Don’t subvert reforms

The Prime Minister’s address to the Lower House of Parliament the other day is welcome in that it reiterated the government’s commitment to land reforms. Yet the government by allowing the registration of land transfers might have already subverted the basic idea behind the reforms programme. The government relaxed the land transfer restriction the same day that it registered the land reforms amendment bill in parliament. The proposed ceiling of 11 bighas in Terai rural areas might be fine but if the big landlords are able to maintain their hold on 11 bighas in Biratnagar, Birgunj or other municipality areas it would be more than a little unjust. The same is the case with the 75 ropanis allowed in the hills and 30 ropanis in Kathmandu valley. This may be fine with regard to the hills in general but certainly not when it comes to the municipalities and town areas. The value of 25 ropanis of land in Kathmandu municipality area is surely far too high and could be equal, in monetary terms, to hundreds of bighas in the rural Terai. Hence the government has clearly failed to use enough discretion in the formulation of the land ceiling. Vested interests within the ruling Nepali Congress party and outside seem almost certainly to have had a say in what otherwise would have been one of the most revolutionary and far reaching moves taken by the government in Nepal in recent times. Kathmandu Metropolitan Corporation as well as other municipalities in the country have for their part missed what can only be called a unique opportunity to plan the city and clearly demarcate residential and non-residential areas so as not to allow the unplanned expansion of the city. Such expansion, at least in the case of the capital, is only spawning slum.

The registration of the land reform fifth amendment bill in Parliament and subsequent lifting of the ban on land transaction has eroded hope that the government will really bring about major change in the pattern of land holdings. Past experience shows that such attempts turned out to be no more than eyewash for the poor who owned no land. In Morang district for instance, the government managed to bring some land under its control through the Land Reform Act enforced in 1964. But hundreds of landlords continue to hold on to thousand of bighas, especially in Morang, Sunsari and Jhapa districts, besides some parts of western Nepal. Now, land owners having more than 11 bighas have already begun transferring their land to kith and kin. The government has neither done any study on where and how it should seize land in excess of ceiling nor has it come up with measures that are seen to be just to all. The decision taken at the Congress Central Committee meeting on how much land a person can own in urban and rural areas will hardly be seen as equitable for all. This is a bill which does not appear likely to take on the vested interests within the political parties themselves.

JMC meeting : A pointless rendezvous

By Madhab P Khanal

Once again, the Joint Ministerial Committee meeting held in Thimpu between Nepal and Bhutan over the nagging eleven-year-old issue of Bhutanese refugees turned out to be a humiliating fiasco for Nepal. The high expectations that the Nepalese delegation carried with it to the Bhutanese capital looked all shattered when Finance Minister Dr Ram Sharan Mahat and his diplomatic strategists apparently failed to win any concession from the cunning henchmen of King Wangchuck with regard to simplifying the meandering process of categorization that was craftily devised by them and heedlessly acquiesced to by Nepal’s ministerial delegation in 1993.

As Finance Minister Dr Mahat, who had had a similar opportunity of conducting an unsuccessful dialogue with his Bhutanese counterpart when he was foreign minister some two years ago, had nothing exciting to offer the media on his return from the abortive mission, he resorted to the same banal rhetoric which people are tired of hearing. The finance minister claimed that the Nepalese delegation had succeeded in making some progress by persuading the other side to increase the strength of the joint verification team by 10% or so. This is, no doubt, a piece of lollipop for local consumption! However, the core of the issue is not the strength of the verification team or the mandate it needs. The question is whether the authoritarian regime of Bhutan is honestly prepared to take back its own nationals of Nepalese ethnicity without further delay or will continue with the same dilly dallying tactics. The minister himself has admitted that the process of verification might take at least three years if no unforeseen hitches emerge during this period. Nepal is quite familiar with Bhutan’s ingenuity at contriving new chicaneries at an opportune moment in order to prolong the stalemate for an indefinite period. No one knows how many more tricks the Bhutanese authorities have up their sleeves for future negotiations.

Irrespective of what Minister Mahat said or his diplomatic experts were instructed to babble, the Nepalese team seems to have made no progress whatsoever regarding repatriation of the hundred thousand plus Bhutanese who were driven out of their homeland by Wangchuck’s regime over a decade ago. The Finance Minister and his lieutenants came back empty handed, totally outmanoeuvred and bamboozled as usual by the meticulous Bhutanese. This appears to be the real truth. Therefore, it would be prudent on the part of our responsible public figures and government officials to refrain from making unsubstantiated observations that would generate false hope among the victims of gargarously ethnic cleansing. If someone flips through the record of what our ministers, parliamentarians, and other high ranking HMG officials have said after their failed missions to Thimpu to date a safe and honourable return of these displaced Lhothsampas to their homeland will appear nothing short of a mirage. Having witnessed such pointless exercises several times in the past, the current diplomatic miscarriage did not astonish any one at home. Nor was the outcome of the eleventh futile rendezvous totally unanticipated by the refugees themselves. What has remained enigmatic for the general public of this country is the government’s continued hesitation in internationalizing an issue that has remained a stalemate for so long.

Bhutan’s strategy of keeping the bilateral imbroglio lingering as long as it can is paying her good dividends. She knows that the resources and assistance provided by the international agencies are neither inexhaustible nor permanent. Furthermore, she believes that the refugees are sheltered in their ancestral homeland and a natural process of assimilation of the camp dwellers with the local stock is inevitable sooner or later. Whereas for Nepal the longer the issue is protracted the heavier will be the blow to its economy, environment and the social equilibrium in the district where the camps are located.

In the context of ethnic displacement a span of eleven years is a considerable length of time during which the refugees themselves lose interest in going back to their erstwhile homeland for fear of confronting an awfully different political and social milieu. In case of the Bhutanese refugees it is all the more natural to be apprehensive because of the deep seated ethnic prejudices harboured by the Bhutanese establishment. It has also been frequently reported that the landed property legally owned by ethnic Nepalese while they were in Bhutan has been distributed to other segments of the population, who have been encouraged to move from the infertile northern region to the lush green stretch of the south. The entire operation is believed to have been conducted under the direct supervision of the king himself. Such actions, if they are true, invalidate the entire bilateral exercise between the two countries.

The other strategy that Bhutan is applying in further retarding the possible resolution of the issue is dividing and destroying the unity of the refugees and political dissidents by hiring quislings and collaborators from among them so that the gravity of the entire crime of ethnic cleansing is diluted to a degree where it appears virtually non-existent.

Similarly, Nepal has been lagging far behind Bhutan in lobbying for the inhumanely displaced persons in various international forums and among friendly countries who show solidarity with Nepal and are helping her manage the camps. In this context the performance of Nepal’s diplomatic missions in Europe may simply be termed dismal. The ritual visit of the then High Commissioner of UNHCR Ms Sadao Ogata in May last year failed to soften the hard line approach pursued by Bhutan towards the issue. The Nepalese mission based in Geneva displayed its diplomatic incompetence by conceding Ogata’s visit to Bhutan in the first leg. There she was briefed by the perpetrators themselves and she then made a ritual trip to Nepal just as a matter of formality. The assurances she gave to the refugees during her tour of the camps turned out to be more of a customary nature than anything substantive.

An unnamed high official of Shital Niwas was reported to have made a boisterous claim that the Nepalese team ‘managed a diplomatic coup against Bhutan’ (TKP report, August 29). However, after going through the entire news report one does not find any palpable achievement made by the delegation. It simply appears that the concerned official was trying to salvage the lost credibility of the delegation. If not, the reporter was making a mountain out of a mole hill. The news report appears simply to justify Bhutan’s intransigence towards an early resolution of the problem. Such unverifiable claims from a responsible official of a sensitive branch of the administration does not in any way reflect diplomatic acumen and negotiating capability.

With regard to finding a lasting solution to this lingering problem Nepal has failed to secure any cooperation from India without whose tacit concurrence Bhutan could not have caused such a mass exodus out of its territory. She has been wilfully maintaining the specious excuse that it is a bilateral issue to be settled between Nepal and Bhutan. Therefore in the face of a series of ineffective negotiations, Nepal is now left with the only option of appealing to the international community for forcing Bhutan to take back its bonafide citizens and rehabilitate them on their legally owned property.

Flat hunting rules for novices

By C B Dahal

All need a roof over their heads. Be it one’s own or hired. It could be shared with unwilling relatives, friends or even acquaintances. Whatever the situation, for any person with any semblance of self-respect it becomes odd to remain a jahrke pauna. Therefore, once in Kathmandu make sure to find a dig of your own. But, before you begin the search learn some of the basic ‘house hunting rules’.

First, if you are a bachelor, there are ‘once bitten twice shy’ landlords who feel that as someone single your entry into the house would be an open ticket for romancing with the daughters of the house and then to the house tijori. So, you could be shooed away before the plans can take root.

Second, the landlord is bound to the number of persons likely to lodge with you. You could be asked to include all possible visiting guests and may be even the yet to be born child. That’s to regulate the supply of water to your flat.

Third, be sure to read the crease on the landlord’s forehead. If there is a twitch when you say single, be quick to say that your (would be) wife is likely to join you as soon as you settle in. And, if the face clouds when you mention the number of children you have, then without faltering assure him that they all stay in hostels and are likely to come only during the holidays. How long the holidays are can be discussed later.

Fourth, some landlords are teetotallers and to them give the assurance that you get drunk just looking at the labels, (the secret of the levels that tend to get reduced need not be disclosed). And, if questioned about your desire for meat intake, being a temporary vegetarian helps to cover neutral ground.

Now there must be some single ladies on the lookout for getting settled independently. For them, the best bet would be to confront the landlady and landlord together. Have on hand the most pathetic and heart rendering story like, ‘I have been looking for a suitable place for the last two weeks, and yours is the most suitable for a decent girl like me.’ A few crocodile tears would help to unwind the most hardened of heart knots. You are sure to get the flat, if not the couple will personally recommend you to another landlord.

The other rules for the lady is, try and look one’s decent best. This means, no dress that tends to highlight you, hair let down to make you look coy, no make-up or other fringe knick-knacks ladies prefer to flaunt. This could help you get the safest room and of course bodyguards, without any payment either. Future prospects after settling–in are a different matter altogether.

This is not the complete list of house-hunting tricks. More will be disclosed as these sink in. Please watch this column for further advice.

Land edict : Loss, gain and envy

By Utpal Raj Misra

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, in accordance with the precedent set by the Rana Prime Ministers, issued an edict to suspend all forms of land transactions, until his proposed "land deprivation / acquisition bill" (alias land reform bill) comes into force. The officials at the Land Tax Offices have, in accordance with the edict, suspended all work, ignoring the existing laws. The current laws have been suppressed and some constitutional provisions ignored and made inoperative. Writs have been filed at the Supreme Court against this "rule by edict". But it may be worth remembering that the Appex Court has already upheld the law that granted fifty percent of the land to the tillers (Mohis) at the expense of the landowners. Fifty percent of tenanted lands have already been taken away without any compensation. And the new edict seeks to reduce the size of land holdings yet further.

The Prime Minister of course is a democrat and belongs to the Nepali Congress party that has since the Rana period advocated and fought for "the rule of law". So is one to believe that the edict of the Prime Minister can override all existing rules and regulations, just as it was during the Rana period? Many people point to the constitutional provision guaranteeing "right to property". But what is a constitution? Just another law albeit purportedly superior law. Now in real action, the country has seen that the edict of the Prime Minister overrides all laws including the constitution. Lesson to be drawn is that the edict of the Rana Prime Ministers was non democratic, but the edict of the Prime Minister from the Nepali Congress party is the supreme law of the land.

This is the reality of our democratic dispensation. Theoretical debate is on the whole a waste of time. Because between theory and reality, it is reality that always prevails. Nevertheless, Nepali intellectuals never tire of wasting their time over concepts, theories, and ideologies. Recognition of reality is mostly beyond the capacity of Nepali intellectuals. But whether they like it or not, the Prime Minister from the democratic Nepali Congress party, has issued an edict suspending all laws pertaining to land transactions. The precedent set by the Ranas of ruling the country through edits is still upheld and enforced.

However, in the media and tea stalls, debate about the "land reform" (deprivation/acquisition) is going on. It is called "land deprivation" and not "land reform" because the effect is not that the land will be made any better in terms of productivity or yield, but it will just deprives former owners of the land they possess. It is also called "land acquisition", because some people hope to acquire the land which may be taken away from former owners. In this debate are generally there three point of views: namely, opposing views, supporting views, and apathetic views. Those who stand to lose land have opposed the proposal on land ceiling. Such people have resorted to theoretical "rule of law" and constitutionality arguments and other diversionary arguments like the lack of citizenship certificates among peasants, and also the issue of appropriate compensation for land deprivation.

Those who think they will gain land without paying a penny for it are of course enthusiastic and support the Prime Minister’s edict whole heartily. Various parties, which think that their vote bank will be strengthened by such an edict, have supported it. Of course, there is also the nouveau rich, neo political class that has not been able to use their accumulated wealth to invest in land, even when they wanted to. They of course, as had happened after the previous land reform 37 years ago, have higher chances of acquiring sizeable amount of land especially lands in urban areas. This is the reason why the so-called rural, agricultural, land reform is also being applied to the urban areas and this is the reason why the urban ceiling is the lowest. And this class is most supportive of the Prime Minister’s edict.

Presumably, this new political class was also behind facilitating of the edict. There is also another set of people, particularly in officialdom and those associated with litigation, who support this measure. The "Soft State" status of Nepal, and the omnipresent corruption enables this class to make fortunes out of any restrictive or prohibitive laws.

Already rumours are adrift that post-dated land transactions are occurring, that inheritance claims and divorce cases have been increasing. Of course, even simple procedural or prescriptive laws have enabled many such people to accumulate wealth by way of "fee for expediting the process", from simple common people who do not have "connections". Now on top of this, with prohibitive laws affecting considerable amounts of money, those versed in legalities and those in advantageous official posts are in a position to become very, very rich indeed. This class of people welcomes each and every rule, regulation, and law, particularly restrictive ones, because to them such rules, regulations and laws are like hens that lay golden eggs.

There are also another set of Nepalis who stand neither to gain nor lose from the Edict. Yet only a very few of them are apathetic to this issue relating to land ceiling. Usually, most of Nepalis tend to be unconcerned about matters that do not affect them. But when it comes to matters related to one’s countrymen’s progress or enrichment or wealth then the unconcern and apathy disappears and envy governs their mind. A common Nepali adage depicting this tendency is khutta samayera tanni (pulling down by the leg). Nepalis can tolerate any foreigner investing in Nepal and amassing wealth as well as taking the surplus away from the country. But they are critical of any Nepali investing in Nepal and becoming rich.

Perhaps, the Ranas were aware of this Nepali mentality and so invested in foreign lands and not in Nepal. In the book entitled, "Friends Not Masters", Ayub Khan of Pakistan had observed that the Bengalis (then East-Pakistanis), did not tolerate non-Bengalis investing in their land.

The situation in Nepal is just the reverse. An American expatriate is said also to have observed that the Americans and the Nepalis were similar in that they hated to see their neighbours progressing financially. But the difference was that the Americans would go about making effort to outdo his rich neighbour while the Nepali goes about trying to impoverish his rich neighbour down to his own low level. Given such social psychology among the Nepalis, perhaps, the economically capable among them will begin to invest and keep their wealth in foreign countries, where there is "freedom to be rich".

Anyway, given such a generally envious mental attitude, most people, who stand neither to gain nor to lose, are also in favour of the land edict. In fact they have gone even further, to advocate restriction on the amount of all forms of wealth that a Nepali can keep within Nepal. Ceilings on houses, shares, bank savings, cars, and a number of business, trade and industrial enterprises are said to be desirable.

Nepali intellectuals can rave and rant about fundamental rights, rights to property, constitutional provisions, or violation of law or democracy, etc. but reality will not be as they naively wish. So whether it is the legacy of the Rana period or not, whether constitutional or not, the edict of the Prime Minister will prevail.