Beyond Sen’s ‘disappearance’

The "sudden disappearance" of Krishna Sen, the editor of Janadesh weekly, is a clear indication of how easily law enforcing agencies circumvent the Supreme Court’s verdict. In fact, incidents such as attacks on journalists, while covering events of public interest, and mysterious disappearance from police custody, have increased in recent years. This also indicates that the police personnel have not only defied the court order but have also arbitrarily arrested some journalists. Many a people in detention have met with such a fate more recently. In a number of cases, the custodians of law and order have played a cat-and-mouse game. If such a nasty game goes on unabated, the Maoists may draw support from unexpected quarters. Despite media and human rights activists’ outcry, the government has been continuously violating rules and regulations on one pretext or another.

Arrested two years ago on charges of possessing illegal arms, a Maoist sympathiser Sen was supposedly released on the Saturday evening in compliance with the Supreme Court order. Four full days have elapsed, yet the whereabouts of the journalist is shrouded in mystery. Once again, the government authorities have given conflicting explanations to his disappearance. Regardless of the nature of the crime committed, the kith and kin and the rest of the public must know the whereabouts and status of the detainees promptly, without any hindrance. The ruling Nepali Congress government that claims to be synonymous with democracy, should know democratic norms and values better. But the case is sadly different. It has failed miserably on the law and order front. Increasing incidents of gruesome violations of human rights and the lax attitude to rules and regulations have sparked off indications that the country may slowly slip back to the authoritarian regime. And Krishna Sen’s disappearance lends enough credence to it.

Even the Internal Security Law of the Panchayat regime seemed to have some semblance of democratic values. At least, the acquitted ones did not vanish in police custody, or before they could step out of prison premises. Even if for a few minutes, they used to release them before re-arresting them. That was one decade ago, during the autocratic partyless regime. But this hardly makes any difference to those who have been the victims of discriminatory rules and regulations after the restoration of multi-party system. The public dreads a repeat of the harsher version of the Internal Security Law. How can there be two sets of law: one for the government and the other for the public? On this score, the opposition parties and National Human Rights Commission are not that articulate. Krishna Sen’s case merits immediate attention and action.

Renewed hopes for talks with the Maoists are likely to be shattered since the government is repeating its past mistakes. But irrespective of anything else, the government should be fully aware that press freedom is of prime importance for the survival of democracy and respecting journalists and letting them have their say, no matter how unpalatable it may be to the ruling elites, is one way of proving commitment to democracy. We hope that the government will realise its folly in performing vanishing tricks on journalists who criticise them or the system and believe in an altogether different ideology.

Lesson for SAARC from ASEAN experience

By Mohan Lohani

SAARC was launched in 1985 eighteen years after the establishment of ASEAN, and circumstances leading to the birth of these two Asian regional organisations were entirely different. A primary objective of SAARC has been to accelerate the process of economic and social development in member-states through collective action in agreed areas of cooperation. Since ASEAN was created in 1967 during the Vietnam war, a common threat perception brought together the five Southeast Asian countries, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand to form an organisation as an expression of collective will to ensure peace and stability in the region. The Southeast Asian leaders were keen to enhance through this mechanism political and security cooperation and declare the region a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN).

ASEAN received a new thrust and impetus from the fourth summit held in Singapore in 1992, and a significant initiative of this meeting was a regional security structure which further contributed to achieving the association’s goal of peace and stability, amity and cooperation in the region. Southeast Asia is no longer divided today between anticommunist and socialist countries, or ASEAN and Indo-China. What is remarkable is the considerable significance that ASEAN has attached to its relations with major and extra-regional powers such as China, Japan, Russia, the US and the EU for Southeast Asian security and stability. The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which was designed to ensure and promote regional security by involving major powers and other important extra-regional powers, serves as a multilateral consultative forum aimed at promoting preventive diplomacy and confidence building among the states in the Asia-Pacific region.

The ASEAN secretary-general who, unlike his SAARC counterpart, enjoys the status of a minister, leads sectorial dialogue relations with India and Pakistan, consultative relations with China and Russia and represents the association as required in the development of relations with dialogue partners such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, the US and the EU.

Such a forum, where officials and representatives of South Asian governments could share the same podium with regional and extra-regional powers as dialogue partners and hold consultations with them on common issues of vital concern to people in the region with positive implications for regional peace, security, stability and prosperity, is inconceivable in South Asia in the absence of mutual trust between and among member states, in particular the two old South Asian adversaries, India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan have already fought three wars during the last 50 years, two over Kashmir which has remained unresolved and proved to be a major stumbling block to the promotion of peace, amity and stability in the region. The Kashmir issue with enormous security implications for regional peace and stability has never figured on the SAARC agenda, since the SAARC Charter excludes bilateral and contentious issues from the deliberations of the association.

It may be recalled that ASEAN, unlike SAARC, was launched without a Charter, although its 1967 Declaration set out the guidelines for ASEAN activities and defined the aims of the organisation. The association had three basic objectives, namely, to safeguard the political and economic stability of the region against big power rivalry, to promote the economic, social and cultural development of the region through cooperative programmes and to serve as a forum for the resolution of intra-regional differences.

The SAARC leaders recognise that regional cooperation has a political dimension. During the past 15 years SAARC has had ten summits, and at each summit the South Asian leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to cooperation within the SAARC framework based on respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and mutual benefit. The Declaration of the Tenth SAARC summit categorically states that "the aims of promoting peace, stability and amity and accelerated socio-economic cooperation may best be achieved by fostering good neighbourly relations, relieving tensions and building confidence". To this end, the South Asian leaders agreed at the same summit to initiate the process of informal political consultations which, it was hoped, would "contribute to the appreciation of each other’s problems and perceptions as well as for decisive action in agreed areas of regional cooperation". The process of informal political consultations between and among the SAARC member-states to resolve political differences has not become operational as the mechanism, something along the pattern of ARF for holding such consultations and involving as and when necessary regional and extra-regional powers in such consultations has yet to be worked out.

While SAARC has yet to institutionalise itself as a mechanism or forum for ensuring confidence and understanding in the region through political and economic cooperation, prospects of South Asian cooperation on political and security issues received a setback after India and Pakistan conducted a series of nuclear tests in May 1998, fuelling fears of nuclear proliferation and confrontation in the region. On the other hand, ASEAN, in recent years, has established itself as a vibrant and resilient regional organization capable of shaping and influencing political and economic relations in the Asia-Pacific region. The association has been able to attract the attention of the international community in world forums like the UN by taking a common and united stand on major issues of global and regional concern. The ability to speak with one voice has considerably increased ASEAN’s clout.

ASEAN has evolved over the years and encompasses within its fold the entire Southeast community represented by the ten countries with different political and social systems. What SAARC can learn from ASEAN is that it must move forward and address itself seriously to developing a community culture in South Asia based and nurtured on action-oriented programmes of cooperation affecting in concrete terms the life of each member of the community. It is indeed ironic that while the eleventh SAARC summit to have been hosted by Nepal in November 1999 has been indefinitely stalled because of political developments in Pakistan leading to a suspension of dialogue between the leaders of the two countries, both India and Pakistan enjoy good relations with ASEAN as its Sectorial Partners.

It is heartening that since the official SAARC process has slowed down for nearly two years, the Track Two process representing retired government officials, former diplomats, academics and representatives from the media and the private sector has become active in recent years to revitalise the SAARC process. Only last December, Kathmandu hosted the first ever meeting of the Citizens’ Commission for South Asia headed by India’s former Prime Minister I K Gujaral. The official response to this meeting from all SAARC capitals has been encouraging. Following the recent meeting between president Chandrika of Sri Lanka who is also the current chairperson of SAARC and prime minister Bajpayee of India, it has been decided to convene the meeting of the Standing Committee at the level of foreign secretaries in May this year. It will hopefully pave the way to a ministerial meeting followed by a rescheduling of the Summit towards the end of the year.

If ASEAN is moving fast towards integration on political and economic fronts, despite different political and economic systems in the ten countries that constitute the organisation, there is every reason to hope that the SAARC process, despite jerks and jolts, ups and downs that it has experienced over the years, has become irreversible. No problem is incapable of peaceful resolution with necessary political will. The SAARC framework does provide opportunities to create in South Asia a constructive process in generating a climate of mutual trust, goodwill, harmony, understanding and mutually beneficial cooperation.

(Based on a paper presented at an international seminar held recently in Sri Lanka)

Toilet talk

By Perina Pathak

Eureka! Eureka!! I’ve at last found a toilet. Desperate to respond to the call of nature, I got inside a public toilet near the Pashupatinath temple only to be smacked outside. It wasn’t the ghost nor was it the bad man that gave me shock of my lifetime. Filthy and stinking odour that permeated the caged-toilet was enough to throw me out. With the hindsight of wisdom, I realised my naivete. Too fool I was not to have smelt nauseating that filled the air even outside the toilet. Such a horrific experience inside public toilets is not uncommon. With this feeling, I tried to console myself.

It is hard to find a public toilet in Kathmandu valley. And it is even harder to find well-built clean toilets (don’t forget to check the rickety doors!). But what’s the use of such toilets in the city? People are getting free and spacious open toilets!

In the process of relieving themselves, they do not spare any place - be they bridge pavements, traffic light pillars, alleys, restaurant doorsteps, walls.. the list is endless.

But the Ratna park bus stop, Bir hospital and overhead bridges seem to have outnumbered all other places combined.

Even before you reach the Ratna park, foul smell comes to greet you from a mile or so. For years, a toilet inside the park has been out of use as the people find open-air toilet more convenient. It is amazing how these people get time and guts to dirty the busy roads. Don’t they feel any shame? How do they get time on those busy roads?

Let alone the roadsides and open places, even overhead crossing bridges are not left out. Take the bridge in front of Bir hospital. You literally dodge excreta and filth in every next step.

What bold and shameless creatures they must have been! The practice is mushrooming day after day because of the government’s utter disregard for this problem. Perhaps, most of the ministers and mayors are used to smelling rotten toilets at home and in offices.

The ministers seem to have forgotten their old days, walking on the streets, smelling the same stuff. Since they have gained much these days, they travel in an air-conditioned Pajero. Then how can they spare a thought to such a thing as toilet? Or is it that they have become immune to filth? If this goes on unchecked, filthy toilets will soon outsmart the existing garbage problem in Kathmandu valley.

Soon the valley will get buried in sewage. The danger of filthquake looms large over the cityscape. So make it filthproof immediately !

‘New growth’ in Nepal-China ties

By Dr Upendra Gautam

The beginning of the first century of the third millennium has started witnessing a new growth in Nepal-China relations. Nepal-China relations date back to the dawn of human civilization in this part of Asia. In this context, Prof Wang Hongwei of Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Beijing has this legend to be retold: "According to Swayambhu Purana, Kathmandu Valley was once a huge lake full of dragons and snakes, and simply unsuitable for mankind to settle down there. Later, Bodhisattva Manjusri while roaming came here from China found the environment was fine and it was really a nice place. Then, Manjusri played his magic arts and cut open the mountains in the south to let out water and built the Swayambhunath. The place has come to be known as Nepal." And Prof Dor Bahadur Bista has this story to tell: "Until the beginning of nineteenth century, Nepal shared greater cultural affinity and economic ties with Tibet than with India. There were more Nepalese in Tibet than anywhere else outside Nepal; and there were more people of Tibetan origin than that of Indian in Nepal." ( Nepalese in Tibet, Contributions to Nepalese Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, December 1980).Since the relations between Nepal and China were diplomatically re-established in 1955, they have been steadily consolidated and set on to embrace new growth in the 21st centuary in a substantial manner. King Birendra not only stated this fact during his latest visit to China, but also revealed that Nepal and China have reached a consensus on the consolidation and development of bilateral cooperation in the new century.

The Boao Forum for Asia (BFA) Declaration provides an appropriate working Asian perspective to the 21st century between Nepal and China. Nepal-China relations, which have been based on the five principles called Panchaceel, receive a much-needed functional boost from the BFA Declaration. King Birendra, who, according to President Jiang Zemin, "added colour" to the BFA as his "guest of honor" in the context of the King’s "first visit to China by a head of state in the new century." This has indeed clearly highlighted the potential that Nepal-China relations possess in the larger context of peace and prosperity in Asia.

Now that the new growth in Nepal-China relations would match with the BFA initiatives of promoting the "socio-economic goals of Asian countries through greater integration in a rapidly globalizing world," it would be meaningful to observe how China and Nepal will proceed jointly to accelerate cooperative arrangements that enable them to meet this challenge.

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji recognizes this "new growth" in the good neighbourly relations between China and Nepal as an engine that will lead the bilateral cooperation to a new height in this century. Economic and trade cooperations are "an important part" of the new growth. Premier Zhu has also declared China’s readiness to explore new ways of cooperation in transportation, development projects and trade between the two countries. Added to these areas of cooperation should be the industrial utilization of water, tourism and technical education, including information technology. The Chinese investment in these sectors, in which Nepal enjoys comparative advantage as well as rich potential, should be of great benefit for both countries.

Li Feng, former Premier and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, eloquently provided a framework for the new growth when he made the solemn pledge that China will always be a "good friend, good neighbor and good partner" of Nepal.

This is a candid expression of the fact that the traditional friendship between China and Nepal was not adequate to tap the great potential that the bilateral relations actually possess. The combination of good friendship, good neighborliness and good partnership intrinsically contribute to promoting China-Nepal relations in an era when China is a major global player with a strong Asian perspective. The three-in-one Chinese vision constitutes a substantial part of the Chinese response to the
expectation of the Nepali people who firmly believe in the historical, as well as in the geo-political truism that Nepal would be one of the most serious strategic hazards to the integrety of China. So, China will be only discharging a neighborly duty if it helps Nepal tobenefit from the "region-wide strategic alliance" by seizing "trade, industry and investment opportunities emerging from a globalizing world."

Hu Jintao, Chinese Vice President, who is considered to be one of the top-notch Chinese leaders and who knows things about Nepal better, identifies equal treatment, friendship and trust, mutual support and sincere cooperation as the characteristics of the present China-Nepal relations. Understandably, on the basis of these characteristics, China is willing to work with the Nepali side "to build a good neighbourly partnership to last for generations between the two countries."

It is significant that the Chinese leaders have been making systematic efforts to design a framework, to identify the contents and to set the parameters for the 21st century Nepal-China relations. Now the people of both countries would start evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of this relationship in an entirely practical manner. For example, they will see how many trans-Himalayan roads and flights there are between the two countries, how many people visit each other, how much volume of trade has increased between the two countries, how much the mountain and rivers have been harnessed for mutual benefits, how much communication and information has been enhanced between the two countries. Perhaps at this stage, it is credibly predictable that the 21st century will be the first century of Nepal-China relations that will be guided by Panchasheel letters and the Boao spirit. This guiding force will help realize a comprehensive and mutually beneficial relationship through enhanced economic and strategic partnership.