Lower grain output

The poor rainfall during this monsoon in the eastern Terai region, long considered the rice bowl of this country — is going to affect the production of foodgrain in a big way. This means that cheaper grain imports from across the southern border are going to make greater inroads into the Nepalese market and into our economy. Which will again be a blow to our agricultural sector, besides making the situation of Nepali farmers more precarious. Our agriculture is still predominantly dependent on the annual monsoon. Our economic fortunes are still decided up in the heavens. And successive governments have never tried seriously to throw dams or barrages across our major rivers to irrigate thirsty lands. Initiative in such matters has always come from across that same southern border. Nepal has conceded space to India to raise high dams and extensive barrages and bring vital irrigation to the states of Bihar and UP. These two India states alone produce foodgrain enough to feed half of India’s immense population. Had Nepal adopted a different tack when tapping our abundant water resources for irrigation purposes we would not have remained so hopelessly subject to the vagaries of the monsoon. At least the country would have produced enough foodgrain for domestic consumption. But our waters remain largely untapped and the neighbouring Indian states continue to export their surplus produce to Nepal.

A study jointly conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative and Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) states that Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Ilam and Siraha districts have been seriously hit by drought. The report further states that foodgrain output is expected to decrease by around twenty percent this year. The farmers affected have hardly anything left to celebrate the upcoming Dashain festival with. Whatever crops they planted this summer have been left to dry
up. The region is bound to suffer from the current drought if the government fails to take remedial measures. The open border has further aggravated the problem. Last year, India dumped its cheaper foodgrain in the Nepali market affecting the Nepali farming community badly. India has developed a better irrigation system than Nepal. As a result, Indian farmers produce more foodgrain cheaper.

The government should not remain idle when a part of the country is facing drought. Two thirds of our total population is involved in agriculture and many among them will suffer the most. This may create social disorder if the authorities fail to introduce measures to help them out. Besides, the government has to develop an irrigation system and provide subsidies in agriculture. Its recent decisions affecting subsidies for tube wells should also be reconsidered in the light of what has happened in the eastern Terai this monsoon.

Spirit of friendship

By Gunakar Bhatta

A long, interactive and open discussion on whether the Nepal-India trade treaty of 1996 should be renewed as per the spirit of its inception has become top agenda for various concerned people and parties both in Nepal and India. It has meant more brainstorming for Nepal since its continuation is said to be favourable for her. This treaty, at the time its signing, was not considered to be so controversial as it is today because of the provision for automatic renewal every five years. Thanks to this provision, the Nepalese authorities were in an upbeat mood, expecting that Nepal would not have to suffer frequent policy interventions by the Indian side. Unfortunately, the Indian authorities have recently made the announcement that the treaty will not be renewed automatically, rather it is to be revised. India has made this abrupt remark, arguing that the duty free access of some Nepali products, particularly zinc oxide, acrylic yarn, copper wire, steel pipes and Vanashpati ghee, has adversely affected Indian industries. The Indian side further claims that export of these products from Nepal falls under the export surge net and it plans to impose high tariffs or quantitative restrictions on them. If this occurs without full consideration, it will be a major setback for our domestic industries.

Following this recent development, the Nepalese are voicing concern that the Indian side is deliberately putting pressure on Nepal at a time when the latter is passing through a time of internal conflict, and this is not the first time that India has done so. Some bureaucrats and diplomats in India, not all, suggest that the Indian government torment its benevolent neighbours, when the latter are in an internal turmoil, without considering the impact on them. The sudden proposal from the Indian side on reviewing the trade treaty of 1996 has compelled the people of Nepal to recall the period in 1989 when the Indian side unilaterally abandoned the then trade and transit treaty even as Nepal was undergoing an implicit conflict for political change. Though some Indian leaders actively supported the Peoples’ Movement of 1990, they also wanted to exploit the situation to cultivate leaders who could be an instrumental for their much desired hegemony in Nepal. It was after the mid term election of 1994, the new rulers of Nepal under the new political system tried to appreciate the spirit of the Nepali people and the reality of Indian interests. The straightforward response made by then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba at a press conference during his visit to India with regard to the acquisition of arms came as a surprise for some Indian leaders. Everyone is familiar with the ups and downs in Nepalese politics after that remark by a prime minister of a sovereign country.

Now, Nepal, a small economy with an open policy framework, is again passing through severe crises. Nepal is facing the challenge of not only restoring peace and security in the country by bringing the Maoists into dialogue but also of reducing poverty and a flood of challenges and limited opportunities. Nepal’s foremost challenge is to safeguard its merely a decade old open political framework along with the promotion of various potential areas of economic development. The challenge of this difficult endeavour has grown after the royal carnage of June 1 this year. India should not ignore the fact that instability in Nepal cannot be supportive of the former in any way. The recent proposal on revising the trade treaty in such a way as to harass Nepalese manufacturers or the construction of dams and barrages near various riparian parts of Nepal thereby inundating thousands of houses on the Nepalese side only contribute to creating anomaly in this Himalayan kingdom. These ultimately support the extremist forces which have already been doing their level best to dismantle the established socio-political framework in Nepal even by inciting its people against age-old neighbour India. The recent visit by Indian Minister for external affairs Jaswant Singh is expected to be fruitful in reconciling all these prevailing issues between the two countries but the result cannot be predicted in advance since diplomacy often seems to be dominated by the bureaucracy in India.

Meanwhile, a fact not to be overlooked is the significant advancements that India has made during the last decade in the areas of economy and finance, science, information technology, and strategy. These developments have raised India to a new height among the supreme powers of the world. At the present moment, this outstanding performance of India has become a matter of pride not only for her but also for all neighbouring countries particularly in the South Asian region. If India wants, all neighbouring countries can also benefit from these achievements which ultimately support economic prosperity and emotional integration in the region.

Nepal, not only as a major trading partner but also as a good friend of India, always wants to build a congenial relationship with her. Moreover, our age-old historical, cultural and natural ties at all levels have become an impetus for a cordial bilateral relationship between these two countries. It’s high time for Indian politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats to show the spirit of friendship in practice, not only in words. Severe economic conditions, a landlocked geography and uncertain politics in Nepal call for friendly cooperation from India in reconciling all bilateral issues, whether they be trade and transit, Marchawar or Laxmanpur, security or terrorism or even the decade old problem of Bhutanese refugees. If there is a true spirit of friendship, these issues cannot be insurmountable. Rather, a collaborative effort can be initiated in the best interest of the people of the two countries, with the brightening prospects of joint investment in beneficial sectors like hydro power and information technology. Above all, the most important point to be considered here is that the Nepalese authorities need to be more proactive and responsive to tackle all the prevailing issues in an agreeable
way whereby the true spirit of friendship between these two countries either at the level of government or the common people will be further consolidated and strengthened.

The best thing at 24

By Anup Upreti

Aug 24 2001 made me 24 years old and it took me no time to realise the best thing about being 24. Now I can still drink legally and get drunk legally. The newly negotiated agreement between the Home Ministry and a revolutionary women’s organisation permits me to drink. It seems like there never was any two-way talks between the government and the women’s organisation. Whatever was presented to the government, they jumped for it. This may be because of a lack of negotiating skills, as was evident at the Nepal-India trade talks. Or it could be that the government wants to create a favourable environment for talks with the Maoists by appeasing the insurgents’ "sister and brother" organisations. Whatever the reason, this agreement also shows that decisions are made in this country with months in mind, not years.

The decision on making the legal drinking age 24 does not seem to be based on any rationale, not forgetting that 18 year olds can vote in this country, regardless of whether they are mature enough to choose our leaders for the bright future of the country. If they are thought to be old enough to decide the future of the country why on earth they should be 24 years old to decide what is good and what is bad for their own health. If the idea is to reduce the level of drinking, the proper approach should have been to make the people understand that drinking is harmful rather than restricting it in such a manner. Age restriction as such is not bad if it is based on a rational limitation, like 18 in the UK. Even in the US, where the drinking age is 21, it has been constantly argued that the drinking age should be reduced.

This agreement once enacted into law will definitely slash state revenue. But let us not forget that it is high time the law enforcing authorities and the noveaux-riches pondered where to dump their money earned from unknown sources. The good news is that it has opened numerous avenues for jobs that need no qualification. This certainly is helpful in a country where unemployment and illiteracy rates are astronomically high. Some will specialise in making fake citizenship cards, others could specialise in selling alcoholic beverages after six, and some might smuggle them (Cheer up, those who are doing well in the drugs cartel). Those having an avid interest in horticulture might even cultivate plants to adulterate liquor. You can be prepared to read the news: Death caused by poisonous alcohol.

At a time when Europe is talking about legalising soft drugs we are restricting the drinking age in a ridiculous way. Cannabis activists argue that it better to legalise cannabis than to illegalise when a majority of people take it despite the legal prohibition. So it is better to direct the attention of law enforcing agencies to this fact. The point stressed here is not for legalising cannabis because it is not the right time in our country, but at least the same approach should be taken regarding the drinking age.

Neighbourly interests in Nepali troubles

By Pratyoush Onta

In what ways would the current political situation in Nepal be of interest to her neighbouring countries? Let us first take the case of China. Some commentators, especially those located outside Nepal, have painted the Nepali Maoists as ‘pro-Beijing’! What that means however remains unclear. It is true that after the first split of the Communist Party of Nepal in the early 1960s, the Nepali communists formed two groups, one pro-Moscow and the other pro-Beijing. The pro-Moscow group made a truce with King Mahendra and was incorporated within the so-called Partyless Panchayat system. The other group, the mainstream communist party in Nepal, through the 1960s underwent several divisions. Since the origins of the current Maoists can be traced to the pro-Beijing faction of the early 1960s, commentators perhaps believe that the Nepali Maoists are pro-China. This despite the fact that the ideology mouthed by the Maoists has little in common with post-Deng China, which is primarily interested in strengthening its trade interests in the region. If anything, the only interest the Chinese might have in Nepal’s political mess is to ensure that their trade interests in South Asia - however limited compared to South East Asia and other parts of the world - are not hampered by events in Nepal.

Another issue of concern to the Chinese is that they do not want a politically insecure Nepal to become the launching pad of revolutionary or ‘Free Tibet’ movements into Tibet. One could conceivably argue that were the Maoists to come to power in Nepal, they might attempt to ‘export’ their revolution to the adjoining areas to the north and south. Equally, the West supported Free Tibet activists could get greater elbow room in a less stable Nepal (the Nepali state has taken a harsh stand against such activists in recent times). However, given the huge geographical constraints, exporting revolution or Free Tibet activities from Nepal to China is no easy task. And the Chinese are aware of this. In addition some Nepali political scientists have often pointed out that the Palace is a good friend of the Chinese. It is, therefore, unlikely that the Nepali Maoists will find any support from the Chinese, now or in the future.

What about Pakistan? If one’s views about Pakistan’s interests in Nepal are informed just by the Indian media, then one can be excused for thinking that Nepal is infested with Pakistani diplomats and ISI agents. But the reality is quite different. While it is entirely believable that Pakistani ISI agents are active in Nepal and use its territory to plan and operate some of its activities in India, it is also the case that the number of such agents is a small fraction of Indian RAW agents working in Nepal. Knowledgeable insiders in the Indian bureaucracy and the military privately acknowledge that there are more ISI agents working in any big Indian city than the whole of Nepal. No matter what is
being said in India, the Nepali state does not support ISI activities of any kind on its territory. It is more a victim of Indo-Pak rivalry.

The Pakistanis may wish to somehow reduce Indian influence in Nepal but they probably realize that this is just wishful thinking for several reasons. The Nepali Hindu establishment is anti-Muslim to its core. The Pakistanis can do little to change this psychological and social fact. The official diplomatic strength of the Pakistani mission in Kathmandu remains small. There is hardly any trade between Nepal and Pakistan, and almost no people-to-people contact. Given such a scenario, political chaos in Nepal probably does not attract much useful attention in Pakistan.

That leaves us with India. We need not rehearse long-standing Indian interests in Nepal. The ISI bogey that India raises with respect to Nepal must be understood more as a frustration of the Indian ruling establishment with its inability to find a lasting solution to the problem of Kashmir. Instead of working with Pakistan, the Indian bureaucracy finds it easier to blame Nepal for ‘allowing’ ISI agents
to operate from its territories. The psychology behind this blaming game is easy to understand.

Whatever the hype about India’s Information Technology (IT) success and southern India’s dominance in the IT imagination, its political psyche is still dominated by the politics of the so-called cow belt of North India. It is this psyche that governs the response to the severe levels of violence, from Kashmir to the Indian North East. Further political instability in Nepal would mean that the region north of the central cow belt could potentially export Maoist inspired violence into the adjoining Indian territories. There could even be close working relations between Nepali and Indian Maoists operating in North India. This presumably is a source of worry for Delhi as it makes an effort to understand Nepali Maoists who have, in the past, categorically described India as an expansionist country (this is assuming, of course, that the slogans of the Maoists actually represent their political positions, an assumption that can be challenged with a variety of evidence of recent vintage).

Hence we might ask how the Indian ruling establishment is planning to deal with the Nepali Maoists? After the Siliguri meet between Prachanda and other Nepali communist leaders and its coincidence with the Indian minister Jaswant Singh’s visit to Nepal, some Nepali analysts are already beginning to say a new kind of Delhi Agreement is in the making. In other words, it is not outrageous to surmise that the Indian ruling establishment is already making sure that whatever the outcome of the current talks between the Government and the Maoists, both parties will follow the former’s ‘sound’ advice in letter and spirit. By ‘facilitating’ the way out of the current political impasse in Nepal, India would make sure that no matter what happens, Nepal’s political bosses of all shade and size would continue to be amenable to Delhi’s interests.

Or is this analysis of neighbourly interests in current Nepali troubles off the mark?