Sajha.com

Last night I had a dream or should I say a nightmare. It was very unusual. I saw my entire state in anarchy. I witnessed cracking conflicts, wipeouts and battue, women and children being put into fire and the atrocious way the freebooters were creating terror among peace loving people by raping, killing, plundering and torturing people to death. Standing alone in the chaos was me and I was wondering how the peace loving people of my country go to such an extent of inhuman treatment towards the same human race. One group of killers was abetting the other group to intensify the killings. The only thing I knew that moment was this violence was unlikely to abate very soon.

The hatred was for no reason and even if there was a reason, all of them failed to realize that the very hatred had converted them into devils out of human beings and was moving them to commit such horrible crimes. It was vivid that these people were infected by contagious disease named hatred. These callous people were spitting the most powerful venom of hatred for others.

It is an inevitable fact that these killers too have family and they indeed possess soft feelings for their relations. But while demolishing other’s lives I could see they were being taken over by such boisterous instinct that their mind became devoid of the frail outlook in the analogy of their own relations. Blood for blood had become the most modus operandi. And within a blink of eye my peaceful land was sodden with blood. I was the only one alive in this war. I was absolutely alienated and I was searching for my family. I could find them nowhere and I knew I had lost my world.

The sunrise came with no meaning. I had lost everything and there was no reason to live. I made up my mind to surrender myself to death. Then I saw a young innocent child playing with blood without cognizing what had bechanced. He must have felt like it’s another beautiful day as usual which was in fact not to be. He had no clue that like me he had lost his paradise. I couldn’t resist it and I just picked him up from the mess. I gave him a tender kiss on his forehead. The very moment I felt I shouldn’t give this child the very world I have seen, a world of terror, a bedlam world. The child instantly gave me a reason to live. I promised to myself that I would live for this child and try giving him a cosmos where he can feel the zephyr, experience peace and tranquility. I was determined to adorn his life. Then I assured myself that no matter what others do, I shall continuously lay my efforts for maintaining serenity, if not for myself then for the generations to come by. Kissed him once again and then he smiled, an innocent smile.

Alankar Khanal

   [ posted by Alankar Khanal @ 11:39 AM ] | Viewed: 1634 times [ Feedback]

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "myth" as "a popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal." There are many myths in the current world but not all of them capture as much attention as creation myths. Every religion, every culture in the world seems to have its own creation myth. There are similarities as well as differences between the creation myths in different religions and different cultures.

Despite the similarities and differences, it is very difficult to find a single source of those creation myths, and it is also difficult to determine which culture borrowed the myths from which. But it is very interesting to observe these similarities and differences because these similarities and differences not only showcase the beliefs and perceptions of people following these religions and cultures, but also give us a chance to analyze and become familiar with them.

Major world religions have their own versions of creation. Islamic religious books reveal that God called his angels and told them that he wanted to create a vicegerent for Himself on earth. According to Qur'an, "God chose a sounding clay and mud to make man. God then breathed His spirit into dry mud and man came into being. The spirit that God breathed in man represents His own Soul" (Shariati).

Hinduism does not mention particularly about the creation of man but it mentions the creation of universe and the world as a whole. According to Chandogya Upanishad,"There was only one Existence and no other. The One thought that there should be many others and that they should grow. So the One created a universe out of Him and created beings. Then the One himself entered into every being" (Fisher 87).

The Hindu creation myth clearly shows that God did not differentiate between His creations, and valued them equally. Hence he entered into every being including humans.

The Christian creation myth seems like a combination of Islamic and Hindu myths. According to the Bible, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1.1-1.2), "And the Eternal God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2.7). This description of man being created from dust, and God breathing life in man is similar to the creation description in Islam. The Bible also mentions God as saying "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens" (Gen.1.20-1.30). This description is similar to the Hindu description of creation where God creates other creatures along with man.

The major similarity that can be seen in the above creation myths is that God created man and other beings. But Islam and Christianity show that man's creation was more important. On the other hand, Hinduism shows that the creation of every being was equally valued. More interesting things will be revealed if we take a closer look at the description involving creation of man in Islam and Christianity because of the importance placed on creation of man.

According to Bible, God said, "Let us make man in our own image according to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over ALL the earth, and over everything that creeps or moves" (Gen. 1.26).Thus Bible gives an idea that man was God's favorite creation, and that God made man superior than other beings. Another interesting thing to note is that God says "us" and "our". This is enough to make us realize that there was not one creator; there were two or more of them. Could it be two male Gods? Could it be a male God and a female Goddess? The Bible shows the possibility of multiple Gods creating the universe with equal contribution. Also, man is made in "their" own image, which is a vague statement because the image could be mental, psychological or physical. This image is not mentioned clearly. This mystery in Christian myth makes it stand out from Hindu or Islamic myths.

Like the Bible, Qur'an also mentions man as God's favorite creation. God made man from mud and blew His own soul into him. Thus man is a two-dimensional being formed from mud and God's spirit."One dimension tends toward mud, lowliness, sedimentation, and stagnation while the other dimension aspires to the loftiest imaginable point possible. Man's significance and grandeur lies in the fact that he possesses two poles (mud and spirit of the Lord). It is up to man to choose where to go, towards mud or providence. And as long as he has not selected either of the poles as his fate, struggle will perpetually rage within him" (Shariati). The two dimensional nature of man perhaps explains why man is free to behave in any ways he chooses to. This "will" is the characteristic of man that differentiates man from God's other creations. Qur'an clearly shows how important and favorite man was to God.

The similarity between Islamic and Christian creation myth is not limited to man being God's favorite creation. There are a few references in Qur'an and Genesis that are similar and yet carry different meanings. For example, Genesis mentions woman being formed from Adam's ribs, and Islam mentions woman being created from man's nature. The word for nature in Arabic and Hebrew is "rib" (Shariati). So could it be that what Genesis wanted to mean was actually "Eve was created from Adam's nature" instead of "Eve was created from Adam's ribs"? Who knows?

It is very interesting to observe the similarities between creation myths of different world societies with those of major religions. The Egyptian myths suggest that in the beginning, Atum created himself using his thoughts and will. He was without a mate and so he made a union with his shadow, and created more gods. This description of Atum suggests his bisexual nature, and this is why Egyptians call him the 'Great He-She' (Piankoff 24). Although Egyptian myth suggests a single bisexual creator, the probability of multiple creators cannot be completely disregarded. Egyptian myth could be compared to Christian myth where God says "us" and "our". Could the Bible and Egyptians be referring to a single bisexual creator? Or could both these myths be referring to multiple creators? The names 'Atum' and 'Adam' sound so similar, and could as well be the same person.

The Japanese creation myth mentions that a deity called Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto, the Deity-of-the-August-Center-of-Heaven, rose up from the boundless and shapeless mass. Next, the heavens gave birth to a deity named Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto, the High-August-Producing-Wondrous-Deity, followed by a third deity named Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto, the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity. These three divine beings are called the Three Creating Deities (Brians). The Japanese myth thus is similar to the Egyptian and Christian myth in terms of multiple creators. But Christian and Egyptian myths are not clear about multiple creators where as Japanese myth clearly states that there were three creators.

The Japanese myth is also significantly different from the other myths in that it doesn't attribute the creation of man to the three creators. A pair of immortals were born from the earth. These divine beings were summoned by the heavenly deities and were bestowed with powers to rule the land on earth (Brians). Could these two divine beings be the first humans, Adam and Eve? If yes, then Japanese myth shows that male and female were created at the same time, unlike what Christian myth suggests. But the creators bestowing the power on the humans to rule the land on earth does seem similar to God's words to man in the Qur'an and the Bible, where the creator bestows man with the power to rule everything on earth. Japanese myth is different from the myths in the Qur'an and the Bible, and yet so similar.

The Mongol creation myth attributes the creation to a single creator called Udan. When Udan was one thousand years old, he divided the heaven and earth into separate entities. He thus created a nine-story heaven, a nine-story earth, and nine rivers. Finally he created a man and a woman out of clay (Bayer and Stuart 323). This Mongol myth of a single creator creating everything is similar to the Hindu myth. Also man being created with mud (clay) is similar to Islamic and Christian myths. The Mongol myth mentions man and woman being created at the same time like the Japanese myth, and unlike Christian myth.

The Mongol myth mentions that God ascended to heaven after creating man and woman out of clay. God ordered his dog and cat to protect the clay people from devil. But the devil deceived the dog and the cat, and urinated on the clay people and fled. God brought holy water from heaven and animated the clay people. "Man and woman should have been immortal because of the holy water but instead they became mortal because of their defilement by the devil" (Bayer and Stuart 323). This incidence during creation in the Mongol myth is very important because none of the myths so far have ever mentioned the existence of devil during creation. Unlike other myths, the Mongol myth provides an explanation to the mortality of man, and hence it should hold an important place among the creation myths.

An account from the Boshongo, a central Bantu tribe of the Lunda Cluster in Africa mentions that, "in the beginning, in the dark, there was nothing but water. And Bumba was alone." After creating everything else, Bumba created many men, but only one was white like Bumba (Leach 145-6). This African creation myth suggests two things- first, there was a single male creator, and second, the creator was white. The suggestion of the creator being white makes one think if this particular African myth shares the same creator as the Bible or the Qur'an.

One of the Chinese creation myths mentions that "In the beginning, the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos" (Chinese). This description of presence of "chaos" before creation is strikingly similar to other myths. For example, The Japanese myth mentions "Before the heavens and the earth came into existence, all was a chaos, unimaginably limitless and without definite shape or form" (Brians). Egyptian myth also mentions, "In the beginning there was only the swirling watery chaos, called Nu" (Piankoff 24). The similarities in these myths are very striking and suggest that the source of these myths must have been the same. Since major religious myths are older than these regional myths, we could try and link them. But it is very difficult to link these myths to major religious myths because there is no clear mentioning of "chaos" in major religious myths.

The Chinese myth also mentions, "The first living thing was P'an Ku. He evolved inside a gigantic cosmic egg, which contained all the elements of the universe totally intermixed together"(Doyle). This is similar to the Hindu myth. According to Chandogya Upanishad,"In the beginning this world was non-existent. It became existent. It grew. It turned into an egg. It lay for the period of a year. It burst open. Then came out of the eggshell, two parts, one of silver which is this earth, and one of gold which is the sky" (Radhakrishnan 151-2).Based on many such similarities we could try and link many myths together in order to observe and find out the source of these myths. But the similarities between myths are not enough to link the myths. And neither do the differences allow us to conclude that the various myths have their own different origin despite having so many similarities between them.

Therefore it is very difficult to come up with one single source for various myths, and it is not sure if anyone will ever be able to. But one thing is for sure, and that is, creations myths from around the world will always be able to capture our attention and fascination because each myth is creative, different, and similar at the same time. The myths will be studied and there will be many researches done on the subject, but there's a doubt if we ever will be able to solve these myths. The origin of these myths will always be a secret, and these myths will never cease to be myths. This reminds of what Albert Einstein once said: "The secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

Work Cited

Bayer, Nassen, and Kevin Stuart. "Mongol creation stories: man, Mongol tribes,The natural world, and Mongol deities." Asian Folklore Studies Oct.1992.
Brians, Paul, et al, eds. Reading About the World, Volume 1. 3rd ed. Harcourt Brace Custom Publishing, 1999.
"Creation Myths-Chinese." 1 Mar. 2004. Morgan's Observatory 18 Apr. 2004.
Doyle, Bernard. "Creation Myths." 3 Mar. 1997. Encyclopedia Mythica 27 Dec 1998
Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.,1999: 87.
Leach, Maria. "An African Cosmogony." The Beginning 1956: 145-6.
Piankoff, Alexander. The Shrines of Tut-Ankh-Amon. New York: Pantheon Books, 1955: 24.
Radhakrishnan, S, ed. The Principal Upanishads. New York: Harper & Row,1953: 151-2.
Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Glasgow: Wm Collins & Sons, 1952.
Shariati, Dr. Ali. Man and Islam. Book Dist. Center, June 1981.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

   [ posted by Mukesh Khanal @ 09:28 AM ] | Viewed: 5842 times [ Feedback]

cd]l/sfdf g]kfnL hfltjfb sfod
—/Tgaxfb'/ laZjsdf{
Go'of]s{ cd]l/sf
bkratna@usa.com


ljZjsf] Oltxf;nfO{ x]bf{ cd]l/sf nufot cGo ljsl;t /fi6«x?df ;d]t s}of} bzs klxn] /+ue]b Pj+ hflte]b /x]sf] s'/f gsfg{ ;lsb}g . t/ ;dosf] ult;Fu} cfh ljZjdf s]an gf/L / k'?if b'O hft dfq :jLsfo{ eO/x]sf] a]nf g]kfndf eg] hfltafb df}nfpFb} uO/x]sf] 5 . g]kfndf dfq geP/ hxfF hxfF hfltafbsf kIfkflt g]kfnLx? k'u]sf 5g\ ljZjdf g} hfltafbsf] gd'gf km}nfpg pBt eO/x]sf 5g\ . cfkm\gf] dft[e"ld Tofu]/ lab]zL e"lddf /xFbf cfkm\gf] d'n'ssf ;a} tx / tKsfsf hgtfx? PseO{ Pp6} 5xf/L d'lg uf]naGb eO /xg' kg]{df cd]l/sfdf /x]sf g]kfnLx? cf—cfkm\gf] hfltsf ;d"xx?df afFl8P/ hfltafbnfO{ pS;fpFb} Ps csf{k|lt 3[0ffsf] b[li6 ;[hgf ul//x]sf 5g\ . oxfF z]kf{ hfltx? cGo hfltsf dflg;x?;Fu ;se/ ;+ut ;d]t ug{ rfxFb}gg\ . To;} u/L cGo hfthfltx? klg cf—cfkm\g} hfltx?df dfq laeflht x'g ?rfpF5g\ .

cd]l/sfnfO{ laZjdf "Melting Pot" eg]/ lrlgG5 . oxfF ;+;f/sf x/]s s'gfsfKrfaf6 dflg;x? cfP/ a;f]af; u/]sf 5g\ . ;fgf, 7"nf, wlg, u/La aLr s'g} klg e]befj 5}g / olb s;}n] dfgjx?aLrdf e]befj u/]df 7"nf] ck/fwsf] ?kdf :jLsf/ ul/G5 / cToGt s8f ;hfo ul/G5 . dfgax?aLrdf s'g} klg vfnsf] kIfkft gxf];\ eGgsf] vflt/ oxfF /f]huf/sf] nflu n]lvg] cfj]bg kq (Resume) df ;d]t pd]/, lnË, j0f{, pb\uDotf s'g} klg s'/fsf] pNn]v ul/b}g . k|To]s /f]huf/ sDkgLx?n] e]befj/lxt ;fdfg /f]huf/ cj;/ "Equal employment opportunity" nfO{ cl3 ;f/]sf 5g\ . o:tf] ;Eo d'n'sdf a;]sf] Pp6f slyt blntn] hfltotfs} sf/0f cfkm\g} g]kfnLx?;Fu a:g ;Sb}g eGbf crDd nfUg ;S5 t/ of] cd]l/sfsf] Go'of]s{ zx/df ePsf] b'vb jf:tljstf xf] . Go'of]s{ zx/df sf]7f ef8fdf lng clt dxFuf] 5 . To;}n] Pp6f sf]7f lnP/ w]/} hgf ldn]/ a:g] ul/G5 . To;df klg Pp6f sn]hdf k9\g] laBfyL{sf] nflu PSn}n] sf]7f lng t sNkgf klg ug{ ;lsGg . oxL afWotfnfO{ Wofgdf /fv]/ cd]l/sfsf] cs}{ :6]6af6 sfd / k9fO{ ;Fu} cufl8 a9fpg] dL7f] sNkgf af]s]/ Go'of]s{ zx/ k;]sf] Pshgf ækl/of/Æ y/sf] o'jsn] g]kfndf ;d]t cg'ej gePsf] tLtf] / 3[0ffhGo hflto lje]bsf] lzsf/ x'g' k¥of] . Pshgf g]kfnL ;fyLsf] ;xof]uaf6 sf]7f ;fem]bf/ (Room mate) ug{ vf]lh/x]sf Ps hgf z]kf{ y/sf JolQmsf] ;Dks{df pgL k'u] . Room mate kfOof] eg]/ v'zL ePsf z]kf{n] ;a} s'/f ldn] kl5 cGTodf hft ;f]w] . kl/of/n] cfkm\gf] hftdfly k|sfz kfb}{ bdfO{ hftsf] x'F eg] kl5 ltdLnfO{ xfd|f] sf]7fdf /fv]/ xfdL c5"t aGg' 5}g, ltdL h:tf] Room mate rflxb}g eg]/ kmsf{OlbP . z]kf{sf] tL/ ?kL af]nLn] pgsf] d'6' 5]8] klg ;a} g]kfnL t o:t} x'Fb}gg\ xf]nf eg]/ km]l/ klg efiff, ;+:s[lt ldNg] g]kfnLx?;Fu g} a:g] OR5fn] g]kfnL g} vf]Hg yfn] . Go'of]s{ zx/af6 k|sflzt x'g] India Abroad eGg] klqsfdf pgn] "Room mate Wanted, Nepali preferred" eGg] Pp6f lj1fkg b]v] . To;kl5 ToxfF lbPsf] ;Dks{ kmf]gdf ;Dks{ u/L ;a}} s'/f ldn] kl5 pgL cfkm\gf] ;a} ;/;fdfgx? lnO{ ToxfF k'u] . tTsfn pgLx?n] hft klg g;f]w]sfn] pgL dgdg} clt b+u lyP . /flt vfgf vfO ;s]kl5 pgLx?n] hft ;f]w] / kl/of/n] cfkm\gf] jf:tlastf atfOlbP . pgn] eGg gkfpFb} pgsf] ;a} ;fdfgx? sf]7faf6 aflx/ kmfNb} xfdL kfgL grNg] hft;Fu a;]/ wd{ gi6 ug{ rfxFb}gf}+ eg]/ t'?Gt} sf]7f 5f]8\g eg] . To;kl5 pgL cfwf/ftdf ?b} lg:s]/ /]n :6]zgdf ;'t]/ /ft s6fP . slyt dflyNnf] hftsf] 7fn' x'F eGg] logLx?df bof, dfof / dfgjLotfsf] cefj k"/} v8\lsPsf] b]Vbf dfgj xf]Og bfgj eGbf ;d]t cTo'lSt x'Fb}g . dWo/ftdf larNnL agfP/ Tof] lgd'vf blntnfO{ aflx/ lgsfNg' pgLx?n] axfb'/L 7fg] klg pgLx?sf] ;don] cf}sft tf]lslbg] 5 . cfkm\g} g]kfnL efOaGw'x?af6 o:tf] cdfgjLo Jojxf/ ePkl5 lbSs dfg]/ pgn] km]l/ klg g]kfnLx?;Fu a:g] ;kgf b]Vg 5f8]/ cGttM pgL lkmlnlkG;sf ;fyLx?;Fu ldn]/ a;]sf 5g\ .

/+ue]b Pj+ hflte]b u/]df s8f sfg'gL sf/afxL / hl/jfgf u/fOG5 eGg] s'/fsf] 1fg geP/ zfob hftsf] 3d08n] pGdQm eP/ cd]l/sfnfO{ klg g]kfn h:t} agfpg] d'v{ ;f]r lnP/ cfkm\g} b]zsf] g]kfnL ;Gtfgdfly o:tf] s'|/tfk"0f{ Jojxf/ b]vfPsf xf]nfg\ . t/ o:tf] 36gf km]l/ klg bf]xf]¥ofpg nfu]df cd]l/sfdf /x]sf blntx? klg d"s bz{s ag]/ a:g] 5}gg\ . PSsfO;f} ztfAbLdf ;d]t o:tf] 9'Ë] o'usf] h:tf] Joaxf/ ug]{ slyt dflyNnf] hftsf] x'F eGg]x?n] klg lab]zL sfg'gsf] ;fdgf ug'{kg]{5 . cGo d'n'sx?af6 cd]l/sfdf cfO{ a;]sf cfk|af;Lx? cfkm\gf] b]zsf dflg;x?aLr uf9f dfof ddtf x'G5 . ;a} Ps eO{ ldn]/ a;]sf 5g\ t/ g]kfnLx? hf] guGo dfqdf 5g\, h;nfO{ s;}nfO{ grflxg] hfltkflt rflxG5 .

cfhsf] a}1flgs o'udf ;d]t dfgj dfgjaLrsf] o:tf] u}x| sfg'gL e]befj gx6]df ef]ln g]kfnsf] cGt//fli6«o If]qdf g] a]OHht x'g ;S5 . cfk;df sf6fsf6 / df/fdf/sf] l:ylt cfpg ;S5 . To;}n] b]zsf k|To]s ;r]t ju{, ;/sf/, dfgj clwsf/afbL, blnt g]tfx? ;a}n] OdfGbf/Lk"a{s of] hfltkftLsf] s'/LltnfO{ cGt ug{ kxn u/]df cd]l/sf h:tf] ljsl;t /fi6«df km]l/ klg blntx?n] e]befjsf] lzsf/ aGg' kb}{g . jf:tjdf g]kfndf hflte]bsf] ;d:of s]jn blntx?sf] dfq ;d:of xf] eGg] ;f]r ;a}df x'g' / rf;f] gb]vfOlbg'n] of] ;d:of sd x'g'sf] cnfjf a9\b} uO/x]sf] 5 . sltko blnt g]tfx? nufot 6f7faf7fx?n] g]kfnsf] blntsf] ;d:ofnfO{ dfuL vfg] efF8f]sf] ?kdf k|of]u ul//xsf 5g\ . dfgj Oltxf; s} clt sn+ssf] ?kdf /x]sf] hftkft / 5"jf5"tsf] ;d:ofnfO{ cGt ug{ kLl8t / kL8s b'a} kIf hfu?s / ls|ofzLn eO{ nfu]df cjZo klg Pslbg ;Eo ;dfhsf] ;[hgf x'g]5 .

   [ posted by Ratna @ 02:09 PM ] | Viewed: 1696 times [ Feedback]

Reading various English-language and Nepali-language news reports and opinion pieces in Nepal, one gets the impression that every educated Nepali wants a harmonious, friendly consensus on issues that matter. At first, this craving for national consensus appears good enough: Nice, patriotic Nepalis sitting around, amicably agreeing with one another, and uniformly reaching some conflict-free consensus.

But ask what those issues are, on which national consensus is needed, and clashing opinions start to spill forth. Soon it becomes clear that the only issues on which harmonious, national consensus exists are the ones no one really disagrees with: Yes, education is a must for Nepali children. But do we go about providing it effectively to all? Yes, an access to basic health-care is a glaring need. But how to go about laying down a realistic path of actions toward that need? Questions like these, which could only be asked amidst debates and discussions, show how limiting the culture of seeking consensus really is.

That, however, should not come as a surprise. After all, everything in Nepal is so diverse that it has always resisted any group's one-size-fits-all sort of consensus. Most educated Nepalis indeed know this. Still, a craving for consensus persists strongly, and [14] years after multiple viewpoints have been allowed in public domain, headlines that shout "National Consensus: Need of the Hour" jump from most Nepali newspapers. It's never clear, of course, just what kind of consensus on what kind of issue is actually needed.

Against this backdrop, I argue that what we continue to need in Nepal is not some easy, fuzzy consensus but assumption-shattering debates on all issues. After all, think: since 1990, haven't we had enough of that longing for never-appearing national consensus? The making of the Constitution in 1990, Arun III, Mahakali Treaty . . . where was the consensus about these and other issues? And haven't we gone long enough - yearning for consensus, while avoiding debates and exposures to diversely conflicting viewpoints?

Consider too, how that yearning has left us as a nation: sensitive to every criticism, unable to articulate and defend our own thoughts, easily offended by disagreeable points of view, and in short, incapable of dealing with the power of ideas when that power should have enlightened the very basis of citizenship in our democracy.

Maybe all this is understandable. After all, it is always easier to avoid uncertainties by hiding behind a veil of trumped-up consensus than confronting them head-on with debates and discussions. For this reason alone, in a democracy like ours, consensus-seekers are often those who get so easily overwhelmed by the multiplicity of ideas that they think they have no choice but to denounce debates as byartha ka kura (useless chatter) and debaters with all kinds of ad hominem attacks while waiting for the interplay of ideas to wind down. What they fail to grasp is that ideas never end in a democracy, and that the only way to weed out bad ones is not to give in easily to some easy, fuzzy consensus, but to keep on debating so that better ideas emerge.

Let me explain this further through this example. In textbooks and popular press, on no issue is there a greater consensus than on the fact that all our Nepali-language writers are indisputably great. Devkota is great. So is Bal Krishna Sama, so is Lekh Nath Poudyal, and ditto for Dharani Dhar Koirala, Shanker Lamichhane and everyone else.

In fact, we are told, again and again, that all of those writers are so great, "so up there" that we, the masses for whom they wrote their novels, plays and poems, should not even dare to debate about or criticize their literary creations. My point is that it is precisely this consensus of fossilized reverence that has sapped, among other things, much of the vigor out of our collective appreciation of Nepali-language literature.

For one may ask, what is so great about Devkota's writings? Or, to what extent did Shakespeare influence nationalist Sama's Mukunda Indira? Could Lekhnath have alluded to something other than the Rana oligarchy in his poem Pijara ko Suga? Questions such as these can never be asked, let alone thought about, when there exist dry and ready made consensus to drive away doubts, uncertainties and a sense of wonder. Through unexamined consensus, works of Nepali literature are, then, viewed -- not as live issues touching all of us, but as dry entities so revered that they end up offering us no hope, no joy, no intellectual adventures and certainly no inspiration.

And the results become too familiar. We may all repeat the trite consensus, that, Devkota was a great writer. But never will we be able to articulate just what is so great about his writings. Is it any wonder, then, that as a nation we are annually reduced to thinking about Devkota only on the day of Laxmi-puja, that too perfunctorily?

Our studies of history and politics are no better. In schools and colleges across Nepal, those subjects are taught as tedious chronological chains of consensus, garnished only by nationalist rhetoric. Prithivi Narayan Shah, Bhimsen Thapa, Balbhadra and Arniko were all great. The Ranas were bad. The Panchayat was wholly bad. And today's political leaders were all paragons of wisdom and courage during their time underground. Again, missing are debates, discussions, arguments and doubts - about evidence, interpretations, and multiple viewpoints that could make studies of our history and politics so intellectually enriching.

Yes, Prithivi Narayan Shah chose Kathmandu to be his capital. But how did that affect the medieval economy of Gorkha? Yes, Bhalbhadra might have been a fighting nationalist. But what made him join the army of a Punjabi king, and later die anonymously in Afghanistan? Yes, the Panchayati system was autocratic. But how are we to go about judging today's supposedly democratic netas who, elected to govern, end up lording over us much like their Panchayati predecessors?

Fortunately, answers to these questions are not ready-made and dry, and - despite what news reports and political pundits tell us - certainly not based on someone's idea of consensus. And that is refreshing. For that tells us that there is room for hope, room for a sense of wonder, room for doubts and debates, and, above all, room for well-evidenced, influential ideas to eventually rise to the top. After all, just as Devkota's uncritical worshippers do not have the last word on what makes great Nepali literature, uncritical followers of B. P. Koirala or, for that matter, Pushpa Lal Shrestha need not be the ultimate arbitrators of just what kind of political-economic system we need.

In the end, however, the notion of easy, fuzzy consensus does not mesh well with that of democracy. For what is consensus, but - as in Nepali's historical case - lumping one uniform point of view of the state on the masses in the name of some purported national harmony? Democracy, on the other hand, is about an equality of opportunity for ideas, no matter how brilliant or imbecile. Granted, when all kinds of ideas are allowed to come to the fore, the truth itself is then disputed. But when that happens, we should then seek it by entering into debates - arguing together so that we can reason together.

Encouraging open-ended national debates, as opposed to giving in to close-minded narrow consensus, on issues that matter remains our renewing hope for the continuing vitality of our Nepali democracy.

(Published in 1998 as a lead essay in an edition of the now-defunct The Kathmandu Post Review of Books. http://www.asianstudies.emory.edu/sinhas/kprb.html)

By: Ashutosh Tiwari

   [ posted by Ashu @ 01:34 PM ] | Viewed: 1995 times [ Feedback]

One summer morning it occurred to me that my passport needed to be renewed. A few days later, I called the Nepali Embassy in Washington, D.C. to inquire about the process. The person on the phone, who by the tone of his voice sounded like a top-ranking official, pointed me to the Embassy's website for the application requirements and said that since I was traveling all the way from Chicago, my new passport would be made on the same day. I asked if I could make an appointment for a Friday morning but he said it wasn't at all necessary and that I could simply walk-in. He did, however, warn that I should be at the Embassy with all the documents by noon. "I will", I said.

So about two weeks before the appointed Friday, I started preparing for my trip to Washington DC. I downloaded and filled out the application form, had the right size photos taken with a wannabe-American smile, made the money order and photocopied the required documents. There was a subtle feeling of excitement deep inside my stomach about getting a new passport. This was partly because I had never really liked my first passport. The clerk who had filled it out had a handwriting that could be compared with what my mother would call chicken scratch when I was beginning to write. There were a number of errors, spelling and other, which he had overstriken and corrected upon my complaint. A bulky violet government seal was stamped over each of these corrections to certify their authenticity, which had, in fact, made the actual letters hard to read.

But the more obvious was my thrill about visiting the Embassy. This was going to be my first ever visit to any Nepali government agency outside Nepal. I had heard accounts from my foreign friends about how dearly cared they felt at their countries' embassies. So I imagined my trip to the Royal Nepali Embassy:

It would be a clear summer morning. I have just arrived in DC. I would tell the cabbie Nepali Embassy. "The building with the flag like two triangles?", he would ask. Amused by his street savvy, "Yes, right there", I would confirm. Well, DC isn't that big a city, plus, the embassy has been there for ages.

It would be a square-shaped building of modern architecture with big glass windows. A large Nepali flag in bright red and blue colors would be waving in the mild DC breeze from the top of the building. There would be a thick green grass carpet around the building and a small colorful garden on both sides of the driveway at the front, where to my surprise, a bunch of marigolds would be at their fullest bloom. The main door would have two thick glass panes with the stickers by the handles that said 'Pull' in both English and Nepali.

A lady in sari would welcome me inside and ask me my name, where I was from and the purpose of my visit. Then she would ask how my flight was and whether the security folks at the airport were too paranoid. I would then follow her to a large air-conditioned waiting room where I would sink into a deep luxury couch. The room would have large portraits of the king and the queen on the wall directly across the door and many more posters of the snow-capped Nepali mountain summits, temples and terraces. Some Nepali newspapers and magazines would be lying on an oval glass coffee table at the center of the room, surrounded by the couches. Next to the table would be a revolving display rack with folded maps and travel brochures on Nepal. I would unfold one of the maps and locate Kathmandu, Pokhara, Biratnagar, Nepalgunj and Chitwan. "Would you like some Ilam tea or instant Nescafe?" the lady would ask. I would go for the tea and wait for my turn to be helped.

Upon my turn, I would tell the clerk the purpose of my visit and that I had called the Embassy about it two weeks ago. He would take all the paperwork from me and check for their completeness. Then he would tell me that the new passport would be ready at 3:00PM so I could either just hang around or check out some of the major DC attractions. I would pick one of the DC Metro system maps from the revolving rack and head out to explore the city. At 3:00, I would be back at the embassy where my new passport would be waiting for me. I would read and re-read the passport several times to make sure there were no errors this time.

+++

So the big day finally came. The two alarms I had set (one by my bed; other in my living room) got me up at 4:30 in the morning. I wanted to make sure I arrived at O'Hare early enough not to miss the flight even in the case of extended airport security procedures. Missing the 8:00AM flight could result in me reaching the embassy after noon, something I had been strongly advised against by the official on the phone.

It was about 10:30AM local time when I landed at Regan National. As planned, I got inside a taxi. The cab was unmetered (all taxis in DC are unmetered and the fares are predetermined) and the driver was a polite middle-age man who, from his accent, sounded like a recent African immigrant (studies have confirmed that most of the cabbies in many US cities are of foreign origin). As we rolled away from the airport into the city, "Nepali Embassy, please", I said, responding to his query.

"Hmm. Do you know the street address?", he asked.
"2131 Leroy Place, NW", I said, reading from a page I had printed from the Embassy's website.
"Hmm... Leroy Place..."
Not too positive about my own pronunciation of the word Leroy, I offered variations: "LAroE place", "LIroE Place", "LEroE Place".
Nothing seemed to ring a bell. "What are the major streets nearby?", he asked.

It disappointed me that the embassy wasn't going to be on a major street. I pulled a printout of the mapquest.com driving directions I had kept in my bag just in case and described him the intersections near the embassy. We briefly got lost. Finally, "Leroy!" he exclaimed pointing me to a tiny street name sign ahead and made a left turn onto a narrow and quiet one-way street.

A series of old houses stood tightly against each other on each side of the street; some with more lavishly decorated exteriors than others. The street was a slight incline and a few cars were parked along the right half of the road, leaving an even narrower space for the commuter traffic. A couple of Mexican-looking men were giving a fresh paint to an aged building. Roughly across the street from it was an old brick house that looked like somebody's modest residence, though with a faded flag in the front yard that just clung to its staff. It didn't take me long to conclude that, that was where I was going.

The entrance was one level higher than the ground level (ground level had a garage) so you had to walk up the concrete steps to get to the door. A tarnished brass sheet fixed on the wall next to the door had the hours of operations in detail (The embassy is open 9:00AM - 5:00PM, Monday-Friday). The black wooden door panels were shut tight although it was already a little after 11:00AM. There was an almost completely discolored "Visit Nepal '98" (the current year was 2004) sticker on one of the windows. A round Nepali Royal Court of Arms in the shape of a shield was hung from the top frame of the door. This shield had a glass surface that looked pale inside and read "Royal Nepalese Embassy" in an arc along its edge. A long dark metal staff projected at an angle from the wall directly above the front door was missing a flag.

I pushed the doors open in diffidence and entered inside. It smelled like a library of antique books. The hallway was dark (there was only one light on) and its floor had a red carpet extending all the way to the stairs (seemed that senior officials had their offices on the upper floors). On the left were the doors to a couple of rooms. "Visa Office" was written above one of these doors. A small notice board covered with the US State Department advisories and a few announcements from the Nepali Ministry of Foreign Affairs was hanging on the wall next to this door.

I stood quietly in the hallway waiting for someone to ask me my business and to direct me to an appropriate office. Nothing happened. The "Visa Office" had its doors partly open, and I could hear a conversation in Nepali inside. A young Nepali man was begging a clerk that one of his kin's date of birth was quoted wrong in her passport, so if he could please have it corrected. His plea was very reminiscent of how the government clerks are generally approached back in Nepal: Addressed in the most respectful way, well beyond the professional standards, each sentence ending with a 'sir'. It is as if the clerk isn't really obliged to act on your case; and that if he so decides, then that's only because he is too kind. So if you want your work done, the rule of thumb is that you always please the clerk.

The Visa Office was apparently the Passport Office, as well. It was a small room with two desks in a row with barely enough space between them for the clerks to get to their chairs in the back. Each desk contained stacks of documents. One even had a computer monitor. There were rubber stamps lying on violet ink pads. Behind the clerks was a shelf that had more documents and files. A small grayscale image of the King on a loose sheet of paper which looked as though it was printed on a printer that needed an ink refill was stuck on one of the separators of the shelf.

"Can I help you?" asked one of the clerks turning his head away from the monitor towards me. I explained to him why I was there. He glanced through all the paperwork I had brought with me. "Ok, come back after 3 and you can pick up your new passport", he said. He was nice and looked professional.

At 3:05PM I checked back in at the embassy. The front doors were still shut, and this time even the "Visa Office" inside was closed. For 10 minutes, I stood in the dark hallway in front of this office waiting for its door to open. A clerk inside was humming a Nepali tune and I could hear his hands moving on the desk. Maybe it took a little longer today to make the passports, I thought to myself. Then I went outside, sat on the floor against the wall next to the entrance and took out the New Yorker from my messenger bag. I finished the essay that I had started in the morning. It was about the "lawless"[ness] in a remote Pakistani tribal village.

The doors behind me squeaked open. A short middle-age man in a tie with a mustache and a protruded belly stepped outside. He looked like an officer at the embassy. "Hi!", I said nodding with a smile. He looked at me indifferently and walked down the steps and down the street. Perhaps it offended him that I didn't stand up to greet him. Or maybe I should have bid a traditional Namaste, instead. It�s sad that my spontaneous form of greeting has become a 'Hi' after several years of almost absolute isolation from my native culture.

It started raining. I went back inside. It was getting close to 4:00PM. The "Visa Office" doors were still closed. The clerks inside were chatting with each other in Nepali. "There's no appreciation of one's hard work here", one said. "If they paid us only by the minimum wage, we could be making as much as $1,800." Although I didn't quite understand the clerk's math, it shocked me that they were paid less than the minimum wage (DC minimum wage is $6.15/hour).

I stood against the wall in the hallway near the staircase (because that's where the only light in the hallway was) reading my New Yorker. A lady in trousers, who I was later told was the secretary at the Embassy appeared from the room next to the Visa Office. I greeted her �Hi". She said "Hi" swiftly in return, entered the Visa Office and pushed its doors back shut. Now she joined the clerks inside in the chitchat, which I couldn't help but overhear from the hallway no matter how much I tried to immerse myself into the magazine.

By now, all the fantasy I had about the embassy had been ripped into shreds. I realized that things worked differently at the Embassy than I had thought. Maybe I had much higher expectations than what my nation could deliver. Maybe we are too poor to add a couple more lights in the hallway, to have the flags cleaned, or to setup a waiting area for visitors. Maybe the Embassy staff is too underpaid to proactively assist its clients. Maybe its officers are too preoccupied in the international diplomacy to smile back at every Nepali that camps out at the Embassy door. Or maybe not.

But it didn't bother me anymore. I realized what was most important was to get the work done. So as long as the Embassy accomplished that, I figured I had nothing to complain. I was going to get my passport today whether or not the secretary asked me for a cup of tea. It's OK that there was no place to sit at the embassy. I was there on a business and move on, so everything else now seemed secondary to me. I was already thinking about my trip back to Chicago with my new and better-looking passport.

The Visa Office doors still didn't open. It was just past 4:00PM. I decided to venture inside interrupting the chatter between the clerks.

"Oh!", the clerk paused. He looked shocked as if he had forgotten that he had asked me to come back at 3:00PM. "Please sit", he offered. Exhausted after a long standup wait, I happily sat in the only spare armchair in the room. For the next few minutes, he dialed several numbers on his phone but none resulted in a conversation.

He looked at me with a dim face.

"Raja, I have your passport prepared but none of the Shahibs is in today to sign it", he said. "So come back on Monday".

I didn't get my passport.


____________________________________

Echoes

   [ posted by Echoes @ 08:15 AM ] | Viewed: 2260 times [ Feedback]