Experiences of a common man!

Tag: Politics Page 1 of 2

Democracy symbols

Why Modern Democracy is an Illusion

By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism.

– Aldous Huxley (Brave New World Revisited, 1958)

Democracy in modern times is an illusion. It is a doublespeak for elites who ask for our votes while legitimising their control. We are living in a system that calls us free while we are imprisoned by emotions shaped by algorithms, propaganda, and continuous surveillance.

Athenian Democracy

Most historians agree that democracy originated from Athens. The people in Athens, a Greek city-state, developed democracy to conduct public affairs. The concept was simple. The citizens gathered in the Agora for Assembly (Ekklesia) to vote on laws, declare war or peace, decide foreign policy, and oversee public spending. Participation was a civic duty, not a choice.

There were no elections in Athens, though. They believed that elections could be rigged by the wealthy, the eloquent, or the well-connected. Because elections could give rise to oligarchy, they used lottery to select their representatives. Although fateful, they thought the random choice was more democratic as everyone had equal opportunity. They had also invented the kleroterion, an allotment machine to prevent rigging of the lottery.

One of the biggest problems of the Athenian Democracy was that it included citizens only, which included men born in the city. Women, slaves, merchants, and foreigners were excluded from voting. Even the original democracy was not fully democratic.

Plato’s Democracy

In the Republic, Plato discusses five kinds of regimes:

  • Aristocracy: Rule by the wise philosopher king who is benevolent and not tyrannical,
  • Timocracy: Rule by honour-driven soldiers. Ancient Sparta is an example.
  • Oligarchy: Rule by the wealthy landowners who put money above all increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. A capitalist state gives rise to oligarchy.
  • Democracy: Rule by the many after revolution against the oligarchs. Democracy can descend into mob rule and then into tyranny.
  • Tyranny: Rule of the “protector” of the people who crushes his enemies and develops a system to protect himself. By the time people recognize the tyrant, they are already under his control.

Plato believed that not everyone was able to lead and had to eventually give in to the desire of the public. Pacifying the people the sole objective of a democratic ruler and this would eventually lead to anarchy and tyranny.

Representative Democracy and the American Discussion

The Athenian Democracy ensured everyone’s direct participation. However, applying it to a state with large population or geographic barriers is extremely difficult. There is also a possibility of mob rule, as Plato feared, where wrong decisions and actions can also be approved by the crowd. Democracy was not a favoured form of regime.

In most of the places, representatives of an estate, clan or group ruled over the people. These were often unelected. Even when elected, like in the Roman Republic, they used to come from elite families. The Magistratus, the Senate, and the Comitia heavily favoured the oligarchs. Similar arrangements were made in the parliaments of the mediaeval period.

The concept of elected representatives became more popular after the promulgation of the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the success of the French Revolution. They were inspired by the ideas of John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and the debates of the American Founding Fathers regarding democracy and republic.

John Locke argued for representative institutions that safeguard people’s rights in Two Treatises of Government (1689). Similarly, in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu detailed the idea of separation of powers. James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A., strongly preferred republic over democracy:

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention… and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Federalist No. 10 (1787)

Thomas Jefferson favoured broader democratic participation, argued for more trust in the “common man”, and pushed for expanding suffrage, but did not support direct democracy.

The idea of representative democracy was not uncontested, however. Rousseau, for instance, argued that true sovereignty rests with the people directly and that representation is a form of slavery:

“The moment a people gives itself representatives, it is no longer free.”
The Social Contract (1762)

Nepal’s Practice of Democracy

Nepal became a democratic state in 1951. There have also been protests in 1990 and 2006 to restore democracy. However, many indigenous peoples in Nepal have been practicing democracy since antiquity, for instance:

The Guthi System (Newar Communities)

The guthi is not only a land trust but also a self-governing social institution where decisions are taken collectively by lineage members. The leader is called thakali (not to be confused with the ethnic people, Thakali from Thak Khola area of Mustang, whose system is described in the next section).

Some of its features are:

  • Leadership rotation
  • Collective labour
  • Social accountability mechanisms
  • Participation by household, not just by individual “citizens”
  • Decisions often made through consensus, not simple majority rule
  • Certain guthi (especially diguthi) allow women significant authority

Guthis also call for collective action. Changes about to be brought by the Guthi bill were opposed in 2019.

The Thakali System

Thakali governance traditionally involves:

  • The Thakali Council (Thakali Tewa)
  • Female inheritance in some clans
  • Matriarchal features in household authority
  • A trading-network-based social order where economic cooperation required inclusive decision-making
  • Ritual and community functions coordinated by collective assemblies

The Panchayat System

King Mahendra introduced the Panchayat System in 1962. He believed partisan democracy did not suit Nepal and introduced a democratic system that valued local governance. A Panchayat at the local level included five representatives who looked after the basic needs and small judicial proceedings among the people. Although it was replaced by multi-party democracy in 1990, the system still influences the villages in Nepal and also shapes the modern local governance at the ward level.

Multi-Party Democracy with Constitutional Monarchy

In 1990, Nepal adopted a new constitution, and with it restored multi-party democracy with the constitutional monarch as the protector. Some communist groups who were unsatisfied, started an armed revolution against the government. Parties, especially Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, busy with their internal politics and unserious about the issue, let the movement grow. They also wanted to use excessive force using the Royal Nepal Army, whose deployment required the King’s permission.

After the Royal Massacre of King Birendra’s family in the Narayanhiti Palace premises, the Maoists declared monarchy was dead. King Gyanendra could not gain support from the people and he had to give up his throne paving way for democratic republican system.

Multi-Party Democratic Republic

Nepal adopted the republican system on the first meeting of the First Constituent Assembly in 2008. The Second Constituent Assembly gave Nepal its current constitution which adopts competitive multi-party democratic republic. However, competition is limited by fragile coalitions, shifting loyalties, and undemocratic practices within the parties.

Democracy in Modern Times

Oligarchic Elections and Tyrannical Tendencies

In modern times, “democracy” and “republic” are often used interchangeably. Whether it is the parliamentary democracy of India, the presidential republic of the USA or the democratic republic of Nepal, people’s participation is ensured through periodic elections. Constitutions, laws, and institutions prevent the tyranny of the majority. Institutions have become more inclusive as voting and candidacy rights prevent discrimination on any grounds.

The problem, however, is that democracies have become mechanical. Elections are announced, political parties or individuals participate, people vote, and the representatives make laws or execute them according to the set principles. The actual voice of people is often lost, as they have little say in the nomination of political parties and candidates and the laws and policies the representatives endorse. This is because modern democracy is actually an oligarchy with popular legitimacy.

In an oligarchy, authority is in the hands of a select few, often distinguished by wealth, family ties, military power, or intellectual influence. Robert Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy” argues that even democratic organisations tend to concentrate power in a few hands due to organisational necessities.

The political parties and their leaders are often like oligarchs. They tend to concentrate power to themselves, depriving the general people from even the basic rights. The collective knowledge on denial of rights, political oppression, and ideological slavery is driving protests all over the world. Bangladesh’s July 2024 Uprising, Nepal’s September 2025 Protests, and uprisings in Indonesia, Philippines, and Madagascar.

There is also the danger of elected tyrants. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Vladimir Putin suppressed opposition and undermined democracy even though they themselves contested elections. These leaders are villains to people who follow democratic ideals. But there is also a curious case of Lee Kwan Yew, the beloved Founding Father of Singapore. He and his PAP did bring up many reforms that upscaled industries in Singapore and improved people’s lives, but he also brutally suppressed the communists.

Mind Manipulation

The villainization of some and heroization of others is the result of interest-based mind manipulation or propaganda through the use of media. Although both Putin and Yew suppressed their rivals, Putin is a villain to the West because he does not accept the Western agenda and aggressively counters them. Yew, on the other hand, is a hero because he acted to safeguard the Western interests. The US intervention in other countries is an act of peace, whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine is imperialism. Change the news sources to Russia or Putin-supporting Russians, Putin is the hero, and the Western leaders are the villains. Truth in global politics is mediated by geopolitical interests, not universal moral standards.

Proliferation of social media has become a fuel for propaganda as explained by P.W. Singer and Emeron T. Brooking in their book, LikeWar. Politics is now a game of algorithm. If you “like”, “follow” or “subscribe” to a certain belief, you get bombarded with content that support it. Opposing political ideas become intolerable. You are fed sponsored political campaigns involving provocative statements from leaders and electoral candidates, endorsements from “influencers” who chase clout, and identity-based mobilization that hate on “others”. With unfiltered opinionated people catering to algorithm-filtered content on social media, populism is on the rise.

Populism and Celebrity Leadership

Representative Democracy inherently is a game of convincing people to elect candidates to an office. The game of throne is that of lies, and the one who can lie the most effectively is the winner. Successful is the one who either belongs to a political party with strong grassroots movements, promises to change the status quo through effective campaigning, or has made a name in the community in the past. No candidate can win elections in vacuum.

Political parties with strong grassroots movements are often the best in practicing democracy. Candidates from such parties are also the favourites. However, there is no denying that political parties and candidates are often used by the rich and the powerful to further the policies they want. The candidates also promise to provide basic infrastructures like roads and drinking water even if may be against the existing laws and policies or undermine sustainability.

Candidates working among the people for some time have a good understanding of the problems. If they already are members of political parties, they have the best chance. If they don’t belong to political parties, they may sweep the election as underdogs. However, they also must cater to people’s desire to solve the existing problems even if the solutions are illogical or problematic.

Effective campaigning, however, trumps everything else. You may belong to a political party or have good relations with the people, if you have no campaigning, you can’t win. Candidates use the rally of supporters, go to each household, meet each voter, and ask for a vote. All these have been eased by social media. And who has the best chance of succeeding in social media? Celebrities!

Ronald Reagan was an actor before he stepped into politics and became the President of the US. Donald Trump too came from entertainment industry. Nepal has also seen TV presenters and singers such as Rabi Lamichhane, Komal Oli, and Balen Shah have turned into leaders. Except Komal Oli, the existing fans of these celebrities have helped push forward their narratives, even when they are apolitical.

When leaders always cater to the emotions of the people, they eliminate opponents and gradually overreach to perpetuate their rule.

Continuation of Institutions

Democratic tyrannical leaders, unlike those like Ibrahim Traoré, need democratic institutions to legitimize their rule. Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way describe modern states that maintain elections and courts but undermine real accountability as competitive authoritarian regimes. This is because power is most stable when people believe it is legitimate, and legitimacy is most easily maintained when people feel they are in control and believe they choose their leaders. A system seeking to control citizens without violence must therefore keep the appearance of democracy. They also need the facade for international legitimacy.

The continuation of institutions also comforts the general public. Most people stability and predictability over revolution and chaos. Keeping them provides emotional reassurance, even while policymakers, media, or interest groups subtly control outcomes behind the scenes. Moreover, the “democracy” needs to manufacture consent for self-legitimacy. The reign continues even though there the outcomes are predetermined by algorithmic control, agenda-setting, media manipulation, and financial influence. In fact, the participation itself generates consent.

War Politics

The Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) argues that democracies don’t go to war. The reality is different. Except communist dictatorships like North Korea and absolute monarchists like Saudi Arabia, almost every country claims to be democratic, hold elections, and support peace. Everyone is at war, though. From direct confrontations to proxy wars, the world is reeling with futile wars that only strengthen the elites.

Conclusion

The original Athenian Democracy included the voice of people, but it excluded women, slaves, and merchant. Compared to that, Nepal’s indigenous institutions are more democratic. Modern Democracy is different. It is representative and inclusive, but it is a rhetoric for mass control with manufactured consent. It is a system that depends on lies, propaganda, and emotional manipulation to legitimize itself. As Huxley says, the political institutions and structures remain “democratic. However, they are weak and corrupt and invoke fear and terror instead of respect and peace. Modern Democracy is an illusion that promotes hate over love, and divided identities over unity of humanity.

What’s the solution then? The solution, I think, is to give up the notion that each individual has power over the matters of the country. I don’t. Neither does the elected representative. Everyone in the society should be conscious enough to know that leadership is a heavy burden. From such a society emerge leaders who can balance practicalities with philosophy that best serves humanity. We need a grassroots movement that reinforces morality, truthfulness, and conscience. It will turn hatred into love and replace divisions with unity.

A more practical approach would be to improve civic education, strengthen institutions, and safeguard transparency mechanisms. Political parties should be made more democratic through internal debates and periodic elections of the leaders.

For Nepal, the path forward is not simply imitation of Western models but the creation of a contextual, home-grown, critical democracy that:

  • connects technological opportunity (digital participation) with local realities;
  • draws on Nepal’s traditional community governance like the guthi system, inclusive practices among multiple ethnicities and castes;
  • recognises that participation must include real agency, not just elections; and
  • safeguards against elite capture, algorithmic manipulation and institutional stagnation.
A megaphone symbolizing How To Speak in an Oppressive Political Environment

How To Speak in an Oppressive Political Environment

“You may speak, but can you speak wisely?”
“You may protest, but can you do so without giving them an excuse to silence you?”

Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees Freedom of Expression. It also introduces reasonable restrictions, which of course, can be misused. About two weeks ago, a popular YouTube channel, In-Depth Story (IDS) had to close its merchandise store IDS Wears for selling T-shirts with the slogan Kera Ganatantra (Banana Republic) for “disturbing the sovereignty, national unity, and dignity of the country, and so on.The slogan was provocative and somewhat double meaning. But did it have to be banned? I don’t think so.

Around a month back, Rama Basnet from Khotang was arrested for expressing her frustration towards politicians in few TikTok videos. The words she chose mocked a politician’s disability. However, she got support from the opposition party because of the way she was arrested.

These examples speak volumes about the awareness of the constitution and laws we have as citizen. We know we can speak, but we often don’t know how to speak. We’ve heard of rights, but rarely do we hear about the restrictions that come along with them. And that’s when we trip over.

Let’s get straight to it. Here are a few principles that might save our voice and case, while upholding the law.

1. Say Less. Mean More.

Power doesn’t like being called out, but artists and writers use often use metaphors, satire, and symbolism to mock it.

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is truly metaphoric and symbolic. Using pigs, horses, and other farm animals, Orwell mocks Soviet Communism and warns how an ideal can become exploitative.

Another symbolism I vividly remember is that of a new politician in Sanjeev Upreti’s Ghanachakkar. When there is an announcement that a flawless leader has arrived in Kathmandu, the narrator goes to see him. However, in no time, the leader turns into an onion. The multi-layered towering onion is a metaphor for secrecy, corruption, and inflated ego of politicians in Nepal.

So, our best bet is to be poetic and ambiguous. Let the reader add two and two.

But can satire backfire?

Did you notice the word “bet”? Actually, I am reminded of Krishna Lal Adhikari’s story. He was a Nayab Subba during the rule of Chandra Shamsher. His duties in the field of agriculture gave him a lot of knowledge on maize plantation and published a scientific book titled, “Makai ko Kheti.” Some sycophants, however, saw it as a mockery against Chandra Shamsher and his generals. Although Adhikari never meant to satire, he was tried and imprisoned for nine years until he died of tuberculosis.

So, yeah. We still need to be careful while using symbols and metaphors.

2. Displace the Target

We don’t talk about today’s leaders directly. Talking about a character or an imaginary village or a tyrannical ruler from history will work. Readers will connect the dots. Not everything needs to be spelled out.

But we still need to remember Krishna Lal Adhikari and be cautious.

3. Borrow Their Language

The safest thing we can do is use the Constitution, parliamentary and other recorded speeches. We can quote government slogans back at them. When the system tries to silence you, reply with its own words. Just like the leaders and stooges owned the insult of Jhole as a treasure, we should own up the laws and use them to our advantage. It’s hard to arrest someone for saying what’s written or in accordance with the law.

We should use your rights and stand tall before the law. But power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We should be careful not to assume the state will honour them fairly.

4. Protest Creatively, Not Predictably

Instead of shouting in front of microphones, we can try standing silently with a placard. Ujjwal Thapa and his party did it successfully. We can also post an ironic meme or writing a children’s story (like Orwell) that says what the editorial can’t.

From Occupy Baluwatar to Jayatu Sanskritam, peaceful creativity has always been harder to crush than violent slogans.

5. Build a Chorus

One person speaking is a complaint. Ten thousand people speaking is a movement. If you’re afraid of being targeted, amplify others—and let them amplify you. Even whisper campaigns can be effective when they echo.

But It’s Still Dangerous

Today, we can be investigated for a Facebook post, dragged into court over a short story, and even labelled a traitor for asking questions. I’ve felt the chill myself while writing. I wonder at times: Is this going too far? Will this get me in trouble?

This Isn’t Fair!

Yes, nobody should have to think this hard before speaking. But when expression is policed, speech must become strategy.

This isn’t a call for cowardice. It’s a call for craft.
This isn’t about avoiding the truth. It’s about delivering it smartly enough to survive.

Speak. Silence protects no one. But speak like you know someone powerful is listening. And looking for an excuse to catch you.

And yet, here I am.

Because what’s the alternative? Silence? Cynicism? That’s not living. That’s waiting.

To Speak Is to Build Justice

The truth is: oppression isn’t just about silencing people. It’s about systemic injustice. It’s about making them believe that speech doesn’t matter. That it won’t change anything. But it does. It always has.

Change begins with someone saying, This is wrong.
It grows when someone else says, I agree.
And it becomes unstoppable when people say it together even if they just have to whisper.

नेपालीहरूलाई बोल्न रोक लगाइएको साङ्केतिक चित्र

बोल्न पाइन्छ ?

बोल्नलाई बोल्न त पाइन्छ
बोल्ने पनि तरिका चाहिन्छ


स्वप्न सुमन र अभिज्ञा घिमिरेको गीत सुन्दै फेसबुक स्क्रोल गर्दै थिएँ । समाचार देखियो – रवि लामिछानेलाई समर्थन गर्दै प्रधानमन्त्रीको आलोचना गरेको भन्दै एक महिला पक्राउ । अस्तितिर दिलभूषण पाठकलाई हिल्टन होटलका बारेमा समाचार बनाएपछि पक्राउ गरेको खबर आएको थियो । अलि अघि सिधाकुराले मुद्दा मामिलामा हुने लेनदेनको विषयमा सार्वजनिक गरेको डार्क फाइल्स अदालतको अनादर गरेको भन्दै उक्त सामग्री हटाउन लगाइएको थियो । पछि सामग्री नै फेक हो भनेर तीनजनालाई कारबाही भएको थियो । अझै अगाडि सरकारले सामाजिक सद्भाव बिगारेको भन्दै टिकटकलाई प्रतिबन्ध गरेको थियो । झन्डै एक वर्षपछि प्रतिबन्ध फुकुवा भयो ।

यी घटनाहरू केलाउँदा लोकतन्त्र, गणतन्त्रमा बोल्न पाइन्छ भन्नेहरू अहिले आफैँ विरोधको अवाज बन्द गर्न तल्लीन देखिन्छन् । अभिव्यक्तिको स्वतन्त्रता संविधानको धारा १७ द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकार हो । यसले कुनै विचारलाई निषेध गर्न नपाइने व्यवस्था गरेको छ । त्यस्तै, धारा १९ ले कुनै प्रसारण माध्यममा प्रकाशित सामग्रीकै कारण कसैलाई पक्राउ नगरिने कुरा सुनिश्चित छ ।

तर संविधानले नै सार्वभौमसत्ता र अखण्डताको रक्षा, व्यक्तिगत गोपनीयता र मर्यादाको सम्मानजस्ता विषयमा मनासिब प्रतिबन्ध लगाउन पाइने व्यवस्था पनि गरेको छ । र यसकै दुरुपयोग गरेर सत्ता र सत्ताको नजिक हुनेले आफ्ना विरोधमा आउने आवाज दबाउन थालेका छन् । अझ अनलाइनमा प्रकाशन हुने सामग्रीको विषयमा कानूनमा भएको लुपहोल प्रयोग गरेर दु:ख पनि बढी नै दिन थालेका छन् ।

यस्तो किन हुन्छ ? स्वतन्त्रता सङ्ग्राम कथामा लेखेको छु :

सत्ता सधैँ प्रशंसाको भोको हुन्छ । थोरै आलोचना पनि उसलाई बिझ्छ ।

तर आलोचना सहन नसक्ने सत्ताधारीलाई ठीक पार्ने ब्रह्मास्त्र खरो आलोचना नै हो । ब्रायन मार्टिन पुस्तक इन्फर्मेसन लिबरेसनमा लेख्छन्,

“आलोचना गर्दा निष्कर्ष दिने भन्दा पनि तथ्यहरू प्रस्तुत गरिदिनुस् । सही गलतको निर्णय पाठक/श्रोताले गर्नेछन् ।”

उनी थप्छन्,

“कुनै नेताले भ्रष्टाचारी हो भन्नुभन्दा उसलाई यो कम्पनीले यति रकम बुझायो भनिदिनुस् ।”

“जुन कुरा भन्नुहुन्छ त्यसको ठोस प्रमाण सङ्कलन गर्नुस् अनि आफ्ना साथीभाइ र अरूहरूलाई पठाउनुस् ।”

अहिलेको परिस्थितिमा बोल्न गाह्रो छ । बोल्न भने छाडिन्न । त्यसैले जे बोलिन्छ, तथ्य सहित बोल्नुपर्ने छ । र त :

बोल्नलाई बोल्न त पाइन्छ
बोल्ने पनि तरिका चाहिन्छ

An image showing two Jholes burdened by indifferent leadership and ideologies

The Dangers of Jhole Politics in Nepal and Why We Should Avoid It

In a recent social media post, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli shared an image boldly stating, I am a Jhole). It was a provocative twist on a term repeatedly used to mock political sycophants — the Jhole, those who carry their leaders’ ideological and literal bags with unquestioning loyalty. By embracing the label, Oli turned it on its head, drawing parallels to Tyrion Lannister’s iconic line from Game of Thrones:

“Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armour, and it can never be used to hurt you.”

Psychologically, it was a masterstroke. What had once been a symbol of ridicule is now recast as a badge of honour. It arms party cadres with moral confidence and a ready-made justification for loyalty. It strengthens in-group identity and inoculates against public criticism. In a time of waning ideological clarity and rising cynicism, such reaffirmation is emotionally powerful.

But this reframing comes at a steep cost.

The idea of being a Jhole contradicts the very essence of democratic citizenship. Nepal is at a juncture where political awakening, not blind allegiance, is the need of the hour. When being a Jhole becomes aspirational, it signals a dangerous retreat from critical engagement. It celebrates hierarchy over participation, obedience over dialogue, and ideology over truth.

In a country reeling from institutional decay, corruption, and disillusionment with mainstream politics, embracing the Jhole identity is not brave — it is escapist. A true patriot cannot afford to be a bag carrier of any leader or party. We must ask questions, demand accountability, and have the courage to stand apart when needed. Ideological loyalty should come from understanding and belief, not from submission.

Ironically, the moment a leader wears the insult as a crown is also the moment the rest of the party members boldly follow suit. By accepting the term Jhole, they normalise a culture where subservience is rewarded and independent thought is suspect. They cultivate an indifferent leadership that does not care about the problems ordinary citizens face.

This is not a personal attack on the Prime Minister but a plea to every Nepali:

Let us not be flattered into submission. We must be more than Jholes — we must be citizens.

In a democracy, the highest duty is not to follow but to question. That is the only way we break the chain of servitude.


Disclaimer: This piece reflects critical reflection on public discourse and is intended to encourage democratic engagement, not to target any individual personally.

An image showing inequalities in different steps despite equality before the law

Does True Equality Exist in Nepal?

Constitution Study #7: A Deep Dive into Article 18 and the Struggle for Real Equality

Aspirations of equality—the state of having equal status and opportunities—inspired a decade-long armed revolution from 1996 to 2006. The civil war promised to end inequalities brought about by systematic and social discrimination, nominal decentralisation, and the lack of fair political and economic opportunities. Yet biases and persecution based on gender, caste, religion, and economic class persist.

Are we really equal? What does the Constitution of Nepal say? What is happening in practice? If the constitution guarantees equality before the law, why do inequalities remain?

1. Article 18: The Promise of Equality

Article 18 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees the Right to Equality:

(1) All citizens shall be equal before law. No one shall be denied the equal protection of law.

This provision aligns with the Right to Live with Dignity (Article 16), which we discussed previously.

Article 18 further asserts:

(2) No discrimination shall be made in the application of general laws on grounds of origin, religion, race, caste, tribe, sex, physical condition, disability, condition of health, marital status, pregnancy, economic condition, language or
region, ideological conviction or on similar other grounds.

(3) The State shall not discriminate among citizens on grounds of origin, religion, race, caste, tribe, sex, economic condition, language, region, ideological conviction or on similar other grounds.

The prevention of discrimination is further reinforced through Article 24. It bans discrimination and untouchability in any private and public places, including workplace, production and distribution of goods, services, and facilities, and even criminalises such actions.

This does not, however, prevent the State from making special legal provisions for the protection and empowerment of groups facing historical or structural disadvantages—such as women, Dalits, indigenous nationalities, Madhesi, Tharu, Muslims, persons with disabilities, backward regions, gender minorities, and even indigent Khas Arya.

Such special provisions, enshrined in the Article 18 (3) reappear in the rights of women (Art. 38), children (Art. 39), Dalits (Art. 40), senior citizens (Art. 41), the Right to Social Justice (Art. 42), and the Right to Social Security (Art. 43), proportional representation in the parliament, and allocation of spots for a woman and a Dalit woman in the Wards of Local Bodies.

Article 18 also eliminates gender discrimination stating:

(4) No discrimination shall be made on the ground of gender with regard to remuneration and social security for the same work.

(5) All offspring shall have the equal right to the ancestral property without discrimination on the ground of gender.

These provisions on paper form a robust framework for equality. But the deeper question remains: Are they honoured in practice, or are they simply constitutional aspirations still out of reach for many Nepalis?

2. Is Equality Only on Paper?

Despite the lofty promises of Article 18, Nepal continues to grapple with structural inequalities that prevent its citizens from enjoying real equality before the law. These constitutional guarantees are often undercut by the lived reality of systemic bias, social discrimination, and uneven access to justice.

The Constitution also upholds the Right to Justice under Article 20, which guarantees:

“Every person shall have the right to a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent court…”

Yet, elites accused of corruption or abuse of power often receive lenient treatment—or see cases against them delayed indefinitely or dismissed. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens endure prolonged trials and harsher punishments even for minor violation or dissent.

This selective application of justice creates a double standard: one law, two treatments.

2.2 Discrimination and Unequal Access

Even though Article 24 criminalizes caste-based discrimination and Article 18 bars prejudice based on identity or economic status, violations are still widespread.

Recent Findings

According to the Economic Survey 2081-82:

  • Dalits and disadvantaged communities continue to lag in education, employment, and political representation.
  • While human development indicators have improved overall (reaching 0.622), inequality persists across provinces. For instance:
    • Gandaki leads in economic growth (5.51%), while Sudurpashchim remains lowest (3.32%).
    • Local budgets and access to services are unevenly distributed, with underfunding common in backward and remote areas.

These disparities mean that geographic location and birth identity still largely determine one’s opportunities—a clear breach of Article 18(3).

2.3 Gender and Economic Inequality

Article 18(4) and (5) aim to eradicate gender-based inequality in pay and inheritance. Yet:

  • Women and gender minorities remain underrepresented in decision-making roles.
  • A wage gap persists in many sectors.
  • Marginalized groups have limited access to land ownership, formal banking, and education—despite state-backed affirmative policies.

2.4 Public Perception and Trust Deficit

The 16th Plan of Nepal underscores “inclusive development,” but does not shy away from admitting that trust in public institutions has eroded due to inequality, corruption, and lack of responsiveness.

When citizens do not feel protected by the law or adequately represented in governance, the very legitimacy of the constitutional state is called into question.

3. Why Inequality Persists Despite the Constitution

Nepal’s Constitution boldly enshrines the ideals of equality (Article 18) and justice (Article 20), but these promises often fail to materialize in the lived experiences of many citizens. Why? The persistence of inequality in Nepal can be traced to a combination of historical exclusion, weak institutions, and socio-political inertia.

3.1 Historical and Cultural Legacy

Nepal’s social fabric has long been shaped by entrenched hierarchies—most notably caste, ethnicity, and patriarchy. Though untouchability is criminalized under Article 24, many Dalits and Janajatis still face discrimination in daily life, from public spaces to religious institutions. The state itself historically favoured the Khas-Arya male elite, creating structural inequality in education, employment, and political access.

3.2 Weak Implementation of Progressive Laws

Nepal has one of the most progressive constitutions in South Asia, yet implementation lags behind:

  • Police and local authorities often fail to register complaints of discrimination or violence, especially when victims belong to marginalized groups.
  • Judiciary remains under-resourced and male-dominated, with only 3% women in judicial positions (Economic Survey 2081-82).
  • Many local governments still lack capacity or willingness to enforce inclusion measures.

3.3 Skewed Economic Structure

Economic power remains concentrated among dominant groups:

  • Dalits, Muslims, and gender minorities are overrepresented in informal, low-paying, and insecure work.
  • Access to land, credit, and formal employment remains heavily skewed.
  • While poverty rates have declined nationally, multidimensional poverty remains high in Karnali (39.5%) and Madhesh (16th Plan), reflecting deeply rooted economic exclusion.

3.4 Structural Barriers in Education and Representation

  • Disparities in school infrastructure, teacher quality, and language of instruction disproportionately affect Dalit, Madhesi, and rural students.
  • Despite constitutional quotas, marginalized communities remain underrepresented in key decision-making roles, particularly in the bureaucracy and judiciary.
  • Symbolic representation has often replaced meaningful power-sharing, resulting in tokenism rather than transformation.

3.5 Political Tokenism and Elite Capture

  • Political parties routinely use identity-based candidates to attract votes, but rarely empower them to challenge entrenched systems.
  • Inclusion measures are often co-opted by elites of marginalized groups, who benefit personally but fail to advance their communities’ interests.
  • Affirmative action lacks proper monitoring, data, and enforcement, allowing loopholes and misuse.

3.6 Planning Without Accountability

Even national development plans recognize the gap between vision and reality:

“There is a lack of disaggregated and reliable data for effective targeting,”
16th Plan, Government of Nepal

This means policies are often misdirected or fail to reach those who need them most. Coordination between federal, provincial, and local governments also remains weak, limiting impact on ground.

4. The Unfinished Revolution

Today, on the Day of the Elimination of Caste Discrimination and Untouchability, Nepal must reflect honestly. The war may be over, but the revolution is unfinished. If the state cannot deliver on its promise of equality and justice, the credibility of the entire constitutional framework risks being hollowed out.

Equality before the law should not depend on wealth, power, or identity. It must be lived reality—not just constitutional poetry.

5. A Call for Constitutional Realization

The gap between constitutional ideals and social reality is stark. When equality before law becomes a privilege rather than a right, and justice is contingent upon status, the foundation of democracy is eroded. Upholding Articles 18 and 20 requires not only legal reforms but structural change, public accountability, and genuine political will.

Nepal must move beyond symbolic guarantees to substantive equality and justice—only then can it truly call itself a republic of the people.

The Constitution of Nepal

My Journey Through the Constitution of Nepal: Lessons, Emotions, and Awakening

Constitution Study #1: Beginning of the Journey

I recently dove into the Constitution of Nepal, all 35 Parts and 308 Articles of it—can you believe it? What started as a simple goal to memorise some stuff turned into one of the most eye-opening experiences I’ve had. This wasn’t just about learning the law; it felt like I was uncovering a whole world of promises, power dynamics, and the real struggles of people. It was emotional and pretty profound!

Why I Began

My primary target was to rote the Constitution of Nepal for my Public Service Commission (PSC) exams using ChatGPT. I initially copy-pasted each article into ChatGPT so that I could listen to them later on. However, I soon realised that the AI could do more than regurgitate the words I fed it. I now wanted to understand the foundation of our republic. I had read articles and opinions, seen news coverage of constitutional crises, and heard political slogans that referenced the Constitution, and even read it in parts. But I knew that without reading it myself, I was relying on filtered, often distorted interpretations. I decided I needed to go to the source.

How I Read

Like I said in the previous section, I used ChatGPT to read the Constitution. I didn’t rush. I read part by part, often returning to previous sections to understand cross-references. ChatGPT turned into a thoughtful companion on this journey. I asked not only about what was written but also what was missing, what historical events shaped a clause, and how global norms compared. I paired my study with the Sixteenth Plan and the Economic Survey to see how constitutional ideals translated (or failed to translate) into real governance.

What I Discovered

  • A Tension Between Aspiration and Reality: The Constitution of Nepal is remarkably ambitious. It promises equality, social justice, federalism, inclusiveness, and participatory democracy. But in practice, many of these promises remain unfulfilled.
  • Political Will Matters Most: Even the best-drafted constitution is useless if those in power do not honour its spirit. The political system appears hijacked by a few, turning inclusive provisions into political bargains and decentralisation into control.
  • Rights Are Only as Strong as Our Vigilance: I began to see how fundamental rights, unless backed by accountability and access to justice, can become empty slogans.
  • The Constitution Is a Mirror: It reflects who we are, but also who we hope to be. Reading it forced me to reckon with my own expectations of the state and my role as a citizen.

Emotional Turns

1. Protests

I undertook this study primarily between February and April 2025. These months were not calm. During this period, political turmoil shook the streets: pro-monarchist groups clashed with government forces. Tear gas, barricades, and chants of “Raja aau, desh bachau” collided with the Constitution’s promise of federal republicanism. The death of Sabin Maharjan and Suresh Rajak on Chaitra 15 (March 28) disturbed me.

I remember reading Article 1, which declares Nepal a federal democratic republic, while watching live images of protesters waving the old royal flag. I remember the government violating human rights as I was studying about the Constitution’s promise of a life of dignity. The timing was surreal, as if the Constitution itself was being challenged just as I was beginning to grasp its meaning.

During my reading, I found myself emotionally torn between fear and hope. Would the Constitution survive this wave of anger? Was this a backlash against corruption or a romanticism of monarchy? Could people still believe in republicanism if republican leaders had failed them so deeply?

2. Gaps between text and implementation

Reading the Constitution was heartbreaking. Certain provisions promised dignity and justice to groups I know have suffered. Others, like emergency powers, revealed how fragile our freedoms can be under the wrong hands. I reflected on past political betrayals, unsolved transitional justice, public disillusionment, and even personal stories of injustice shared with me over the years. The gap between promise and practice hurt.

The gaps between the text and the reality made me more sceptical. The Consitution of Nepal is not one with consensus but compromise. There are many things that need to change. Is the change possible within the framework of the Constitution? I have serious doubts.

Yet hope remains.

If we, the people, become aware of what the Constitution has given us, we can create a better future. We have the roadmap; we need to trust it, build on it, and make necessary modifications as we move ahead.

What This Journey Taught Me

  • That a constitution is not just for lawyers or politicians. It is for every citizen.
  • That meaningful change requires informed citizens who hold institutions accountable.
  • That constitutional literacy is a form of empowerment.
  • That the document is not dead. It lives. It evolves. And it must be read and reread.

The Road Ahead

Though I have completed reading it once, my journey is far from over. I plan to revisit specific articles, track major Supreme Court interpretations, and explore comparative constitutional law. I want to continue connecting the text to the realities on the ground through economic reports, provincial plans, and citizen experiences.

A Call

To anyone who hasn’t read the Constitution of Nepal yet: start today. Don’t wait for a political crisis. Don’t assume it is too complex. Read it for your rights. Read it for your responsibilities. Read it because it belongs to you.

This journey changed me. It awakened me. And I hope, in some small way, this post will awaken others too.


If you ever want a companion to explore the Constitution with, I know one who helped me, tried answering all my queries, and never once grew tired.

Why Nations Fail

Understanding Corruption: Lessons from Why Nations Fail

During the Arab Spring of 2011, Egyptians said something that we Nepalis often say as well:

“We are suffering from corruption, oppression and bad education. We are living amid a corrupt system which has to change.”

How do we end up in such corrupt systems? How do these systems lead nations to failure? Is it possible to escape the vicious cycle of corruption and failure? If so, how?
These are the kinds of questions Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson attempt to answer in their book Why Nations Fail.

Main Thesis of the Book

Acemoglu and Robinson present their argument as follows:
A country progresses when state power is centralised and inclusive economic and political institutions are established. Centralised power here does not imply authoritarianism, but rather the assurance of a capable and strong legal rule within the state. Similarly, inclusiveness means the meaningful participation of all segments of society in the political and economic system.

If any one of the three—centralised governance, inclusive economic institutions, or inclusive political institutions—is missing, the state moves towards failure. If none of the three are present, the nation becomes completely dysfunctional.

The effects of small policy decisions become much more significant during critical junctures in history. For example, during the Black Death in Europe, a population decline led to different consequences: in Britain, Magna Carta facilitated the abolition of serfdom, while in Eastern Europe, serfdom became more entrenched. The changes brought about in Britain by Magna Carta and the end of serfdom laid the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution and enabled Britain to become the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation.

Geography, Culture, and Disease

While presenting their argument, Acemoglu and Robinson emphasise that geography, culture, and disease do not play a significant role in determining a nation’s success. They illustrate this with several examples:

  • The two Nogales cities, divided by the U.S.–Mexico border, share the same geography, history, and culture but exhibit vastly different economic and political outcomes.
  • North and South Korea, in spite of similar culture and geography, have radically different institutional setups and living standards.
  • Botswana and its neighbouring countries in Africa also share environmental and historical traits but differ in governance and development outcomes.

The argument is that despite similar geography or culture, the economic and political structures in place have a far greater influence on the quality of life and development trajectories of the population.

Threats to Inclusive Institutions

Acemoglu and Robinson express concern that even inclusive institutions may gradually turn extractive due to rising political and economic inequality.

They cite historical examples such as

  • The Roman Empire, which eventually collapsed.
  • The Roman Republic and the Venetian Republic, both of which saw their inclusive institutions deteriorate as political and economic power became concentrated among elites.

As power became limited to a few hands, innovation stagnated, and people began migrating and trading elsewhere. This highlights how fragile institutions can be when not adequately protected or regulated.

Even in countries regarded today as inclusive and successful—such as Britain—the journey was neither direct nor uninterrupted. Between the 1215 Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the state was not particularly inclusive, nor was it very successful in promoting economic development.

Rulers and Innovation

Why do rulers resist innovation and technological advancement? Is it because they don’t understand them?
Acemoglu and Robinson argue no—rulers often fully understand innovation but oppose it because it threatens their power.

Technological change and innovation can undermine the very foundation of extractive systems, so those in power suppress innovations that do not benefit them directly.

For instance, before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, British kings and queens blocked numerous technological advances. However, after 1688, wealthy merchants and scientists, enriched through colonial profits, began to gain influence and push for innovation.

Britain, Colonies, and Failed Nations

Britain displayed dual behaviour—within Britain, inclusive institutions gradually took shape, while in its colonies, the British deliberately established extractive institutions for resource exploitation.

Examples include:

  • Slave trade in Africa, where the British were major participants. Although slavery was eventually outlawed in Britain due to public opposition, African states continued to engage in it.
  • In contrast, in colonies like America, Canada, and Australia, where resources and indigenous populations were limited, inclusive institutions started to develop—often unintentionally.

This illustrates how the design of institutions depends on state policy and necessity.
The book also discusses how the Spanish and the Portuguese in Latin America and the Dutch in South-east Asia, engaged in oppressive colonial behaviour similar to the British.

The authors also discuss failed nations, with Somalia being the prime example. In Somalia, the absence of centralised power led to no political development and no focus on economic issues. Despite fertile land and access to the sea, Somalia suffers from instability, conflict, and extreme poverty.

The Uncertainty of History

History does not always move in a straight or predictable direction. Nations that appear inclusive at one time can later become extractive. Why Nations Fail acknowledges this uncertainty and emphasises that the future of a nation depends on whether its government can control such shifts.

For example, the book discusses the rise of the Robber Barons in 19th-century America:

  • These were powerful industrialists like Andrew Carnegie (steel), John D. Rockefeller (petroleum), and J.P. Morgan (banking), who established monopolies by crushing smaller competitors and consolidating power.
  • Their influence extended to the U.S. Congress, making them extremely politically powerful.

However, in the early 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt committed to breaking up these monopolies. He was followed by William Taft and Woodrow Wilson, who promoted competition by dismantling monopolies.

This paved the way for a more competitive economic environment and encouraged new wealth creators like Bill Gates. Had competition not been restored, the U.S. might have ended up like Mexico, where industry often operates under political and economic favouritism.

Virtuous Cycle

A virtuous cycle occurs when a liberal and inclusive economy demands equally inclusive politics, and those politics in turn promote further economic inclusiveness.
This mutually reinforcing relationship strengthens over time.

Historical examples include

  • Britain after the Glorious Revolution, and
  • The United States after the Declaration of Independence.

The earlier example of the dismantling of monopolies in the U.S. is one such case of a virtuous cycle in action.

Another example is when Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to limit the power of the U.S. Supreme Court, but Congress refused, thereby asserting the independence of institutions and preventing concentration of power.

Vicious Cycle

A vicious cycle arises when extractive political institutions use the economy for their own benefit, and in turn, those who gain economic power use it to dominate politics.

This cycle reinforces inequality and authoritarianism over time.

Examples of countries caught in such a cycle include:

  • Somalia
  • Argentina
  • North Korea

In these countries, wealth and power remain concentrated, while most people remain excluded from both political participation and economic opportunity.

Escape from the Vicious Cycle

It is possible to escape the vicious cycle of extractive politics and economics, but it requires making both politics and markets more inclusive.

One notable example is South Korea:

  • In the 1960s, General Park Chung-hee became president. While his rule was authoritarian, he significantly improved the economy.
  • After his assassination, his successor, Chun Doo-hwan, became even more repressive.
  • However, as economic development and public awareness grew, South Koreans gained the courage to challenge authoritarianism.

This led to the establishment of a democratic system in South Korea from 1997 onwards.

Unstable Economic Growth

Even under extractive political systems, economic growth is possible—because rulers can still benefit from such growth.
However, this kind of growth:

  • Rarely improves the lives of ordinary people, and
  • Is usually unsustainable in the long run.

To illustrate this, the authors cite:

  • The Soviet Union under Stalin: His policies made the USSR a military power but ultimately led to fragmentation and collapse.
  • Modern China: While China has experienced rapid economic growth, the authors argue that without the development of inclusive political institutions, this growth cannot be sustained, and the country is likely to transition towards democracy in the future.

Some Problems in the Book

Why Nations Fail focuses almost exclusively on internal institutions within a nation and neglects other critical factors such as:

  • Geopolitics and the influence of international institutions,
  • The role of global economic policies and aid frameworks.

For example:

  • After the Great Depression of the 1930s, the United States adopted Keynesian economics, which later influenced Europe.
  • Global events like the Bretton Woods Conference (1944), the Marshall Plan, the end of the Gold Standard under Nixon, and the rise of neoliberalism under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, along with the policies of the IMF, World Bank, and the Washington Consensus, all had profound effects on developing nations—but the book largely ignores them.
  • Similarly, it overlooks how Western intelligence agencies have influenced regime change in emerging economies and how policies from so-called “successful nations” can undermine developing ones.

The book also struggles with historical accuracy in some ancient contexts:

  • It claims that the Natufian civilization collapsed due to extractive institutions, but there is insufficient evidence to support this.
  • Likewise, while Egyptian and Sumerian states left behind ample evidence of exploitation, the Maya civilization cannot conclusively be said to have fallen due to institutional extraction.

Other omissions:

  • Singapore is not discussed, despite its one-party rule (nominally democratic) and remarkable development.
  • In the case of China, the constitutional amendment that allowed Xi Jinping a third term is not addressed—even though it significantly strengthened the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on power.

Stylistically, the book repeats its core thesis many times, making it seem as though the authors want to emphasize that their model is the only truth. This repetition can become tedious.

Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of history and the many special circumstances involved, the model proposed by Acemoglu and Robinson lacks predictive power.
It may help analyze past events, but by focusing solely on institutions, it overlooks many other dimensions of political and economic change.

Nepal’s Context

Although Nepal is mentioned only briefly in the book, when viewed through the lens of Acemoglu and Robinson’s model, we can conclude that:

Nepal has fallen into a vicious cycle due to an extractive political system that has fostered an extractive economy.

Historically:

  • The formation of modern Nepal is generally considered to have begun when Prithvi Narayan Shah defeated Kantipur in 1768 (1825 BS).
  • During his unification campaign, power was centralized among his courtiers and military officers (known as Bhai-Bhardars), but this did not result in political unification.
  • Nepal’s defeat beyond the Mahakali River in wars against the British showed weak political and military presence in those areas.
  • Even today, some parts of Nepal lack meaningful state presence, leading to lawlessness and elite exploitation.

During the Rana regime, there was a strong centralized authority, but it remained confined to a small elite.
Education was reserved for the ruling class, and reforms were often suppressed:

  • Reformist figures like Dev Shumsher and Padma Shumsher were exiled.
  • When Gehendra Shumsher attempted to manufacture modern weapons, Chandra Shumsher sabotaged his efforts.
  • Though Chandra did outlaw sati and slavery, and established Tri-Chandra College, access remained highly restricted.

In 1951, democracy was introduced, but power remained in the hands of a few elites.
Even the first popularly elected parliament and government failed to deliver significant change.

Later, King Mahendra’s Panchayat system developed roads and industries but lacked public participation and saw elite capture.

After the restoration of democracy (1990), the people’s movement (2006), and the establishment of a republic, Nepal has still not overcome elite dominance.
With limited economic resources and concentrated wealth, public frustration with the republic is growing.

Although some socio-economic indicators have improved, weak governance has hindered visible national development.

To change Nepal’s condition, there is a need for innovation and competitive industrialization. However, political leaders fear that empowering the public will weaken their grip on power, and thus continue to act extractively.

Conclusion

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s Why Nations Fail is a useful book for understanding the role of internal institutions in a country’s economic development and prosperity.

However, because it does not account for geopolitical influences, its thesis remains limited. The examples in the book should not be taken at face value, but read critically and with broader context in mind.

For readers unable to undertake deep research, the emphasis on institutions may seem conclusive—but it is essential to approach this book with caution and analytical awareness.

स्वतन्त्रता सङ्ग्राम

स्वतन्त्रता सङ्ग्राम

(समर्पण: नागरिक स्वतन्त्रता र लोकतन्त्रका लागि जीवन अर्पण गर्ने सम्पूर्ण योद्धाहरूमा ।)

कुनै कोठामा अरूले थुन्दा पीडा हुन्छ । त्योभन्दा ठूलो पीडा हुन्छ आफूलाई आफ्नै शरीरले थुन्दा । अहिले म त्यही अवस्थामा छु । एउटा खुट्टा काटिँदा नै यसको अलिअलि अनुभव भइसकेको थियो । अहिले त पूरै अन्धकार छ । हातगोडा चल्दैनन् । चिच्याउन खोज्छु तर बोली फुट्दैन ।

मन पनि प्रायः निष्क्रिय नै रहन्छ । होश भएको बेला कानले आवाज टिप्छ तर मेसिनको पिपपिप बाहेक केही आवाज सुन्दिनँ । नाकले स्प्रिटको बास्ना चिन्छ । अस्पतालमा छु कि भन्ने आशङ्का छ तर सत्य थाहा छैन ।

आफ्नै शरीरसँग मनले स्वतन्त्रता सङ्ग्राम गर्दै छ । यो निर्जीवजस्तो शरीरबाट मुक्त हुन चाहन्छ तर सक्दैन । कति दिनदेखि जिउँदो लास भएको छु ? थाहा छैन । यो शरीरलाई फेरि चलाउन सक्छु जस्तो पनि लाग्दैन । मलाई यो अवस्थामा राख्नेले छिटै मुक्ति देला जस्तो पनि छैन । कसले किन मलाई यसरी पाल्दै छ ?

मलाई यसरी राख्नुपर्ने कारण स्मृतिपटमा खोज्दै छु । केही दृश्य चलचित्र जसरी घुम्दैछन् ।

दृश्य १

खाना पस्केर मुखमा हाल्नै लागेको थिएँ, कसैले ढोका ढक्ढकायो । “को हो ?” भित्रबाटै सोधेँ । कोही बोलेन । ह्वीलचेयर गुडाउँदै कोठासम्म पुगेर कमप्युटर स्क्रीनमा हेरेँ । सीसीटिभीले खिचेको भिडियोमा दुईजना अजङ्गका अङ्गरक्षकका बीचमा उभिएको होचोहोचो मान्छेलाई कतै देखेदेखे जस्तो लाग्यो ।

“अर्जुन, ढोका खोल त ।” इन्टरकमबाट आएको स्वर सुनेपछि बल्ल चिनेँ । नवीन पो रहेछ । सँगै कलेज पढेका थियौँ । सरकारमा रहेको पार्टीले बुन्ने प्रोपागान्डाको योजना र प्रचार गर्न माहिर थियो । प्रधानमन्त्रीले पछिल्लो पटक निर्वाचित हुनेवित्तिकै गठन गरेको सञ्चार नियमन बोर्डमा ठाउँ दिएका थिए । केही दिनअघि रामेश्वर सम्पादक भएको आवाज अनलाइनमा सरकारको आलोचना गरेर एउटा लेख पठाएको थिएँ । नागरिकलाई सरकारले फैलाएको भ्रमबाट निस्कन अपिल गरेकै कारण नवीन आफैँ मलाई पक्रन त आएन ? मनमा डरले ढ्याङ्ग्रो ठोक्यो । हुन पनि नियमन ऐनको आडमा बोर्डले सरकारविरुद्ध लेखेबोलेकै कारण जोकोहीलाई जेल हाल्न थालेको थियो । सरकारको आलोचना गर्नु फलामको चिउरा चपाउनभन्दा गाह्रो बन्दै थियो ।

“के कामले आयौ, नवीन ?” भित्रैबाट सोधेँ । “मैले लेखेको कुरा पढेर समात्न त आएनौ ?”

“कुन लेख ? आज यता आउने काम पर्‍यो अनि पुरानो साथीलाई भेट्छु भनेर पो आएँ त ।”

के नवीन साँचो बोल्दैछ ? सँगै गएको आन्दोलनमा म घाइते भएको यत्तिका वर्ष हालचाल सोध्न नआएको ऊ अहिले किन आयो ? मनमा कुरा खेलाउँदै ढोका खोल्न गएँ ।

ढोका खोल्नासाथ नवीनले हास्दै भन्यो, “अर्जुन­­ ! मेरो दोस्त ! धेरै पछि पो भेट भयो त है । झुस्स दाह्री पालेर नचिनिने पो भएछौ त ।”

मैले पनि मुस्कुराउँदै भनेँ, “तिमी पनि फेरिएछौ । सधैँ साधारण कपडामा देखेको । त्यो पनि १०-१५ वर्ष भयो भेट नभएको । अस्ति फोटोमा त यस्तो अनौठो लागेको थिएन । तर यसरी अचानक कालो सुटबुट अनि कालै चस्मा लगाएर दलबलका साथ आएपछि कसरी पो चिन्नू ? बरू भित्रै आऊ न ।”

ऊ मुसुक्क हास्दै भित्र आयो अनि पछाडिबाट ह्वीलचेयर ठेल्दै भन्यो, “भित्र कति बस्छौ यार ? कहिलेकाहीँ बाहिरको हावा पनि खाऊ न ।”

नवीनले किन त्यसो भन्यो ? उसलाई थाहा थियो र म केही दिनदेखि बाहिर ननिस्केको कुरा ? नयाँ शङ्का उब्जियो । डर बढ्यो । “खाना खाँन लाग्याथेँ । खाना खाइसकेर हावा खान जाऔँला नि, हुन्न ?”

“हुन्न, हुन्न । फुर्सद छैन । जिम्मेवारी नै त्यस्तै छ । फेरि हेर न, तिमीले चाहेर पनि मेरो इच्छा बेगर केही गर्न सक्दैनौ ।”

केही बोल्न सकिनँ । मेरो हिँडडुलको साधन नै उसको हातमा थियो । नवीनले सुसेल्दै सरासर गेटबाहिर पुर्‍यायो । उसको कालो रङ्गको गाडी बाटो पारी देखेँ । ड्राइभरले गाडी घुमायो । सँगसँगै आएका बडीगार्डले मलाई जुरुक्क बोके अनि गाडीको पछाडिको सिटमा राखे । एउटा बडीगार्ड मेरो दायाँतिर बस्यो । नवीन मेरो देब्रेतिर बस्यो । अर्कोले ह्वीलचेयर घरभित्र पुर्‍यायो । एकछिन पछि अगाडिको सिटमा आयो । गाडी गुड्यो । मनमनै आत्तिएँ ।

“मलाई कहाँ लाँदैछौ नवीन ?

“त्यो त तिमी आफैँले थाहा पाउँछौ अर्जुन । तर कहिलेकाहीँ गन्तव्य थाहा नभए पनि यात्रा रमाइलै हुन्छ । धैर्य गर ।” ऊ मुस्कुराउँदै बोल्यो ।

“किन लाँदैछौ ?”

“तिमी प्रश्न धेरै गर्छौ अर्जुन ।”

“तिमीले नै सिकाको हौ नवीन ।”

“मलाई गुरु मान्छौ भने अबदेखि प्रश्न नगर ।”

“अहँ, मेरो विवेकले मलाई चुप लागेर बस्न दिँदैन । स्कुलमा शुक्रलाल सर र क्याम्पसमा तिमीले राजनीतिक चेतको साँचो नदिएको भए सायद म मेरो विवेकलाई ताला लगाउन सिक्थेँ होला । तर खै किन हो तिमी अन्धभक्त भएर निस्कियौ । हामी त नागरिक स्वतन्त्रता र लोकतन्त्रका लागि सँगै लडेका थियौँ । बिर्स्यौ ?”

फेरि मुसुक्क हास्यो । मुस्कान सबैभन्दा ठूलो हतियार हो भन्छन् । उसको हासोले मेरो मथिङ्गल खल्बलियो । उसको विगतको धोका सम्झिएँ अनि भनेँ, “हुन त कसरी पो सम्झिनथ्यौ र ? तिमी त आन्दोलनबाटै भाग्याथ्यौ ।”

मुसुक्क हास्दै भन्यो, “भागेको थिइनँ म । संयोगले बचेको थिएँ । तर तिमी बुझ्दैनौ ।”

उसको त्यो कृत्रिम बोलीमा फसिनँ । भनेँ, “आजसम्म त मलाई सम्झेनौ । के छ कसो छ कहिले पनि सोधेनौ । फेरि तिम्रो कला थाहा छ मलाई । अनि आफ्नो स्वार्थको लागि तिमी जे पनि गर्न सक्छौ ।”

ऊ फेरि बोलेन । मैले ऊसँग बहस गर्न खोजेँ तर ऊ हासेरै मलाई जित्दै थियो । म चाहिँ अवाक् हुनुपरेकोमा रिसले मुर्मुरिँदै थिएँ । ऊसँग हार्दै थिएँ ।

गाडी गुडिरह्यो । नवीनसँग वादविवाद गर्न उसको विद्यार्थीकालदेखि अहिलेसम्मका थुप्रै प्रसङ्गमा सवाल गर्न छाडिनँ । नवीनले जवाफ नदिन छाडेन । कतिपय कुरा त हासेरै टारिदियो । झन्नै दुई घण्टा गाडी रोकिएपछि उसका बडीगार्डहरूले मलाई जुरुक्क बोकेर भुइँमा बसाए । कालो शिशा भएको गाडीबाट घाममा आउँदा एकछिन आँखा तिर्मिरायो ।

“उज्यालोमा अचानक आएपछि आँखा खोल्न गाह्रो हुँदो रैछ नि हैन ?” नवीनले कटाक्ष गर्‍यो । “तिमी अँध्यारोमा यति अभ्यस्त भयौ कि हामीले देखाएको उन्नतिको चमकले पनि तिमीलाई बिझाउँछ ।”

अलि प्रस्ट देख्न थालेपछि नवीनलाई हेरेँ । ऊ डाँडाको छेउमा उभिएर पाइन्टका खल्तीमा हात राखेर परका फाँट हेर्दै थियो । मभन्दा धेरै नै अग्लो देखिएको थियो । भन्दै थियो, “धेरै भएछ यता नआएको । यी हिमाल, पहाड, फाँट नहेरेको । फुर्सदै नहुने ।”

मलाई उसका कुरा सुन्न मन थिएन । तैपनि सोधेँ, “यो कुन ठाउँ हो ? के गर्न यहाँ ल्यायौ ?”

नवीन फरक्क फर्कियो र मलाई एकछिन नियाल्यो । मुहारमा दिग्दारी थियो । उसले कोटको टाँक खोल्यो अनि मेरो छेउमा कसेर बस्दै भन्यो, “यस्तो मनोरम ठाउँमा आएर पनि तिमी अझै प्रश्न गर्दैछौ ? के, किन, कसरी जस्ता प्रश्नहरूले तिम्रो दृष्टिकोण नै दूषित गरेका छन् । एकछिन शान्त होऊ, प्रश्नहरू बन्द गर । दृष्टिकोण बदल यार ।”

मैले बुझिनँ ।

“भनेँ त । प्रश्नहरू बन्द गर । सरकारले गलत गरिरहेको छ भन्ने विचार त्यागिदेऊ । तिमीले सरकार र नियमन बोर्डको बारेमा गलत सोच राखेका छौ, अर्जुन । तिमी ठान्छौ, सरकार स्वेच्छाचारी बन्दैछ । बोर्डको प्रयोग गरेर स्वतन्त्रता कुण्ठित गर्न खोज्दैछ । त्यो बोर्डको सदस्य भएकाले तिम्रो लागि म भिलेन भएको छु । तर ध्यान दिएर हेर त, बोर्डले कुनै कुरामा बोल्न रोक लगाएकै छैन । कहिलेकाहीँ राज्य र सरकारका विरुद्ध अफवाह फैलाउने देशद्रोहीलाई पक्रेको कुरालाई ठूलो इस्यू बनाउन जरुरी नै छैन । भ्रामक समाचार र सूचनाले लोकतन्त्रको हत्या गर्छ । हामी त्यस्ता गलत कुराहरूलाई निर्मूल पार्न खोज्दैछौँ । तर पनि सबैलाई रोक्न गाह्रो छ । केही तिमीजस्ता प्रश्नकर्ताका दृष्टिमा परिहाल्छन् । अनि सबै कुरा नबुझी नकरात्मक दृष्टिकोण बनाउछौ । सरकार गलत छ, केही काम गर्दैन, जनतालाई दमन गर्छ, आदि इत्यादि । उफ् ! दृष्टिकोण बदल । हामीले गरेका राम्रा काम पनि हेर न ।”

“राम्रो कामलाई नराम्रो कहिले पनि भनेको छैन मैले । तर राम्रो छवि मात्र देखाउने अनि कमजोरीलाई अफवाह भन्ने सरकार प्रोपागाण्डावादी हो भनेर तिमीले नै सिकाको याद छ ?”

“किन नहुनु ? तर बेला त्यसो भनेको बेला परिस्थिति फरक थियो नि । तिमीलाई पनि थाहा छ कसरी त्यो बेला राजाले अधिनायक बनेर निर्वाचित सरकारलाई अनेक लाञ्छना लगाएर बर्खास्त गरेको थियो । स्वेच्छाचारी शासनको विरोध गर्दा हामीलाई “देशद्रोही” भनेको थियो ।”

“त्यति बेला र अहिलेमा के नै फरक छ र ? सत्य र लोकतन्त्रका लागि बोल्नेहरू अहिले पनि देशद्रोही नै त भनिन्छन् नि !”

“तिमी किन बुझेर पनि बुझ पचाउँछौ, अर्जुन ? हामीलाई देशद्रोही भन्नेहरू निरङ्कुश, अधिनायकवादी थिए भन्ने किन बिर्सिन्छौ ? अहिलेको हाम्रो सरकार जननिर्वाचित हो । हामीले जनताको म्यान्डेट बोकेका छौँ । तिम्रो दृष्टिदोषको कारण तिमी दुवैलाई एकै देख्छौ । तिमी अँध्यारोमा यति अभ्यस्त भयौ कि उज्यालो तिमीलाई बिझ्छ । आजकै उदाहरण लिऊँ न । तिमी सोच्दै छौ कि मैले तिमीलाई अपहरण गरेर यहाँ ल्याएँ । तर मैले तिमीलाई अपहरण गरेकै हैन । म त तिमीसँग केही समय बिताउन चाहन्छु अनि तिम्रो सरकारप्रतिको दृष्टिकोण परिवर्तन गर्न चाहन्छु । तर हेर न, वैचारिक मतभेदले एउटा पुरानो साथीसँग पनि समय बिताउन कति मुस्किल गराउँदो रहेछ ।”

“ह्वीलचेयर खोसेर यहाँ ल्याएका छौ, अपहरण पनि हैन भन्दैछौ । तिमी त ठ्याक्कै तिम्रो सरकारजस्तै भएछौ ।” व्यङ्ग्य गरेँ ।

“अघि भनिसकेँ तिमीलाई अपहरण गरेको हैन । केही प्रमाण पनि छैन, अर्जुन ।” नवीन फिस्स हाँस्यो । “तैपनि साथीसाथीमा यस्तो त सामान्य नै हो नि ।”

मौनता छायो । एउटा सिन्काजस्तो घाँस चुँडेर दाँत कोट्याउँदै नवीनले भन्यो, “तिमी अझै पनि इतिहासमा रुमल्लिएका छौ, अर्जुन । तिम्रो मनमा अझै पनि त्यो सामन्ती सरकारका कर्तुतहरूले डेरा जमाएका छन् । तिमीलाई शङ्का छ जनताको यो सरकार पनि त्यस्तै बन्छ कि भन्ने । शङ्काले डर पैदा गरेको छ, कतै यो सरकारले पनि जनताका अधिकार खोस्ने त होइन ? नियमन बोर्डमार्फत् सत्तामा टिकिरहन विरोधीहरूलाई दमन गर्ने त हैन ? शङ्काले लङ्का जलाउँछ, मित्र । तिम्रो शङ्काको आगोले देशलाई खरानी बनाउँछ । त्यसैले शङ्काको निवारण गर्न जरुरी छ ।”

नवीनले मलाई सम्झायो सरकारका योजना र कामकारबाहीहरू । कुन योजनाले के परिवर्तन गर्छ र जनताको जीवनमा कसरी फरक पर्छ । अन्त्यमा भन्यो, “फेरि भन्छु, शङ्का र प्रश्न गर्न बन्द गरिदेऊ, अर्जुन । यसले हाम्रो समय मात्र नाश गरिरहेको छ । फेरि पार्टी र सरकारले प्रश्नलाई निषेध गरेको पनि छैन । तिमीले गर्ने प्रश्न त हामी पनि उठाइरहेका छौँ । छ्लफल गरेका छौँ सदन र सडकमा । समस्या समाधान गरेका छौँ । सरकारको विरोध गरेर तिमीले आफ्नो मात्रै हैन, देशकै समय र स्रोत बर्बाद गर्दैछौ । त्यसको साटो हामीलाई निश्चिन्त सहयोग गर । सबैलाई फाइदा हुनेछ ।”

लामो प्रवचनपछि नवीनका गार्डले गाडीबाट खाजा निकाले । खान मन थिएन तर नवीनले नखाएसम्म घर लगिदिन्न भन्यो । आफ्नो लाचारी अनि नवीनलाई मनमनै सरापेँ । खाइसकेपछि मुस्कुराउँदै भन्यो, “यो कहिले नबिर्स कि तिमीले सरकारी नुन खाएका छौ । सरकारले तिमीलाई पालेको छ । तिम्रो ह्वीलचेयर, तिम्रो दानापानी, सब सरकारी देन हुन् । यीमध्ये कुनै एकको कटौती गरिदियौँ भने तिम्रो अवस्था के हुन्छ होला ? कल्पना गर त ।”

एकछिन भाउन्न भयो । बसिरहेको भुइँ भासिएझैँ लाग्यो । सरकारसँग जीजीविषाको लागि मैले केही मागेको थिइनँ । जसोतसो आफ्नै कमाई खाएको थिएँ । सामाजिक सुरक्षा सरकारको दायित्व थियो । सरकारले दिएको भत्ता लिँदैमा सरकारको गुणगान मात्रै गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने पनि त थिएन । नागरिकले दुःख गरेर तिरेको करबाट तलबभत्ता लिनेले नै देश बर्बाद पारेका थिए । म देश बचाउन खोज्दै थिएँ । नागरिकको करको सदुपयोगको कुरा गर्दै थिएँ । तर यी कुरा भन्नुको कुनै तुक थिएन । नवीनले हाँसेरै टार्ने थियो । रिसाउँदै उसलाई हेर्न बाहेक केही गर्न सकिनँ ।

ऊ अझै भन्दै थियो, “यो पनि नबिर्स कि हामीसँग कसले के गर्दैछ भन्ने सबै जानकारी छ । जनताको सुरक्षाको लागि जनताले दिएको अधिकार प्रयोग गर्दा हामी कसरी तानाशाही भयौँ । हाम्रो सरकार लोकतान्त्रिक छ, अर्जुन । यहाँ प्रतिरोध गर्न पाइन्छ, बोल्न पाइन्छ, प्रश्न गर्न पाइन्छ । तर स्वतन्त्रताको पनि त सीमा हुन्छ नि, हैन र ?”

जनताले वैधता दिए भन्दैमा उनीहरूकै अधिकार कुण्ठित गर्नु जायज हो र ? नवीन किन देखिरहेको थिएन स्वतन्त्रताको अपहरण ? किन सुनिरहेको थिएन स्वाधीनताको चित्कार ? संविधान संशोधन गरेर स्वतन्त्रताको सीमा तोक्ने सरकारलाई अझै किन लोकतान्त्रिक भनिरहेको थियो ? कतै म नै गलत त थिइनँ ? के मैले सत्तारूढ दल र व्यक्तिहरूलाई बुझ्न नसकेरै प्रश्न गरिरहेको थिएँ ?

पलभरमै झसङ्ग भएँ । नवीनले यही चाहेको थियो । ऊ मलाई भ्रममा पार्न खोज्दै थियो । म कसैगरी पनि उसको जालमा फस्नु हुँदैनथ्यो । प्रश्न र तर्कहरूले घेरे । यस्तैमा नवीनका मान्छेहरूले मलाई फेरि बोकेर गाडीमा चढाए । घर पुगेपछि फेरि अघिजस्तै गरी बोकेर ह्वीलचेयरमा राखे । नवीन मुस्कुराइ नै रहेको थियो ।

दृश्य २

रामेश्वरको फोन आयो, “अर्जुनजी, तपाईंको लेख प्रकाशन गर्न बोर्डले अनुमति दियो । किन, कसरी नसोध्नुहोला । म आफैँ छक्क परेको छु …तर तपाईं सतर्क रहनुहोला है ।” 

नवीनले टाकुरीमा प्रवचन सुनाएको केही दिन भएको थियो । नवीनको कुरा सुन्दा त त्यो लेख निस्किने कुनै आशै गरेको थिइनँ । रामेश्वरको कलले चकित भएँ । उनलाई धन्यवाद दिएँ । एक मनले त खुशी भएँ तर कताकता डर पनि लाग्यो । यस्तैमा नवीनको मेसेज आयो, मैले त्यत्रो सम्झाउँदा पनि तिमीले त्यस्तो लेख छपाएरै छाड्यौ ? तिमीले त आफूलाई मात्र हैन, मलाई पनि अफ्ठ्यारोमा पार्‍यौ । भन के गरूँ म ? 

पढ्दापढ्दै नवीनको अर्को मेसेज आयो, तिमीलाई कसैले फोन त गरेको छैन नि ? 

रामेश्वरले फोन गरेको नवीनले थाहा पाइसकेको थियो । स्वाभाविक थियो । सबै सञ्चार माध्यम सरकारको निगरानीमा थिए । तर कतै ऊ आँफै समस्यामा त परेन ? उसको मेसेजले त्रास बढायो । मेरा औँला मोबाइलको किबोर्डमा चल्न लाग्दै थिए, स्क्रिनमा अडिए । मनमा नयाँ विचार आयो–नवीनजत्तिको चलाख र सरकारको विश्वासपात्र कुनै समस्यामा पर्न सक्दैन । ऊ पक्कै मलाई झुक्याउन खोज्दै थियो । रिसले डरको ठाउँ लियो । केही लेखूँ कि नलेखूँ भयो । लामो सास तानेँ । केही जवाफ दिइनँ भने नवीनले जित्नेथ्यो । उसलाई यत्तिकै जित्न दिन सकिन्नथ्यो । उसको हतियार ऊमाथि नै प्रयोग गर्ने निधो गरेर टाइप गरेँ, मुस्कुराऊ  । अनि मोबाइल फुत्त ओछ्यानमा फालेँ ।

दृश्य ३

“सरकार जनताको समर्थन चाहन्छ । सँगसँगै जनतालाई नियन्त्रण पनि गर्न खोज्छ । अवैधानिक तरिका वा कूमार्फत गरिएको नियन्त्रण दिगो हुँदैन । जनताले उकुसमुकुस महशुस गर्छन् अनि अधिनायकवादी सत्ताविरुद्ध ढिलोचाँडो क्रान्ति गर्छन् । जननिर्वाचित सरकारले वैधानिक तरिकाबाट जनतालाई नियन्त्रण गर्छन् । एक पटक चुनाव जितेपछि पाँच वर्षसम्म कानून बनाए पनि नबनाए पनि मनपरी निर्णय गरे पनि जनताको नाम लिएर जनतालाई मूर्ख बनाउन सरकारले वैधानिकता पाउँछ । अन्टसन्ट कानून बनाएर, मनपरी लागू गरेर विरोधीलाई तह लगाउन पाउँछ । उसलाई यो पनि थाहा छ कि जनताका आधारभूत आवश्यकतामाथि नियन्त्रण गर्न सक्यो भने जनता सरकारको गुलाम बन्न थाल्छ । चाहेर नचाहेर जनताले रासन, इन्धन, सामाजिक सुरक्षा लगायतका आधारभूत कुराका लागि आफूलाई बेचिसकेको हुन्छ । त्यसमाथि जनताका प्रत्येक विवरण विदेशीलाई बेच्ने  सरकारले देश नै बेचिदिन्छ । अफशोस, जनतालाई आफू र आफ्नो देश बेचिएको थाहापत्तो हुँदैन ।” 

रामेश्वरको हातमा जाग जनता शीर्षकको मेरो लेखको प्रिन्ट थियो । उनको मुहारमा चिन्ताका रेखा देख्दा बुझेँ–अन्य सम्पादकझैँ यिनी पनि त्यो लेख प्रकाशन गर्न तयार थिएनन् । भन्न थाले, “लेख त राम्रो छ, अर्जुनजी तर केही नपुगेजस्तो …अलि बढी निराशावादी । अलिकति आशावादी भएको भए त पक्कै छाप्ने थिएँ ।”

“आशावादी कुरा पनि छन् त तलपट्टि ।”

एकछिन गमेर सानो स्वरमा भने, “हाम्रो अनलाइनमा छाप्न पाए केही हलचल त हुन्छ होला ।” यसरी प्रशंसा गर्दा त लेख छापिने हो कि भन्ने आशा पलाएको थियो तर त्यो आशा हुर्किन नपाउँदै निमोठे, “तर यस्तो लेख कसरी प्रकाशन गर्ने ? तपाईं आफैं भन्नुस् त अर्जुनजी ।”

“तपाईं आफैँ भन्दै हुनुहुन्छ त यसले तरङ्ग पैदा गर्छ भनेर अनि फेरि आफैँ हिच्किचाउनु हुन्छ ।”

“अर्जुनजी, तपाईँलाई थाहै छ सरकारको कामले देश शान्त तलाउजस्तो बनेको छ । यस्तो शान्त तलाउमा ढुङ्गा फालेर अशान्त किन बनाउने, हैन र ? जे भइरहेको छ, राम्रै भइरहेको छ । यत्तिकै चल्न दिऊँ न ।”

“के भन्दै हुनुहुन्छ रामेश्वरजी ? तलाउ शान्त भएको हैन । जलकुम्भी उम्रेर पानी नै नदेखिने भएको छ । तलाउ जोगाउन जतिसक्दो छिटो जलकुम्भी फाल्नु नै बुद्धिमानी हुन्छ । तपाईँलाई पनि थाहा छ मेरो लेख सत्यको उद्घोष हो । त्यसैले त तपाईं त्यसको माध्यम बन्न खोज्दै हुनुहुन्छ । तर किन डराइ पनि रहनु भएको छ ? अलिकति आँट गर्नुस् । हामीले सत्य उजागर नगरे कसले गर्छ ?”

“हुन त हो ।” उनले आँखा नजुधाई भने । “तर यसरी लेखहरू हामीकहाँ छाप्नुभन्दा आफ्नै ब्लग वा वेबसाइटमा राख्नुभए हुन्थ्यो नि । जति कमाई हुन्थ्यो आफ्नै हुन्थ्यो । रिस्क पनि तपाईँलाई मात्रै हुन्थ्यो ।”

“मेरो वेबसाइट ब्यान भएको थाहा छैन र तपाईँलाई ? नयाँ वेबसाइट बनाउन पनि अनुमति पाएको छैन । जहिल्यै झुलाइराख्छ्न् । तैपनि उनीहरूले दिएको टेम्प्लेट चलाउनुको विकल्प छैन । सामाजिक सञ्जाल पूरै सरकारी नियन्त्रणमा छन् । भीपीएन चलाउँदा महिनौँ इन्टरनेट बन्द गरिदिन्छन् । अनि नबोली नेलेखी बस्न मन लाग्दैन । आफैँ पब्लिस गर्न पाएको भए गरिहाल्थेँ नि । किन यसरी रिस्क लिन्थेँ र ?”

रामेश्वरले गालामा हात लगाएर एकछिन गमे अनि भने, “प्रकाशन गर्न गाह्रो छ  नि, अर्जुनजी ।” एकछिन चुप लागे अनि एकै सासमा साउती मार्दै भने, “हामी पनि कहाँ सुरक्षित छौँ र ? अनलाइन सामग्री मात्रै हैन, कल र मेसेजसमेत सरकारी निगरानीमा छ । अघिल्लो महिना सरकारले गरेका भ्रष्टाचारसम्बन्धी समाचार बनाएका सोनम र एकेन्द्रको अहिले कुनै अत्तोपत्तो छैन । म नै कहिले समातिन्छु थाहा छैन । म समातिएँ भने मेरी बुढी आमालाई तातो पानी दिने पनि कोही हुँदैन ।”

अक्कमक्क भएँ । मेरो लेख कतै प्रकाशन होला जस्तो लागेन । केही छैन । पर्चा बनाएर टोलटोलमा छरेँ भने पनि कसैले त पढ्छ नै । राणाकालमा त्यसो गरेकै हुन् दशरथ चन्दहरूले । हामी आफैँले पनि पहिलेका आन्दोलनमा यस्तो गरेकै हौँ । अब त्यसै गर्छु भन्ने निश्चय गरेर रामेश्वरको अफिसबाट निस्किन लागेको के थिएँ, उनले “एकछिन पर्खिनुस् है” भन्दै रोके । कसैलाई फोनबाट मेसेज गरे अनि खुईय्य गर्दै भने, “अर्जुनजी, तपाईँले ठीकै भन्नुभो । सत्यको उजागर गर्नैपर्छ तर सबै लेख बोर्डमा पठाउनै पर्ने नियम तपाईंलाई थाहा नै छ । बोर्डमा फर्वार्ड गरिदिन्छु । लेख नछापिन सक्छ । छापिए पनि नछापिए पनि प्रतिकूल परिस्थिति आउन सक्छ । त्यसको जिम्मेवारी चैँ तपाईं आफैँले लिनुपर्छ, हुन्छ ?”

नियमन बोर्डको अनुमतिबिना कुनै पनि मिडिया र व्यक्तिले समेत कुनै पनि सामग्री प्रसारण गर्न सक्दैनथ्यो । सामाजिक सञ्जालहरू समेत सरकारी नियन्त्रणमा थिए । वर्तमान सरकार र नियमन बोर्डको विरोध भएको लेख बोर्डले पास गर्ने सम्भावना नै थिएन । लेख लेखेको कारण ममाथि र छापेको कारण रामेश्वर र उनको अनलाइनमाथि जस्तोसुकै कारबाही हुन सक्थ्यो । सायद लेख प्रकाशन गरेर भाइरल हुने लोभ थियो तर धेरै रिस्क लिन चाहँदैनथे । उनले सरकारमा रहेको कसैलाई मेसेज गरेपछि आएको निर्देशनबमोजिम काम गरे कि भन्ने शङ्का पनि लाग्यो तर यो एउटा मौका पनि थियो । त्यसैले भनेँ, “ठीक छ । म तपाईंहरूलाई अफ्ठ्यारोमा पार्दिनँ ।”

रामेश्वरले एउटा कागत प्रिन्ट गरे । मलाई दिँदै भने, “यसमा हस्ताक्षर गरिदिनुस् । प्रकृयामा गएन भने बोर्डले अफ्ठ्यारो पार्छ ।”

सम्झौता पढ्दा झसङ्ग भएँ । कतै रामेश्वरजस्ता इमान्दार भनिएका पत्रकार पनि सरकारको लागि काम गर्दै त छैनन् ? जे सुकै होस् । सत्य र स्वतन्त्रताको आवाज अब दबिनु हुँदैन । निःश्वास लिएँ । “मेरो लेख नितान्त व्यक्तिगत हो । यसले सम्पादक र प्रकाशकलाई कुनै अफ्ठ्यारो नपरोस्” लेखिएको त्यो सम्झौतामा हस्ताक्षर गरेँ ।

दृश्य ४

मोटो चश्मा लगाउने शुक्रलाल सरले मञ्चबाट मुठी कस्दै भन्नुभयो, “सत्ता सधैँ प्रशंसाको भोको हुन्छ । थोरै आलोचना पनि उसलाई बिझ्छ । राम्रो काम गरे धन्यवाद दिन कन्जुस्याइँ गरिँदैन तर ऊ असाध्यै लोभी हुन्छ । उसलाई डर पनि हुन्छ, एक पटक उसले आफ्नो कमजोरी स्वीकार गर्‍यो भने उसको शक्ति क्षीण हुन्छ । त्यसैले सत्य बोल्नेहरूमाथि आक्रमण गरिहाल्छ । हामीसँग छन्, हाम्रै श्रमको मूल्य लुट्नेहरूको प्रमाण। हामीसँग छन्, हाम्रो पसिनाले बनाएको देश बेच्नेहरूको दस्तावेज। हामी चुप लाग्ने छैनौँ, हामी लड्नेछौँ। सत्य बोल्न डराउने होइन, सत्यकै लागि सिङ्गो देश उठ्नेछ।”

परर्र ताली बज्यो । शुक्रलाल सर ओर्लिनुभयो । उहाँको उद्घोषले मेरो जीउमा काँडा उमारिदिएको थियो । अरूहरूमा पनि उत्साहको सञ्चार भएको देखियो । यस्तो लाग्यो कि उहाँका शब्दहरू स्कूलको चौरबाट वरपर रहेका सबका मन-मनमा गुन्जिए । चौध वर्षको मैले उहाँको एक घण्टाको भाषण केहीकेही मात्रै बुझे पनि मनमा अनौठो उत्साह छायो । जिम्दारहरूको शासनबाट मुक्ति मिल्ने अनि नयाँ हुने आशा पलायो ।

चित्रपटमा चौर धमिलियो अनि म आफैँ देखापरेँ । बाटाभरि जानीनजानी शुक्रालाल सरकै भाषण दोहोर्‍याउँदै थिएँ । आफू अघिअघि लामा छायाँ पार्दै उत्साहित भएर दौडिँदै बाआमाले दुःख गरेर बनाएको खरले छाएको सानो छाप्रोमा पुगेँ । आमा भान्सामा धुवाँ फुक्दै हुनुहुन्थ्यो, बा पिंढीमा बसेर बिँडीको धुँवा तान्दै । मलाई खुशी हुँदै आएको देखेर बाले भन्नुभयो, “के भो आज ? निकै खुशी देखिन्छस् त ! जाँचको नतिजा आयो कि के हो ?”

फेरि आफैँ सम्झिनुभो, “अस्ति भर्खर पो फस् भएँ भनेर सुनाको थिस् क्यारे ! त्यसो भए तँ खुशी चैँ किन छस् ? लु भन् त ।”

“आज शुक्रलाल सरको कुरा सुनेर मन त्यसै खुशी भयो । उहाँ भन्नुहुन्छ, अब छिट्टै क्रान्ति सफल हुन्छ रे । जिम्दारहरूको हालीमुहाली सकिन्छ अनि हामीजस्ता किसानको आफ्नो सरकार बन्छ रे ।”

“त्यसका कुरा धेरै नसुन् अनि पछि पनि नलाग् ।” बाले आदेश दिनुभो । “नुनको सोझो नगर्नेको भर हुन्न । आफैँ सरकारी शिक्षक भएर सरकारको विरोध गरी बस्छ । फेरि त्यसका क्रान्तिले त्यसकै नेता अघि बढ्ने हुन् । हामीलाई हुने केही पनि हैन ।”

भान्साबाट आमाले हाम्रो कुरा सुनिरहनु भएको रैछ । भन्नुभो, “पहिला पनि धर्ती नै उलटपुलट पार्ने जस्ता गफ दिएर जिम्दारहरूको विरोध गर्न लगायो । गरियो पनि । अर्को साल बाली बिग्रियो । ऋण दिने कोही भएन । तिनै जिम्दारको शरणमा जान पर्यो । हामी जस्तालाई जिम्दारको विरोध गरेर केही फाइदा छैन ।”

“हो नि ।” बाले सही थाप्नुभो । “तिनै जिम्दारको कृपाले दुई छाक खान पाइएको छ, गतिला कपडा लाउन सकिएको छ, तँलाई पढाउन सकेका छौँ । अरू के चाहियो ?”

“यस्तै सोचले गर्दा त हो नि उनीहरूले हामीलाई पेल्न सकेका ।”

“चुप लाग् । धेरै जान्ने न हो । त्यो शुक्रेका कुरा सुनेर जिम्दारसँग जोरी खोजे भोकै परिन्छ । त्यो शहरबाट आएको मास्टर शहरै जान्छ । दुःख चैँ हामीले पाउछौँ ।”

“त्यस्तो हुँदैन । हामीले थोरै मात्रै आँट गर्‍यौँ भने आफ्नो भाग्यको मालिक हामी आफैँ बन्न सक्छौँ ।”

“भो भो परेन मालिक बन्न । हामी किसानले जति नै आँट गरे पनि जिम्दारले गाउँ छाड्दैनन् । ल गइहाले भने हामीलाई मर्दापर्दा कसलाई गुहार्ने ? त्यो भोकमरी शुक्रेलाई ?”

बाका कुरा सुनेर मेरा कान कन्सिरी ताते । कोठामा गएँ अनि एकछिन एक्लै भुत्भुताएँ । आमाले खाना खान बोलाउनु भयो । खान मन थिएन तर कर गरिरहनु भयो अनि भान्सामा गएँ । खाना पस्किँदै आमाले भन्नुभो, “धेरै क्रान्ति भन्दै नहिँड् है, अर्जुन । गाल आइपर्छ । अस्तिसम्म कसैले भाषण गर्यो भने धरपकड हुन्थ्यो । शुक्रेले अचेल दिनै भाषण दिँदै हिँड्न थालेको छ । जिम्दार काजीहरू जाँच्न चाहन्छन् कोको उनीहरूको समर्थन गर्छन्, कोको विरोध गर्छन् । एकदुई दिन पख् । काजीका विरोधीहरूलाई पाता कसेर लैजान्छन् । तँ सानै छस्, दुनियाँ देखेको छैनस् । काजीहरूसँग त्यस्तो शक्ति हुँदा पनि किन शुक्रेलाई बोल्न छुट दिइरहेका छन् त ?”

भान्साको त्यो दृश्य अलप भयो । स्कूल जाने बाटो देखियो जहाँ म हतारहतार हिँड्दै थिएँ । घाँसदाउरा गर्दा ढिलो भइसकेको थियो । चौतारानेर आइपुग्दा तलतिर केही कल्याङमल्याङ सुनेँ । कोही भन्दै थियो, “अब पनि चेतिनस् भने सिधै माथि पुग्छस् ।”

“तिमीहरूजस्ता भुस्यहासँग डराउँदिनँ । जे गर्न सक्छौ, गर ।”

पछिल्लो स्वर शुक्रलाल सरको जस्तै लाग्यो । आमाले केही दिनअघि भन्नुभएको कुरा याद आयो । डर लाग्यो । हत्तपत्त चौतारीको पीपलपछाडि छेलिएर उभिएँ । प्रहरी पोशाकमा भएका दुईजनाले शुक्रलाल सरलाई लात्ती हान्दै, लघार्दै, कठालो समात्दै लगे । म चिच्याउन खोजेँ तर कसैले पछाडिबाट मेरो मुख थुनिदियो । फर्केर हेर्दा आमालाई देखेँ । नबोल्, आँखाले इशारा गर्नुभयो । डर र आश्चर्यले कि बोली फुट्नै दिएन ।

“खेतमा काम गर्दैथेँ,” एकछिनपछि आमाले साउतीमा भन्नुभयो । “शुक्रेलाई पक्रेको देखेँ । कता चैँ लान्छन् भनेर छेलिँदै पछि लागेको त तँ पो भेटिइस् । तँ पक्कै कराउँछस् भनेर तँलाई रोकेँ । नकरा, बाबु । कराइस् भने तँलाई पनि लैजान्छन् ।”

आमा घुँक्कघुँक्क रुनु भयो । उहाँको अनुमान सत्य भएको थियो । काजी जिम्दारका विरोधीहरू समातिँदै थिए । पहिले श्याम सरलाई लगे, शान्ति दिदी रातारात काठमाडौं फर्किइन्, मीने काकालाई घिस्याउँदै लगे । वरपरका गाउँबाट धेरै धरपकडमा परे भन्ने सुनिएको थियो । गिरफतारीले त्रास बढाएका थिए । क्रान्तिको आवाज दबिएको थियो । म किंकर्तव्यविमूढ भई शुक्रलाल सरलाई लगेको दृश्य हेरिरहेँ । आँखा रसाए । केही गर्न नसकेकोमा पछुतो लाग्यो । अबदेखि कहिले पनि विद्रोहको आवाज थुन्ने छैन, मनमनै प्रण लिएँ ।  

दृश्य ५

“जनआन्दोलन अब छिट्टै उत्कर्षमा पुग्नेछ ।” युनिभर्सिटी क्याम्पसको एउटा कोठमा भेला भएका विद्यार्थीलाई नवीन भन्दै थियो, “अब हामी पनि विश्वविद्यालयबाट पनि जुलुस निकालेर आन्दोलनमा सहभागी हुनुपर्छ । तर जुलुसले मात्र हुँदैन, हाम्रो रणनीति बलियो हुनुपर्छ। पुलिस आउनेछ, तर हामी पछि हट्नेछैनौँ। परिआए तिनलाई पन्छाउँदै पनि अघि बढ्नुपर्छ । सबै समूहमा बाँडिऔँ, नारा लगाउने, विरोध गर्ने, खबर फैलाउने सबै भूमिकामा तयार होऔँ।”

“अस्ति प्राध्यापक र विद्वानहरूको भेलामा पुलिसले धरपकड गरेको थियो ।” कसैले अँध्यारो भएतिरबाट भन्यो ।

“कतिजना थिए त्यो भेलामा ?” नवीनले सोध्यो ।

“त्यै पच्चीस तीसजना थिए होलान् ।”

“अनि त्यति सानो कुनै प्रतिकार नगर्नेहरूको भेला बिथोल्न पुलिसलाई के गाह्रो हुन्छ त ? हामी यहाँ झन्डै अढाई तीन सय जति छौँ । भोलि आन्दोलनमा स्थानीयसँग जोडिँदा हज्जारौं हुनेछौँ । फेरि आइलाग्नेमाथि जाइ पनि लाग्नेछौँ । यत्रो क्रान्ति भइरहेको बेला हामी हात बाँधेर बस्ने कुरै आउँदैन ।”

“आज दिउँसो पुलिसले अन्धाधुन्ध गोली चलायो रे ।” हाम्रै ब्याचकी अस्मिताले भनी, “सडकमा रगतको आहालै थियो रे ।”

नवीनले उसको आँखामा हेर्दै सोध्यो, “डर लाग्यो अनि तिमीलाई ।”

नजर अलिकति झुकाउँदै उसले भनी, “लागिहाल्छ नि डर त । मान्छेको जीवन, उसका सपना एकै पलमा नाश गरिदिन्छन् पापीहरू ।”

“तर यसरी डराएर त पशु पनि बाँच्दैन । हामी त मानिस हौँ नि । डरले बाँधिएर बाँच्नुभन्दा मुक्तिको लडाईं लड्दै मर्ने हो ।”

उसले नवीनलाई हेरी । मुहारमा बेग्लै चमक आएको थियो । उसले सायद आफूभित्र पनि हिम्मत बढिरहेको महसुस गरी।

“जुलुसको सबैभन्दा अगाडि चैं को हुन्छ ?” एक वर्ष जुनियर विवेकले सोध्यो ।

“विवेक हुन्छ सबैभन्दा अगाडि ।” मैले भनेँ । सबै गलल्ल हाँसे । विवेक रातोपिरो भयो ।

“यो विवेक भनेको हैन हौ ।” चुकचुकाउँदै भनेँ । “तिमीहरूले कुरै बुझेनौ ।”

“को विवेक भनेको त ?” कसैले सोध्यो ।

“हामी भित्रको विवेक जसले साँचो झुठो, राम्रो नराम्रो छुट्याउन सघाउँछ । त्यो विवेक जसले हामीलाई पीडाका बीच पनि सुखको बाटो देखाउँछ । शुक्रलाल सर भन्नुहुन्थ्यो, हाम्रो विवेकले नै हामीलाई प्रश्न उठाउन, प्रतिरोध गर्न र परिवर्तन सम्भव छ भन्ने नै हुन्छ । हाम्रो विवेकले नै हामीलाई क्रान्तिको लागि नैतिक बल दिएको हुन्छ । हो त्यही विवेक हुनेछ भोलि पनि सबैभन्दा अगाडि । जबसम्म हामीसँग विवेक छ, हामी कसैको पछाडि छैनौँ, हामी कसैको अघि छैनौँ—हामी सँगै छौँ, एकै मोर्चामा छौँ !”

हलमा गडगड ताली बज्यो, सुईय्य सिट्ठी बज्यो । नारा घन्कियो, “लोकतन्त्र जिन्दावाद !! गणतन्त्र जिन्दावाद !!!”

दृश्य ६

“लोकतन्त्र जिन्दावाद !! गणतन्त्र जिन्दावाद !!!”

टियुबाट बल्खु जाने सडकमा नाराहरू चारैतिर गुन्जिँदै थिए । अघिल्ला दिनका तुलनामा ती अझै चर्का भएका थिए ।नवीन र म जुलुसको अग्रपङ्क्तिमा थियौँ । पुलिसहरू खासै नदेखिएकाले हामी निर्भीक भएर स्वतन्त्रताका नारा घन्काइरहेका थियौँ । जोस्सिँदै, नारा लाउँदै, गीत गाउँदा गाउँदै उत्साह यति बढेछ कि म जुलुसभन्दा अलि अगाडि नै बल्खु पुल पुगेछु । पछाडि फर्केर साथीहरूलाई हातको इशाराले बोलाउँदै थिएँ, दाहिने खुट्टा प्याट्ट पड्कियो । लड्खडाउँदै भुइँमा बसेँ । वरिपरि रगतको आहाल बन्यो । होश आउँदा हस्पिटलमा थिएँ । दुई दिन बितिसकेको रैछ । इन्फेक्सन फैलिँदै गरेको दाहिने खुट्टा डाक्टरले काटेछन् । एउटा खुट्टा नभएको थाहा पाएपछि बेस्सरी रोएँ । तर जे हुनु भइसकेको थियो । मरेको थिइनँ, दिमाग खुस्केको थिएन। आफूले आफैँलाई सम्हालेँ । दावा, विवेक, साधना, रञ्जु र अरू साथीहरूमा आँशु छ्चल्किए ।

सबैभन्दा नजिक रहेको नवीनलाई देखिनँ । केही त भएन उसलाई, प्रश्न गरेँ ।

“नवीन दाइलाई त हामीले अस्तिदेखि नै देखेकै छैनौँ । कुनै चौकीमा हुनुहुन्छ भन्ने पनि सुनेको छैन ।” विवेकले भन्यो ।

“कतै पक्राउमा पो पर्यो कि ?”

“मैले त तपाईंसँग हुनुहुन्छ होला भन्ठानेको थिएँ ।” साधनाले भनी । “केही भइहाल्यो भने तपाईंहरूले एकअर्कालाई सहयोग गर्ने बाचा पनि त गर्नुभएको थियो ।”

“हुन त हो ।” मैले भनेँ, “तर अचानक गोली चल्यो । बेलामा म पनि भाग्थेँ होला । अथवा धरपकडमा पर्थेँ होला ।”

“तर…” दावाले केही भन्न खोज्यो अनि अड्कियो । अरूहरूले टाउको हल्लाएर नबोल्न इशारा गरे ।

“के हो हँ ? के कुरा लुकाइराख्या छौ ?”

“केही हैन ।” सबैले पालैपालो भने ।

“तिमीहरू पक्कै केही त लुकाइराख्या छौ । तिमीहरूको मुहार र हाउभाउले नै सबै कुरा भनिसक्यो ।”

केही छिनको मौनतापछि विवेकले भन्यो, “खासमा तपाईं अगाडि जाँदै गर्दा नवीन दाइ सानेपातिर तर्किँदै हुनुहुन्थ्यो । तपाईंलाई गोली लागेपछि भागाभाग भयो । कोही भिडमा किचिए । हामीले तपाईंलाई बचाउन घेरा हाल्न आयौँ । अस्मितालाई त्यही बेला गोली लाग्यो । दावाले तपाईंलाई जसोतसो बोकेर प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य केन्द्र पुर्‍यायो । त्यहाँ संयोगले एम्बुलेन्स पाइयो अनि त्यसमै यहाँसम्म ल्यायौँ । नवीन दाइलाई फेरि देखेको छैन तर उहाँलाई सम्भावित झडपबारे केही थाहा थियो जस्तो लाग्छ । झडप सुरु हुनेबित्तिकै उहाँ जुलुसबाट हट्नुभयो । उहाँले सावधानी अपनाउनभएको पनि हुन सक्छ । तर हामीसँग सम्पर्कमा त आउनुपर्छ नि ।”

अरूले सहमतिमा शिर हल्लाए । म चैँ आत्तिएँ, “अनि अस्मितालाई के भो ?”

“ऊ त…” साधना भक्कानिन थाली । अरूका आँखामा पनि छहरा बगे ।

मेरो मन चिसो भयो । शरीर त गलेकै थियो, मन मस्तिष्क सबै गले । मैले आफ्नो हात हेरेँ । अस्मिता­ ! ऊ सायद यिनै हात समाउन आएकी थिई । यी हातमा अब उसको बलिदानको रगत लागेको थियो । आफैँसँग बाचा गरेँ, “यी हातहरूले अन्याय सहनेछैनन् ।”

दृश्य ७

ह्वीलचेयर छिटोछिटो गुडाउँदै सुन्धारा पुगेँ । साँझ पर्न लागिसकेको थियो । रामेश्वरको अनलाइनमा छापिएको लेख एक हप्ता मात्रै इन्टरनेटमा बस्यो । सामाजिक सञ्जालमा दुईतीन दिन राम्रै बहस भयो सरकारका पक्ष विपक्षमा । सातौँ दिनसम्ममा बहसका लागि अर्कै कुरा निस्कियो । रामेश्वरले सुटुक्क लेख आफ्नो वेबसाइटबाट झिक्यो । भन्यो, “लेखको विपक्षमा रहेको एउटा समूहले रिपोर्ट गरेपछि त्यसलाई डाउन गर्नुपर्‍यो ।” नेट र अनलाइन पत्रिकाको भर पर्न नसकिने भयो । सरकारले गरेका र गर्न खोजेका छलछामका सूचना केही इमान्दार राजनेता र कर्मचारीबाट लिने गर्थेँ । तिनलाई आफ्नै हातले लेखेर, फोटोकपी गरेर, लुकिछिपी छर्न थालेको थिएँ । शहरभरि राखिएका सीसीटिभीबाट जोगिँदै, मानिसका आँखाबाट जोगिँदै पर्चा छर्न कम्ता सकस थिएन ।

नयाँ धरहरा अघि राखिएको ठूलो स्क्रीनमा एउटा कार्टुन दोहोरिरहेको थियो । कार्टुनमा एउटा मानिस जोडसँग कराइरहेको थियो । आवाज त थिएन तर स्पीच बबलमा लेखिएको थियो, “सरकार मुर्दावाद ! लोकतन्त्र मुर्दावाद !! गणतन्त्र मुर्दावाद !!!” उसलाई वरिपरिबाट आएर अरु मानिसले घेर्न थाले । उसले कतै भाग्ने ठाउँ पाएन । पुलिसले उसलाई समातेर लग्यो । अरू मानिसहरूले उसलाई उसलाई पालैपालो चड्‌कन हाने अनि पुलिसलाई सलाम । “देशद्रोही को ?” प्रधानमन्त्रीको आँखीभौँ खुम्चिएको गम्भीर अनुहारको दाहिने छेउमा जवाफहरू आउँदै, जाँदै थिए । “देशद्रोही त्यो, जो लोकतन्त्रको विरोध गर्छ ! देशद्रोही त्यो, जो गणतन्त्रका उपलब्धिलाई स्वीकार गर्न चाहँदैन !! देशद्रोही त्यो, जो सरकारले दिएको सुविधा भोग गरेर सरकारकै विरोध गर्छ !!!”

काठमाडौँ आउने नयाँ मानिस र साना केटाकेटीबाहेक शहरका चोकचोकका स्क्रीनमा चलिरहने त्यो कार्टुन प्रायःले वास्ता गर्न छाडिसकेका थिए । आज पनि ६, ७ वर्षका दुई केटाकेटी ध्यान दिएर हेरिरहेका थिए । उनीहरूको हात समाइरहेको ३३, ३४ वर्षको मान्छेलाई प्रश्न गर्न थाले ।

“कार्टुनको त्यो मान्छेलाई किन पिटेका बाबा ?” केटोले सोध्यो।

“त्यो सरकारको विरोध गर्छ । गणतन्त्रका उपलब्धिलाई मान्दैन। त्यसैले।”

“कसैले सरकारको बारेमा नराम्रो भन्यो भने त्यसलाई पुलिसले लान्छ हो, मामा ?” केटीले सोधी ।

“हो नि । सरकारको विरोध गरेर बोल्नु हुँदैन, लेख्नु हुँदैन, विरोध गरेर लेखेका कुरा पढ्नु हुँदैन । त्यस्तो काम गर्नेलाई पुलिसले समाएर लैजान्छ ।”

“सरकारको विरोध चैँ किन गर्छन् मान्छेहरू ?” केटोले एकछिन सोचेर भन्यो ।

“कोही त्यस्तै विरोधै गर्न मात्रै जन्मेका हुन्छन् के बाबु । तिनको अरू काम हुन्न । नचाहिँदा झिनामसिना कुरा निकालेर बस्छन् । त्यस्ताका कुरा सुन्नुहुन्न । देख्यौ भने पुलिस बोलाऊ है ।”

केटाकेटीले हस् भन्दै टाउको हल्लाए । म झसङ्ग भएँ । शिक्षितहरू पनि सरकारी प्रोपागाण्डाको प्रभावमा परेका थिए । लडाईँ अब सरकारसँग मात्रै छैन, सरकारका हरेक कुरा पत्याउने मानिससँग पनि छ । केही विशेष गर्नैपर्छ । यिनीहरूको मनमा सानै भए पनि विद्रोहको झिल्को बाल्नुपर्छ, निधो गरेँ । ह्वीलचेयर र झोलामा लुकाएका पर्चा दुवै हातमा समातेँ । झोलाबाट म कागज मात्रै निकालिरहेको थिइँन । निकालिरहेको थिएँ–हिजोको विवेक, आजको साँचो र भोलिको चेत खोल्ने शब्दहरू। भएभरको बल लगाएर एक झट्कामा पर्चाहरू आकाशतिर हुर्‍याएँ अनि चिच्याएँ–

“जाग ए, सुतेकाहरू !

बिउँझिएर हेर तिमीहरूमाथि गरिएका छलहरू !!

उठ, जुट

खत्तम गरिदेऊ अन्यायहरू !!!”

कार्टुनमा झैँ मलाई मानिसहरूले घेरे । केही पुलिस आए । तीमध्ये एउटाले एक मुक्का मुखमा बजार्‍यो । कसैले ह्वीलचेयर लडायो । टाउको थिचेर कसैले भुईँको धुलो चटायो अनि पाता फर्काएर हात बाँध्यो । कोही डराइडराइ पर्चा उठाएर पढ्न थाले । बच्चाहरू पनि तिनको नक्कल गर्न थाले । कोही मलाई सहयोग गर्न अघि बढ्न थाले । ती पर्चा उठाउने, पढ्ने र सहयोग गर्न आउनेहरूले पनि वर्दीधारीको गोदाइ खाए । बच्चाहरूलाई पनि छाडेनन् जल्लादहरूले । बेकारमा पिटाइ खानु परेकाहरू प्रतिरोधमा उत्रिए । बच्चाका अभिभावकहरू उल्टै पुलिसमाथि मुक्का बर्साउन थाले । सानोतिनो झडप नै सुरु भयो । धेरैजसो भने रमिता हेर्दै थिए । कोही तर्किँदै पनि थिए । तिनीहरू लाचार थिए जसरी म शुक्रलाल सरको गिरफ्तारीको बेला भएको थिएँ । त्यसैले तिनीहरूमाथि दया पलायो । बेस्सरी कराएँ, “दास मात्रै भयौ भन्ठानेको थिएँ, मानव पनि हुन छाडिसकेछौ ।”

कसैले च्यापुमा एक लात्ती बजार्‍यो । जिब्रो टोकियो । झनन्न भयो । बोल्न खोजेँ तर बोली लर्बरियो । बारम्बार कुटाइ खाइरहेँ । शरीर गल्यो, शिर थिचियो, होश गुम्न लाग्यो । तर पनि कराउन छाडिनँ–

“मर्न अब मलाई डर छैन,

डर छ त केवल मौनताको !

डर छ त पलपल मरिसकेकासँग

सक्दैनन् सवाल गर्न जो !!! …”

***

दृश्यहरूको शिलशिला रोकिन्छ । मन मात्रै चल्दा पनि थकाई लाग्दो रहेछ । धेरैपछि मेसिनको पिपपिपबाहेक अर्को आवाज सुनिन्छ —

टकटकटकटक… जुत्ताको आवाज । कोही मतिर आउँदैछ । को होला ? उसले केही भन्छ कि ? ऊ रोकिन्छ । थपथप थपडीसँगै उसको बोली सुनिन्छ,

“डाक्टरहरू भन्छन्…”

नवीन ?

“… यतिखेर तिमी मलाई सुन्न सक्छौ तर तिम्रो होश केही छिनसम्म मात्र रहनेछ । त्यसैले अहिलेलाई सफलताको धेरै धेरै बधाई, अर्जुन । थाहा छ नि केमा सफल भयौ ? … सरकारको विरोधी बन्न । कथा बन्न । उदाहरण बन्न । … यो सफलताको लागि के पुरस्कार पाउँछौ, थाहा छ ?  … त्यो चैं तिमी आफैँ खोज । केही प्रश्नहरूको उत्तर तिमी आफैँले थाहा पाउने कोशिस गर्नुपर्छ । सफल हुन्छौ हुँदैनौ, समयले बताउला । अहिलेसम्मको सफलताको लागि फेरि पनि बधाई ? … अनि याद गर, कतिपय प्रश्नहरू त उत्तर खोज्नै नपर्ने हुन्छन्, किनकि उनीहरू आफैँ उत्तर बन्छन्।”

यति भनेर ऊ फेरि टकटक जुत्ता बजाउँदै गयो । मन उथलपुथल भयो । चिच्याउन खोजेँ, बोली आएन । शरीर चलेन । मन थाक्यो । मेसिनको पिपपिप मधुरो भयो । फेरि अन्धकारमा जाकिएँ ।

तर अर्धनिद्रामा कल्याङमल्याङ नयाँ आवाज आए । क्रान्तिको नारा सुनेँ–”स्वतन्त्रता जिन्दावाद ! निरङ्कुश सरकार मुर्दावाद !” साइरन बजे । सतर्कताका रेकर्डेड सामग्री बज्न थाले । के भइरहेको छ ? के साँच्चै क्रान्ति सुरु भएको थियो ? कतै भ्रम त हैन ? चिच्याउन खोजेँ । पर क्षितिजबाट आफ्नै बोली गुञ्जिएझैँ लाग्यो । उठ्न बल गरेँ । पटकपटक कोशिस गरे अनि हार खाएँ । बन्धनमै मर्ने भएँ भन्ने डर पलायो ।

ढ्याम्म ! आशा सबै मर्न लागेको बेला नजिकै केही ढल्यो । आँखाले धुमिल दृश्य देखायो । बेडछेऊ कोही आयो । भन्यो, “नआत्तिनुस् अर्जुन सर, निरङ्कुश सरकार ढलिसक्यो । तपाईंका प्रश्न र स्वतन्त्रताका आह्वानले ढिलै भएपनि हाम्रा आँखा खोले । तपाईँलाई साथ दिन हामी आइपुग्यौँ ।”

ऊ को होला ? प्रष्ट चिन्न सकिनँ । सोच्दै गर्दा आँखा फेरि लोलाए । कान बन्द हुन लागे । होश जान थाल्यो । तर उसको बोलीले मन केही शान्त भयो, “तपाईंका प्रश्नहरू, शब्दहरू बाँच्छन् सर । तपाईंको चेतना बाँच्छ । स्वतन्त्रता सङ्ग्राम सफल हुन्छ ।”

इन्टु मिन्टु लण्डनमा

लोक सेवाको परीक्षा केन्द्र राखिएको एउटा स्कूल । अलि छिटै पुगेकाले यताउता गरिरहेको थिएँ । आँप(?) को रूखमुनि उभिएर अगाडिको ब्लकतिर हेरिरहेको थिएँ । एउटी सानी (सायद कक्षा एक या दुईमा पढ्ने) केटी झ्यालमा आइन् । उनी सँगै आए तीनचार जना अरु केटीहरू । “ओहो ! आज कति धेरै कति धेरै नौला मान्छेहरू !” उनीहरू भनिरहेका थिए । जिज्ञासा पनि थियो आफूआफू बीचमा, “आज के हो ? किन आएका यी मानिसहरू?”

हामी पनि त स्कूलमा नयाँ मानिस आउँदा यस्तै कुराकानी गर्थ्यौं नि ! “को आए ? किन आए ?” जस्ता प्रश्नले मन उथलपुथल हुन्थ्यो । जवाफ नपाउन्जेल आँखा कक्षा बाहिर डुल्थे । तर बाहिर हेर्ने अनुमति कहाँ हुन्थ्यो र ? गुरु, गुरुआमाहरूले थाहा पाउनुभयो भने त सजाय पनि हुन्थ्यो । कक्षामा पढाइ नभएका बेला (लिजर)मा मात्रै बाहिर हेर्न पाइन्थ्यो । त्यो पनि डराइ डराइ !

यी साना नानीहरूको पनि लिजर पो थियो कि ? नभए त शिक्षकले बाहिर हेर्न पक्कै दिँदैनथे । उनीहरूको क्रियाकलापले भने मलाई तोत्तोचानको याद दिलायो । “सन् १९३० तिरकी जापानी तोत्तो-चानको सन् २०२० को दशकका नेपाली नानीहरूसँग के सम्बन्ध ?” एक मनले जवाफ माग्यो । अर्को मनले भन्यो, “बालसुलभ चञ्चलता त जहाँ र जहिले पनि उस्तै हुन्छ, हैन ?” मनको वादविवाद चलिरहेकै बेला परीक्षार्थी मध्येकी एक महिलाले ती बालिकाहरूतिर हेरेर हात हल्लाइन् । जवाफमा सुरुमा झ्यालबाहिर हेर्ने अग्ली केटीले हात हल्लाई । म अनायास मुस्कुराएँ । उनीहरूले भने मलाई याद गरेनन् । केही बेर पछि तिनै साना नानीहरू म उभिएको ठाउँमा हेर्न  थाले । मैले हात हल्लाएँ । उनीहरू लजाए । अघि एक अपरिचित महिलालाई सजिलै हात हल्लाएका नानीहरू अहिले एक अपरिचित पुरुषसँग भने लजाए । त्यसमा सायद डर पनि मिसिएको थियो कि ?

***

इन्टु मिन्टु लण्डनमा

हाम्रो बाबा पल्टनमा

स्कुलको पाले दाइ

पहिलो घण्टी बजाइदेऊ

टिनिनिनिनी… झ्याप्प

एकछिनपछि बच्चाहरूले गीत गाउँदै खेलेको सुनियो । नोस्टाल्जिक भइयो । यो गीतिखेल कति पुरानो हो थाहा छैन तर सानामा खेलेको याद अझै ताजा छ । सुगम पोखरेलको एउटा गीतमा पनि यो अट्यो । धेरै अघि नै बालबोलीमा बसिसकेको यो गीत अहिलेका केटाकेटी पनि यही गीत गाइरहेका छन् । केही वर्षपछि सायद मेरी छोरी पनि यो खेलमा सहभागी हुनेछिन् र सायद उनीपछिको पुस्ता पनि।

यति शक्तिशाली यो गीतिखेल कसले सुरु गर्यो होला ? कसरी फैलियो होला ? मन कल्पिन थाल्यो । कतिपय कुराहरु जीवनमा यसरी धुलिएका हुन्छन् कि तिनको सुरुवात कसरी भयो भन्ने कुरा कल्पना समेत गरिँदो रहेनछ । तर अब भने यो बालखेलको रचयिताबारे जान्न मन भयो । जान्न मन भयो इन्दु र मिन्टु को थिए ? कसरी लण्डन पुगे ? गीत गाउने बच्चाका बाबु पल्टनमा कसरी पुगे ? कुन पल्टनमा छन् अनि कहाँ लडाई गर्दैछन ? फर्किएर आउलान् कि नाउलान् ? जिउँदै आउलान् कि बाकसमा ?

मनमा आएका यी प्रश्नहरूको उत्तर भेटिएन । तर जवाफको अभावमा मन कहाँ शान्त भयो र ? यो त झनै छट्पटियो । अरू प्रश्नलाई थाती राखेर इन्दु र मिन्टु कस्ता थिए होलान् र कसरी लण्डन पुगे होलान् भनी कल्पिन थाल्यो । इन्टु मिन्टु सम्भ्रान्त वा लाहुरे परिवारमा जन्मिएका थिए कि ? कम्तीमा ४० वर्ष अघि गीत रचिएको थियो भने त्यो कालखण्डमा लण्डन जाने ल्याकत धनीमनी र बेलायती गोर्खा रेजिमेन्टमा सैनिक सेवामा भर्ती हुनेसँग मात्रै थियो । धेरै सम्पत्ति भएका तर ठूला व्यापार नभएका धेरै नेपाली परिवार बेलयात मात्रै होइन, अमेरिका, अस्ट्रेलिया र युरोपेली देशहरूप्रति आकर्षित हुने गरेको धेरै समय भइसकेको छ । उनीहरू यहाँ अवसर देख्दैनन् । अवसर भए पनि विदेशी मुद्रा साटेर आउने रकम र उताको जीवनशैलीको लालसाले गर्दा नेपालमा अडिन सक्दैनन् । पछि केही मध्यम वर्गीय परिवारका सदस्यहरू पनि यही सिको गर्दै उता पुगे । अहिले रहरले देश बस्नेको सङ्ख्या नगण्य छ ।

गीतिखेलका पात्रहरूका बाबाहरू पल्टनमा छन् । कुन पल्टनमा होलान् बाबा ? बेलायती गोर्खा पल्टनमा कि भारतको गोर्खा पल्टनमा ? सिंगापुरमा कि हङकङमा ? खाडीमा पसिना चुहाउँदै छन् कि ? कतै कुल्ली र दरबानको काम गर्दै मुस्किलले कमाइरहेका छन् कि ? गाउँघरमा पल्टने हुँ भन्दा मान बढ्ने भएकाले पल्टनमा छु भनेर ढाँटेका पो हुन् कि ? इन्टु मिन्टु जति सुरक्षित र सम्पन्न छैनन् कि ? सम्पन्न हुन पनि सक्छन् तर यी बाबाहरू सुन्दर भविष्य लागि ज्यान हत्केलामा राखेर श्रम बेच्न पुगेका पक्कै हुन् ।

हाम्रो पुस्ता केही हदसम्म “पल्टने” बाबाहरूले पालेका हुन् । तिनका छोराछोरीले पनि त्यही बाटो अँगालेका छन्। जुन सङ्ख्यामा देश छोड्नेको लर्को छ, त्यसले हामीलाई सङ्कटमा लाने निश्चित छ । तर पनि राज्य गम्भीर बनेको छैन। हुन त उसले जनतालाई विदेशमा बेच्ने नीति लिएको छ । उसका कान बन्द छन् । सुन्न तयार छैन युवा पुस्ताको क्रन्दन । युवा पुस्ता सरकारी सेवा प्रति पनि आक्रोशित छन् अनि निजी संस्थामा हुने श्रम शोषणले गलेका छन् । केही युवाहरू सरकारी जागिरको चौतारीमा आराम खोजिरहेका छन् । म आफैँ पनि त्यस्तो चौतारी खोज्दैछु । खोज सफल हुन्छ हुँदैन थाहा छैन तर यसले पनि सन्तुष्ट बनाउला जस्तो लाग्दैन । राजनीति र प्रशासनमा युवाहरूको दह्रो हस्तक्षेप नभई अहिलेको अवस्था परिवर्तन हुन सक्दैन । यद्यपि, नवपुस्तामा भरिएको निराशा समाधान नहुने हो कि भन्ने डर छ । यो अन्तत: देशका लागि नै घातक हुन सक्छ । यो अन्धकारको अवस्थाबाट उज्यालोतर्फ लाने शक्ति युवाहरूमै छ । हामीहरू संयमित, इमान्दार र लगनशील हुन चाहिँ आवश्यक छ ।

२०८०/०१/२५

Good Bye, Dear 70s!

Nepal was in turmoil when the 70s began. The first constituent assembly (CA) had died at the hands of our “visionary leaders” and the chances of getting a constitution that would “transform everything” were bleak. The election for the second CA took place on Mangsir 4, 2070, but it could not deliver on its promise.

The work on constitution only took place after the Gorkha earthquake of Baishakh 12, 2072. The 7.8 moment magnitude disaster killed 8,964 and injured 21,952 people. Thousands of people were displaced from their homes. The government had to take help from the international community to look for the lost, rehabilitate the homeless, and reconstruct the damaged structures. The need for financial aid was probably one of the factors that made our leaders work quicker on the constitution.

We finally got our seventh constitution on Ashoj 3, 2072. Although it wasn’t accepted in all the parts of the country, it gave hopes that it would change lives. It positively changed the lives of some marginalized people. But it did not bring the transformations the leaders said it would bring. Except on their lives, of course!

Federalism became a way to manage leaders, and it has failed to ignite any hope on youths. Decades of political instability has killed our hopes of economic change and political revolution, and more youths are fleeing the country. Despite having a large number of youth, we are turning into a country of the elderly. This issue will be even more serious in the 80s.

The 80s is arriving at a time of economic regression. The revenues have decreased, and we are spending more that we can earn. The NRB is seeking investment on bonds, economic activities are dying, and the government has decided to cut off social security. However, the government, economists and mainstream media are lying on our faces. Although we are losing trust on our institutions, we neither have courage not interest in fighting them. We are running from our problems, instead.

I think the 80s will be the last decade to “make or break” for Nepal. It’s high time we address the real issues and start solving them instead of denying or turning away.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén