Restricting alcohol

The agreement reached the other day between the government and the Maoist women’s wing - All Nepal Women’s Association (ANWA-Revolutionary) - to control the widespread and indiscriminate consumption of alcohol in the country deserves a qualified welcome. Qualified because, despite a number of legal provisions already in place but not effectively implemented, the government is seen to be kneeling before the Maoist women’s demands. Qualified also because, a total ban on liquor advertisements could turn out to be very misplaced as television and radio advertisements, beamed in from countries outside Nepal, will almost certainly take over where the Nepali mass media leaves off. This apart, the economic impact could be severe although this of course will have to be absorbed and alternative sources of revenue found. We certainly would not like to be known as a country which survives on the taxes paid by the makers of liquor.

The unrestricted sale of alcoholic products to children and the fact that many of the alcoholic drinks outlets were located near places of worship or educational institutions had to end. It is also a matter of satisfaction that no one under the age of 24 will be allowed to drink nor anyone under 21 allowed to man a liquor shop. These are some of the positive points of the agreements. The more so as the consumption of liquor has doubled, thanks to the foreign investment resulting from the liberal and open policies adopted since the restoration of democracy. It is yet to be seen whether the government can really limit the sale of liquor, but it must try earnestly and honestly to implement the relevant parts of the agreement so that the doubting Thomas can be won over. These people think and believe that once the government begins implementing the agreement, it will only result in an increase in illegal activity. The five breweries and some 30 distilleries, that have been producing different kinds of alcoholic products, might find that the going is not as smooth as in the past. Also suffering with them will be the Nepalese media and advertising agencies. The government might have done immensely better if there was also agreement on phasewise implementation. Without such a staggered approach, there could be a sudden and substantial fall in the sale of alcoholic drinks – as feared by the industry. Thousands will be rendered jobless and it will become the responsibility of the government to mop up this unemployment.

The agreement must be taken a right step on the whole as the stress is more on restriction of liquor sale than on a complete ban as demanded by the Maoist women’s wing. Had successive governments shown more social consciousness about the sale and consumption of liquor, the present government would not have been vulnerable to the kind of pressure brought to bear by the ANWA.
Now it remains to be seen how effectively it will implement the agreement, and how soon.

Only revolution is civilian revolution

By Udi Tagari

The Maoists do represent something real. But not because of their military or terrorists’ might. Rather, through the popular support they inspire. A grudging or enthusiastic support, vindicating decades-long mistreatment and neglect by the centre - which is not only the state and it’s various anti-institutions, but also the social and economic centres in Kathmandu and a few other central towns.

The Maoists pose real danger to the state because they tap the energy of people, who had it up to here and got nothing to lose, and because they offer a ventilating channel for a frustration accumulated through decades of repression and neglect; when thousands of people are mobilized to burn down a distillery, this is not a "terrorist" act. This is Popular Uprising, by definition.

The helpless cries of well-to-do columnists and other would-be-bourgeois for the state to "do" something, bring "order" back to Nepal, regress back to total monarchy (i.e. despotism), is misguided and pathetic. If the state could "do" anything, it would have done so long ago, and not in terms of an armed response but rather in an all-out civilian effort and investment in all the social, economical, cultural and legal inequalities that have been plaguing Nepal for eons.

But it is the very ineptness of the regime which created, in the first place, the political and social vacuum that the Maoists stepped into, thereby gaining such (deserved or undeserved) stature. So how can the state be expected to "do" something now, when all of a sudden it is confronted by a phenomena virtually unheard of in a hitherto passive, ‘consensual’ country like Nepal?

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Every people get the kind of government they deserve". So what is it about the Nepali people, that makes this kind of government and regime possible?

To answer that would mean dwelving into the history of a mainly-Hindu and Buddhist society, wrought by two great forces pushing from the North and South; a society critically fragmented into ethnic groups and castes, that possess a meagre semblance of what might be termed "National Consciousness"; a society conditioned for slow centuries in the virtues of passivity and obedience to a single ruler; a social culture that has no concept whatsoever of the essential responsibility required of the individual for the maintenance of democratic values; and therefore, a society which was inevitably devastated after 1990 by the post-colonial syndrome called "the revolution of rising expectations" - because it had no tradition of self-rule or solid civil institutions;" and which, on top of all, although ruled by single ruler, lacks visionary, potent leadership. So let’s not.

But I would say that almost every person I met in Nepal greeted me with warmth, kindness, generosity, and peacefulness. Yet, when the same people take to the road they are a dying proof of Zigmund Freud’s theory that suicide and murder are two sides of the same coin. Because when life is just a long, bleak haul, death is just another word (or a welcome change). And for most people in Nepal, the period between birth and death is a torturing exercise in futility and hopelessness of ever achieving a decent, fruitful, self-respecting life.

The 20th century (and human history in general) is replete with instances where exasperated people supported promiseful uprisings and thus brought to power horrible regimes, only because the regimes preceding them let chaos rule or were simply unbearable; Hitler was the inevitable son of the chaotic Weimar Republic. Hummeini’s Iran was a reaction to the Shah’s extreme secular despotism; Communist Russia and China were triggered by the Tzars and a Fascist regime, respectively. These are but a handful from a long, tragic list, and in time revealed themselves to be precise mirror-images of the regimes which preceded them, only with a different excuse ("ideology").

The Maoists are not some foreign group bent on conquering a neighbouring land. They are Nepalis, comprising of Nepali people. As such, their rising signifies a cry of a homeland that lost any trust with prevailing institutions and systems. That, certainly, is very alarming. But it’s only a wake-up call, though a brutal one. The point is not that the regime should "talk" to them. The regime is also made of Nepali people. Unfortunately, once they get their butts on the comfy seats of officialdom, they conveniently forget where they came from - and are never held accountable.

Realistically, what can the regime offer to the Maoist? Can it change, overnight, the way Nepali men treat their legal female-slaves? Can it overnight overhaul the rotting civil institutions of the state and stop the incredible corruption (which is, at the base of it, a manifestation of personal irresponsibility and complete disgust with society, and not a genetic flaw)? Can it overnight make education the topmost priority? Can it overnight teach people that individual responsibility is the only true basis of democracy? Can it overnight create an essential platform around which the plethora of Nepali identities would unite?

Not as long as MPs are driving cars that cost 1,000 months’ worth of the average Nepali salary. Certainly not as long as most teachers themselves are poorly educated and lack motivation.

The point I’m trying to make is that Nepali society should come to grips with itself and wake up, because no one else is going to do the hard work for it. Surely not a "regime" that has consistently betrayed it’s own people, whether it be through selling precious natural resources or allowing the sale of 1 percent of it’s population to whoredom - and anything in between - for a couple of worthless rupees.

True revolutions - positive and lasting changes of social, cultural and civilian agendas - come thru either unique leadership or a slow grassroots change.

F D Roosevelt, the American president (1933-1945), was a once-in-a-century visionary, leader, and political genius who single-handedly masterminded the most sweeping peace-time legislative changes in the history of the US (the "New Deal"), that plucked the country out of the 30s recession with the revolutionary involvement of the federal government in the economy, while putting an end to historic cultural traditions and perceptions. However, studying at Grotton High School and Harvard, two of the best schools in the US, he didn’t materialize out of nowhere but was rather a product of a rich cultural soil. And he was also the man who said: "The Presidency . . . is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership," and proved to be true to his word. Lastly but critically, he had at his disposal the machinery - the political and civilian institutions - with which to implement those changes.

At present, Nepal is short of such people, especially at key government posts. And the above machinery is virtually nonexistent, or worse - corrupted to the core, and so will block any
initiative (like the recent policy changes suggested by Deuba).

Which leaves the second option: the creation of grassroots powerhouses.

The relative success of Israel in coming out of colonial rule was almost solely based on two 3000-year old traditions: education and self-rule (incidently, Israel’s national symbol, the six-pointed Star of David, is precisely the same as the one signifying education in Nepal). And self-rule is a product of education; the fact that the Maoists are cancelling the results of democratic village elections in which their nominees are not chosen shows that, basically, the movement’s figureheads are just more of the same thing. So, instead of waiting for Big Brother - or the Maoists - to "do" something, you do something.

For every article you want to write a newspaper, teach a class at a village school. Invest, on a personal, private, collective and communal basis everything you got in education. Everything, not in terms of money, but energy; and "education" does not mean Quantum physics, but
the systematic teaching of civilian responsibility and involvement.

Literate, educated, initiative-prone and caring people are better, responsible citizens, that can’t be fooled, that demand accountability from their elected, and that in the long run usually produce better governments. It’s a long road, but like The Buddha said: only those who take the first step on that road have any chance of ever reaching their goal.

(The author is a freelance Israeli journalist)

(Concluded)

Yug, still the same 

By Perina Pathak

As usual I watched ‘Ramayan’ ( the Hindi serial) on a foreign channel. In that particular episode Sita - goddess of Earth-leaves everything behind after being a frequent sufferer and humiliated for being a woman. Though the wife of King Ram (reincarnation of Lord Bishnu), she suffered disgrace and was ordered to present proof of not being an adulteress.

Thus tired of suffering, she at last leaves the earth calling on Mother earth to spare her from her ailing and take her to a world, where women are not humiliated and blamed. She tells how she is tired of bearing humiliation, which only women have to tolerate who are treated unjustly on this earth. She departs from the earth telling how men do not trust and praise women though women are dedicated toward their husbands.

Though the story of Sita is of the Satya Yug (the Age when the earth was ruled by the gods according to Hindu mythology), the same incident is happening even in this Kalee Yug (the Age we are living in). The Age changed, the earth has evolved to modern technology and we can also feel that development has reached a climax but the eye that gazes on women has remained the same.

In the Satya Yug ordinary women, nymphs and even goddesses like Sita became victims of the male dominant society,. A similar story continues even today. We very frequently hear the story of women being the victims of male pleasure. Leaving aside a few success stories, many male partners (we call them but not they) consider women second class citizens.

Again, leaving aside developed places (though not all), some families and societies behind, where they do not discriminate against their female members of the family, there are lots of males who do not honour women for their dedication.

Though development has reached a climax there are places and people who even today discriminate, do not respect and help women and consider them non - humans. Even well known high class families are found making the same mistake and making women cry.

The world consists of millions of families, among whom there are some which have developed according to the times and think of men and women as two different branches of the human race. And allow their daughters to move according to the times.

But when we think of women who are suffering due to the family, the ones who are competing in the male dominant society are lucky ones. But are they happy with their new life?

When will the time come when there will be no discrimination between the sexes. Maybe, it is merely a dream. The Yug will change from this to that just like from Satya to Kalee, whereas the situation remains the same.

Maybe after passing the Kalee Yug, we will step into some other Yug, but the situation will still remain the same the people are same and the discrimination remains the same. Whether it will change or not, no one knows and thus we can well imagine the same scenario continuing in the upcoming Yug also. As males are considered the dominant factor of society , till when will this trend remain, and will a time come when discrimination ends. Maybe, then women will be leading happy lives on earth.

A ship without rudder

Land is always linked to politics anywhere in the world. Discussion could only be about the extent of this relationship. In countries, where the industrial frontier has opened up enough employment opportunities propelling high labour mobility and where capital intensive technology has replaced excessive use of labour in agriculture, this relationship becomes altered. But, for a small country like Nepal, where only 18 percent of land is fit for commercial cultivation and even now more than two-thirds of the people have to survive through land earning because no significant employment opportunities have opened up in other sectors, the scenario is entirely different. This clearly means that Nepal’s continuity as an economically viable nation depends on our ability to increase agricultural productivity. The more so when viewed from the country’s limited industrial potentiality in the non-agricultural sector and limited export possibilities unless water resource is harnessed in a significant scale something that does not seem likely in the foreseeable future.

Nepal’s political development centered on land. Small states in hills emerged primarily to protect land holdings and, as such, unification started in the tenth century with the Malla kings of Jumla extending their territory as far as western Tibet and Southern Kumaun. But they could not sustain it, thus fragmenting into many states. Prithvi Narayan Shah’s three decades long unification campaign starting in 1744 was propelled, among other things, by the desire for land in terms of jagirs for all those involved in the campaign. It was land as property around which the entire society revolved, not money. The state was managed with revenue from the land. The army was supported by land as jagir.

Likewise, those rendering services to the state were given land by the king for their remuneration as jagirs and land as Birta for holding even after retirement. The only resource that the state had as an economic incentive was land for settling all political scores. Nepal’s further expansion can also be explained in terms of a search for farmland to support a growing army and elite. This is how a land-owning class which could keep as much land as possible for appropriating the major portion of the produce became landlords, and those farming a given portion of such land became tenants. They were linked with Pajani, meaning changing of tenants every year by landlords bidding for more rent. The system in vogue meant squeezing the tenants as hard as possible, thus increasing their misery as never before.

Land has, thus, always been a source of exploitation of the common people for revenue and likewise, for the army and the elite of a feudal society. Much has changed over the years but the remnants of feudal property relation still linger forming the basis of exploitation in a new form and design in terms of sharing the income and wealth of the nation. The change of 1951 ended an era of exploitation when the state was treated as private property. Since then, from the beginning of 1952 and the formation of the Land Reform Commission has always been a means for enacting progressive measures but the impact of such measures has been far from satisfactory. The reason is a built-in contradiction.

Those who became the new rulers came from the same class as before but now changed to suit the democratic set up. They were very careful not to lose their economic interests while projecting their progressive image. However, this manoeuvre initiated a process of awareness among landlords that the extent of their appropriation over the produce had lessening state sanction and likewise, the farmers began thinking of their growing misery. In this process, the land reform of 1964 enacted through the Land Act 1964, though trapped in the same contradiction, was significant became it came after the royal overthrow of Nepal’s first democratically elected government which had had already taken a watershed decision by legislating the Birta Abolition Act, 1959 for eliminating the feudal land system.

It was a leap forward in its objective of redistribution to the tenants and landless workers of land in excess of the ceiling acquired by the state. The ceiling was 25 Bigas (37 hectares) in the Terai and 80 Ropani (4 hectares) in the hills. The grant of tenancy rights regulation of rent, a compulsory savings scheme, abolition of the zamindari system and agriculture credit were other measures of the reform. However, the same built in contradiction worked in such a way that the power wielding landlords knew about the land ceiling in advance and it was enforced without at least a couple of month’s retroactive effect. This is precisely what Japan did in enforcing reform with a month’s retroactive effect in 1945 to pool significant land in excess of ceiling. This is where we failed in the often-described revolutionary land reform again because of that contradiction.

Over these years, enough land has been sold, resold, and split up among family members bringing land fragmentation as a major problem in our agrarian economy. The casualty now is productivity in agriculture, which is decreasing despite state investments running into billions. In the present situation when the new government is caught between mounting pressure from the Maoist and decreasing government capabilities, land reform has again become an instrument of political manoeuvring rather than being visualized as a means of meaningful economic transformation. The prime minister displayed his ability to pull rabbit out of that in proposing land reform prior to the government’s proposed talks with the Maoist. If the government lacked anything in freezing land sales on August 16 through the prime minister’s announcement in the lower house of parliament prior to radical land reform measures still in the making, it was vision.

This lack of vision has now opened the floodgates and the government’s position is now exactly like that of a ship that has lost its compass. The national consensus built for the first time for the government-Maoist talks is tearing because two parties in parliament have disrupted house proceedings for the 5th day opposing the move through in their political tactic of demanding a ceiling on property as well. Why land why not property is their slogan for diluting and, in the process, making the proposed measures practically dysfunctional. The prime minister’s only hope is the support of the main opposition which when in power had a report prepared on land reform in 1995 by its Badal Commission. And, it appears, he is pinning everything on that report the operational part of which does not hold much water any more because of accelerating changes, particularly in land holding, due to the increasing rate of fragmentation. Therefore, land consolidation is what has become necessary to augment agricultural production.

Reform measures are very much needed in line with the changing times and, after fresh evaluations but, in the type of all round chaotic situation the country is currently sinking into it certainly is not the main issue. Besides, even if the government goes as per the Badal Commission’s recommendation of a 3 hectare ceiling in the Terai and 2 hectares in the Hills, the excess land for redistribution is not expected to be significant. Land reform is not just land ceiling. It is a composite whole involving many components that need to be integrated.