The land bill The Parliamentary

Natural Resources and Means Committee (NRMC) has finally pushed through the fifth amendment bill to the Land Reforms Act of 1964. Today, the bill witnesses debate on the floor of Parliament. Once the bill is enacted into law, the government will undertake a major land reform programme since the restoration of democracy. In 1964 the late King Mahendra initiated a radical plan that brought changes in land holdings across the country. The Land Act of 1964 secured tenancy rights for those who had been cultivating land for absentee landlords. This provision led to over one million land tillers obtaining tenancy rights. This however led to the creation of virtually dual control over land. Besides, the mass migration of people within the country - as a result of political change and poverty - greatly hindered the land reform programme. The government, which implemented the Land Act of 1964, also turned out to be less effective than envisaged. The land owners in many agriculturally fertile areas did not allow tenants to farm their land, lest the tillers establish a claim to tenancy rights. Feudal elements left their land barren rather than giving it out to cultivation by tenants. This conflict of interest between land owners and tenants created major obstacles in the optimum utilization of land. It took the 1996 amendment to the Land Act 1964 to bring an end to dual ownership although the full effect of this has yet to be implemented.

The bill that now awaits the final nod in Parliament has generated more controversy than solution. The Tarai-based Nepal Sadhbhawana Party (NSP) and Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) have opposed it ever since Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba announced that the country would see a radical land reform programme. They even disrupted the 20th session of Parliament for a few days. The NSP and RPP wanted to introduce new provisions on the land ownership ceiling especially in the tarai. The proposed land bill sets the land ownership ceiling at thirty ropanies in Kathmandu valley, eleven bighas in the tarai and seventy five ropanies in the remaining hilly region. The bill, despite protests by the NSP and RPP, is expected to get through Parliament as the NC commands a clear majority. The proposed bill does not contain any change for the guthis and trusts, or tillers or farmers who work the land owned by absentee landlords. However, all the amendments sought by the opposition cannot be accepted until their demands are objectively justified. But the government must not forget that the proposed land reform bill should address the problem of those who do not own any land. This apart, land productivity has not increased in this country despite the amendments to the Land Act of 1964. Land transactions, after the Prime Minister announced the radical land reform plan, have also come to a standstill as a result of inconsistent policy on the part of the government. How effectively the government will implement the land reform programme, once it becomes an act still remains to be seen.

Destiny of ‘dialogue’ - the Maoist view

By Gaurav

Two rounds of ‘dialogue’ have already been held between the central delegations of our party, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN(M)), and the present government of Nepal led by Sher Bahadur Deuba. Guns have stopped roaring and news of ‘capturing of police stations and all the arms and ammunitions by Maoist guerillas’ have ceased to appear at the national and international press.

The second round of the ‘dialogue’ which was held in the Bardia National Park resort on September 13-14 as continuation of the first round, terminated without any outcome except passing the news that both sides presented their views explicitly and agreed to resume the talk further. One point was very clear that the government and Nepali Congress delegation combined outrightly rejected three specific proposals of CPN (Maoist) delegation – one, state of republic should be institutionalized, two, this constitution should have to be abrogated and new constitution should be promulgated by the constitutional assembly and third, interim government should be formed. Apparently it seems that there is no meeting point between these two and hardly any possibility of coming at the consensus or agreement. Nevertheless, the ‘dialogue’ has not been declared broken from either side. Lots of speculations are floating about the possibility of next round of dialogue. But when from, is yet uncertain.

Whether the ‘dialogue’ will continue? Whether there is any possibility of next round of ‘dialogue’? I think such possibility has not been completely banished. Next round of talk can happen provided the government fulfils the demands put forward by the delegation of our Party in order to create atmosphere to continue the ‘dialogue’. But till now almost all the demands have been totally neglected by the government. If this situation will continue, it is hard to speculate that the ‘dialogue’ will still keep on going. Then the possibility will turn into impossibility. Therefore, it is up to the present government and ruling party Nepali Congress whether they like the ‘dialogue’ to go ahead or stop it. Thus the ball lies in their court. If the ‘dialogue’ breaks down, what course the events will take after that, it is difficult to forecast. People are expressing their concern about the situation that is supposed to come after the failure of the ‘dialogue’. Therefore, everybody should understand that the government and the ruling Nepali Congress are fully responsible if the ‘dialogue’ will break down and its consequences thereafter.

What the masses can get through the ‘dialogue’? People have their own expectations and views regarding this ‘dialogue’. Some people say that everything should be resolved through ‘dialogue’ and thus no revolution will be necessary after the ‘dialogue’ will be properly resolved. This is wrong idea and it does not correspond to the law of revolution and the ‘dialogue’ as a step. What can be achieved in the dialogue does not depend on the ‘holy wishes’ of the delegation or any party. Some specific laws of development govern it. So far we Maoists are concerned, we are very much clear about the ultimate achievement of the ‘dialogue’. What we get in the table depends on what we have achieved in the field of class struggle or people’s war. Nobody should be in confusion about the demands that our delegation has put forward in the table of the ‘dialogue’ that these are our achievements that we have achieved through the people’s war and we like to legitimize these achievements. Reactionary parties like NC and opportunist parties like UML and others are blaming our party of raising unnecessary and irrelevant demands in the ‘dialogue’. These forces are against the revolution and thus they can never understand the legitimacy of the achievements of the revolution. What our delegation has raised during the ‘dialogue’ has already been achieved in the people’s war. Our aim is to legitimize those achievements that we have already achieved. It is sheer betrayal to give up the achievements in the table, which the masses have already achieved in the field, at the cost of blood. Therefore, we cannot abandon or give up those demands. It the government and the parliamentary parties are really in favour of paving the way for the peaceful resolution of the problem, they should fulfill the demands put forward by our party. Everybody has to be realistic. It means everybody has to accept the present reality of the movement and achievement of the revolution in the field. After this condition is fulfilled, the ‘dialogue’ can give a real way out and can reach a correct conclusion.

It is "tit for tat": What was the factor leading us to go to the negotiating table with the acknowledged reactionary government? It is the concrete and real situation of Nepal and it is the teaching of Maoism that led our Party to take this decision. Nobody should be in confusion about the tactics our Party has adopted regarding the ‘negotiation’ or ‘dialogue’. We are equally competent in going to the ‘dialogue’ and also coming back from the ‘dialogue’, depending on the concrete situation. We are efficient in giving "tit for tat". Our great teacher Comrade Mao has very explicitly stated – "How to give ‘tit for tat’ depends on the situation. Sometimes not going to negotiation is tit for tat, and sometimes going to the negotiations is tit-for-tat". We understand this principle very well, but our enemy is unable to understand it, which is a problem Sometimes it is necessary to make the enemy understand some established principles. It is reflected in their naive and foolish ideas being expressed. The reactionaries are presenting in such a way, as if , once we came to the negotiating table we cannot go back and whatever they impose we are obliged to accept. They must understand that if they compel us to go back from the negotiating table we are always ready. We are Maoist and in course of applying Maoism in Nepalese reality we have generated ‘Prachanda Path’. Thus we know how to give "tit for tat", which has been proved numerous times in the course of almost six years of people’s war.

(To be concluded)

(The author is a Maoist politburo member)

Lacking in library manners

By Khagendra Bikram

"Nepal doesn’t have a well-equipped library when a scientist wants to do some research here". A young Nepalese scientist gave this as a reason when he was asked why a number of brains are draining outward. No doubt, we lack libraries well laden with books and perfectly managed. But more than that we lack what I would term ‘library manners’.

Some days back I was reading the editorial of the daily paper which had expressed grave concern over the condition of the Central Library (CL), Kirtipur. CL is suffering a lot because of the bibliomaniacs who steal costly and important books. What is more, there are many big brains who borrow books from the library and never think of returning.

Though, since my school days, I had a love of books, I didn’t use to depend on libraries, rather I would buy. But when I got admitted to a medical college as an MBBS student, I had no way other than refer to libraries for books, which were very expensive and not easily available.

But my first impression with a library didn’t go well. Most of the books for issue were at least twenty years old! Twenty-year old books in medical and other scientific fields find no value since science is an ever changing field. This was because almost all of the new books were borrowed by the old batchers and doctors but many of them were never returned. Those that were returned came back after 2 or 3 years when the borrowers had no further use of the books, and in such miserable shape - the books were scribbled upon and underlined randomly and even important pages were torn. I am sure this is still happening with most of the public libraries.

During medical studies (and in many other fields of higher study) the importance of a library supplied with stacks of new editions cannot be exaggerated. As the library of my college was not so satisfactory and my pocket didn’t allow me to go to the bookstalls, I asked a lecturer at the Law Campus who lived in my neighbourhood for advice. He reminisced his past, "In my times also, the books were too costly so I would go to the library and hide one under my long coat. Then I would study another book for an hour or more to dodge the security and walk out." My eyes dilated in surprise! I had not thought that he would advise me in that way.

Another manner we lack is keeping silence in the library. Many libraries suffer a lot because of this. Whispering, talking, chuckling and even giggling are regular procedures. I wonder why people go to a library if they cannot keep themselves silent - just as a whim or for something else?

I remember an incident. It was during my assessment when I went to the library and started my study. First few minutes I suffered no disturbance, then I heard of some people talking although in soft voices in the back. Even a very soft sounds is disturbing for me when I am at study. I waited for a few minutes hoping they would stop. When I was going to pack up, the talk stopped suddenly. I took a sigh of relief and carried on with my study. But after a couple of minutes of pause, the chatting and giggling started again in a larger volume. I looked back and saw they were senior batchers. I could not dare to stop them and left the room. Obviously the assessment next day didn’t go well.

Friends, in which category do you fall? How do you use a library? If you have enough library manners, that’s well and good. Even if you use libraries randomly, I request you to be rational. I request you to please develop a sense of responsibility.

When will America learn its lesson ?

By Dr Shreedhar Gautam

With the September 11 tragic events in America, there has been tremendous change in the world scenario. The US policy has already been announced, and the world is offered a stark choice "join us, or face doom". George Bush has declared overtly that countries not supporting the US line would be treated as harbourers of terrorism and so they will have to face the certain prospect of death and destruction. The US Congress has authorised the use of force against any individual or country the president determines to have been involved in the September 11 attacks. Many countries from Europe and Asia have been issuing statements in support of the American line, and some of them have offered use of their air space and other facilities if and when American led forces need them. Nepal has also wholeheartedly supported the American policy, without any reservation. Intellectuals in this country have spent little time to think over the other aspect of this issue. But there are people like Richard Rorty in America who have the courage and vision to say critical things about American policy.

Professor Rorty of Stanford University was in Nepal recently to attend a four day international conference on American studies in Nepal. The conference was attended by scholars from nine South and East Asian countries. While delivering his key note address on 24th September at Nagarkot Conference Hall, Professor Rorty sounded very much disillusioned and angry. He termed the present day America a hypocritical empire, rather than a republic. We, the participants from nine countries, were delighted as well as stunned while listening to Rorty with rapt attention. Here was a living philosopher from America bold enough to say harsh things about his country when the major part of world is praising American policy blindly in the name of fighting ‘global terrorism’. For Professor Rorty, George Bush is busy not because he has anything substantial to give to America and the world, but because he wants to show the American people that he is doing something without actually knowing anything regarding the goal of his fight against terrorism. Rorty is a sad person because America no longer stands for the goal and ideals of a republic as envisioned by enlightened American statesmen and scholars like Jefferson, Emerson and Whitman, to name a few. At the end of his speech, Rorty urged his government to spend more money on educational and cultural issues rather than wasting billions of dollars on a National Missile Defence. But it is very unlikely that George Bush will heed the wise advice.

Osama bin Laden, the target of the American campaign against terrorism, was a trusted friend of America. But he turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia. Osama took it as a counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. He was disturbed because of Saudi Arabia’s significant place and special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines of Islam. Osama is also reported to have been angered by US support for the corrupt and repressive regimes in the region, including the Saudi Arabian regime. He despises the US for its support for Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine for more than 35 years. He is outraged also by US-British assaults over the last 12 years against the civilian population of Iraq in the name of enforcing an illegal no fly zone, which has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and devastated Iraqi society. There could be many more sources of the fury and despair that have led to the suicide killings of September 11 in New York and Washington DC.

But America is not going to change its policies towards other countries. It is bent upon escalating the cycle of violence by taking harsh and brutal measures in the name of combating terrorism. Peace loving people and countries are psychologically terrorised because of the American threat (i.e. either be with us or with terrorism). America now wants to forget its crimes and atrocities in Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iraq and Yugoslavia. It is not ready to realise that an escalating cycle of violence tends to reinforce the authority of the harshest and most repressive elements in a society. The American action is likely to invite more trouble. There are reports the US is demanding that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies to Afghanistan to checkmate the Taliban regime. The US-Britain alliance has been giving out the same logic for the last 12 years for the continues sanctions against Iraq in the name weakening Saddam Hussein. If this logic is implemented in the Afghan case also, millions of people who have not the remotest connection with terrorism will die. US is going to kill and starve the Afghan people who themselves are victims of the Taliban.

There are no adequate words to condemn this kind of immoral revenge. It seems the American people are not aware of the devastating consequences of this war. Otherwise they would be utterly appalled. America is not going to learn from historical precedents. There are various possibilities of a war that may destroy much of human society. One such possibility is the overthrow of the present Pakistani government in case it submits to the wishes of the US government to halt the supplies of food that are keeping alive at least some of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan. In that case, a Taliban like regime may take over in Pakistan with full control over its nuclear weapons. Even the killing of bin Laden will hardly make a difference until and unless America realises the fundamental defects in its approach and policies towards countries it considers it enemies. Killing of bin Laden is no guarantee that there will be no repeat of September 11. The horrendous terrorist attack on New York and DC are new because for the first time America has been directly hit on its own territory. In the
past its colonies and interests came under attack here and there, but not its national territory.

It is now time for the US to reflect and ponder over its past actions ranging from the extermination of its indigenous population, its violent interventions in the surrounding region, the methods used in conquering Hawaii, and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. It should also make a sincere introspection of the atrocities it perpetrated on the people of Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and, of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The number victims of US crimes are so colossal that it is impossible to name and remember them all. America should not let this moment slip by without vigorous self-examination. For the first time the target of violence has been the world’s top military power. This is an extraordinary event not because of the scale of the atrocity, but because the world’s only superpower has been targeted on its own soil. It is meaningful that George Bush has spoken of the first war of the 21st century. But it should be noted that if America and other western countries react in their traditional way, they would only contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence with long-term consequences that could be catastrophic for entire human kind. It is in this light that the sane voice of Professor Rorty should be supported by all peace loving people. Everything is not yet lost. An aroused public opinion within American society and in the rest of the world can bring positive results towards making this world much more humane and rational.