सौम्य राजनीतिको पक्षमा. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad conclusions about all members of a group based on limited or unspecified evidence.

«दर्ता भएका सयभन्दा माथि भए पनि सक्रिय र प्रभावशाली दल भने एक दर्जन हाराहारी मात्रै छन् । तर दलहरूबीच राजनीतिक संस्कारमा भने कत्ति पनि फरक पाइँदैन ।» The text claims that among roughly a dozen active and influential parties, there is "no difference at all" in political culture. This is an absolute statement about all parties without presenting comparative evidence, data, or examples from each party. It generalizes the behavior and culture of all parties from an unspecified observation. Similarly: «खालि सबैले अमूर्त कुरा गर्ने गरेको पाइन्छ ।» and «एकले अर्कोको उछितो काट्नेभन्दा फरक केही देखिँदैन ।» These phrases suggest that *all* actors only talk in abstractions and only engage in mutual attacks, again without evidence or nuance.

3 suggestions

Qualify the generalization: e.g., replace «कत्ति पनि फरक पाइँदैन» with «धेरैजसो दलहरूबीच राजनीतिक संस्कारमा ठूला भिन्नता देखिँदैन» and explain that this is based on observable patterns.

Provide concrete comparative examples: briefly describe how 2–3 major parties behave similarly in candidate selection, internal democracy, or policy clarity to support the claim.

Acknowledge exceptions or uncertainty: add a sentence such as «यद्यपि केही दलहरूले आन्तरिक सुधारका प्रयास नगरेका होइनन्, तर ती प्रयासहरू व्यापक रूपमा देखिँदैनन्».

Oversimplification

Reducing complex issues to overly simple explanations or dichotomies.

«राजनीतिमा त विचार, आदर्श र दर्शन हुनुपर्ने हो । ... राजनीति पनि सेवामूलक संगठन हो, त्यसको बाटो कता हो, लक्ष्य कहाँ पुग्ने हो भनेर सुनाउन र बुझाउन सकेको खोइ ?» The article frames politics as something that simply "should" have clear vision, mission, and service orientation, and implies that this is absent. It compares politics directly to a professional organization with a fixed vision/mission, which simplifies the complexity of political competition, ideological diversity, and institutional constraints. Also: «राजनीति सेवा हो, व्यापार होइन भनिन्छ । तर निर्वाचनमा टिकट दिँदा, चुनावमा होमिँदा, उच्च तहमा कसैको नियुक्ति दिइँदा, सरुवा, बढुवामा जताततै रकम बुझाउनुपर्ने स्थिति छ ।» This suggests a near‑total commercialization of politics (“jatatatai”) without distinguishing between levels, regions, parties, or variations, simplifying a complex corruption problem into a single uniform pattern.

3 suggestions

Clarify that the comparison to business organizations is an analogy, not an equivalence, e.g., «व्यावसायिक संगठनजस्तै स्पष्ट भिजन र मिसन आवश्यक देखिन्छ, यद्यपि राजनीति स्वभावैले बढी जटिल र बहुआयामिक हुन्छ».

Specify scope and limits: instead of «जताततै रकम बुझाउनुपर्ने स्थिति छ», use «धेरै ठाउँमा रकम बुझाउनुपर्ने गुनासो सुन्निन्छ» and, if possible, mention sectors or levels where this is more or less prevalent.

Acknowledge structural and institutional factors (laws, enforcement, voter behavior) that contribute to the problems, rather than implying a single simple cause.

Biased language

Use of loaded or evaluative terms that convey judgment rather than neutral description.

«यस्ता कुसंस्कार नै संस्कारका रूपमा स्थापित हुँदै गएको छ ।» Labeling practices as «कुसंस्कार» (bad/evil customs) is strongly evaluative. While this may reflect the author's moral stance, it is not neutral. «भलै त्यतिबेला धमिलो पानीमा माछा मार्ने अराजकहरूले अवसरको पनि अवसर छोपे ।» Phrases like «धमिलो पानीमा माछा मार्ने अराजकहरू» are pejorative and emotionally charged, framing certain actors as opportunistic anarchists without specifying who they are or what exactly they did.

3 suggestions

Replace value-laden terms with descriptive ones: e.g., instead of «कुसंस्कार», use «अभ्यास» or «प्रवृत्ति» and then explain why it is harmful.

Specify actors and actions rather than labeling: instead of «अराजकहरू», describe them as «कानूनविपरीत हिंसात्मक गतिविधि गर्ने समूहहरू» if that is factually accurate.

Where evaluative language is necessary in an opinion piece, clearly mark it as opinion (e.g., «मेरो दृष्टिमा यस्तो प्रवृत्ति कुसंस्कार सरह हो»).

Unsubstantiated claims

Assertions presented as fact without evidence, data, or sourcing.

«तर निर्वाचनमा टिकट दिँदा, चुनावमा होमिँदा, उच्च तहमा कसैको नियुक्ति दिइँदा, सरुवा, बढुवामा जताततै रकम बुझाउनुपर्ने स्थिति छ ।» This is a sweeping claim about bribery and money in almost all aspects of politics and administration («जताततै»). No data, cases, reports, or sources are cited. «यस्तै कारणले जेन–जी आन्दोलन भयो ।» The article attributes the "JEN-JI andolan" directly to these causes without explaining the movement, its stated demands, or citing statements from its organizers. This is a causal claim presented without support.

3 suggestions

Cite credible sources: refer to investigative reports, court cases, audit reports, or academic studies that document bribery in ticket distribution, appointments, or transfers.

Qualify the extent: replace «जताततै» with «धेरै ठाउँमा» or «विभिन्न तहमा» and indicate that the statement is based on complaints, media reports, or surveys.

For the JEN-JI movement, briefly summarize its declared causes and cite organizers’ statements or manifestos instead of asserting causality without reference.

Conflating correlation with causation / Post hoc fallacy

Assuming that because one event follows or coexists with another, the first caused the second.

«यस्ता कुसंस्कार नै संस्कारका रूपमा स्थापित हुँदै गएको छ । यस्तै कारणले जेन–जी आन्दोलन भयो ।» The text directly links the establishment of corrupt practices («यस्ता कुसंस्कार») as the cause of the JEN-JI movement. While corruption and bad political culture may indeed be among the causes, the article does not demonstrate this causality; it simply asserts it. Other factors (economic conditions, youth unemployment, global protest waves, specific triggering events) are not considered.

3 suggestions

Rephrase to indicate correlation or contribution rather than sole causation: e.g., «यस्ता प्रवृत्तिहरूप्रति असन्तुष्टि पनि जेन–जी आन्दोलनका कारणहरूमध्ये एक थियो».

Mention multiple factors if known: economic, social, or political triggers, and, if possible, reference statements from movement leaders.

Avoid definitive causal language («यस्तै कारणले भयो») unless supported by clear evidence; use «सम्बन्धित देखिन्छ», «प्रेरित भएको देखिन्छ», or «मुख्य कारणहरूमध्ये एक मानिन्छ».

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged descriptions to persuade rather than relying on evidence and reasoning.

The overall tone, especially in phrases like «धमिलो पानीमा माछा मार्ने अराजकहरूले अवसरको पनि अवसर छोपे» and «यस्ता कुसंस्कार नै संस्कारका रूपमा स्थापित हुँदै गएको छ», is designed to provoke moral outrage and frustration. The contrast between the idealized description of what politics "should" be (pure service, clear vision and mission) and the depiction of pervasive corruption and opportunism is emotionally powerful but not balanced with empirical detail.

3 suggestions

Balance emotional language with concrete facts: after a strong phrase, add specific examples, data, or references that substantiate the emotional claim.

Use more neutral phrasing where possible, focusing on describing behaviors and consequences rather than character judgments.

Explicitly separate normative evaluation from descriptive analysis, e.g., «यस्तो अवस्था नैतिक रूपमा अस्वीकार्य छ» after presenting evidence, rather than embedding the judgment in every description.

Unbalanced reporting / Confirmation bias

Presenting only information that supports one perspective while ignoring countervailing evidence or nuance.

The article consistently portrays political parties and actors as lacking vision, being corrupt, and engaging only in abstract talk and mutual attacks. There is no mention of any positive reforms, internal debates, policy work, or examples where parties or leaders have acted differently. By focusing exclusively on negative aspects, the piece reflects confirmation bias: it selects and emphasizes information that confirms a pre‑existing critical view of politics, without acknowledging complexity or variation.

3 suggestions

Include at least brief mention of counterexamples: e.g., any party initiatives to increase transparency, internal democracy, or policy clarity, even if the author finds them insufficient.

Acknowledge limitations of the critique: add a line such as «सबै नेताहरू वा सबै निर्णयहरू यस्तै छन् भन्नु हुँदैन, तर समग्र प्रवृत्ति चिन्ताजनक छ».

If data exist that show mixed patterns (some improvements, some deteriorations), present them to give a more balanced picture.