A very meaningful visit

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori’s official visit to Nepal which commences today must be
welcomed as a significant gesture of friendship and goodwill. The very fact that Nepal was initially
not even on Mr Mori’s itinerary but was included later indicates the immense consideration that
the Japanese people have with regard to Nepalese sensitivity and the Nepali people certainly do
appreciate this. More than this, it is an honour to welcome Mr Mori.

Although the visit—the last leg of his South Asia tour—will be a short one, there is no doubt that
this visit will further strengthen the friendly relations between the two countries. Japan is more
than the largest donor country for Nepal. The friendly relations have a very strong base rooted in
very similar viewpoints and stands on issues related to world affairs and international relations.
Above all, both countries are committed to establishing World Peace. In this regard Mr Mori’s
South Asia tour assumes even greater significance, because one of the main agenda was to
persuade both India and Pakistan, the two hostile nuclear South Asian neighbours to sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Nepal’s fear of a South Asian nuclear holocaust is
perfectly understandable since it is situated close to both countries. Similarly, it is only natural
that Japan, the only country that has experienced the devastation of atomic bombs (Nagasaki
and Hiroshima) should advocate the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and urge India and
Pakistan to sign CTBT. Our perception on this issue is that both Nepal and Japan should move
beyond CTBT and strive for the total elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of Earth. We
also see Japan as playing a leading role in this crusade for peace.

As an Asian economic superpower, it is only befitting that Japan should be occupying the
number one position in the disbursement of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to the
Developing World at a time when other countries of the Developed World are tightening their
purse strings. This fact only goes to prove that Japan has not shunned its responsibility towards
assisting development programmes in the Third World. It is to be hoped
that Japanese ODA is further strengthened in the time to come. Nepal has no doubt benefited
immensely from Japanese ODA not only in financial terms, but also from Japanese involvement in
the socio-economic development sphere. We hope this cooperation in development will be further
consolidated by the visit.

Mr Mori is expected to seek Nepal’s support for Japan’s bid to become a permanent member of
the Security Council. Apart from this, the Japanese PM is also expected to seek Nepal’s support
with regard to reforms in the United Nations. Given the happy state of relations between the two
countries and also the fact that there is agreement on many of the issues, there is no reason
why the Nepalese side should not give due consideration especially as Mr Mori’s visit does open
up an opportunity to further strengthen relations between the two countries.

Japan’s ODA priority and Nepal’s needs

Prateek Pradhan

Despite the fact that Nepal’s largest donor country is Japan, it occupies only the sixteenth
position in Japan’s foreign assistance recipients list. Many people consider that, in spite of the
best of relations between these two countries at the people’s level, the government of Nepal is
unable to attract more assistance from a well wisher like Japan.

There are many areas where Nepal could attract Japan’s aid assistance and also foreign
investments. Intentions shown by top Japanese leaders occasionally also suggest Japan’s
interest in providing more assistance to this poor land-locked country.

Nepal is in serious need of aid assistance in many areas of infrastructure development, public
health, education, water distribution and all. But despite all these needs the poor aid absorbing
capacity of this poor, porous and corrupt country has tightened Japan’s hands.

Japan provides assistance to Nepal because it counts on an amicable relationship. Nepal is one
of the poorest countries in the whole world, and has the lowest income level of any country in
South Asia. Japan realises that due to Nepal's landlocked position, development tasks are more
challenging in this country and that it has a strong demand for foreign aid.

In order to get more financial and technical assistance from Japan we need to understand
Japan’s priorities. It is understood that Japan has set its assistance priority to Nepal on the basis
of studies and research concerning development conditions and tasks and development plans in
Nepal, as well as policy dialogues between Japan and Nepal, including the High-Level Mission on
Economic and Technical Cooperation sent to Nepal in November 1992.

According to the sources of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the following are the priority areas
for Japan’s ODA to Nepal:

Human resources development: Fostering human resources is indispensable for development
under a country’s own initiative and for practical and efficient management. Consequently, Japan
provides technical cooperation in areas such as project implementation and management.

Social sector: Nepal has a high incidence of diarrhoea caused by unclean water. This is also one
cause for the country’s high infant mortality rate. Japan continues to implement assistance in
areas including water supply and health and medical services. Japan will increase assistance in
family planning as well as primary health care, including maternal and child care.

Agricultural development: Agriculture is the main industry in Nepal, and Japan provides
assistance in areas such as improving agricultural infrastructure, as well as development and
diffusion of agricultural production technologies in order to increase employment opportunities
and raise the income of low-income farmers.

Economic infrastructure: In order to achieve greater effectiveness in economic cooperation in the
above two sectors, improvement of basic infrastructure is particularly important, in areas such as
power generation, roads, bridges, water supply and communications. Moreover, disaster
prevention mechanisms are required to maintain these facilities, including for preventing mud
slides. Consequently, Japan is also pursuing cooperation in maintenance and management of
these facilities, including disaster prevention measures.

Environmental conservation: Given Nepal’s population growth and poverty, the country suffers
considerably from the problem of environmental degradation, particularly deforestation. Japan
places priority on assistance for the proper utilization of natural resources, and for environmental
improvement.

Nepal must understand the areas of priority for Japan and seek assistance accordingly. The
major concern of Japan seems to be the country’s poor absorbing capacity of loans and its
capacity to bear local costs. Japanese high level officials are advised to carefully examine
Nepal's needs as well as the country’s ability to bear the social and financial cost prior to the
adoption of any aid project. Lack of such examination has proved an impediment to the growth of
the country. However, it does not mean that Japanese authorities should ignore Nepal’s aid
utilization capacity, in fact, Nepal should be concerned about its shortcomings and try to improve
them.

Despite an emerging view point that Nepal need not depend on aid too much, the country is still
in serious need of foreign assistance. Due to its very poor saving and investment ratio, it is
impossible for the country to finance its development works on its own. If Nepal's infrastructure is
not enhanced, further growth will stop. Japan is not only the biggest country for foreign
assistance but it is also the biggest grant provider. The grant amount, if utilized properly, can
have very positive impact on poverty alleviation and other developmental works. The Japanese
government has been pointing out the need to control its corruption and increase the absorbing
power of the country. If Nepal does so successfully, Japan can be expected to increase its
assistance to much higher levels than what it has been providing at the moment. Prime Minister
to Nepal, it is only obvious that Nepal to expect something significant. The assistance expected
from Japan should be directed towards promoting economic liberalization and foreign investment
and improving the trade balance. It should be directed at reducing aid dependency of the country,
gradually.

During the scribe’s visit to Japan and talks with high level officials at the department of ODA in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1998 it was felt that Japanese officials are very much concerned
about the corruption and financial irregularities in the country. They would not mind disbursing
bigger assistance to the country, if Nepal can assure effective implementation of the aid amount.

Nepal’s development challenges are mountainous. Japan being its biggest donor, it is but obvious
for the country to rely on increased assistance. For that Nepal needs to focus on its pertinent
development needs which could really bolster the economy and contribute for the overall
development of the country.

At present what Japan has understood is, the country needs to reduce its budget deficit and
increase tax and revenue collection capacity. It needs to promote economic liberalization and
attract more foreign investment. The Japan’s MOFA web site tells, Japan know Nepal’s problem
to promote land reform, modernization of agriculture and improving agricultural productivity. The
country is also aware of Nepal’s serious need to resolve environmental degradation caused by
population growth, deforestation and soil erosion.

On all these background, we can expect Japan to extend its ever-helpful hands a little more and
Nepal to improve its aid utilization capacity and curb the corruption involved in big projects.

National anthem

Subash Atreya

Every morning I hear small school children together with the whole of Kathmandu sing "Sriman
Gambira Nepali..." before they resume their diurnal treadmill. The melody of the National Anthem
echoes inside the valley indicating that the day has begun. Furthermore, every evening Nepal
Television announces its broadcast commencement with the same and only song available; also
showing the King in his grand suit. Surprisingly all national auspicious occasions are also
observed with the same song and rhythm. Wrap up the whole thing and we get that from school’s
parents day special to King’s birthday celebration; from Nepal TV to Radio Nepal; everything
begins with our one and only divine National Anthem.

So after a lot of cogitation I have assigned a sobriquet to our National Anthem- "Start Key". How
do you like it? I think our National anthem deserves to own such an honourable accolade. After
all, it is the essence of everything in the sense that no activity can start without it. What other
significance does our National Anthem have except as the "Start key"? I cannot think of any, and
so I will leave this to you. I know it sounds inane but we cannot overlook the fact that most of us
sing the National anthem without even knowing the meaning of the words that are coming out of
our mouths. I am not even sure that all Nepalese who say "Sriman Gambira" is our National
Anthem do know the meaning of "Anthem". We sing it because we are programmed like robots
to sing it. It is a convention, more correctly, a social compulsion that is being blindly followed by
all of us just to enable us to stand up in society. The melody is peripheral for it does not come
from our soul, the words are superficial since we do not mean them, and the rhythm is discordant
because it does not stir patriotic feelings inside us. So, why this bondage to sing it so off-tune?
Let us forget the whole thing and start to sing the songs of our choice. The girls can sing Spice
Girls, the boys can go on with their Metallica and the older folks can stick with their all time
favourite Narayan Gopal. I thing that will be better rather than singing Sriman Gambira because
these songs awaken you and put life inside you, making you fit for the whole day.

My motive is just to depict how dog-headed we are to go on doing things because everyone else
does them. Our national anthem has flagrantly been exploited to initiate programs, reducing it to
a mere Start key mechanism rather than to use it as a hymn of praise that shows the pride of
being Nepali. There is definitely no point singing the anthem if you do not sing it from your heart
since it is a song expressing the joy of being a Nepali. If you do not feel proud of being a Nepali
then I have a good suggestion for you. Rather than singing it so off-tune, try out the pantomime.
Move your lips with the syllables. I bet no one will notice.

Civil society and democracy

For some years now, we have been hearing a lot about the term ‘civil society’. Even as it has
never been easy to define ‘civil society’ to everyone’s satisfaction, there seems to be a general
consensus that civil society is a good thing to have! Some even argue that as a realm of freedom,
civil society constitutes a basic condition of democracy. But more than in the context of
democracy (as was the case for erstwhile communist countries of Eastern Europe), our own
encounter with this term was recorded in the context of development.

When the state fell into relative disfavour among development’s big bosses in the donor nations in
the 1980s as part of the "roll back the state" thinking, the non-governmental sector and the
market were touted as the way to move ahead in the game of development. That is when the term
‘civil society’ began to gain strength among development experts abroad, although it had been in
use in social theory - both of the liberal and Marxist dispensation - for a much longer period.
Once the term ‘civil society’ arrived in Nepal riding the bikas highway, native wizards began to
talk about it as if it were the solution to most of the ills of our democracy. However, if the term is
to have any analytic utility, a wide-ranging debate about civil society and its relationship with
democracy will have to take place in Nepal.

As the American scholar of India, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph has recently put it in an article in
Economic and Political Weekly, a minimal definition of civil society would include "the idea of a
non-state autonomous sphere; empowerment of citizens; trust-building associational life;
interaction with rather than subordination to the state." These constituting elements of civil
society revolve around the notion of associationalism. "Associations empower citizens....It is as
social collectivities that citizens can resist, escape or influence state and society," writes
Rudolph who then goes on to trace the genealogy of this idea in the history of political theory.
Among the theorists she refers to, it would be pertinent to recall Alexis de Toqueville’s analysis of
associational life in America. As a traveller visiting from France in the early 19th century,
oqueville found that "Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are
forever forming associations." These associations, he concluded, have an "effect on the inner
moral life of those who participate, enhancing their sympathies and understanding for fellow
humans, and they have an external effect, nurturing their engagement with a wider community of
purposes and making common purposes more effective."

The first of these effects - the internal effect - is related to recent theoretical discussions about
social capital. Features such as trust, norms and networks that characterize associations, so
the theory says, increase social efficiency through coordinated action. Such action forms the
foundation for cooperation necessary for the public good and make democratic participation
possible. In other words, to agree with Toqueville is to say that social capital constituted by the
practice of associationalism engenders the capacity for self-government and civic participation,
the latter being the external effect mentioned earlier.

This characterization of the relationship between civil society and democracy, heavily borrowed
from the above-mentioned article by Rudolph, has been largely theorized based on ethnographic
and historical data from the Euro-American world. Rudolph confronts this theory with
ethnographic analysis presented by some Indian researchers based on data from various
locations in India and comes to some interesting conclusions that we in Nepal should pay
attention to. She quotes from a study by Sudha Pai, a scholar from JNU, who, based on fieldwork
done in four north Indian villages reached the conclusion: "Our study shows that social capital
exists but within and not between segments in rural society. Group...identities have the potential
to create strong reservoirs of social capital within segments, but they do not facilitate - and in fact
inhibit - the creating of a more broad-based...social capital, which has the capacity to ensure
responsive democratic government." This conclusion reaffirms the internal effect described by
Toqueville while rejecting the universal validity of the external effect. Based on Pai’s study,
Rudolph argues that the notion that coordinated action makes democratic participation possible
does not pay adequate attention to the negative consequences of such action under conditions of
social conflict where the basic building block of social capital, trust, is a premium. Hence, she
argues that associations necessarily don’t provide "models and habits of collaboration and
reciprocity that lead individuals to cooperate and that enable them to act effectively in formal
political processes."

Secondly Rudolph argues that the notion that associationalism and social capital cause
democracy is inadequate. Based on the work of Niraja Jayal, she argues that in India, the causal
effect has also been observed to be in the reverse direction. In other words, elections and party
activities have been known to disrupt what existed in the form of social capital in a negative
manner. Finally, based on the work of Bishnu Mohapatra, Rudolph questions the notion that
assumes continuous cumulation of social capital as necessary for democratic practice. Social
capital can pile up or be discontinued due to certain circumstances only to reemerge at a later
date. To summarize Rudolph’s arguments using the India material, we can state that not all
forms of associations qualify for social capital formation. As she puts it, "A more fine-grained and
complex taxonomy of associations, and a more critical perspective on their impact on democracy
might generate more subtle evaluations of the meaning and consequences of civil society."

How can we characterize the present civil society in Nepal? How autonomous is the non-state
sphere? Does our associational life generate trust and democratic participation? It is not easy to
find good literature that helps us to answer these questions definitively but experience would
suggest that our record on all these points gives us a lot of room for disappointment and only a
small room for hope. Rudolph’s arguments are very relevant to our discussions about civil society
and our commentators will be better off paying attention to them and their implications.