Fight corruption in earnest

For the first time, CPN-UML disclosed a list of what it called "corrupt politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats" at a public rally that marked the first decade of restoration of democracy. Such a "disclosure" should not be taken lightly as mere opposition antics because corruption now pervades all walks of life. Since the restoration of democracy, corruption has cast its shadow over development. Unfortunately, instead of investigating the allegations, successive governments have encouraged corruption. We now have a Prime Minister delivering pledges at every opportunity that graft in public life will not be tolerated and those found guilty will be punished. However, he has yet to land the corrupt faces on the dock. He certainly stands advised to empower Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) which has become as defunct and powerless as it ever can be.

It would certainly help the country’s drive against corruption greatly if the names in the main opposition (CPN-UML) party’s long list of alleged corrupt faces were to be kept out of government and the public domain. While nobody should be branded by anyone without adequate proof, the people’s perception that most leaders are tainted with corruption cannot also be ignored. In this backdrop, Finance Minister Mahesh Acharya’s assurance that those implicated in MP Pari Thapa’s report will be investigated appears to be more a political rhetoric than a commitment to actually fight corruption. The proof of the pudding certainly lies in the eating. Therefore the onus of proving the government’s integrity lies only in the initiation of legal action against all involved.

However, the UML’s list is not quite convincing since it fails to name some of the party’s own leading lights who were also known to be knee-deep in corruption while they occupied ministerial berths. It is surprising that the party which has shown unusual alacrity on issues of national importance has failed to demonstrate fair mindedness in dealing with its own corrupt leaders. In fact, by glossing over the misdeeds of UML leaders, it appears as though the party is only trying to gain mileage. This has made most onlookers more wary of its intentions. The party would have done well if it had pointed at its own people instead of naming those from other parties. Therefore, it would be advisable for the party to revise the list.

Actually, it is not difficult to see who are corrupt if the government puts in a little more effort. For instance, making leaders who have been in positions of power -- from all parties since the restoration of democracy -- account for their wealth and property would be a good starting point. Everybody knows that most of these so called leaders who flaunt their wealth today had a hard time keeping body and soul together prior to the 1990 movement. How is it that ten years down democracy road, they have turned into millionaires? Let all such politicians answer this question first. Since they are the ones who stand accused, the onus of proving their innocence must lie squarely on their shoulders. If the government does indeed have the guts to book such persons, then only will it be believed. Apart from this, if the government is indeed serious about fighting corruption, it could be very well assisted by an empowered CIAA.

Media in South Asia : Challenges in new age

By Chiranjibi Kafle

To talk something about the role of mass media in South Asia, especially in the context of what many have already declared to be the "new millennium", is no doubt interesting, especially for those involved in this sector. Although the very concept of the new millennium having kicked off on a particular calendar date is something that this scribe cannot accept so easily, one cannot however dismiss as less important the role of journalism or mass media in the coming days.

The world today has undergone a sea change in the information and communications scenario. Graham Bell’s invention of telephone well over the last millennium, ie in 1876, has awakened the entire human civilisation to an awareness of newer and newer possibilities and the present age has become the age of cyberspace communication, where people can talk to the world "in a mere click of a mouse."

Hence the scope of media has expanded to a vast and an almost unpredictable realm. And the role to be played by the actors in this field has also turned to be more subtle and complex. Therefore, a serious media person today cannot be complacent or self-satisfied with just an ordinary, hand-to-mouth or superficial role in his or her profession which involves the job of disseminating accurate, balanced and credible information to the masses.

On the one hand, the mass media sector has thus evolved as probably the most powerful and efficient tool of influencing human consciousness, while, on the other, not in all cases are media successful to cash on their potential. And South Asia, it must be said, is suffering the most in terms of information disbalance, misuse of resources and gross indifference.

A region that accommodates not only the emerging nuclear powers like India and Pakistan but also Bhutan where, it is said, there is "even no traffic light", a region that has entertained diverse religious and socio-political norms — from parliamentary democracy to military rule, from secularism to religious fundamentalism — South Asia truly has so many things "common as well as uncommon." However, things are not quite rosy even for us media people unless we do something really exemplary to correct things.

First and foremost, at least people in media should stop hankering after slogans. Many governments in the region were not tired of formulating tongue-friendly slogans throughout the last ‘millennium’ too. To take Nepal’s case, the government was perpetually busy promising Health for All, Education for All, Safe Drinking Water for All, Road to All District Headquarters and what not, by the year 2000. And there was the media giving all those bogus programmes a constant coverage. Did we ever try to check the sincerity of purpose behind those slogans? Not at all. Tomorrow, the government may shift the same slogans as programmes for the "new millennium" and even then we may take things for granted. And I don’t think the case with India and other countries in the region is entirely different from this.

Forgive me if I sound a bit cynical, but today we are passing through a situation where those who have even failed to properly evaluate their own performance during the past ten or twenty years are forwarding "agendas" for the new millennium!

Just as the new Christian era was approaching, there was no dearth of articles showing concern for the next thousand years. One writer came with his millennium agendas thus: "We should come up with better understanding of each other and follow the things which are good for human beings." What a remarkably ‘millennial’ thought! As if ‘mutual understanding’ and ‘human good’ were the cardinal virtues to be talked only in ‘millennium’ contexts!

Likewise, a "noted" economist was worried whether a decade old uncoordinated trial and error reform process would help the country tackle the "challenges of this millennium", which, according to him, was the same old problem of unexplained "sustainable growth". And there was a woman writer who was cursing the "new millennium" for not changing the society’s attitude towards them, as if "millennium" itself was the culprit for her plight.

The problem is: if media cannot resist the temptation of slogans, who else can? We must be aware of this fact. The challenges before the South Asian media is, therefore, not to be serious about the next millennium — as every day marks the beginning of a new millennium — but to be serious about some of the key issues directly related to the welfare of the existing people in the region. They are:

- Enhancing regional brotherhood and building the atmosphere of trust.

- Erasing sectarian, communal outlooks.

- Applying the nuclear bomb skill to constructive energy use.

- Helping to resolve unnecessary bilateral or multilateral tensions.

Promotion of SAARC ideals, which are currently under a state of confusion, would definitely help a great deal to achieve regional brotherhood. With the original enthusiasm of SAARC withering fast, South Asian regionalism today virtually suffers the problem of stagnancy. This is indeed a negative sign.

Even as we are endowed with common cultural traits and behaviour, showing a kind of coherence and homogeneity in our civilisation, we are not free from tendencies to discord and distrust that might eventually take us to our doom. At a time when governments of the region have done little to invigorate the Association or any other efforts in this regard, media can play its own vital role to capture the imagination of the peoples of South Asia.

As media in the region cannot remain aloof from the political reality, it must also work to alleviate the increased tension, crisis of governance, political instability and mounting domestic violence existing in whatever form in the region. Communal or sectarian outlook, too, would cease to exist if and when atmosphere of trust develops in the political and social regime. In fact, communal considerations gain momentum not in people’s level but in political handling of things.

South Asia has been a traditionally harmonious region where layers of culturally heterogeneous people have lived with cultural freedom. This is a great resource in itself, why can’t we utilise it for regional good?

Once we start to work positively on this, the result will begin to manifest before us. The questions of diverting nuclear skill for the constructive energy use, using regional brotherhood spirit to ease or diffuse bilateral or multilateral tensions and promoting regional awareness through information transfer will also become viable after that. We can proudly admit that South Asia is the original land of knowledge. This position can be revived through a more updated, refreshed attitude to regional oneness. It would be a big contribution in this regard if media curriculum and coverage in the region could be directed towards attaining these noble objectives.

(The author took part as a panellist at a regional media meet held in India last month)

Operation : Restore hope

By Hitesh Karki

The title, if not for all, will definitely take some readers way back to the early nineties. The US-intervention in the civil war of Somalian Republic where two feudal warlords were at loggerheads with each other while innocents were dying every hour, every minute. Finally, there came the peacekeeping operation under the joint command of Mr Ghali and the then American president Mr Bush. However, the operation failed miserably and is still considered to be one of the major failures of all US operations.

That’s just the background. The least I wish to do is further elaborate on the events that took place then. The Operation, which I now wish to explain over here is the fight between two septuagenarians of Nepalese politics, KP and GP.

One evening, as I was on my regular errand to the stationer’s to get my copy of the subscribed daily, there was the usual gang of local people busy as usual gossiping about what else, but politics, the future of this nation. And what GP should do now and what not.

All of a sudden there was a huge burst of laughter, which made me curious to know what the joke was. As I couldn’t join the gang I asked the paperboy and he told me that one of the elder members of the gang had just said that whenever GP becomes prime minister, two events are certain to happen: one, there must be severe flooding and the next, at least one plane must crash. I don’t know how far this calculation may be justified but I can say I have no recollection of the past where such events had taken place when GP was the prime minister. But interestingly, it was raining very heavily on the very day he had taken oath of office -- for the record fourth time!

Jokes apart, I’d like to tell the PM that, after the bitter squabble with KP, he finally compelled the latter to resign. But then it wasn’t smooth sailing. He had to face a situation his party had never faced since its existence. The word ‘consensus’ no more remained in the dictionary of his party. But then that too is not my concern or cause for worry.

After KP resigned, the immediate signal he sent the public was certainly disheartening. Sorry to say so but the cabinet was not even like old wine in a new bottle but old wine in an old bottle. But then we understand the pressure he was under and the fact that he simply could not overcome them.

Now what we expect from him are the very things that he has been harping about for quite some time: one, restoration of peace; and two elimination of corruption. Even when I was there to pay taxes (to get the number of my bike changed) I was asked for a bribe but then that was during KP’s regime. Now that he heads the government, I hope others won't have to face the same problem.

No more do I wish to see the same headline everyday that so many policemen have been killed and banks looted. Every other person I meet says the same thing... Aakhirma jo aaye pani kehi hune hoina kya re...! That’s the first thing GP has to erase from minds of people. The onus lies on him. That’s the mission, restore the hope amongst us that things will change for the better this time around and pave the way to progress because we have failed so miserably even after a decade of restoration of democracy.

Let us keep our fingers crossed.

After the visit

By Kuldip Nayar

Both India and America were buoyant with expectations when Jawaharlal Nehru visited Washington early in 1962. John F Kennedy, the then president, had read and followed him and wanted his country to appreciate what India under Nehru represented to the world. It was a guru-shishya relationship where the shishya stood in awe before the teacher.

Kennedy was disappointed. So was Nehru. Their agendas were different. The former was seeking answers to his problems in Vietnam and the Moscow-aided Cuba. Nehru, standing distant from the cold war, was looking for American capital to build India, which was stuck at the annual ‘Hindu growth rate’ of 3.2 per cent.

In the same way, President William Jefferson Clinton and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had separate agendas when the two met in Delhi. The first had his eyes fixed on Indian markets and the concessions he could get for American investors. The second was keen on the US support for his problems with Pakistan on Kashmir and terrorism from across the border.

The first’s priority was economic; the second’s political. The meeting point was difficult. But both have met with success of sorts. They have done far better than Nehru and Kennedy. The latter’s remark after Nehru’s visit was that India could be written off for many decades to come. It turned out to be so. However, Clinton ended his journey on a positive note. He told his country to look for India’s achievements. He gave a signal for new relations.

US Commerce Secretary William Daley’s statement that the economic sanctions against India would not be lifted till it signed the CTBT spoilt the atmosphere of proximity between the two countries. Clinton was able to retrieve it when he enthralled New Delhi by his straight advice to Pakistan military chief Pervez Musharraf to desist from exporting terrorism to Kashmir and violating the Line of Control (LoC).

But the press conference, which Musharraf addressed after Clinton’s stopover, did not give India relief. Musharraf said he was not asked for any assurance, nor did he give one. He said he would ‘influence’ militant groups to ‘moderate’ their activities provided India stopped ‘atrocities’ in Kashmir. That meant there was no improvement in the situation between New Delhi and Islamabad.

It is obvious that either Musharraf did not take Clinton seriously when the US President warned Pakistan could collapse because of Kashmir or Clinton did not convey his message seriously, even when they spent two hours separately. The statement by Javid Jabar, Musharraf’s political adviser, that Clinton did not even ask them to outlaw terrorist organisations operating from the Pakistan soil underlined the point that Islamabad was not listening when Clinton was speaking or he was not saying what he had been promising.

True, Clinton wants the LoC to be respected. But he too does not accept it as the international border. Had he said that as far as the United States of America was concerned, this was the line it recognised, the haze would have cleared. It would have sent message to the world and it might have led to a permanent solution. Instead, Washington reiterated that it continued to consider Kashmir a ‘dispute.’ Strange, American quarters feel that Clinton went further than he wanted to because of New Delhi’s pressure on Washington two, three weeks before the visit. There may be a grain of truth in it. Messages coming from Washington on Kashmir were not categorical. Indian Foreign Ministry was in favour of leaving things at that. But the Prime Minister’s Office wanted Clinton to take a clear position. His hard talk on terrorism indicates that the PMO had its way.

India still believes that America has not pressurised Pakistan to the extent it could have. Musharraf has resiled from his statement on jihad (holy war).

But fundamentalist and terrorist organisations, which operate from Pakistan with its assistance, have not lowered their cry of jihad. Nor have they scaled down their brutalities in Kashmir, for example, the killing of Sikhs and Hindus.

How does India hold talks with Pakistan if Clinton has not been able to convince Musharraf to come clean on terrorism? Even if the two countries resume negotiations at the secretary level, nothing would come out of it when the guns continue to boom openly and surreptitiously. Both sides would be overlooking their shoulders. During the cease-fire, Kashmir and other problems be taken up.

Two things are, however, clear after Clinton’s tour. One, America does not want to mediate, although Musharraf repeatedly requested Clinton at Islamabad to do so. Two, both countries have themselves to find a way to sit across the table to settle the Kashmir or other outstanding problems between them.

Defence Minister George Fernandes has said in a TV interview that India is willing to have talks with Pakistan provided the latter takes up all the outstanding issues between the two countries, Kashmir being one of them.

This is a departure from New Delhi’s earlier policy of not holding talks until cross border terrorism was stopped. If this is true, the credit must be given to Clinton.

India can live with dictatorships. It has done so earlier when Pakistan was headed by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia-ul-Haq -- all the three were military chiefs. Clinton’s advice to Musharraf to return to democracy is welcome. But America should look back and reflect on its own policies. For the sake of support in the cold war, it encouraged military regimes in Pakistan. The State Department followed the Pentagon. And there was a liberal supply of armaments to Islamabad to prove to New Delhi that Washington looks after its allies because of their strategic importance. In fact, America has preferred dictators to democratic leaders because Washington finds authoritarian methods quick and ready.

Another factor counting with America is how anti-Communist is a regime. What it does to its country is its own business. Washington’s concern in the past was whether a particular country was on the side of the Soviet Union or against it. Free institutions were no concern of America, its own policies counted.

Terrorism too has a similar history. America blessed it and gave it full support, both financially and by providing weapons. One concrete example is that of Afghanistan. Weapons were given for the asking because the purpose was to make the Soviet Union bleed. The same consideration motivates terrorist organisations operating from Pakistan. They are using the same type of weapons which Washington had supplied to Pakistan for the Afghans.

In fact, there are too many weapons in the region and violence is sweeping all over. Both India and Pakistan, particularly the first, is reaping what was sowed by America during the hostilities in Afghanistan.

If America is diverting its attention to the region, it is late in doing so. What the US and other rich nations do not realise is that people in Asia and Africa cannot always remain hewers of wood and drawers of water. They have been exploited by foreign colonists for centuries. Even now the policies of the West reflect a strong desire to concern the resources of poor countries. Iraq had once said that oil was cheap but technology to process it was dear.

The other important aspect of the South Asian situation is that terrorism has struck its roots deep here. Religious fundamentalism has got strengthened, not letting liberalism grow. Clinton should put all his weight against terrorism. South Asia is a good laboratory for making experiments provided he gives up the policy of balance of power, bolstering one country against another. Clinton has seen himself the fallout from America’s earlier policies. The region is waiting for his next step.