Premature optimism

The optimism that the spokesman of the foreign ministry displayed about the return of some refugees to Bhutan by early next year may be a bit premature. The excruciatingly slow verification of refugees at the Khudunabari camp belies any such optimism. The camp that houses a little over 1,200 refugee families was the first one to be taken up for verification in March this year. A study report by Nepalese parliamentarians showed that at the present pace it would be 10 years before all those in the seven refugee camps in east Nepal complete the verification process. This surely is no tribute to the officials of Nepal and Bhutan who are engaged in the verification. It is expected that verification of the refugees at Khudunabari will be completed by the end of November. The foreign ministry spokesman’s optimism on the return of the refugees to their homeland seems to be based on this assumption. However, there are still many more hurdles to cross before the first Bhutanese begin trickling back home. Among the very first hurdles is categorization of the refugees. It is indeed a pity that Nepal should have been a party to the categorization concept. It was an unwise move. The only two categories that Nepal should have accepted were Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese. But having accepted the four categories, it is now important for Nepal to ensure that Bhutan is made to take back all the refuges except those who are proven to be non-Bhutanese.

The rubber stamp assembly at Thimpu is said to have enacted a law under which those leaving Bhutan "voluntarily" will not be taken back, nor will it take back alleged "criminals". For one thing, this is an unjust act that must be repealed if only to make way for the return of the refugees. Bhutan will not obviously repeal the act simply because we say so. What is needed is a diplomatic offensive aimed at mustering support for the refugee cause and pressuring the Bhutanese government to repeal the inhuman act. In any case, most of those who are in the camps did not quit Bhutan voluntarily but were surely forced to do so. This forcible "exit" from Bhutan can have taken any number of forms. Bhutanese security personnel do not have to beat someone up in order to force him or her out of the country. State coercion can have taken many forms including spreading disinformation among the simple folks. The international community and human rights groups the world over will do well to take heed of the subtle methods used to force people out without actually beating them up or torching their abodes. As far as "Bhutanese with criminal records" are concerned, they too are a Bhutanese responsibility and Nepal should ensure that we do not end up accepting so called criminals simply because Bhutan refuses to have them back. In any case, Bhutan has to prove in what way they are criminals in generally accepted international parlance. Have they broken into banks or robbed people or indulged in other heists? Or were their "crimes" related merely to demanding a liberal democratic dispensation for their country? Bhutan surely must prove how and in what way they are criminals. The coming secretary level talks may not be able to solve these difficult questions there and then but we hope they will at least be a step forward.

The Royal Dashain gift

By Rajan Adhikari

"His Majesty the King has named his son Prince Paras as the Crown Prince," state-run Nepal Television said, without giving any details. In journalistic terms, what was missing in the announcement was any profile of the Prince, who is poised to become King of Nepal some day. Paras, who has a daughter but no sons to date, is the last in the line of the Shah dynasty which has ruled for centuries in the Himalayan Kingdom, where succession passes through male heirs.

Nepal has always been ruled by a King, be it in the middle ages when the country was divided into many smaller kingdoms, or in modern times. Even during the dark age of Rana autocracy, Nepali monarchs stood as the hope of the Nepali people. The people’s love for the Nepali Monarch was very much apparent during the funeral of the late King Birendra. There was some reluctance among the Nepali people to give the same support to King Gyanendra as they had provided to King Birendra. This was not because they did not like King Gyanendra but it was mostly because of his association with Prince Paras whose reputation was greatly damaged by stories published in the Nepali press accusing him of violent acts.

But since then the situation has calmed down and the Nepali people have started to realize how important the King is to them. Their love for the monarchy has been rekindled. They started to understand that they could rely on their new King. Even with this new found fondness toward King Gyanendra, Nepali people were reluctant to acknowledge that one day Paras would become their Crown Prince and possibly King. It was very wise of King Gyanendra to delay proclaiming Prince Paras as the Crown Prince.

In the recent past it was thought that Prince Paras would be proclaimed Crown Prince at the Coronation Ceremony of the King next year. Likewise, according to the vernacular Naya Current weekly, Prince Paras is likely to be given a new responsibility as chairperson of the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation. This is one of the most important steps King Gyanendra has taken after taking over as Head of State following the June 1st Royal Palace tragedy in which his brother King Birendra and the latter’s family were wiped out. Nepal was rocked by the massacre of the Royal Family. Some observers felt the proclamation of the Crown Prince was delayed when Gyanendra became King in June as Paras was unpopular with the nearly 24 million population.

To return to the June massacre, had it not been for Prince Paras there probably would not have been so many survivors that day, Captain Rajiv Shahi, a witness to the killings, told the world press days after the tragedy. CK Lal, a Kathmandu-based columnist, said King Gyanendra needs a Crown Prince to attend to official ceremonies and Royal religious events. "It is an oddity to have an apparent heir to the crown who was not an heir apparent. So the King had a problem... he had to announce the Crown Prince," Lal told the Indian TV channel Star News. Lal said Nepalis may have forgotten about Paras’ former reputation for a wild lifestyle because he had started to project a more positive public image. "I think his past is largely forgotten if not completely forgiven," Lal said. "People have seen that he has been behaving, at least in public functions, in a very exemplary way." The fleeting nature of Nepali public opinion, the revered status of the Hindu monarchy, the legitimacy of the tradition of patriarchic succession, the strong allegiance to constitutional monarchy on the part of political parties of all shades and colours, except for the Maoists, and external political developments are all in favour of Prince Paras.

Although the announcement on the Crown Prince came as a surprise, it is up to the King to chose on whom he wants to confer the title. A Newslook commentary stated that, "Declaring Paras as heir to the throne of Nepal, King Gyanendra has made big news when newsrooms in Nepal remain closed for Dashain celebrations. A perfect gift any father would give his son, but a shrewd control of information and public opinion in this case."

The King’s announcement comes at a time when the citizens of Nepal were celebrating the week-long Dashain festival, a time when all newspapers halt their publication. The King had earlier said that he would not rush to announce the heir to the throne but would do so at an appropriate time. For the King, Dashain, a celebration of good over evil, seems to be that appropriate time.

At least, during this time, citizens have little time for political action, if not issues. Paras was implicated in several hit and run incidents over the years and the public may not yet be ready to forget the past and discard any frustration over the Royal announcement. However, public views about the announcement are likely to surface once the greatest Nepali festival is over by October end.

Some newspapers have opined that Paras has a notorious reputation for alleged rowdiness. He has also been linked to the killing of a Nepalese musician in a drunken stupor. In June last year, renowned musician Prabin Gurung was allegedly hit and killed by a vehicle driven by Paras. Newspapers were flooded with articles demanding that the government rein in Paras, who then was not immune from prosecution. A junior army officer was held responsible for the accident and a clean chit given to Paras.

Some Nepali people are of the view that we Nepalis have to suffer and our motherland Nepal is very unlucky. They say that Nepal is really a sati le sarapeko desh (a country cursed by Sati). They are also of the view that Nepalis will have to see lots of kalo ratri as before in future.

However, where monarchy reigns, there is no question of fit and unfit. Constitutionally and culturally, Paras is the heir apparent to the throne. Unless there is another provision provided by the Constitution, Prince Paras will become King one day. Is the claimed unfitness of Prince Paras a good enough reason to think about a Republic of Nepal? Is the abolition of Crown beneficial to Nepal and Nepali people? Does our Constitution give such authority? The time is ripe to think about these questions.

In search of the real people

By Tilak Pokharel

When you ask the Maoists what the people really want, they will undoubtedly say that the people are no more in favour of Monarchy and want to establish a republican state. The Maoists claim that they are so close to the people that they even know the inner feelings of the people. And they say, "People have started loving republics and they want to bring down the institution of Monarchy." At other times, they say that the people have no more faith on the present "masked Monarchy". But I don’t know who their people are and how they got the people’s views.

When you put forth the same question before the ruling Nepali Congress, the main opposition CPN-UML, and other parties, they say that the people want continuity of the constitutional Monarchy and multiparty democracy. They show and sell their "home-made" figures of progress achieved after the restoration of democracy in 1990 and assert that the multiparty democracy has helped Nepal advance in almost all sectors. But nobody cares about the poor people fighting for their survival in the farflung drought-hit hills. Also there is no one to check the figures and raise question over their authenticity.

In recent times, another breed of "politicians" have emerged who claim that they are far from politics. They think that Monarchy is the only alternative to the republican state and the multiparty democracy. They claim that the people do not want the republics and multiparty democracy but favour the revival of the Panchayat era, making the Monarch very powerful. Though they remained dormant for years, their activities in recent times have become noticeable. The dirty wall paintings in the major city thoroughfares spoke volumes about them.

But I am perplexed who the real people are and what they want. I think the Maoists’ people are those who are now either carrying guns for the People’s War, and supporting them and other members of their party and sister organisations. Hold on. There are also others in the list who the Maoists think are the "real people" of the country. Also included in their list are those who support the Maoists out of fear and "laborious" influence.

But the thing could be different in case of the Nepali Congress and the UML. They think that the real people are those who participate in mass meetings (widely known as aam sabha) called by them, and clap and cheer the speaker. Then comes those who give company to the goons during their election campaigns. The so-called politicians think that the poor and hungry people of the country are made for nothing but to serve them. 

All the "people" of the Maoists, Congress and UML applaud them, and hence they say that their cadres are the real people and generalise the whole population of the country  accordingly.

Poverty alleviation and unemployment

By Shiva Ram Neupane

Poverty alleviation is the major development challenge in our country. It is not a new problem, but since the last decade it has remained a complicated problem. Poverty alleviation since the Seventh Plan has remained the main objective, but not much has been achieved so far.

The programmes and development opportunities launched in real poor areas were not implemented effectively. A huge amount of foreign aid has been pumped into this sector, but 38 percent of the population are still below poverty line. More than 500 million manpower are unemployed, and the number of underemployment is also very high in every sector of the country. Thus unemployment remains the main obstacle to poverty alleviation.

For poverty alleviation and employment generation we need new ideas, new policies and more effective programmes and adequate technology. Hopefully, this all will be incorporated into the Tenth Plan.

The Ninth Plan set the target to bring down poverty to 32 percent from 42 percent, but the achievement is only 38 percent till the midterm evaluation of the plan.

To met this target the plan has envisaged different kinds of activities. These activities plus development of physical and socio-economic infrastructure and implementation of programmes will help. The activities such as population control, employment promotion, productivity growth and development of human resources were launched for employment generation and poverty alleviation. But high population growth rate (2.27 preliminary result of population census 2001), increase in unemployment, lack of technical and productive manpower and use of old and low productive techniques show that our development works are not right. So there is a need to bring about effective and feasible policies.

For the employment opportunity, government offices have been a centre of attraction, but very few opportunities are available there, and they are not sufficient to meet the demand. Gradually some industries are closing down since three years. And consequently unemployment has shot up. Moreover fragile tourism industries and lack of commercialization in agriculture were also some of the causes of unemployment.

Poverty and unemployment are interdependent. By the end of the Eighth Plan, 4.9 percent of 11.7 million economically active labour force remained completely unemployed. Given the estimated population growth of 2.4 percent per annum, about 300 thousand labourers enter the job market for employment every year. Of the total employed labour force, 47 percent were found to be
underemployed with the majority depending on agriculture.

The problem of unemployment and underemployment remains the main challenge for poverty reduction. For poverty alleviation increase in opportunities of employment and the economic and social strategies should come up. Maximum use of local resources, land reform programmes for modernization of agriculture, proper marketing and price for agriculture products, access to loans, increase in the participation of women in loan facilities, alternative opportunities for employment promotion and encouragement in the private sector for new industries should be included in the Tenth Plan.

To attain the target of poverty reduction, we have to change our plan and programmes and adopt new strategies, learning from past mistakes.