There was a time when members of the Communist Party of Nepal were accused of 'bringing Godrej drawers into their homes', 'drinking Coca-Cola', and 'wearing a coat and walking around like a bourgeois', and those who did so were punished.

The basic idea at that time was that a Communist Party worker should not live a ‘bourgeois’ life. However, today, there is no basic idea of ​​what a political party’s idea is and how to follow it. Those who have no idea, sing, ‘The newly arrived party has no idea.’ 

What could be more absurd in Nepali politics and society? Specifically, who creates ideas? How does or does not ideas guide society and politics? And, where is the importance of ideas in the current digital world? This article will try to delve into these fundamental issues.

The overgrowth of cheap ideas

For nearly three decades, Nepal has been in a continuous effort to transform itself – political turmoil, catastrophic Maoist conflict, a new constitution according to the new political system, federal restructuring, a large exodus abroad, and the explosion of the digital world.

However, amidst all the great changes, a dangerous and invisible change is also taking place – our ability to think deeply and think deeply is gradually being eroded. Ideas are no longer born from the practice of thinking and contemplation or from the womb of socio-political struggle. Ideas are increasingly being created and lost through trends dictated by algorithms.

Ideas are no longer a strong point for the permanent upliftment of society and individuals, but rather, as the famous American thinker Chomsky said, they have become something that is quickly created from the shadows of digital noise in any shape desired by capitalism or the elite.

Once upon a time – the real process of thought-formation, which was the backbone of our collective imagination, political vision and social transformation, is today becoming unstable, fragmented and superficial. It is as if we are not thinking or being thoughtful ourselves, but someone else is running our society and the country is moving on its own.

Thoughts should be born from the philosophy carried by the intellectual class, there should be discussions in party schools, teachers in university classes should not only focus on career paths but also on brainstorming, literary forums should provide metaphors for disagreement and protest. At one time in history, many of these practices were desirable. At that time, political leaders, writers, professors and teachers were burdened by the weight of ideas, not just creators of content.

However, today almost all of these thinkers have lost the power of their platforms, the structures that generate thought have weakened. Because they have become irrelevant. It can also be said that they are made. Something emotional, baseless and unstable has now entered the deep space of thought with power. This can also be called the overgrowth of cheap ideas in the current situation.

Scholar Hannah Arendt warns – when the power of thinking in a society weakens, people lose the ability to understand the truth. According to Arendt, in such a society, a person easily falls prey to cunning, does not ask questions, only responds, does not think with conscience, acts according to feelings. Nepal has become that kind of society today – emotionally agitated, intellectually empty.

Superficial truth and propaganda reign

In today's Nepal, our thinking and thought-forming process is being driven by some intense and invisible things – social media, mass outrage, things sent to us by algorithms, political demonstrations on the streets, the brilliance of words from various (donor) agencies! Now, the powers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) do not seek depth, they only want to be seen and spread. That is what they do.

Therefore, today the meaning of thought has also changed, thought is no longer measured by evidence, but by reach. It is not determined by what is true, how much it spreads tells its credibility. Leaders are not because of ideas or principles, they stand on the foundation of confidence built in this way. In this way, topics of public debate appear important not because they are important, but because they are ‘trending’.

Chomsky and Herman’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’ is an influential work that focuses on the subtle but powerful control of public opinion by the modern communication system. According to the book’s main argument, although the big media and some institutions appear independent and neutral, in reality they operate under a ‘propaganda model’ guided by powerful state-commercial interests.

The authors show how news is selected and interpreted through five main filters – media ownership, reliance on advertising, reliance on official news sources, mechanisms for creating criticism and pressure, and dominant ideological frames (such as communism or terrorism).

These ‘filters’ weaken alternative ideas, sideline uncomfortable questions, and present agents of powerful groups as natural and rational. In this way, the media builds consensus by influencing people's thinking rather than directly suppressing them, which keeps democratic debate within a limited and manageable scope. Chomsky and Herman's argument sharply highlights the issue that the media can become not just a means of information flow, but a political tool for maintaining the power structure.

Since the figures considered to be intellectuals in Nepal have happily entered Chomsky's propaganda model, now the ideas coming from them are focused on creating a consensus as desired by the propagandists. This intellectual circle, which is trying to run fast, is now trying its best to create psychological turmoil, superficial truths and sensational dialogue, not on knowledge and thought formation.

With such a chase, we the general public are not getting informed, we are only getting filled with emotions. A viral video on TikTok changes public opinion faster than a parliamentary debate. A loud speech on Facebook Live has a greater impact than a party manifesto. The nature of algorithms is the same – to increase passion, not understanding. This is not light, it only increases heat.

This is why we have moved from a reading and understanding system to a space where we scroll and respond. The place of debate and discussion is now occupied by condemnation and accusation. The practice of seeking truth by asking questions is disappearing, and the habit of immediately pronouncing decisions is increasing. Today's 'thoughts' have become 'perceptions' coated with propaganda and shaped by emotions.

'Fast food' thoughts, 'Phosphus' thoughts

According to Hannah Arendt, thinking or generating thoughts is a contemplation that is done slowly, in solitude, over time – a process that is born between introspection and self-struggle. Nepal is becoming disconnected from the ability to think slowly and express capable thoughts.

As a result, we are creating a society where thoughts do not have a long lifespan. Thoughts that do not have a lifespan do not contribute anything to building a society. New political controversies keep arising, new scandals attract attention. As the saying goes, ‘one is walking, one is losing one’s foot’. What a journey it is if one does not know the root of one’s journey! Today we are in such a churning, where ideas flicker and fade away.

This is why the speeches of political parties have words but no meaning. Those who say socialism have not studied Marx, those who say democracy do not know Tocqueville’s perspective, those who talk about development do not know that ‘development does not only mean economic growth, it is also very important to understand how the structures of society, power relations, cultural values ​​and institutional arrangements determine people’s opportunities’.

In a meaningful debate on development, who benefited, who was left out and why the change was uneven are very important aspects of the idea-building process. There is no alternative to a deep review of history to form ideas about the ‘nation’ or to understand it. However, people are not serious about this now. Their language is hollow. They pretend to be thoughtful but do not practice it.

Amidst all these circumstances, the country's universities, which were once strong foundations of intellectual life, are becoming weaker. With the decline in resources and autonomy, and the dominance of frivolity and politics in place of serious academic culture, the land of knowledge has become 'barren'.

Students are being initiated without properly studying the original thinkers who help them understand the nature of power, the roots of inequality, the meaning of history and culture, or the character of the state. How can the intellectual power of the country be strong if the university becomes only a place to award degrees? The 'fast food' idea is a 'fast food' idea.

Arjun Appadurai calls our time a time where the imagination is sharp. This fact is being experienced more deeply by Nepali youth. They travel the world, read, become familiar with worldviews through countless digital means, follow movements around the world, and enter new linguistic worlds - feminism, climate justice, mental health, queer politics, colonialism, indigenous rights, etc. However, when they return home, they encounter their own institutions – politics, administration, education, the old structure and hollow ways of society! The huge gap between the world's sharp ideas and Nepal's sluggish institutions confuses them. It seems that the youth in this situation are more intellectually overloaded than intellectually hollow.

On one hand, the aspirations of Silicon Valley, on the other hand, the same old chaos of Kathmandu. When settling down after living abroad for a few years, the rude behavior of the international airport staff and the broken lock of the suitcase! What could be the most advanced state of hatred for our institutions for that young person returning home?

Truth: The source of bargaining

The truth established in society is not stable. In a fluid situation, the process of fact-checking becomes alternative, rumors start to become news, and politics becomes more of a 'farce' than reality, whose character is exaggerated, ridiculous, and fabricated. In such a situation, truth cannot stand up to evidence, only the fanaticism of emotions is reflected.

In the opinion of famous Indian writer and human rights activist Arundhati Roy, the presence of truth in the market is very fragile and those who cannot sustain the truth cannot. In Nepal too, the 'market of ideas' is harsh, it makes the truth naked by making it into a workable object. In the end, it is not a strong narrative or commentary, but a vulgar 'farce'.

In this vulgar drama, new faces of political leaders keep coming and going. They know that people have short memories. In such a situation, the nature of thinking or being thoughtful is zero. Thoughts are changeable, but there is definitely a limit to change. Even when a Nepali leader expresses what he said a month ago in a contradictory way, no one pays attention. The 'gap' of thoughts between when he is not in office and when he is in office is so big that it is difficult to even speculate about it.

A party promises revolutionary change but in return creates administrative chaos. In doing so, it does not even feel much accountability. Their language sounds very ‘progressive and advanced’ but in practice the old structure remains useless. This political power does not invest in ideas because it does not want the people to be ready to think ruthlessly and give advanced ideas.

Because, it cannot ‘control’ such people, who ask questions. The ability of such deep thought confronts the power structure, exposes the constant contradictions, and demands honesty and accountability from the leadership. In this way, the useless political power playfully ‘teases’ the intellectual weakness of the common people.

In this way, truth becomes an object of bargaining. It becomes someone’s claim, someone’s performance, someone’s slogan. However, the essence of ‘farce’ remains in everything. In this way, the stability of truth is lost. What remains is only temporary attraction and fleeting brilliance.

Renaissance of ideas

In today’s Nepal, the forces shaping common thought are not only political. The language of donors, the new words of development, the digital world, and now AI are also determining the direction of our thought. When the roots of the vocabulary that keeps popping up in the public space are connected to Nepali life, struggle, and reality, it can create a stronger foundation for common understanding. When the common experience is less in the vocabulary that is ‘thrown out’ and more in politics, the changes it brings are superficial.

We appear to be ahead in word choice, but if we do not understand the politics embedded within it, we get stuck in practical difficulties. AI, which has entered as a new force, can write and reason at incredible speed, imitate thinking, but the reasoning it uses is not its own. In such a situation, the ability to think original will be even weaker.

AI can help organize and show thinking, but it cannot do the thinking for us. Writing may be fast, but it can never reach the depth of understanding of society. Therefore, we must learn how to make the thinking we do original, but not by losing the practice of thinking. In doing so, the digital world cannot divide us (digital divide). No matter how careful we are, the ‘digital divide’ is currently pushing us towards intellectual emptiness.

The accident that this unnatural world will cause in the flow of thought at some point will be natural. Its reflection is already starting to be seen dimly – creativity among writers is weakening, journalism is under pressure, the platform for deep-talking intellectuals is shrinking, universities are becoming empty, losing autonomy, publishing is weakening and readers have no time! The structure that supports strong thinking is collapsing one after another.

But this does not mean that Nepal has become completely empty intellectually. The occasional voice that is vocalized has not reached the mainstream of society, it is circulating within small circles. To return the culture of thinking that is becoming dirty, we need courageous intellectuals who read, debate, doubt, analyze and imagine, who can speak the truth without fear of popularity. We need teachers who arouse curiosity, not grades. We need journalists who can correctly understand the ‘propaganda model’. In this way, a renaissance of thought is possible.