Editorial [ The Kathmandu Post (Nepal)]

Food adulteration

Adulterated foodstuff and beveages are a problem that straddles the third world, although its dimentions may vary from country to country. In our own country the situation is pretty scary, to judge by the contents of a report to be put out soon by the Central Food Laboratory. The report speaks of a substantial rise in the adulteration of mustard and rapeseed oil with argemone mexicana, which can cause dropsy. Lab tests carried out under the Ministry of Agriculture show that 66 percent of oil samples were contaminated, way up from 28.9 percent just last year. Apart from adulterated mustard oil, adulteration levels in general food items like pasteurised milk, vegetable ghee, black pulses and chocolates are also high enough to pose a threat to public health. Out of nine pasteurised milk samples tested, seven were found to be contaminated with the micro-organism ‘coliform’ which causes dysentery, and 44 percent of black pulse samples had coal tar and other inedibles mixed in, a big jump from l2.5l percent last year. Also contaminated was 40 percent of the ghee in the market and 27 percent of vegetable ghee, although these levels are an improvement over the past. The report found that about 20 percent of all food samples in the market are contaminated. The size of the problem is therefore fairly clear. One rather suspects that much of the adulteration is deliberate while some of it is due to poor equipment and faulty processing.

What is equally clear is that a big part of the problem is lack of adequate monitoring and follow up by the authorities concerned. We do have some food laboratories to monitor quality levels and keep the authorities posted. But where are the follow up measures? Everyone remembers the public scare created a few years ago by the adulteration of edible oil with argemone mexicana. But the problem was soon forgotten after some quick fix responses. It was forgotten both by the public, and even more regretably by the government. Things could soon be back to square one if the adulteration levels now found in mustard and rapeseed oil are simply shrugged off. Meanwhile, even the officials concerned concede that enforcement mechanisms for quality control are weak . Although the Food Act is in force in all 75 districts, the number of food inspectors at the six food testing laboratories in the country is a woefully inadequate l6. These are backed up by just 30 food analysts. Authoritative estimates are that at least 70 food inspectors are needed to bring adulteration levels down to l0 or l2 percent. Considering the size of the problem and what is at stake, improving the infrastructure for monitoring and follow up including augmention of the personnel required is the least that the government could do. Although people may not necessarily be what they eat, the quality of their food intake is the biggest single factor determining the general quality of their health. If need be, the government should step in with budgetary help to uphold these quality levels. Far from being money wasted, it will actually be more than made up for by the savings in public health expenditure.

Why should Prime Minister resign ?

By Bijaya Lal Shrestha

Corruption takes place in every country. It keeps hitting the headlines almost always. It causes heads to roll among heads of governments and changes systems of government. Whenever it could not be checked on time, it has spread like cancer. So, its prevention on time ensures healthy growth of democracy, progress and prosperity. But this is easier said than done.

Nepal is not free from corruption either, nor did it cease during the panchayat system which emerged to abolish corruption inter alia. Corruption today has exceeded all past records. RNAC, ever since its sale of two Boeing 727 jets, has become a centre of corruption and the involvement of the Prime Minister in the Dhamija scam appears to have institutionalised it. Even the meeting of the RNAC Board of Directors was held at the Prime Minister’s official residence.

Thus pressured, RNAC awarded its general sales agency for Europe to a company newly set up with one Pound Sterling in capital and owned by Dhamija. However, the contract was terminated by the UML government and the court case that followed was reconciled with the payment of billions in compensation and legal fees.

After the Dhamija scam, it is the Lauda Air deal, unfortunately again with the involvement of the same prime minister. The opposition parties’ movement for the Prime Minister’s resignation, following prorogation of the House of Representatives, has now shifted to the streets and is still continuing. Recently, the ex-Executive Director of RNAC and one of its Directors were put behind bars after they demanded an impartial probe as they were being made scapegoats for their implementation of a cabinet decision. Despite this, the Prime Minister remains adamant about not resigning unless he is summoned by the Investigating Commission, which appear to be in a dilemma.

However, the fact that the Civil Aviation Minister, who had resigned earlier on moral grounds, is barred from leaving the Valley and has had his passport seized should motivate him to rethink his decision and relieve the country of this deadly impasse. It may be recalled here that ‘prevention of corruption’ is one of the three tasks he promised when he ousted Mr Krishna P. Bhattarai. He better keep himself in the ranks of those leaders of the world who, for country and democracy, opted to cooperate in investigation. He must therefore quit.

Surprisingly, the case of the South West China Airlines plane lease also has also come up now apparently, in view of its timing, to influence the opposition movement and thus relieve the Prime Minister of their pressure. This case should also be investigated and those involved brought to justice. If the UML terminates its movement just because of that case, it will be comparable to the withdrawal of the movement against Paras because of the Chase Air scandal reappearing in the press in parallel.

We should really give a big hand to the opposition parties for their unity in demanding Koirla’s resignation, and all those who listen to their conscience, be they teachers or students, young or old and leaders of all shapes and sizes, should support this movement as it is not for sharing power as it used to be and not for misleading the people through sermonising on democratic rules and procedures and raising questions of constitutionality. I request such people to look at the Philippines and Indonesia and look back at our own movements of the past. What is the use of democracy and the constitution if the corrupt cannot be brought to justice? Any system that fails to meet the basic needs of the people such as food, fibre and a roof will be termed a failure, with corruption at its roots.

Even after years of relief from the Ranas, if fifty percent of the people are still under grinding poverty, the situation calls for drastic action and the present street movement is timely and appropriate. In any case of national interest, all actions are considered appropriate. So the case should not be dropped as with that of Dasdhunga. The movement must go on.

Corruption is the problem of all problems. It has been defying all national efforts for development. Unless this monster is paralysed, no development in any sector is possible. A solution must therefore be worked out and it lies, without doubt, in resignation.

The present government is, in fact, technically a minority government. It has secured 36.14 percent of the popular vote which is less than what the combined opposition parties could bag. In terms of the number of seats in the House of Representatives, though the NC has 113 seats, quite a significant number of its legislators are against the leader of their Parliamentary Party. They also, like the opposition parties, have demanded his resignation. This is the reality and action in recognition of reality is what ensures the solution of any problem. The next solution, should all other measures fail, is for NC legislators to ensure passage of a vote of no-confidence and come under the leadership by an unsmeared leader. They must look a little farther and realise that they might be sidelined if the Prime Minister is not made to retire.

In 1991, the NC bagged 53.66 percent of the votes which was reduced to 33.38 percent in 1994. This fall is obviously attributed to the Dhamija scam. In the election held in 1999, the total popular vote registered for the NC was 36.14.

That they could muster this much support because of the split in the UML. In the next election, they can hope to win a majority only if the communists remain as divided as they are now. So if they do not want the NC sidelined, it is high time they acted decisively before it is too late. If they do so it will be a very commendable record for their party also - an action putting country before party and saving the party as well. The third option is to strengthen the present movement- and fight to the finish and nothing short of it.

(The author was associated with WHO)

We, the people.... who ?

By Utpal Raj Misra

During the Panchayat era, there was more emphasis on "for the people" and now in this Democratic era there has been more emphasis on "by the people." So we, the people have taken a variety of steps to do a variety of things by ourselves. We, who want whatever it is that we want and do whatever we do, are the sovereign people. And whatever we do is "by the people".

We, the people have shown, by our popular votes in the last general election, that we prefer communists to noncommunists and we, the people have resigned ourselves to be ruled by the noncommunists. And so we, the people want the Nepali Congress to rule. And we, the people want the UML to rule. We, the people want the RPP to rule. We, the people want an assortment of other parties to rule.

We, the people detest democracy that is why we follow or support the Maoists. And we, the people love and want to preserve democracy, that is why we are yelling our heads off for a national consensus and hunting down the Maoists. We, the people also want the good old Panchayat days. That is why we are saying "King come and save this nation". Yet, we the people do not want the bad old Panchayat days, so we throw stones at rallies and meetings that support the Panchayat days.

We, the people want to preserve our ethnic hegemony and monopoly in the affairs of state in the name of tradition. And we, the people are starting a movement for the rights of the indigenous people and the Dalits. Also we, the people are for maintaining our traditional male dominated society. And we, the people are clamouring for empowerment and equality before the law in terms of gender.

We, the people want Nepal to remain a Hindu Kingdom, and we the people want Nepal to be secular. We, the people are not in favour of proselytizing and religious conversions and we the people want the right to adopt a religion of our choice.

We, the people want to make a variety of demands and when they are not met we the people have the right to destroy national and individual properties and disrupt traffic and trade. And we, the people do not want such disruptions and destruction of properties and want the government to maintain law and order.

We, the people want to close down all private boarding schools and NGOs.

And we the people want to be self-employed and run private schools and NGOs unhindered. We, the people want to make lots of money and ride in sleek cars. And we the people just can’t stand those who are rich and ride in sleek cars.

If my men bash you up, it is the people venting their justified anger but if your men bash me up it is the antisocial goons that have gone and done it. What my party or group does is right. What your party or group does is wrong. We, the people decide what is right or wrong. What we, the people do is right and justified. Because as they say, "vox populi, vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God).

Not by the hurriyat alone

By Kuldip Nayar

Some eight years ago, I received a call from a top official of the Central government. He said that a person by the name of Yasin Malik was on a fast unto death and had requested a meeting with me. The name rang a bell. I remembered that he was the first Kashmiri to declare himself a militant at the Lal Chowk, the heart of Srinagar, an AK-47 rifle in hand. I went to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences where he was struggling for his life.

His demand, as he spelled it out to me, was that a team from Amnesty International in London be allowed to visit Kashmir to prepare a report on the violations of human rights which the security forces had committed in the valley. I asked him whether he would agree to a probe by "the black instead of by the white." He said he would agree provided I went there myself. I said, ‘Yes’ and he broke his fast.

VM Tarkunde, Rajinder Sachar, Amrik Singh, Balraj Puri and I constituted the team and we went to Srinagar and surrounding places. We found Yasin’s allegations correct and published a report on violations of human rights in Kashmir. What we said was quoted by Pakistan at many UN and other forums to condemn India.

Yasin has kept personal contacts with me ever since. He has turned a Gandhian as well a vegetarian. He is secular and believes in Kashmiriyat, a pluralistic concept the state has followed for centuries. Yasin is in America these days for medical treatment.

My feeling is that if he had been present at the All Party Hurriyat Conference, he would have used his influence with it. He would not have allowed it to shut the door on New Delhi by laying down the condition that the Hurriyat would hold no parleys with Planning Minister KC Pant, the interlocutor, until its team had visited Pakistan. The pro-Islamabad elements seem to have had their way at the protracted Hurriyat meeting.

The two other persons who have a liberal image in the Hurriyat are Abdul Ghani Lone and Mirwaz Umar Farooq. They are also passionately linked with the Kashmir problem and its solution. But both wilt under pressure. Lone is also personally bitter because of the beating he has had at the hands of the security forces. Still he and Umar would not have been for such a categorical decision which they knew the government in New Delhi would not accept. There are a few others who say in private that they were opposed to the decision.

It is obvious that some forces worked behind the scenes. The Hurriyat’s chairman, Abdul Ghani Bhat, and Syed Ali Shah Geelani, particularly the latter, who is inclined towards Pakistan, had their way. The fact that Geelani visited New Delhi and met the Pakistan High Commissioner before the Hurriyat took the final decision left no room for doubt.

If Geelani had his way, he would convert Kashmir into a fundamentalist state. He has said many a time that the movement in Kashmir was meant to establish an Islamic state, not to wrest its control from the hands of India alone. That he had the last word does not surprise me. Both Bhat and Geelani are parochial in their thinking. They told me long ago during an interview that the return of Kashmiri pandits to the valley was dependent on an overall settlement of the Kashmir problem.

Yasin’s contribution to changing the agenda before the Kashmiris is substantial. Until he came onto the scene, the valley was bristling with pro-Pakistan sentiments. He is the one who articulated the demand for azadi (independence). One can safely say now that if there were a plebiscite and if people were to have three options _ India, Pakistan and an independent state _ they would overwhelmingly vote for the third.

Geelani felt disappointed over the turn in the thinking. He wanted the valley to return to the pro-Pakistan feelings. He even played the Islamic card, a Muslim populated valley aligning itself with a Muslim state. That the Hurriyat came to adopt the Geelani line showed the weakening of the Kashmiriyat against the religious fervour. It is too early to say whether people of Yasin’s thinking have been defeated but there is no doubt that Geelani has won the first round.

Pakistan must have pushed the Hurriyat members, mostly dependent on it in many ways, hard. It is understandable that it does not want to be left out. But it should have realised by now that if New Delhi could settle the Kashmir problem without Pakistan’s involvement, it would have. Islamabad, in fact, should have been sitting pretty and waiting for the time till New Delhi approached it. This was inevitable.

In its anxiety to be counted, Pakistan spoilt the first ceasefire which the mainstream of militants had declared. Once again when the process of talks has begun at Srinagar, it has panicked. Why should it? Both the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration say that a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir would take place after talks between the two countries. By forcing the Hurriyat not to talk to New Delhi until Islamabad is a participant, Pakistan has only stalled a journey which was bound to end at Islamabad.

There are three sides to the triangle: Delhi, Srinagar and Islamabad. Touching all the three at the same time would only complicate matters. New Delhi is probably trying to find out what is acceptable to Srinagar. If it is something to which India cannot agree, it would have probably approached Pakistan to know about its inclination. Some way may have been found in the exercise.

The problem is that the Hurriyat wants to have a role which its strength does not entitle it to play. Even if its claim to represent the entire valley is accepted, it has no following in Jammu and Ladakh. India cannot accept the trifurcation of the state because it would tell upon its secular polity. Any solution, whenever reached, has to be non-communal.

The Hurriyat’s decision has, however, raised doubts about its bona fides. It sought permission to go to Pakistan on the understanding that its trip was necessary to stop the cross-border militancy, a condition which India has laid down for talks with Pakistan. When the government said no to the Hurriyat, there were protests by many retired Indian diplomats and the intelligentsia. They honestly believed that the trip was meant to silence guns. They feel let down by the Hurriyat’s change in stand.

Home Minister LK Advani was one person who consistently said that the Hurriyat wanted to play the role of a mediator. He was criticized for misunderstanding the Hurriyat’s mission. But he has been proved right. It means that the Hurriyat took the stand of talking to militants in Pakistan to camouflage its real intentions.

The Hurriyat’s contention that only a trilateral dialogue, that is, among India, Pakistan and Kashmir, could pave the way for "a permanent solution" is not incorrect. But the third party has to be the state as a whole, Jammu and Kashmir, not just the valley and, by no stretch of the imagination, the Hurriyat alone.

Bhat has said that the Hurriyat represents Kashmir and the rest is "crowd." How can he say that when the Hurriyat leaders' popularity has never been tested? In a democracy, the crowd counts, not those who have cut themselves off from the people or have got lost in religious shibboleths.

Islamabad should also realise that it can’t occupy a seat on the negotiating table forcibly or through a trick. It must have its say but should not insist on having it now. It would have been better in the long run if Islamabad had let the Hurriyat hold talks with Pant.