Get involved

Gaeso, the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen’s Organisation, organised a conference last year to publicize British discrimination against the Gurkhas, and a similar conference just this past week or so. Gaeso is evidently determined to bring the British to book. Its grievances are many, but they all boil down to lack of equal treatment in pay, perks and conditions between Gurkha soldiers serving in the British army and British servicemen. This disparity has now been given a human rights colouring. So far the British have generally reacted with restraint. But if Gaeso goes all out in its dispute with them, the British government might loose its cool. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal should step into the picture before things spin out of control.

Gaeso does have a case, although the argument is not all one sided. There is substantial disparity. But the British have always argued that they are bound by the tripartite accord involving themselves, India and Nepal, which pegs the pay scale for British Gurkha servicemen to that of the Indian army. It now transpires that Nepal had not been a proper signatory to that accord and therefore may not be bound by it. The issue is further complicated by the fact that service periods for British and Gurkha servicemen are significantly different. But what really goes to the heart of the matter is that while Gurkha servicemen are little more than a good bargain for the British, for many in the hills of Nepal service in the British army is a lifeline. It is also a significant source of foreign exchange for the Nepalese economy. If the British were to stop recruiting in Nepal, it would hurt Nepal more than it would hurt Britain.

The curious thing about this whole issue is the hands off attitude that His Majesty’s Government seems to have adopted. This lack of concern, if it is real, is decidedly wrong in view of what is at stake. Service with the British forces is important for Nepal both financially and for the social stability it helps bring to society in the hills. A good example of this is the village of Barpak in northern Gorkha district. Barpak, a community of some six thousand souls divided almost equally between the Ghale and Gurung communities, is prosperous because almost every adult male has served or is serving with the British or Indian army. It would be very hard for the Maoists to make inroads into Barpak.

The Gurkha connection may also be one of the reasons why Britain ranks high among donor countries active in Nepal. There is a lesson to be drawn from Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s inability to persuade the French recently to assume outrightly a similar role in Nepal. HMG should make its own position clear, including to what extent it is willing to back Gaeso, and approach the British on that basis to seek redress for Gaeso’s gripes. It should also make clear once and for all whether Nepal was in fact a proper signatory to the tripartite accord. What HMG should definitely not do is let the dispute shimmer until the very last minute, as it did with the stand-off between hotel owners and workers.

Politics of service charge

By Narayan Manandhar

March 15 marked the third deadline given by the hotel unions to wage nationwide hotel strike if their demand to introduce ten percent service charge is not fulfilled by March 14. Earlier, they have twice postponed their demand, first, at the request by former minister for culture, tourism and civil aviation Tarini Datta Chataut in November for a month and again in December at the request by Deputy Prime Minister Ram Chandra Poudel for two months giving time for the government committee to do necessary study. It is nearly eight months now since the issue has been raised by the hotel unions. During this period, the ball of service charge decision has rolled, literally, from one corner to other.

The primary factor behind this delayed decision is the indecisiveness and inaction on the part of the government. Both parties to the dispute, namely, the hotel unions and hotel employers have expected the government to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, it turned out that the government itself is creating obstacles. The unfolding of events until now has indicated that there is lack of both capacity and willingness on the part of the government to resolve the crisis. The government failed on two counts: first, it failed to bring dissidents together, it could not even "sell" the ideas incorporated in the Ligal Committee Report. Second, it could not decisively make its stand clear to the parties. The laxity on the part of the government was demonstrated by the then minister for couture, tourism and civil aviation holding a press conference on service charge nearly after a month the Ligal Committee formally submitted its report. The conference was frivolous, not only was it inordinately delayed, but also the contents of the report have already appeared in various newspapers.

The lack of conceptual understanding of the issue is another factor for government's indecisiveness. The then minister Chataut was quoted, saying from Pokhara, that the service charge issue could be tackled only by the parliament and not by his ministry. Either the minister is passing the buck to the parliament or, if not, he is taking service charge as a kind of government-imposed tax. On both counts he appears to be naive.

Apart from the minister's naivete, the other contributing factor is the involvement of a large number of players within the government. This is equally applicable to other actors as well. The issue has been dealt by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Tourism Minister. In some ways, the Vice Chairman of National Planning Commission (NPC) was also involved in bringing the parties together. Now, it is reported that even the Foreign Minister is in the fray. Who is negotiating with whom has never become a clear issue. During the eight -month-long service charge movement, the unions have seen altogether three tourism ministers - coming and going. The instability of the actors has created indecision and inaction on the part of the government.

Management: By rallying together sixteen associations and creating the Industry Friendly Committee, the employers may have been able to show the strengths of entrepreneurial solidarity against what they termed the "illegitimate demands". By the same reasoning the employers have also blurred the problems of service charge issue. There are talks that the employers do not conceptually agree with the service charge and there are also talks that they have agreed in principle, and have been looking for an "appropriate time" to introduce the service charge system. However, there are also talks that the service charge issue needs to be addressed along with (a) reforming labour related laws (b) providing industrial security (c) reviewing government taxes related to business (d) creating better industrial environment and (e) banning strikes and lockouts in hotels. Furthermore, the management is giving the macro- level reasonings to solve the micro- level problem. What is the issue at stake is yet not clear.

Obviously, there is a need for reforming labour laws, but it cannot be done in a month or two. Everybody knows that this is a tripartite issue. Furthermore, how can you tackle labour laws by just referring to the problems of a hotel industry?

On one hand, there are groups within employers, who are wholeheartedly supporting the recommendations of the Ligal Committee and, on the other
hand, there are groups, opposing its recommendations and opting for something else, already negotiated at the political level.

Finally, either by desperation due to the government’s inaction or by design to thwart the impending strike, the employers have gone to the court. Seeking legal solution may be a quick fix solution but it has complicated the negotiation process and put the parties in a difficult situation. It is interesting to note how an issue like service charge which is, basically, an interest dispute can be adjudicated in the court. It is only rights dispute that can be solved in the court.

Unions: The unions are also no less responsible for complicating the issue. In fact, they are the ones who first raised the issue. By not participating in the works of Ligal Committee, the unions played the politics of "having the cake in both hands". The unions, by speaking that the introduction of the service charge system will check fake billing system, have not only offended honest hoteliers but have also blurred the problem or the very purpose of introducing the service charge system. If transparency were such an important issue to them they could have raised through a different agency.

By forming a joint action committee between the two unions associated with NTUC and GEFONT, the unions have, obviously, gained an immense political clout. But, it has also produced a locked-in situation. That is the reason why the unions are not accepting anything less than "compulsory service charge system". Implementation of service charge system is the other issue where the unions have not put in enough homework. Even though service charge system is introduced, I doubt that the implementation will be an easy task.

Let the PM speak

By Rudra Prasad Sharma

Iwant it. Because I want it. I want it. Therefore I want it. That’s why I must get it. How is the logic? Do you agree with this logic? Anyway, it is up to you to decide. You deserve both positive and negative answers to the afore said question.

The above said ‘I’ stands for the present opposition parties in the House of Representatives. The House is now in stalemate over the alleged involvement of the Prime Minister in the Lauda Air deal. The opposition parties are demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister. It is a very commendable move of the opposition parties to be raising their voices against corruption in this unprecedented manner. On this score, the opposition lawmakers are discharging the duty warranted by the people quite remarkably. The saga of corruption in Nepal has become longer than river and deeper than ocean. Therefore, I hereby thank the opposition MPs for their attempt to check corruption.

But, the latest development in the 36 day-long deadlock of the House has brought skepticism. Have the MPs sketched out a safe landing for the pandemonium?

Here, the opposition MPs have made a mistake by obstructing the Prime Minister who showed up in the House in the aftermath of the parliamentary warfare. The MPs should have let the Prime Minister speak about the allegations levelled against him. Because, the lawmakers should preserve and honour the established principles of law and justice while discharging their duty or making laws. The adversary system while dispensing justice is the time honoured way, which is still being practiced here.

According to the adversary system, an accused must get an opportunity for defending himself. This right is guaranteed even by the Constitution. Article 14(5) states "..........nor shall be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner". Thus, any accused has the right to defend himself and any accused is deemed to be innocent until he is proven guilty before a competent court. Similarly, the principles of natural justice also have a provision for self defence. "Hear the both sides". If one who is to decide does not hear both sides (the accused and the claimant), the decision cannot be deemed as lawful and valid.

But defying all these principles, the opposition lawmakers are not providing even a single opportunity to the Prime Minister whom they have accused, taking a long time of 36 days. Is this their morale ? What would the opposition MPs lose, if the Prime Minister speaks once ? If the Prime Minister or anyone is guilty, he cannot wind it all up just by defending his conduct. If the MPs deserve the right to make allegations and demand the resignation of the Prime Minister, they must have the patience to hear out his contentions.

The Parliamentary system of democracy is based upon the philosophy that even the minority is to be heard. So, the opposition party deserves an honourable and even a decisive position in the House, unlike in the other system of governance. But if the opposition themselves do not honour the rights of an accused, it might be counter productive for themselves in future. Hey, let the PM speak in the House. Just give him a chance, and see.

Need for comprehensive policy in education

By Dr Radhaber D Khati

In a country where ninety one percent of the total population is still earning its livelihood from agriculture, where an extremely large majority of the people reside in villages in abject poverty and where industrial and service sectors are available for only a few groups of people for employment, it has become necessary to introduce reformative and comprehensive educational programmes. Observations in this regard suggest that sufficient attention this area needs to be given if education is to be made really useful.

Achievements made so far in this field have spoken of our efforts in propagating the type of education that has helped in producing the people with their capacities to do pen and paper works, or those with very little desire for labour work. The traditional concept of education, as an effective means of developing one’s personality and maintaining one’s special status or even something that assists someone to enrich his or her fortune, has been playing a significant role till this day. It has yet to be fully made a means of preparing people to get ably and skilfully engaged in productive activities for the broader cause of social-uplift.

The significance of this education is that it is meant to serve an individual in a society by injecting in him or her a strong sense of self concern which has much to do with self-uplift in a very restricted sense. Thus, sooner a man or woman is able to get rid of a society where he or she was previously in and will join a class of people claiming themselves to be of the " educated class", the more he or she would be considered successful. This might be the reason why a graduate, for example, has a craze to be in towns even without having any employment, whatsoever, than to be a teacher in remote rural areas.

If this trend is allowed to continue for long, or until it observes a practical detour, the consequent drift of an increasing bulk of educated people from rural to urban areas in search of brighter prospects will be continued for quite some years. Therefore, after decades of educational development, if we tend to ask ourselves as to what real benefit has our education system been able to give to the poor masses in the rural areas, we would find that this education of ours has actually left very little reasons to believe that it has actually met the real demands of the people who hardly spell out their demands.

Today, our educational needs are not as they were some forty years ago. Time will show how much of our past educational endeavours were based on assumptions that had only a thin relation with the real need of the society. Our experience over the past several decades has taught us more about what should really be the purpose of education. It has now been explicit that the wrong priority on educational provision may result in undermining the development of other diverse sectors like agricultural and rural development on which the ultimate success of educational development depends.

This may also be the reason why the severe waste of human as well financial resources, especially in a country like Nepal where government educational expenditures have risen spectacularly over the past 20 or 30 years. In the face of this increasing public financial liability, there exists a large and ever expanding general education, which is characterized by its mixed quality, high rate of the fallout and excessive enrolment at lower end and an excessive wastage at the top.

Of the total children entering the primary level, only about one third reach the fourth grade. More than seventy percent entering the secondary level fail in the SLC exam. This picture highlights the need for a release from the restrictions of the traditional character of secondary education.

The initial principle for the adoption of higher secondary schooling was to make this level of school education particularly, skill intensive, but it appeared to be something else when it came to the actual practice.

Although vocationalization in secondary education was tried out in manners more than once in the past, it has only recently been realized that the ‘good’ and ‘right’ system of education is the one which is most relevant to the particular need of a society or a nation. Education planing, accordingly, has now begun to be geared to the realities of the situation in which it has to operate. But it would require a real transfer of priority from the type of education existing thus far, whose cardinal aim, as it appears, is to boost the number of young people attending educational institutions at various levels, which can best produce required manpower. This would automatically call for a redirection of our efforts and expenditures to the type most relevant to the needs for the development of agricultural sector with the ultimate aim to relate education to the job that the economy of the nation can afford to provide.

Introduction of job-oriented training programmes to remote rural areas can be regarded as the most significant steps towards it. This definitely calls for a real and strong political commitment on the part of the national leaders, followed by a clear professional sincerity and dedication, not politicization of it, which is what appears to be the case.