Fake lawsuits

Within two weeks, the radical land reform programme announced by the Deuba-led government has taken a serious turn. The Central Working Committee of Nepali Congress has also directed the government to probe into the illegal wealth amassed after the restoration of multi-party system. The government has not been able to table the bill in Parliament on land reform. Meanwhile, two opposition parties — the Nepal Sadhbhawana Party and Rashtriya Prajatantra Party — continue to disrupt the House proceedings, demanding that the probe be applied to property in general. Both political parties have opposed vehemently the proposed land reform programme since Prime Minister Deuba announced it. From ordinary farmers and bureaucrats to former lawmakers and judges, people have begun filing lawsuits in district courts against their own family members to save their land. This seems nothing but a failure on the part of the government to take all political parties into its confidence. The reason is that the government neither did any homework nor came up with a concrete plan before it announced the proposed land reform programme.

Prime Minister Deuba, a week after he announced the ceasefire with the Maoist rebels, embarked on the land reform programme, which he said was long overdue. Unfortunately, Deuba did not even feel it necessary to probe into the wealth of those who have accumulated it while holding key posts in government offices. But what made Deuba introduce land reform suddenly, especially at a time when the country’s economy is taking a downturn? Did he take the decision on land reform to appease the Maoist rebels? But, what Deuba has pledged to do, whether it is to please the Maoists or the poor, deserves praise. But the question is how honestly he completes the task and, at the same time, takes account of illegal wealth.

Relatives of those who own land more than what is legally permitted have begun registering fake cases to claim their shares in several district courts, or to prevent any unwanted erosion of parental property. They include prominent political leaders from all parties, judges, bureaucrats and local feudal fiats who have amassed hundreds of acres of land. This has come to light only after Prime Minister
Deuba lowered the ceiling on land holdings. This will indeed affect the proposed land reform programme, despite the new ceiling on land holdings. This apart, the present legal system does not have any provision that rejects a decision on such make-believe lawsuits. The Deuba government cannot just plunge head-long into his ambitious programme, without attending to other accompanying problems.

Talk of more talks likely

By Tilak Pokharel

Again a ray of hope is emerging, though slowly. Workers of the underground Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have been working on warfooting. It seems that they have not passed even a single second without working. The rebels have been engaged in constructive works – in the sense they are involved in accumulating power and strength. They are making the maximum utilization of the freedom they acquired after waging the "People’s War" six and half years ago. At present, they are mobilizing all means except the guns. The Maoists, at least temporarily, have stopped raiding police outposts and detonating bombs and explosives. These days, one can see city thoroughfares, every nook and corner with colourful pro-Maoist and pro-republic billboards and paintings. Many people have even started saying that the "Maoist problem" is no longer a problem. Despite this flickering hope for peace can be as elusive as ever.

It is still fresh in the mind of the millions of people that a similar hope aroused last year only to be shattered within a week after the October 27 government-Maoist talks failed. Despite the talks being called as "unofficial", the people had a high hope for ending the bloodshed. Finally, the talks concluded after Maoist leader Rabindra Shrestha set prerequisites for would-be formal talks in front of Former Deputy Prime Minister Ram Chandra Paudel. In the aftermath of talks, the government officials claimed that the talks touched upon all the issues related to the Maoist insurgency.

But the Koirala government did not undertake any concrete measures, but kept on saying that they were "for peace, and doors for dialogues were always open". Like other previous governments, it also treated the issue casually. Due to its casual approach, the situation gradually became graver.

Due to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba's concern over the Maoist issue and his history as the chairman of the High Level Commission for Resolving the Maoist Problem, formed by the Bhattarai-led government two years ago, many people had thought that if Deuba came to power, the violence would stop, settle, at least temporarily. Among the leaders from the ruling Nepali Congress, it is only Deuba who looks at the problem with a different vision and so has got the mandate from all parties to go ahead with his plan to resolve the Maoist problem.

However, Deuba cannot bring about dramatic changes. Both the warring parties should identify their problems and work towards their resolution collectively. Contrary to this, the situation is that the government has always been labelling the Maoists as "problem", while the Maoists blame for creating the problem. In the past, if the Maoists killed a NC member or a policeman the state-run media and the ruling party leaders used to call the insurgents- terrorists, but the word changed at other peaceful times. It shows that the government is not sure how to describe the Maoists.

Now, the talks between the Maoists and the government is all set to begin. But the question is how successful the talks will be. Over the years, Maoists have been changing their demands. It seems that they talk about talks to make the people believe that they are serious about talks. But, they also know that mere talks cannot fulfil their demands– especially of a Republican State. So it is unlikely that the Maoist problem will be resolved that easily. At present, they have got nothing concrete to go against the Deuba government. After the talks, they may try to provoke the government on one pretext or another.

Currently, the Maoists are in a dilemma. On one hand, they have to prove themselves as serious about talks and on the other, its international allies (international revolutionary communist parties) have warned it not to go for dialogue with the government. According to the Kantipur daily (August 4), six out of 16 members of London-based RIM (Revolutionary International Movement) – the international umbrella organization of radical and ultra-radical communists of which Nepal’s Maoist party is a member – formally warned the Maoists not to hold talks with the government and jeopardize the existing political environment. Answering to the demand of the ultra radical communists, our Maoists have started saying that "dialogue is also a part of revolution". Maybe this is what they say Prachandpath!

The Maoists are carefully planning to come to power and change the existing system. The forthcoming talks is just one step. Their latest three demands – interim government, all-party assembly and constitutional convention – show that they want to come out in public directly, and gradually to the pinnacle of state power. But since they are underground rebels, their intention is questionable. Though the Maoists have not formally flayed the government for passing two controversial ordinances - the Armed Police Force and Regional Administration – they will definitely use them as a bargaining chip during the talks.

The talks will not yield concrete results. The Maoists will merely show their face to the government representatives. Once the talks fail, the after-talks days could be much darker and deadlier than ever before, and the Maoists may compel the mainstream politics to bow down to their demands. And, again they might start talking about talks and more talks.

Lakhapati host

By Hitesh Karki

I don't think I would be wrong if I say that many of us were waiting eagerly for seeing the ‘ra-ta-ta va-ta-ta’ contest ever since its first commercial appeared on NTV. The word Lakhapati seems to catch the fancy of a common man. A tooth paste box fetches you millions, so does a single bottle of a cola drink. A facial cream lets you own a precious metal, and noodles they might not just let you become just a lakhapati but even take you as far as the Disneyland. Talking about noodles, I wonder if I could open a small shop accommodating all the brands of noodles available in the market today on a single rack! And we still complain that there’s no industrial growth?

An ardent fan that I have always been of the famous MaHa duo (Madan Krishna Shrestha and Haribansha Acharya) , right from the days of Yamalok to Shalik, I make it a point not to miss any of their programs. And their dialogues in Lakhapati, or the "serials-par excellence", aired on NTV still make a part of daily gossip.

Finally after a long wait, I was expecting to see one of the best actors of mine (the other being who else but Haribansha) on television. And I was disappointed when I saw Madan Krishna, less popular with me. Just because someone thought that he could do the Jay leno-Shekhar Suman like act, he was carried away. But things are definitely not right, Madan dai. Right from the word "go", your recitation of the now jaded sick "ra-ta-ta va-ta-ta" joke didn’t bring smiles on the faces any of your viewers, I guess. There is no doubt that when you accepted the offer to host the show, you must have given it several thoughts simply because you were competing against India’s Big B, or so the people thought. Addressing computer as "Bhai" instead of "Ji" only made things more pathetic. I know you must have done exactly according to what the director (an honest actor that you are) asked you to do during the shooting, but then I don’t think you are in such a position where you have to oblige your producer/director at the cost of expectation of your fans. Or is it for becoming an overnight lakhapati, Madan dai?

Had it been any other host, I don’t think people like me, would be scrutinizing the programme, but I just can't ignore your precious presence. Unfortunately, you've failed to understand our feelings. Not so long ago, I watched the movie of your other half (the Ha of MaHa), and at the end of the movie I was almost on the verge of questioning myself whether he was just acting as a spoilt character on screen, or portraying his true self.

Coming back to the host of Lakhapati, who is hooked on the idea of making poor Nepalese lakhapatis in no time by making them answer a dozen questions or so, it is time you asked your computer "bhai" whether you've made the right decision or not (50-50 choice). In spite of the fact that computers have no intelligence of their own, I still feel that the correct answer will be the one that you have been apprehensive of - yes it is the big NO.

Unfinished task

By Prabhu R Bhandary

The issue of land reform has once again come to the fore. For some reasons, optional or compulsory, it has caught the attention of the Nepali Congress government, and through its enactment, the Prime Minister hopes to achieve revolutionary socio-economic equity in the country. This is exactly what the late King Mahendra must have thought, some 37 year back, when he came up with his land reform programme in the early sixties.

Now after 37 years, let us see what happened in the earlier land reform programme of 2021 BS and also try and answer some basic questions concerning such an ambitious programme.

Land reform 2021: In this case, land owners had ample pre-information on the forthcoming legislation. Adequate time was available to cover up surplus land through distribution in the names of family members and trusted workers. What could not be hidden was eventually lost.

This exercise succeeded in fragmenting large zamindari land holdings, but what happened to those tracts upon tracts of fragmented surplus land taken by the government? It there any record of such land, and how it was subsequently utilised/disposed? Did any land distribution to those, who did not have any, make them better off? There are almost no record on the surplus land acquired by the government. Nothing has come out in public on these issues. Most land distributed to the landless (sukumbasis), that continues even today, comprise virginland, acquired from clearing jungles. These questions must therefore be answered, before proceeding with another land reform.

Productivity: Nepal was a net exporter of foodgrains. This situation gradually disappeared after the introduction of the Land Reform Act and other land and tenancy related acts and policies, aimed at protecting marginal farmers. True, such legislation did result in protecting the interest of poor farmers. Through categorisation of the land quality and fixation of the land rent, tenants were well taken care of. But, this also eroded the incentive of land owners in making the much needed investment for increased output, as the benefit thereof would go solely to tillers, and the tillers being too poor, could not overcome this deficiency. Result: Agricultural productivity declined rapidly, and Nepal became the net importer of foodgrains.

Thirty seven years have since elapsed, most of the original land holdings have now been passed on to third generation, say, from father to two sons to, say, four grandchildren - which means the reduction of original holding by 25%, and was subject to tenancy, meaning further reduction of effective holdings of one-eight in the hands of the grandchildren. This would, in all probability, be insufficient to support a family. The grandson has no option but to supplement his income through other sources, resulting
in detachment from the land, and leaving the land to a tiller or further reduction in productivity.

So, at the end of the day, what has been achieved ? Nothing very positive. Commercial farming has disappeared, overall agricultural output has declined. The size of land holding is significantly reduced, scattered or fragmented, though the ownership goes to a much larger segment of the population, most of whom cannot survive on the output thereon.

Diversion of labour from land has not resulted in increased industrialization, commerce and trade, which incidentally requires that scarce commodity called capital and brain, generated by education. Unfortunately, this is lacking in our country. Would it not be too far fetched to link gradual exodus of migrant labour to neighbouring countries, or abroad, for menial labour, or the forced overstaffing in civil service/public sector corporations or simply high unemployment, to the issue of a badly managed land reform programme, and the resultant reduction in family income?

Lessons: It has been said time and again that the intention of the government is to divert human resource and capital of land owners to other productive sectors and to ensure land distribution to the poorest of the poor. This is a noble thought, but coming to ground reality, is it necessary, that everyone in this country should own a plot of land that cannot feed him? Should not the focus of the government be on mobilising the human resource towards alternative employment avenues instead of distributing little pieces of land here and there?

How are the capital and human resources to be diverted to other ‘productive’ sectors by destroying the very base that generates capital? Nepal is an agricultural country, more than 80% of the population depends on it. We have killed the productivity of land through unfinished ‘reforms’, programmes and policies. Should not the attention be diverted towards redressing these deficiencies and making agriculture more productive?

Crucial factors: Apart from the issue of fundamental rights to property, that is best dealt with by law, any future exercise in land reform must take into consideration some factors:

The management of land can either make or break a nation. The size of agricultural land holding must be sufficient to support a nucleus family of 4-5 members, in terms of access to education, medical facilities, social obligations, entertainment and modest savings.

Are 10 bighas, under consideration, suffice to fulfil this purpose? Many positive assurances could arise, if this meant a consolidated holding (or two at the most), with access to irrigation and other infrastructure facilities. Another factor to be considered is the quality of land, as classified by the government, on whose basis, tax is levied and tenancy rent fixed. Therefore, can 10 bighas of abal land be equated with the same quantity of dwyam, seam of chahar for land ceiling purpose? Will it not be logical to consider these qualitative factors in fixing the size of the holding for the equity of income?

Another important factor that needs to be addressed is the issue of fragmentation of basic land holdings. The land must be utilized and maintained in block forms, or sold in entirety. Land holding has been reduced dramatically; average holding is much too small for commercial use. The focus should be on consolidation for increased output and employment generation, not further fragmentation. This raises the issue of inheritance, and with the proposed inclusion of female members of the family, stakeholders of ancestral/parental property are on the rise. The whole issue of inheritance may require reconsideration.

Consolidation of scattered holding into one (or maximum two) block is crucial to make any land reform programme successful. Such consolidation should be where the maximum holding exists. Such an exercise was carried out in Haryana, India with a remarkable success. It will be worthwhile if our government also makes an attempt to learn that exercise. Surplus land requisitioned from large landholders needs to be sold to those with smaller holdings, on a priority basis, so as to achieve uniformity of ownership. This will create a middle class society, the engine of this nation.

Conclusion: It is therefore crucial, that any policy concerning management of land, must be contemplated with a full understanding of its long-term consequences. Treatment of agriculture land may require a different approach than that of the urban. The proposed legislation, seeks to penalise those who opted to retain their agriculture land in favour of those who diversified their investment, as an alternative to urban property. Should not a fair chance be given to the former to convert their holdings into corporate commercial farms, instead of simply destroying them?

We have gone through one land reform, that was totally bungled up, not because it was bad, but because it was left unfinished. Would it not be wiser to concentrate on completing the unfinished tasks, left undone for the last 37 years, rather than repeating the exercise without adequate preparation?