Koirala's hazy signal

The all-powerful Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala has brought in Finance Minister Mahesh Acharya, his protegee and relative, as Defence Minister to rescue him from his present predicament. The government is facing all round criticism and trouble over its inability to maintain even a semblance of law and order in some parts of the country or to provide a sense of security to the people in most parts of the country.  "Sources" close to the prime minister and the government claim that this is a clear signal to the King and to the Army that the government intends to suppress the Maoist rebellion. This apparently means that Acharya can do what the Prime Minister could not or would not do. If the prime minister could not do it, there is little chance that his defence minister can do it. But we were never told officially if the Prime Minister ever attempted to use the Army and if he did, whether the army refused to obey his order.

There is little doubt that a very loud and clear signal is being sent to the Bhattarai and Deuba camp that Koirala's preferred choice as successor is Acharya rather than Deuba. The new defence minister will no doubt do something if only to prove that Koirala's decision was a wise one. He can do no less. In the process, the army could be used to quell the Maoist insurgency. To some extent, it might even meet with success. For the army, unlike the police do not have to interact with the people and the only training given to soldiers is in ways to kill. If the government thinks this is the desirable and only option open to it, then it is very surprising that it has not yet ordered the army to take action against the Maoists.

There can be no second opinion that the army must be under  government control. This is true not only in democracies but in authoritarian regimes as well except, may be, in military dictatorships. It is unfortunate that there is even a debate about this, specially after the Defence Ministry issued a statement the other day that the army was fully under government control. There are allegations that the ministry issued the statement without the knowledge of the Defence Minister. If so, this  is a serious flaw on the part of the Defence Minister who was unable to control his own ministry. Such a person should have had no option but to resign. We, therefore, assume that the ministry statement was endorsed by the Defence Minister who then also happened to be the Prime Minister. With Maoists now openly saying no to talks with the present government, time might have come to deal with the Maoists firmly.

Let the government order the army to take charge of security.  Even though the army will be stretched thin, specially if the Maoists diversify their areas of operation, there will at least be the consolation that the government tried everything in its power to bring the insurgency under control. We have never been told that such an attempt was made by different governments in power in the past. And unless the government really thinks and believes that the new strategy will deliver the goods, we might run out of options and land in a mess that will drown the army, police and the nation. We sincerely hope that Koirala has not acted hastily without taking into consideration the far reaching consequences or that Koirala acted only to spite his rivals within his own party.

Politicization of Nepalese bureaucracy

By Shanker KC

Terminologies like neutrality, commitment and impartiality have come into much vogue after the advent of multiparty democratic system in the country. Neutrality from political ideologies and fulfilment of professional duties are expected from a civil servant in the multiparty system. Neutrality is essential as the administration should be able to serve and comply with different governments in power irrespective of their political ideologies. Similarly, commitment to socioeconomic development and nation building and impartiality in service delivery are also much desired qualities in professional bureaucrats.

However, the situation is pretty much opposite in practice. Nepalese civil service in the post-multiparty era has become over politicized. The major victim of this overt politicization of bureaucracies has been its professionalism. Sycophancy, attachment to political parties and ideologies or ability to change colour with change in government shape the career of a civil servant rather than work efficiency, ability educational qualifications and training, seniority etc which comprise the backbone of merit civil service. There is widespread discrimination in transfers, placements, promotions in our administration. Political parties, while they are in opposition, often cry hoarse over the politicization of the  bureaucracy however, once in power their practice remains the same. This double standard among our politicians and parties has further exasperated the already worsening situation.

To a certain extent politicization of bureaucracy is inevitable, as the bureaucracy mainly functions in a political environment. Neutrality as a concept is a very difficult ideology and difficult to achieve. Sometimes bureaucracy may even control and direct the political system because of its permanence, expertise and monopoly in access to information. Political control over bureaucracy is needed to ensure accountability to people through political leadership. However, in Nepal, this control has rarely has been used for the benefit of common people and development of professional bureaucracy. Political superiority over bureaucracy has been mainly for vested political and personal benefits. The recent amendment in the civil service act has been much lauded as an effective mechanism to curb discrimination in civil service transfers and placements. In the absence of effective management audit and deficiencies in the Ministry of General Administration in its organizational structures and capabilities in fulfilling its role of a central personnel agency, the act has become just a show case. Many instances of violations of this act have already surfaced. Political sincerity and commitment is also essential for the effective implementation of the act, which is very much lacking in the present context. These distortions have created a good environment for fulfilling the vested interests of a few rather than the professional development of the civil service.

Public unionism also, instead of contributing to professional development of the service has contributed to polluting the neutrality of civil service. Every recognized national political party has its own employees unions and these unions openly advocate their political parties instead of furthering the professional interests of the service.

Commitment in the bureaucracy in Nepal has often been misinterpreted as  commitment to political ideology, not to   commitment to socioeconomic development of the nation. There are many critics who claim that neutral bureaucracy is insensitive to socioeconomic transformations of the country and interested mainly in its own betterment, so  true commitment according to them can only be obtained by politicising the bureaucracy. However, this misadventure has proved disastrous going by the experience of many countries. Political neutrality is essential to ensure impartiality in service delivery and to increase people's confidence in the bureaucracy. Lack of neutrality will result in confusion and chaos in administration which will ultimately become detrimental to the nation.

To promote and boost neutrality and make bureaucracy more responsive to socioeconomic development of the nation, neutral institutions like public service commission should be strengthened. Management audit system should be introduced and its audit report effectively implemented to check the observance of rules and regulations. Ministry of General Administration should equip itself for effective management audit. Its organizational capabilities should be strengthened to meet the rising challenges of administrative development in the next millennium.

The career path of each and every individual civil servant should be designed in advance so as to minimize the manipulation and discrimination in placements, transfers and promotions. Day to day running of administration should be insulated from political intervention, and political authorities should limit themselves to monitoring irregularities and nonobservance of rules and regulations. Politicisation of public union should be stopped. Most important of all, the merit system should be consolidated and reward and punishment should be based on performance.

It is now time to realize that without a neutral and impartial bureaucracy, the country is going to lose direction and anarchy will prevail. Administrative neutrality is the essential condition for the functioning of a multiparty democratic system. So political parties should sincerely work toward safeguarding the neutrality of the bureaucracy for the better interest of the nation.

An obscure war

By  Prakash Atreya

People die in war. People participate in the war game to die. Wars kill people. But for some people it is fun. Since prehistoric times, mankind has been carried away by the innate instinct to see people fight. More precisely, they like to see people crying in agony and the chaotic atmosphere that is created.

The case in Nepal is similar. The war between the Maoist and the government has engulfed each and every Nepalese citizen. The death toll due to fighting between the police and  Maoist has shot up. This game of death is being played professionally by both the parties and there is no indication who will win. It is extending and stretching with new twists and turns every day. It seems that both parties are enjoying the game and feel no hurry to end it. They are neglecting the fact that the people are suffering. They are making the people suffer.

The police squad indiscriminately attacked the local people without any reason in Nawalparasi and Parsa injuring many villagers. Many people protested this action and went on to the streets to show their disapproval. Most people condemned the government for this act. As always, the concerned authority has promised to punish the guilty ones.

This, I believe, has always been a part of a game to make it more interesting, to make the people suffer more. The people are dying and no actions are being taken against the murderers. Moreover, nothing has been done to those people in superior positions who are saving these slayers.

We are a part of this war. We are the innocent victims who suffer. But we too show no concern about ending the war. We sit silently in our rooms listening to the news of people dying and the violence engulfing the country. We let the game go on. Some of us are so busy with our own lives that we do not have time to think of such matters. Other so-called good citizens of the country just take it as a topic of discussion for their leisure time. Such nature of Nepalese people, I think, is the main cause why this game continues. Also, some corrupt people are taking advantage of the situation in the country to fulfil their heinous motives. This has made the present condition of Nepal worse than the Rana regime.

We are blaming the government and  law enforcers for what is currently happening in the country. But in one way or the other, we are also to blame. It is our responsibility to maintain peace, safety and security in the country.  Some of you might think that we could easily stay away from this war stuff without getting involved, but as long as we live on this land where the gun rules you are always on the line. You might be the next victim to be in front of the gun. So, people of Nepal, if you want to eliminate the danger hovering above your head, then open your eyes and get your knuckles working.

Beneath and beyond the BBC flap

By M R Josse

Predictably, and rightly, BBC World Service radio programme's recent posting of this question on its Internet website - "would Nepal be better off if it was under the Indian umbrella?" - stirred a hornet's nest of protest.

Offensive: That astounding query was prefaced by a qualifier underlining the close ties of language, culture and religion between Nepal and India and had these two follow-up questions, as per a Kantipur news report: "Can this country (Nepal) remain separate (from India)? Is its separate existence legitimate?"

Clearly, the BBC's move was deemed offensive to national pride, as was more than reflected in the firestorm of condemnation that followed - from the Foreign Ministry, the main Opposition, the UML, the RPP, even the Hariyali Party, as well as from all sections of the country's political/enlightened class.  

ML's youth wing's ire was, not surprisingly, the most telling and visible: a protest rally organised by that group last Thursday at Bhadrakali set fire to an effigy of the BBC.

The contretemps led to BBC's broadcasting of a backtracking - of sorts. Thus, rather than tendering an unqualified apology and explanation of the whys and wherefores of the flap, Bush House's statement was riddled with caveats sans any explanation, credible or otherwise, on how it all came to pass.

First, it pointed out that "any unintended offensive" was caused by the "wording" of its question - not that a debate on Nepal's sovereignty and independence, its intended motive and thrust, was plainly out of bounds from the very start.

Secondly, while the original question was dropped, it was recast in another form - hardly an admission of a blunder on its part!

Before proceeding any further, this columnist would like to ask the BBC if it would care or dare to begin a similar Internet debate on whether, given the intimate ties of language, culture and religion between the United Kingdom and the United States, the former would be better off under a Stars'n'Stripes umbrella.

Similarly, one could expand on that theme and suggest that the BBC might initiate an Internet debate whether Pakistan and Bangladesh (and perhaps Sri Lanka and Myanmar, as well) would not be better off under India: after all, they all formed, for quite a considerable period of time, an integral part of British India.

Beneath: Under the above circumstances, it is only natural that many in this country have now openly begun to doubt the much-touted independent status of the BBC charging that it is a cleverly disguised propaganda arm of the UK government. 

Be that as it may, the controversy has once again brought to the surface the widely prevalent view here that Western countries - particularly Britain and the United States - have the annoying tendency to either view Nepal through Indian eyes or else to sideline legitimate Nepalese aspirations at the altar of the lucrative Indian market, specially after globalization.  

There are, however, a number of important considerations that do not seem to have been reflected, at least thus far, in the public discourse that the BBC dispute has triggered here.

For starters, there is the key question of who, within the charmed circles of BBC's World Service radio programme handling South Asia, had the brain wave to initiate such a debate.

It's all right to say that the BBC is responsible - and that's absolutely correct.

But, as we all know, such initiatives do begin in someone's fertile/fevered mind. In view of the large number of Indians serving the BBC, isn't it likely that the brilliant idea attempting to subvert Nepal's sovereignty thus originated?

Even if the BBC does not publicly admit it for reasons of face, it would do well to get to the bottom of mystery and take the necessary disciplinary against the concerned person/s - if what remains of BBC's credibility is not to be further shattered.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is time for all members of the thinking class to ponder, deeply and urgently, why such a BBC debate was initiated at this particular time more than ten years down Democracy Road, and less than three years after India acquired de facto nuclear weapons power status.

They might ask themselves this question: would the BBC have dared to have initiated the uncalled-for debate during the Panchayat era when, for example, the Zone of Peace proposal had not only been floated but had received the support of 116 countries of the world, Britain included?

Then, there was absolutely no question in anyone's mind about Nepal becoming a Bhutan or Sikkim. Indeed, those who have studied the genesis of the Zone of Peace are clear that it was triggered, more than anything else, by India's takeover of Sikkim.

So, why now? Is it because in the past ten years and more since the Panchayat edifice came crashing down, the perception has been created - both within Nepal as well as in the outside world - that Nepal is for all intents and purposes already a part of India in substance, if not in legal form?

Beyond: Indeed, the interested might usefully engage themselves in identifying government decisions of the past decade which have bolstered the dangerous perception that Nepal is better off within an Indian umbrella than existing as a sovereign nation.

Finally, is it merely a coincidence that the nefarious BBC debate came in the wake of US President Bill Clinton's journey to India in March and, more recently, of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's four-day official visit to America?

After all, as Dileep Padgoankar recently summarised in the Times of India, "henceforth America would want India to play a critical role not only in South Asia but in Asia as a whole and indeed at the global level as well."  

To come back to home base, politicians in power during the past ten year period - as much as the BBC - have much to answer for!