Sobering thoughts

Forty nine years ago, on this day democracy dawned for the first time in Nepal. Within a decade, that is, in 1960, before the first ever elected government could even learn the ropes, the system itself was dismantled. In its place the partyless Panchayat system was imposed. This system lasted for 30 years until the popular movement of 1989 led to the restoration of democracy in the country. Keeping this background in mind, it will only be appropriate on this occasion of democracy day as well as our (Kantipur Publications’) seventh anniversary to comment on the progress of this liberal pluralistic dispensation and our role in its consolidation.

To begin with ourselves first. In the open democratic environment, we have grown from strength to strength in the last seven years. In the process, we have—we can say with a modest sense of pride—been foremost in the dissemination of facts and information to every district in the country. We have always been critical whenever there has been need to point out faults in any sector, but we also have been supportive of good actions. Our publications have also provided an appropriate platform
for debating issues of national importance. And even as we make these claims for ourselves, we reiterate our commitment to strengthening democracy for not only do we feel that there is no better alternative to this system but also because without democracy we would never be able to fulfil our responsibilities as a member of the free fourth estate.

The process of democratization since 1990 has been satisfactory. However, there are a number of anomalies that have obstructed the functioning of this system and rendered governments incapable of delivering, of making a difference in the lives of the people. Not surprisingly, most of these problems have their source in the leadership itself which is perceived as corrupt, inefficient and given to nepotism and motivated by self interest. No wonder, a majority of leaders have a rags to riches story to tell while the condition of people continues to deteriorate. Nepal still remains one of the poorest countries in the world with high illiteracy and underdevelopment. Two other problems that the country faces today need to be mentioned. Firstly, the problem of insurgency that has raged on for four years. The insurgency has not only led to the loss of lives, mostly of innocent victims but also caused great suffering in affected areas. The second problem has to do with the ongoing squabbling within the ruling party which has caused political instability and diverted attention from development activities. In fact, the country has been plagued by instability since 1994. With the formation of a majority government after the elections of May 1999, people had expected at least five years of political stability and progress, but it appears that this might just prove an illusion. Given the unscrupulous tendencies of our leaders, it is doubtful whether the country will be able to face the economic challenges of the new millennium and attain the ideals of social justice.

These are indeed sobering thoughts on an auspicious day, but as a responsible media committed to democracy and all round national development, we feel it our duty to remind our leaders of their responsibilities which they seem to have forgotten. Last but not the least, we take this opportunity to felicitate our readers on the double happy occasion of democracy day and our anniversary as we
once more renew our pledge to consolidate democracy and to contribute to raising the level of awareness of important issues among the people.

How the rebels stand to gain

By D L Bhandari

The tendency on the part of disparate political outfits not to stand firmly behind the ruling establishment in fighting the common enemy (in this case, the CPN-Maoist-led insurgency) is the main reason the insurgents are enjoying the luxury of a virtually free run.

Insurgency, no doubt, is gaining momentum even as major parties have refrained from looking into the issue in the same light as those at the helm. So much so that prime ministers from Sher Bahadur Deuba (during whose premiership the insurgency broke out) to K P Bhattarai have failed to "bell the cat", leave alone smashing it.

And, as the events sufficiently demonstrate to the beholders, the ultras are gaining more and more confidence for denting the very system until and unless the tendency to work at cross-purposes among the political parties does not come to an end.

Although the insurgency smacks of a larger conspiracy at rendering the system as not very country-specific, the same, however, would be a misnomer if we consider the anomalous behaviour of political parties themselves. They are not attending upon insurgency to the satisfaction of the beholders.

While the political parties and leaders, including of course those in the opposition, seem assuredly to be on the lookout for a suitable opportunity (to ride to power) that comes their way before they take up the ultras, it is the latter who are having the field day at possibly rendering the atmosphere as full of terror and uncertainty.

All this indeed mars prospects of anything good issuing out of multi-party polity just yet.

Moreover, an impression which has gained currency is that the political parties and leaders are unmindful of the means they employ to ride to power. The very fact that some are refraining from involving themselves in the resolution of the insurgency suggests just this.

So far, they have vividly sent across a message that the insurgency is something which the ruling party alone should look into while stoking it from the sidelines can protect their long term interests. To repeat, this is something which has emboldened the ultras, or whoever is behind the conspiracy.

The disagreement over the need to attend the insurgency is not limited to inter-party level. In fact, the disagreement over the same permeates even the intra-party domain in what may be said to be a perfect case for disaster. This may be expected to invariably culminate in rendering any government’s efforts as futile in the absence of the whole-hearted support coming from the party.

Hence, the selection of Deuba as someone to head the team to talk up the Maoist insurgency is a political move by the prime minister since the former has the ability to draw required support from the Nepali Congress. But even the party lawmakers have flayed the move.

Even as Deuba is talking up with one and all in this connection, the party President Girija Prasad Koirala is on the move in what may be said to be an independent move at possibly resolving the crisis! There cannot be any other cogent example of distrust against each other at the top level than what is unfolding currently in the ruling party.

Even the CPN-UML is not free from the bug if we are to consider the reports that Madhav Nepal and K P Oli have started communicating with each other through newspapers on important issues.

What this suggests in turn is that the political parties are also in a way still through a transitional phase and not in a position to rally as united outfits whenever there is a need for the act. Said in one word, the parties perhaps lack charismatic leaders.

Or are there too many of them already as the divergent views on any given issue coming from the parties suggest?

Prospectively speaking, if the Maoist insurgency is something which can be expected to be curbed by strong parties, then the insurgency can be expected to last well into the future since the prospects of strong parties headed by strong leaders stand ruled out at least for the time being.

If who the layman believes are the future leaders of major political parties who may go on to lead the nation, they may be from amongst Deuba, Ram Chandra Paudel and Shailaja Acharya of the NC and Nepal, Oli and Amrit Bohara from the CPN-UML.

As a matter of fact, almost all of them have been tested with none impressing although, as they may argue, they did not get to act independently whatever their capacity. But this is something which will be the reality ever after with someone or the other in the sideline "directing" the proceedings.

If wishes were horses beggars would certainly fly but this simply does not happen in a political domain like ours which has become a battle-field of diverse interest groups. The underlying rot, one feels, has got to do with inability on the part of people at the helm to discriminate between friends and enemies.

Forgive me if I sound too harsh but the guiding mantra among cross-section of politicians is: enemy’s enemy is a friend. The traces of sympathy which sometimes come for the ultras from the CPN-UML and more than added bonhomie with the opposition rather than with the own party’s leader in power at crucial stages on the part of NC leaders on and off, suffice as example.

Such being the scenario, the Maoist ultras stand assured of every cooperation they may need even if it may be coming to them in a roundabout way under the circumstances. Wasn’t the proposed law aimed at containing insurgency shelved when it came up for passage in parliament amid furore from lawmakers other than from ruling benches, although I may be citing a bad example?

In what may be said to be in tune with the country’s merry-go-round brand of politics, it will be Koirala on the big chair in the next few weeks even as the hydra of Maoist insurgency keeps on braving political establishment on this side of the political divide to onlookers’ impatience. Futile exercises have become predictable enough even though brilliant remarks such as the one that came from Prime Minister Bhattarai the other day may be exceptional.

Sex and schooling

By Arun Gupto

How would you react to this situation? "A class room of grade 6 students. It is a science or health hygiene class. The lesson is about population and family planning. The teacher starts explaining the contents of the lesson and after a few paragraphs s/he stops confused. How can you proceed now? You know the meanings of the words and phrases. You can interpret and explain because you know what the subject matter is about in the lesson you are explaining to the students. Still you cannot go on: some kind of hesitation bars you from telling the contents of the lesson."

"The reason is that a paragraph or two describes about causes of conception of a child in the womb. Words like sperm, ovum used in the text cannot be explained to the pre-teen students, the teacher thinks."

"Out of sheer nervousness s/he changes the topic saying that s/he cannot teach the lesson. "Read it at home." The story does not stop here. The confused, curious student after returning home asks her mother to explain the parts the teacher did not explain. She reads the misfit paragraphs and reacts like the teacher had in the classroom: "Leave it and do some other lessons." "But why? Miss refused to explain and now you are saying the same thing." "Leave it for now and you will understand the meaning after you grow up." "What if a question is asked in the exam!" "No question from the paragraphs, I can assure you."

Do you then agree that the teacher and the mother cannot teach some preliminary ideas about sex to their pre-teen students even if they are included in text books? Or are they indecent, immodest, premature, unnecessary information to be given to students? More than debating about teaching or not teaching such lessons to students, I noticed the small commotion the lesson created among elders of the student’s family and also among acquaintances. Neither my friend nor his wife understood what to do. They asked me and I instead decided to write about the issue.

There are many such situations that create impasse in the communication between elders and the children. Should such issues be taken formally unhesitatingly and students informed gradually? Or should we leave such things to be understood as they come naturally to students and also through their jokes merely, half-cooked chats, misinformed comments, bizarre witnessing experiences, wonder, shock and what not? I do not know how to answer such questions in a few hundred words, but I surely do know that taking such issues trivially makes things complicated?

I am serious about one thing: if you prescribe such lessons, take them seriously as you take other issues, and if you do not want to share such information with, say, grade 6 kids and if you want to delay, then think before prescribing such lessons.

Not by containment but by negotiations

By Yadav Khanal

The Nepal Communist Party Maoist "People’s War" has completed its fourth year since its first shot was fired. Begun on a small scale in the first week of February 1996, in what initially appeared as a "quixotic venture" of some romantic Maoist enthusiasts, the movement has assumed as of today, a national dimension. It has already proved a serious challenge to the parliamentary system of this country. The genesis of the NCP-Maoist sanguinary movement is traced to various nebulous sources ranging from the followers of the extreme ideology of the Argentinean desperado, Che Guevera, to those of West Bengal’s legendary Charu Mazumdar. It also comprises the destabilising hands of Nepal’s alien forces as well as the forces of the circles of the country’s native extreme rightist revivalists.

The governments of various political parties have not been able to deal with the NCP-Maoist "People’s War" problem. For one thing, successive governments, including those of the Nepali Congress and the NCP-United Marxist and Leninist, dominated coalition arrangements, besides the coalition government headed by the undivided Rastriya Prajatantra Party chieftain Surya Bahadur Thapa, were never serious about solving the intractable problem. All of them failed to perceive the gravity of the consequences of the "People’s War". It is unnatural that they have not been able to see through the problem, as most of leaders in these governments were never imbued with the foresight of a true statesman. All they did was to give it a cosmetic treatment, nothing more, nothing less.

The problem has to be solved by bleaching the real conduits of the inspirations, which spur the NCP-Maoist activists to keep on with their activities. One such inspiration is widely presumed to be the Peruvian "Shining Path" ideologues. However, the main stimulant for the "People’s War" is also believed to be in India, which is interested in keeping this country in a perpetual state of instability and anarchy through the continuation of the Maoist movement, as its hidden means to pressurize any government in Nepal.

Meanwhile, another more effective source of encouragement and support for the NCP-Maoist party is to be pinpointed at home to the extreme reactionary and retrograde feudal forces which want the multi-party system to fail for reasons of their revivalist objectives. Although the "People’s War" fighters are no friends of both of these social and political undesirables, they are smart enough to capitalise on the support lent to them by both enemies of our free and open society. The NCP Maoist party may be a patriotic force in itself, but its movement, even like Mao Zhe Dong’s Cultural Revolution and Che Guevera’s "heroic" guerrilla warfare, are ultimately bound to fail.

The government of the day, as deputy prime minister Ram Chandra Poudel suggests, should try to bring Maoist leaders round to the negotiating table, once again. Although given the political will, it can finish off the People’s War by using all human and material means and resources, the government would do well to try to settle the problem through bilateral talks and negotiations. Any use of violence by the government, which the NC President Girija Prasad Koirala approves of, would only entail much killing and destruction on both the warring sides. After all, all those who would suffer death in the ensuing killing actions are none other than our own people.

Of what I know of NCP-Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai from regular personal contacts in my capacity as an official at the Royal Nepalese Embassy during the years when he was a student in Delhi, he is a sensible and well meaning man. The next party leader Puspa Kamal Dahal (Comrade Prachanda), although not personally known to me, cannot be very different from Dr Bhattarai from the very logic that they happen to live and work in a state of complete unison, like the proverbial, birds of the same feather which instinctively keep flocking together.