 |
Kathmandu Friday March 30, 2001 Chaitra 17, 2057.
|
Dr Rawal’s vindication
The Supreme Court, the other day, ordered the
government to reinstate the former governor of Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB), Dr Tilak Rawal,
terming his ouster a violation of the Nepal Rastra Bank Act 2012. The Act clearly
stipulates that a person appointed to the post of governor holds it for five years. It is
not without reason that such a rule exists. The intention is to make the governor as well
as the bank perform an independent role. To recall, there had never been an incident of
the sacking of a Nepal Rastra Bank governor. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala did the
unprecedented in sacking Dr Rawal, only to get an upper hand within his own party. What is
at stake here is the principle that the government of the day shall not interfere
politically in institutions of state that should be kept above politics. The central bank
of the country is one such institution. True, the Rastra Bank does not have the sway over
matters economic and fiscal that a central bank normally has. That is because of the
pegging of our currency to the Indian rupee. But it still has a vital role and that role
will grow further once the government’s policy of giving it greater autonomy
materialises. The court’s decision has vindicated Dr Rawal and made many of us feel
that the "judiciary" has performed an important role in saving a vital
institution from petty politics. Hopefully, this whole sordid affair is now over.
It is also very humiliating for Koirala and his
coterie who had set an unhealthy precedent by removing Dr Rawal. He was appointed governor
last February amid opposition, particularly from former finance minister Mahesh Acharya.
Acharya had even resigned to protest Rawal’s appointment. To make matters worse, when
Koirala became Prime Minister again after ousting Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Dr Rawal was
dismissed in a show of strength by Koirala and his close aide Acharya in the face of
rebellion within the party. It was a great disservice to the country. The main reason for
the sacking cited by Acharya at that time was "non-performance". Acharya did not
elaborate what he meant by non-performance. But one thing was clear. Rawal was sacked not
out of any reason of principle. We had opposed Dr Rawal’s appointment in the first
place and praised Mahesh Acharya’s resignation precisely for reasons of the
principles involved. At the time it was alleged that Dr Rawal had a hand in irregularity
at the Rastriya Banijya Bank of which he had been the boss. As; governor of the Rastra
Bank he would be the one to give that commercial bank a clean bill of health, a clear case
of conflict of interest. Similarly, once Dr Rawal had been duly appointed, we had opposed
his sacking out of what were patently political calculations. Such an important post
should not have been given such short shrift. There is no question that a so called
democratic party cannot flout the law simply for political convenience.
Other Stories
|
