Editorial [ The Kathmandu Post (Nepal)]

No clean chit

The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority has not given Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala a clean chit over the Lauda aircraft lease. Quite the contrary, although the coterie surrounding him might argue otherwise. In what may turn out to be a landmark decision, the CIAA has started prosecutions against ten people involved, including six who are already in custody and the then minister for civil aviation whose passport it has seized. As for the Prime Minister, he has been given more than a tap on the wrist although spared the humiliation of having to face litigation. The political opposition, which has been baying for Koirala’s blood all along for a whole laundry list of sins, is inclined to see in this a capitulation by the CIAA to the sheer awe that the office of chief executive of the government inspires. But upon closer look, it is clear that this is not indeed the case. The chief executive has been delivered a stern rebuke for the cabinet’s role in the deal. The CIAA has taken exception to the tone and substance of the Prime Minister’s reply to its questionnaire. Koirala had argued for the sanctity and secrecy of cabinet decisions. Nothing doing, said the CIAA, and similarly dismissed his attempts to wash the cabinet’s hands off the whole deal on the ground that the RNAC was an autonomous body. The watch body has also put the Prime Minister on notice that he is to exercise caution over the possibility of corruption being facilitated by cabinet endorsement of foreign exchange deals.

Having been ticked off in no uncertain terms and on more than one count over an issue that has had the nation on edge for so long, Koirala would do well to take a long hard look at his own political future. He has been making much of the fact that legally speaking his nose is still above water. But that is not the issue any more, if indeed it ever was. It is about time to feel the political pulse, taking into consideration the circumstances of his own return to office, his track record since then, and the discord and disarray all round. Even his close cabinet colleagues now seem to be hinting at precisely that. One is constrained to say this even if one is also obliged to admit grudgingly that he is still the undisputed strongman of the ruling party. By forcing a reluctant army to fall in line with his controversial Internal Security and Development Package, he had tried to prove to the credulous that he has stood up to the palace. Politics being the art of the possible, one should also be talking in terms of face saving formulas, decent intervals and cooling off periods, something that the intransigent left would do well to ponder.

If there is any winner at all in the whole sordid Lauda scam, it has to be the CIAA which had its wings clipped by the very same Prime Minister during his earlier stint in office. Though accused of being weak-kneed then, it has now not only asserted itself to rid the country of a considerable measure of corruption but also established a sound precedent. There may be other scams and scandals to come in future. But a Lauda type rip-off will now be hard to get away with. While one would have wished that the CIAA had dug further and tried to unearth others possibly involved in the deal, it has nonetheless set an example and this could in some way deter others from making a quick buck in the future.

CIAA movement must succeed

By Bijaya Lal Shrestha

The CIAA kept everybody guessing over the question of the Prime Minister’s involvement in the Lauda deal, as never in the past had a minister been convicted. Finally when it acted, it gave expression to the people’s concerns over proliferating corruption, and the nation was expecting to hear the Prime Minister resign as he promised. What followed was disappointment that he finally opted not to keep his promise to the nation. Worse still was his raising objections to the CIAA’s audacity in questioning a cabinet decision, an act which carried an implied message for the CIAA to submit. For he had loudly and in no uncertain terms, declared that he would resign within minutes of being questioned by the CIAA. He retreated once again and how often he will do so yet only time will tell. We all know that when one is approaching disaster, one’s brain becomes infertile. Maybe this is the case here and if so, we are heading towards disaster. I say disaster because the NC and the UML are the two blades of a pair of scissors, both of which are equally indispensable to cut out corruption and all other ills from the country’s development.

The Prime Minister’s refusal to abide by his promise to the nation will weaken the NC and anyone of the two loosing strength means further deterioration of the already tarnished image of our democracy as the principle of ‘check and balance’, a contributing factor for democracy cannot be effectively practiced. It will not be out of place here to look at the damage done by Bofors to the Indian Congress and the resultant plus points for the BJP (though labelled communal). It is because of imbalance in the spirit of this principle that many democracies have died and dictators have been born forcing, in the process, all sections of the people to experience upheavals and holocausts, trauma and tragedies. We only hope that we will not have to undergo such a situation. Now the question arises, who can save us from this disastrous situation. Once the Prime Minister betrayed them, they turned to the CIAA, the Chief Commissioner in particular, to see if he could absorb the Prime Minister’s blows or if it was going to be only a charity show. Logically, I cannot believe his involvement in any scandal because a corrupt person will not dare to act so boldly. But one has to leave it to investigations. In the meanwhile, some questions loom large. Is the CIAA prepared to realise the concerns of the people, to listen to the inner voice of millions caught in the cross fire of corruption, to represent the sacrifice of our saheeds on the basis of reality? If the CIAA can do so, the purpose for which the Constitution included provisions for the elimination of corruption can be served. But failing that the criteria for the appointment of commissioners will have to be reviewed. No one of significance has ever been brought to justice since the promulgation of the Constitution. Is this because there has been no corruption? If so, are all those corruption related headlines and news stories just fakes? Are they all only rumours without any grain of truth? Are they only the wild imagination of irresponsible and irrelevant journalists? If so, there is something wrong somewhere without the solution of which the people will tread an unbeaten path in their search for relief. Now a situation has been thrust upon the CIAA under which it has to play its game in a way the people will not despise it and not loose their confidence in the Constitution.

Not unexpectedly, there is now demand for national consensus and a national government. We have an elected government with a clear majority and to go for an all party government at the moment is tantamount to acting against constitutional provisions and hence a mockery of the democratic system. The Constitution lays down a provision for three types of government and ‘all party government’ does not fall within this provision. Such a demand has come from those who cannot form a government on their own strength.

Such parties’ role in any movement has always been characteristically to use catch words
like ‘national consensus,’ ‘national government’ etc and to reap some benefit from the wrestling among the strong parties. We have seen the game such parties play during the period of the hung parliament. Here, if a movement is required even to get ministers and other leaders to return government vehicles after termination of their entitlement, their non-cooperation with the movement which has advanced thus far and their talk of ‘national consensus’ and ‘national government’ smacks of foul play and opportunism. Maybe they do not want the movement to go too far lest some of them are also implicated eventually.

In this context, the six left parties are playing their due role as expected of opposition parties in a democratic system. There will, of course, be some loss and inconveniences, but the consequent gains from a successful movement will be far greater.

But what about the honest Congressmen? I remember a Tagalok proverb which says that "it is very difficult to awaken someone who is only pretending to be sleeping." Decisive action is what is called for now and the cooperation and active participation of all democratic forces are what the country is in need of today. To put it plainly, corruption denies delivery which motivates the people to look elsewhere. Let us see how the tahelka.com hurt the BJP in the recently concluded five legislative assembly elections. The choice now before honest Congressmen is between ‘a country’, ‘a party’ and ‘an individual’. Their correct choice will decide their destiny and that of the country too.

Paan lovers of Nepal

By P Silwal

Sometimes man learns late in life what he was made for. This knowledge is pathetic because he cannot use this sudden realization for his personal benefit. Experience is like a comb life gives you after you lose your hair. If the person concerned is a public figure like Kisunji, one can just imagine the fate of the people who have placed their trust on him. ‘He was made for chewing paan.’ What are his followers to understand? Stint with two time prime ministership and one time speakership just came on Kishunji’s way by fluke?

"For the first time in my life I have found suitable work," Kishunji remarked tongue in cheek, while inaugurating the first national convention of betel leaf businessmen. With his customary humour, 76-year-old Kishunji also happily put a bida of betel into his mouth, according to three national newspapers which reported the important event on their front pages next day.

Like the serpentine Tribhuvan Highway, Paan chewing habit is a gift from the south. The Santa neta of Nepali politics learnt this habit probably while he was in Banaras, where many of the Nepali Congress leaders took refuge, after the Royal coup of 1960. Paan was a favourite hobbyhorse of the group of people who identified themselves as Prajatantrabadi. These people seemed to have learnt many things from the south apart from chewing paan, spitting the juice in public and wearing kurta kameej apart from jumping walls and breaking into the house of a woman, falling ill en masse as cabinet members and going to Bangkok to cure influenza. But Bhattarai used to swallow the red juice which forms in the mouth after chewing Paan. He was different
from his pack of paan chewers in this habit.

While his friend-turned-foe Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala was braving salvoes from all quarters, this time Kisunji spared him. He used his learned words in praise of Paan and did not utter a word about politics nor he demanded GP’s resignation as he had done in other public forums.

Nepal does not produce many essential things including salt - and Paan. For both, Nepalis have to depend on their southern neighbour. While the former does not receive much notice from the movers and shakers of this country unless there is widespread shortage, the latter occupies the prime place in the subconscious memory of many of its leaders.

Some people consider Nepali version of democracy has received a great influence from the south. In the time of crisis, common Nepalis might live without salt but many of its leaders might find it very difficult to do without a bida of paan.

Distant neighbours

By Kuldip Nayar

Many years ago, Sharifuddin Pirzada, then piloting Pakistan’s foreign affairs, told me at Islamabad: "You will have to go through us to reach China." He was right because even Henry Kissinger had to use the good offices of the then Marital Law Administrator Yahya Khan to arrange a meeting between President Nixon and the Chinese leaders.

In our case, it was an impossibility. Even if we wanted to utilise Islamabad’s services, we could not have done it. One, our relations with Beijing had been damaged after it had mauled us badly in the 1962 war. Two, we could not have paid the price that Pakistan would have wanted to exact on Kashmir.

We held back ourselves and allowed time to repair the relationship, which is by no means friendly but by no means cold either. We have come a long way from the frozen ties and the day-to-day irritation on the border. In fact, China has taken many initiatives to maintain peace and it is interested in Indian markets. It is unhappy with us over Tibet but it knows that India is in no way instigating the Dalai Lama.
Today, when the equation between New Delhi and Islamabad is at the lowest ebb it is but natural that Pakistan would flaunt Premier Zhu Rongji’s presence on its soil. But, as usual, Islamabad exaggerates its relationship with Beijing. And apart from General Pervez Musharraf propping up his sagging image a bit, nothing concrete seems to have emerged from the visit.

Of course, it is an obsession with both India and Pakistan to ask every visiting dignitary to comment on Kashmir. They are never tired of doing so, even when they know that the answer will be in general terms. When asked, Premier Zhu’s observation was no different: "Kashmir is a problem left over by history. We will try our utmost and spare no efforts for the peaceful resolution of this issue.

Still Islamabad hailed it as "China’s support to Pakistan’s stand." New Delhi would have reacted in a similar manner if the Chinese premier had made the same remark in India. Still that does not stop either New Delhi or Islamabad from embarrassing the visiting dignitaries and presuming support when there is none.

China has kept Pakistan on its side with the minimum input. It has found in it a country, which fits into its long-term plan not to let India settle down and ever become a challenge in the region. It is a confrontation between two giants, two ideologies, to powers seeking spheres of influence. Islamabad comes in handy to Beijing — it has only to tell Pakistan when to stoke the fires of disturbance in India.
The question that Islamabad has to ask itself: What is it getting out of it? A few economic projects or some weapons do not add up too much. The six agreements, which China signed this time, relating to technology, mining and railways mean a few crores of rupees. The real thing is defence. Can it depend on Beijing militarily?
The answer is no. In the 1965 war against India, China promised Pakistan that it would open a second front. It even issued an ultimatum to New Delhi to do or not to do certain things. But when it came to taking action, all that China did was to ask New Delhi to return the sheep which had supposedly strayed into the Indian territory. Pakistan fought all by itself and got no Beijing support except in the diplomatic field.

Again, in the 1971 Bangladesh war, Lt Gen. AAK Niazi was told by Islamabad that the Chinese soldiers would come to his assistance. Nothing like that happened, although he went on scanning the sky for paratroopers till the day of the surrender. Nixon, who was indebted to General Yahya Khan for opening channels with China, sent at least a fleet to the Bay of Bengal to show his solidarity.

From the reports appearing in the Pakistani press, it appears that the visit of Zhu Rongji was a success. What does it come to in concrete terms? Islamabad has not been made even a member of the Shanghai Five formed in 1996 to fight terrorism. China, Khazakistan, Kirghistan, Russia and Tajikistan. Uzbekistan is also joining soon. But Pakistan is nowhere in the picture. Either it is not considered dependent enough or not relevant enough. Both inferences bring no credit to the country.

Maybe, China has doubts about Pakistan. What should it make out when Islamabad goes on beating its breast every day that it has been, jettisoned by America, whom it had "served faithfully" during the cold war and in Afghanistan. Islamabad behaves like a jilted lover. China may be feeling at times that America is Pakistan’s "old and tried friend," the words Islamabad uses again and again to complain against

Washington’s "new-found love for India." Beijing can also think that Islamabad’s friendship towards it is born out of hostility to New Delhi. After all, Pakistan has been repeatedly reminding America of the good old days of "alliance and friendship."

What Islamabad has to understand is that China takes Pakistan for granted while Islamabad believes that nothing better could have happened to it than proximity to Beijing. Even the assistance Pakistan has got from China in the nuclear field is because of its strategic consideration against India, not out of love for Pakistan. Beijing is dictated by its own interest and even when it has rubbed its Muslim population on the wrong side, its sensitivity has bothered little about Pakistan’s. The inhuman manner in which the Muslim population is being treated at the places where it is concentrated in China shows its disdain towards the Islamic state of Pakistan.

On the other hand, Islamabad has given China even a portion of territory from Kashmir under it. The land ceded by General Ayub Khan gave China access to the otherwise cut off Sinkiang province. Despite the best of relations Chou En Lai and Jawaharlal Nehru had at one time, New Delhi never gave Beijing the Aksai Chin in the Ladakh for a road to connect Sinkiang.What this underlines is the gulf between New Delhi and Islamabad. It is a tragedy that Pakistan never tried to make up with India, which is its naturally ally. We come from the same stock and share the same memories and the same history. We have seldom risen above parochialism. Nor have we identified ourselves as people of South Asia. The amount of money - and energy - we spend fighting against one another can be diverted to lick poverty, which afflicts the maximum number of people living in the region.

I am not trying to apportion blame. India is probably more at fault than Pakistan. But a pluralistic country has the air blowing from all directions, compared to an authoritarian and undemocratic state. At least, history is not taught wrongly in India and whenever some pro-Hindutva leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi try to inject a bias, there is an outcry. I wish the same thing could happen in Pakistan.

Now that the cold war atmosphere is returning, both New Delhi and Islamabad, the nuclear powers, must chalk out their own independent policies. New Delhi was hasty in supporting the US idea of a nuclear missile shield, just as Islamabad has been hasty in endorsing China’s stand against the shield. It looks as if both India and Pakistan are going to change sides this time, New Delhi tilting towards Washington instead of Moscow and Islamabad towards Beijing instead of Washington. Nothing would be more disastrous than this. Why can’t India and Pakistan think of the region as the whole and its people? The core problem is not Kashmir. Kashmir is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is distrust with which the two countries have lived since partition. Let them shed that first. The rest will follow.