Clear the plot

The Nepali Congress (NC) led government has directed a Chinese construction company (by the name of Complant) to vacate a piece of public land that it has been occupying since 1968 without disclosing the terms and conditions reached between the then Panchayat government and Complant. Apparently this may not be a right step on the part of the government even though a hospital for civil servants is badly needed. Had there not been any agreement between the then Panchayat regime and China, the public land would not have been occupied till now.

Thirty two years ago, the Panchayat regime which had better ties with Beijing than the present NC-government, had agreed to resume the ageold trade relations between Nepal and Tibet. For this, both the Chinese as well as Nepalese governments had awarded the contract to Complant to build the Kathmandu-Kodari Highway. Since then, Complant has occupied the 61 ropanis of land at Min Bhawan which the present government has asked it to vacate without referring to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

The Chinese firm in question is a commercial entity. Going by rules, it ought to come up with strong enough reasons to justify its continued occupation of the piece of land. If not, it should vacate the land forthwith. As has come to the fore, the company has so far not come out with any reason which might justify its continued presence at this prime location in the city.

One more thing which needs to be stressed is that the government too ought to have communicated to this effect with the Chinese since this kind of ambivalence is something that will neither help the government here nor will the same reflect well on Nepal-China relations which have always been cushioned by the strength of goodwill between the two peoples. We know that the decision to build a hospital was taken long back. But at the same time, it appears that there is still a long way to go before anything like that happens since the land is still far from available.

That the committee instituted to oversee the construction of the hospital is having a tough time does not reflect well on the government since the latter ought to have made the land available to begin with. What goes without saying is that the government should tell the Chinese company in no uncertain terms that the land does not belong to it, and hence should be vacated. This is the first step towards acquiring the land and the government must take this step without dilly dallying any further.

Regional security and Nepal

By K S Brar

The principal security problem in South Asia remains a seemingly intractable rivalry between the major actors in the region, India and Pakistan. The Kashmir dispute, simmering competition over nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery system, Hindu-Muslim rivalry and the legacy of the 1947 partition creating Pakistan, all combine to yield one of the most dangerous potential flash points on the globe. Even President Clinton emphasized this during his recent visit to the sub-continent. Further, the internal political climate in both countries and a shift in political, demographic and economic trends, continue to exacerbate the bilateral tensions, adding to the insecurity of both countries. Finally, the relatively weak domestic political position of the government in New Delhi and Islamabad have tended to prevent the leadership in both countries from pursuing negotiations or even from engaging in a continuing dialogue to reduce tensions. Despite more than 28 years of peace, the prospects are for continuing tension which could result in a fourth Indo-Pakistani conflict.

Report in 1996 that China provided assistance for Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programmes have brought China squarely into the South Asian security spotlight and complicated both US-Chinese and US-Pakistan relations. Chinese nuclear assistance to Pakistan, its assertiveness vis-a-vis Taiwan, and its growing military power have given New Delhi additional reason to strengthen its nuclear and missile programme. Some argue that the US should see India an essential long-term counterweight to China. At the same time New Delhi wants to maintain its improved relationship with Beijing and is reluctant to publicly acknowledge China as a significant factor in South Asian security. Clinton visit in South Asia recently emphasized the super power’s concerns in the region’s power balance and to establish its own bridgehead to be fanned out in course of time.

Pakistan and China both realize that the continued Chinese aid could entail costs as well as benefits. Many Pakistanis believe that Sino-Indian rivalry is likely to grow and could become the emerging threat to stability in Asia. However, the focus of this competition is likely to be South East Asia rather than the sub-continent. Accordingly China can be expected to moderate its relation with India, so as not to allow China’s assistance to Pakistan to create a Sino-Indian crisis in the sub-continent.

Indian concerns vis-a-vis China focus primarily on China’s potential naval projection in the Indian Ocean, and secondarily on its weapons of mass destruction capability which has forced India to increase its defence expenditures in 2000 and beyond. China is India’s long-term security concern but is not regarded by New Delhi as a near-term threat as evidenced by India’s redeployment in the early 1990 of much of its Himalayan forces away from the North to reinforce units in Kashmir. It is doubtful whether China considers India to be a serious contemporary threat; thus Beijing may regard its nuclear assistance to Pakistan as low-key risk. China never accepts the notion that India is its equal either regionally or as a nuclear power. For this reason as well as Chinese concern over Russian and US nuclear forces, it has been impossible to persuade China to accept regional arms control proposals. America has even yielded to maintain normal trade relation with China boosting its chances to get into the World Trade Organization. America has also signalled India to consider its aspiration to become a permanent member of the Security Council.

The relative American sanctions imposed on both India and Pakistan after the nuclear explosion were felt in a different scale. The primary US interest in South Asia is to maintain the state of relative peace between India and Pakistan. The US policy of managing this rivalry has dictated an approach towards the two protagonists of relative even-handedness, particularly on matters that are strategically sensitive, such as military and economic assistance. Neither India nor Pakistan interprets this policy as balanced. The continuing suspicion in both capitals of a US tilt in one direction or another and the asymmetries that characterize the differences will remain a feature of the political landscape for the foreseeable future.

Fuelled by the progress made in market oriented economic reform, China with a population of 1.2 billion, still has 3 millions in arms, the largest fighting force in the world. Its strategic military capabilities are no doubt in the increase although it prefers to have a peaceful environment to develop its economic infrastructure and modernize the industries. After the former Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and consequent Soviet disintegration, American interest in the region has changed. It even declared South Asia as a centre of terrorists recently. Within this changed geopolitical environment, the vast market available in China and India cannot be neglected by the developed countries. The fastest growing Chinese economy, the largest human resources, the largest defence forces, the size of the country, its growing access and influence in central Asian region, South and South East Asia and new pledge for mutual cooperation, strategic agreement and the solution of long standing border problems with Russia is a potential threat to the global and regional interest of any rival power. Because of the geographical location of South East Asia and Indian Ocean a fierce competition between the regional and major powers to control the choke points of trading roots, sea-lanes and the linkage that the region provides will remain for the time being. The existing Asia-Pacific Command, boost for the Japanese self-defence force, support to Taiwan and South Korea, talk of CTBT and nuclear proliferation with India, Pakistan, China, N Korea are policy priorities in the region. The alleged Chinese infiltration into the nuclear research facility, the Pacific Alliance and the 77000 American troops in the region are some of the thorny issues that need to be resolved.

In such politico-military competition and economic rivalries some of the smaller and underdeveloped countries find it most challenging to survive as a nation in this new century with disturbed global and regional order. Nepal a small underdeveloped and a weak landlocked country with a serious geographical compulsion finds itself in an awkward situation to protect its sanctity as a nation. It does not even have a third country bordering it. This proves how limited its internal and external manoeuvrability is. Not only this but also the inhospitable and formidable Himalayas present great obstacles to balance Nepalese scheme of things Added to these are our own creation of all prevailing national burdens. They are rampant corruption, violence, ethnic tensions created by rival ethnic groups, population explosion, increasing debt servicing, illiteracy, political instability, economic disorder, religious conflict, badly weakened parliament, civil service and political parties and breakdown in law and order owing to the increased terrorism. On top of all this Nepal now is surrounded by nuclear powers.

If one believed that for every problem in this planet there is a solution under the sun, this country has survived and needs to survive. Nepal has to fight all kinds of battles for its perpetual existence. Every democratic country has to identify its national vital interest and the threat to these interests. Once this is done preparation to meet the threat or structuring the ways and means to face the challenge are devised. The leadership should shape and prepare the national opinions to bring everybody into a national mainstream. Calculating and analyzing all the pros and cons of the Nepalese national interest and visualizing the regional and global scenario, His Majesty the King proposed Nepal to be declared a ‘zone of peace’ in 1975. 116 countries have already endorsed/recognized this proposal including the big fours. If our leadership is serious about long term stability, security and prosperity they must come together to find some middle ground to resolve the on-going internal problem and add some extra spices and aroma on our external manoeuvres. It may be wise to reconsider the peace proposal and convince our neighbour for its recognition with an honest pledge never to hamper its national security and interest. Nepal must persuade its neighbours and international community for some serious commitment for its peaceful and guaranteed survival in the new environment and new century.

Match fixing, umpires & Kapil da

By Amar Pradhan

It was the last Saturday, we were playing a cricket match at Tundikhel. The opposition were batting , we shouted for a catch at the wicket, the umpire would not budge. Just then a passerby, probably a ten year old kid, happened to comment, the umpire must have fixed the match. A laughter went in the field and the episode ended there.

Back home that evening, analyzing what went right and what went wrong in the match, I suddenly recalled the kid’s match fixing utterance. Though, what the kid said was meant to be taken lightly, it led me to serious controversy.

So far only Kapil and Co (by Co I mean all alleged cricketers of match fixing) have been at the centre stage of the match fixing row while nobody in international media has uttered a single word about umpires, whose one dreaded finger is enough to turn the course of the match.

One reason why I think cricketers don’t get involved in match fixing is because those in question have earned and can earn millions by playing alone, so why would they get fixed in something like match fixing? On the other side of the coin, think about the umpires and how much they are earning--some petty dollars, I believe. If umpires are made of different blood, I don’t have to say anything but the truth of the matter is they aren’t.

In the last Cricket World Cup, while players were flying around in jet planes from one playing venue to the other, umpires were travelling in trains-for hours and hours, alone. Think who is it easier for a bookie to approach--cricketer or umpire?

OK let’s go by your story, a bookie fixes the match with a cricketer. The cricketer says I’ll get out for a duck, he arrives at the crease, spoons a catch, the catch is taken, but the umpire rules out it was a no ball. All the fixing has gone in water for the simple reason that an umpire’s role wasn’t put into consideration. With such circumstances in mind, isn’t it advisable for a bookie to approach the man with the dreaded finger than a cricketer? While, it is altogether a different question whether we need to advise the bookies .

The reason for my support for cricketers against match fixing is, as alleged by Prabhakar that Kapil came into his room to offer money, can match fixing get as simple as that? If that is the case, cricket is new millennium’s biggest joke.

Talking about Kapil, the larger than life icon of Indian patriotism, I was watching his ‘hard talk’, it was the second or third repeat telecast I don’t know, but my kanchha entered my room with a cup of tea and looking at the crying da said, yo aja pani royechha (he is crying today also).

But Kapil, the man who vowed to commit suicide in his hard talk, is now threatening to kill others publicly, be it a journalist or a fellow cricketer. That’s all about Kapil talk, no wonder Javagal Srinath is finding it harder to play one dayers than gruelling test cricket these days.

Between the lines
A dull ominous rumble

By Kuldip Nayar

Both have a dull ominous rumble: the removal of ban on the import of 600-odd commodities and the ‘Vahini’ project on information. Both hide more than they tell. Both suggest that the government of India has either bungled or bowed to pressure. Even a bit of criticism sounds the fire alarm in the BJP camp. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has been caught on the wrong foot.

I picked up the thread when I read about the outburst of Madan Lal Khurana, a senior BJP Lok Sabha member. I met him to know more. But he refused to say anything beyond "I am at the crossroads." Strange, he should feel lost when he should have the courage to speak out. Maybe, he realises that a mere threat to go public has cost him the party’s vice presidentship and if he were to make disclosures, he would be ousted from the party.

I believe Khurana has met Vajpayee. He has been assured that the matter will be sorted out soon. What can the PM do now? The items have already been put on open general licence (OGL). As regards the ‘Vahini’ project, the government has announced that it is not impressed by the objections.

Some six years ago, India was able to persuade its main trading partners, except America, to postpone till 2003, a WTO fiat, to allow the import of the 14,000 banned items. Having accumulated enough foreign exchange reserves, New Delhi could not use the old argument that it had no hard currency to pay. Practically, all countries accommodated India.

But Washington remained adamant. It insisted on the opening up. New Delhi went to WTO’s lower court but lost the case. It went into appeal. The then Prime Minister, Inder Gujral, along with the then Finance Minister, P Chidambaram, met President Clinton, who appreciated their economic and political difficulties. New Delhi got the good news within three days. US ambassador in Geneva told the Indian ambassador that America was agreeable to the leeway for six years. The two were to settle on which items the ban would be lifted first and on which later.

By then the BJP-led government came to power. It bungled at the negotiating table. New Delhi also lost the appeal. Still the government had nearly three years following the assurance given by US ambassador in Geneva. But the present government has lifted the ban long before the time limit.

No explanation is available. But it is an open secret that the government’s announcement came in the wake of a letter it received from the US Commerce Secretary. The annexure to the letter, which listed the commodities for immediate import, included all types of meat, including beef and pork, dairy products and foodstuff, which meant wheat, rice, barley and the like. It is said that Vajpayee was not briefed on what the lifting of band would entail. He should know that manufacturers, traders or growers have been exposed to competition from abroad all of a sudden when they had a span of two to three years to prepare themselves.

America’s hand is more visible behind the Rs 1,300 crore project of Sankhya Vahini India Limited (SVIL). This is a joint venture company between the government of India (51 percent) and IU-Net (49 percent), a fully owned subsidiary of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Pittsburgh. The first chairman has been nominated through the IU-Net. And there is a proposal to waive the customs duty of Rs 275 crore on the equipment.

When the negotiations began, the Indian mission in America reportedly sent a fax message that it could not trace the company by the name of IU-Net. Still New Delhi went ahead without ascertaining its bonafides and its legal relationship with CMU and without taking the competitive bidding route. No tender or quotations were sought from similar technology suppliers.

The main agency of the government--DOT/DTS--was not involved in the process of deciding the project. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications was also ignored. Why? The committee, which has the BJP members on it, has said in a unanimous report that the IU-Net was selected "without undertaking any study about the technology available with the company and its competitors". The committee has asked the government to explain how it agreed to a situation where "without actually investing in cash the IU-Net becomes to be the major shareholder owning 49 percent shares."

Som Nath Chatterjee, the committee’s chairman, has expressed fears regarding the country’s security. He has said. "The project would open the floodgates for espionage, interception of scientific data, telephone conversations, faxes and e-mail." Incidentally, VS Arunachalam, once India’s defence adviser, is one of the directors of IU-Net.

In a letter to PS Saran, secretary of the Department of Telecom Services, P V Jayakrishnan, secretary to the Ministry of Information Technology, has pointed out that the assurance to Telecom Commission on submission of technical/business, plans "as and when ready" has not been done. Jayakrishnan has alleged that the "Note for the Cabinet" did not give full information. It was wrong to say that "the concept has been seen and approved by the Telecom Commission", he says in the letter. This is a serious lapse.

The Sankhya Vahini is not an ordinary project. It will have a massive band width. The data flow will be at 2.5 to 40 gigabits per second (gbps). This is roughly thousand times more than the existing network. It means that the ‘Vahini’ will control practically all activities and players in the information and communication field. In other words, it will exercise a techno-monopoly over ever future data and voice transfers.

Similar networks--the US and China have them--are strictly under the government and exclusively under Defence control. How can India afford to give control of channels of communication and information to a foreign venture partner? There is more to it than what meets the eye. Even the central cabinet was not informed that IU-Net was a 100 percent subsidiary of GU-Net. Who are they? The government has not yet disclosed the names of the promoters of the GU-Net. And what is its relationship with the CMU.

There is no doubt that the lifting of ban on the commodities and the shady Sankhya Vahini are a fallout from the government’s pro-active policy to placate Washington. Probably, it is because of the influence of the pro-American lobby which surrounds Vajpayee.

Remotely, the name of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu has been mentioned in this context. His party is a constituent of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). His clout cannot be taken lightly because his 28 Lok Sabha members do give Vajpayee a clear majority in the lower House. And none can deny the fact that Naidu backed Vajpayee when AIADMK chief Jayalalitha withdrew her support.

The ‘Vahini’ is a scam which must be looked into by a parliamentary committee of both houses. All relevant papers, notes and letters must be placed before the public. If the transparency of decision has any meaning, this is the least the Vajpayee government can do. Let the people judge.