Parliament versus public opinion

By Yadav Khanal

The Citizenship Act, 1985 Amendment Bill, got through the House of Representatives, again, in the second voting, has been sent to the Royal Palace for the King’s formal endorsement of it. If the Bill obtains the Royal Assent, it will engender a big and insurmountable demographic problem for this country, apart from other serious moral problems entailing them.

Ignoring all pressing issues crying for solutions, the Nepali Congress government had taken the undesirable step of granting citizenship certificates to people of alien origin who have been surfacing in their increasing number in the country’s southern Terai region. The move was not prompted for doing justice to the people who, as the unmitigated India-inclined Nepal Sadbhavana Party has been vociferously claiming, had been deprived of their right to citizenship, but was made from the ulterior vile motive of pleasing and placating alien forces on whom the ruling party leaders rely much more than they do on their own countrymen. Worse yet, the legislators of the main Opposition the Nepal Communist Party-United Marxist and Leninist (CPN-UML), has also connived to allow the voting of the Bill unto passage by conveniently abstaining themselves from the House of Representatives during the crucial voting hours. That sorry parliamentary episode makes it more than clear that the CPN-UML is nothing more, nothing less, than a tweedledum to the traditionally India-dependent tweedlelee of the Nepali Congress.

The passage of the Citizenship Act-1985, Amendment Bill is one of the many dishonest acts by the members both of the Treasury Bench as well as the self-styled Leftists from the Opposition bench. Its passage is achieved through a parliamentary process under the head of Finance Bill (and ic.) However, the people, the great majority are opposed to it, tooth and nail. To put it the correct way, the public opinion in the entire country is wholly in favour of killing the bill.

The Nepali Congress (NC) is sure to pressurize His Majesty to put his seal of assent on the bill arguing that there is no option left before the monarch than to endorse it, as it has been passed by the highest institution of democracy i.e. the elected body of the House of Representatives.

However, the members of the ministerial cabinet as well as those of the equally India-inclined political outfit, the ruling NC, are not expected to be as naive as to regard the parliament as the be- all- and - end- all of democracy. They should know that there is such a thing called "public opinion" in a democracy, besides public platforms, including other political parties like the Nepal Prajatantrik Party and the Nepal Communist Party-Marxist and Leninist, (CPN-ML), who demand the outright nullification of the same bill by condemning it as a document which is immensely harmful to the nation.

Under the normal situation, the King has had to give his assent to a bill when it is endorsed and re-endorsed by the elected house, no matter how it was returned by the Upper House of the parliament, i.e., the National Assembly. However, in the face of the ever mounting public opposition to the bill, the King has had to reject it summarily, for it is not for nothing that a strong countrywide public opinion is building fast against it. Meanwhile, public opinion is to be viewed and honoured equally by the King the commoner alike if democracy is to remain secure in both ideal and practice. The parliament cannot ride roughshod over the informed, patriotic and enlightened public opinion. Moreover, there is, again, such a thing called "temporary majority", as embodied in a parliament which is elected only for a limited period of time and, in our case, too, its being for the short tenure of five years, which has no right - moral and practical - to decide on things that adversely affect the future posterity of the nation. The present House of Representatives, with 113 members from the Nepali Congress and around 80 odd lawmakers from the main opposition, namely, the outmoded Nepal Communist Party-United Marxist and Leninist (CPN-UML), besides some others who represent a few fringe parties, is an ephemeral and transient body which does not have any moral right to decide on the fate of this ancient nation.

Leaving aside all considerations, His Majesty King Birendra is loyally advised to refute the Citizenship Act 1985-Amendment Bill in deference to the swelling tide of public opinion against it. Meanwhile, various quarters, supporting the same bill, will have to think over the truth that it’s they and not the monarch, who have acted indiscreetly, many times in open defiance of the Constitution of Nepal, as they have done so, blatantly ignoring public opinion for purposes of serving their various interests which, again, are not always intrinsically of noble character.

All said, in the present case of the said Bill, all concerned citizens should give their first and foremost consideration to what is called "public opinion" which today stands totally in favour of killing it, once and for all.

Meanwhile, the abstention by the spurious followers of Marx and Lenin, which was purported to give a smooth passage to the treacherous bill by devious and mischievous methods, speaks also of their well-studied attempt to absolve themselves of their horrendous act of betraying the nation. They have resorted to this cheap ploy in their vain attempt of saving their faces from their own act of sedition against the country and they yet dare think that they can easily fool the people over this matter.

After all, the CPN-UML is a Party run by a bunch of self-seeking Wellsian (H G) come-uppance faces who, like Madhav Kumar Nepal and Khadga Prasad Oli and, for that matter, their women colleagues Vidya Bhandary, widow of the late Madan Bhandary, and Asta Laxmi Shakya, are all come of dynastic plebians and, who, again, because of their very pedigree, could not at all be believed to be able to understand, least of all, to master the most difficult and princely art of ruling men which, in political parlance, is called "statesmanship" and which, again, is never the synonym for the thing known as "politicking" these very politicos indulge in. The issue today is more than that of the enactment of a pernicious bill like the one under discussion.

For the crux of the whole matter is whether the King has to sign the document merely because it has happened to win the seal of the approval of the lesser than patriotic legislators of the ruling Nepali Congress and it has also secured the dishonest and cowardly support from the CPN-UML lawmakers or whether they have to throw the same document down the spittoons for reasons of its having been roundly condemned by the various public forums and platforms of public opinion across the land.

Wrong number

By Sarita Bahety

Today any household is incomplete without a telephone. The advantages of this device are hidden from none. But, sometimes, such handy gadgets can be a big headache too! Well, switching to the rather negative sides of the telephone of which most of the esteemed users of this commodity are aware of, it begins with a mention of the irritating wrong numbers.

From the very day we acquired a telephone, the "wrong numbers" have been the order of the day. Not a single day passes by, without me having to say, "wrong number"! The inquiries vary from asking whether the place is some xyz school or a jute mill, a shopping complex or what not! I’m a student and naturally I don’t have any connection with any industries and obviously as such, I’m incapable of running a school. Instead, I wonder why so far nobody has ever inquired "is this FM radio?"

Usually on getting a wrong number call, I always make it a point to politely inform the caller that the number dialled is of a household and not the place inquired, and thereafter, I keep back the receiver as gently as possible. This is a routine especially on holidays when I’m at home. In these two decades, I’ve specialized in answering such calls so well that once a jubilant baritone complemented me on my voice and speaking style being very impressive, adding that people in Kathmandu, upon knowing a wrong number call, simply bang the receiver back on the sets.

Obviously, people around me asked quite a many times on politeness. I tell them this shows good manners. But on retrospection, I would be wanting for honest courtesies, except some rare compliments on my impressive eloquence. But then I thought, its better to stick to my own principle of being courteous.

The constant ringing is nevertheless, nothing less than irritating. Whether you are entertaining guests or rushing out to get your laundry or are just about to retire to bed; it rings always on the wrong time. And, it hasn’t spared me even in the dead of the nights. Even though at times I have to take pains to be as good as I’m in the rest of the day. Some time back when I was a student due for SLC exams, something amusing happened. It was during midnight of a very cold month. I was preparing hard and was tense. One night it so happened that there was a series of terrifying rings. I was in the midst of figuring out a rather difficult problem of Math and was visibly irritated by the incessant ringing. I had to extricate myself from the warm blanket, kept my books and papers on the one side and get up to receive the call. At that time we didn’t have the convenient cordless phones, forget mobiles. Upon exclaiming "Hello!", to my utter shock and anger the caller inquired "Hello, is this Nepal?". I lost my patience and said before contemplating to bang the receiver— "No, this is Japan". To my surprise the caller, slightly panicked and replied, "please don’t joke", gave her introduction and added, "I’m speaking from the States". I got to know that it was a call from one of my acquaintance in the US. I quickly regained poise and gave a proper reply. Thereafter, I realized that my first loss of control of myself, I managed to embarrass not only myself but other Nepalese as well. Thanks to ringing of the telephone.

Photo politics and other delights

By M R Josse

The other day, readers of Gorkhapatra and The Rising Nepal were treated to a gargantuan-sized photograph on their front pages depicting Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and outgoing American President Bill Clinton posing before the camera, hands clasped together, standing in front of an eye-catching tapestry.

(Predictably, in that celebrated shot, Clinton wears his trade-mark grin, while Koirala appears as unsmiling as ever.)

Photo politics: What was the occasion? When did that supposedly historic meeting take place? Well, the caption to the said snapshot in the English daily hardly offered any clue, stating laconically and cryptically — "Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala with US President Bill Clinton (File Photo)".

On the front page of the official daily there was a crisp two-paragraph RSS news story which let on that Clinton had in a letter to Koirala expressed a wish "to see the upcoming ministerial meeting between Nepal and Bhutan move forward towards resolving the Bhutanese Refugee issue."

In the next para of the by-now famous news item, a Foreign Office mandarin is reported to have indicated that, in the said missive, Clinton "also expressed regret for not being able to visit Nepal during his regional tour of South Asia in March this year." Voila: Belated balm on a festering sore and badly bruised ego!

Why did the movers and shakers of Singha Durbar order its two daily publications to splash such a large-sized photograph on page one — without any indication of when, where and in what context the Koirala-Clinton encounter had taken place?

Was it merely triggered by Clinton’s farewell courtesy note to Koirala, issued a month before his leaving office after an 8-year long tenure? Or, is there more to it than meets the eye?

(One strongly suspects that appropriately-worded courtesy notes to all heads of government/state of countries with whom the United States has official ties with have already been despatched to various world capitals, via the US State Department.

I believe the said photograph was taken during a reception hosted by Clinton in New York for heads of all delegations who participated at the UN Millennium Summit, 6-8 September, 2000.

As host, the American president naturally greeted his guests and shook their hands during a pro-forma photo opportunity with each on that occasion. Additionally, I would even hazard this guess: That the fine photograph was sent to Koirala as a memento, along with the Clinton note mentioned above!)

One may admittedly never get down to unravelling that delicious riddle. However, my hunch, faithful reader, is that it is a fine manifestation of the exoteric art of what may be termed photo-politics, which the ruling party seems to have mastered.

Timing: Before proceeding any further, consider its exquisite timing: Precisely when Koirala is getting ready to do battle with NC "rebels" at the forthcoming party jamboree in lovely Pokhara, in defence of his "party president" title.

Clearly, the celebrated photograph showing Koirala being firmly held by the Big White Chief, which doubtlessly will be circulated to all and sundry at the party convention, can thus be expected to be used as lethal political ammunition by Koirala’s men to slay a whole slew of his challengers and critics.

At this juncture, it should be quite in order to recall three other occasions where senior NC leaders have resorted to photo politics, using the US president as a convenient vehicle.

One was way back in the early 1990s when US President George Bush — the present president-elect’s daddy — provided a photo-opportunity in the White House for the late Ganesh Man Singh who, stalwart as he was, held no official position in the government.

The second photo politics occasion that comes to mind is in 1995 when Sher Bahadur Deuba, then prime minister, led the Nepalese delegation to the UN’s 50th General Assembly. Deuba was one of about 50 dignitaries who met briefly with Clinton and was photographed, at a reception which Clinton hosted — I believe it was at New York’s justly famous Public Library on 42nd Street.

One also remembers that the then editor of the Gorkhapatra nearly lost his job. Why? Because, he did not published the Deuba-Clinton photograph on the daily’s front page — believing that since it came in several days after the event (the paper having closed down for an extended period for the Dasain festivities), it did not deserve front page treatment.

While the said editor of the government daily barely escaped being fired for his temerity in having had the said photograph relegated away from the front page, he had to eat crow and republish it, this time on page one — very possibly contributing to a memorable footnote in the history of Nepalese journalism!

Finally, one also recalls the two official newspapers publishing a photograph showing Finance Minister Mahesh Acharya — once again, with President Clinton. The photograph, taken when Acharya chaired an annual meeting of the IMF in Washington.

As far as this columnist can recall, it was published prominently after Acharya’s return from Washington suggesting that he had carried it along with him on his way home.

Absurd: Changing gears now: Do words still have meaning? Before blurting out "of course, they do" note, if you will, Koirala’s message to the US president-elect George W. Bush Jr., which, as per RSS, read: "Your election is a testimony to your quality of leadership and reflects the confidence and trust reposed in you by the people of the United States."

Really? Has anyone else lauded Bush Jr’s "quality of leadership" specially as that attribute is, at this stage at least, a wholly unknown quantity? And, even more, does Bush Jr’s narrowest margin of victory in US history, and that too secured through a protracted and frequently contested vote count in courts of law, merit reference to "the confidence and trust" reposed on him by the American people? Clearly, in Koirala’s Nepal, even words have lost their meaning!

Misguided move

The formation of the special court by the government obviously to try Maoists forecloses any chance of talks now taking place between the government and the Maoist insurgents. The preferred way of ending the insurgency to any sensible person is through talks but the government, it seems, has now closed this avenue and settled to deal with the Maoist insurgents with strong-arm tactics, a method that has so far proved to be unsuccessful. To borrow a few lines from the Bible, Koirala said let there be the army and there was and that ended the Maoist insurgency. We wish it could have been that simple. But it is not.

The use of the army in quelling the rebellion may not be a wise move. But whether or not it is wise, there is no guarantee that the use of the army would solve the vexing problem that has had an adverse impact on the country’s development quite apart from the bad international publicity it has generated. This has resulted in a drop in tourist arrivals and has directly discouraged direct foreign investment. A speedy resolution to this problem is essential if we are to take this country forward on the path of all round development. A belligerent attitude on either side is surely not the environment in which talks should be held with an eye to finding a solution to the problem.

The legality of setting up the special court under Special Courts Act of 1974 is being debated. The government move comes at a time when the legality of the Special Courts Act is under scrutiny. Needless to say, the act in question was drafted and passed during the days of non-partisan Panchayat system. We now have a democratic constitution and the chances are more than even that many of the laws enacted during the pre-1990 days may not stand the test of liberalism and fundamental human rights guaranteed by the present constitution. In addition, the Supreme Court is said to have issued a show cause notice to the government about the Special Courts Act 1974. Since this is a constitutional matter, the government might have waited until after the Supreme Court verdict before setting up the special court, that too only if it was really necessary to do so. That would have been the prudent thing to do.

But one thing the Koirala government surely lacks is prudence and patience, and its ability to listen to and be guided by public opinion. Whatever the case may be, the misguided government decision cannot but result in prolonging the Maoist insurgency.