Address the problem

The construction by India of an afflux dam in South Laxmanpur barrage across the Rapti river without Nepal’s consent is an indication that India does not apply to itself the same standards that it expects from others. Technically, this amounts to gross violation of international law since it has affected Nepal in a very adverse manner. The construction of the afflux dam has submerged hundreds of hectares of arable land and dislocated thousands of people. This is proof once more, if ever proof was needed that India continues to violate the understanding reached between itself and Nepal to consult with one another before launching river projects along border areas. It also goes against accepted international practices. Environmentalists who raised hue and cry at the time of the construction of the dam were unheeded. Had our pliant government taken the right steps at the right time, so many Nepalese would not have been rendered homeless and the human disaster could have been prevented.

Report state that the construction will inundate some 15,000 settlements, over 200 houses in Holya VDC alone. Over 500 people living on the Nepali side have already been affected. Before undertaking the afflux dam, India should have acted on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Inundation between Nepal and India (SCINI). However, the fact that it did not pay any heed to SCINI speaks volumes about the Indian attitude. Unfortunately, the Nepalese government failed to recognise the threat of the afflux dam to people as well as its territory and to take up the issue with New Delhi at the right time. As a result, the people of the area have been pushed towards the wall and there seems to be no way out for them except to abandon their ancestral lands. We had earlier warned the government that such a situation could develop if it failed to settle the issue with India.

The initial study when the afflux dam was under construction showed that the 22 kilometre long barrage would inundate at least nine village development committees displacing thousands of people. India had, as precautionary measure, resettled 52 villages but failed to provide similar land for resettlement on the Nepali side of the border.

It is strange that India, which often stresses the bilateral agreement governing projects, should itself build such a huge dam without our notice that too so near the international border without even consulting the Nepalese government? Was the government asleep at the time of the construction? The government cannot remain silent when thousands of citizens are being displaced and India continues to violate international norms. The government must not delay taking up this issue with India. Neither should it hesitate to take recourse to appropriate international forums including the International Court of Justice at the Hague to remedy the situation.

A case for federalism

By Sanjay Serchan

The Nepalese constitution of 1990, while accepting Nepal as a multiethnic, multilingual state, has also labelled it as a unitary state. This is in accordance with and continuation of the centralizing tendency following the ‘unification’ of the country. Some may even argue that such tendency is inextricably associated with the formation of a nation-state. It is, however, proposed here that Nepal’s future as a nation-state lies not in disregarding but in accepting its diversity and, henceforth, building upon it.

The idea of a federal Nepal raises, first and foremost, the question about the basis for such federalism. As the emphasis here is on territorial, and not non-territorial federalism, the basis put forward for the dissection of the country into federal regions is language. Language groups in their traditional territories will form the federal states. For example, in the hills, there are language groups like Newari, Tamang, Kirant, Magar and Gurung. The first-language speakers of these languages have their own distinct geographical areas, such as the Newari speakers in Kathmandu valley, Kirant in the east, Tamang around Kathmandu valley, Magar and Gurung in the west, and various other languages in the far west. In the Terai, there are first-language speakers of Tharu, Maithili, Avadhi, Bhojpuri, Urdu and several other languages. The one difference that could be put forward between the native languages of the Terai and the hills is that while the first language speakers in the hills are coterminous with a particular caste/ethnic group, this is not always the case in the Terai. Hence, a language like Maithili in the Terai can be a first language of various caste/ethnic groups.

Another important characteristic of the hills is the large number of Nepali first-language speakers, due to the spread of Bahuns, Chhetris and occupational castes like Kami, Damai and Sarki. The Terai too, to some extent, shows this characteristic, owing to the downward migration from the hills. Given this context, while federal divisions can follow linguistic divisions, a practical policy in the federated regions, nonetheless, might be the adopted of bilingualism. For example, in Kathmandu, Newari and Nepali can be the two languages to be used from schools to government offices. (With English as an additional language this would in effect mean a trilingual policy.) Along with this division of the country into federal regions on the basis of language, there can also be, for the relatively small groups like Santhal, Dura, Dhimal and nomadic or semi-nomadic people like Raute who do not fit into the federal scheme of things, special provisions in their traditional homelands.

A proposal for federal Nepal can raise controversies, as it runs counter to the prevalent ideologies. Some may question the grounds for federalism in a small country like Nepal. A federal system, however, has been found suitable not only for countries that are large in terms of size as well as population, such as India, but also for small countries like Switzerland. Another recurring criticism might be that federalism entails costs which could be better utilized elsewhere. But development, as humans have begun to realize, is not a purely economic matter. Nor does economic development completely obliterate local identities, as the examples of Fiji, "one of the richest countries in the Pacific" and several European countries evince. The affirmation of local identities can provide impetus to development, as the various peoples, with authority over a wide range of issues in their geographical areas, will see themselves as stakeholders in the development of their respective localities.

A common fear associated with federalism is that it gives rise to separatist tendencies that might ultimately lead to the break up of the country. It would be more correct to say that the suppressing of local voices and assertiveness will in the long run create an explosive situation where the future of the country itself might be at stake.

Another imagined scenario of those in opposition to federalism is that federal division will encourage other countries to play upon the cleavages created by it. With regard to this, it can be said that no country can afford to support separatist elements in another country without the fear of bringing the very consequences upon itself. A country encouraging separatist elements in another country will not be in a moral position to deny the same rights to its peoples, when and where they demand them. This, as some commentators have observed, is what has desisted India from supporting the Tamil Tigers fighting for a separate homeland in Sri Lanka. A Tamil victory in nearby Sri Lanka can lead to the unravelling of India itself, not only from Kashmir to the North-East, but also in its own Tamil heartland, Tamilnadu.

The local assertiveness evidenced following the restoration of democracy need not be viewed negatively. It is a sign of the people seeking their rightful place in the polity, and is an inevitable consequence of democratization. We would, in this context, do well to remember that there were various nationalities living in their traditional homelands before the ‘unification’ of Nepal. The imposition of "Gorkhali" nationalism and the consequent Nepalese nationalist historiography has effectively obliterated this fact. An acknowledgment and reaffirmation of these nationalities, in the form of federally autonomous regions, can be the greatest gift of the Nepalese nation-state to its citizens, the various peoples who have resided within its geographical boundaries.

An ad hoc picnicking

By Keshab Raj Acharya

The law of love, the demand for the impossible, and our constant failures and transgression create in us grief and a tension that may drive us to despair. Hereupon results the anxiety of life. Sometimes a curative capsule of new experience is necessary to break free from the anxiety of life. But it would not work always.

Many people take life very seriously but there are others who are frivolous and happy-go-lucky. Reading books, watching TV, listening to the radio or moving around the movie theatres are some of the sweetest sources of pleasure. But can we really get an exciting pleasure from picnicking?

A few days back, we went for a picnic. Once away from the madding crowd, a strange sensation overwhelmed me. I was no longer cut off from my elements. Back to nature is the only way out from the anxieties that besiege us. Picnicking is a source of revisiting Wordsworthian ideal lake district. Even if it were off-season, the spot was already full of galaxies of dance, songs and the seductive delicacies. My mouth constantly watered. We kept ourselves busy at this beautiful and sui generis place.

As my nature, I was constantly on the move to observe the other colourful groups diving for the same resolution. With an eager excitement to have new experience, I roamed about like a cat observing the picnickers there. I started questioning myself; why are so many people diving for picnicking? Are there no other ways out to get pleasure?

Anyway, the smiling colourful eatables reached us. My senses were gratified and refreshed by a thousand scents of delights and a thousand sights of beauty. Many people were assiduously busy in clicking snapshots from different angles. It seemed that there was a caravan of the snapshooters for taking part in photo-competition next day. I could hardly find people expressing the sense of despondency in their complexion. One could implicitly surmise the sense of ardour, enthusiasm and excitement in everyone’s appearance. Even the palpitating heart-beat could be reckoned easily. The whole atmosphere was full of gaiety, pleasure, enjoyment, marry-making, hilarity, conviviality, joviality, jocundity...

It was really a great chance for me to cast aside the ‘hump’--the anxiety of life--for a moment to involve in that jocundity. A new sort of experience with intense pleasure was blooming in us. I would hardly be able to describe the trembling sensation of fear and fascination. But, alas, it couldn’t continue. As we resolved to quit the place, something suddenly dragged me back. I turned back and visualised the ‘hump’ slouching towards me for its second-coming. I realized that ambivalent spots were throwing the arrows towards me with some questions: Are all people really cultured for picnicking? Or is it just for the sake of raw pleasure?

I thought the spots were still waiting for our next arrival to have fun and pleasure with new experience. Then, being deranged from the gaiety, I humped myself again for the drudgery of daily chores.

The dynamics of change
An exercise in proxy jingoism

By Basanta Lohani

What was posted as Nepal Gameplan, a 78 page Indian Intelligence report in the Internet through the Indian newsmagazine India Today that has stood by its story even in its latest issue gives us glimpses of South Block’s psyche towards Nepal more than anything else. The report describes, linking prominent personalities of our country among others, about increasing activities of Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI in Nepal posing a security threat to India. It was timed a day ahead of the arrival of the Indian prime minister’s security advisor Brajesh Mishra in Kathmandu June 6, leading a high level Indian delegation for talks with Nepalese officials. In Kathmandu, he distanced himself from the report but pursued talks very much along the lines of the report. A historical perspective is necessary to understand this ‘duality’.

Indian foreign policy towards Nepal still embodies a residual continuity of the colonial foreign policy that British India practiced till 1947. Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru negotiated India’s independence with the thirteenth, the last and the least tenured British viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten who also continued to be the highest authority for a year as governor general of independent India. Nehru, who secured the midnight freedom of August 14 after two hundred years of British rule, thus, echoed his sentiment on that fateful occasion as India’s prime minister to his three hundred and thirty million people: "While the world sleeps India will awake to life and freedom." The Indian population now has grown to touch one billion and India is yet to awake fully to life. A man of history, as he was, he died in the early hours of May 27, 1964 with a broken heart after running India as a very influential prime minister for seventeen years.

This is the period that bred the contradictions so overtly in the ageold relation between Nepal and India of over twenty five hundred years. Nehru’s liberal attitudes and his further commitment to Panchasheel that he propounded together with Presidents Sukarno of Indonesia, Nasser of Egypt, and Tito of Yugoslavia underscored a relation with Nepal based on genuine respect for Nepal’s sovereignty, independence and non-interference in its internal affairs. On the other hand, the Indian bureaucracy inherited the colonial foreign policy from its British masters which reflected in what can be termed the ‘brown sahib’ attitudes while dealing with Nepal. Thus, Nehru’s liberalism and the bureaucracy’s continuity of colonial policy could never converge like the two banks of a river. So this ‘duality’ or dualistic attitude has manifested plenty of overt irritations, at times bizarre, in Nepal-India relations all along this period. The 1950’s treaty is a blatant outcome of this duality.

India helped the democratic movement led by Nepali congress in its armed struggle to overthrow 104 years of Rana oligarchy in Nepal and at the same time assured the then ruler Mohan Shumsher of a possible rescue, thus, alluring him to sign the treaty of 1950 that is tantamount to ceding Nepal’s sovereignty to a significant extent though the text of the treaty is topped with reciprocal parlance. This is how the Delhi compromise of January 16, 1951 on Nehru’s initiative provided fresh lease of reduced life to the same Mohan Shumsher to continue as the new prime minister from 18th February against whose regime the whole democratic struggle was waged. Another duality was that progressive forces on the one side and extremely feudal forces on the other, were artificially blended into forming Nepal’s political mainstream that carried an undercurrent of a long silent cry. This is how political forces could not go through a natural process and, thus, politics could not crystallize at a point safeguarding broader national interest and economic interdependence. The Indian security attitude governed Nepal’s ground realities as its ‘sphere of influence’ to such an extent that Nehru, in 1960, declared Indian frontier extending to the northern Himalayas for which he had to apologize.

King Mahendra’s rule (1960-1972) through his ‘Panchayat Democracy’, after his takeover on 15th December 1960 from ten years of democratic dispensation and based on ‘soil and climate theory of politics’ similar to that of Ayub Khan’s ‘Basic Democracy’ in Pakistan and Sukarno’s ‘Guided Democracy’ in Indonesia, brought Indian insistence on ‘special relationship’ and ‘special interest’ in Nepal for its security concern into very close scrutiny. Nepal’s refusal to accept India’s different shades of ‘King Maker’ role and formulation and practicing of her own independent foreign policy without India’s blessing marked a major departure during this period. The dualistic foreign policy of India got a rude shock first in 1955 after King Mahendra ascended the throne and wanted to follow independent foreign policy without India’s guidance. It was much more this time in the days following the royal takeover.

The message was clearly put across that, gone were the days of Indian advisors managing cabinet affairs like in King Tribhuvan’s time, Indian Military Mission of 1952, Indian technical personnel at the checkposts along the Nepal China border in Tibet, the way Indian army and police could cross inside Nepal three times between 1951 and 1953, though of course at Nepal’s request, and the type of river agreements harnessing Nepal’s Koshi in 1954 and Gandak in 1959 primarily for India’s use. The relationship, after being jittery initially adjusted to the changed setting and perception and finally found its stability in a new equilibrium in 1964 when Lal Bahadur Shastri became India’s prime minister after the death of Nehru. However, the dualistic attitude never changed to converge into one, thus, disturbing this equilibrium continuously showing exasperating deviations. This attitude which remained fairly at bay managed to rear its head the moment it got an opportunity during the 1990’s movement for the restoration of democracy in trying to secure a Mohan Shumsher style document from the outgoing Panchayat regime. Just a case of insensitive behaviour at this point in time is what was reported the other day about India’s construction of a barrage at the Rapti river near Nepal-India border violating international law and adversely affecting 15,000 villagers of 33 villages in Nepal.

There is no denying that both India and China, as our giant neighbours are also hostile to each other, and both do have their concern in Nepal. It can be defined as ‘Minimum Interest Level’. Any attempt by any of our neighbour to increase this ‘Minimum Interest Level’ will always come directly in a collision course with Nepal’s nationalism. Nepal is not what it was in the 1950s. An educated middle class, by now, has already emerged in this country. They are agile, sensitive and capable of withstanding any attempt to increase this ‘Minimum Interest Level’ inside our country. Borrowing the term ‘Prime Mover’ that Karl Marx used to describe for Proletariat, I consider this educated middle class of our country as the ‘Prime Mover’, not as a centre of power but the one that shapes public opinion which, once it percolates down to the people, becomes the national passion and fervour. It is true that this class is heterogeneous with a number of cleavages inside its stratum and therefore opportunists and even economic parasites breed inside but when it comes to safeguarding the broader national interest, I am confident, that this class is homogeneous.

India should become sensitive to this national sensibility while dealing with Nepal and never attempt to increase its minimum interest level by hurting this sensibility just because of its size and strength. Any such attempt either politically or economically will only breed more pervasive anti India feeling and strengthen the ultra nationalistic notion that to be nationalist means to be anti India which is not true. For a nationalist does not have to be anti India. To this end, India should stop meddling in our affairs and discard its dualistic attitudes in favour of a relationship of genuine friendship. And Nepal, on its part, should assure and be equally sensitive to India’s genuine concerns. When viewed from this ground reality, the posting of the Nepal Gameplan on the Internet with sundry names in it could be thought of as yet another attempt at a dualistic attitude. If this is indeed the way it is, then this is certainly an exercise in proxy jingoism, which is harmful for a sustained Nepal India relations based on respect for each other’s aspirations and concern.