Intellectual Discourse in Nepal Lacks Depth, Faces Personal Attacks

Intellectual interest and concern in Nepal's public discourse are extremely low. If a writer, journalist, professor, or public intellectual raises a question of public concern, there is minimal debate on that question, but attacks on the individual are intense. It is true that if society cannot argue with ideas, it becomes angry with individuals. Nepali society is also moving in this direction. Society is continuously becoming irrational and unquestioning. What will be the future of a society that is not ready to respond to ideas and is eager to punish thinkers?

As an example, we can take the article published by journalist Narayan Wagle on Setopati this week and the article published by CK Lal in Kantipur some time ago. Both writers' articles criticized the arrogance of power and the intoxication of power seen in the Prime Minister. Following the publication of these and similar critical articles, reactions were seen on social media and in political circles.

Looking at the content and language of the reactions, one question inevitably arises: Why is the culture of debating ideas so weak in Nepal? Why does the publication of a critical article elicit only abuse instead of arguments, debates, and dialogues? Why are the questions raised by the author not answered, and why are personal issues of the author questioned and attacked? These two examples are not just isolated incidents. They are a sign of a deep disease afflicting the intellectual thinking system of Nepali society.

The intellectual thinking culture of Nepali society is declining, and the tendency to research is becoming feeble. We are content with reactions. The spirit of critical inquiry is gradually weakening. Deep thinking has disappeared, and superficial reactions are becoming popular. Social media has provided a space for writing and speaking, and it has become a platform where anything can be written or said.

The culture built by intellectuals and civil society has weakened. Debates on social media start with reading the title and end in personal attacks. The article is not read; the author's affiliation is sought. Arguments are ignored; reactions are based on the basis of 'who' or 'which' group. The root cause of this is the value-less tradition and culture that is developing in Nepali society. Our public debates are source-less. They are fact-less. They are emotional and come in the form of temporary excitement and reactions.

For them, CK Lal becomes 'a servant of the old regime,' Narayan Wagle becomes 'a man who killed a horse,' and all intellectuals become 'stooges.'

Like elsewhere, the main centers of knowledge creation in Nepal are universities. The standard of study and research in universities is weak. Most professors' publications have become stepping stones for promotion rather than a basis for knowledge. Some doctoral research appears to be formal output rather than quality, and there is no measure of what innovation has occurred or is occurring. Many students are looking for certificates rather than questions, criticism, communication, and creativity.

Umberto Eco said, 'The library is not just a place to search for answers; it is a laboratory for potential questions.' But in most libraries in Nepal, dust has settled. That is why there is a commotion on Facebook and other social media. Universities, which should be centers for awakening critical consciousness, are almost question-less. Their curricula have become like banks for accumulating money in Paulo Freire's words, and they show no possibility of opening doors to production and employment.

Freire said, 'Education should teach people not just to live in the world, but to question it.' In Nepal, education teaches obedience and the nullification of questions, not questioning. From schools to universities, the culture of finding the right answer is stronger than critical consciousness. Questioning is like a crime, and for this reason, public intellectuals choose ready-made ideological camps over independent thought.

For them, CK Lal becomes 'a servant of the old regime,' Narayan Wagle becomes 'a man who killed a horse,' and all intellectuals become 'stooges.'

Intellectuals also have their weaknesses, which can be called 'diseases.' While loyalty to an idea is natural, factional loyalty is an intellectual disease. The number of intellectuals who lose their critical consciousness in the greed for power is also considerable. In such a situation, relationships or proximity have become more important than ideas. The fact that a writer or professor is evaluated not by their writing, knowledge, and commitment to learning, but by their political circle, has also exacerbated the intellectual crisis.

This mindset has left genuine intellectuals behind, while pseudo-intellectuals are enjoying proximity to power. If an intellectual questions their so-called ideological group, they themselves come under scrutiny, and if they criticize the correct points of the opposition, they are considered correct. In such a situation, group partisanship, rather than truth or critical consciousness, becomes the measure of intellectuality.

Edward Said rightly said, 'An intellectual is capable of creating knowledge only by staying away from power.' According to him, the job of an intellectual is not to be comfortable with power but to raise uncomfortable questions. Indeed, critical consciousness is born from outside power. Noam Chomsky, Henry Giroux, Karl Marx, Engels, and many other intellectuals have contributed to knowledge creation by staying outside power.

Many university professors, journalists and writers with deep understanding, and intellectuals within parties with high critical consciousness are far from public discourse.

In Nepal, however, an intellectual who raises uncomfortable questions immediately becomes a 'dalal' (broker), 'reactionary,' 'anarchist,' 'anti-mountain,' or 'anti-Madhesh,' or if nothing else, a 'feminist' or a 'disruptor of society.' Such attacks flood social media.

Today, the number of public intellectuals in Nepal is low. Many university professors, journalists and writers with deep understanding, and intellectuals within parties with high critical consciousness are far from public discourse. They are tired of the culture of abuse and applause on social media and are engaged in intellectual work in their own way. Conversely, many people called intellectuals who come into public discourse are outside of study and research.

This has created a division in Nepali society where 'those who study do not speak' and 'those who speak do not study.' Henry Giroux called intellectuals 'guardians of democratic consciousness.' In his view, the job of an intellectual is not just to produce knowledge but to inspire society to think critically. In Nepal, public intellectuality is either in a state of complete silence or has become completely reactive.

Silent intellectuals are lost in thought in universities, classrooms, and media houses. But reactive intellectuals are lost in the excitement of social media. The gap between these two has weakened serious, research-based, and valuable public intellectuality.

Social media is an easy and simple medium of expression. For this reason, it has contributed to the democratization of expression. At the same time, it has weakened intellectual consciousness and reading culture. Now, most leaders and even intellectuals do not read articles; they read screenshots. Without reading books, they read statuses and spend time commenting on them. They do not ponder ideas and revel in immediate reactions.

When the educational centers of the country are weak, knowledge also weakens, and society becomes stagnant.

Neil Postman said, 'Social media and communication media transform public discourse into entertainment.' Indeed, in Nepal today, serious debates and critical perspectives are no longer worth listening to or writing about because such topics do not sell in the market.

Here, excitement sells, popularity sells; deep intellectuality has no market value. Abuse goes viral, but ideas do not. Therefore, in Nepal, immediate reactions are considered intelligence, anger is considered courage, and complex analyses are despised as subjects to be ignored. In such a situation, society and education have weakened, and good traditions have been continuously sidelined.

When the country's educational centers are weak, knowledge also weakens, and society becomes stagnant. The shadow of universities falls on schools, and as they too weaken, the nation's existence is endangered. When Nepal's universities fail to become centers of knowledge production, in most cases, they have become administrative structures for conducting examinations. With a weak research culture, interdisciplinary debate has also weakened.

The debate on the fact that higher education today can only progress through interdisciplinary debate is almost non-existent. If universities remain silent in society, the public sphere becomes filled with superficial debates because what else can a society not guided by research produce but reactions? That is why Narayan Wagle is made a laughing stock here. Mahabir Pun is made a cart-puller. CK Lal is called 'a man of Madhesh,' and countless intellectuals are made anonymous, and as Devkota said, others' orders are followed here.

Our society, due to its long feudal culture, considered questions as rebellion and continuously suppressed them.

In recent times, as those called new in power have come to power, Nepali society seems to have started fearing criticism. Perhaps this is also a characteristic of a society where the practice of democracy has not yet been institutionalized. Therefore, we have not been able to be tolerant. We are struggling in the grip of fear. In our social structure, criticality is treated as enmity.

There is a definite reason for this. Our society, due to its long feudal culture, considered questions as rebellion and continuously suppressed them.

Even in the subsequent changed democratic society, the party-centric political culture has further narrowed the space for dissent. Questioning the political weaknesses of the party became a personal matter of the leader. They made policy criticism a personal issue. This mentality of society and leaders has not changed even now. Considering criticism as personal attack rather than a democratic practice is feudal culture. It weakens and continues to weaken democratic practice.

In such times, the responsibility of public intellectuals has increased even more. In a society that has moved beyond the search for truth, easy narratives seem correct, and people prefer slogans that affirm themselves over uncomfortable questions.

The Nepali society after the Janji rebellion is even more engrossed in reactions. Politics and culture of reaction prevail everywhere. In such a situation, the responsibility of intellectuals and civil society has increased even more. Noam Chomsky said, 'The duty of an intellectual is to expose lies and challenge power.' In reality, if intellectuals remain silent due to fear of power, crowds, factions, and popularity, society gradually moves towards intellectual darkness.

Intellectual exodus is not just an exodus of people; it is also an exodus of future possibilities.

What kind of intellectuals do we need? Frankly, we need valuable, ethical, and research-oriented public intellectuals, not celebrity intellectuals. We need intellectuals who believe in arguments, not abuse, who establish ideas through evidence, who follow deep arguments rather than popularity, and who question their own groups, parties, and ideas.

Similarly, we need universities and their leadership that have curricula teaching students what and how to think. We need a society where disagreement is not considered treason and criticism is not considered opposition. A society where critical consciousness has public value.

In this regard, public intellectuals are not those who please power, rulers, and society, but those who ask questions. An intellectual is not a crowd; they are a person who questions the crowd.

Another serious aspect of the intellectual crisis in Nepal is intellectual exodus. When universities, research institutions, and the public sector fail to respect independent thinking, many talented students, teachers, and researchers are attracted to foreign countries. Research opportunities within the country are limited, independent thought is not safe, and labor is not respected. In such a situation, creative and critical individuals either remain silent or are forced to seek their potential outside the country.

Intellectual exodus is not just an exodus of people; it is also an exodus of future possibilities.

Where questioning is considered enmity, the soul of democracy weakens.

The intellectual level of any society is linked to the reading culture of that society. In Nepal, the culture of reading books is gradually weakening. Short posts, video clips, and immediate reactions are taking the place of deep study. Libraries are becoming deserted, while social media walls are filled with excitement and reactions. Lack of reading makes it difficult for people to understand complex questions and pushes society towards superficial conclusions. A society without study is ultimately easily swayed by propaganda.

The role of communication media is extremely important in building a public intellectual culture. However, many media outlets today are also attracted to clickbait, trending, and viral content rather than serious debates. Sensational headlines and immediate controversies are gaining more space than research-based articles, in-depth interviews, and ideological debates. If the media cannot take public discourse to a deeper level, society will gradually become information-rich but thought-poor.

Critical consciousness is not something that develops suddenly upon reaching university. Its foundation must be built from the school level. However, our education system is still focused on rote learning, examinations, and 'correct answers.' The culture of teaching students to question, disagree, and think independently is weak. The structure of teachers speaking and students listening limits creativity and critical ability. If a culture of questioning cannot be developed in schools, future universities also cannot become centers of independent thought.

The true strength of democracy lies not only in elections but also in a culture that respects dissent. Where questioning is considered enmity, the soul of democracy weakens. Dissent is not anti-social activity; it is a process that makes society more aware, responsible, and dynamic. In a healthy democracy, there is continuous dialogue and criticism between the state, society, and the intellectual class. A society without criticism ultimately gets lost in a cacophony of praise.

Digital culture has given the new generation unprecedented freedom of expression. But this very freedom has also brought about a crisis of thought. Today, many young people are more accustomed to immediate content than deep study. Their time is spent scrolling, reacting, and in visual stimulation. In such a situation, the culture of patient reading, struggling with complex ideas, and spending long periods in contemplation is weakening. If digital media cannot be linked with critical consciousness, it will help spread more confusion than knowledge.

Nepal is currently in a phase of intellectual transition, not just political. In the current times, external slogans and popularity are becoming stronger than ideology, thought, and commitment.

To rebuild public intellectuality in Nepal, universities, schools, media, civil society, and the state all need to reconsider their roles. Universities should be centers of knowledge creation rather than institutions that distribute certificates. The culture of questioning should be encouraged in schools. Media should provide space for deep debate rather than excitement.

Society must learn to accept criticism not as enmity but as a democratic practice. Intellectuals must also have the courage to stand for truth and conscience rather than seeking approval from power or the crowd. Without the renaissance of public intellectuality, no society can become democratic, creative, and progressive in the long run.

In conclusion, Nepal is currently in a phase of intellectual transition, not just political. In the current times, external slogans and popularity are becoming stronger than ideology, thought, and commitment. Excitement is becoming more dominant than thought and study. In such times, whether columnists in newspapers or critical voices in universities, writers engaged in making history, or journalists, all must not only question abuse but also be able to challenge new ideas.

If society cannot debate ideas, it eventually transforms into a mob, and mobs do not make history. History is made only by those who dare to question.