यानले यस कुरालाई विस्तृत रुपमा व्याख्या गर्नुभएको छ र उहाँले औल्याउनुभएको छ पैसा खर्च गर्ने चार तरिका हुन्छन् । जब तपाई आफ्नो पैसा आफूमाथि खर्चिनु हुन्छ तपाईले कमैमात्र गल्ती गनुहुन्छ । पैसा कमाउने खर्च गर्ने र त्यसबाट लाभ हुने व्यक्तिबीचको सम्बन्ध दरिलो प्रत्यक्ष र तत्काल को हुन्छ ।

जब तपाई आफ्नो पैसा अरु कसैलाई उपहार किनिदिनको लागि प्रयोग गर्नुहुन्छ तपाईलाई आफ्नो पैसाको सहि मूल्य पाउने प्रेरणा त हुन्छ तर तपाईले प्रापकले चाहेजस्तै वा उसलाई आवश्यक परेकै चीज किन्नु हुन्छ भन्ने ग्यारेन्टी हुँदैन ।

जब तपाई अरु कसैको पैसा आफ्नो लागि केही किन्नको लागि प्रयोग गर्नुहुन्छ जस्तै खर्चको खाताबाट आफ्नो लागि खाजा खान भने तपाईलाई सही वस्तु पाउने प्रेरणा हुन्छ तर मितव्ययी बन्ने कुनै प्रेरणा हुँदैन ।

अन्त्यमा जब तपाई अन्य व्यक्तिको पैसा अरु कसैको लागि केही किनिदिन प्रयोग गर्नुहुन्छ भने उक्त अवस्थामा कमाउने खर्च गर्ने र लाभ पाउने व्यक्तिबीच कुनै सम्बन्ध हुँदैन जसले गर्दा फजूल खर्च हुने स्रोत हिनामिना हुने सम्भावना सबैभन्दा धेरै हुन्छ । सोच्नुस् त कुनै व्यक्ति अरु कसैको पैसा अरु नै कोहीको लागि खर्च गरिराखेको छ । सरकारले सधै गर्ने नै त्यही हो । र यसै कारणले गर्दा सरकारी स्तरमा धेरै फजुल खर्च हुन्छन् ।

कुनै कुरालाई उत्साहित गरे बढी पाउनुहुन्छ ,निरुत्साहित गरे कम पाउनुहुन्छ ।

May 08, 2010 Surath Giri— min read

सिद्धान्त चार
"कुनै कुरालाई उत्साहित गरे बढी पाउनुहुन्छ ,निरुत्साहित गरे कम पाउनुहुन्छ । "

तपाई र म मानव भएका नाताले प्रेरकको महत्वबाट अछुतो रहन सक्दैनौं । प्रेरकप्रति हामी सधै प्रतिकि्रया जनाइरहेका हुन्छौ । प्रेरकले हाम्रो व्यवहारलाई प्रभावित तुल्याइरहेका हुन्छन् कतिपय अवस्थामा अत्यन्त शक्तिशाली रुपमा । नीतिनिर्माताहरु जसले यस कुरालाई बिर्सन्छन , मूर्खतापूर्न काम गरिरहेका हुन्छन् । जस्तै कुनै वस्तु वा सेवामा करको दर बढाउने र मानिसहरुले उक्त वस्तु वा सेवा उत्तिकै मात्रामा प्रयोग गरिहाल्छन नि भनेर सोच्ने मानौं जनताहरु ऊन काट्नका लागि लाम्बद्ध भेडा हरु हुन ।

स्मरण गर्नुस जब जर्ज बुश (प्रथम)ले दबावमा आएर "नयाँ कर " लाउँदिन भनेर १९९८ मा वादा गरेका थिए । सन् १९९० को ग्रीष्ममा करदरमा ठुलो मात्रामा ब्रिद्धी भएको पायौं हामीले । अरु सँगसँगै डुंगा ,हवाइजहाज तथा गहनामा नाट्किय ढंगले सदनले कर बढायो । कानून निर्माताहरुले सोचे यी वस्तुहरु धनीहरुले मात्रै त उपभोग गर्छन् नि "ल खाउन" । यसबाट उनीहरुले 3 करोड १० लाख डलर पहिलो वर्षको राजस्वस्वरुप उठ्ने अनुमान गरेका थिए तर भइदियो के भने ब्रिद्धी गरिएको कर दरले राजस्व केवल १ करोड ६० लाख डलर मात्र ल्यायो । र साथसाथै उच्चदरको करले गर्दा यी उद्योगहरुमा आएको मन्दीका कारण बेरोजगार भएका व्यक्तिहरुलाई दिने बेरोजगारी भत्ता स्वरुप अर्को १ करोड ६० लाख बराबरको रकम खर्च भयो । केबल वाशिङ्टन डी सी मा मात्रै होला जहाँ कानून निर्माताहरु प्राय प्रेरकको महत्व बिर्सन्छन ३१ को लक्ष्य राख्छन्न १६ हासिल गर्छन् र त्यसका लागि २४ खर्च गर्छन् र सोच्छन ठिकै भाको हो भनेर ।

परिवार टुक्राउन चाहनुहुन्छ परिवार टुक्रियमा पाइने कल्याणकारी चेकको रकम बढाइदिनुस । बचत तथा लगानी घटोस भन्ने चाहनुहुन्छ त्यसमाथि दोहोरो कर लगाइदिनोस् र त्यसमाथि अझ पूँजीगत नाफा कर लगाइदिनोस् । मानिसहरुले कम काम गरुन भन्ने चाहनुहुन्छ उच्चदरमा प्रगतिशील कर लगाइदिनुस ताकि मानिसहरुले बढी काम गर्नु बेकार हो भनेर सोचुन ।

अहिले राज्य सरकार र संघीय सरकार दुवैको ध्यान घट्दो राजस्व र आर्थिक मन्दिका कारण आएको घाटालाई कसरी समाधान गर्ने भन्ने प्रश्नमा आएर अल्झेको छ । म्याकिनक केन्द्रमा हामी के विश्वास गर्छौ भने यस्तो परिस्थितिको समाधान सरकारले त्यसैगरी गर्नुपर्छ जसरी हामी गर्छौ - खर्च कम गरेर । कमजोर अर्थतन्त्रलाई सुचारु गर्ने उपाय नै त्यही हो ताकि यसले बढी रोजगारी र राजस्व सूजना गरोस् । विरामी सिकिस्त भएको बेला डक्टरले झन धेरै रगत निकाल्दैनन् ।

Khariko Ghero : A review

April 24, 2010 Surath Giri— min read

Went to watch "Khariko Ghero" in Gurukul. It is the Nepali adaptation of Bertolt Brecht’s “The Caucasian Chalk Circle” written almost six decades ago! The play is divided into five scenes and presents two intertwined stories. The first story is about a maid Ganga who steals the baby prince at the times of upheaval in the kingdom and saves it from the rebels to raise it as her own son despite of myriads of difficulties she faces.

The second story is about Akkal Bahadur, a drunkard who is appointed as a judge in a comical series of events. He makes decisions that are rather unconventional and in strict sense against the set of laws. His judgments are biased in favor of the poor.

The two stories coincide when Ganga and the queen have a dispute over the custody of Manohar, the baby prince. And the case is brought to Akkal Bahadur.

Having watched quite a lot of plays in Gurukul, I was pleasantly surprised with the much more passionate and lively performances by the actors and even more delighted with the setting of stage and the effects. The scenes of Ganga crossing the river, duck chase were very amusing. Audience were delighted with the ingenuity of the acting and the effects. The music by Night Band was also very pleasing.

The poor aspects of the play included the weak story and and added to the weakness was the poor adaptation. The storyline was a bit difficult to follow since the revolt aspect is vaguely introduced , so are the characters. Next thing, I disapproved of the play was the frequent and unnecessary use of the somewhat vulgar terms and references. The references were quite unnecessary.Only purpose they served was to draw somewhat embarrassed chuckles from the audience which I believe is not very desirable from a play. The poetic justice preached is not desirable but well, that's a personal thing I believe.

Anyway the play is very enjoyable. The performances are amazing and the ingenuity of the effects was especially delighting! Don't miss if you like plays!

“असल सार्वजानिक नीतिलेदिर्घकालिन प्रभाव र सम्पुर्ण व्यक्तिहरुलाई ध्यानमा राख्नुपर्छ नकि अल्पकालीन प्रभाव र सीमित व्यक्तिहरु।”

April 17, 2010 Surath Giri— min read

सिद्धान्त तीन:
“असल सार्वजानिक नीतिले दिर्घकालिन प्रभाव र सम्पुर्ण व्यक्तिहरुलाई ध्यानमा राख्नुपर्छ नकि अल्पकालीन प्रभाव र सीमित व्यक्तिहरु।”

हुनत् बेलायती अर्थशास्त्री जोन मेनार्ड किन्सले कुनै समयमा घोषणा गरेको, “दिर्घकालमा त, हामी सबै मर्छौ ” भन्ने कुरा सही होला तर यसको अर्थ यो होइन कि भोलिको समयमा थुप्रै मानिसहरुलाई असर पर्ने गरि वर्तमानमा केही मानिसको खुसीका लागि नीति अबलम्बन गर्नु ठीक हो।

त्यस्ता थुप्रै नीतिहरु सोच्न सक्छु । जब लिन्डन जोन्सनले १९६० को दशकमा “महान समाज” को अवधरना निकाले त्यसबेला उक्त अवधरना को सोच के थियो भने केही व्यक्तिहरु कल्याण्कारी चेक बाट लाभान्वित हुनेछन । अहिले हामीलाई थाहा छ , दिर्घकालमा, उक्त कार्यक्रमले अल्छिपनलाई बढावा दिने, परिवारहरु विखन्डन गर्ने, अन्तरपुस्तीय निर्भरता र सृजना गर्ने र कर तिर्ने व्यक्तिहरुको कमाइको ठुलो लो अंश खोस्ने काम गर्नुका साथै साँस्कृतिक रोगहरु सृजना गर्‍यो जसलाई निवारण गर्न केही पुस्ता नै लाग्न सक्छ ।

त्यसैगरि सरकारी घाटा र सरकारको आकार विस्तार गर्ने नीतिले गर्दा शुरुवातमा केहीलाई फाइदा भएपनि पछि आएर राष्ट्रको अर्थतन्त्र र नैतिकताको बन्धनलाई दशकौ सम्म असर पुर्‍याइरहेको छ ।

यो सिद्धान्त हाम्रो सोचहरुलाई गहन बनाउनका लागि एउटा अनुरोध हो। यसले भन्छ हामी हाम्रो फैसलामा खोक्रो हुनुहुदैन। यदि कुनै एउटा चोरले एकपछि अर्को बैंकबाट सामर्थ्यले भ्याएसम्मको नगद चोर्छ र सबै पैसा गएर एउटा पसलमा गर्छ र तपाई पसलेहरुसग सर्भे गरेर उक्त चोरले अर्थतन्त्रलाई बढवा दिइराखेको छ भन्ने निष्कर्षमा पुग्नुहुन्छ भने तपाईको फैसलालाई गहन भन्न मिल्दैन।

हामीले सधै याद राख्नुपर्छ कि विगतका नीतिकर्ताहरुले वास्ता नगरे हुन्छ भनेको भोलि नै आजको हाम्रो वर्तमान हो। यदि हामी उत्तरदायी वयस्क बन्न चाहन्छ छौ भने हामीले शिशुको जस्तो व्यवहार गर्नु हुदैन जो केबल आफ्नो र अहिलेको इच्छामा मात्र केन्द्रित हुन्छ ।

Sujeev Shakya’s Unleashing Nepal:Past, Present and Future of the Economy: A review

April 13, 2010 Surath Giri— min read

If one observes the contemporary political economic scenario of Nepal, especially the last 2 decades covering the eventful period of Jana Aandolan I , civil war, royal coup, Jana Aandolan II, comprehensive peace agreement and constitution assembly, they could confidently say Nepalese are fond of hoping for the best and dashing for it and are very familiar with having their hopes thwarted and coping with the worst. If the person digs further into Nepalese history, they can see it has been the same way since the beginning. Despite of being a free nation for centuries unlike its neighbors who suffered the shackles of colonialism and having the potential to be a nother Asian tiger , Nepal has been marred by abject poverty and lagging incomprehensibly behind in case of economic development. The primary reason? Economy of the country has never been an issue; neither to the rulers not to the citizens.The claim can also be justified by the fact that though we have numerous treatise on political, sociological and historical development of Nepal, Shakya's Unleashing Nepal:Past, Present and Future of the Economy is among the few books if any that looks at the country from a predominantly economic point of view.

Understanding a nation's economy is a tough job and when it comes to understanding and explaining a tumultuous and messy economy like ours that is intricately entangled with politics, the job gets even tougher. In this regard, Mr. Shakya has done a marvelous job of tracing back the economic history of Nepal since the country's unification explaining how Nepal's poverty was caused to highlighting the nitty gritty of current scenario.The lucid and logical explanations of the hurdles that prevented and prevent our growth makes the reader wonder if the policy makers would only consider a little bit of this knowledge , we would be save a great deal of anymore foolishness and thereby impoverishment. In this regard, I believe Shakya's book can be termed the missing manual. It's a missing manual to all the policymakers of the country on how to and how not to deal with the economy and to the general citizens on what demands to make if they want prosperity as a priority.

Shakya has divided his book into three parts, i.e. Past, Present and Future. Each part starts with a short introduction giving readers a glimpse of what's coming but without being too obvious. The past has been well researched. Shakya comparison of the contemporaries Prithvi Narayan Shah with Adam Smith and King Mahendra with Jawaharlal Nehru is particularly interesting. The present has been well explained. Shakya is quite familiar with the various aspects of Nepalese economy and has eloquently highlighted all these aspects. His being a economic columnist Nepali times might help in explaining his familiarity with Nepalese economy. The Future section where Shakya tries to explain the potential Nepal holds in various sectors is , however, a bit too fanciful and superficial. Shakya paints such a rosy picture of our economy without actually giving any hints on how to achieve them practically.Readers get into their minds a dreamy Nepal where every sector of the economy is prospering but are left with a bittersweet taste and without any clues on how to achieve that dreamy situation. Shakya being a well known business executive and a popular economic columnist , could have done better than just telling about the possibilities Nepal holds which any well aware general Nepalese citizen could easily explain.One would surely expect some practical policy steps to realize the situation which the book doesn't offer. Bad aspect of this fact is that, reader after completing the book would only be frustrated and clueless rather than hopeful which is I believe is one of the objectives of the book. And given the current political economic scenario of the country, rosy pictures or dreams aren't of much help.

Another point I disagree with the author is his "capitalist welfare state" model. Capitalist Welfare State in itself a very vague model and the lack of clear distinction between capitalism and welfare can be used (as is the case ) by our politicians to revamp the socialist ideas. I believe its the entanglement of liberal policies and welfare state model that created the confusion and thereby decline of the economy after the first Jana Aandolan.

Despite these minor flaws, I found the book very interesting and a must for anyone aspiring to understand the Nepalese economy and the policies that took our economy down the drain and what to do about it. Reading this book can be the first step one can take to unleash Nepal, once and for all.

दोस्रो सिद्धान्त : “जुन कुरा तपाईको हो, त्यसको तपाई हेरचाह गर्नुहुन्छ। जुन कुरा कसैको होइन् वा सबैको हो, त्यसको बेस्याहार हुन्छ।”

April 11, 2010 Surath Giri— min read

"असल सार्वजनिक नीतिका सात सिद्धान्त " मध्येको पहिलो सिद्धान्त मनपराइदिनु भएकोमा धेरै धन्यवाद । दोस्रो सिद्धान्त को अनुवाद आज पोस्ट गरेको छु । पढेर प्रतिक्रिया दिनु होला :

दोस्रो सिद्धान्त :

“जुन कुरा तपाईको हो, त्यसको तपाई हेरचाह गर्नुहुन्छ।

जुन कुरा कसैको होइन् वा सबैको हो, त्यसको बेस्याहार हुन्छ।”

यस सिद्धान्तले मूख्यत : निजी सम्पत्तिको जादु माथि प्रकाश पार्दछ। यसले संसारभरका समाजवादी अर्थतन्त्रको असफलताका बारेमा व्याख्या गर्दछ।

पुरानो शोभियत साम्राज्यमा, सरकारले केन्द्रिय योजना र राष्ट्रिय स्वामित्वको विषिस्ठताको खुब गुणगान गाउथ्यो । उनीहरु निजी सम्पत्तिलाई निराकरण वा कम्तीमा न्युनिकरण गर्न चाहन्थे किनकी उनीहरुको सोचाइमा निजी स्वामित्व भनेको स्वार्थी र अनुत्पादक हुन्छ। उनीहरुको तर्क थियो , सरकारी स्वामित्वमा भएप स्रोतहरु सबैको फाइदको लागि सदुपयोग हुन्छन्।

जुन खाद्यान्न पहिले किसानको खाद्यान्न थियो, त्यो अब “जनताको खाद्यान्न” बन्न गयो र मानिसहरु भोकै पर्न थाले। जुन कारखाना कुनैबेला उद्यमीको कारखाना थियो , त्यो अब “जनताको कारखाना” बन्न गयो र त्यसबा६ यति गुणस्तर्हीन सामान बन्न थाल्यो कि ती सामानका लागि सीमाभन्दा पारी कुनै बजार नै थिएन।

हामीलाई अहिले थाहा छ, पूरानो शोभियत साम्राज्यले एकपछी अर्को आर्थिक र परिवृत्तीय गल्ती गँयो। एकपछी अर्को खराब सपना लिएर आयो। यो प्रत्येक समाजवादी प्रयोगको पाठ हो। हुनत्ः समाजवादीहरु अम्लेट बनाउन केही अन्डाहरु त फुटाउनै पर्छ नि भन्न खुब रुचाउछन् तर सत्य के हो भने उनीहरु जहिले पनि अन्डा मात्र फुटाउछन् , अम्लेट कहिल्यै बनाउदैनन।

तपाई आफू सम्पत्तिको ख्याल राख्नमा राम्रो छु जस्तो लाग्छ भने , गएर अरु कसैको ३रमा एक महिनाको लागि बसिहेर्नुस वा उनीहरुको कार चलाएर हेर्नुस्। म वचन दिन्छु न त उनीहरुको घर न त गाडीनै तपाईको जस्तो देखिन्छ।

यदि तपाईलाई समाजका अप्रचुर स्रोतहरु लिएर रद्दीमा परिणत गर्नुछ भने , तपाईले मात्र, ती स्रोत सृजना गर्ने वा कमाउने व्यक्तिको हातबाट खोसेर कुनै केन्दि्रय अख्तियारलाई व्यवस्थापन गर्न दिए पुग्छ। तपाईले एकै झ६कामा सबै कुरा तहसनहस गर्न सक्नुहुन्छ। दुःखको कुरा त के छ भने , सबै तहका सरकारले सधैजसो त्यस्ता ऐन कानून बनाइराखेका हुन्छन् जसले निजी सम्पत्तिको अधिकार हनन् गरेर सम्पत्तिको राष्ट्रियकरण गर्न तर्फ उन्मूख हुन्छन्।