Remove all immunities

The death of well known musician and singer Praveen Gurung, under mysterious circumstances in an "accident" in the capital the night of Sunday calls for thorough investigation and punishment for those responsible. The allegation that Prince Paras was the culprit needs looking into, especially in view of past records of accidents involving the prince. The allegation that there were deliberate attempts on the part of the police to cover up should also be probed and if these charges are found to be true, the responsible police officers who tried to hush up the matter  no matter how high their positions may be  must face the law. Rule of law must apply equally to all.

The alleged involvement of Prince Paras brings to the fore the need for members of the Royal family to behave in public with a sense of responsibility and in a manner befitting their status. We are firm supporters of monarchy in Nepal not merely because of the constitution but because we firmly believe that monarchy is necessary in this country in order to unify diverse ethnic and cultural identities and to preserve this country as one nation. It is certainly offending to all Nepalese when incidents such as the one that took place Sunday night occur and when the individual, instead of owning up responsibility and bearing the consequences, deems it fit to flee the scene, intimidate and threaten police personnel on duty and is given unjustified protection. There is no disputing that such incidents and individuals can only have a negative impact on the institution of monarchy in this country. And this is painful to all those who support this institution.

We hold the institution of monarchy dear and do not want to see it being weakened or dented in any way. According to our constitution, His Majesty the King alone is competent to decide on issues that involve Royal Family members. It was the King who stripped Dhirendra Shah, the then Prince, of all privileges he enjoyed as a member of a Royal Family. He became an ordinary citizen. We do hope that for the glory of monarchy and the good of the country, His Majesty the King will not shy away from taking a similar decision in the present instance. Keeping in view the past records, His Majesty the King can allow the law of the land to take its course by removing all immunities and privileges that the prince enjoys as a member of the Royal Family. By so doing, the monarchy in Nepal will keep up its glorious tradition. 

Assessing PM's India visit

By Mohan Lohani

While PM Koirala has expressed satisfaction at his week-long official goodwill visit to India, the outcome of the visit has caused dismay in certain quarters and evoked adverse criticism from the leader of the opposition in parliament. The Prime Minister, who preferred to call the visit a goodwill visit, had warned politicians, intellectuals and the media against high expectations before the departure to India. In view of the recent coolness in bilateral relations, particularly following the hijacking incident last December of an Indian Airlines plane by some Muslim terrorists a few minutes after it took off from the Kathmandu airport, the need for confidence building measures to restore goodwill and mutual trust between the two close neighbours bound by geography, history, cultural affinities and economic interdependence had been urgently felt by all concerned. The PM's visit preceded by the Foreign Minister's visit to India last May followed by the meeting in Kathmandu of senior officials from Nepal and India last month has been hailed as a useful exercise in confidence building.

That all outstanding issues, some of which had heated the political temperature for some time in this country, were raised by the Prime Minister as candidly as possible and without mincing matters during official talks with his counterpart and other Indian leaders in New Delhi, was confirmed by a fairly long joint press statement issued at the end of the goodwill visit. The press statement, although it does not satisfy all sections of the people and meet their expectations in this country, sets at rest all kinds of speculations and unconfirmed reports about allegedly tough Indian posture and perceptions on Nepalese agenda with long-term serious implications for its independent entity, territorial integrity and demographic composition.

The press statement has a number of positive elements aimed at promoting and revitalizing bilateral friendship. To begin with, there is agreement on a broad conceptual framework. Cognizant of the impact of recent trends in international relations such as increasing trends towards globalisation, liberalisation and privatization as well as revolutionary changes in the field of communication, particularly information technology (IT), the leaders of Nepal and India have agreed to have a fresh look at the agenda of partnership in the 21st century and recognised the necessity and importance of expanding areas of cooperation that are mutually beneficial and forward looking. The focused agenda would certainly outline a framework within which bilateral ties need to be redefined and reinvigorated in the new century.

Tremendous and mind boggling changes have indeed taken place during the last 50 years in all spheres- political, social and economic and at all levels- national, regional and international. These changes necessitate a new mind set and a much broader outlook to re-examine the past, dispense with outworn perceptions and look forward to the future with enormous opportunities and challenges. The two governments share the same view that the institutional mechanisms  that have existed for the past 50 years should be 'reviewed and rationalised in the context of the new millennium to set the tone for mature relations and cooperation in the decades ahead.'

Experts and scholars closely observing Nepal-India relations are of the view that geography is a dominant factor in shaping and deciding the course and pattern of ties between the two independent sovereign countries. The joint press statement refers to the enduring bonds of history, geography and shared social and cultural values. A unique feature of Nepal-India relations is the approximately 1800-km long border that has remained open for centuries. While the open border has facilitated easy and smooth interaction including cross border trade between the peoples of the two countries, it has also been misused by terrorists and other anti social elements for undesirable activities such as cross border terrorism, illegal trade and trafficking in drugs and women. The two Prime Ministers have reaffirmed the commitment to combat the menace of terrorism and cross border crimes. In this context, they have agreed to undertake effective measures designed to prevent the misuse of the open border and expedite ongoing discussions on the management of the border.

It may be noted that about four years ago, Nepal had publicly and at the official level emphasised the need for regulating  the border to meet mutual security concerns. The renewed commitment of both leaders not to allow their respective territories to be used for activities detrimental to the security interest and concern of the other is a positive statement, and the underlying sincerity could be reinforced only by effective practical measures at the operational level.

A major area of cooperation between Nepal and India is the harnessing of water resources, in particular, the enormous potential for hydropower generation in Nepal and its commercial exploitation in the Indian market, particularly in the neighbouring border states of Bihar and UP with increased demand for power to develop and sustain their nascent and growing industries. The agreement signed by the two countries on the integrated development of the Mahakali river basin four years ago accepts the principles of equality and mutual benefit as a basis for bilateral cooperation in the water resources sector. It is a pity that the Mahakali Treaty has not yet been implemented. What is encouraging is the decision of the two governments to set up a Joint Committee on Water Resources with a mandate to discuss all water related issues leading to cooperation in this vital sector including implementation of existing agreements and understandings. The committee is expected to goad other subcommittees into action.

No less reassuring is the Indian response to the Nepalese concern of inundation in Banke district of Nepal. The suffering of the people displaced in the inundated areas calls for urgent measures to ensure that no further damage is caused to life and property of the poor people on either side of the border by flood control structures such as embankments at Laxmanpur .

It is generally admitted that  progress on a review of the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty and the border delineation has been woefully slow. Despite reports in the local press that a draft proposal claimed to have represented a national consensus had been submitted by a former foreign minister of Nepal during his official visit to India 3 years ago, nobody knows how India has reacted to the so called consensus proposal. The Prime Ministers of Nepal and India, in a single line statement, have directed their respective foreign secretaries to undertake a review of all issues pertaining to the 1950 Treaty. The foreign secretaries, who have met in the past to review the Treaty, are expected to meet again within 6 months.

Likewise the Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee set up nearly two decades ago, which has taken so long to complete its assignment and submit a final report with concrete recommendations, has been directed by the two Prime Ministers to expeditiously complete examination of all facts relating to boundary demarcation, sort out existing differences on disputed areas like Kalapani, and prepare a final report for submission latest by 2003. While not denying the fact that resolution of issues of a long term sensitive nature is time consuming, the committee, in particular members associated with it, cannot escape responsibility for inordinate delay in reaching a final agreement.

Considering the complexity of Nepal-India relations and its multi dimensional nature, frequency in the exchange of high level visits and contacts cannot be overemphasized. Such visit are conducive to the promotion of goodwill and understanding and create a congenial atmosphere for substantive talks on wide ranging issues of mutual concern and interest. As stated earlier, the two Prime Ministers in their face-to-face interaction and official talks, have not only noted with satisfaction the age-old and traditional friendship between the peoples of the two countries but have also agreed to give a new meaning and thrust to the age old friendship in the changed context of international relations marked by heightened globalisation and regional dynamics. Mutual trust and understanding, mutual respect and partnership and above all, a feeling or sense of equality are essential prerequisites to a healthy and steady growth of inter-state relations. The agreement between the two leaders of Nepal and India to abide by these principles, to explore new avenues of cooperation and to look forward without being complacent is a happy augury for renewed and continued friendship between the two neighbours.

Crorepati... Take a chance !

By Geetanjali A Lama

Just when we, the lesser mortals, have gotten over the mobile fever after having realized the beep! Click! Click! does more than raise your status symbol, there is another ailment catching up on us. Believe it or not, it is the multiple option malady. If this sounds all too familiar, I presume you're guess is as good as mine. 1. Do I continue writing? 2. Do I stop right here? 3. Shall I just ignore the first few questions? Am I 100 percent sure? Computer lock my answer!

 Well, just when the junta thought "Big B" would retire to blissful retirement with his white beard and additional wrinkles and pass the buck to baldy's son Hrithik Roshan and his "chweet" infant Abhijit, he arrives with   a resounding  wham, this time his extravagant  baritone brings you hobnobbing  with "Kaun Banega Crorepati?" The Wannabe "crorepati's"... one can only guess their intercourse with the Shehanshah himself must be a landmark in personal history.

It is rather a curious game, a gambling stint, and the lure of casinos distinctly pale in front of what this "big game" has to offer. Is gambling taboo, minus collective sanction? You may throw this rhetoric to the wind, even if it is for a mere thirty minutes of your precious evening. So farewell, Oprah Winfrey, good riddance to Jay Leno as well, I am back, a member of the hallowed society of couch potatoes, but this time it is the lure of easy money ... maal and becoming malaa maal!. This evening I am probably befriending this fading icon, lapping up his screen presence, biting my nails at the miraculous life changing chances and hopping at the voice that says, are you sure? 100 percent   sure? Can I lock it? The rules here are easy. However, you need the pluck to carry this through. Answers are quite often prompted, plenty of clues, "Big B" guides, misleads, prompts, confuses, traumatizes, bewilders, repeats and goads amidst a generous dash of laser beams, muted lights and sinister musical mantra and a generous booty. Euphoria, suspense, a steep climactic end faultless ingredients to sell this out as the hottest and the latest show, even graduating as luscious gossip material in the cocktail circuit....  Overheard a lady of repute squeal ...  "why can't all men have a beard like big B's"

Despite the fact that televiewing drains 80 percent of your energy in addition to making you a listless, vague organism, donates a reasonable pair of extra tires to tote, communication becomes nil and everyday life becomes a literal struggle to grab the remote control. Regardless of how much revenue Star Plus makes, ignoring moral implication that gambling has and indeed turning a blind eye to the envious fact that the think tanks behind this phenomenon must be chuckling all the way to the bank. We must agree this package comes in a slick packet.... Its target is quite easily marketing dreams unlimited, its motive among others are accolades, applause and abundant spoils! Hail! Televiewing!

Why not another referendum ? 

By M R Josse

Even before the joint press statement was released at the conclusion of the official segment of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's recent Bharat yatra, two phrases pregnant with significance were reverberating in the Indian capital.

Strategic partnership: One was given life via an AFP/RSS photo-caption declaring, inter alia: "Koirala is on a week-long official visit for talks with Indian leaders expected to focus on forging a long-term strategic partnership with India."

The other surfaced when Koirala - speaking to representatives of the media following the welcoming rituals at the forecourt of the Rastrapati Bhavan - spoke of his futuristic vision of Nepal and India going "hand-in-hand" into the sunset.       

Those portents sent the chills up the spines of India-watchers, specially those who, like yours truly, fondly or naively still believe that this kingdom is an independent, sovereign country. 

In fact, darkest apprehensions have been stirred by those particular choice of words - or, more precisely, by what they signify - in many a Nepali breast, not least since they came at a time when Nepal's prime minister was supposedly on a holy mission to, among other things, update the grossly unequal and obsolescent Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950.

No one should ever lose sight of the fact that the inter-state document was bulldozed by democratic India on a tottering, despotic Nepalese regime keen to extend its longevity and formalised through signature of Indian ambassador, C P N Singh, and Nepali prime minister Mohan Shumshere Jung Bahadur Rana.

That New Delhi's move "equating" her ambassador with Nepal's prime minister was no accident is borne by her treaties with Sikkim and Bhutan. Thus, the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of December 5, 1950 was formalised between Harishwar Dayal, India's political officer in Sikkim, and Tashi Namgyal, His Highness the Maharaja of Sikkim. (Vide "Sikkim and India" by B S K Grover, 1974).

The same Harishwar Dayal, on behalf of India, signed the Indo-Bhutan Treaty in Darjeeling on August 6, 1949. To balance heavy weight Dayal were the following seven Drukpa gentlemen on the  Bhutanese side: Deb Zimon Sonam, Tobgye Dorji, Yang-Lop Sonam, Chho-Zim Thondup, Rin-Zim Tandin, Ha Drung Jigmie and Palden Dorji (vide "Sikkim and Bhutan" by V H Ceolho, 1970)!

Hand-in-hand: Coming back to Koirala's recent Indian odyssey and references to "forging a long-term strategic partnership with India", as well as to Nepal and India going merrily "hand-in-hand" together, this columnist makes the following submission.

"Forging a long-term strategic partnership" with India is hardly consonant with the national consensus that exists today in Nepal on updating the 1950 Treaty and correcting its inherent inequities, including those restrictive of Nepal's sovereign rights in the matter of its national security or defence.

(Anyone still remember the hue and cry from India when in June 1988 Nepal imported a few anti-aircraft guns from China to defend her own sovereign skies?)

A "strategic partnership" between two independent, sovereign neighbours implies they share a common strategic view of their neighbourhood - if not that of the entire world.

Can one say, in all honesty, that Nepal's strategic perception of the utility of relations with, say, China and Pakistan, is similar, if not identical, with that of India's?

Does that mean, for instance, that Nepal will now support the Indian claim to Jammu and Kashmir, an internationally disputed territory over which Kathmandu has very correctly or sensibly maintained a discreet non-committal stance, thus far?

Does such a proposed "strategic partnership" imply that Nepal will blindly support India's claims over those of China regarding their long and unresolved border dispute? If India were, some day in the future, to support Tibetan independence, would Nepal, too?

Would it imply Nepal blindly or hurriedly supporting India's candidature for permanent membership to the UN Security Council - even if that were to create havoc with Nepal's relations with Japan and China?

In the post-Pokhran-II, post-Chagai era, when we are sandwiched between two nuclear weapons states and close to another, would "forging a long-term strategic partnership" with one of the three nuclear powers in our periphery be in our national interest?

 Moreover, given that Nepal and India do not share a common perception on such vital global issues as the NPT and the CTBT how, then, can there be any glib references to "forging a long-term strategic partnership" between Nepal and India?   

Referendum: Yes, one can certainly talk about a "long-term strategic partnership" between Bhutan and India: in fact, that is the principal if unstated reason why India has wilfully chosen to take Bhutan's side over Nepal's on the refugee issue.

Regarding Koirala's thoughtless "hand-in-hand" analogy, it is enough to ask: given the obvious differences in size and strength between Nepal and India, wouldn't going "hand-in-hand" mean, in effect, being pulled in India's direction? True, the joint press statement doesn't expressly refer to  "strategic partnership". As much is, however, clearly implied in references to reviewing the 1950 Treaty "on the basis of an enhanced level of trust and understanding, keeping the long term perspective in mind" as also of Indian "sensitivities".

Clearly, there is much beating-about-the-bush going on. While India's interest in "forging a long-term strategic partnership" is obvious enough, there is only one proper way in which that important issue can be settled - through a national referendum.

The choice should be: do you wish Nepal to be a Bhutan or a fully independent, sovereign neighbour of India? Naturally, only bonafide Nepalese citizens should be allowed to participate. Once that key question is settled, other things can be taken up.

So, why not another national referendum?