Hold SAARC summit

The two-day closed-door meeting of Citizens’ Commission for South Asia (CCSA) concluded the other day by urging India and Pakistan to bury their differences. This is the first time that intellectuals and former ministers, diplomats and other political personalities of SAARC countries have recommended that the indefinitely postponed SAARC summit be held. And this recommendation deserves to be supported by all people of South Asia.

The eleventh SAARC summit, it must be recalled was put off after India refused to share the platform with Pakistan. There are, however, a few questions: will India take this call for rescheduling the summit positively and recognize Pakistan’s new regime to revive the SAARC process? What will be the fate of the SAARC, if Pakistan continues to be under military rule? Do all member-countries of SAARC have democratically elected governments? If not, then, why was the military takeover in Pakistan used as a pretext? Is it right that India’s position should jeopardise the entire process through the year and even beyond it? These questions remain unanswered so far, but they easily underscore the more than five-decade old enmity between the two countries.

Trailblazers of the Track Two Diplomacy met after a year long hiatus to discuss the future
of SAARC. They have identified bilateral differences between India and Pakistan that stalled the 11th SAARC summit more than anything else. This is indeed a step in the right direction and CCSA has done well to at least try to defuse bilateral differences. In fact, there is no other way than this to bring India and Pakistan across the table to resolve differences. This apart, there is enough evidence to point out that political differences between India and Pakistan have delayed the development of SAARC. It is totally unreasonable that the fate of regional cooperation meant to benefit more than a billion people should rest on bilateral differences between two members only. The fate of SAARC cannot be held hostage to this.

The 11th SAARC summit scheduled for last year was cancelled due to India’s stand when General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif’s democratically elected government in Pakistan. Since then, the summit has been in a limbo despite the grave concerns shown by member states. India’s attempt to dissociate Pakistan from the regional organization on grounds of the military takeover appears to have more to do with the old enmity rather than any concern for the fate of democracy in Pakistan. Had India taken a similar stand against Bhutan, then only could there be justification worth the name. The entire question of political ideology raised by India, would then have been different. The fact of the matter is that the entire SAARC process is being put in jeopardy because these two countries mistrust and hate each other. Therefore, India should not persist in harming the geopolitical and economic interests of every South Asian country.

The South Asia Free Trade Area Treaty agreed to by SAARC member-countries has also come under threat due to the failure of the 11th SAARC meet. The meeting of CCSA has recommended that the 11th SAARC summit be rescheduled and emphasized the need to finalize SAPTA. Political differences should not precede economic development of the region. It will therefore be wise on the part of India to listen CCSA’s recommendation for the benefit of the region.

Nepal-India-China trijunction in western sector

By Hiranya Lal Shrestha

The joint border team for the delimitation of Nepal- China border had started its work after late Chinese Premier Chou En-lai and Late Nepalese Prime Minister BP Koirala signed an agreement in Beijing on March 21, 1960. The two countries signed a border agreement on October 5, 1961 during a visit to China by late King Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah that year. According to the treaty the work of erecting the border pillars and the preparation of a detailed map of the border was started. The task of finalising the documents and maps was accomplished after the first, second and the third Nepal-China border protocols were signed by the representatives of the two countries on January 20, 1963, November 20, 1979 and December 6, 1988 respectively.

But the task of determining the Nepal- India-China trijunction in western sector, however, had remained unaccomplished because of the absence of the Indian representative. Therefore, the task of erecting Pillar-O at the Trijunction in western sector had, thus, remained incomplete. The setting up of border pillars started only from the watershed of the Mahakali and the Tinker rivers one kilometre south of Lipu Lake Pass and the watershed of the tributaries of Karnali River and the Tinker River. The trijunction, therefore, should be determined through trilateral negotiation.

The trijunction or the triple point is located where the border lines of three countries converge together. According to historical proofs, hydrological basis and old maps, the western trijunction definitely falls in Limpiyadhura. Unfortunately, the Indian side is projecting the area called Lipu Ridge near Tinker Pass as the trijunction but is unable to substantiate it. The Nepalese official side previously maintained Lipu Lake as the trijunction. After the revelation of many new evidences regarding the Trijunction, they have started to hold the view that Limpiyadhura must be the trijunction. On the basis of old proofs, Nepalese researchers and experts, however, seem determined to establish Limpiyadhura as the trijunction among the three countries. (Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, Borders of Nepal, page 174).

The main document determining the trijunction in the western sector is the Treaty of Sugauli, which explicitly mentions the Kali River to be the western border between Nepal and India. The determination of the northernmost stream of the of the Kali River will automatically lead to the identification of the trijunction. The British- Indian maps, and international hydrological principles make it clear that the 5,532 feet high Limpiyadhura Hill is the trijunction where the boundary lines of Nepal, India and China meet.

It will be relevant here to mention the procedure of negotiation on the western boundary lines touching Nepal, India and China in the of delimitation of Nepal-China border. According to a record on the negotiation between Nepal and China, the Chinese side had, in the beginning, claimed sovereignty of China on Tinker Pass, Changru and Limi on the basis of tax being paid by the people living there for using seasonal pastures on the Chinese side. The Nepalese side insisted that the Nepalese people paid the toll to the Chinese government for seasonal use of pasture across the border, not the revenue for the land which belonged to Nepal. During the high level meeting between the two prime ministers it was agreed that the land east of Mahakali River belonged to Nepal. (History of Nepal-China Border Committee, 1964 BS, page 3-4). The Chapter 2, Clause 6 of Nepal-China Border Treaty mentions Mahakali River as the western border between Nepal and China. In the absence of Indian representative, the erection of Pillar-O was postponed for later date and the task of delimitation was accomplished by setting up pillars west to east starting from Pillar-1 to -79.

According to Cartographer Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, 2,139.0 square kilometres of the total area of China has come within Nepalese territory after the signature on Nepal-China Border Treaty. Similarly, 1,836.25 square kilometres of the total area of Nepal has gone towards the Chinese side. In this way 302.75 square kilometres of extra Chinese land has come within Nepalese territory. In sharp contrast to this, Indian armed troops have occupied since 1952, 744,000 ropanis of Nepalese land extending from Limpiyadhura, the Trijunction among the three countries, to Kalapani. Nepal has, in fact, experienced diametrically opposite deals from its two neighbours-one ceding its own territory for the sake of friendship and the other grabbing the land of its small neighbour at the cost of friendship.

On July 16, 1998, Indian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Basundhara Raje informed the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) while answering a question that Nepal had claimed 25 square kilometres of Indian land in the Kalapani segment of Nepal-Indian border. But the Nepalese side has consistently maintained that this territory belongs to Nepal and that the Indian armed troops must withdraw from the occupied territory. India’saction of postponing negotiation instead of promptly solving the dispute on the strategic trijunction makes it clear that India wants to prolong its occupation of Nepalese territory.

It is significant to note the different opinions of Chinese and Indian Ambassadors on the dispute regarding the Trijunction and the occupation of Kalapani. Indian Ambassador KV Rajan said on September 3, 1999 that the Kalapani area had remained within India from the time of British rule and that India had not changed the border which it got as a legacy from British India. (Gorkhapatra, August 3, 1999). Just one month after this, Chinese Ambassador Zen Xuyong said that Kalapani belonged to Nepal and that the trijunction should be settled through tripartite negotiation. (Kantipur, September 3, 1999). The Chinese Ambassador had also repudiated as irresponsible a Times of India report about an agreement having been signed between India and China regarding business transaction through Lipu Pass. Sambodhan (September 3, 1999). This difference in the views of the ambassadors of the two great neighbouring countries has made the realisation of the need of a tripartite negotiation to fix the trijunction stronger.

The press communique issued on August 3, 2000 during Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s visit to India states: "The two prime ministers reviewed the progress in the work of the Joint Technical Land Boundary Committee and directed the committee to complete its field work by 2001 -2002 and final preparation of its strip maps by 2003. The committee was also directed that in case it was unable to reach mutually acceptable agreement on certain specific segments of the boundary despite best of efforts, detail reports on those pockets including a compilation of the available evidence, would be submitted to the two governments for their consideration. The Prime Ministers also directed the joint working group of the joint Technical Level Boundary Committee to expeditiously complete its examination of the facts relating to the alignment of the boundary in the western sector, including the Kalapani area, and in other pockets where there were differences in perceptions of the two sides." (India News and Views, No 3).

Instead of repeating the same communiques and statements for decades, the border issue should be settled in accordance with a time frame. The trijunction should be determined through tripartite negotiation.

Kerosene falls, coupon rises

By Razen

Ican’t understand one thing about Nepali people. We have been doing so many sweet jobs to make them happy, but they have never smiled in a whole decade since the advent of democracy.

Kerosene subsidy is one of the fresh examples. Despite our formal announcement that we would not raise the price of petro-products, we had to. We did it simply because we had no other way. You see, the international price of oil was hiked when we did not have a even single drop of oil in our stock. The fresh oil came at a fresh price so we could not wait for another day to make that unpopular decision.

Instead of cooperating with the only dealer to distribute oil products to 2 million people, you started making a hue and cry against that saintly organization, Nepal Oil Corporation. Please ask anything but don’t ask for transparency. If we present all the documents, those dozens of NGOs working on transparency would not be earning donations to organize seminars and press conferences on this hot topic.

OK. To prove how much we care for the people’s problems, we have set two prices for kerosene. Setting two prices is different from having double standard. The subsidised rate has been set in the interest of the public. Now it's your duty to take advantage of this people-friendly provision.

We know our law and it says that a family is a family, no matter how many members it holds. If you want to get more kerosene, you have to fight with your loving mother and ‘create’ your own family. Subsidized kerosene is more important in today’s world than meaningless words like family and relations.

How to obtain the precious "coupon" is your problem. Our Home Ministry has been so kind as to dispatch the coupons to municipalities and village development committees. Please don’t blame our generous CDOs -- their duty is not to provide the public with the coupons but to obey the direction from "above".

Look at the municipalities and VDC offices. They are being obstinate by disobeying our orders. Once we order them to distribute the coupons, that means they have to distribute them -- we don’t know anything like practical problems. We at least provided the pieces of paper which will, if the people are lucky enough, give kerosene at a subsidized rate. Please don’t even say again that the number of the coupons is insufficient. We did what we could and it’s their duty now to distribute them among the people. We can’t suggest they distribute one coupon to two families but we can blame the municipalities for being indifferent to public concerns.

We don’t know any other excuse. We want to read news in government-fed media that the Home Ministry and Supply Ministry have successfully distributed kerosene at subsidized rate (before the Mafia of black market eers sell out the stock).

The politics for money

By Basanta Lohani

A day after the Kalikot incident where 11 policemen on duty were brutally killed by Maoists waging their people’s war, Lauda Air’s Boeing aircraft, leased by Nepal’s flag carrier Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation (RNAC) landed at Tribhuban International Airport disobeying the directive of the parliamentary committee.

This is the first case in parliamentary history where the government has openly violated parliamentary injunction that had stopped it from executing the current lease agreement embroiled with open corruption. The gruesome nature of corruption came to light in course of investigation when the government, in desperation, tried to cover it through a cabinet decision, a practice brought into vogue by complacent politicians doing politics for money. This is what clearly borders on ‘Mercenary Politics’ for sustaining democracy to loot amidst increasing violence. I had called the lease agreement with Lauda Air in my earlier write up in this column as a case of ‘daylight robbery.’ Surely it is, and more so after the landing of the aircraft. A quick look at what democracy is all about particularly in Nepal may help us understand deals like Lauda Air in its right perspective.

Democracy is not a static concept and has been undergoing changes ever since it was invented in ancient Greece. The experience of the people about its ideas when applied in the real world has made it an "essentially contestable concept" and, thus changeable. However, its centrality has remained lasting. It was democracy that gave birth to the greatest dictator of the world like Hitler in 1933. And again, it was democracy that, in 1946, ousted Second World War hero like Churchill, who had successfully steered Great Britain in the most difficult period of its history.

From direct democracy where people governed themselves to what we have now as the representative type of democracy to be governed by the elected few, its spirit and content had degenerated enough for it to get the name of the ‘rule of the mob’. Democracy, as it is today, is actually the rule of the single largest minority because normally not more than forty percent of the total votes cast decide the government considering the votes divided between different parties and leaving aside the non-voters.

The newfound democratic experience in many developing countries of the world after World War II has been pretty pathetic and disturbing. The gap between democratic ideals that are preached and practiced have been so alarmingly widening that inequalities have become very cumulative. This type of cumulative inequality, though in a different setting, is what perhaps Marx saw during the mid nineteenth century and which made him devote himself to explaining the process of social change. His explanation has remained powerful and allured both the economically displaced as well as the romanticizing youth into forming their reserve army in quest of equality.

But equality in the real world is always elusive and, therefore, the question is decreasing this rate of cumulative inequality through diffusion of technology, literacy and a host of such factors. This is where democracy fits in. The challenge we face now is to create democracy not eulogize it the way we have been doing as if it were a never practiced ideal and only used its legitimacy as a money making machine for the ruling few. This is how the rate of cumulative inequality has increased in Nepal giving rise to the Maoist people's war. New evidences suggest that they have started using authority, more effectively, that only the state could use. As spelled out, the reason, among others, is the broad spectrum of gerrymandering by politicians who use democracy for enhancing their loot and ultimately increasing the hardships of the common man. The Lauda Air episode is just a case in point because the government is being used to make unscrupulous decisions as frequently as such opportunities come or can be created.

RNAC’s decision or the way it was made to decide speaks volumes about the loot. The script was prepared elsewhere and staged in an uneasy way because the greed to gobble up money in the shortest period gave them very little time for elaborate maneuvering. This is why the government had to make a cabinet decision hurriedly for remitting over a million dollars bank guarantee and another equal amount as advance which are not stipulated anywhere in the clandestine agreement that the present executive chairman signed improperly. It is not only improper but also illegal. That could put him behind bars. But the governing reality in Nepal is that wrongdoers get rewarded and even get inside the legislature, not in jail.

As the report of the sub committee of the Public Accounts Committee of parliament (PAC), after its intensive investigation, puts it, the deal is illegal and, as such, does not legally exist because the stipulated time of twenty seven days for its ratification has elapsed. The committee has further demanded legal action against all those who have colluded in getting the deal through illegally violating legal provisions, rules and regulations, and the directives of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and also the government’s earlier directives for such lease agreement. Amidst all this, money is siphoned to where it was intended to go. The aircraft landed on 1st of December for an eighteen month period as per the illegal agreement. If the discussion is to be made, it could be a very lengthy description of illegal acts of criminal offence that will go unpunished, rather rewarded, in the way democracy is practiced in Nepal as the rule of law.

Let me just cite a few points about the Lauda Air episode. First, the deal was made neither through tender or even quotation, rather, through personal negotiation for which the present Chairman was brought from the ministry where, as joint secretary, he directed RNAC not to make any deal without inviting tender. In the much controversial lease agreement earlier with South China Airlines where the then masters directly negotiated and siphoned huge amounts of money by getting that Boeing 757 at 3000 American dollars per hour, CIAA had clearly directed the government to stop the practice of leasing aircraft by negotiation and also to maintain clear cut procedures to this end. The then government, likewise, directed RNAC to strictly follow the directive.

Second, the government had made a policy from the Falgun of 2056 not to lease or buy any aircraft that was more than ten years old. This aircraft in question was manufactured thirteen years ago and has been in operation for over 12 years. Third, the owner of the aircraft has not been identified. It is believed that the owner is Pacesetter Leasing Limited and Lauda Air has sublet it to RNAC. Fourth, the Executive Chairman of RNAC informed Lauda Air that the government had approved the agreement when it has not been approved even by now. Fifth, the need for this fourth aircraft for RNAC’s international flight is not justifiable because the three Boeings that are in use can conveniently handle the present average monthly running hour load. So the deal is intended for personal gains at the cost of RNAC.

Sixth, Bank guarantee and advance money totaling to over two million American dollars was approved for remittance without any such provision in the agreement. Seventh, the very day of signing the agreement, Lauda Air changed its account number for transferring the money increasing the nature of the shady deal. Eight, RNAC has been made to pay monthly rent, crew expenses along with lodging for crew members and insurance in such a way that it is not in its interest. Because of all these PAC categorically directed the government to cancel the deal, which, as such, stands null and void because of the expiry of 27 days, stipulated as period for its ratification. I could not agree less with the editorial of The Kathmandu Post on the day Lauda Air’s aircraft landed. It stated " if ours is even a tenth of democracy that we pretend it is, the government must ensure a thorough probe independent and free of any government interference so that it can get to the bottom of the issue." But to expect such things in present day Nepal is expecting too much for the player and the play has become the same. This is how this drama of Lauda Air has ended and the money has gone. This is how they have made democracy a hullabaloo. And, this is how politics is practised for money in Nepal.