Ill-omened SAARC summitry

By Madhab P Khanal 

Creation of multilateral forums on regional considerations for pro- moting economic interests among the countries concerned or conducting international negotiations on vital issues that bear upon their interstate relationship has been a part of the natural development of international relations. The success or failure of such regional groupings is, however, conditioned by the degree of authenticity behind the motives of their foundation. The Association of South East Asian Nations, the Organisation of American States, the Organisation of African Unity, the European Commission, to cite a few, are some of the living examples of international organisations that came into being as a result of uninhibited political will among certain groups of countries for collective partnership in various fields of common concern that were broadly within their regional parameters. Pressing strategic concerns or a growing need for economic cooperation among states sharing a wide range of commonalities was, no doubt, equally instrumental in bringing them under a single fold of regional solidarity.

Even since India successfully tested its first nuclear device in 1975, ostensibly for ‘peaceful purposes’, few countries of South Asia had already realised that the region needed a common forum that would help contain a potential arms race between the two congenitally hostile neighbours, India and Pakistan, and divert its resources towards transforming the plight of the millions of destitute. Deeply inspired by a similar spirit, His Late Majesty King Birendra, while addressing the Colombo Plan meeting held in Kathmandu in 1976, had made a fervent call for regional cooperation on utilisation of water resources. But owing to their myopic concept of national interest, the underlying philosophy of regional cooperation that King Birendra was trying to advance was misconstrued by some responsible leaders of the region as a diplomatic ploy. The proposal ‘fell victim to indifference’ (on the part of the regional leaders), concludes Prof YN Khanal. Similarly, the late President Ziaur Rahman of Bangladesh, too, had been fancying to have a summit meeting of regional leaders to work out a blue print for regional cooperation among the countries of South Asia. Unfortunately, he, too, fell victim to a senseless act of assassination before his dreams came true after a couple of years.

Consistent with this long cherished vision, leaders of the seven countries of South Asia put their heads together in 1985 in Dhaka and officially launched the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, a sequel to what the foreign ministers of South Asia had adopted in 1983 in New Delhi under the nomenclature ‘Declaration on South Asian Regional Cooperation’. However, the enigmatic part of the SAARC story is that, despite their declared commitments, several member countries have not yet boldly come out with their unstinted support to the organisation that they created with so much efforts. Thus, the bottom line to draw is that their attitude towards SAARC has ever remained ambivalent and their pledges of adherence to its principles are indisputably spurious and affected.

It is now more than seventeen years since the regional organisation was formed after several years of painful gestation. The SAARC euphoria that one could notice in many of the member countries until the mid-nineties is no longer felt anywhere now. Similarly, the extent of exuberance and receptiveness that its members displayed towards the plans and programmes of the regional body during the initial years of its foundation appear to have progressively diminished in recent years. There was a time when SAARC spirit used to be a structural feature of contemporary regional politics and a part of the rhetoric of foreign policy of many member states. But now it has been relegated to a status of peripheral importance. Likewise, the cardinal objectives enshrined in its Charter have been totally overshadowed by the belligerent stand-off between the two nuclear bullies of South Asia. As a result, peoples who once held a strong conviction that the SAARC mechanism could act as a catalytic agent in alleviating their poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy and other hardships, have now started dismissing its utility as totally unavailing.

If someone were asked to make a graphic presentation of seventeen years of SAARC’s existence, it would be a landscape of missed opportunities. Except for some occasional diplomatic trivialities, it has utterly failed to bridge a gap between its promises and performance. It’s leading members, India and Pakistan, are undoubtedly responsible for such a pathetic failure of the regional movement. They could have done a lot towards ameliorating the life of the peoples of one of the poorest regions of the globe had they been guided by honest diplomacy towards the regional organisation. On the contrary, they chose to remain absolutely relentless even in the face of bleak economic and social realities confronting the region. They were simply gratified with their unremitting arms race and swelling nuclear and missile arsenal. Viewing their pride in nuclear advancement, one would be aptly reminded of what Shakespeare wrote in one of his historical comedies: ‘Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot; that it does single yourself’. Yes, any strategic mistake on their volatile border in Kashmir could spark off an internecine confrontation with incalculable consequences.

Having witnessed their macho proclivity over the years, one could draw a safe conclusion that neither India nor Pakistan wanted SAARC to mature itself as a vibrant regional forum. Several landmark conventions and resolutions that were signed during various summit meetings have all been dumped in their cabinets vainly awaiting enabling legislation or necessary amendments in the country laws. Under these circumstances, one would naturally be prompted to ask what is the raison d’etre of SAARC if its responsible members cannot honestly come forward in support of the underlying principles that is was created for? Should it always remain a hostage to the apparently insoluble Indo-Pak imbroglio? Therefore, time has come now that the objectives of SAARC be redefined and their scope and application restructured in the larger interest of all the member states.

Without enforcement mechanism to give its resolutions and conventions a binding force, SAARC cannot function effectively so as to deal with South Asia’s chronic problems. Owing to its birthmark as a multilateral forum, SAARC has remained totally nonchalant towards serious bilateral issues that several member countries are bogged down in. It has failed to exert even nominal pressure on the authoritarian regime like Bhutan which maintains appalling human rights records and has not hosted a single summit meeting so far for no convincing reason.

The stalled twelfth summit meeting of SAARC heads of state and government has once again surfaced in the local media after the return of the Nepalese delegation from the NAM jamboree held in Kuala Lumpur recently. As the chairman of the association it was but natural for Nepal to be anxious that the summit meeting is held as early as possible. But the ground realities are different. The latest diplomatic rupture between India and Pakistan marked by a series of ugly retaliatory actions against each other’s diplomatic personnel have unquestionably thwarted the chances of the twelfth round of summitry until both the countries make a complete turn around from their current bellicose posture.

One measly rupee

By SMRITI JAISWAL

Acircular walk starting at Sundhara, bending its way to accomplished New Road, twisting back to the tall, seven storied pillar. It is a microcosm, one can study more than just history, more than just geography if one studies that one circular walk.

A child — baked brown, half naked and tangled — accompanies me. He doesn’t want much, just a rupee. It’s not much. I fiddle it out of my well stocked purse, a measly rupee. "Here," I say with more embarrassment than anger, "here take it and get lost." But there are a dozen more baked brown children wanting just a rupee, running behind, touching my feet, sniggering at my discomfort. But a dozen bucks is a lot of money even to me. I push forward like a wall, a steel frown between my brows. Get lost, I say, but they only snigger and get around.

At a point they leave me, they have found another goat to milk. I walk along shops displaying leather jackets and stationary items, scarves laid on concrete selling socks and gloves — Rs 25 each, fixed price, no bargaining please. I am not really thinking about those pestering kids but I’m relieved nevertheless. As I near the affluent street I am busy thinking of the shopping that’s got to be done, of my friends who wait for me at the bakery. How affluent is this street where a legless man with an artificially stained bandage around his ancient leg stubble pushes his leprosy eaten palm — didi, he cries. That measly one rupee, that’s all he wants. My heart beats crazily. I try not looking at the woman playing an old drum, staring mutely at her vacant life; I skip past the ten year old boy, armless, smiling through his yellow teeth; the new born who doesn’t yet know what he is born into. It hits my skin — the cold wind — its cold, I think then vehemently crush the thought. It seems inhuman to feel cold at that moment, to feel anything at all. I guess this is why all who walk past walk on like blind, dead people. Life is strictly forbidden.

Suddenly, with a violence, I want them dead. I want them dead like I would want street dogs dead, like I would want worms dead, want an intensely suffering bird dead. I forget they are humans, that wishing animals dead is one thing but wishing humans dead is murder. I forget my affinity with them, I forget we belong to the same species. They are some things crawling the unpaved Sundhara lane, crawling the well paved posh New Road. Or perhaps we really aren’t the same species. There is no string joining us. It is easier saying I want to be an animal than saying I want to be a beggar. Animals have life, beggars have aluminum bowls screaming for measly one rupee. It’s easier looking into the mirror after petting a dog but I can never make myself turn around to look at the bowls.

My heart always beats hard when I drop in a coin, it beats just as hard if I don’t. In a strange, unspeakable way I am afraid of these people. I am afraid of them who can never harm me, who themselves have been harmed by god alone knows what calamities. They reveal a side of me I’d rather not see, a suffering I’d rather not participate in. I am too afraid to touch peeling palms, too human to walk past without noticing. I wonder sometimes, why aren’t there any NGOs looking after them — I guess NGOs are afraid of them too.

These people — nonexistent, immobile, unproductive, unchanging — I wonder what they signify. Apart from the fact that they are economic scapegoats, a glaring example of poverty’s humiliation, the futility of suffering, those inhabiting the lowest rung of humanity, what do they signify? Apart from the fact that there was once only one Mother Teresa with the courage to touch them and that she is dead now, what do they signify? What is that big question mark they pose, the one before which all strength trembles.

And if I could solve the puzzle what would I get? Would I know why they make me so uncomfortable, these unimportant people who can’t even touch me? Would I understand why it is difficult to laugh freely if one of them stares with their blind eyes? What meaning do I make of lunatics mumbling god knows what to every passerby?

What do I do? How do I walk along the most affluent street of Nepal and believe its affluence? How do I walk it without uneasiness and reluctance? How do I move without the fear of tripping over a cold child sleeping on the charcoal bed. And above it all, how do I ever understand why these naked, starving children who depend so much upon my charity and whim still exhibit a right to laugh at me, to snigger at my discomfort?

Political dynamics of communists

By ACHUT GAUTAM 

The balance of political power following the agreement reached in 1990, between the revolutionary democrats, liberal democrats and traditional forces has been disrupted since the "people’s war" surged to national level. The revolutionary democratic forces represented by the CPN- UML and the liberal democratic forces represented by the Nepali Congress were the two major forces compelling the traditional forces to redraft the constitution. The agreement materialised in the form of a new constitution in 1990.

The present shift in the balance of powers is congruent to the elevated form of the People’s War. The process of segregation from the reservoir of left force has finally reached the point equilibrium and unless a new tactic is worked out, the equilibrium has the tendency to shift towards a negative pitch, unfavourable to the People’s War. Thus, as the urgency dictates, the CPN-Maoist has emerged today as the key component of the peace process. The urgency again appears to be linked with gaining supremacy over the three national forces. However, the segregated component of the political society requires time and space to muster people’s recognition and accomplish lithification with social accountability at an extra-accelerated rate to suit the national realities. Failing to do so, the conglomerated ideology will proceed through fragmentation and seek reorientation. Policy and programmes are the binders of an organisation, and space for representative ideology must be well sought. Since the present shift in the power-balance is temporary, one can picture the direction of the swing of the mark though with little accuracy when magnitude is concerned.

The reservoir of left-force shall always remain as one of the key elements of the three forces to create a balance in present politics. The tendency of distributaries and segregating forces uniting with the main stream is an obvious political phenomenon, especially when the programmes and policies adhered by the parties at play possess similarities more and differences less. The reservoir though consists of many parties by different names, the total ballot, however, remains more or less in the same proportion. Thus, there may be a reshuffling and reorganising tendency within the parties of the same reservoir as the converging tendency around a particular political nucleus dominates. The apparent result is foreseeable in one party towering over the rest in the given reservoir. Significant accelerated crystallisation and limited political space are the major adversaries that the CPN-Maoist needs to consider in order to overcome the predictable confusion. Even though it is too early to testify the magnitude of directional shift in the balance of forces within the left-force, the propensity of significant swing from the current position of the left parties appears inevitable.

Growth of a political party is a function of a well-established steady political ideology suited to the national reality. Rapid or sudden shift from the formally adhered principles triggers a swift change in the inner party equilibrium, resulting in the build up of inner-party pressure that ultimately is released in the form of relief pressure. This pressure is of centrifuging nature that initiates abandonment and rejection of new party policies by leaders and cadres alike. With the adamant leadership enforcing agenda over the net party rank and file, a sizable bulk of the party or numerous nuclei non-complying to the leadership may become the causative agents in the growth of negative marginal utility. At this stage, fragmentation and feud overwhelm an organisation.

The history of CPN-UML is incomplete without reflecting over the works of Madan Bhandari. Being aware of party dynamics, he cautiously shifted the party from established programme of New Democracy to People’s Multi-Party Democracy without the slightest trace of pressure relief within the party and gained a success beyond the normal political phenomenon. He wisely chose the correct time for the shift. The relief pressure building within the party from inner-party pressure was reabsorbed within the unification process between the CPN-ML and the CPN-Marxist.

The coordination and genuine agreement between those upholding the older values and those seeking new possibilities promise the future of the party. However, the party leadership of CPN-Maoist must have projected the optimum possible threshold of relief pressure and sought a way out for mitigation. The choice of time appears to be right while the other forms of symmetry being the functions of the leadership of the CPN-Maoist.

(The author is with Department of International Relations, CPN-UML)

Refugee crises posing grave threat

PURAN P BISTA

Three years ago, J N Dixit, on a visit to Kathmandu, made an absurd comment when asked his opinion on the Bhutanese refugees : " Now Nepal must think of assimilating the Bhutanese refugees into the Nepalese society instead of waiting in camps for their repatriation". Dixit, who was India’s foreign secretary and served as high commissioner to Sri Lanka and Pakistan, must have thought that, if India can shelter more than 20 million Bangladeshi migrants, then why can’t Nepal do the same. After all, they are the people of Nepali origin and a handful of Bhutanese refugees will make no difference for Nepal.

This was short of a logical conclusion. Nepal is not worried of a demographic change that a handful of Bhutanese refugees would have made through their resettlement along the southern border. What has worried Nepal is the way the Druk regime evicted the Lhotshampas forcefully. Hostility, no matter how seriously Bhutan takes it, is inherent so long as the country undermines the refugees’ rights to return to their country. Besides, millions of Bangladeshi illegal migrants have entered India since the 1971 war with Pakistan. This has not only bred ethnic conflicts but has also posed a threat to India’s security.

Dixit should have realised how illegal Bangladeshi migrants are posing threats to India’s security. And India often puts the blame on Nepal instead of looking into its own policy which shelters illegal migrants working at India’s expense. I don’t think Nepal has any sort of territorial ambition as some Indians have written on the Bhutanese refugees and consequently, discourage the repatriation process. Even if Nepal has such an ambition, then India must take it positively as she will have greater advantages over her northern neighbors because Nepal has neither been a threat to India’s security, nor has it made any attempt to undermine the stark reality. Nepal’s efforts have always been to maintain peace and social harmony.

What is the stark reality? Columnist T V R Shenoy writes that over 20 million illegal Bangladeshi migrants are spread across India. Some are genuine refugees but others are looking to make a quick buck at Indians’ expense. Five million illegal Bangladeshi migrants, as Shenoy says, have obtained ration cards in West Bengal alone. West Bengal’s communist regime welcomes infiltrators-first giving them ration card, then listing them in the electoral rolls -as they later become loyal voters to the Stalin regime. India’s deputy prime minister L K Advani has also said that there are more than 15 million illegal Bangladeshi migrants living in India. It is true. Jyoti Basu would not have ruled West Bengal for twenty-four years had he not allowed the Bangladeshi migrants to settle in his state. West Bengal’s state leaders still encourage Bangladeshi migrants and one can see them along the river banks or open space working in tea estates in Jalpaiguri and Duars in North Bengal.

The 1971 Indo-Pak war forced more than 10 million East Pakistanis to leave their country and settle in northeast India. The Assam agitation of 1977 was caused by the illegal East Pakistani migrants. The Assam Students Union demanded that the illegal Bangladeshi migrants be deported from Assam. However, the 1983 Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunals Act (IMDT) legalised their status in Assam. The IMDT was formed by the Indira Gandhi government, soon after the election to the state assembly. It was framed in such a way that the state government became almost impossible to deport any foreigner from Assam.

Nepal and India share common border but the nature and degree of our friendship differs with the policy and political events. Nepal stands for repatriation of Bhutanese refugees, whereas Indians want them to stay back and, if possible, integrate them like those of East Pakistani refugees. Kautilya says "a nation that does not respect itself and is negligent of its own interests forfeits others’ respect and becomes the target of its neighbors’ depredations". It is true. India faces a similar situation with her neighbors.

Kautilya further says, "a friendly neighbor who is ever a well-wisher should be helped". Unfortunately, India has never helped Nepal grow nor has she respected reciprocal treatment of trade and commerce. In one way or other, Nepal, though it has ever been a well-wisher, has never been coerced by India. Nepal has, time and again, been accused of harboring Pakistan-sponsored militants. In recent years, Nepal has seen India supporting Bhutan on the refugee issue. And Dixit was not only the first person, who made such a comment, but there are many Indian leaders, who wanted Nepal to legalise the Bhutanese refugees’ status.

The ethnic conflicts between the two different communities, or hostility between the two countries of South Asia, caused by the refugee problems. If India discourages Bhutanese repatriation, the refugee crisis in the region will only complicate not only the relationship between Nepal and India but will also continue to pose a threat to India’s security.

Relativity, virtue and the relativity of virtue

Bikash Sangraula

Virtue is a compelling topic, at least for those who still have some fast evaporating dregs of conscience left in their smoke-ravaged bosoms. There are indeed those who, in their words, ‘don’t give a damn’ to virtue. But then, that is their problem, and a severe one. Whether one lives in a city of sin or in the city of gods, being virtuous is, if not the highest paid, then at least a highly respected attribute.

The concept of virtue is not a new one. Its significance in ensuring social well being was a much debated topic even among the most ancient philosophers. But then, our characteristic tendency of thinking ‘what harm will a once-in-a-while moral slip do’ is also as ancient. The question is probably the most overused one in the entire history of humanity.

During the times of greatgrandfather Adam, the good and the bad (but not the ugly) were clearly defined and thus life was a piece of cake. But then, it was not a piece of apple, which Adam oldie made the mistake of presuming. In his whole immortal life, he was required to be virtuous in only one particular domain: the gustatory one, and that too when it came to the temptation of consuming red, ripe, and sexy apples hanging down invitingly from those terribly seductive trees in the garden of Eden. But then, Adam was a human, and like all of us, and before anyone of us could have the opportunity to speak out that immortal sentence, he did. "What harm will a once-in-a-while moral slip do," said the mischievous great grandfather, thus jeopardising the future of all of his successors, we included. The rest, we all know.

After that monumental moral slip by the most ancient of humankind, virtue was no longer ping pong. It was transformed into quite another sport, something akin to cards. Just to elaborate on that allegory, cards are the most uncertain games devised as yet. It is like Alice’s wonderland where the same thing can have different implications on different occasions. For instance, a card might win you a fortune at one time, and at another, the same card might send you straight to the streets of Ratnapark, or even better, Pashupatinath.

During the times of Viswamitra and Vashistha, having a lot of children was regarded as virtuous. The two sages didn’t waste any time in earning for themselves that coveted attribute. They fathered a whopping hundred sons each. How many wives were needed for that sacred purpose is quite a natural curiosity. But then, those guys were immortal and if their wives were as well, then one wife for each of them would be sufficient for that purpose, by hypothesis.

The importance of the two sages in teaching us some of the vital lessons of life is undeniable. But by fathering ten football teams each, the two of them did humankind a great harm. Even as late as just a hundred years ago, the hills of Nepal were dominated by people who blessed their male kids thus, "May your children cover these hills." So, that was a virtue even as late as then. And our grandfathers of the hills put in Herculean efforts to come true to that blessing, as the inability to do so could amount to being called unworthy of the sacred blessings of elders.

Soon, people were saved from that painful predicament by messengers from the west who came with a queer theory that having fewer children brings family well being. That made us laugh at first, then weep, then wipe tears, then wonder, than agree. Replacing virtues!

When that wizard of physics called Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the immediate beneficiaries were those who were fed up with the concept of virtue, as they saw, more clearly than others, that virtues change as quickly as a chameleon changes colours. While they cannot be expected to understand Einstein’s theory of relativity, they certainly knew that the theory could be immensely useful in justifying their non-virtuous exploits. Catch a youngster doing something nasty, and try to talk him into giving up such practices. He’ll tell you, "Everything is relative, you know." Full stop.

The city of 32 crore gods has been catching up fast with the theory of relativity. It is wonderful that most of our youngsters know the theory of relativity. It is definitely only a while before they make discoveries big enough to shake up the world with its utter novelty and scientific significance. By the way, with recent developments, the concept of relativity has grown in importance as fast as the concept of virtue has run out of relevance.

Everyone asks ‘why now?’

JULIAN LINDLEY

Why now? That is the question that millions of Euro peans, Americans and others have posed to their governments in recent weeks.

It is a question Joschka Fischer put directly to Donald Rumsfeld. It is a question that has split NATO and the European Union. It is a question to which the United Nations Security Council has no answer. It is a question that has created an entrenched divide between a new Europe that agrees to doing security the American way, an old Europe that would prefer to do it some yet to be defined European way, and another Europe that would rather not do security at all.

Why after all these years of tolerating and containing Saddam Hussein has the West under American leadership decided that now is the time to deal with Iraqi weapons programs? Here is the answer.

The threat is real. As Al Qaeda has demonstrated, there are enemies out there whose intent is not only malicious but positively nihilistic. There need be no proven link between a weak state, such as Iraq, and fundamentalist Islamic terror to recognize that the world is a lot safer place if regimes such as Baghdad are denied such destructive power.

For Europe, this emerging reality has led to a profound political cleavage between those who believe that war is a last resort and those who claim that war is no resort. Sadly, most of Europe has been on a strategic vacation for the past 12 years, in a world in which ever more dangerous people are getting their hands on ever more dangerous weapons. It is a vacation that Europeans can ill afford.

However, even within the interminable European debate there are moments when reality intrudes. On the one side, new Europe has clearly recognized that supporting America in active disarmament is clearly in their interest. They have also recognized that effective coercive diplomacy can only work if the pressure is increased steadily, consistently and credibly.

France and Germany have adopted a different approach, rejecting coercive diplomacy in the hope that the United Nations can achieve its goals without the threat of force. Sadly, one is forced to wonder if Paris places the political well-being of the French-German relationship within Europe above the security of Europeans from threats beyond.

There is, of course, a second part to the question that is implicit in the French-German position. Why set deadlines for the end of diplomacy and the beginning of war? Effective coercive diplomacy is impossible without deadlines. Put simply, the world had better know that the West is serious. In the case of Iraq, Saddam has proved a master at duplicity and evasion.

Consequently, Europe is now split between those who seek peace at all costs and those who seek security at all costs, between those who would like to continue the strategic vacation and those who would like to go back to work. It is a choice between appeasement and responsibility. The appeasers hide behind the facade of public opinion. Of course, public opinion is against war. It is the job of responsible leaders in Europe to lead the European people back to strategic reality however painful that might be.

The writer is a member of the faculty at the Geneva Center for Security Policy. This is a personal comment and does not reflect the views of the center.

International Herald Tribune

Students need their own summit

ANANDA BISTA & VIJAYA SIGDEL

Students in Nepal have always responded above and beyond the call of duty with respect to their country. Knowing this, political leaders have continuously asked them to assume far greater responsibility than should be expected. Now their perpetual involvement in the politics of protests is seriously harming our country’s future. Thus, the students’ national honor is quickly turning into a national tragedy.

The Nepalese students, like their counterparts around the world, have fulfilled a historic role in fighting tyranny. During the dark days of the Panchayat System, they were a major force behind keeping democracy’s flames burning bright. To that end, students, particularly those belonging to the Nepal Bidyarthi Sangh (NBS), sustained the brunt of the regime’s repression and cruelty. We dare say that without their selfless sacrifices, restoration of democracy in Nepal wouldn’t have been possible. Thousands of them were incarcerated, many more expelled, beaten or killed. Others were simply forced to cut their education short. Many more were simply not allowed to have the opportunity to hold a job or a career. As a result, many, along with their families, are still languishing in despair. Indeed, the price the students had to pay was exorbitantly high. Our country is immensely indebted for their exemplary spirit of idealism, valiant efforts, and extraordinary courage.

During the Panchayat System, the students’ political activism was mainly centered on and around colleges and Tribhuvan University. Today, it has trickled down to every high school and even to the primary level schools throughout the country. Our students spend more time and energy on the streets shouting political slogans and distributing pamphlets than studying, reading books and writing papers.

The diffusion of political ideology in our educational system has fomented a high level of division and antagonism; the students are turning against one another while teachers turn against teachers. The contentious environment in the schools is so tense and unruly that the teachers have completely lost control over the students. Mutual trust and respect no longer exist between teachers and students instead they are at each other’s throats. It would be no exaggeration to say that the biggest riots we find in Nepal today are in the public schools. The teachers’ heavy involvement in politics has made the situation much worse. They are playing a significant role in inciting students to drum up support for the political parties they are associated with. They spend more time campaigning for political parties and promoting leaders than in classrooms. The politicians, instead of making the students free from disturbances, have found the teachers and innocent students very easy to manipulate and exploit for their narrow political gain at a colossal cost to our nation’s future - the students’ education. We consider the exploitation of students to be as immoral as using child soldiers in combat.

Apparently, the Revolution’s biggest casualty has been our students and education system, both before and after 1990. The post-revolution NC, UML and other political parties have turned deaf ears to this most conspicuous problem. Instead, they have continuously inflamed, organized and relied on students’ protests. This situation simply can’t continue if we want a better future for our children - and our nation.

After the 1990 Revolution’s triumph, we hoped that the students would be allowed to return to the classrooms uninterrupted. But our leaders never addressed this critical problem. The new government’s much-vaunted education reforms never materialised. In fact, to the horror of most parents and students, things have progressively gotten worse. Consequently, a growing numbers of anxiety ridden parents are reluctantly sending their children abroad, depending upon affordability, to Europe and America if possible, otherwise to India. The financial cost alone of sending these students abroad is staggering. If that resource could be invested in Nepal, the quality of our schools and teachers would be significantly improved. There is also other less obvious cost, which we haven’t been able to discern. The students who spend their adolescent and youthful years in foreign lands are unlikely to return to Nepal; even if they do, they are unlikely to be able to contribute anything towards the growth and development of our own culture.

All things considered, we question the efficacy of the students’ perpetual involvement in politics, and the violent methods they are increasingly adopting to draw attention to demands that are almost always political in nature. To put it plainly, the students’ movement has been carried too far and for too long. In our opinion, next to the Maoists’ violence, it is the single greatest national tragedy that Nepal is experiencing today.

We don’t question the students’ rights to protest. If they feel so compelled, they have every right to do so. In fact, the occasional involvement of students in peaceful and nonviolent protests would expand their public awareness and help to develop a healthy, conscious and responsible citizenry. Neither we are questioning their patriotism nor their sincerity to act on matters of utmost national concerns that affect everyone. There was a time in our history when the students were impelled to act. Things have changed now. The students can no longer afford to react or respond to every event and situation that occurs.

Nonetheless, the students can continue making positive contributions in preserving and nurturing of democracy in Nepal without continually involving themselves directly. Therefore, it is high time that the NBS and other major student organizations fundamentally alter their course - from activism in politics to activism in academic excellence. They must devote their vast reservoir of energy, talent and influence to promoting quality education in Nepal. If they want a future, they must keep politics out of educational institutions now and leave that responsibility to mature adults.

Furthermore, we find the trend of young students engaging in violence most troubling. This violence has the unimaginable capacity to consume our society, which is already torn by the Maoists’ violence. We are slowly destroying the moral fabric of our society. The children, who are learning violence in school, are permanently hindering their ability to solve problems through peaceful means. Violence will simply breed more violence, perpetrating revenge, hatred and ultimately leading to endless chaos.

Great men like Gandhi and King have proven that there is no justification for using violence to affect change. During the difficult days of the Panchayat System, while we were students, we rarely saw, nor participated in, the kinds of violence that we are witnessing today. We used to come to the streets with our placards, shouting slogans. As soon as the police came charging, we dispersed back to our college campuses or to a safe hideaway. We relentlessly pursued this method. We rarely retaliated at the police even though they were mercilessly brutal. Rather than confronting them, we simply tried to demonstrate where there was no police presence. The students, by avoiding violence and turning the other cheek around, so to speak, proved quite potent, and ultimately succeeded in gaining our liberty, largely peacefully.

It is high time that our politicians put our nation’s interest before their own. We can no longer afford to play with the lives of our young people. They are our future. They are our only hope. They can’t have a future if they are born and bred in a hotbed of turmoil and violence.

The students, particularly, at the college and university level, the epicenter of student politics, must understand the huge responsibility that they bear. What is really at stake is their future, that of their younger siblings’, and our very country’s. They simply can’t allow politics to dominate their youthful years, and deprives them of the most essential life tool - a good education. There was a time, during the Panchayat System, when the students had to respond to a higher calling because the Nepalese people were deprived of the most fundamental human rights. In retrospect, even then, we think that the students’ involvement was carried to excess. There is a great lesson here: students today can no longer afford to be moving on the same self-defeating path. They must find new ways to respond to the nation’s challenges. There is no better way than excelling in education. Staying out of the classrooms and battling on the street won’t do it.

While a dialogue is taking place among the nation’s leaders to end the Maoists’ violence, the student leaders should hold a mini summit of their own to create an understanding of keeping politics out of Nepal’s schools and colleges. They also must urgently find a way to stop the savagery of violence and destruction, and restore much needed peace and stability to our educational institutions. The students owe it to themselves. They owe it to their brothers and sisters. They owe it to the country they so dearly love.