Ensure air safety
The ill-fated Canadian built 19

seater Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation (RNAC) Twin Otter craft collided with pine trees and crashed in Jayakhali hill on the Churia mountain range the other day. It is unfortunate that the state owned RNAC has not, as of writing this, confirmed the cause of the mishap. However, the crash, resulting in 25 deaths has raised a furore in the aviation sector. In a period of one decade there have been a dozen such incidents, and it should also be borne in mind that this is not the first major aircraft accident of RNAC while operating in the western sector. Naturally, such accidents raise questions regarding the air worthiness of domestic aircraft as well as questions about air traffic safety and about the standard of aircraft maintenance and the usefulness of ageing vintage aircraft.

One of the nine RNAC's Twin Otters, flight RA9NABP was en route to Dhangadhi from Bajhang with 25 passengers including three crew members when it exploded into a ball of fire after knocking against some pine trees. This mishap took place 20 minutes after the pilot had contacted Bajhang airport tower. Majority of those killed in the disaster were government officials and students. The manner in which this mishap

took place clearly shows that the government has failed to take adequate measures to prevent such disasters. Are aircraft being properly maintained through rigorous checks conducted regularly? Are there well laid down time tested procedures? There must be, but had the government shown its accountability towards flight safety, some disasters would have at least been prevented. However, instead of improving flight safety measures, the government has preferred to take the easy way out by blaming pilots and the weather.

Since 1974, there have been nine plane mishaps in the western region alone. Most air disasters that took place have been attributed to either the ageing fleet, technical error, inadequate infrastructure, lack of maintenance, bad weather and human error. Even though the government has allowed the private sector to operate domestic air services, they too lack proper flight safety measures. Hence the need

for these measures cannot be overemphasized. They are no doubt overriding concerns. The reasons apparently have to do with the recruitment of ill-trained pilots who are not given any technical courses. The system of weather forecasting has also left much to be desired due to lack of proper equipment at major airports. Besides, the runways at airports can hardly be called proper runways and at places they are so poorly maintained   that there is always chance of disaster every time a plane takes off or lands.

Both  private and state owned major airline operators must recognise that frequent air disasters have raised doubts about air safety in Nepal and there is a need to update equipment. The government must also set up a committee that can probe thoroughly into this incident and find out the causes of the air mishap. The practice of leasing ageing aircraft among domestic operators has  also raised questions about the credibility of air safety measures in the country. Unless these issues are addressed immediately air safety in Nepal will always be in question.

India beyond SAARC

By Nagendra Chhetri

Deep rooted suspicion, untruthful claims and counter claims, treacherous and twisted statements, diplomatic and political rhetoric on formal occasions have now turned out deceptive, distorted and misleading. This trend has unfortunately continued for a long time and in all this Nepal has been cheated and has suffered and lost much. This trend can no longer keep on misleading the people and harm the larger national interest of Nepal. Nepal and India must for once and for all, break this dangerous and unhealthy trend in order to improve relations and have them based on the ground realities, geographic and political factors and cultural, traditional and historical foundations.

Political leadership must give up the trend of becoming staunch nationalists in political rhetoric at the open theatre (in Tundikhel) but succumbing to pressure when they visit neighbouring capitals. Our friends have been able to break and split and divide us into many splinter groups and put pressure to sign documents unfavourable to Nepalese national interest. We blame each other but no one accepts the blame for failure of almost all negotiated treaties and projects because the Nepalese so far have proved to be very poor in presenting the country's case.

Lack of unity, home work, inability to produce facts and figures and failure to convince our counterparts during confrontation (negotiation) has led us to   diplomatic minefields and made us  betray the national aims, objectives and aspirations of Nepal. Nepalese decency and trust has been taken as weaknesses many a time and undue advantage has been taken at the cost of Nepalese national interest. Nepalese pride and goodwill have been deeply hurt by the crookedness and cunningness of a friend on whom total trust was placed. If Nepal means real, practical,  sustained and durable business with its neighbours it must present its case in a  straightforward manner and convince them to draw red lines on national interest. The PM's visiting entourage must consist of experts from different fields and different parties to participate in particular issues/agendas.

The issue of Kalapani, for example, will demand someone who has studied the history, geography, the details of Sugauli Treaty who has thorough knowledge of the area; who has visited Kalapani many times and who can present evidence to his counterpart convincingly. Similarly experts on Laxmanpur Barrage should provide details of the   Barrage and its impacts thoroughly. Such person should also have knowledge of international law applicable to bilateral relations between two neighbours. An expert on Bhutanese refugee should be aware of the Bhutan-India treaty of 1951, International rules and regulations on refugees and repatriation covering the role and status of a third country bordering the country of origin and the country providing refuge. Thus the composition of the PM's entourage must consist of experts on Mahakali integrated project, national security system, border control and regulation; Maoist activities on the Indian side of the border, expert on trade and transit and custom regulations including a legal, political and historical expert on the 1950 treaty.

If a united front is presented with patience, perseverance and expertise without shying away from raising all irritating and humiliating issues at all levels of discussion, India will have to accept what is genuinely right and honest. If India wants to maintain and project itself as a champion of democracy and human rights, an established leader in the region aspiring to reach beyond the SAARC horizon and a rightful claimant to a membership of UN security council, it should prove its worth. The only solid proof will be to help establish democracy in its backyard Bhutan, ask Bhutan to take its citizens back home from Nepal. India should withdraw its troops from Kalapani (Nepal should put its own troops), demolish the Laxmanpur Barrage, if not, compensate the displaced people of Banke by giving as much Indian territory as the submerged Nepalese territory; accept Nepalese proposal to control and regulate the Nepal-India open border etc. If India displays its magnanimity towards its smaller neighbours by being a little liberal, it can influence world policy with the full support of its SAARC partners. India must choose now.

Security will be one of the first issues to be raised by the Indian side whether we like it or not. Therefore an expert on it must also be included in the entourage. What must be made clear here is the responsibility of protecting Nepal's sovereignty and independence is its own business. Nepal can not enter into any kind of security pact with any neighbour, as Nepalese security perception is different from the security perception of either of its neighbours. Nepal must also commit that there is going to be no security threat to either neighbours from Nepalese territory. Nepal should take measures as it always has, to guarantee a fool-proof security system at the open border with India. It is in the interest of both countries that the border must be controlled and regulated. Nepal must convince India and regulate the present free flow system at the border. Multiple problems of serious magnitude could be solved once the land border is regulated.

Another important area is the water resources available in vast quantity in Nepal which, if exploited, many millions hungry mouths in both countries will be fed. India should not pressurize Nepal as it has always done to use this resource only to benefit India and bring added sufferings to Nepal. The Nepalese side should not fall prey to the Indian sugar-coated promise and walk into diplomatic minefields. Nepal should not mince words now.

Nepalese leadership has been the most staunchest nationalist when they deliver their high sounding and thundering public speeches particularly during election campaigns at the open theatre but shy away to boldly present their case when in foreign capitals. They also show their colours depending whether they are in the ruling bench or in the opposition. For any problem, they blame each other but none take the blame. Everybody seeks  rights but none take the responsibilities or are accountable. This has become a peculiar trait of our political leadership. Now is the time to prove that Nepalese diplomacy and Nepalese leadership is mature, seasoned and can stand up to claim what rightly belongs to a sovereign nation. Now is the time for our leadership to correct the wrongs. Now is the time to be united and stand like a solid rock not to be submissive and compromise our National interest.

Why should 1950 treaty get such  importance? Firstly it was signed under duress by a dictator and not by a popular government. Secondly, for all practical purposes it is long dead and buried, for neither of the signatories respect it. India raises the point only when it is beneficial. How about its violation on so many occasions? This is applicable to Nepal also. If a fresh and new treaty is needed, then it must reflect the true aspirations and sensitivity of both nations on equal terms based on  modern practical requirements of two sovereign peoples.

Over the years what has been noticed in Nepal's case is the lack of unity and understanding between the political leadership and the media of this country. Our national interest must be clearly identified and defined. Can we not developed self controlled norms and culture to project a single national voice to protect and secure our overall interest? Has not the political leadership a responsibility to give certain guidelines to our mushrooming print as well as electronic media to draw a red line? Preparing, shaping and projecting pubic opinion for the sake of national interest is the primary role of all media of a democratic country.

If the PM goes to India with all these serious agendas like Kalapani; border delineation, Laxmanpur Barrage, 1950 treaty and Bhutanese refugees and holds bilateral talks where there is sincere commitment from both sides with a view to reaching   satisfactory conclusion on all these major issues; the visit will be a most successful one. Nepal should also pressurize India to curb the free activities of Maoist particularly in the border areas The height of mistrust between the two countries after the hijacking crisis inflamed by the so called, leaked Intelligence reports, "Nepal game plan" the  PM's job is going to be very tough. Indian public perception that Nepal is a security threat created by the Indian media will be a serious challenge to the Nepalese team. The hijacking drama, the Nepal game plan and the security threat was the biggest coup against Nepal conducted by the joint action of  like minded people at South Block, North Block and the Prime Minister's office. We therefore, need to include experts on all major issues to absorb pressure that is going to be exerted and still be able to make a tough bargain. This can make the job of our PM a little easier and the result could be better. Nepal must commit and convince the Indian team that it will never permit any activity in its soil that is hostile to Indian interest. India should reciprocate with the same commitment if relations are to be improved.

New gender specialist in town

By Sajag Rana

Iam not sure whether Speaker Taranath Ranabhat was revealing his own insecurity or the collective insecurity of the Nepali male when he said that giving property rights to women would encourage "infidelity" in them. However, considering that the issue of granting property rights to women stands as the biggest threat to the not so-to borrow DH Lawrence's phrase-'cocksure' institution of Nepali patriarchy, we can safely make an induction that all Nepali males who feel like Ranabhat are losing their cocksureness. This erosion of male authority obviously corresponds to the growing assertiveness among Nepali women, which the likes of Ranabhat have not be able to digest. In fact, their worst nightmare would come alive if this assertiveness were to combine with  women's economic empowerment through inheritance rights plus . The reason for concern among those who see themselves as upholders of patriarchy is, they see their conventionally accepted domain being eroded, invaded and usurped. As far as they are concerned, at this rate, Nepal could evolve into a society of cocksure women and henny men.

I guess the preceding paragraph explains quite well the psychology behind Ranabhat's statement. The logic behind his statement is however vague. For example, try as I may, I cannot understand, much less explain how property rights encourages infidelity among women. Is he suggesting here that women have an inherent tendency towards infidelity and that this tendency has been kept in check because of their economic dependence on men and that economic independence could upset this ? Or, does Ranabhat equate women's economic independence with license to indulge in infidelity? If this is not his intended meaning, if he did not mean to say that women are by nature unfaithful, then he could have meant that property rights makes people unfaithful and he does not want to see women becoming unfaithful by getting inheritance rights. He must be thinking he's doing women a big favour, upholding their morality by  denying them property rights.

Going by this logic, all Nepali men ought to be unfaithful because they inherit property. But I guess in Ranabhat's moral scheme of things, infidelity among men is not such a serious thing as infidelity among women. (At this point, one cannot but wonder if inherited property can have such a morally corrupting influence, how bad the influence of the suddenly acquired wealth and property of our netas must be. What acts of infidelity against the people, against

the country, must have already taken place.

Ranabhat could, with the tact of a seasoned politician, have come up with other reasons or excuses, for instance - 'the topic must be further debated' or 'the implications must be considered' or 'we have to decide between equal inheritance and the will system' and let the debate continue. Let's hear both sides of the story. Let's hear activists say how economic empowerment would enable women to play a decisive role in society and enhance their contribution to national development and lead to gender equity. Let's also hear economists talk about the possible magnitude of fragmentation of property and wealth and how much richer or poorer the average Nepali will be if property rights to women is granted. Let us also hear sociologists talk of the possible implications both positive and negative. Let us also hear what the benefits and drawbacks of the will system are. Let us also hear what parents want and what sons and daughters want and come up with a decision that will make everybody happy.

In the mean time, Speaker of the House of Representatives Taranath Ranabhat can work on his theory of the corrupting influence of inheritance rights on women. He is surely the new gender specialist in town.

Is electricity tariff hike for foreign loan justifiable ?

The Kathmandu Post and Mercantile Communications conducted a survey on "Is it justifiable to hike electricity tariff to acquire foreign assistance for new project?" on the Net last week. Of the 171 respondents, 87.1 percent said "No", 11.7 percent said "they did not know" and 1.2 percent said "Yes".

We regret the inconvenience, if any that may be caused on account of the non-mention of original names by some respondents.

This is the equivalent of allowing foreign powers to dictate the price of electric  power inside Nepal's borders. Where is Nepal's sovereignty in this matter. What will  the foreign powers dictate next?    

- Bill Bahadur 

It is ridiculous that despite the huge water resources, our unit cost of   electricity could be highest in the world. We all know the reasons are due to   monopoly and inefficiency of NEA, high level corruption in NEA and MOWR and unnecessary bhakti towards donors.

Look at the power purchase agreements between  private sector and NEA. They are sucking the blood of common people. Similarly,  take the recent example of loan agreement between NEA and ADB. In order to get  money, these corrupt guys do not care about the plight of local people and even the economy. They don't want to correct their mistakes or inefficiency. The so-called  donors or banks are for the rich people or corrupt administrators. Each time, NEA increases unit cost of electricity in the name of different donors. This is absolute  nonsense. They need money to build new houses and poor people have to pay  for it. Who cares for the public?     

- Surendra R Devkota

While it is normal that the municipalities, business houses, industries, ministries, government offices including Prime Minister's residence are not paying electricity  tariff. NEA dictates to the general public to pay high electricity charges in the name of  foreign assistance. If foreign assistance itself creates problems for citizens in stead  of making their life easier, what is the use of such assistance? Why should we  accept such assistance to make our life hard and expensive? There should be a big  protest against such decision.     

- KNP                           

  It is high time NEA as well as the government started thinking of a sustainable  solution to this spiralling tendency of price rise in electricity in a country where  there is abundant energy. It should allow other countries and companies who  come to us to build hydel projects. And the government should   create favourable environment for others to come to us. We should not go begging others  assistance and be dictated to by them.    

- V B Shrestha  

It is very sad for the Nepalese People. It also shows there is no government or rules and regulations. If everything is determined by foreigners then where is our   sovereignty? The other, very regretful thing is that it is against the modern price   determination philosophy as proclaimed by so called democratic countries. This also   indicates that Nepalese politicians have nothing to do with the people but try to   make Bideshi Gurus happy. This is neo-imperialism.    

- Susan                           

I think your comment hits the nail on the head-excellent observation   and I agree with you that electricity prices should NOT be increased. I don't know   if any of you were involved with the last posting here. The overall consensus was   that Arun III was a good idea. Going back to that point and linking it with today's   question, how does the government think that by allowing projects like Arun III it   can help the  man on the street increase his living standard and decrease his   expenditure, so he too can start something, and contribute towards a growing   economy. I personally believe  that the future is bleak.     

- E Shrestha

Nepalese government must put in place an effective tax system which is fair and  equitable for everyone. Using electricity as a tool to collect revenue to payback foreign debt is absolute nonsense. A large number of public who do not benefit from the projects cannot be forced to contribute by increasing electricity prices.   For example, why not use foreign assistance to build new highways and collect toll   from those who use the highways. By doing so, only the ones who use the services   pay for it, and the poor and disadvantaged people won't have to bear the cost in   terms of increased electricity prices. We desperately need foreign investment and   employment, not foreign assistance that needs to be paid with compound interest.     

- Rahin Shrestha

If our electricity price will be reduced in future, then  hiking the price for  electricity now is fine, otherwise why should we pay  more for businessmen who are  also mainly foreign investors?    

- Tara Singh

Electricity price should be very low. Raising costs just to get foreign loans makes  Nepal and Nepalese people poorer and poorer.    

- D Lohani

Yes, but only on the assumption that all the revenues of the government is utilised properly.  It is the duty of the natives to contribute for national development. If the  majority of the population stay in darkness, then the population in  the 

light must devote something for the benefit of the rest of the people. But as has  been said in the first sentence, only if our payments go just for the people we   target.    

- Prakash Bhandari

Is there any policy in Nepal that is implemented through proper channel ? What  this government needs is basic education to start off with. With rich water resources  and so many projects like these the government (includes all political parties) could  come up with excellent ideas but what these policy making people lack is seriousness of purpose. How about a weekly poll on the "re-education of ministers"    

- Aloo

It would be better to raise resources from local sources like Provident Fund,   banks, local credits rather than hiking prices and borrowing from Super Donors.

- Sunil Poudyal

Electricity is consumed by only 15% of  well off Nepalis, If with the   price hike, we are able to bring new projects as well as income, there is no harm in  it. After all poor people will not be directly affected by the decision. In fact, new construction projects will provide immediate employment to them and new power   projects may boost up Nepali economy.

- Shirley