Fight untouchability

It is indeed shameful that the prevalent social and religious conditions in our society still condones untouchability, the most heinous crime against humanity. Although discrimination among individuals exists in every society in some form or the other, the degree in which it varies determines to what extent people in a country are deprived of their due rights and social respect. In Nepali society, the problem appears to be the tenacious hold the outdated but rigid age-old caste system has over the minds of people despite the existence of laws that guarantee equality and liberty. Such a socio-religious ethos has done terrible harm to our society, and the country will continue to remain backward as long as discrimination based on the caste factor continues.

When Manu divided society it was conceived of as a mechanism not only to ensure the division of labour but also to govern the social and religious activities of every individual. The caste system, in its original form had nothing to do with untouchability. However, over the centuries, the castes gradually rigidified to restrict certain sections of the people from attending or mingling in social and religious gatherings. This practice turned into untouchability and that still exists in our society, especially in remote areas depriving many of the opportunities that should be theirs. Such discrimination would not have continued to exist had successive governments effectively implemented the laws that guarantee equality and liberty to all citizens. Unfortunately, this did not happen. What has happened is that the rights of the so called lower caste people have ever been trampled upon. They have thus become victims of oppression.

The Constitution of Nepal, 1990, guarantees that no person shall be discriminated on the basis of untouchability, neither shall any individual be denied access to any public place nor shall anyone be deprived of using public utilities. Any violation of this is punishable. Although there are laws to punish, the government has failed to implement them effectively and people continue to ignore the laws against untouchability. This apart, the fine one has to pay if he or she violates the law and is punished at all, does not exceed 250 rupees. The punishment can hardly be considered a deterrent. The government will therefore have to work on amending the laws so that the law itself can be the best preventive measure. The lower caste people may have to be given protection and new opportunities will definitely have to be opened to them. Only then will it be possible to uplift this class and bring
them into the mainstream of society where they can lead a life of dignity.

HRC : The question of independence

By Govinda Pyakurel

There is always an assumption among Nepalese people that Nepalese legislature makes best laws but its implemention side is very ineffective. Speculations are very high whether the same thing will not happen with the newly established Human Rights Commission (HRC). There are doubts not because of the controversy about the then suspected Panchayat attachment of its chairperson, soon after his appointment to the post, but questions have been raised about its independence and the way the commission will implement its decisions.

At the time of appointments of its members there was a rumour among intellectuals that some of the members had been appointed following an agreement between the government and the main opposition to settle some political issues crucially awaiting in the Parliament. Some analyzers said that due to the provision of law which includes the leader of the opposition of the House of Representatives as member of the recommending committee for appointing members of the commission, the government was forced to accept the advice made by the leader of the opposition party in the Parliament. Whatever may be the reason, it is really surprising that UML, after setting up the commission, seems to be in sound sleep but the Nepalese people feel very anxious to know the reason behind their relaxation, since this is old kind of phenomenon in Nepalese politics that critical political crusades are settled with a mutual perk of give and take outside the parliament. This old prevalence has proved once again true when the main opposition gave up its previous demand of expelling the state minister for Forest, Mohamod Aftab Alam from his post--an issue that had enormously disturbed the last sitting of the House of Representatives. But what is remarkable is the opposition in parliament should not feel being obliged on having got a chance to appoint somebody in any public post. It is its right to be involved in that course and there is no need to shut down its significant movement, forgetting the fact that involvement of the opposition party in governance is not the grant of the government but the essential practice of parliamentary system. And such provisions are duly indorsed in the laws.

It goes without saying that most of the incidents of human rights violation are caused by the government itself. The government does not seem to be aware of the fact that the Human Rights are the exclusive rights of the citizens of the country. Therefore, HRC should be an independent body to watch every activity that the government could perform against the fundamental rights of the people.

HRC Act 1996, Article 7 reads like this: "Remuneration, facilities and their terms and conditions will be as per rules, that is to say these benefits will in no case be less than the benefits provided to a judge of the Supreme Court." This means, the position of the chief commissioner of HRC is very high, equivalent to the post of the judge of the Supreme Court. The preamble of HRC Act, 1996 also categorically argues that HRC should be an independent and autonomous body. All it means is Human Rights Commission is profoundly autonomous authority and it is by no means less independent than the Supreme Court.

The judge of Supreme Court including the chief justice cannot be removed from their posts unless two thirds of the members of the House of Representatives vote against them. But in case of Human Rights Commission, any member of the Commission may be removed if the human rights committee of Parliament, with the two thirds majority of the two thirds presence, decide against any member of the commission and the decision is approved by a meeting of House of Representatives.

There is no need for an extra pair of spectacles to know the difference between the two thirds majority of House of Representatives and Human Rights committee of the Parliament. There are maximum of 25 member lawmakers in Human Rights Committee of Parliament nominated by the Speaker. Every year the Speaker can reshuffle the 25 percent of the members of the committee. It is an established fact that treasury holds the majority in the committees. In fact, in the game of number, 12 lawmakers in the committee can decide the fate of any member commissioner.

It is not necessary to mention that Nepal is far behind other countries in terms of practising quality politics. Where the Speaker of parliament always stands in favour of government, what could be expected of the members of parliament who feel proud of being called as ruling party workers?

Unlike the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), which is supposed to be a constitutional body, Human Rights Commission has been established on the basis of law made by the parliament. Although the CIAA holds all the powers that Nepal police exercise during an investigation of criminal offence, nobody is pretty satisfied with the performance of this body so far. To the utter surprise of Nepalese people, CIAA has been defeated in 98 percent cases in the court of law. There is an undersurface roar against its inability and implication.

For the Human Rights Commission, the power of investigation provided by law is very limited. According to the law, HRC can call a person to come to its office to be questioned, make a testimony of witnesses, call for a copy of necessary documents from public offices, collect evidences and make on-the-spot investigation. The commission also feels the need of public hearing and the law grants it to do so. The commission is equipped with all the power exactly the same way as an independent court of law while dealing with cases. Despite such power, one should not fall in illusions that HRC can take any guilty of human rights violation into its custody or sack any government employee from his/her post.

The CIAA chief commissioner and the member commissioners are appointed through the same process as the chief justice of Supreme Court is appointed. The status and facilities are also the same as that of a Supreme Court judge. But the equilibrium of outcome of their job is so unbalanced that CIAA and HRC can be defeated on the battlefield by what is supposed as a lower court, authority or an officer. Isn’t it an instance of Nepali way of good investment and the bad profit?

Article 13 of HRC Act says, as a result of Commission’s investigation, if the Commission found any person guilty, it could write to the concerned authority for the necessary proceedings. Sub article 4 of the same article says, in response to the written request for proceedings forwarded by the commission, the concerned officials or authorities should proceed according to the request of HRC or in case of its inability to proceed, the same version, with reasons, should be submitted back to the office of the Commission. The provision of law makes it clear that mere explanations of concerned authorities can erase all the efforts made by HRC.

Doesn’t it merely look like a body, which accredits certificates of validity to the government’s inhuman actions? The doubt even gets more prominent as the sub article C of article 10 of HRC Act clearly states that HRC cannot interevene in any criminal cases, if the Attorney General certifies that the intervention of HRC might cause an adverse effect to investigating and pursuing the criminal.

According to sub article 2 of the article 13, the Commission has the authority to ask the concerned officials or authorities to make compensation available to the victims of Human Rights violations from human rights violators. As the laws have not finalized the process and procedure of compensation yet, it is very difficult to say whether the victims should be compensated right straightaway by the violators or through the commission itself. In my opinion, the Commission should be responsible for making compensation money available to the victims of the incidents of human rights violations. But later, the compensation money should be reimbursed from the violators through the government, as there is no provision that the Commission should forcibly ask the violators to pay the compensation money to the victims straightaway. This kind of mechanism should be developed as the government has every authority to force the violators of human rights to pay the compensation money to the victims.

A letter from domestic refugees

By Razen

Dear Kathmanduites,
0First of all, on behalf of all members of the caravan, I apologize for coming without prior information. Actually, my secretary tried to contact you people through the mobile phone but you were out of connection. Anyway, thank you very much for accepting us as new guests in this sacred valley.

I fell in love with Kathmandu at the very first sight. It is full of sleek vehicles, exciting Internet, hanky-panky politics, hot fashion shows, chatty FM programmes and what not. Besides, I can see some filthy temples too.

We have a story to tell you. There are some remote villages around Rolpa and Rukum. Some educated (but not wise) people sowed an adventure called People’s War some five years ago in the hope of harvesting riches without much toil. The war-makers did not have to spend a lot to sell dreams among the starving villagers who had no other choice. They indeed made quite a good business at the beginning. But later, it became only a battlefield of the so called rebels and policemen. Then the villagers realized that setting fire in one’s home to keep oneself warm is not a good idea. But this late disillusionment cost them a lot. This story is the background of our unwelcomed arrival in the capital.

Accepting refugees is the destiny of Kathmandu. All, including the Gopals, the Licchahivis, the Mallas and many more were, in some way or the other, refugees. It has accepted Indians and Tibetans now and then. The more refugees the better political commotion. The refugees not only bring their baggage but also some stories, messages and demands. They obviously lead to several ad-hoc committees, press releases, protests, lathi charges in the streets and questions in the House and reaction among the internationally funded human rights activists.

Now, let’s talk something about internal refugees. It is not the first time Kathmandu is accepting them for God’s sake. Since over two hundred years, the flow of fortune seekers has never taken a pause. Thanks to the benevolent policy of Kathmandu, that jungles of Chhauni, Budhanilkantha, Chabahil, Baneshowr, Satdobato, Kalanki, Maharajgunj are being turned into concrete blocks with zero urban planning. What ails if some two hundred more people join the pack?

You might wonder why we have chosen the Ansan Dablee in front of Singha Durbar and live in deplorable camps. This is called politics. For some days, we make a hue and cry - organize press conferences, distribute pamphlets, collect donations and even stage soap operas of hunger strike. When our tattered dresses, bedding, cooking, toilets etc. will be published in leading newspapers; the fools of Kathmandu will be sympathetic to us. Neither will anybody notice what kind of arrangements we have besides acting like dramatists on the Ansan Dablee.

In the meantime, we invite more and more residents of the so called Maoist-stricken areas to our battalion and others, with the same ratio will disperse and mix up with thousands of squatters living on river banks, temples and other public places. This is a good chance because the Metropolis family has other problems in its agenda. Meanwhile, we continue bargaining with our lawmakers and slowly, we will get some lucrative jobs, buy land and build houses as big as those of ministers. Then who will call us refugees?

In short, we are playing in this drama because there is something in Kathmandu. We fully anticipate your cooperation. Thank you.

With regards,
The refugees of Maoist-stricken area

Privatization is not ultimate solution

By Milan Gaurtuala

With the wave of globalisation hitting the developed countries, even leadership of developing countries like Nepal are thinking that the last solution to improve the condition of government owned company is to privatize them. In addition to earn and give the revenue to the government, these types of companies which are under the government authority have become just like the white elephant. Not only the democratic government, even rulers during the Panchayat days took the issue as a chronic headache for them. Privatization was thus planned even by the Panchayat government. The democratic governments, irrespective of whichever party formed them, just continued the programme. Therefore, to be far from the authority of company was the demand of time for any government.

In the real sense it is not necessary to actively involve in business area for a government. Government is not for the business and production of luxuries. It can only play the role of inspiration. That is why after the restoration of democracy, the Nepali Congress that got the mandate to form the government listed the companies to be privatized. As per the policy taken by the leadership, three companies—Bhrikuti Paper Mills, Bhansbari Leather Factory and Harisiddi Brick Factory—have already been privatized and so they have got rid of government clutches. Likewise other fifteen companies like the then Royal Nepal Film Corporation were also in the privatization programme. The leadership did just what the global experts and opinion leaders desire.

The matter should be handled according to Nepalese soil and atmosphere. Such types of steps, in fact, are suitable or unnecessary for the sake of the Nepalese people and the country. This has raised a new question on present time. Still, the government is planning to do more privatization of public corporations and companies on the days ahead. It has been declared by the leaders and elaborated by their advisors.

Here, the matter is that the government must be clear that what types of companies should be handed over to the people and private party. Will they subsidize the people who are affected by the particular companies? The government has been unable to provide clear answer on this. The voice of privatization and liberal economy has become just the parrot song. Yes, we agree that the duty of the government is not to produce the feature films. This may be the only engagement so only the government inspires such types of companies. The result comes positively in production of such things which are not in priority in the eye of people; so there is no objection to the government. Likewise, there are so many things which have not been listed in the column of basic needs of people which should be produced by the businessmen. As a result, some companies like Shoes Factory is closed but the production of shoes is much more now. Thus the death of these types of companies is meaningless. The objection may be only on the matter of selling amount. In this matter, the Minister or the authorized persons who take initiatives to detach a company from the government may loose these companies for a very low price. The objection falls only in this matter.

Here the government is listing other more companies, which are the most necessary for the people in terms and condition of service. For example, Nepal Drinking Water Supply Corporation is an important company, and if the government lists for privatization, it will not be rational because by trying to get rid of the financial crisis, the government would be running away from its duties. Companies which cater to the basic needs of people should be under the government at any cost. To counter the possible loss, the government instead has to try to search ways to improve performance. It is desirable for the mother to clean the hands of her daughter rather than to cut and throw them.

Education, health, drinking water and electric services are the authority of every citizen, which must be granted by the government in very low price. Even the hard capitalist government invests its big amount in allocation of its budget to these types of social sectors. But in Nepal government is trying to hand over even a corporation like Water Supply to the business groups. Will it be rational?

We agree that most of the companies are in loss, just like the Drinking Water Supply Corporation but the government should go to the depth, to search the cause behind the regression. Corruption, overstaffing, political pressure are some points to pull the companies into ill financial health. And the diagnosis of such type of illness is not new. They are identified from Panchayat era to the present time. But no government has appeared bold to give a sound leadership to cure such types of chronic diseases. If one staff is sufficient for a given work, there are more than four people appointed. This is the burden for companies. We know that the picture of government is dramatically changing in short time. Then every new government is busy to change management that is why they (the people who are in the management) try to become rich overnight by exploiting and doing any unfair trick against the general welfare of a company. Here, the point is that the corporations have been converted into meaningless institution due to the careless and inefficient working of the government, be it majority or coalition one. Thus every government has made the corporations their own private property to be shared among party workers and leaders. When political parties, when in power, exploit the companies by using all their efforts, companies are compelled to become the cricket ball of money, power and leaders. That is why the condition of such types of companies is getting financially ill day by day. A small unit of advisors suggests privatization of a company to the government. Donor agencies like World Bank and IMF press the government to hand over the companies for the definite party, and the government gives in to them. The government is not serious on a study whether the company should be privatized or to be strengthened in its existing management.

Therefore, some companies, which were basically established to achieve the motto of service and subsidy to people, should in no way be listed for privatization. If government uses the media to inform the people about the companies which are going to be privatized, let it also inform people about the companies that would not be privatized. Only then can people have some faith and clarity on the government’s policies and plans.