Why Disagreement is a Good Thing?

As a person who seeks out debates I feel rather cheated when they end with a weak appeal to relativism. It often happens after ideas are exchanged, wit applied, and vocal chords stretched that the convincee shams away by offering “We both are right. It’s my opinion so it’s true for me but may not be true for you, so there no point in challenging each other’s truth” or a variation of this relativistic blabber. And the mood plummets. This relativistic dung is uttered with firm conviction that by not challenging each other’s beliefs we aid the spread of tolerance in the world. They couldn’t be more wrong. 

Having an opinion is admirable. Acquiring knowledge to form an opinion is the very point of an education, some might argue of life, but –and here comes the obvious –just because I have one does not make it true. Faith and belief is no proof of infallibility and must not be excused from the inquisition of logic and reasoning. Radical Muslims share the opinion that infidels must be killed for the establishment of an Islamic world; must we, then, acknowledge the infallibility of this intellectual garbage just because it’s “true for them”?  Are people who believe in the antiquated ideas of female genital mutilation and Bal Bhiva as “right” as us who don’t? Should we not disagree with them?    

It is precisely because no belief should be left unchallenged that freedom to dissent must not be compromised.

 It was Rosa Luxemburg who pointed out “Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently”. There is no point (or fun) in only letting people who agree with each other speak; those who disagree must be free and protected to do so.  

Throughout the world, throughout the ages, dissenters have battled arrogance of conformity armed with a pen and powered by wit and they’ve suffered: books have been banned, thoughts censored, lives threatened and lost. This suffering of freedom is proof that disagreement is daunting for those who wish to impose a singular, unchallenged, truth on society. It’s that fear that forced Gyanendra Shah to censor the press, the Ayatollah to issue a fatwa against Rushdie; Galileo to write the pro forma renunciation; and the Spanish Inquisition to burn the Quran and the list goes on. 

When a bunch of Muslim thugs forced the (secular) Indian government to ban The Satanic Verses the cowardly excuse offered was that the book hurt minority sentiments and could incite violence. They offered the same excuse -unofficially of course -during last year’s Jaipur Literature Festival. When MF Hussein was banished from India by Hindu crazies for his depiction of a naked goddess the same lame excuses were given. Doesn’t that seem odd? Odd, because it wasn’t Rushdie or Hussein that incited violence; they were the victims of it. Yet, Rushdie and Hussein, who were expressing themselves, suffered the consequences and humiliation of having to live undercover lives.  

Many Muslim protested the distasteful cartoons mocking Muhammad and they had the right to do so (not with impunity if they broke laws), however for them to say that some non-Muslim cartoonist in Denmark should be stopped from drawing them is ridiculous. They don’t have to see or draw the cartoons if they so choose, but coercing the rest of us to accept their lead into the pits of self-censorship is intolerable. “Ban the cartoons and behead the cartoonist”, cried some in their silly radical voices, “or we’ll make life hell for people who had nothing to do with it.” And many governments politically pissed their pants. 

Closer to home our own (pending) constitution, it seems, will be a victim to this fake security. If the interim constitution or the ones before that are benchmarks than the possibility to a constricted freedom of expression is looming.  As of now, Article 12, section 3, subsection (a) provides every citizen with the freedom of opinion and expression.  Provided that, it goes on to say, nothing in sub-clause (a) shall be deemed to prevent the making of laws to impose reasonable restriction on any act which…may jeopardize the harmonious relations...or any act which may be contrary to public behavior or morality( emphasis added).  So, what this says is: you may say what you like and hear what you want, but we will ban and censor what we want if we feel it’s reasonable to do so. Tell me dear readers, what is this parameter of reasonableness? Which court, which judge, which minister, and under what circumstance, can tell you what they think is reasonable for you to hear? Who is capable of judging the standards of public morality and what appropriate behavior is? 

A conversation with a friend who owns a book shop helped illuminate the nature of censorship in Nepal. Our government is not too eager in “official” censorship, so in a perverse delegation of responsibility it relies on self-censorship by publishers who do not want to risk losses.  Another non-official way of banning books in Nepal is through India. For example: Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and Taslima Nasrin’s Lajja are wholly or partially banned in India so by proxy it’s unavailable in Nepal. During the Panchayat days issues of Newsweek and Times magazine critical of the government were banned at customs, so too were Communist literature. It’s no coincidence that the once ubiquitous Free Tibet merchandise is no more to be found in book stores. 

Talking about the Taliban, the essayist and pugnacious defender of freedom of expression, Christopher Hichens wrote: “they allowed the existence of prose and poetry only to the extent of the enforced recitation of one book, but all music they forbade.” Imagine the claustrophobia. And now imagine yourself in the middle of it. This is what happens when “truth” is left unconfronted. A misplaced sense of tolerance breeds intellectual sloth and that, dear readers, is a dreadful sin.



A version of this article appeared in Wave magazines, May 2012 issue. Please click link.

I own none of the Videos or the image used. Please check the Youtube video source for more detail. 

Down with women chauvinism!

"Why can't a man be more like a woman" asks a friend of mine, as she whines about how her ex-boy friend has the emotional intelligence of a door knob. I sit back, and continue to sip tea. She then blabbers something about men being hyper sexual- emotionally retarded -hairy imbeciles. This irritates me "Okay, that's it girlie, you've gone too far! I will not sit back and see you stereotype my gender is such an unfair and ridiculous manner. Your generalization is pathetic!" I want to say, but don't. It wasn't the right time.

So, in an ironic twist of things I find myself writing about the criminalization of manliness for a women special issue of this magazine. But it is a discussion that needs to be had.

Any reasonable person will agree that women empowerment is vital to a healthy society. Statistics on how educated mothers have a positive multiplier effect on the community is no longer debatable. You cannot 'make the world a better place' by unjustly limiting half its population from fulfilling their potential. The need to appreciate women for their personhood has taken gigantic steps worldwide, yet more needs to be done. Child marriage, gender discrimination in the workplace, lack of access to health and violence are but few of the problems that ail women and need to be addressed with all seriousness. No arguments there.

The feminist movement has done miracles in empowering women and demanding equality with men. Over the last couple of decades (with arrival of 'third wave feminism') women have been striving to be assertive about their own sexuality-take ownership of it. Advice that tells women to act like men and not be so stereotypically girly is archaic. There is a growing re-acknowledgement of the differences between men and women, and an understanding that difference does not mean unequal. Women are taking ownership of stereotypes to celebrate their womanhood. And more power to them. However, my beef with the feminist movement is- intentionally or unintentionally- it stays silent during the persecution of men. It gives a pseudo-authorization for harassing masculinity. Its narrative of gender issue is so one-sided that women take what they want and leave men short-changed. I shall elaborate.

If generalization is wrong then it must to be wrong for both sexes. Yet, it's a social blasphemy to herd women into the shed of generalization, but it's okay to do so with men. Say "Women are such bitches" in public and radical feminists will call for your castration. Say "Men are such assholes" and you get nodding heads and laughter. Does that sound fair?

Women are encouraged to celebrate their sexuality but when men do the same evolution is questioned and concerns about our hidden animalistic nature are expressed. Men suffer from the contradictory roles society expects. On one hand men are expected to act calm under stress, not be afraid of danger, kill wanton insects, and act chivalrous while on the other, manly things are to be avoided. Male camaraderie through aggressive competition is discouraged. What was once a noble exercise of wit and passion is shunned for the fear of being mistaken for a fight. If a man chooses to keep his emotions to himself, make light-hearted quip about romance or spend a day watching a football game with his mates he's branded as an emotional retard who has no feelings what so ever.

Society is far more lenient towards women who do the stereotypically manly things when compared to when men do the stereotypically female activities. The roles society has heaped on us can be flaunted by women under thunderous applause, but it's a big no-no for men to do so. Women have a choice in defining their sexuality while men are bound by their gender- and here lies all the difference. Society comes to the defense of the woman's right to choose. The options for men are disposable.

Another contradiction in the roles assigned to men is that we are expected, in times of adversity, to act like heroes, while simultaneously being branded as 'potential rapists'. We (speaking on behalf of most of my sex) find this accusation disgusting!  We will not we treated as creatures to be wary off, something to avoid at night. We put our foot down. And if this continues start killing your own damned cockroaches!

At the institutional level as well, men continue to be discriminated against. Adoption rights, divorce laws, laws regarding domestic violence are all tilted in favor of women. Domestic violence against women when brought to the limelight gets all the deserved sympathy and legal protection; domestic violence against men (yes, it exists) is dismissed as a joke.

While rape is a horrendous crime and deserves to be punished by the most severe of laws, cases of false accusation don't do society any favors. A man who has been accused of rape is shunned by society and there are no laws protecting him from discrimination. Take the recent example of the former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. O how the mighty fell!

Society needs to re-think some of the gender issues. I don't support women empowerment because I want to replace men chauvinism with women chauvinism; I support it because we can create a better world for both girls and boys by teaching them the truth about being a woman and being a man.

Having strong, independent and intelligent women in society, necessary though it is, cannot replace strong, independent and intelligent men. They must complement each other. Let's emphasize femininity for its own sake, and not as a revenge for masculinity.

Written for March Issue of Wave magazine

Thoughts on Valentines Day!

Romantic love is perhaps the greatest reward of human evolution. It is one of the finer survival mechanisms we have developed as a species. Scientific research into how our mind transforms when we are “in love” has helped luminate the chemical complexity behind it all. Love is made possible by a romantic coordination of the visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, and neurochemical processes. Contrary to the insufferable saying “Love is blind” love it seems has a wonderful eyesight and is far from being deaf or crazy or mute.

Whatever your presumed reason for falling in love maybe, it derives its motivation by the human instincts to procreate. The true tragedy of human love is that even though we have an insatiable desire to mate, we want to mate with only those partners we think will give us genetically strong offspring. Therefore begins the process of sniffing, tasting, and eyeing our partners out. You are not with your partner for no reason; there is a fascinating evolutionary story that’s took millions of year to perfect that has led you two to hook up.

Since the early Homo sapiens love has been part of our societal interactions. We have relied of the same chemicals to produce the same emotion to fulfill some of the same tasks regardless of the time and space of our existence. Love over millenniums has not altered, however the ways in which we express it have.

Human have always relied on symbols. Symbols help us express the intangible. Look around, you are surrounded by symbols: symbols of God, of bravery, of good old times. We do the same with love. The way people symbolize love has differentiated along cultural and chronological lines but all ages and all races have done so. When Shah Jahan had the Taj Mahal built he was symbolizing love. Writing extravagant poetry for your partner is an expression of love. Buying diamonds- that last forever- is also a symbol of love.

The symbols and the ways of expressing love are dynamic. In the past lovers had to be creative in conveying their feelings. They could not rely on mass produced goods to come to their aid. The select few who could write wrote poems, letters, and songs for the sake of amour. And the many that couldn’t, used subtle ways of expressing it. Over the years the symbolisms altered- alas for the worse. In our economic age love became commodified. The symbols were hijacked. The urge to be creative stifled by mass production. The subtle art of expressing love tattered by the constant bombardment of images that told us we must do something or give something when in love.

The mundane nature of modern life finds relief in the magic of mass communication. Movies and advertisements that provide an escape also tell us how to feel and what to do with those feelings. People in love are forced to undergo what sociologist Arlie Hochschild termed “emotional labor”: a form of emotional regulation wherein people are expected to display certain emotions in certain circumstances. The necessity to act a certain way when in love had gripped our thinking. But how do we act this love out?

We know we have to express love but we find ourselves caught between the unexciting expressions our economic age and the clichéd expressions of a past era. So most of us raise our hands in surrender to corporation and ask them to convey our most private yearnings through mass produced symbols. We give cards, and gifts and go out for drives and dates because that is what lover do. And if you don’t, well then there must be something wrong with you.

Isn’t that sad? Does that not make you angry? A thousand years from now when people look back at our time and ask how we expressed love, they’ll find that all of us gave teddy bears to each other and went to eat in a fancy restaurant on the February 14 every year. How boring is that!

I am no love guru to give advice on how to go about your intimate life but as a matter of common sense I can say this: Even though love is grand its best expressed with humility. You don’t need to be a poet to tell your partner how much they are appreciated. Neither do you need Valentine’s Day nor songs or chocolates or hearts or stuffed animals or cards or dates or movies or even words. If your chemicals are working then love can be expressed through the most basic of human actions on the most ordinary of days.

So don’t let a chubby Roman God flying half naked with a bow and arrow dictate your reaction to this fundamental human emotion. If you don’t get a gift this Valentine’s don’t despair, maybe your partner is trying express it in a more subtle ways. After all, humans have expressed love without commercializing it for millenniums and I am certain we are capable of doing the same this Valentines.

Written for Wave Magazine's February, 2012 issue.

Because Tibetans in Nepal Also have Rights!

Yet another prayer gathering by Tibetans in Kathmandu was busted. This now seems like a regular affair. And that is sad.

Given the geopolitics of the region Nepal's decision to adhere to the "One China Policy" cannot be criticized. But these over zealous attempt to please our Chinese friends (read overlords) by equating any Tibetan gathering as anti-China and cracking down on it brutally must stop. There needs to be an internal dialogue in Nepal about how important we think freedom of speech is in this country, and how far we are ready to go for the sake of friendship. As far as I am concerned: while in Nepal if someone wants to question the nature of Chinese governance in Tibet, Sri Lankan governance in Northern Sri Lanka, American bases around the world, or Indian governance in Kashmir, we should allow them the privilege. That's what free societies do.

I have nothing against a friendly relations with China. I think its much needed. The Chinese have been good friends to Nepal. But the last time I checked Nepal was not a part of China. So lets stop acting as if we are! It also surprises me that not many Nepali "pro-freedom", and "human rights" advocates cry out about this.

No one here promotes anti-china activities in Nepal. But we need to support human rights in China, and freedom of speech in Nepal.

Monsanto: Our Savior?

Stop Monsanto in Nepal screams a Facebook page. But why? Why should I stop something that promises higher yield for farmers, and food security in country where millions go hungry every day.

Well, this uproar is about USAID and the Ministry of Agriculture's decision to promote Monsanto hybrid maize seeds in key maize producing districts of Chitwan, Nawal Parasi, and Kavre. This controversial pilot project targets 20,000 farmers and includes training on hybrid maize production practices. The purpose of this initiate according to the USAID- Nepal website is to “improve the business environment, work with the Government of Nepal (GON) to strengthen fiscal and trade policies, encourage competitiveness and exports, enhance food security and increase access to financial services.”

Sounds good right! So why the noise? Apparently, all is not as bright and cozy about Monsanto and its hybrid seeds. Critics of this initiative have two major problems: first, the problem with hybrid seeds; second, the problem with Monsanto.

To start off- let be fair - there is a widespread confusion about what hybrid seeds really are. Most people seem to confuse them with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). They are not the same thing. Hybrid seeds are the offspring of a cross of two different varieties or species, GMO’s are plants whose genes have been altered in the lab to insert foreign genetic material. It’s important to know that not all hybrids are GMO’s. A hybrid is a GMO only if one or both of the parent plants had been genetically modified. Most hybrids do not have artificially manipulated DNA and are therefore not GMOs.

Pro-hybrid seed folks argue that hybrid seeds are attractive because of their “hybrid vigor” which ensures higher yield, more uniform looking product, longer shelf life and relatively cheap price in the short term. Hybrid critics on the other hand argue that while the product looks better it taste like salted cardboard, requires more fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and water to achieve their high yields than “traditional” or heirloom seeds, and are more expensive in the long term especially taking into account soil and water degradation.

Another big disadvantage of the hybrid seed is that farmers cannot save the seed. Saved seeds are either sterile or produce plants that are different from the original. This means that the farmer will have to buy a new batch of hybrid seeds every year.

For example, an average farmer from Kavre, let’s call him Ram dai, decides to buy the Monsanto hybrid maize seeds that USAID promises will give him higher yields and plants them. And like a good Nepali farmer, Ram dai does what the “foreigners and educated city folks” tells him and uses the prescribed fertilizers and pesticides the seeds need to fulfill their potential. Lo and behold! The seeds produce higher yields than usual. Ram dai is smiling from ear to ear! Everyone is happy until Ram dai realizes that the seeds from the hybrid crop cannot be saved for another year, and he has to buy the seeds again the next year and again the year following that. He's also angry about his soil is slowly turning into dust. Further, excuse his impertinence if he’s not too thrilled about the fact that the seeds also need a special kind of fertilizers, and pesticide for the wonder seed top work.He’s pissed to find out that the ones producing the wonder seed and the wonder fertilizers to sustain those seeds is the same company. Yes, you guessed it- The big M.

Which brings us to the second major problem: Monsanto- voted the world’s most evil corporation. Ask most environmentalists and they will probably say Monsanto makes Hitler look like a pink unicorn. So evil is Monsanto that when it offered to help a desperate Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, the smart Haitian farmer decided to the burn the seeds. Monsanto is accused of almost single handedly strangling small farmers, producing GMO’s that have harmful side effects, producing the infamous Agent Orange, and many other horrors that can be read about on any environmental blog online.

Also, surprising is the confusion USAID is under. USAID has somehow decided that the words " food security" and "promoting specific Corporate interests in the third world countries" mean the same thing. And while English is not my native language I am certain they are wrong. While USAID is "From the American People"I am sure the American people aren't too thrilled about improving Monsanto's bottom line.

So here we are: Is Nepal hungry from maize? Yes, we are. Will hybrid seeds increase our production? It will (at least in the short term). Is Monsanto’s hybrid seeds our best option? History and smarter people than me seem to think not.

So what are you going to do about it? My advise is to join the protest! Mail the US Ambassador and tell him he's wrong. Get in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture and tell them they are wrong. Spread the word!!

-----

P.S- Remember to spread the word in way that people understand and in a way that is respectful enough to be taken seriously.

What’s a game of Football after all?

I stood in a hot and sweaty classroom talking to a large group of older students about the “issues” they face.As I looked outside the room, I couldn’t believe what I saw. I was too distracted to continue that I took an unplanned break. In the
middle of the afternoon under the scorching heat of the relentless sun, a group of shalwar clad girls, were playing football with a group of boys. Yes, football. Even from my limited knowledge of the sport I could see that they have done this before, and had done it for a while.I looked around to see if anyone else was amused by this seemingly baffling scenario, but no one seemed to notice anything different. As I saw what I saw, I qucikly snapped a picture and sent it to my brother ( the self appointed guardian of my rightfull place as a women) with a caption that read, in bold, “ a man’s game! my foot”.In a futile attempt to unconfuse myself I tried telling myself “ So wh

at’s the big deal, it’s just football afterall? right?”...... wrong!.

I was so completely distracted at the time that it did not even occur to me that these students were playing in an area only recently cleared of landmines. Earlier that day, I met these students, trying to help them figure out these so called “issues”. However, their issues were somewhat different from what one might ex

pect.In this particular group, every single student had lost a family member due to death, detention or succumbed to the infamous lable “missing”. Most of them were forcefully conscripted to fight a grusome, bloody war they had not asked for, but nonetheless paid for it dearly.On average each student had been displaced and resettled 8 to 12 times within the past 10 years. They had suffered immensly at the hands of those who fought for, and aganist their rights, just two sides of the same coin depending on how one chooses to see it. Raped, orphaned, abused, maimed, detained, totured , the so called “issues” are endless.

A year ago when I took up an assignment to work in post war are

as, I was told of how backward this war ravaged community was. In order to be accepted I supposed to wear a saree ,pull my hair back , not look at men straight in the eye,speak the correct dialect etc. I had to play the part of a conservative women as this almost primitive society expected nothing less. I had no choice, as my oragnization explained it, but to be culturally sensitive. “I had to be accepted” according to their definition of how a women ought to be and therefore had to play the part accordingly.


This was the first time I travled so far into the interior of this isolated area, where firece fighting had ta

ken place toward the end of the war. The students and their families were resettled recently and were still trying to adjust to their new post war lives, away from detention, rehabilitation and refugee camps.Them playing football did not shock me beacuse I expected them to be traumatized or depressed as many would expect they would be. I was only confused beacuse this was the last place on earth that I thought I would see girls play football, (let alone play football with boys). In my defence, I was asked to be culturally sensitive.

As I travelled back to the city that night, I couldn’t wrap my brain around the fact that these girls were playing a “man’s game” fearlessly in a place where women and men

had a clear understanding of “how women should be”. How could this so called backward community allow girls to play a “man’s game” ? and that too with MEN? (while I in a progressive city am asked to just watch the game).

Fortunatly that day, I was travelling with a senior counterpart who had worked in these areas through the thick of war. In a futile attempt to downplay my ignorance, I casually inquired of her about this incident that had now become an obsession. She, casually, told me how the traditional role of a women, and what she should and shouldn’t do are none exsistant in this part of the country. At the end of the conversation, she said with a h

alf smile “ They’ve seen women in every possible role, you city folk can’t even imagine”. The rest of the 12 hour journey back home my thoughts were flooded with unstoppable memories of stories I had heard during this assignment and during the past year. Why didn’t I realise this truth before?

I was made to believe that the definition of “how women should be” was well defined in this community. They were right, it was well defined, however the problem was that the definition I was given was wrong. The reality is that this community has seen their women fight in the frontlines of battle, detonate themselves as suicide bombers, manufature small ammunition, launch guerrilla attacks from within dangerous jungles,dress bloody wounds, lose limbs, carry the wounded and bury the dead ( at times the almost dead). Some of them followed the lead

of the women who taught them to assemble a bomb and defuse others, read mine maps and kill themselves when captured by the enemy. They have seen themselves, their mothers, sisters,aunts and girl friends agree to have sex with higher officers, in exchange for front line fighting. Women drove armed cars and tankers, bombed cities, trained fighters,lead battalions,smuggled tractor loads of weapons,dug bunker holes for protection, drank alcohol and roled joints, farmed, foraged and fished to feed their troups. They did all this and more, all in par with men; and in this the land of “how women should be” sometimes....just sometimes..... they also played football together.

This is not another quasie hero sob story of how this community has made it through tough times. While a handfull of resilient ones have re adjusted to their new lives, most of them have not yet made it through the tough times, (and might not anytime soon). The war has left more scars than what are seen outside. Greif, loss, poverty, coruption still continue to plauge them as they struggle to survive just one day at a time. Although the worst is over, and there are small but sure signs of positive change, to most of them them the absence of war is just the absence of war. Nothing more, nothing less.

In this community,one generation has lived to see how a war changed the so called traditional roles of a women upside down. While they were forced to re define the roles of women, they passed on the re-defined version to the next generation who live that reality today. So what’s a game of football afterall? for surely it’s not a man’s game anymore.

-----

Article written by Annamika.

The identity of the author has not been disclosed for security reasons.

Interesting Fact of the Day or "The Nepali PM That Helped Win a War"

While Nepal’s contribution of 160,000 soldiers to the allied cause during WW2 is widely known in Nepal and not unheard of in the rest of the world, its Nepals non-personnel contributions that I wish to highlight today.

Not many know, but in addition to the men Nepal, under PM Juddha Sumsher Rana, also contributed 3,000 walnut trees for the purpose of making rifle butts, 8000 sal trees for railways sleepers, 192 service revolvers, 145 binoculars, and 95 machine guns. The PM also donated Rs. 115,500 to various Imperial Relief Funds from his personal family reserves. Further (and this is where it gets interesting), the magnanimous and clearly very rich prime minister sent 50 cigarettes, a pound of tea, a pound of sugar, a pound of biscuit, and a photograph of himself to each leaving solider. Tell me that is not awesome!

The reason for Juddha Sumsher’s generosity was clearly political; and alas lady luck is no man’s mistress. Things didn’t turn out the way JSR had hoped. Winston Chruchill’s Conservatives lost and the new British Labor Government wanted out of the subcontinent. The Rana regime was left on its own, and didn’t make it much longer.

Regardless of how history turned out, Nepal’s unheard, albeit invaluable, contributions to the cause is worth remembering. Also worth remembering is the man who gave away photographs of himself to soldiers going to war.


Information provided by: Nepal Under the Ranas, Adrian Sever, pp. 350.
Photograph taken from ancestry.com