Expressing my opinions

"Listen to me! If you are defending what they are doing, you will face consequences"

"Have I said that I am defending them?"

"What you are expressing, tells that you are defending them?"

"Am I not entitled to express my opinion? Do I not have the freedom to speak what I believe? Do I need to ask for a permission to present my views?"

"What they are doing will not benefit to our union, it will set negative impression among students. You should not be supporting them"

"So when you speak it is the union's decree and when I speak, I'd be cracking a joke? Is my opinion not an opinion at all? I also have faith in the same union as you do"

My dear friend went away, babbling curse words [probably against me] meanwhile I stood where I was telling myself that the person whom I just had an argument with, who identifies himself as a student leader might someday reach an authoritative position [probably through political appointment] just because 'he knows some people' and behave with other people in just the way he did with me some moments ago. The level of intolerance and insecurity in my friend extended to the level where he felt a prospective program that was to be organized by a dozen of undergraduate students from my college posed a threat to 'status quo of his union'. Later I came to know that him along with some other friends of mine had a meeting [over tea] to prevent the said prospective program from being organized.

Instances like these worries me, it makes me delusional and get visions of future where we Nepalese are ruled by a bunch of folks who do not have the faintest idea that the citizenry who they [might] rule also might have an opinion of themselves and that opinion might not corroborate with theirs; such a system which would be more horrific than the state of Oceania from George Orwell's 1984 which would have more strict LEA than the 'thought police' and scarier intelligence collection method than the 'telescreen', meant solely for the purpose of monitoring and penalizing 'differences in opinion'.

My friend and I both having been law students did not make him have a soft spot for the opinion I had which was not similar to that of his. Law students like ourselves who have the knowledge of rights, freedom and liberty seem not to be sculpted in the manner as to what we have learnt, we have no respect for each other's opinion. This makes me question, where is the problem? Is it in the model of education that we are the part of? Or is it in ourselves for we cannot be tolerant enough to recognize ideas which are not identical to that of ours?

I Lawve Law School

Criminal Law with a hint at Torts

"Hello there, sucker!, with a hand gesture people in their right minds would find offensive, my friend greeted me on a chilly Sunday morning, to which I replied "I will get you on defamation, slander added" with a fat smile on my face. We shook our hands, this is when I had a musing "well, what I just said could be real you know? All I need is my friend's address and his phone number, there'd be no chance the court not entertaining my complaint..." the very thought made me day dream. What you will read further are recollection of my day dream.

The experiences you've had to a great extent gives shape to how you are. If what I have learnt in the past four years at the law school is to be interpreted as experiences I have had, I tell you it has shaped me into a being who weighs every breath taken, figuratively of course. Shake hand with a person, but make sure you shake it well whatsoever their sex be, for sexual harassment provisions applies to both men and women equally in principle, crack a funny joke that involves your bodily organs, the same problem. When you are chatting and visiting a dirty website at the same time, be supper cautions before you click any links for section 47 of Electronic Transaction Act can greet you with a hefty fine, prison sentence added. 

Every sip of the cup of tea you drink at 'dai's pasal' you hardly can think of any other thing than the provisions relating to Tortious liability on the newly enacted Muluki Civil Code, for the tea never satisfies your tongue, sometimes it's hot (these times worse for you remember the hot coffee case where the court decided around 3 million in compensation to a burn victim who spilled coffee on her crotch) and sometimes its cold or without sugar.

Dealing with a break up, being a male (emphasis added) is a nightmare; it's obvious that couples today indulge in a physical act or two once they are in a relationship, which turns out to be a trap the reason being one, pessimistic attitude of human beings and the next, limitation of most forms of sexual offences is a year; furthermore, 'The Honorable Supreme Court' has established a ratio that 'penetration alone is not the only ground for rape'. Belonging to the third gender doesn't help either (if you are thinking of it), because there is another ratio, 'a female can rape another female'.

Getting into physical brawl over an issue with your arch enemy form the law school is limited to your dreams, 'moral turpitude', 'medical expenses', '35 days in detention' and thoughts as such occupies you before you can raise your hand to strike, by then you'd already have become best friends with your enemy. Don't even think about carrying a weapon to the college, for the first thing being 'fear of expulsion from the university' and the other 'being prosecuted for unauthorized possession of weaponry'. Not being parts of brawl doesn't help either, for leaving crimes unreported makes you a secondary offender punishable by lesser degree of punishments.

Whatsoever, there are always better parts too. Say you get accused of a mischief, you can drop the 'burden of proof' bomb at times like those. You can always shut the one adjudicating your mischief up with 'audi alteram partem', a Latin scrap for fair trial. Real legal issues are less a problem also, because most at the law school can draft a writ of habeus corpus or threaten the cops of doing so, which gets you out of minor trouble in no time, making law more fun to study.   

Inception of Federal Parliament: Women Weapon

Nepal, nearing the end to a nearly two decades long political transition has been successful in holding the First General Election of Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal; but the politico-legal hurdle in the creation of federal parliament seems to have created a crisis at this moment, and the author opines that women are being used as weapon to further intensify the said crisis.  

‘National Assembly followed by new government or new government followed by national assembly?’ this debate has kept the Nepalese political cosmos busy for quite a while now. The ‘government to be’ has been strongly presenting its opinion that it is strongly against cropping up any such unnecessary argument that is meant for intentionally delaying the transition of the power to the newly declared people’s mandate. Whilst the care taker government is claiming that the executive power will only be transferred after the legal and constitutional hurdles are solved. This debate although at first sight seems to have created an unexpected political obstruction, it was not unpredictable. The constitution was drafted in such a restless manner that its drafters themselves became unable to foresee the political problems and difficulties that its contents would bring in the days that would follow after its implementation.

A crisis was encountered also when an attempt to topple down the government chaired by KP Oli was made. The unclear and incomplete provisions in the constitution had instigated a heated debate amongst the politico-legal community back then as well; the issue then was addressed by removal of difficulty by the president pursuant to article 305 of the constitution. Looking as these instances seems as though we Nepalese are very good at making mountain out of a molehill, in political and constitutional matters.

The formation National Assembly dispute at the current time has been shaped as an arena of a war for politics based on numbers and lust for power. The blame cannot be rested upon a one single party here, both the care taker government and the ‘government to be’ have equal role in intensification of this dispute where the former is gasping for securing some number of seats in the federal parliament in light of the ill results of the general elections on its side and the latter is very impatient for creation of new government under its leadership. The author in regards to this dispute is of the opinion that, politics has gotten shamefully sexist by spinning around in whirlpool of chaos by exploiting the constitutional provision of women representation in the federal parliament of the country.

Nepalese constitution has for the very first time incorporated such provision which constitutionally guarantees the presence of one third of women law makers from each of the political parties present in the federal parliament. Article 84, clause 8 of the constitution has provided for such a provision as account to which in case women are not elected so as to constitute one third of the elected members of any individual political party under direct election to House of Representatives i.e. election to 165 members and election to 56 elected members of the National Assembly, then such political party are required to ensure the women representation by filling the posts through seats obtained in the Proportional Representation election. But the political parties at this moment are mischievously making the use of this provision to create confusion regarding the formation of the national assembly and the new government.

The aforementioned provision in fact must have been incorporated in the constitution so as to secure the proper representation of women in the law making authority of the country by ending decade long underrepresentation of women.  The provision with such a pragmatic purpose, at this moment has been wrongly used to keep hold of the power that has actually expired as presented by the fresh mandate of the people. But the ‘government to be’ is also not exempted from blames about this issue, the ‘government to be’ looks like it is in such a hurry to get hold of power that it seems to have been apathetic towards the constitutional and legal provisions.

The message that is trying to be conveyed by the author here is that the deviation from the true purpose of article 84(8) i.e. constitutional provision guaranteeing representation of women in the federal parliament would not be productive in any way. Explosives can be used to drill through mountains to build roads and the same explosives can also be misused to cause harm to life and property of people; both the parties i.e. the care taker government and the government to be must understand what they are supposed to, from this analogy. Women are not weapon, the use of women to keep hold of power that has been snatched away from the current government cannot be justified. Also, the apathy of the party that come victorious in the general election, towards the provision of women representation in the federal parliament is a grave irresponsibility. The issue of women representation must not be made a wager to gain political power.

The country and the people need both the national assembly and new government; due process of law and compliance with constitution in the course to resolve this political chaos is essential. No social groups should be used as a weapon or a shield for the purpose of political gain. The concerned parties should not splatter the people’s yearn to witness proper political culture by intensifying disputes instead of solving difference through dialogues. 

Adwait