Mato suhaudo kanun” is a well- acquainted expression in the legal fraternity in Nepal. It means contextualised law. Still, the premise states how laws currently are inorganically scattered and espoused; it has caused problems. There has been a trend of importing rulings fashions of laws that instinctively brought and scattered. Similar acts have caused a veritably entertaining script the breakdown of the connection between the law and society.
In Nepal, laws frequently have a creationist origin than an evolutionary bone. Rather than having a gradational development, Nepal’s legal programs have an abrupt strain. Also, after being enciphered in the law, their perpetration is left untouched. Similar events have made the law flamboyantly fancy and stretched. Still, it’s nothing other than simply a choker of pistachios and nuts.
One similar case is Social Practices Reform Act (1976) which tried assessing restrictions on extravagant spending on marriages and other social events. Still, the law is left unimplemented. The currentness of law is really “ revolutionary”, but, social indolence renders similar progressive programs futile.
This case shows why social indolence has to be dealt with first in order to apply the law in Nepal.
The connection and disposition
Laws are marching at an unknown pace of reforms and progress, but society can not keep up with the speed. This situation is the result of a trend in Nepal’s politics. Nepali politics is frequently unnaturally “ revolution- acquainted”; Nepali choosers are always over for “ revolution” rather than “ reformation.” Empirical substantiation of the claim is in our history, where extracting the once system is well apparent. It’s the general trend of our society now to destroy the history, in a hopeful phantasy of contriving a new “ noble” future. Similar political tendency lacks the element of social priority.
The idea of social priority brings us back to Edmund Burke and his redundancy of the French revolution as a political and artistic crime in a speech in the British Parliament. Still, further than Burke, it’s the grand refute given by Thomas Paine. In Rights of Man, that’s notorious. The core of Burke’s argument is that social priority or the durability of the history with the present is essential for progress. Paine disapproved, but I incompletely agree with Burke as well as Paine. Social revolutions are also part of a durability. Hence, the French revolution was a response and had organically developed and commenced. Still, revolutions that have inorganically evolved will noway progress; they will simply tone- destroy.
Zeroing in on Nepal
In the environment of Nepal, social revolutions do have a fortification; still, what they warrant is an organic development of the movement. Nepal’s political movements are “ inspired” by other movements and synthesised to fit the need. But, they’re frequently mismatched. While it might look as if similar espoused movements fulfil the political requirements, they frequently do so. The political movements are grounded on a country but inspired by others. Organic development is a blowing movement with the requirements of the society itself. Still, when a movement borrows rudiments from other movements, there are bound to be some rudiments that will misfit.
In the case of the political system, the French, British, Americans have their rudiments which had developed according to their own requirements and prospects. For illustration, the Americans constructed the presidential system and civil structure to unite all the distant colonies that had their tone- governance. Likewise, the British congress had its progressions. But, in Nepal, similar rationalising is noway done we tried fitting the British model into our polity, and the system didn’t evolve according to our requirements and prospects. Rather, our requirements and prospects evolved according to the political system. This is the difference.
The same problem lies with the laws too. Laws are “ revolutionary” and have rudiments of progressive realisation, but they are n’t “ corrective.” Nepali politicians need to readdress themselves and understand that inorganic and artificial relinquishment of outside practice will noway break our problems. No model can address our compunctions besides our own “ Nepali model” inspired and developed by us, that will evolve for us-not us revolving for it.
Currentness is respectable, but having unimplemented progressive laws is inferior-because our bills are lying to the people, giving false stopgap and wrong direction. Having unimplemented laws shows state weakness-not noble currentness. Currentness lies in action, not words. The government should understand that laws are a reflection of society, not the other way around!