Promote herbs

It is indeed quite unfortunate that the country has not been able to give due priority to identify and promote herbs with medicinal properties. The use of herbal plants to cure or alleviate painful symptoms of various ailments is not uncommon in many parts of the country. People, especially in rural parts of the country still resort to various herbal plants whenever they are afflicted with health problems. For example, the use of banmara juice for sudden cuts or wounds, ranisinka dust for stopping bleeding , kamleghans paste or juice for nettle burns and ghodthapre for a number of stomach complaints and even headaches and high temperatures are quite common methods of treatment. Herbal care for bronchitis, heart problems and even cancer have been declared possible by scientists.

Notwithstanding the rich store of herbal plants, we have not been able to utilise them properly. It is indeed quite disappointing. In fact, this sector requires a good deal of study and research. Although Ayurvedic medicines based on various herbal plants have been in circulation since long, innovative research has not been carried out to promote herbal medicines. In the present world of multiple complexities, allopathic medicines manufactured with modern scientific techniques alone are not enough to fight diseases. Therefore, the use of alternative methods is inevitable. For this reason also, identification and promotion of medicinal herbs are essential.

According to a report brought out last year by the Department of Forest, there are some seven hundred species of medicinal herbs. The fact that a portion of these herbs yielded  as much as 25 million rupees in revenue during the last fiscal year alone indicates the potential of herbs in Nepal and that this could be realised if due initiative is taken to develop this sector. It is sad that more than 90 percent of the total herbal output goes out of  country as “raw material”. At present, not more than five percent is believed to be used in the country. India, Japan and Germany are the major importers of Nepali herb products, with India taking a hefty 80 percent share.

If on the one hand, this is the situation, then on the other, the country spends as much as 4 billion rupees every year on the import of foreign medicine. Also, there are some 11 thousand  brands of medicines currently being used in Nepal, of which 30 to 40  percent is said to be of “low quality”. This is  too serious to be ignored. Forest officials have pointed out the need for special arrangements to check illegal and irregular trading in medicinal herbs. This indeed deserves government attention. The promotion of herbs, both medicinal and for other uses, only consolidates Nepal’s position in respect to public health care, besides providing employment to many and thus contributing to the national economy.         

The thunder dragon may see reason

-By Ambika Mohan

The United States Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Migration and Refugee, Ms Julia Taft visited Thimpu, in the first half of January 2000. The visit was a follow up on her visit to Kathmandu and the refugee camps in Jhapa, Nepal in October 1999.  Ms Taft also met officials of the Government of India in New Delhi, prior to her departure for Thimpu.  Little is known about her dialogue with Bhutanese authorities. However, it is evident that the United States and others in the European Union are gradually realising that a confluence of events presently in motion may bode ill for the continued existence of Bhutan as a sovereign nation. Taft's visit was preceded by Norwegian Foreign Minister Knut Volleback's visit  to Kathmandu. Mr Volleback subsequently visited Thimpu. It is understood that he impressed upon his Bhutanese hosts the urgent need to resolve the long pending refugee problem. 

After these two visits, Thimpu appears to have changed its position. It is learnt that the ninth round of talks between Nepal and Bhutan are to be held soon in Thimpu. The Nepalese Foreign Minister has claimed that the next round of talks “will hopefully identify genuine refugees and initiate the process of repatriation.” 

The Bhutanese King also seems to have become aware that he may have won the battle against ethnic Nepali and Sarchop dissidents, but in the process, may lose his  nation’s sovereignty itself. Some see Tek Nath Rizal's release as an attempt to retrieve some lost ground. Others perceive it as too little, too late. The King also gave general amnesty to about 200 prisoners, out of whom 40 are reportedly political prisoners.  The latest challenge that Thimpu confronts is the situation arising out of the presence of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) and Bodo tribal insurgents in camps in Southern and Eastern Bhutan. These have been a thorn in the flesh for New Delhi and an unwelcome irritant in its relations with Thimpu. Thimpu has been loathe to allow Indian military personnel on its soil as it would raise questions about its sovereignty. It has gained some breathing space as the Chinese have looked askance at a military version of Pax-Indiana in Bhutan.  The Dzongkhas or Bhutanese District administrators have announced that anyone helping  ULFA or Bodos will be imprisoned for 12 years. The King reportedly asked ULFA Chief  Paresh Barua to vacate its bases in Bhutan. There has been no response. Pressure for a joint military operation looms large over Thimpu. 

The exodus of Bhutanese subjects of ethnic Nepali origin from Bhutan into Nepal has been a bone of contention between Kathmandu and Thimpu. The influx of over 90,000 refugees has soured relations between Bhutan and Nepal. Nepalis have been migrating to Bhutan for the last few centuries. However, anti-foreigner agitation in the Indian state of Assam heightened the nascent fears of authorities in Thimpu that they would be demographically swamped. The role of ethnic Nepalis in the downfall of the Chogyal and the subsequent assimilation of Sikkim into India was a theme of recurrent nightmares for decision makers in Bhutan.  Consequent to the anti-foreigner agitation in Assam in 1979, the Bhutanese Government introduced the 1980 Marriage Act and 1985 Citizenship Act.  The Government also introduced, Drighlam Namza, literally meaning the Bhutanese way of life.  Ethnic Nepalis saw this as attempt at cultural assimilation and protested.  The controversial 1988 census to weed out “illegal immigrants” turned into “Operation Nepali Expulsion”. Ethnic Nepalis were asked to produce their immigration certificates before 1958 or be expelled. The ethnic Nepalis organised demonstrations in the streets, unheard of in Bhutan. The Bhutanese authorities started a massive crackdown in earnest. Over 90,000 ethnic Nepalis were expelled or forced to flee by 1991.  On 17 July 1993, the Bhutan-Nepal Joint Ministerial Level Committee (JMLC) was formed with a mandate to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement on determining a classification system for the refugees living in the camps. During the first talks held in Kathmandu in October 1993, the following categories were created for identifying and classifying refugees: (a) Bonafide Bhutanese who have been forcibly evicted; (b) Bhutanese who have emigrated; (c) Non-Bhutanese people and (d) Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts. Since then, bilateral discussions have made little headway.

The European Parliament in a resolution in March 1996 called on the Governments of Bhutan and Nepal to come to a solution which would allow for the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees. This had little effect. In 1999, the Chairman of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities called on both Nepal and Bhutan to resolve the problem in good faith.

Yet, there has been little progress.  In 1997, Bhutan faced another challenge from the Sarchops, the second largest community which had been smarting against domination of the ruling Drukpas. In early 1997, the Sarchops protested against the King by sticking pro democracy posters. A massive crackdown ensued. About 150 Sarchops who were allegedly suspected to be members or sympathisers of the Druk National Congress (DNC) were arrested. during the crackdown.

 Mr Dorji shuttled between Nepal and India for his democracy movement in Bhutan. On 26 June 1998, the King in a surprise move dissolved his 22-member cabinet and placed his royal edict or Kasho before the Tshogdu, the National Assembly on 26 June 1998. 

It was seen as an attempt to allay international concern in the wake of compulsory retirement of 219 Lhotsampa or ethnic Nepali employees on 13 January 1998 and the massive crackdown in Sarchop areas.  Although, the Kasho was welcomed by many, more perceptive observers of the Bhutanese scene were quick to realise that its pretension: "to promote even greater participation in the decision-making process” rang hollow. 

The timing of Rizal's release is of some interest specially because Rizal has asked for an audience with the king. While little is known whether the King will meet Rizal, his release has brought cheer amongst the Bhutanese refugees. The question is whether any possible arrangement between the King and Rizal will satisfy the demands of the exiled Bhutanese.  Bhutan has little comfort. The new access to television and the internet has suddenly broken the seemingly secure cocoon of the average Bhutanese’s Shangri-La existence. Realisation is slowly dawning that Dragons and Penlops as the feudal Bhutanese barons belong to the cartoon strips.

A disagreement of my kind

-By Geetanjali A  Lama

I am angry at the world for making  me a woman though I take pride in my physical endowments, not that I have much to talk of.

I share the joy of  friends and smile at my child ,she reminds me of my days.  Neither am I a feminist, burning bras and contraptions. That certainly isn’t a favourite pastime. Ranting at men holds no charm either. I am also not oppressed with “pots and pans” and “brooms and babies.”

I am angry because I am a woman with all her wiles, whims, fancies, and frivolity.  Her undue obsession with power, her fixation with the word love,  her personal customized  yardstick measuring everything against love.  I detest her because she is: so easy to get and yet plays hard to get .

Above all, I hate her because she is so weak and fragile and counts on every body else to make her happy and in the course of it forgets that she can be happy on her own.

She is a simpering, calculating person who has no inkling of where she is heading to.

 I hate her more, because she takes things lying down, has a pretentious sacrificing grin glued on to her face. She prefers not to know. Ignorance in her case is total bliss.  She is a classic example of the eternal mother hen.

Every body is happy to see such sacrifice and docility. Surely, some agree she needs a pat on her back for such bravery.  Remember, she has always been fed with those old as Adam lines, ”yours is a life of sacrifice” her greatest service is being a life partner, her greatest function is to breed a brood of prodigal sons.

I am angry that she was asked not to say "no" right from her childhood while her brother was told that saying "no" is a man's way of being.  I feel disgruntled when my friend says she is going through another low  “it's your fault “ I scream back.  Why bend backwards for somebody’s happiness is it so all encompassing

Feeling another persons happiness?  Why isn’t our happiness accountable to any one?  Society, culture, tradition is this all there is to life?  Who laid down rules like I have to be physically presentable to attract eligible bachelors, one has to be fair to get fairer children, and stuff like being a student of medicine makes it easier in the marriage market ?

I’d be a walking-talking doll who is also skilled in the art of minting money.

I have to be demure and retiring, not look squarely at anyone in trousers. Does this not sounds archaic while I bear the open glances of lecherous minds reading the contours of my body.

 Who are we?  What are we?  Where do we go hence, let society judge and this time it had better be a fair judgement.

Community forestry in operation

-By Sanjiv Pandit and Bhoj Raj Ayer

Following the restoration of democratic  system in 1990, forestry regulations were revised. Under the new regulations, it became possible to hand over any portion of national forest to the  community or any user’s group who could manage it. Now, the responsibility fell on  District Forest Officer’s (DFO) shoulder to initiate the process of releasing the forest to the user’s group. It was he who was to see that the handing over followed by needful technical assistance to the users. Since all tangible benefits fell on the user’s share, it were they who had to bear the forest development cost.

The Forestry Sector Master Plan (FSMP), 1988 and the Forest Act, 1992 has defined the role of community forest users group by providing access to community people and groups especially in development, protection, utilization, management and free evaluation and trading of forest products. FSMP has recognized the community forestry programme as an effective measure for eradicating poverty, developing rural society and improving the economic status of  people through sharing benefits of forestry products and thereby, fulfilling the basic needs of the community. The Ninth Five Year Plan also stipulated the potential role of community forest users groups in conserving and managing forests and perpetuating ecological balance.

According to the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, forest covers 42 to 70,000 hectare in Nepal. Over the last 16 years, Nepal’s forest has decreased by 9 percent thereby reducing 38 percent of forestland down to only 29 percent. The rate of decrease of forestland has been 1.7 percent per year. Fearing the disastrous trend on the one hand, and the inevitable use of forest products for the livelihood of the community on the other, the community forest programme was necessitated. This apart, afforestation, and a spontaneous motivation for it by the community population, was also called for the scheme. With a view to come up with relevant policy measures, FSMP, 1988 was formulated. The FSMP planned to hand over 61 percent of national forest to the community. And approximately 7,00,000 hectare of forest area has been handed over to around 9,000 Forest User Group (FUG).

Under the Forest Act, provisions have been laid down to allow user’s groups to run a wood based industry, and to farm non-timber forest products and other cash crops. If any forest product is to be consumed by the FUG itself, it may distribute the same by issuing permits after keeping a record of such forest products. While selling forest products, the FUG is required to prepare a receipt in triplicate and must give one copy to the buyer and the other copy to the concerned area Forest Office and must retain the third copy for itself.

In the beginning, the community forestry development programme was launched in hilly parts of the kingdom. However, the formation of FUG couldn’t be appreciably quick enough to have desired result. Nevertheless, the forest, which was being  rapidly depleted in the past is now being preserved, thanks to  FUG. The condition of many dwindling forests has been improving. The livelihood of the community people is getting better.  Community people, who until yesterday, were perpetually worried about the problem of feeding their families, can now contribute to community development activities like construction of school, raising of income through several income generating activities and so on. The overall progress of community forestry development programme may not only be attributed to the policies, the credit goes to efforts made by FUG for managing and developing community forestry so effectively.

Nonetheless, the livelihood of almost all community people hinges on proper management of community forest. With the purpose of reaping maximum benefits the community is exploring ways and means to derive more benefits from forest products which otherwise would go wasted. In case of complaint against FUG, the DFO deputes an employee for on the spot inspection. And if, the report goes against FUG, the DFO may take control over the portion of the forest by cancelling the registration of the concerned FUG.

The felling, cutting, and transporting of  green tress is banned. The decision was thought to have usurped the conventional right of the local people over natural resources and it stood against the ethics of law. This arbitrary and irrational decision taken by the government for the wrongdoings of a few FUGs is not logically justifiable. What if the authorities are themselves involved in the indiscriminate felling of trees? It may be recalled that the Forest Department was going to fell green Sal trees in 18 districts of the terai a couple of months back. Given the frustrating scenario, the question that arises is how can the conservation of biodiversity  and  protection of natural resources be possible and how can the community be motivated towards conservation activities?