Home Minister must resign

The daringly audacious manner with which the underground Maoists attacked the district police headquarters and the jail in Dunai in Dolpa district on Monday is a measure of the government's inability to maintain law and order and provide a sense of security to the people. This is the very first time since the "Peoples War" began almost five years ago that insurgents have struck at the headquarters of any district. The incident only goes to prove that with the government in the capital spending its time in peripheral matters and not attending to the needs of the country, the Maoist insurgents can strike almost at will at any part of the country.

The strike at Dunai is no small success for the Maoists, both psychologically and in terms of the loot-worth over 60 million rupees. This will unfortunately shore up the Maoist morale as it will give the government a jolt. The violence at Dolpa  cannot be seen as giving any credit to the Maoists who will increasingly have to face the prospect of being  described as terrorists ; nor will it help the government led by Prime Minister Koirala whose one point agenda prior to taking office in March this year was to criticize the Bhattarai government on law and order and security issues, particularly the Maoist problem. It is on this very front that Koirala's government has proved itself a dismal failure. The Dunai debacle demonstrates this more than anything. 

It should naturally follow that the Prime Minister, if not him,  the Home Minister, should resign if they have the integrity to own up responsibility for embracing wrong policies with regard to the Maoist problem. The insurgency actually intensified after Koirala took over as prime minister because the government did not follow the path of dialogue when the Maoists had shown interest in working out a negotiated resolution to the problem. Instead of making things easier for the High level consensus seeking committee to seek solutions to the insurgency, the government opted to spend billions of rupees on creating a para-military force to counter the insurgency. This was a very ill advised move given the fact that the possibility of resolving the problem through peaceful means did exist. Hence, the Home Minister must resign since he is responsible not only for operations in Maoist affected areas but also for the people's security.

Another important question the Dunai debacle has thrown up has to do with the role of the army. Even as the Maoists attacked the police station, the jail, the bank and the administrative Head Quarters, the army stood by doing nothing. Why could the army not come to assist the police ? Whether the army should or should not be used to quell the Maoist uprising can no doubt be debated, but the fact that the army stood by impotently as the Maoists got away with everything is indeed shameful. Why is it that the government cannot assert itself ? If need be, the government must effect an amendment in the constitution to mobilise the army to security. This is the least any government owes to the people. But prior to all this, the Home Minister must step down.

Internationalising the refugee issue

By Mohan Lohani

On his return home after a two week-long visit to New York where he attended the 55th UN General Assembly session which was followed by tours of some European countries, Foreign Minister Bastola rightly observed that the Bhutanese refugee issue has assumed serious proportions. The seriousness of the issue was brought home by the Foreign Minister to his Indian counterpart Mr Jaswant Singh in New York and some European leaders in their respective capitals. While India is reportedly willing and inclined to look at the refugee issue seriously and cooperate with Nepal in resolving it, Bhutan has disappointed the international community, so much so that the former, not Nepal, is held responsible for allowing the refugee issue to drag on without solution.

Anybody familiar with the refugee issue knows that nearly a decade ago, Nepal, while giving shelter to approximately one hundred thousand refugees for humanitarian reasons, had viewed the issue as one of international dimension and requested UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to coordinate relief operations in the seven refugee camps of Eastern Nepal. UNHCR forthwith agreed to open its field office in Jhapa in 1992, which enabled it to engage in relief programmes and activities in collaboration with international agencies like World Food Programme (WFP), the Red Cross and other NGOs, as well as INGOs. Since the crisis was not of Nepal's making, the latter was keen, right from the beginning, to find a political solution to the refugee issue through bilateral talks with Bhutan.

On Nepal's initiative, the Ministerial Joint Committee (MJC) was formed with the mandate to work out an agreement acceptable to both sides. The first meeting of MJC, which was held in Kathmandu in 1993, decided to categorise refugees in four groups, namely, bonafide Bhutanese citizens forcibly evicted from their country,  Bhutanese migrants or those who left Bhutan voluntarily, non-Bhutanese and Bhutanese criminals or those who fled after committing crimes in Bhutan. Although some critics have continued to blame Nepal for having accepted the categorisation proposal, Nepal's acceptance was motivated by a desire to amicably settle the refugee issue leading to repatriation of a large number of refugees as early as possible.

It was hoped in 1994 at the second meeting of MJC that agreement on categorisation would ultimately pave the way to verification so crucial to repatriation of refugees at an early date. This has not been the case, despite the fact that both sides had agreed to set up a Joint Verification Team (JVT) six years ago. It has been Nepal's consistent position that all refugees, with the exception of non-Bhutanese, are Bhutanese citizens no matter which category they belong to. Bhutan has refused to accept this interpretation on the ground that under its Citizenship Act of 1985, Bhutanese who have migrated or left the country voluntarily cease to be citizens of Bhutan. Nepal has clarified its position by stating that refugees categorized as migrants were forced to leave their country of domicile under duress and other adverse conditions such as intimidation and psychological torture. Such refugees are as bonafide as refugees in category one.

Besides, people who have become refugees are treated under international law which recognises the long term habitual residency and cannot be subjected to domestic law enacted with dubious motive. It has been rightly argued that if Bhutan cannot accept its own citizens under domestic law, Nepal, the country of asylum, has no legal provision to accept nationals of other countries as its own citizens. Obviously, this is likely to give rise to a situation where refugees could become stateless or citizens without a state. Such a state of affairs would be grossly unjust depriving refugees of their legitimate right to return home with dignity, honour and in safety.

Despite nine rounds of bilateral talks at the ministerial level, the refugee imbroglio has remained unresolved causing concern to all refugees in the camps, the country of asylum and international agencies like UNHCR. Immediately after Nepal took up the refugee issue with Bhutan, as stated earlier, for a final settlement acceptable to both sides, a consensus had emerged from all party talks in Nepal that bilateral diplomacy was the best option and should be pursued to its logical conclusion, that is, both sides were required to reach a mutually acceptable agreement on the issue without further delay. It was also agreed that if bilateral diplomacy failed to produce results, Nepal could approach its southern neighbour India to use its good offices and extend its cooperation in resolving the refugee issue. The third and the last option was to internationalise the issue so that Bhutan could be compelled to take back refugees for fear of being isolated in the community of nations. Recent developments suggest that while the date for the next round of bilateral talks is far from certain, the two fall back positions, namely, internationalisation of the refugee issue and Nepal's request for Indian cooperation and involvement, have become operational.

The resolution recently adopted by European Parliament (EP) singles out Bhutan as a wrongdoer and appreciates Nepalese humanitarian gesture as it "recognises the tremendous goodwill of Nepal in accepting the refugees who are the victims of arbitrary deprivation of nationality and forcible eviction and who came to Nepal through India, which consistently refuses to help in resolving the repatriation issue by pretending that it is a bilateral issue of concern only to Bhutan and Nepal. It is a strongly worded statement which calls for Indian intervention as India happens to be the first entry point for refugees forcibly evicted from Bhutan. It has thus been internationally recognised that the refugee issue involves three parties, namely, Bhutan, Nepal and India and that cooperation among them alone can facilitate and ensure a speedy solution of the issue. It may be argued that being a sovereign independent country, Bhutan cannot be coerced into accepting any third party intervention. The matter is not as simple as that. International observers closely  watching the presence of refugees in other parts of the world have pointed out the  unique nature or character of the refugee issue confronting Nepal for over a decade. India is a common friend of both Nepal and Bhutan. Besides, India and Bhutan enjoy special relations under the Treaty of 1949. This may be the reason why Speaker Taranath Ranabhat has categorically stated that the decade-long Bhutanese refugee problem cannot be resolved without India's mediation. Earlier, both PM Koirala and Foreign Minister Bastola were reported to have sought such mediation or cooperation from Indian leaders during their recent encounters in New York.

Nepal and Bhutan as close neighbours and SAARC member states share a common destiny in this region and can no longer afford to allow the refugee issue to embitter their good neighbourly relations adversely affecting other mutually beneficial programmes with immense prospects of bilateral and regional cooperation.

 Nepal and Bhutan are also members of the growth quadrangle which visualises sub-regional cooperation in such core areas as hydel power, transportation and communications, irrigation and flood control, environment management, tourism and industrial development. There is a close nexus between bilateral and sub-regional cooperation. Needless to point out, sub-regional cooperation can make headway only when bilateral relations become excellent and problem-free.

A hapless visit to a doctor

By Keshab Raj Acharya

No one takes a statement like "we are born to die" as an intellectual one but what about the saying that we are born to suffer? We are doomed to suffer. Some suffer from the unsuccessful results of their own stint. Some suffer from their unrequited love. Some suffer due to deformity and others because of their carelessness and negligence. There are other people who suffer from sickness. This suffering from sickness, however, is more intense, torturous, excruciating and harrowing than others.

We suffer pain, defeat, illness, loss, grief, change, torture and what not. We can hardly express the acute pain of suffering and it will be a failure to do so. We feel it and feeling as such can never be expressed in words for others to feel in the same manner as it is actually felt.

A husband will never know the travails of his spouse. The mother's yells during delivery can't be felt by a father as they really are. I'm not yet sure myself how painful it is during delivery since, I relate to the fatherly world. Neither the physician nor the medic can fathom the degree of a mother's pain during childbirth. Only the sufferer knows how painful the suffering is.

When a person is sick, he/she has to visit a doctor. At such times, it becomes difficult to decide where to go if the person lives in town. Hospital (govt.) or the mushrooming clinics. No doubt, if the person is well off, he/she might feel more comfortable in clinics; if not, there is no alternative where to show up. If a person like me dares to go to clinics for treatment, it will only be inviting further evil upon oneselves.

Last week, I however, visited a clinic for medication. I had to go there earlier in the morning to register my name before I saw the doctor. The visit to the doctor was scheduled in the afternoon (3 pm-6 pm). I did accordingly, I stayed outside waiting my turn. The patients' number had exceeded my rough expectation. Going in and out was regular - no halt at all. My roll was after twenty. I waited and waited and waited. It was already two and half an hour.  I was tired, exhausted. You know how strenuous and tortuous it becomes for a patient to wait and wait and wait.

 Now, I had already kicked three hours and I thought my turn  was close at hand. All my anticipations turned out to be of no avail when the doctor came out and quit the patients including me with his blinkered face. A paramedic turned up and said, "Time off.  Come tomorrow afternoon". I was stunned and something haunted me. I suddenly remembered the child-bearing women, comatose patients, the critically injured ones and so and so forth.

I didn't blame anyone, rather I cursed myself requested God to suffer me still more. The cognizance that the sufferer knows pain more than the doctor was already set in my thick skull. Impatience prevailed. Nevertheless, I stood up supporting my back on  the wall and dashed it off to its destination. Then, I slowly moved away,  suffering excessively. I could get into a fit just thinking about the situation of  hospitals run by the govt in and out of the valley since the hospiral I was in was at renowned private one is downtown KTM. In the meantime, an idea that suffering is no more intense and unbearable than the medication performed by the 'quack' or charlatan doctors struck me time and again to make me aware of my next venture.

A futile exercise

By M R Josse

Why is it that our over-publicised public figures unthinkingly repeat tired old nostrums and shibboleths, ad nauseam?

Again and again: The latest in that series is Speaker Taranath Ranabhat who, the other day, let it be known to us, the children of a lesser God, that the Bhutanese refugee imbroglio cannot be resolved sans the blessings of New Delhi.

Earlier, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, back from his extended America/Europe jaunt, told journalists that, in New York, he "sought India's intervention in resolving the Bhutanese refugee issue and its response is not negative like before."

Recall, too, that he had dropped similar hints after his August 1-6 official visit to India - despite the fact that the 32-point joint press statement issued at its conclusion is eloquently silent on that issue!

Also note that Foreign Minister Chakra Prasad Banstola, in a newspaper interview prior to accompanying his political boss on the latter's politico-cum-religious Indian yatra, confessed that Nepal had consistently sought India's good-offices to resolve the long-festering refugee issue and promised that the plea would once again be made in New Delhi.

Or, remember that when Indian Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao paid an official visit to Nepal during Koirala's first innings as prime minister, the suggestion to involve New Delhi was effectively, or unceremoniously, gunned down.

Similarly, didn't Indian Prime Minister I K Gujral - of the Gujral Doctrine fame - abrasively and publicly turn down the same recommendation when he came a-visiting in 1997 when Lokendra Bahadur Chand was prime minister?

Ditto for Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh who in at a press conference in Kathmandu in September 1999 reiterated for the nth time the Indian stance that the refugee issue concerned only Nepal and Bhutan and, as such, should be resolved through bilateral negotiations between them.

Similarly, scores of other Indian luminaries - be it former foreign secretary J N Dixit, former minister Karan Singh, BJP advisor and "old Nepal hand" N N Jha or former envoy K V Rajan - have been hammering away at the same point, not to mention that it has been reiterated with tedious and disconcerting frequency in the Indian mainstream media that takes its cue on foreign/security matters from South Block.

Against that depressing backdrop, how is one to interpret such  inane periodic off-the-cuff outbursts, as most recently issued by Ranabhat?

Wasted: The Speaker's pearls of wisdom, in any case, seem entirely wasted as is indicated by the fact that about the same time as he was spilling them the spanking-new Indian ambassador, Deb Mukharji, was telling a Pokhara audience - no surprises - that the Bhutanese refugee question should be solved through dialogue between Nepal and Bhutan!   

Incidentally, those who have been glibly speculating that the refugee question may be transformed into a trilateral affair should note that Mukharji's observation was timed AFTER Koirala's public disclosure that he had discerned some positive indications in New York suggestive of a shift in India's attitude.

One is tempted to add that even if, for argument's sake, a minor miracle had occurred with Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee being coaxed into getting into the refugee picture, why would he have gone through with it in the wake of Koirala's much publicised meeting with Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf? 

(Incidentally, it is in this particular context that the non-appearance of a photograph of a one-on-one, Koirala-Vajpayee meeting is more than a little intriguing, particularly when one recalls that large-sized photos of the Koirala-Musharraf palavers at the UN were splashed in the Nepalese print media.)  

Given Vajpayee's strident, anti-Pakistan crusade in New York/Washington - and not forgetting that his refusal to sit down with Musharraf was responsible for SAARC-XI being derailed - is it possible that New Delhi would be in a mellow mood and agree to reverse what has been a decade-long policy position?

Our ever so dear politicos, particularly those given to shooting from their lips at the drop of a Bhadgaoley topi, might do well to bear in mind the following additional considerations.

One is, of course, the fact of American President Bill Clinton's sentimental journey through India last March - a happening which has apparently given Indian officialdom an exaggerated sense of India's importance on the world stage.

A scrutiny of the Indian media coverage of Vajpayee's recent four-day official visit to the United States, as Clinton's guest,   suggests, if anything, that such a feeling has been enhanced.

Similarly, they may also usefully recall that not only did Clinton not come to Nepal when he was in South Asia but that the then much-speculated possibility that he would at least take up the Bhutanese refugee issue with Vajpayee did not come to pass either - at least, going by what was publicly made known then. So, is it likely that India will change gears, now?

Oblivious: To come back to our politicos, is it that they, most of whom do not engage in strategic thinking, are innocently oblivious to the consistency and frequency with which India has refused to play ball on the Bhutanese refugee issue?

Has anyone of those worthies cared to analyse why India has persistently favoured Bhutan over Nepal? Has anyone engaged in serious study of the genesis of the problem, including the workings of the Bhutanese political power system, its linkages with Indian big business, Indian politicians, retired senior foreign office mandarins - even with the persistent attacks on Indians of Nepalese origin in India's northeast?   

Or, could it be that they are simply incapable of reading the writing on the wall and are content to endlessly repeat the futile point that India must be brought in, no matter what.