Parliament session

The twentieth session of parliament which gets under way today has a lot on its plate. There is the unfinished business which has stock piled because the last session virtually aborted. One of the pending works is the bill relating to property rights for women. This will have to be tackled sooner or later if it is not to become a permanent feature of every parliament session to come. Then there is the budget for the new fiscal year which the government has to navigate through the shoals. It’s not hard to imagine what will happen to the nation’s housekeeping, if the opposition manages to run this session of parliament also into the ground. There is also the ordinance on the armed police force which requires parliamentary endorsement, if it is to retain legal status. And on top of all that is the rough weather the treasury benches are likely to face over a number of issues that have arisen since the last session. The public security regulations which the government pulled out of its sleeve at the very threshold of the new session will add substantially to the decibel level in the halls of parliament. The horrendous shootings at the royal palace almost entirely wiped out Nepalese royalty and the full implication is still sinking in. The incident will no doubt figure prominently on the floor of parliament. Questions may be raised over the loose ends left by the high level probe commission. Security lapses at Narayanhity and the place of the palace in the general call for transparency will also occupy the attention of lawmakers. Since the Prime Minister looks after the royal palace portfolio also his moral responsibility is sure to become an issue. Which brings us to the other point.

The nineteenth session was a session that never really was, and all because Girija Prasad Koirala saw no reason to resign despite all the opposition clamour for his head. Signs are the opposition parties are gearing themselves up again to go for the jugular, and damn the consequences. Although they have not been able to make Lauda stick on Koirala in a purely legal sense, they have, rightly
or wrongly, seized the moral highground and are breathing fire at his stubborn refusal to quit. But Koirala is no quitter, especially under pressure. If the opposition wants to see Koirala go, they are going to have to give him a chance to go gracefully. They, and in particular the CPN-UML, should also realise that their moral stance has rather weakened since their refusal to find Bhim Rawal guilty of irregularity in another airplane lease deal. The public sees this as a clear case of double standard. Continued hounding of Koirala by the leftists and others who have made common cause with them may raise hackles even among sections of the Congress camp which would otherwise revel in Koirala’s difficulties. Meanwhile, though the opposition cannot oust Koirala on legal ground, he himself should come around to realising that his continued presence at Baluwatar is doing the country more harm than good. In fact there is some hint that he may just be waiting for the passage of the budget before he does bow out. But bow out or not, both he and the opposition should now show the maturity to prevent Parliament from dysfuntioning again.

All eyes on budget session

By Sanjay Prakash

The present twentieth Session of Parliament, is in itself crucial by the fact that it is the first parliamentary session to be addressed by new monarch Gyanendra.

Since the restoration of democracy, parliamentary sessions have been convened regularly for democratic legislation and even the constitutional provision for special or emergency sessions have been brought to use. This decade has been eventful in democratic exercise. We have seen majority parties in power. We have seen minority party’s rule. We have also seen coalition governments.

All civilised societies have some form of government. Government, especially the periodic plans and budget are the mechanism we use to make communal decisions: where to build highways, what to do about homeless people, what kind of education to provide for our children? It is the way we provide services that benefits all our people: national defence, environmental protection, police protection, highways, dams, water systems. It is the way we solve the collective problems. Think of the problem that Nepal is facing today: Pajero culture in the name of democracy, vandalism, inflation, crime, violence, child labour, poverty, environmental degradation, pollution, illiteracy, drug abuse, etc. How will we solve these problems? By acting collectively. How do we act collectively? Through government: do the opposition parties have also a vital role to play.

In a democratically elected government, the budget appeals to the people’s inherent goodness. Moreover, it is also a tribute to the people’s energy, creativity, spirit of entrepreneurship and adventure, which somehow in the past regime had been bottled up. We have seen the unshackling of the whole process of economic management.

Alastair Farrugia says, "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens." The forthcoming Budget for the fiscal year 2001-2002 will be just one more budget. No one denies the need to raise the government revenue but it is the modality that matters most. The government should have taken this opportunity to boost the business environment as well as the country. The measures taken to plug the holes in revenue leakage are good in general. But the budget should not be framed in isolation ignoring the neighbouring countries’ budget.

King Gyanendra has summoned the 20th session of parliament for June 25. The notice has been issued only a week in advance looking at recent developments in the country. The parliament session, also dubbed as the budget session, is meeting for the first time after the royal palace massacre. The main opposition, UML, and other opposition parties had continuously disrupted parliament for nearly two months demanding the resignation of Prime Minister G P Koirala over the Lauda Air scandal. Analysts say the opposition parties are not likely to go the same way during this session though they would continue to pressurize the Koirala government. UML leader Bharat Mohan Adhikari told the BBC that his party would finalize its course of action in the parliament in a day or two.

The budget is the single-most important event in the economic and financial world. In a sense, it is the annual report about Nepal as a country. It contains the government’s revenue and expenditure for the end of a particular fiscal year, which runs from 1st of July to 31st of June.

The budget is the most extensive account of the government’s finances, covering revenues from all sources and expenses on all activities. The budget of any country, whosoever may be in power, is a paradigm not simply of economic development, but of a conjoined and linked process of social, political, ideological and economic development perceived in terms of progress towards the goal of material abundance in the country.

Several courses are open to the Finance Minister if he is to meet unavoidable obligations and still maintain the growth targets and provide adequate funds for physical and social infrastructure. In the total economic management, the Finance Minister will look into project management, i e make the existing capital outlays work; maintenance management i e ensuring that the existing infrastructure-power, telecom, services-function with at least 50 percent more efficiency; productivity management i e higher norms of productivity; corporate management i e reducing the size of the Ministries and departments, etc.

The revenue budget consists of receipts of the government (revenues from tax and other sources), and its expenditure. Revenue receipts record taxable and non-taxable revenues. Tax revenues are made up of income tax, corporate tax, excise, customs and other duties that the government levies. In non-tax revenue, the government’s sources are interest on loans and dividend on investments like PSUs, fees, and other receipts for services it renders. Revenue expenditure is the payment incurred for the normal day-to-day running of government departments and various services that it offers to its citizens. The government also has other expenditures like servicing interest on its borrowings, subsidies, etc. The difference between revenue receipts and revenue expenditure is usually negative. This means that the government spends more than it earns. This difference is called revenue deficit. The capital budget is different from the revenue budget as its components are of a long term nature. The capital budget consists of capital receipts and payments. Capital receipts are government loans raised from the public, government borrowings from the central bank, treasury bills, loans received from foreign bodies and governments, divestment of equity holding in public sector enterprises, securities against small savings, state provident funds, and special deposits.

Capital payments are capital expenditures on acquisition of assets like land, buildings, machinery, and equipment. Investments in shares, loans and advances granted by the central government to state and territory governments, companies, corporations and other parties.

The budget impacts the economy, the interest rate and the stock markets. How the finance minister spends and invests money affects the fiscal deficit. The extent of the deficit and the means of financing it influences the money supply and the interest rate in the economy. High interest rates mean higher cost of capital for industry, lower profits and hence lower stock prices.

The fiscal measures undertaken by the government affect public expenditure. For instance, an increase in direct taxes would decrease disposable income, thus reducing demand for goods. This decrease in demand will translate into a decrease in production, therefore affecting economic growth. Similarly, an increase in indirect taxes would also decrease demand. This is because indirect taxes are often partially or completely passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Higher prices imply a reduction in demand and this in turn would reduce the profit margins of companies, thus slowing down production and growth. Non-plan expenditure like subsidies and defence also affect the economy as limited government resources are used for non-productivity purposes.

Breeding proficient Englishmen

By Ritesh Shrestha

I think we are well aware how important our test program is for students who wish to study abroad. In case you don’t know about this, the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is used to evaluate the English Proficiency of individuals whose native language is not English. However, I am not on a sort of advertisement campaign nor an informative scheme to weigh the pros and cons of TOEFL. Let me come to the point, "why"?

We have always been wildly fascinated by the motely demos and attitude (which for sure knows no bounds) shown by our politicians. And, when it comes to speaking English, we know to what extent it can be a matter of fascination. This was evident from the recent presentation of the "probe report" about the royal massacre. Otherwise, on such a grave issue a reputed national figure couldn’t have heaped up frequent outburst of mockery from the journalists present there from all around the globe. And we were glad that there was actually an English translation for the gunshot heard in Nepalese accent. It seemed that he was actually sitting for a new type of TOEFL – the Test of English as a Funny Language.

To add to the list of this well performer of the new species of TOEFL, we cannot forget the leading figure of the ruling body (who once stepped into CNN program hosted by Riz Khan to show his part of the fascination) and the likes who have impressed any foreign figures they have come across.

More on the menu of fascination we have been astonished by the fact that you lot always fancy speaking English irrespective of your level fascinating ability. And it’s true that a Nepali to English interpreter has no use when there is first a need of English to Nepali interpreter.

Whatsoever be the case we highly appreciate your respect for our language. If we were to conduct a survey test, say Test of English as a Famous Language among personnel of different nations, I think we will indubitably bag enormous support from your group. However though you have love for the language on one hand, you are actually making a hell mess of our language on the other hand. Sorry, if I was rude. But we think it’s a high time we introduced another version of TOEFL only for people like Ranabhat. The new breed of TOEFL as we have named it –Test of English as a Fluent Language will evaluate the English fluency of the candidates. The whole idea behind the establishment of such program is to set restriction as to whether one has the right to speak in English or not.

But don’t worry, we also have a special course package before the actual test begins. You can count on us. We will charge your tongue with a vibrant brush up with the language you can’t dream of not speaking.

Twenty-six years after

By Kuldip Nayar

Even a couple of weeks after the Emergency -- imposed on the 26th of June 26 years ago -- it was quite well known in Delhi that Rajiv Gandhi, then a pilot with the Indian Airlines, and his wife, Sonia Gandhi, were not happy over the way Sanjay Gandhi, Rajiv’s younger brother, had become an extra-constitutional authority and had literally taken over the government.

In fact, both of them would spend most of their time outside the house, 6, Safdarjung Road, from where Sanjay operated. They did not want in any way to be associated with what was going on. Rajiv even complained to his mother, Mrs Indira Gandhi, then the Prime Minister, that he did not like all that was happening.

Newspapers at that time compared the two rooms, used by Rajiv Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi, located at opposite ends of the house, to underline the differences between the two brothers. One room was quiet with the door shut and the other busy and noisy with senior officials hanging around and a long queue of visitors waiting.

The views of the two were poles apart. Rajiv respected the wishes of the electorate as he proved subsequently. He did not even try to form a government in 1989 when the Congress lost the majority in the Lok Sabha. He preferred to sit in the opposition, although his was the largest party. On the other hand, Sanjay believed in a system which was ruthless and autocratic. I had a peep into his mind when I met him. I was then writing my book, The Judgment -- The Inside story of the Emergency. Sanjay came to know of it. He sent me a message through Kamal Nath, who was then a member of the reconstituted board of the Indian Express, where I worked.

Both Mrs Gandhi and Sanjay had lost at the polls and so had the Congress. The party’s tally in the entire northern India was two or three seats. The Safdarjang Road house looked like a lost battlefield, a sad picture of furniture, luggage and papers strewn all over.

"How could you think you would get away with it?" I asked Sanjay who, clad in a white kurta and pyjamas, was standing under a tree. "In my scheme of things, there were no elections," he said without any trace of remorse. "Then why were elections held?" I asked him.

"You should put the question to my mother," Sanjay replied, adding, "I opposed them vehemently." At that very moment, I had a short glimpse of Mrs Gandhi, retracing her steps from the verandah to the main house. I never asked her why she went to the polls. In fact, we did not meet even after her return to power. So the mystery remained unexplained.

I believe that Maneka Gandhi, Sanjay’s widow, has filed a case in London against the author and the publisher of a recent book on Mrs Indira Gandhi. Maneka has reportedly challenged certain observations attributed to her husband. I do not know what she has said in her plaint but she knows very well that what Sanjay did harm the country a lot _ something which cannot be repaired. What he or Mrs Gandhi did during the emergency can never be condoned nor effaced from the pages of Indian history. The authoritarianism of the two, violating all laws and values, will remain a black mark against them.

Posterity may be harsher to them because they set in motion the type of personal governance, which has continued to be followed both at the Centre and in the States. The undemocratic way of administration is increasing as the days go by. The new rulers have not even the desire to act according to what is right.

It is, however, strange that neither Rajiv Gandhi, when he was Prime Minister, nor Sonia Gandhi, even after becoming the Congress president, ever uttered a word against the emergency. Probably they thought that criticism of the emergency meant the criticism of Mrs Indira Gandhi. And they did not want to criticise her.

Yet, if they were unhappy during the emergency, as is the general impression, Sonia Gandhi should at least say "sorry" to make it clear that she and her husband were not a party to the emergency. The Congress will have to make amends. Some bitterness will remain because one lakh people were detained without trial, far more than the total arrests the British had made during the Quit India movement. Still the expression of regret may begin to irk the conscience of people in high places and make them realise that the wrongs would have to be accounted for one day. In a country where the line between right and wrong, moral and immoral, has been obliterated, the word "sorry" may begin some introspection in public affairs.

I do not like to recall bad days. They bring back bitter memories. Still I believe that the dust of time should not be allowed to obscure certain happenings. They should always be remembered, even though they reopen old wounds. The process may be cathartic because people had surrendered their freedom without any fight at that time.

True, the nation was initially in a state of shock and then of stupor, unable to realise the directions and the full implications of the actions of the government and its functionaries. But subsequently, when the mindless arrests of opponents did not abate and motivated raids were conducted on houses and business premises, people woke up. But they were too scared to speak out.

The communists, initially on Mrs Gandhi’s side, also recalled how wrong they had been in their support to her. By then democracy had been subverted. Mrs Gandhi had not only suspended the fundamental rights but had also switched off the lights of the democratic system to make people live in the darkness of dictatorship for 20 months.

The press behaved most abjectly. LK Advani was right when after the emergency he told journalists: You were asked to bend but you began to crawl. The role of the Press Council was most reprehensible because the then chairman allied himself with the government. Sanjay literally ran the country. His henchmen carried out high-handed and arbitrary actions with impunity.

Tyrants sprouted at all levels overnight -- tyrants whose claim to authority was largely based on their proximity to the seats of power. The attitude of the general run of public functionaries was largely characterised by a paralysis of the will to do the right thing. The ethical considerations inherent in public behaviour became generally dim and in many cases beyond the mental grasp of many public functionaries. Desire for self-preservation, as admitted by a number of public servants before the Shah Commission, which went into the excesses during the emergency, became the sole motivation for official action and behaviour. Anxiety to survive at any cost formed the keynote of approach to the problems that came before many of them.

But Jayaprakash Narain, who represented the country’s collective resistance to the emergency, wrote in his prison diary that the people would not accept the indignity and shame of totalitarianism. People did rise ultimately. What worries me is that those who were victims of the emergency are themselves indulging in acts which suggest that their faith in the freedom of the individual or the press is only skin-deep. A few television anchormen have gone to the extent of characterising the protest against the emergency as a personal campaign by some people against Mrs Gandhi. All I can say is: Lord, forgive them; they know not what they do.