Loote-jyu,

It was a pleasure to exchange views with you.

In fact, this little exchange has made me ponder over the larger issue of the mode of transformation of Nepal.

A gradual and systematic change is undoubtedly a rule of thumb when it comes to choices. However, the complementary wisdom that that there is no one-mode-fits-all transformation in a real world looks more of a rule than an exception. Nepal’s modern history, particularly the recent one, is an attestor to that.

My personal philosophy about change is: “Change when it is necessary”. I like to brand it a “progressive conservatism”. The central question of this philosophy is: who determines what is necessary?

We all have ready-made answer: it’s the people. However, for practical purpose, I recognize three modes of decision: 1. democratic, 2. Academic (broadly defined), and 3. Combination of both.

Secularism in Nepal was an academic decision (of course ultimately a political decision). There was already a consensus about it in the academia (broadly defined) of Nepal. Opposition to it was a fringe voice and it was mainly against the modality rather than the substance.

A case that could be of our interest is recent debate over secularism and related issues in Turkey. The questions that could be relevant to us are: has the transformation of Turkey into a “modern” and secular nation by Kamal Ataturk at the beginning of last century been good for Turkey ? Do we need to be cautious about similar transformation ?

That brings me to another authoritarian agent of transformation of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. How much should we be cautious of that kind of transformation ?

Although this is a half-baked deliberation, I think, considering all experiences (of our own country and others), a combination of democratic and academic mode of decisions rather than pure democratic decisions (which most of the time are “indecision” and “rhetoric” rather than “decision” anyway) for the transformation of Nepal is more realistic and practical.

More when you join in.

Nepe