Does any wonder how our new constitution should be written ?

The latest political happenings in Nepal, affecting Nepal
aapam
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 7:51 pm

Does any wonder how our new constitution should be written ?

Postby aapam » Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:33 am

While I was reading Interim constitution I was really appalled and surprised still we don't have real freedom in Nepal. If you read chapter 2: Fundamental rights of the constitution; you see all freedom of speech, freedom of travel; freedom of trade and business and every bit of rights guaranteed by the constitution have taken away the paragraph just below it which reads if government can curb these rights of the people if they deemed necessary of course showing some cause.
The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007 (2063BS)
PART 3, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

12. Right to freedom
(1) Every person shall have the right to live with dignity, and no law which provides for capital punishment shall be made.
(2) Except as provided for by law no person shall be deprived of his/her personal liberty.
(3) Every citizen shall have the following freedoms
    (a) freedom of opinion and expression;
    (b) freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms;
    (c) freedom to form political party;
    (d) freedom to form unions and associations;
    (e) freedom to move and reside in any part of Nepal; and
    (f) freedom to engage in any occupation or be engaged in employment,industry and trade.
Provided that,
(1) Nothing in sub-clause (a) shall be deemed to prevent the making of laws to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may undermine the sovereignty and integrity of Nepal, or which may jeopardize the harmonious relations subsisting among the people of various castes, tribes, religions or communities, or on any act of defamation, contempt of court or incitement to an offence, or on any act which may be contrary to decent public behaviour or morality.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (b) shall be deemed to prevent the making of laws to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may undermine the sovereignty, integrity or law and order situation of Nepal .

(3) Nothing in sub-clauses (c) and (d) shall be deemed to prevent the making of laws to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may undermine the sovereignty and integrity of Nepal, or which may jeopardize the harmonious relations subsisting among the people of various castes, tribes, religions or communities, or which may instigate violence, or which may be contrary to public morality.

(4) Nothing in sub-clause (e) shall be deemed to prevent the making of laws which are in the interest of the general public, or which are made to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may jeopardize the harmonious relations subsisting among the people of various castes, tribes, religions or communities.

(5) Nothing in sub-clause (f) shall be deemed to prevent the making of laws to impose restrictions on any act which may be contrary to public health or morality, to confer on the State the exclusive right to undertake specific industries, businesses or services, or to impose any condition or qualification for engaging in any industry, trade, profession or occupation.

Source: Page 64, The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 (2007)


What is basically means to me is that government take away the power of free speech if they deem necessary........ IF believe that is very dangerous ; if government doesn't like some one speaking against them; they can prosecute the person saying that he is immoral or he spoke against national sovereignty ......

Lets debate whether we get rights from the government or we give power to the government so that it functions.. and should a government run.....

What should be the job of government; protecting rights of the people or ruling over the people;

Are citizens of Nepal SOVEREIGN citizen or still a subject of government; What does really SOVEREIGN mean and what should be constitution be like in a republic where citizens are free....

Can health care be rights or education be fundamental rights ; or can they be regarded as natural rights.... I am asking this because Interim Constitution says HEALTH CARE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS and government should provide it.....

Another laughable point was: Interim Constitution says employment is also fundamental rights and government should provide it ;; I felt like this constitution was written by nuts who really don't understand whole concepts of government in free society, and how does it run........

I believe government gets funding from people through taxes; they can't produce anything out of thin air except currency which they can print....

I was just wondering what aawartanians think.........
Attachments
Interim.Constitution.Bilingual.UNDP.pdf
The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 (2007) - compiled by UNDP located at http://www.unmin.org.np/downloads/keydocs/Interim.Constitution.Bilingual.UNDP.pdf
(1.41 MiB) Downloaded 759 times
Last edited by Ganesha on Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: quoted & added links

kazi
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Does any wonder how our new constitution should be writt

Postby kazi » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:17 pm

There is a related discussion in Aawartan here also.
--
"Mother and motherland are more precious than heaven." But that does not mean we must cling to our mothers. The least I can do for Nepal is to bring awareness among the Nepali people. And this Nepali forum is the platform for me.

kazi
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Does any wonder how our new constitution should be writt

Postby kazi » Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:24 am

In the link that I provided earlier (discussion on the purpose of a constitution), there was no discussion on the role of government. I think its good you brought this up in this thread. But first, I think we should talk about our views on what freedom means for us, and how it relates to government.

May I present you my views on freedom. First, I believe Gandhi's notion of freedom. Freedom is a personal thing. When Gandhi was young, a vegetarian, he was tempted by *meat*. It was not until after he experienced *meat* and decided it was not for him that he was truly free from the ravages of *meat*. For most of us we have no issues with *meat*. So why was Gandhi so obsessed with freedom from meat? And yet, I can empathize with Gandhi because if it was not meat for me, it was cigarettes. As long as I tried to wean myself off of cigarettes for several years, I really could not let go of the habit. It was only after I made an important decision: no more cigarettes, no matter what. Then I was was free. There was no question of ten cigarette per day, or only after meals, or only in the morning. It was simply not an issue because cigarettes did not exist in my world. By Gandhi's definition, I obtained my freedom from *cigarettes*. Now its cigars... hehe.. just kidding. Anyway, I think the definition of freedom is as simple as that. And yet, the definition can be made as complicated a we want. I think today freedom is not a right.. freedom is not given or taken.. freedom is not won or lost.. it is a state of mind. Depending of the state of mind, we see it as good and bad. Now, how does this definition fit within our requirement of constitution? Simply, it does not. Because we are talking about individual freedom, personal freedom.

We are social animals and no definition in the individual context can be applicable in social context. So how does our notion of freedom apply in society? The key is morality and ethics. Individually we are free no doubt, but socially we can be free only when we realize that the other person is just as free as we are. With no consideration to financial status, intellectual merit or social status, everybody is transparently free. But depending upon our dynamic roles in society, our accountability varies. This is the basic notion of society: instead of having every individual do everything that (s)he needs, specialized jobs are distributed and each is accountable to his/her job, whether the job is government official or teacher or farmer. The main objective is to live and grow together. Conceptually, I think it is that simple. Implementation will always have its merits and demerits.
--
"Mother and motherland are more precious than heaven." But that does not mean we must cling to our mothers. The least I can do for Nepal is to bring awareness among the Nepali people. And this Nepali forum is the platform for me.

aapam
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Does any wonder how our new constitution should be writt

Postby aapam » Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:43 pm

@Kazi:
by your definition how do reconcile slaves. Do you still believe that when America had slavery; it was just in their mind...... Freedom that you are talking about citing smoking is just psychological problem with willpower. It has nothing do with free man which has natural or god given natural rights to life, liberty and property. I think we are debating about individual freedom. Whether government can say whether you can smoke or not. Whether government can say how much money you can save in a particular bank, or how many children you should give birth too, we are not talking about any one's psychological conflict here.


Do you really mean when you say freedom is not right; you are saying that slaves are meant to be slaves, subjects are meant to be subjects of a Monarch. Then there was no need of various revolutions in our country. We could have easily submitted to Rana rules or Shah rules and have been just satisfied just hypnotizing ourselves saying we are free. When you say individual freedom is not a right, you are challenging all scholars and freedom fighters of this centuries. Just to cite an example, I have copied and pasted part of Declaration of Independence which was signed and endorsed by founding fathers of America, who were great philosophers....

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Another question to you how do reconcile when you say freedom doesn't fit within constitution? When great men, founding fathers of America in above declaration endorsed that a man has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, they have every right to revolt for oppressive government.May be your psychological conflict which you perceive as freedom or for better word spiritual conflict as freedom doesn't need constitution, then I think we are not on same page. We have Vedas, Bible, Koran and likes to address your spiritual or psychological conflicts dealing with will power..........

kazi
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Does any wonder how our new constitution should be writt

Postby kazi » Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:47 pm

@aapam, thanks for your queries.

I suggest you read the last paragraph of my previous post to find answers to both your queries. Also, I hope you understand the profundity of the last sentence you quoted:
For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.


I would emphasize on "protection of divine providence" (which means freedom) and "we mutually pledge to each other" (which means morality). My last paragraph has direct association to these phrases.
--
"Mother and motherland are more precious than heaven." But that does not mean we must cling to our mothers. The least I can do for Nepal is to bring awareness among the Nepali people. And this Nepali forum is the platform for me.

aapam
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Does any wonder how our new constitution should be writt

Postby aapam » Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:05 pm

Still I didn't get answer on Slavery. In your world Slavery is just a state of mind and we don't need laws to protect that....... and slavery never needed any freedom....

kazi
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Does any wonder how our new constitution should be writt

Postby kazi » Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:57 pm

@aapam, I understand what you are saying, but do you understand me? Yes, slavery is a state of mind. You can free a slave, but as long as the slave carries on with the mindset of a slave, what use is freedom? If you want to free a person, free the mind first and open it to possibilities other than just right or left.

To answer your question, yes, we need laws.. not only to protect people from slavery, but also to encourage them to see that freedom is a fundamental right that does not need to be given or taken. It simply should exist as a moral prerogative between individuals.
--
"Mother and motherland are more precious than heaven." But that does not mean we must cling to our mothers. The least I can do for Nepal is to bring awareness among the Nepali people. And this Nepali forum is the platform for me.

aapam
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Does any wonder how our new constitution should be writt

Postby aapam » Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:35 pm

@Kazi, I can see that you are very confused individual. On one had you say that it is a fundamental right and on other hand you say it is not a fundamental right.

This is your post on 9:24 am august 02, 2010
"I think today freedom is not a right.. freedom is not given or taken.. freedom is not won or lost.. it is a state of mind. Depending of the state of mind, we see it as good and bad. Now, how does this definition fit within our requirement of constitution? Simply, it does not. Because we are talking about individual freedom, personal freedom. "

then again you say on august 02, 2010, 10 PM

"To answer your question, yes, we need laws.. not only to protect people from slavery, but also to encourage them to see that freedom is a fundamental right that does not need to be given or taken. It simply should exist as a moral prerogative between individuals."

on the later post you go on to say that you need to law to protect people from slavery, and again you say it is a fundamental right that does not need to be given or taken and it should simply exist as a moral prerogative between individuals. Can you be more specifics on what are you trying to say. I apologize for not being as smart as your are....

I beg you to have some clarity of thoughts on what you speak before blaming other individual is not smart enough to understand what you say when you yourself flip flop on what you say post after post...

Any way with due respect, I can see some disconnect in you between real world and your imaginative world where you think every thing is perfect and ideal...

kazi
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Does any wonder how our new constitution should be writt

Postby kazi » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:03 pm

@aapam, I assure you I understand your point of view. And I hope this will help you understand me better:
The first case is for individual freedom, which is not a right that is given or taken, but is a state of mind. The second case is the social notion of freedom, which is a basic fundamental right that is either enforced by laws or shared by virtue of morality between each other.
--
"Mother and motherland are more precious than heaven." But that does not mean we must cling to our mothers. The least I can do for Nepal is to bring awareness among the Nepali people. And this Nepali forum is the platform for me.


Return to “Current Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest