NGOs’ role in economic empowerment

By BIRBHADRA ACHARYA

The NGO movement has gained momentum in national development throughout the world because of the failure of state-led model of development to eradicate poverty in spite of more than four-five decades of planned development efforts. NGOs mean "non-governmental’, "non-profit-oriented" "autonomous" and "people oriented" organisations. They work directly with the poor and the vulnerable. Their intervention approach is more people-centered and flexible to address people’s needs. They "listen" to the people. In recent years, many states have recognised the potential of the NGO approach in the development of a country and are welcoming the NGOs to partner in the development efforts.

David Korten defines such intervention as "a process by which the members of a society increase their personal and institutional capacities to mobilise and manage resources to produce sustainable and justly distributed improvements in their quality of life consistent with their own aspirations" leading to empowerment, (Getting to the 21st Century, 1990). It calls for an "inside-to-outside" process approach to development, or as Robert Chambers (1986) has termed it "putting the last first" or Salman, Lawrence, 1987, "listen to the people", ie, putting the people at the centre of development.

The "state-led development model" by virtue is too bureaucratic and power-oriented to adopt such model of development. As such, it has failed to deliver desired benefits to the rural poor. Hence the emphasis has shifted to NGOs. In Nepal, the Decentralisation Act 1982 adopted a user’s group approach in local development; however, the elite grabbed the power, bypassing the interest of the poor and the vulnerable in the anti-poverty programmes.

With the advent of democracy in Nepal, there has been a flooding of NGOs in the national development scenario. There are at present numerous NGOs working as development agents both in the Terai and the hill regions. The approach taken is, "empowerment of the poor and the vulnerable". Many success stories and best practices of these NGO interventions are flashed now and then, from various communities. It is time the real impact of "NGO-led development" on the overall development of the country is evaluated on a broader scale.

I have had several opportunities to look into the approaches of some of the selected NGOs promoting social capital and economic activities in Nepal. One recent opportunity enabled me to study the approaches taken by more than 10 national and local level NGOs, on economic empowerment, in four districts of three development regions in the mid-hills, (one district in Far Western Region, one in Western Region, and two in Eastern Region) covering more than 60 VDCs in these districts. The target groups of these NGOs are households with less than nine month’s food sufficiency level. This article is thus focused on the economic empowerment aspect of these interventions.

Economic empowerment of the poor and the vulnerable, as the term connotes is the ability of the target group to take decisions on economic matters affecting their own lives and households, and thereby improve their livelihood in the long run.

General scenario: Among the NGOs, which are promoting economic activities in the mid-hills, some have specialised in vegetable/cash crop cultivation, others have specialised in livestock development and a few have specialised in cultivation of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP). The entry points for most of these NGOs were generally savings and credit mobilisation for local capital formation and support for livestock, vegetable/cash crop or NTFP farming with or without elements of grant and subsidy. This is not to say that an NGO, which specialises in vegetable/cash crop cultivation or livestock development, does not have other economic activities in its support package. Further, all these NGOs have off-farm skill development (self-employment) training as one of the major components in their programme design. They try to create ample income generation opportunities for their target group in their programme areas through integrated support.

Focus: In the mid-hills, the focus of these NGOs is on alternative land use, livestock farming and self-employment generation, mostly in line with their areas of specialisation. Fresh vegetable/cash crop cultivation and NTFP promotion are the major interventions for alternative land use; livestock promotion for supplementary income generation and skill development training for self-employment. This discussion focuses on the approach taken by these NGOs.

Land use: To improve the land use of the target groups, the NGOs’ staff have motivated the target group to cultivate vegetable/cash crop on semi-commercial basis foregoing the cultivation of traditional crops, such as, maize, millet, or wheat. Vegetables and other cash crops definitely have comparative edge over traditional crops, helping the target group to increase their income. But it is surprising to note that some of these NGOs had done no market potentiality study before advising the farmers to undertake alternative crop cultivation. In the interior hills, unless there is some component of linking the farmers’ produce with larger commercial market centres, the local market is quickly saturated. This affects the farmer’s motivation level. The majority of the farmers are not ready to bring more area under vegetable/cash crop cultivation. They cultivate these crops only in small plots (less than one ropani) of their land. If we examine the loan portfolio of these groups, very few of the members have taken loan for vegetable farming. This is a very important issue, which should be considered by the staff of related NGOs. If there is enough market, farmers will be self-motivated to cultivate these varieties on commercial scale. Therefore, the present approach that the NGOs have taken in fresh vegetables/cash crop farming is up to welfare scale only. That is to say, the present level of intervention has helped to supplement the income of the target group to some extent, however, scope for further growth in income with only this level of support is severely limited. NGOs therefore, need to package vegetable/cash crop cultivation support with skill, credit, linkage (forward and backward) and other infrastructural needs. It may seem a bit surprising to the general reader’s eyes, but in the integrated nature of rural farming, fodder and forage support is equally necessary even in vegetable/cash crop cultivation.

Omission: Targeting of households is based on food sufficiency level rather than landholdings of the member households in the mid-hills. This is based on the assumption that the target group may have large land area, but the land may be unproductive. Some of our target households in the hill areas have 5-10 ropani of land (more than 20 ropani in some cases) but they still fall within less than nine months food sufficient category. This is mainly because most of their land revenue means fallow. But instead of looking for alternative use of farmer’s parched land, the NGO staff seems to be advising farmers to bring their prime land under vegetable/cash crop cultivation. The NGO staff do not seem to have looked into the productive use of farmers’ unused/under-used land in addition to the alternative use of their prime land. Similarly, those NGOs, which support in NTFP, start looking for suitable forest areas for handover to the target group. Here, the question once again arises as to why the NTFP cannot be introduced in the farmer’s own parched land.

Address to the nation

By HITESH KARKI

(After having attended public rallies of almost all major political parties, this is how I summarize what I heard)

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

Namaste. Not so long ago when we weren’t here, when we were living in our burrows far away from the reach of broad daylight, you wanted us to come to the open. Whatever little you heard from us was greeted with cheers. We extend our sincere thanks for that. Had it not been for your support we would still be languishing in those ‘underground’ burrows, can’t say much about your conditions though, we don’t think the ultimate aim of the People’s Movement would ever have been possible.

And without wasting any time, we began rendering our sincere services. We wanted Nepal to be well off—the sole goal of ours. We started working day in and day out in pursuit of the goal. In the course of doing so, we suddenly realized that we were becoming what we were trying to become, seeing our ambitions getting fulfilled compelled us to think that so must be the case with you for the simple reason that "we represented you". As we began skidding through the pot-holed roads of Kathmandu on sleek Japanese vehicles and attending big seminars. Every where we went everything was so perfect that we began sensing that at least we are reaching towards our goal. Signing contracts and issuing tenders, the things for which you had sent us to Singha Durbar started becoming so frequent that with every signature it added an extra boost to our morale for every signature meant a new bridge, a new road , a new hydro plant, a new irrigation project, a new Boeing in RNAC’s fleet! And with every signature we became more stronger for we knew only a strong leader can guide a nation and also each new signature meant more newer jobs, newer avenues for sources of income. Let me remind all of you that we tried to remain committed to our vision. We also adopted the philosophy of "non-discrimination". Therefore we were never bothered as to who was getting all the benefit , which could be in kind or in cash, for the non discriminatory ideology of ours made us see everyone as a Nepali. Period.

It is only when nobodies tried to make money through lootings and killings, we took "note" of the situation. We were here to serve the nation and not go running after goons and ask them as to why were they resorting to such violent means. That was the job of the police force, and we never wanted our precious "service hours" go away looking into such trivial matters. Amidst this, we, who had spent almost half of our lives fighting against the autocratic system, suddenly found no opposition to fight against. This only augmented our restlessness. We thought we were slowly losing the art we had learnt so painstakingly and decided we needed to practise just to keep our skills alive. So we began resorting to fighting but with no opposition around, we had no choice but to select some as opponents, even if that meant finding them within the same party.

Around the same time, Nepal being such a unique nation with problems galore we decided that we needed a dedicated member to focus on a raft of problems. Hence we all decided to hold a post apiece.

Now we hear you are rejoicing by what we are going through at this moment. Please do, we have no complaints. Your happiness is ours, (see how we remain committed to your welfare!). We have no doubts that come next elections and once again YOU will be the ones sending us back to the same place where we belong, for you have no choice because we do not happen to be a commodity that you can import from somewhere else. Its got be people from our fraternity by whom you have already been served in the last 12 years.

Thank you. We will meet again.

Reasons behind system’s failure

By DR SHREEDHAR GAUTAM

Parliamentary democracy is praised and practised in many parts of the world, especially after the fall of the former Soviet Union. Our country too adopted the same pattern twelve years ago with great fanfare and enthusiasm hoping it would prove the best bet for our people, deprived of their basic human rights for almost thirty years, mainly after the dissolution of the parliament and replacing it with the partyless system by the then king. However, within twelve years’ duration, people have become completely disillusioned with the system, as it has failed to deliver goods. This is a serious matter and so it needs a sincere interpretation to know the causes of failure. Without thoroughly examining the key issues, we can neither reach a conclusion nor offer any concrete solution.

Our history is a witness that we are victims of deception and betrayal perpetrated by our insincere politicians. For instance, in 1950 people fought against the Rana oligarchy hoping the people’ movement would usher the country into real democratic era. However, the movement turned out to be a minor political event because the political leadership of the time neither represented the working class people nor understood the meaning of revolution. Though the tripartite compromise of 1950 gave no substantial rights to the people, the petty minded politicians never tired of terming the event as a glorious political revolution.

The word revolution has been wrongly defined in Nepalese context. In its simplest sense, revolution means a drastic departure from the existing socio-economic structure. From this angle the 1950 change can at best be called a political event rather than revolution as it replaced some people, not the basic polity of the state. The Ranas never felt as the defeated party after the Delhi compromise. On the one hand, the 1950 event was not very significant, on the other, the politicians and the successive Prime Ministers, including B P Koirala and T P Acharya, committed blunder by not remaining firm to the offer of the constituent assembly as promised by king Tribhuvan. They failed to do so as they could not understand the needs of poverty-driven majority people, exploited and suppressed for centuries. The left and the Congress leaders could not build a common front in favour of the constituent assembly because of their middle class background, divorced of the realities of the working class people. Instead, they fought among themselves paving the way for the dissolution of the parliament by King Mahendra later.

Like Nepal, other countries in Asia and Africa also passed through gigantic political movements in the aftermath of the Second World War. Many countries gained their liberation from the colonial power. In our case, our single target was democracy not the independence from the colonial masters. Nevertheless, we failed to gain that simple goal because of the political leaderships representing the interest of the middle class, not the working class. During almost the same time in countries like China, Vietnam and Cuba people experienced real benefit after the people’s movement either against colonialism or against feudalism because their leadership represented the radical section of the people.

The quality of leadership makes a lot of difference in any movement. During the same time, India too fought against the colonial rule. Thousands of people lost their lives. But at the end their country was partitioned. One of the reasons of India’s partition was the political leadership of the movement that was more with the middle class than to radical peasantry. Of course, Mahatma Gandhi was a man of ideals and showed tremendous sacrifices for the national cause; he too could not envision the consequences of siding with the middle class. Similarly, Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders, though well educated, could not take the side of revolutionary section of their people. It is for these reasons that despite over five decades of the end of British rule in India, common people still feel cheated. For them, it is only their own native ‘Sahebs’ who are ruling in the place of alien white ‘Sahebs’. There is no fundamental difference in the working system of the government then and now.

We failed again to bring about the desired change in 1990 because the political leadership of the movement, like in 1950, was undependable, indecisive and shortsighted. They had no agenda to transform the country into a prosperous country by overhauling the rotten socio-economic system as they led the movement. The alliance between the left and congress was not based on long-lasting national interest in term of freeing the exploited and transforming the quality of people’s life. Their naivety and immaturity could be gauged from the fact that once the King withdrew the word ‘partyless’ from the Panchayat constitution, they celebrated the occasion as a victory of the people. The so-called ‘revolutionary’ leaders of the left and the Congress termed the event as the defeat of the old system, though nothing was guaranteed is terms of changing undemocratic provisions of the old constitution. Later, the leaders of the Congress and the present UML changed their earlier stance in the course of drafting the new constitution.

It all happened because the leadership of the left-Congress alliance was more worried about its own fate than the destiny of 20 million people. They compromised and gave up one after another demand in view of their own interest and that of the middle class, which they represented the most. The present situation is the direct result of the system’s failure mainly due to opportunists’ political leadership. Now Girija Prasad Koirala and Madhav Kumar Nepal may try to fool the people once more with their opportunistic slogan, giving an impression that they are really worried for the people’s cause. But, Koirala, Nepal and their parties can never win over the favour of the people by resorting to cheap gimmicks as they have been exposed several times.

Moreover, they are so much used to the politics of comfort that it is next to impossible for them to change their life style. They can never represent the silent majority of people. Their strategy is guided by the interest of the minority, especially the middle class. People might again be swayed by their rhetoric, but they will desert the people once they see them going beyond their class interest. The present situation amply proves the point that for any substantial change or democratic transformation, a genuine political leadership is a must. Things will start changing in the country, when the genuine political forces create the possibilities for change by democratizing and transforming themselves. In today’s context, democracy has no meaning, if it is divorced of social justice. If democracy does not result in social progress and economic upliftment of the common people, it will no longer hold any credibility. Today if religion and fanatic forces are raising their heads elsewhere, it is because they have seen the failure of democracy. People do not take the speeches of Koirala and Nepal seriously. Even if people rise tomorrow to change the present situation, their sacrifice might become futile, as in the past, if leaders with clean image, broad vision and commitment to the cause of the suffering majority do not lead the movement.

Making a mountain out of a molehill

ARJUN BHANDARI

Leaders of the CPN-UML have made the party’s statute a big issue before they assemble for the seventh general convention in Janakpur scheduled for February 1-5. A faction led by K P Oli is insisting on reviving the presidential post, which the late Man Mohan Adhikari occupied during the fifth and six general conventions. The establishment side led by general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal is, however, determined to maintain the status quo of the general secretarial system. Both sides claim that their proposals are more democratic as compared to each other. The bone of contention between the two powerful leaders is whether or not to maintain the status quo or bring about a change on its traditional statute. The establishment side is of the opinion that presidential system was introduced in honour of the late Adhikari.

Although UML is one of the most well organised parties in the country, it always entangles with trivial matters. Even leftist intellectuals sympathetic to the party say the leaders make an issue of a non-issue. It is irony that an well-organised party is unorganised in terms of thoughts and policies to address the national problems. They create more foes than friends by means of their official documents.

The jargons they use in their political reports against the rival political forces, and even the palace, provoke opponents to harbour negative attitude towards the party. No political party can become strong by throwing salvo against
other forces. Rather, they should come up with their own programmes suitable for the national interests.

While addressing a talk programme in the capital a few days ago, leftist intellectual and Professor of Sociology Chaitanya Mishra said the party leadership has deviated from addressing the national agendas. He was critical of Nepal’s political report for wasting so many pages criticising other political forces and for lacking clear vision to address the national problems such as the Maoist insurgency, October 4 Royal move, economic recession and soaring unemployment.

When Rome was burning, Niro, the Roman emperor, was playing his flute in his palace. This proverb implies to the party, which has divided sharply over power sharing. Most party cadres and leftist sympathisers think it nonsense the way the two leaders are with their backs to the walls. But the party has always been plagued by personality clash since its inception way back in the 1950s. It has been a long tradition in the Communist party to split over leadership, but every time the division is given an ideological cover up.

Party insiders agree that there are no ideological differences between Nepal and Oli like the ones that surfaced during the fifth and sixth conventions. The fifth general convention, which was held
following the restoration of democracy, passed the "People’s Multiparty Democracy" and rejected the "New Democracy" floated by C P Mainali. The late Madan Bhandari’s political programme was instrumental in making the underground party a mass based political force after the restoration democracy. What the sixth general convention did was it gave continuity to Bhandari’s polices and programmes. However, the sixth convention also saw a division over the leadership.

Despite the fact that there were no ideological and policy-level differences between the factions, one led by the then deputy-general secretary Bamdev Gautam and the establishment side – led by Nepal and Oli five years ago – Gautam chose to split the party, backed up by Mainali. The party divided due to personality clash. The minority faction raised the issue of the controversial Mahakali Treaty reached between Nepal and India in 1996 and other minor issues. Gautam and his supporters have come back to the party without sorting out the "ideological differences" which they had raised during the sixth convention. Now Gautam is said to have backed up Oli on the issue of ‘democratisation’ within the party.

Oli’s insistence thatthe general secretarial system is a big hurdle to the democratisation of the party has, in principle, failed to substantiate as how presidential system will democratise the party. Implicitly, Oli’s strategy is to force Nepal to relinquish his absolute power entrusted by the party statute. Oli, who is considered to be the second most powerful leader after the party split, is likely to table a separate proposal during the convention, seeking direct elections of the party president and general secretary for which the establishment side is determined not to let that happen. The Nepal faction, which claims to be in majority, is of the view that multiple power centres would generate internal conflict and party would remain a lame duck on crucial political issues.

It does not matter whether the party is run under the presidential or general secretarial system unless the leadership acts democratically and gives due respect even to the minority voices. The party leadership claims to have run its organisations based on Leninist principle of ‘democratic centralism.’ If Oli’s assertion is any indication, the secretarial system is marred overtly by ‘centralism,’ not by what the Communist ideologue suggested.

What lies beneath ?

SAMEER DEO BHATT

The recent report submitted to HMG/N Ministry of Information and Communication (MoIC) for suggesting ways to ‘manage and reform the electronic media ‘ raises more questions than providing solutions. The report was submitted by a three-member committee formed by the government. Among other things, the report deals with two peculiar issues viz. "Cross-Media Ownership (CMO)", and "Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in media". The CMO in reality is a non-issue, whereas FDI in media is a controversial one. The report suggests to limit the cross-media ownership to two, and advocates for allowing FDI in electronic media. The issues of ‘FDI in media’ has been covered umpteen times in local media. Till now no one has argued in favour of allowing FDI in media. What has transpired in the recent past that compelled the committee to suggest such an imprudent measure? Did any FDI-bug or CMO-bug bit the Minister? Or, for that matter, did the bug bit the three members of the committee? The Ministry of Information and Communication sent the draft bill to Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs within one hour of submission of the report. Is there any ‘real’ need of such a report? The speed at which all the work has been done has surely beaten the Japanese concept of JIT (Just in Time). Or, is this report JLT (Just Like That)? What lies beneath the whole exercise of presenting the report? Vested interest of a coterie?

The report suggests for allowing FDI in the electronic media (radio also??), and at the same breath it talks of barring the same in the print media. Is there any rational rationale to justify the discriminatory suggestion for electronic and other media? Let us not forget that the reason for debarring FDI in (print or any other) media relates to protecting matters of our national interest. Do the members of the committee believe that only the print media carries the vulnerability of proliferating issues hostile to our national interest? It would be foolish to put forward such a puerile logic on such a serious issue. What could be the reason for such urgency then? At one point the report tries to justify by saying that huge investment is needed in the electronic medium. Is it that MoIC is trying to help our ailing economy by bringing in FDI? Again, this would be another childish reasoning. But that justification is no justification at all to justly the FDI in the electronic medium. We have quite a few TV stations coming up. All have one hundred percent Nepalese investment. Now how much more TV stations does Nepal need? If government asks for another proposal for more TV stations, there will be ten reports within a day. Let us assume, for example, that Nepalese businessmen cannot afford to establish a TV station without FDI. Does this mean that we ‘must’ have more TV stations? Cannot we say ‘no’ to new Stations if we don’t have resource to put-together one? Why has the committee shown desperation for the need of more TV stations? Nepal cannot afford to have a TV station by mortgaging its sovereignty. We are already facing so many problems.

The other issue, CMO, does not make sense at all. It simply looks like an attempt to hit a particular organization. The report vacuously suggests that operating more than two media by one organization would create monopoly in the market. Let us not confuse ‘monopolizing’ with ‘growing bigger’. The act of blocking or stifling competition by unjust means could be termed as monopolizing, whereas ‘growing bigger’ is nothing more than a normal process of structural change of an organization. Government should not determine organizational structures of firms in the market. If at all there is an inkling of monopolizing, Government can control it by regulatory rules. The Anti-trust law or the Sherman Act of the US is mostly referred to whenever there is a discussion about ‘monopoly’. The Sherman Act (1890), of the US was drafted basically for stopping people/organizations from ‘monopolizing’. The Act clearly deals with price fixing, bid rigging, horizontal customer allocation, and territorial allocation agreements. All these are the ways of creating a monopoly. Simply owning ‘more than two’ different media does not tantamount to monopoly. Owning more than two media is a situation of ‘being’ something. A person/firm should ‘do’ something (wrong) to be charged of Monopolizing, simply ‘being’ something is not enough for such a charge. Monopoly per se is not illegal anywhere in the world. If an organization achieves a monopoly by acquiring a competitor by fraud, its monopoly may be illegal. If the reason for monopoly is the inefficiency of other organizations then such monopoly is perfectly legal. Here, that is not the case.

One more argument regarding monopoly- TV station cannot be termed as a competitor of a print or radio media, and vice versa. A TV station would never compete with a Newspaper, let alone try to kill competition of a print medium; a Newspaper cannot even think of competing with a TV station or, with a radio station for that matter. Therefore there is no question of smothering competition. So, how can an organization monopolize by owning more than two ‘different’ media? If one organization grows in size then it cannot be charged of monopolizing. A monopoly can in-fact be created just owning one media also, it does not take ‘more than two’ to create a monopoly. If one media is pumping in money (from a different source) to support its product and selling it at a cheap price then this kind of act can be termed as ‘creating’ monopoly. It is the ‘unfair practice’ to stifle competition that creates a situation of monopoly, not the number of different media or organizations.

The lack of seriousness shown in preparing the report is evident by the statement of one of the members of the committee. The statement was "we did not study in-depth to identify the positive and negative impacts." What if the Government implements the entire report and tomorrow we find 100 negative points and 10 positive points? The MoIC seems to have solicited the report on whims and caprices of some people. But still two (not more than two!) good things have happened as far as the functioning of the government in Nepal is concerned. One, it has proved that it can be swift when it really comes to working swiftly. Second, it has shown (by making such a report) that it can be really proactive at times. Some contents of the report, and the haste shown in this entire case surely leaves room for suspicion. Only time will tell (unless one of the members of the committee speaks first) what it is that the Government wants to achieve through this report, and what the targets are that the government wants to hit.

Ayurveda and the issue of integration

PROF LM SINGH & BHUPENDRA NIRAJAN

The relationship between modern and traditional medicine can be explained in four board forms. Monopolistic- where modern medical doctors have sole right, tolerant situation- where traditional practitioners are permitted unofficially, parallel model- where both are considered separate components and integrated model- where both are integrated at the level of education and
practice.

Obviously, Traditional Medicine and modern medicine evolved in different philosophical assumption and different methodological approaches, conflicts are bound to arise when the two systems are used simultaneously in the same country. Every system has something to offer for the benefit of the patients. A particular system cannot be a panacea for all diseases. As a provider of medical care, a doctor should know what is the best in his system and also should know what is the best for the patients in other systems and should refer appropriately for the relief of the patients.

Health is the fundamental right of people and the fundamental objective of the health care system is to keep the population healthy and treat the sick. People’s health is much more important than the system of medicine. There are two types of people- traditional practitioners and modern medical personnel. It is unfortunate if somebody believes his own system to be the best and perfect. No medical system in health is perfect in the world.

In contrast to modern approach, traditional and complimentary systems of medicine deliver useful and effective service to the people in developing countries. We cannot imagine a situation especially in the developing countries without traditional medicine. It is an evidence why the Alma Ata declaration of WHO – health for all by 2000 failed to meet its objective and has now recommended for adoption of traditional and complimentary medicine in national health care system (see WHO traditional medicine strategy 2000). It is hoped that as WHO recognized it, it will accepted in both the developed and developing countries.

In 1929, the central government of China passed a bill "to ban traditional medicine in order to clear the way for developing medical works". But in 1949, attempts began to revive the traditional Chinese medicine, and to harmonize it with modern medicine. There are at least four reasons why traditional medicine in china could not be eliminated even after twenty years of formal ban. First, traditional medicine had strong cultural background; second, traditional remedies are simple, convenient and affordable with least side-effects; third, traditional medicine had unique theoretical system, which modern medicines could not replace; fourth, modern medicine was limited to big cities. After 20 years, the very first step made by the then Chinese government in 1950 was to unite the traditional and Western medicine. Now, 95 percent of the general hospitals in China have traditional Medicine Departments. The Peoples’ of Republic China seems to be one of the countries that have harmonized well the functioning of the two systems of medicine. The development in health sector in China has become an example to the world.

In India, a parallel model to traditional medicine and orthodox systems was adopted and recognized through the Act of 1970. People are free to choose their way of treatment. Despite the parallel model of official health policy of the Indian government, practices of integration have been accepted and are being developed in some institutes like- Banaras Hindu University. BHU is a university of Ayurvedic education with modern medicine and surgery. The treatment and patient care at BHU is done in an integrated pattern. Ailments like chronic rheumatic diseases, residual psychosis, anxiety disorders, chronic colitis, asthma, diseases of liver and degenerative brain diseases, which are almost incurable with costlier treatment are referred to the department of kayachikitsa.

In the Nepalese context, the official medical system- modern medicine refuses to see the other side of the story that can offer something good for patients. Ayurveda, the age-old medical system of the Himalayans, which still serves a big pie of Nepalese population has become helpless under the prevailing circumstances dominated by modern medicine. The role of traditional medicine in national health care services, model of integration, policy, regulation etc have not been made clear by the government. There is a great confusion about the role of Ayurveda in national health care.

The geographical structure of the country has made it difficult to supply modern medicine adequately to every corner. It is easy to bring allopathic medicine from Europe and America to Kathmandu, but very hard to distribute to remote area due to lack of transportation and other infrastructure. In such condition there is no other alternative except practices of traditional medicine.

By the middle (approximately) of the twentieth century, it has been felt that exclusive reliance on the formal western medicine is inadequate in health care delivery. It has been felt that official integration of traditional medicine into national health service is a must. The most important thing is dialogue between the conventional and modern medical practitioners. All medical colleges should start introductory courses in traditional medicine. Training for modern medical practitioners in the scientific and clinical methodology of traditional health system should be provided. Unit for delivering services in traditional medicine should be established in every hospital so that patients may have an optional/alternative medical system in every hospital. Safety standards of all traditional medicine should be set by the government and adopted in the service centres. Public funds should be allocated on equitable basis. There must be a self-regulatory body to maintain the standard practice in traditional medicine system. Finally, the objective of the integration of health services should be to treat people in an effective way (whether through allopathic or traditional method) with least adverse effects and financially affordability.

Muslims: In the beginning was the duty of peace

MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD

There has never been a time when  Muslims were so looked down upon and so oppressed as they are today. We all know that the Prophet brought only one Islam. But today there are many Islamic religions.

There are the Sunnis and the Shiites, divided into numerous groups by the different imams and orders. Some of these interpretations and teachings are so different that their followers actually accuse each other of not being Muslims. Indeed, they regard many who profess to be Muslims as infidels.

Because of the thousands of different interpretations of Islam and the very many different sects and adherents, each claiming to be the true followers of the religion, Muslims are thoroughly confused.

Disunited, fighting each other for power, lacking in essential knowledge and skills, misapplying their God-given wealth, Muslims have reached the lowest point in their development. They are unwilling to see the reality of the situation or admit that they have deviated from the teachings of Islam.

Frustrated and angry, some Muslims have resorted to terrorism. Many believe that they have been successful in this.

But what have the Muslims really gained by these acts of terror? All that has happened is that the enemies of Islam have found justification for putting more pressure on Muslims, for attacking and killing them, and for treating them and their religion with contempt.

Muslims fight and die not to achieve any real objective, such as freeing themselves from oppression. They fight and die to retaliate, take revenge and vent their anger. Muslims appear not to plan or strategize. Even their terror attacks seem to be random, isolated and uncoordinated.

The Muslims have clearly lost their way. There is a saying in Malay that when you lose your way, you must return to the beginning and start again.

The most fundamental teaching of Islam is peace. We greet each other with the wish for peace. Is it just an empty greeting?

The Koran states that all Muslims are brothers. Apart from Islam advocating peace, surely brothers must not fight each other. Being of the same family, brothers should love each other and be united.

That is the basic teaching of Islam. There can be no dispute about this injunction, no difference in the interpretation of this teaching.

If we want peace, then shouldn’t we strive for peace, at least among ourselves as Muslims first, and then with people of other faiths?

(The writer is prime minister of Malaysia. This comment has been adapted from an address on Jan. 22 at Al Azhar University in Cairo.)

International Herald Tribune