Why is confidence lost in Nepali society?

However, such a mentality never realizes that this lesson called geopolitical sensitivity is a cover used by incompetent rulers of every political generation to hide their personal incompetence. The reality is that there is no country without geopolitics. This is what happens in a country where (former) kings and politicians are trying to use geopolitics for their own personal interests rather than national ones.

This is just an example taken for the mentality of Nepali society, the starting point of today's column is different. That is, in the two and a half hundred years of modern history, Nepali society has never been so self-confident. However, if we look at the eight years after the new constitution, the society has now reached a stage where it has no 'cause' left. The representative Nepali national consciousness was always struggling for one political destination or the other. Whether it was the aspiration to escape the unjust era of the Rana and reach the open sky or later the dream of preserving and achieving democracy and communism in their own way, there was an aspiration in every segment of history. Recently, there was a desire to rewrite history and reach an era of peace and democracy. Most of the communist dreamers have now gone into hiding, while the basic elements that can be found in the form of a democratic 'framework' have been found. So a large part of the national society is now intellectually unemployed.

In many countries of the world like Nepal, the personal ability of those who are elected and chosen to rule is becoming more competitive than before. The speed of progress of other countries in the world which were similar to Nepal in the recent past is different now. Patterns of international migration, where people move from one place to another, are changing rapidly. Migration from one country to another to study has historically increased throughout the world. Those who can invest a certain amount of money can become permanent residents of developed countries, and the basis of citizen's relationship with the country is changing day by day. The nature of the economy has changed, the dimensions of employment have changed. Within a decade, most of the world has gone 'digital', with billions of people living 'online'. The duty of the states to the people has changed more than before. The Nepali society, which is seeing the world in such a changing but fast time flow, is also losing its confidence due to the smallness of its country's slowness. I will discuss why this happened in three or four chapters. The angle of discussion will be more sociological than political.

Intellectual theft is not something you can do yourself. But a small point written in a different word in a previous column has to be brought here. That is, for the first time in the history of Nepal, the intellectual consciousness of the political leaders is lagging behind the 'intelligence' of the society. It is a different matter who reached the place of direct government, otherwise, if we look at the 75 years from 1990 to 2065, it used to be one of the strongest people in the society in the place of leading or influencing the national politics. The qualifications of high government officials were also good compared to those in the general society. Although there were not many successful examples in the opinion of economic speed and good governance, the rest of the society used to think psychologically - whatever the leaders of politics have done, they must have thought that something good will happen soon.

At present, if a minister or a national level leader is heard speaking on the issue of 'country building', the listeners think that they have been punished. Although there is no research on this, I observe what the educated children of some 'national' leaders think of their parents' country-making 'intelligence'. No one seems ready to accept their views as worth listening to, let alone be inspired by them. Some of the children of former highnesses who indulged in criminal brokering under political guise would be proud of their fathers. But those who are independent minded, they may be ashamed to say that this is the 'vision' of my father or mother for the society in front of two or four friends from home and abroad. Those who come forward saying that they will lead the society through politics, the youth who have seen all the bad things before them, cannot maintain confidence towards the society.

The second point I observed is linguistic, that of the 'lexicon'. I'm not talking about the naturally different vocabularies that happen across generations. Arguments that can be understood or not understood everywhere - those who have come to politics by shouting and shouting are still occupying half of the political 'space' of Nepal. If his own generation did not understand what they were trying to say, there was no question of the new generation understanding it. Whether staying in Nepal or going to another country for work-study, the current generation is naturally 'connected' to the world. But his 'lexicon' is 'disconnected' from the language of those who occupy the policy 'space' of his own country. We have seen the 'rise' of Balen Shah in Kathmandu from many angles. Another angle to look at is the 'lexicon'. If you compare the 1,000 words used by left-wing or old democratic Gharani politicians in a day when speaking in public in Kathmandu and the other 1,000 used by Balen, the difference in the 'lexicon' is easily seen. It is not only because the society has lost confidence that there is no development in the country, but also because of the 'disconnectedness' caused by the different 'lexicon' of the society and the political level in general.

The third point is the subconscious (subconscious) sense of moral guilt that a large part of society currently carries. There are mainly three classes in this community. Firstly, the majority of the educated people in the society are the beneficiary children of the panchayati dictator. The education and career opportunities that they got, was a sight to behold because of the lack of democracy in the country. Second, the generation of children of politicians who have been in power for two to three decades. This generation may have formal qualifications, but they also have this subconscious mind that their fathers' generation is responsible for the country's poor condition, but they are personally 'privileged'. The last category is the generation of children of high-ranking employees (civil-military). One who is aware of the financial opacity of a member of his household and knowingly takes pride in it. Because whatever merits he has made, he has made them on the basis of immoral earnings. What these examples show is that the 'character' of many of the new generation of the society is not made by themselves but is created based on the unequal and immoral opportunities they get. Members of such a class cannot be proud of themselves. They do not have confidence, whether they are now living inside the country or outside.

Society is not an abstract concept but a collective of these different classes and communities. A situation where representative people of different communities lose confidence is generally a loss of confidence in the society. Two decades ago, being a doctor with only MBBS was a matter of prestige for the family itself. But now being a doctor is just a qualification for the USMLE test. The academics who teach in the university themselves have a small view of their profession. None of them have self-confidence, which collectively results in the loss of confidence in society.

Nepalese society has reached such a psychological state, perhaps this discussion is enough to see how it happened. This article does not claim that Nepal will suddenly become a 'high-ranking' country if what is said here is done. However, there are some issues that are bothering the columnists, without addressing them, our country will not be able to maintain a good pace. And, another reason for raising these points is that some topics first start as 'discourse' and the discussions among them later become national commentary. Therefore, public debates are important.

My disappointment is in the 'dominant trends' of these debates and my hope is that if these 'trends' can be changed again, many other things can be changed. Where the frustration lies is that the 'dominant trends' in our debates about how the people of any country relate to their nation are pretentious and sentimental, not realistic. If the debate is to be realistic, the first point of departure must be humble acceptance of who we are. What has to be accepted is that the current Prime Minister of Nepal, who is said to be the Prime Minister for a few years, is not an average person who has the ability to know-understand-what kind of 'departure' the country should take in terms of policy and in which areas it should start an adventure in order to have an impact. If the Prime Minister does not know how to do the work, then he will not know which person with which expertise to put in which ministry.

What can be done to change the system of being prime minister and the structure of political parties in two to four years? But what can be immediately addressed is that the current ministers are almost all very incompetent. The quota of parties within the coalition, and the quota of the factions within the party, are such that the ministers who are made are actually unable to write a one-page essay about the work to be done by their ministry. On top of that, since civil servants who come to higher positions in the ministry are only internal candidates, there is no 'space' to take the contribution of experts with fresh academic and subject knowledge. It has become a universally acceptable practice to occupy all by being what you are. To be a professor in a university - there is a person who first went under contract in the eyes of someone, to be a general secretary in the parliament - a person who went as an employee, to make policy in the ministry - there is a person who goes to become a secretary and his generally incompetent minister. And how can such people expect Nepal to be ahead of others, be it in business negotiations with other country's 'smart' officials or investment, tourism appeals or others?

If we look at the examples of countries comparable to Nepal until a few years ago, we can see that regardless of the government system, the ministers there are always 'smart'. If there is no other capacity, the Prime Minister should take political leadership but his ministers are of internationally comparable capacity. But in Nepali public debate, when ministers are appointed, there is no discussion about their abilities. He belongs to a certain party, a certain group. If the Prime Minister is to be left as a political leader, then it is the Minister who will carry out the work of specific 'sectoral' changes. Whether it is of the Singha Darbar or of the province, a minister is a person who has specific knowledge, ability and passion in the respective field. However, our debates about this are 'misplaced'.

Another topic that needs to be increased in public discussion is that the country's lack of development is due to Nepal's own reasons, not because of neighboring countries or the international community. The neighbor scolds us because we are worthless, because we go to him personally to beg from time to time. As pointed out at the beginning of the article, Nepal's geopolitics is sensitive not because it is sensitive, but because of its own incompetence. Therefore, it has to be accepted that what others have done or not has become 'outdated'. He had to ask himself why he hated himself. The confidence of the society does not increase by blaming others.

What a country or a state means to the people living there is not always the same. The meaning of a nation for a 'countryman' changes over time as it changes internationally. For example, the international practices of immigration have changed a lot in the last two to three decades. The objects of international trade have changed. The world has become 'digital'. In such a situation, a specific geography where the collective identity of those who have lived together since history is called a nation, the only capacity needed to operate it is governmental creativity. You don't have to go far to understand what democracy is. To rule oneself is to choose for oneself the most worthy among oneself. Among Nepal's democracies, it has fallen behind in the basic step of bringing the most qualified to the government.

Even in the countries around us, which were similar to us until recently, the practice of coming ministers and chief ministers who are able to work has already started. Even in countries where the political system of the country is less democratic, the ministers and heads of departments understand their work. On top of that, it is not the case with the current opinion that we have to choose a place of deserving of ourselves. That will mean that Nepal's world's world's world of infancy Nepal is sure to fall down in a decade. & Nbsp;

we do not need to have a lot of confusion about the country. Every country in the world are the same same as the sanctuary. How embarraps, how much proud of everyone is its history, are cultures of all. Everyone cannot forget the potential potential of private ambition and pleasant life in abstracting your worldly. Therefore, there is a very simple to Nepal who should begin to return confidence now. That is, the current treaty is not due to a culmination treaty, or accepts Rana Share. The number of Panchayat is not allowed to do something to do something, nor the seven years, nor did any gender committee. Fallen, the basic disability of the basic disability that we can miss out to rule. The way to accept it and live in reality of our social buttons, no or not to confuse greatness. Yes, this all did not allow democratic achievement and social justice dreams, so. & NBSP;

(राजनीति मात्र होइन, उद्योग, व्यवसाय, कृषि, शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य, पर्यटन, बैंकिङ, सिनेमा, साहित्य सर्वत्र अहिले निराशा छ । देशले यो निराशाको भारी लामो समय बोक्न सक्दैन । सजीव विश्वास प्रवर्द्धन गर्न कान्तिपुरले सुरु गरेको छ विचार शृंखला– 'Export When Various Experts will be written by different experts, constantly preposition, constantly.)