An individual anarchist in a system of ostentatious, morally decadent democracy is not an opportunist, rather a sagacious social animal. Anarchy in itself is not a system that needs to be deployed. In fact, it is the void of clarity which makes the so called civilized human resort to what Darwin put forth about beings. At least, this is the case in Nepal,specifically, The Young Nepal.
When those who have a reverend political legacy are not sanguine enough to substantialize the dream which they had in their early young ages and entail a large section of present students to work for them as vote banks how can a young nation confide in a generation which was brought up in a rakish socio-political milieu as of today? To put it in simple terms, when individuals of a society do not believe in their collective ability to realize a common goal for themselves regardless of different prospective pathways, all they look for is to suffice their instantaneous needs and thus appear to be opportunistic.
The young nation which is going to replace the political figures of today has been raised as vote banks who comprehend politics to be undoubtedly having a larger number of followers on one’s side. Thus, rather than cramming for being intellectually robust the “extrapolated politicians” seek solace for their instantaneous future in giving their best to elect their highly regarded seniors. Thus, the collective consciousness is producing a large number of parasites with suppressed conscience.
A perfect exemplification is students in universities, in a scuffle to augment their cohort, which is exquisitely paraphrased as “student politics”. Nevertheless, students are not to be questioned about their investment in politically tainted gregarious endeavors. As a matter of fact, it is wise for a first year undergraduate student to foresee the time after graduation and pursue some integral qualifications apart from academics that are essential for economic security. This may, on the bright side, instill leadership to some extent but a leadership which is oblivious of the basic tenet they lead under is as worth as salt in a cup of tea. To put it bluntly, fawning over somebody instantaneously powerful to flaunt a better stature among the counterparts is a basic trait a large section
of the young nation needs to fight. Which generation is supposed to initiate this movement, one which fought hard to institutionalize democracy, though unfortunately unmanaged or a generation which has been raised in a handpicking environment?
Subid Ghimire
