All political parties should consider whether to make their workers conscious critics or members of the intolerant crowd. In the current environment, the RSVP line should be more serious about this question because the psychology of ignoring critics is being led by none other than the founding chairman of the same party, Lamichhane himself.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The incident of assault on senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi in the Kathmandu District Court complex has brought shame to the Nepali society. Ravi Lamichhane, the then managing director of Gorkha Media Network Pvt Ltd, who is also the chairman of the RASWP, was assaulted by Tripathi, who argued in court on behalf of the victims of the co-operative society in the case of misappropriating the savings of Swarnalakshmi Cooperative in Kathmandu.
Especially since the fact that Lamichhane was involved in the co-operative fraud became public, his supporters, workers and party leaders have been attacking the media and critics on social media personally and institutionally.
However, not only when the Parliament investigates and the police investigates, today the courts of two districts present the facts of involvement in cooperative fraud and order that Lamichhane cannot be said to be 'guilty'. Instead, the crowd gathered in Lamichhane's defense has physically assaulted the lawyer. The person who is leading this ritual and performing the ritual should take responsibility for it.
Lamichhane is now accused of offenses including conspiracy fraud. Two courts in Kaski and Kathmandu have released him from prison with a bond of 6.5 million and 6.6 million, respectively, on the grounds that he did not appear innocent. Accusation of any particular person, investigation, trial, asking for bail or not by the court and being found guilty or innocent by the final verdict are natural undertakings in the rule of law. The same is happening in the case of Lamichhane.
Lamichhane has all the right to present the facts to refute the basis presented by the court, saying that Lamichhane's involvement in the co-operative fraud is evident when the court orders it now. That fight will be based on facts and logic, not on hearsay. However, an unusual incident took place in the Kathmandu District Court premises on Wednesday. After the debate, when the judge was writing the order, the lawyer Tripathi was assaulted outside.
This has worried all those who believe in the rule of law. There is also a need for research into who are the perpetrators and perpetrators of that agitation. It is also clear from the slogans they raised that who are the people who are protesting outside while the hearing is going on in the court and what kind of tendency such a crowd was guided by. But in the background that the police have arrested one person and Senior Advocate Tripathi has also filed a complaint, more will be revealed about the character, tendency and incitement involved in the incident.
All political parties should consider whether to make their workers conscious critics or members of the intolerant crowd. In the current environment, the RSVP line should be more serious about this question because the psychology of ignoring critics is being led by none other than the founding chairman of the same party, Lamichhane himself. He himself has been abusing journalists, media houses and civic leaders who questioned him in public events. Ironically, when Lamichhane made irresponsible offensive comments on the media and civic leaders, the party leader did not fulfill the basic responsibility of questioning his style.
It was seen that party leaders and parliamentarians were gripped by the narrow-minded attitude that when Lamichhane speaks from his heart, the crowd gets excited and that crowd is converted into votes. Are the leaders of the RSVP under the illusion that their chairman's statements are brahma words, or are they afraid of being sidelined within the party if they criticize them? Regardless of the fear or confusion, it is important for the leaders to be clear that this type of thinking does not create an alternative politics, neither does the party and the country. In order to break the story, RSVP leaders can defend themselves by saying how much their speech means in Congress, UML, Maoist and other parties. But they should understand that the country needs an alternative power with new thinking, style and culture, not a party that hides behind the shadow of the same traditionalist parties.
When the RSVP was established as the fourth largest party in the House of Representatives, it was estimated that it would spread as an alternative party. It was thought that the RSVP could be an alternative for the people who were disappointed with the traditional and big party governance style. But when the steps of its president were not clean, it was natural for the party line to have a responsible debate and response. By not being able to develop such a style, the so-called alternative party has lost the opportunity to strengthen and broaden the moral ground.
Still, this or any other party should not repeat the mistake of accepting the question about a particular leader as a question about the party itself and reacting instead of debate. Initiatives should be started to make activists and supporters aware, not enterprises that excite them. Political, moral and legal questions are raised on individuals in the rule of law, and if we delay to be confident that the questions are faced with facts and logic and not with force, and if we delay in training the workers in the same way, then RSVP will be a narrow party in culture, no matter how small or big it is. The primary responsibility of thinking about its image and future is the leaders of the respective parties.
