Bhupa P. Dhamala

Just as natural world is full of diversity, so is the human world. Different people have different opinions about the things that exist in the universe. Whenever an event takes place or an issue surfaces, people are involved in debate about whether that is valid or invalid, sensible or insensible, sound or unsound, and good or bad. They argue, debate, and discuss and finally reach a consensus. This is the practice of a civilized world where people from generations to generations have been engaged in. Among other species on earth humans are most capable of being rational.
But there is another side too. Sometimes people are involved in debates about not so much on the issue but about the personality traits of the person who brings forth an issue. They mistakenly think that good things never come out of the mind of bad people nor do bad things ever come out of good people. So without considering the issue at all, they plunge into the outright support or blatant criticism of the person. The critics are preoccupied with prejudices of one kind or the other. While some critics think that the person is absolutely right, others think that he or she is absolutely wrong. Both cases are extreme.

Reason vs Emotion
Despite being capable of reasoning human beings have basic animal instincts. In many cases they are bound to respond to impulses. They are happy or unhappy, cheerful or sad depending on the emotion of the moment. Of the various types of emotion jealousy and anger are the most devastating. They bring about disaster in their life.
But they have also developed in them capacity of reasoning as an antidote of emotion. Since there can be differences of opinions between the people, it is quite natural that someone criticizes certain views, opinions, and decisions of someone else. The ancient Greco-Roman philosophers established this trend in the western world. The sages in the eastern world also were engaged in debates about norms and values in the society. Their views have indeed led the society to where we are now.
In contemporary world different institutions such as universities, political parties, parliaments, temples, churches, mosques etc. are engaged in debates about an issue claiming that this is right and that is wrong. While so doing they argue with evidence and try to prove the point entirely focusing on the issue. This is based on reasoning.

Ad hominem Attack
But if people are driven by emotion and not guided by reason, they tend to become irrational. Whereas civilization demands that there should be unbiased debate upon a certain issue, which leads to the sound conclusion, savagery unravels it otherwise. When somebody begins to attack the person rather than the thing that they say, it is called ad hominem attack. At this type of criticism, the one who criticizes the other person does not analyze things objectively but abuses the person seeking to find faults in them. This has happened for generations in almost all cultures in different locations.
Nepal is no exception. Recently the top leaders of the ruling party NCP are divided on the question of whether the dissolution of the House of Representatives is against the spirit of the constitution or is absolutely in line with it. But it seems to be only a pretext for the fierce battle. Most of the people who have independent posture say the warring groups are not involved in genuine debate. Instead of being involved in valid reasoning and sound argument, they spend their time attacking the other person for trivial matters. One of the most detestable arguments they are making is revealing their controversial past history which to them was fully acceptable at a time when they were in unison. In every case each group tries to defend themselves not so much by criticizing the programs, policies, and principles but by being involved in ad hominem criticism. This trend appears within the Nepali Congress also oftentimes.
Looking at the way they are using the type of language to ridicule the other person is itself ridiculous. General people very well know that one of the two things is fallacious – either their confidential agreement made when united was unprincipled or their public criticism when they are opposed to each other now is unethical. It is not difficult to understand that if they were right when in unity, they are making false statements now and if they are right to criticize now they had done wrong things when united.

Unity vs Division
The way both factions are apparently involved in fierce attack on each other’s personality traits rather than on the issue they are supposed to raise is by no means desirable. They are ridiculing each other perhaps not knowing how general people are frustrated with their inefficiency and insincerity. Their baseless arguments and groundless counterarguments are only pretexts in the name of principles. General people know that neither of the warring leaders are absolutely right nor are they absolutely wrong. They are not super humans completely devoid of weaknesses but are the average people often tending to make mistakes in their decisions and actions. So their ad hominem attacks are as insensible as are detestable. These practices lead them to nowhere.
In order to choose the right path they should first make their minds deplete with all prejudices and sit together with their fellow beings if they are really committed to the nation, people, democracy, and social justice.
It is equally necessary that the young generation leaders and cadres of their party should support or criticize them on the basis of merit and weakness of their leaders. They should speak against the division and plead for unity. Needless to reiterate, division leads to catastrophe, unity brings them together to make a composite whole.

(Dhamala is a retired professor of English, TU)