Antifeminist argument

This is in reference to the article “Chronicle of an antifeminist” by Sucheta Dasgupta published in THT on February 4. Though the article was well written and thought-provoking, it did not spell out the truth of feminist thought. The write-up isolates itself from the feminist debate by seeing feminism as a pro-women movement and anti-men argument. It perverts feminism by considering the feminist with low self-esteem and similar to lesbianism. I would like to argue that the feminist thought and feminism do not end just in patriarchy. Of course, the origin of feminist thought is the result of women’s position in society. The theoretical debate continues along the lines of exploring the social relations. Feminists do realise that women’s position in society is context specific. Rosi Bradoiti, a well-known feminist, agrees that feminist thoughts are evolving with changing social relations. She calls the new generation feminist to come with a new analysis to deconstruct the old paradigm. I see Dasgupta is still struggling with it. The feminism is laughed at not because of its low self-esteem, but because the people who laugh at them think that feminists have low self-esteem.

I agree that feminism came into Nepal from outside. First, it went into the activist mode in the 80s. Recently, it has gained the status of an academic debate. When I reflect on the educational system in Nepal, it has been only recently that students are asked to analyse theory and thoughts. In such a situation, how many of us do really have an in-depth knowledge of feminism? How many books on feminism are available if students want to refer? In this context, articles like these, which blindly criticise a thought without analysing it in historical perspectives, will have repercussions on understanding feminism. Every social argument has some reason for its initiation. The article is irrelevant in the Nepali context in specific and feminist discourse in general. It only projects a stream of antifeminist arguments.

Pranita B Udas, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Give reasons

Ananta Raj Luitel in his article “Judiciary under royal scanner,” published in THT Perspectives on February 27, argues that any investigation or action taken against judges and members of any constitutional body on charges of corruption or irregularities is contrary to the constitutional norms in the absence of the parliament. Though the article was interesting I would like to point out that since corruption does exist in the judiciary and since many judges have been suspected of illegal activities, how come the jurisdiction of the new Royal commission is unconstitutional? I see no problem in this. The writer also argues that this would hamper the independence of the judiciary protected by the Constitution. However, the commission is formed with a good intention to wipe out corruption from the judiciary. It would have been better if the writer had mentioned how it is unconstitutional to try to deal with corruption in the judiciary.

L N Paudel, Baluwatar

Ethics

The news that the BBC paid a burglar to scoop out a story from a case involving burglary has raised questions as to how ethical such practices are in journalism. The BBC maintains that the information obtained by paying the survivor of a burglary episode that later resulted in the death of one of the burglars is indeed understandable. But that does not lay to rest the journalistic standards and ethics that the BBC itself has maintained with a high degree of precision since its inception.

Prasanna Nepali, Kathmandu