Can this be Man’s Day too ?

By SANGITA RAYAMAJHI

Women’s Day makes it easier for those who want to consider women as the other. The ‘other’ is
a big subject in postcolonial discourse. Many scholars have devoted great works to explain this
concept. Women writers have always been occupied with this question—should women be
presented as exclusive people or as those who are part of the mainstream of the grand history
like men? But celebration of Woman’s Day gives both qualities to women’s position in the
society. Once again the celebration of Women’s Day proved that women are indeed different from
men. Ninety three years ago it was established that March 8 would be their day. These
celebrations that take place throughout the world then show that things are going on in the realms
of women’s activities, about their rights as human beings and their position in the society. In
Nepal how far have things changed for the better for the Nepali woman?

In Nepal Women’s Day was dotted with seminars on women’s issues, women’s empowerment,
launching of books written by women, submission of the annual report of the National Women’s
Commission to the Minister for Women Children and Social Welfare, staging of plays depicting
the victimization of women, peace rallies and many other celebrations. But to make the
programme so exclusive to women only may lose its force in its entirety. Let me cite a book that I
read sometime ago on Japanese women and their rise to power. A Japanese Company created a
day for girls. It began to be celebrated as a festival and to make presents to the girls on this day,
the company that had come up with this idea to create a product. And the Company reserved the
patent rights of the production. This festival turned out to be a national thing, the Company
thrived. Later on, another Company took up the idea and created a day for boys and came up with
the production of appropriate gifts. The Company flourished.

The exclusiveness of the Women’s Day celebration might end up being a mere festival where
women see the necessity to do something—seminars and talk programmes just out of a need to
mark the day. Such programmes become inconclusive. What is spoken at the programme about
women and their rights needs to at least generate some sort of awareness among those present
so that they are able to speak for women when the need may arise. But here in Kathmandu, it
makes me feel good to see men and women both participating in order to talk on women’s rights.
But I have also seen something else that does not make me happy. That is people gather
together, create a mood of formality, men and even some women who do not have sensitivity
about the rights of the women of this land and those of the others come up and speak glibly on
subject of rights and their further agenda. Such formalities do not have any relevance to women’s
problems in this country.

In countries of South Asia we have a tendency to create a bigger image on such days and create
a pattern of submission to that image. The image can be of women or men. Usually, such days
end up by being festivals through the creation of such images. The rest of the women form circles
around those images. But this festive pattern of celebration though critiqued by many has its own
charm and their functions are many and very important. First of all people smile as they even
greet each other with a ‘Happy Women’s Day’. Such programmes do not have a political texture,
there is no complaining about the unequal power structure, there are no cries of identity crisis nor
can one hear any sniggering or see any cynical smiles of men.

I went to one such programme which was a complete change from the other programmes that
had marked the day. It was a programme of the Army Officers Wives Association. The setting
was serene, the programme was carefully yet strikingly conducted. It did not need to enter into
gender politics or ruminate on the rights of women. The programme was able to bring out the
feminine side of women. Their love for the aesthetics of life, the works they were able to
accomplish as women, the display of handicrafts for sale all brought out these intrinsic qualities
of women. But this atmosphere of gaiety was at one point sliced through by reality when Ram
Maya Tiwari victim of the Maoist Movement brought tears to the eyes of the rest of the women
present. This was a moment which brought forth the fact that women have in various ways helped
the poor and victimized women.

The women of Nepal thus transform Woman’s Day into a day of festivity as well as a day for
making their demands known to the society, and claim their rightful places in the state apparatus.
But how far do these voices reach? Do they reach the concerned authorities, those who run the
state, those who make the policies or in other words those who run the show, but from behind the
scene? Peace negotiations between the government and the Maoists are underway. We hear of
government and different party representatives, preparing to negotiate, or participating in the
peace. Women have been, even much before the cease-fire talking about women’s representation
in the negotiations. Have those people, the mediators or those others pulling the strings ever
shown any sign, let alone articulate that women should take part in peace negotiations, too?
When Dr Henning Karcher spoke on Women’s Day that women should be included in the peace
negotiations, he was not saying something new. He was simply reiterating the feelings of so
many women in this urban centre. But I just wonder what does it take to really get these.

This time, too, it is simply the repetition of human history in Nepal. The impact of the Maoist
insurgency of the last few years has fallen squarely on the women. They have borne the greatest
brunt of all these wars and killings. Family dissolution, bereavements, orphaned children have
been their share. The educated social women’s rights activists who have been working for women
with women, and exploring and studying the psyche of the poor, battered and violated women
(much before the insurgency and after) and those others under the poverty line have through these
decades been inculcating values and value priorities which graduate them into being more
successful than many men who profess to be efficient in such matters. But this time, too, like all
times in our history capable women have to wait with ration cards in their hands for men to dole
out stuffs. But this is a question I ask our capable women: why don’t they speak out? We are not
talking about reservations here! This is a once in a life time situation where the future of the
country is at stake, and for women to participate in the negotiation would mean to ensure that the
humane aspect of those on the other side of the table is brought to the fore, analysed and
something done about it.

What have we seen since last year? In this whole year women of Nepal have not gained anything
important. Many promises have surfaced. The previous government did offer some commitments,
but have they delivered their promises? Perhaps next year, or perhaps the next government or
perhaps and so on.

Waiting has become a metaphor that defines the status of the women of Nepal today. This year’s
Women’s Day is yet another such metaphor. It is always difficult to be conscious of the time, but
my feeling is that women should develop a sense of proportion to see what is going on around
them and beyond the fence. The woman’s day should be man’s day too because they should
realise how important it is to work with women and to listen to their voice. Making Women’s Day
or days exclusive or like festivals of women is as detrimental as being marginalised would imply.
Let us wait together not for Godot as characters in Thomas Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot do,
but for a meaningful future that knocks at our door.

Red balloons

By VIDWATA BAHETY

The red balloon, was held tightly in the child’s hand He then let loose, it rose, And floated across
the land. The child watched, a look of awe in his eyes, Until it went out of sight, then he realized,
and cried.

Flowers bloom. Spring comes. Birds twitter in delight. But it is just a season and in time it will
undoubtedly change. The flower will wilt and fade away. The autumn will drive away the springtime
spirits and the trees will be left nude and bare. But we forget in the humdrum of life to enjoy what
we have now and till its time is there.

While there is joy in your heart why not be happy and glad. If you find happiness in the sunset,
why do you fret what will happen when the sun sinks and the darkness will descend?

Things never remain the same. Some times it is the situations that change and sometimes it is
the people. Life after all is about constant adjustments. Nevertheless why not marvel the rosy
clouds that the slanting rays paint with passion while they are shining in the azure sky. Why not
let the joy in you grow without fearing the moonless night, which shall finally settle but has not
come yet!

The little boy holding my finger asks me for a balloon. I call the balloon-man who takes out a red
balloon from the bunch and gives it to the child with a smile. I read in wonder the little face
suffused with happiness. And I smile back with a happy feeling.

In one hand he holds tightly the balloon and his other hand clings to mine. I do not think not even
for a while that this child will not forever remain a child. That he will grow up and make a nest of
his own, different from mine!

He shows me a yellow flower and smiles. He doesn’t know that flowers wither. He just believes in
the joy of the moment and he smiles yet again! With his white little hands he plucks the flower.
And before I can chide him for his conduct he is eagerly fastening the flower on my braids. I laugh
and his laughter chimes in immediately.

Running hand in hand suddenly he lets go the balloon. We both stand still and watch it rise up.
We see the red balloon gaily floating across the land. I see his face is animated with awe and
delight and involuntarily my lips stretch in an upward curve.

The red balloon slowly diminishes into a red dot and the child suddenly alarmed that his balloon
is gone gives me a puzzled glance. "Let’s go", I hastily say. He looks up and no more seeing his
balloon he quietly bows his head down. His eyes are half closed and tears trickle on his cheeks.

Wiping his tears, I order two ice creams. He is laughing again as he greedily licks his ice cream.
Amused I realize that whilst the spring is there it is stupid to think of the harsh winters!

*The poem "Red Balloon" has been used with the permission of the author, Yancey Grantham.

Neighbour’s concerns over peace process

By DR MEENA ACHARYA

Aseries of articles in the Nepali media in late February focused on the concerns raised by India’s external affairs secretary Kanwal Sibal on the ongoing peace process and political developments in Nepal. Sibal, as per the papers, was speaking in Delhi in a seminar on "India-Nepal relations: Perspectives for the future" in his personal capacity. Nevertheless, for many of us in Nepal his expressions have given insight into what the South Block is thinking about the current political developments in Nepal. His musings are very revealing.

It seems Nepal should have had consultations with India before the Nepalese government decided
to talk to the Maoist insurgents in her own territory. As expressed by Kanwal such consultation
and transparency in the peace negotiations were "absolutely essential" for India to help Nepal to
establish peace. For the first time in Nepal’s modern political history, the authorities in Nepal are
trying to negotiate with their political dissidents and insurgents on their own, without any direct
meddling by India.

In all earlier political movements, India was the direct ally of the political opponents of the regime
and helped them to organize and occasionally to arm them. Such assistance to political parties
has been given on the pretext of supporting the democratic movement in Nepal. But in the
negotiations for settlement of the disputes, India has always kept her own interest paramount.
The history of 1951 negotiations and settlements mediated by New Delhi is well recorded by both
Nepalese and Indian scholars (See for example, Modern Nepal by Rishikesh Shah and A Study of
Recent Nepalese Politics by Bhola Chatterji, 1967). Because of India’s insistence the first Prime
Minister of a democratic Nepal became a Rana ruler. This event left the movement unfinished and
affected all subsequent political events, including the split in the political movement and the
widening scope for anti-democratic elements. The ruling Nepali Congress leaders were influenced
and guided by India, which led to confrontation with more nationalistic parties and leaders as also
with the monarchy. In fact this meddling by India in Nepal’s internal politics gave sustenance to
the 1960 coup by the late King Mahendra and the Panchayat system for 30 years. This was
neither in the interest of the Nepalese people nor India. But India does not seem to have taken
lessons from these events and tried to change its approach towards Nepal.

How the economic blockade of 1989 was prolonged to assist the anti-Panchayat movement has
also been well recorded both by S D Muni in his book India and Nepal, (1992) and by S K
Upadhyaya in Tryst with Diplomacy (1990). After the 1990 democratic changes, the politicians
and the political parties raced to appease India, to repay the debt incurred in her assistance in
the 1990 democratic movement. India made an intensive effort to extort maximum concessions
from Nepal in trade, transit limitations, and use of water resources. Actually, this excessive tilt
towards India enabled the Maoist movement to mobilize the nationalist sentiment in Nepal in its
early phases. Only after being cornered by Indian security forces, the Maoists converted their
anti-Indian campaign slogans into pro-nationalist slogans and advanced the theory of pan-South
Asian Federation. Their demand for abrogation of the 1950 Treaty with India still stands prominent
in their list of 40 demands.

The Nepalese people have always welcomed India’s assistance in the struggle for democratic
changes in Nepal. But they strongly regent India’s direct intervention in Nepal’s party politics for
advancement of her own interests or otherwise. It is often said in India that the Nepalese
politicians of all hues are pro-Indian while out of power and anti-Indian while in power. They are not
anti-Indian rather they have to become pro-Nepal by compulsion, because usual official Indian line
has been to corner Nepal to the utmost and to squeeze maximum concessions from Nepal. No
honest politician with some conscience can give up without an effort to safeguard Nepal’s
interest.

India’s willingness and capacity to meddle in the Nepalese politics is legendary. Given that Nepal
is not merely landlocked but India-locked, that it shares 1800 kilometres long open border with
India, that has a common history as also religious and cultural traditions, and that her size,
population and economic resources are minuscule compared to that of India, Nepal can never go
really against Indian interests. She has been only trying to advance her own interest. Indian policy
makers have often ignored this reality and meddled in Nepal’s party politics.

A very revealing incidence took place in New Delhi about two years ago. A few of us from South
Asia had gathered in one parliamentarian’s house for some discussions. The conversation veered
to the political situation in Nepal. A senior Indian parliamentarian and an old hand in Nepalese
affairs said that Indians could have peace of mind about Nepal only when Koiralas were in power.
We, the Nepalese, two or three of us who were there immediately protested. It only shows the
mind-set of the Indian policy-makers about Nepal. It must be disconcerting to Indian
policy-makers that the current peace negotiations are going on in secrecy and they had no
opportunity to meddle this time. Why India feels so insecure in her relationship with Nepal is not
clear to many of us in Nepal.

One can understand India’s security concerns because of the open border we share. Nobody in
Nepal thinks that India’s legitimate security concerns should be or can be overlooked by Nepal.
Nepal’s own security is very much tied up with that of India. But that does not mean that India
can treat us like one of its recalcitrant states and meddle in our internal politics. Their main
concern should be a stable democratic system of governance in Nepal irrespective of which party
or the leader is in power.

To return to the ongoing peace process, the demand for transparency of the process by India is
hardly legitimate. The issue of transparency in negotiations, raised by the political parties is
understandable because they have to participate in the process. But what does it imply when an
Indian Foreign Secretary says the process should be absolutely transparent to them? Diplomatic
processes are never transparent. Nepal never knows what India negotiates with its rebels or even
its states or even Bhutan. But these negotiations and settlements have affected Nepal severely in
the past. Throwing out of the Nepalese population from Assam in the late seventies and the
current problem of Bhutanese refugees are glaring examples of this sort.

Would the government of Nepal have been successful in bringing the Maoists to the talking terms
if it had given news-report every day as to where and what they were talking to the Maoists? Is
not it a usual custom in such negotiations to keep them secret until the negotiations really start
on matters of substance? Everybody in Nepal and outside agrees that the major political parties
should be involved in the negotiations when it starts. But the political stalemate between the king
and the major political parties is obstructing this process. It is clear that peace negotiation cannot
be concluded successfully without the blessings of the Monarch or without the participation of the
parliamentary political parties. The Nepali Congress, which was in power, had its chance for five
years since the movement started. The UML, as the leader of the parliamentary opposition,
vacillated from one extreme to other in its attitude to the insurgency, depending upon the political
contingency of the time. There is no guarantee that they can advance the peace process now by
themselves. The Maoists do not believe that it is adequate to talk to these parties alone. They
recognize the importance of including the king’s direct representatives in such negotiations.
Therefore, for an amicable solution of the problem, the only option is to devise a mechanism
acceptable to all the three interested parties to the negotiations, the Maoists, the parliamentary
political parties and the king. If India is really interested in lasting peace in Nepal she should
exercise her influence diplomatically with all the parties concerned to sit around the round table,
as proposed by the Maoists and sort out the problems themselves, rather than taking a partisan
line publicly.

The political parties should be encouraged to come to terms with what has already happened and
proceed with a forward-looking strategy rather than impeding the peace process. What is more
important now is the terms of settlement rather than the negotiations par se. Priority immediate
issues are rehabilitation of the war victims from both sides, an agreement for regular delivery of
direly needed social services for the people and rebuilding of infrastructure. Negotiations for
structural changes in the system of governance are likely to be prolonged.

An attack is not yet justified

JIMMY CARTER

Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent
bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned the nation greatness.

These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international
law and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. The apparent determination
to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became
thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral
attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious
leaders.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all non-violent options exhausted. In the case of
Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options - previously proposed by
American leaders and approved by the United Nations - were outlined again by the Security
Council on Friday.

But now, with US national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming
opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to
carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilised
nations.

The first stage of the widely publicised US war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a
relatively defenceless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of
so damaging and demoralising the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will
most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war’s weapons must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Extensive aerial
bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." General
Tommy Franks, commander of American forces in the Gulf, has expressed concern about many
of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury the United States has suffered. Despite Saddam
Hussein’s other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the September 11 terrorist attacks
have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.
The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction can still be honoured, but the announced US goals are now to achieve regime change
and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country
for as long as a decade. For these objectives, America does not have international authority.

Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political
influence that is being exerted from Washington, and Americans are faced with the possibility of
either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France or China.

Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping the United States by enormous financial
rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament
has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are
visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military
invasion will destabilise the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardise American security at
home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the
United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America’s world standing if the United States doesn’t go to war after such a great
deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to
America after the September 11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been
largely dissipated. Increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust
in the United States to its lowest level in memory.

American stature will surely decline further if the United States launches a war in clear defiance of
the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of US military power to force Iraq’s
compliance with all United Nations resolutions - with war as a final option - will enhance
America’s status as a champion of peace and justice.

(The writer, the 39th President of the United States, is the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize)

The God and other gods of Pashupatinath

Bikash Sangraula

In one of his delightful essays, an outline of intellectual rubbish, renowned British philosopher
Bertrand Russell puts forth, among other things, the reasons why progress is impeded by the
religious establishment. The clergy vehemently condemned the invention of the lightning rod by
Benjamin Franklin as lightning was seen as God’s way of punishing the sinner, and hence any
effort to prevent it was tantamount to opposing His will. Similarly, a Bill introduced in the British
House of Lords to legalise euthanasia on the patients’ consent was again protested and rejected,
as killing someone on his/her consent meant suicide, something categorised as grave sin.

Much of social customs owe their origin to religious beliefs. Our traditional dressing sense, the
definition of roles of males and females, the prescribed forms of social relationships are more or
less all dictated by religious dogmas. Quite logically, any kind of change, whether social, cultural,
or economic is proven by history to be most unfriendly to the religious establishment. Change is a
terribly uncertain phenomenon, more so because the turn of events can be quite contrary to
expectations.

On the contrary, the basis of survival of the religious establishment is constancy. Keep the world
as it is, don’t reduce human suffering, don’t let people prosper. If you do, then who will seek the
God, the supreme consolation for the distressed. If people have enough food and shelter and
clothes, and even some extra money for luxury, they won’t give a damn to the God. Therefore,
reasons the religious establishment, promote suffering and thereby recruit more and more people
to their vast camp of disciples. Wonderful logic! Simply superb! Hence, it is quite natural that
throughout the world, the temple or the church or the mosque has been the most vehement critic
and impediment of change, especially when it is aimed at the betterment of the society.

How far Britain has progressed from the laughable viewpoints mentioned above can make a
delicious essay. For the present, these examples of how the blind, dogmatic and pugnacious
religious establishment opposes the prevention of much of unnecessary human suffering provides
adequate background to explore some equally entertaining developments that are underway at
the Pashupatinath temple, the illustrious abode of the presiding deity of the Himalayan Kingdom.

In 1916, Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT) proposed a 10-year plan to address the
development needs of the area, something that would cost Rs 2 billion, according to initial
estimates. Of that, it was agreed that 23 percent (466.9 million) would have to be arranged for by
the trust itself. From where? From the pilgrims who make small financial offerings and sometime
hefty donations as well. According to PADT, as much as 120 million rupees worth financial
offerings are made at the temple every year.

What the philanthropic Lord Shiva thinks of the size of money collected in His name can be a hot
question for an interview with Him. There are rumours emanating from die-hard Shiva devotees
that the Lord was very pleased when He heard that His residential area and the surroundings
would witness massive development efforts 10 years ago.

Ironically, by a curious design of fate, the deity is no longer active in a worldly sense. Maybe age,
or maybe disillusionment. Whatever the medical explanations, His responsibility in the lesser
world has been delegated to the other gods, namely the Bhattas and Bhandaris. While religious
texts say without contradiction that God is always for the happiness of people, the other gods
certainly think otherwise. And therefore, with all the authority of the regular and the closest
upashaks of the junky God of the Himalayas, the Bhattas and Bhandaris denied PADT’s request
to channel the religious donations for developmental efforts. Not just that, they have filed a case
against PADT in the Supreme Court.

The outrage that this defiant attitude of our high priests might have triggered is something that
cannot stand up to the power that these priests have in terms of dictating proceedings in ‘their’
area. On the other hand, the monkeys in Pashupatinath are glad that the development efforts are
not to be so swift. Since they are the epitomes of those who spoil creative endeavours, they
cannot be blamed for reacting euphorically. This Mahashivaratri, I even saw some old and fat
monkeys praying to the Lord to devise ingenious obstructions in the ways of the development
efforts.

There are above 200 elders living in the Briddhashram in the Pashupatinath area. Go visit the
home, and you will surely find people waiting to get admitted to the home. Due to the seven years
of insurgency, a horde of elders has poured into the valley seeking asylum. Since this is the only
government-run old age home in the country, it is natural that every abandoned elder seeks
asylum here. But then, the home has a limited accommodation capacity. Therefore, they wait
there, patiently, believing that Lord Shiva will rescue them out of their sorry states. But then, Lord
Shiva is in custody of the other gods. While the Lord is silently contemplating how wonderful it
would be to expand the accommodation capacity of the home, the other gods are busy claiming
their traditionally secured rights on the donations.

The river Bagmati immediately behind the temple is in a terrible state. According to the aghoris,
even the dead appear in the river banks at midnight and shed tears at having been cremated on
such a polluted site. During the Mahashivaratri, one pilgrim coming from the Terai told me that he
had come here after eight years thinking that he would take a cool bath before offering prayers to
the Lord. "But I see that the river is fit only for shitting," said he. What blasphemy! But then, if you
think of it, you won’t miss the sincerity of his statement. The Lord is also tired of holding his nose
day in and day out due to the stink from the river. During His periods of insomnia, say the locals,
He visits the river and dreams of the olden times when the river was clean and the moon reflected
on it like in a mirror. But then, the other gods are hardly concerned about all this!

With the amount of money that is collected at the temple, all these and more problems could be
solved. The temple could be developed as an international religious centre. Hospitals and
universities could be erected to benefit the poor.

Unfortunately, the other gods call the shots. And they think otherwise!

Nepal’s Delhi link

PURAN P BISTA

It was an unexpected meeting with Mohan Maharjan who lives in the heart of Kathmandu. His
family has closely been associated with the royal family. The family still maintains ties with the
palace, though it claims it is at a low key after the 1990 restoration of democracy. Maharjan
brought an incident to light in our meeting that made me to think: Why do Nepali leaders, who
intend to remain politically active, visit India?

King Gyanendra is paying a ‘private’ visit to India, starting March 17. This is his second visit to
India. In his first state visit, the King visited Delhi and the Kamakhya temple on the bank of the
river Brahmaputra in Guwahati. This temple symbolises "Power" as per the Hindu belief. So
whoever has visited the temple must believe in power. And those who have not visited it but
believe in power must visit it in order to fulfil the individual wants.

I think it is important to look back why our kings and every successive Prime Minister visit Delhi
like those of India’s state chief ministers. In fact, chief ministers visit Delhi either as part of power
brokering efforts or to sort out problems faced by them. And Delhi is the power centre, which
more than often makes or breaks the state political parties. Do Nepali leaders - be they kings or
political leaders - visit Delhi for the same purpose?

Maharjan, out of the issue of the subject of our discussion, cited the 1950 political event. He said
that, when the people revolted against the Rana oligarchy, Prime Minister Mohan Shumshere
Rana, in order to suppress the revolt, wanted King Tribhuwan to sign in a piece of paper, declaring
that the people’s rights would be ensured soon. So the king had no option but to leave for India.
Since then, the Ranas have been exerting pressure on the palace whenever they feel powerless.

However, things did not appear as King Tribhuwan had expected. India’s first Prime Minister
Jawahar Lal Nehru offered the post of president to King Tribhuwan in order to make Nepal one of
the federal states of India, says Maharjan. King Triubhuvan was in dilemma whether to return to
Nepal and succumb to what the Rana Prime Minister said or to accept what Nehru proposed.
Maharjan, who seems to know things more than most Nepali political leaders do, disclosed all
this. What he said may not be historically true. The king, otherwise, would not have signed the
1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty with India. But my reading clearly convinces me that the
monarchy in Nepal has always been functioning on the advice of Ranas. King Tribhuvan returned
to Nepal after signing the Peace and Friendship Treaty only to listen to what Rana rulers advised
him.

The present king is facing a situation similar to that of 1950 though such a "proposal" does not
arise now. However, since the controversial 1950 treaty, every politically active person - be he
King Mahendra, B P Koirala or King Birendra - has visited India. King Mahendra had visited Delhi
every year after he overthrew the democratically elected government in 1961 until 1965. Girija
Prasad Koirala visited Delhi whenever he faced intra-party feuds, so did Sher Bahadur Deuba. The
puppet prime ministers during the Panchayat regime did not visit Delhi regularly as they enjoyed
no power at all. This was the main reason why not a single prime minister has completed the full
five-year term in Nepal.

This shows that Nepal’s political stability lies in Delhi. That any one who intends to remain in
power must pay a regular visit to India. Like the Indian chief ministers, any one who wields power
in Nepal visits Delhi in order to convince that what they do will be in favour of Delhi Darbar. The
King cannot remain politically active for long unless he is blessed by Delhi. Have Delhi or Indian
political leaders played key roles for any political change in Nepal?

Rajiv Gandhi imposed the economic blockade on Nepal when the Panchayat regime imported
anti-aircraft guns from China. V P Singh lifted it only after the change of regime in Kathmandu.
Power is rash, corrupt and evil. No citizen can tolerate it longer in the hands of any tin-pot
dictator. Today the puppet ruler is ruling the roost. The current Chand government is already
stumbling. As a side-show, the only thing the Chand government can do is to darken the political
history of Nepal. Indian hardliners may favour a neo-Panchayat regime in Nepal only to breed a
revolt. Liberal Indians will certainly show the light for the Nepalis. The widening division between
the democratic parties and the monarch is inevitable. The simplistic and dangerous notion is that
24 million people will dissociate from the mythical world and meaningfully regroup together for the
positive political course.

Communities in identity crisis

THIRA L BHUSAL

Despite legal provisions for equal status to all citizens, some backward communities like Pode,
Chyame, and Deula are still being discriminated against in practice. As a result, young people
from these communities have adopted different methods to solve the problem. One is changing
their surnames that reflect their "untouchable" caste.

Chairman of the Kathmandu Metropolis Employees’ Welfare Fund (KMEW) Ram Prasad Pode
recently told us that they were looking for an office in Thamel, but no one was ready to rent out
their buildings to the "sweepers and cleaners." KMEW is mainly responsible for cleaning the city,
supervising the site works and conducting welfare activities targeted at the sweepers, drivers and
labourers.

"We need an office there, so we have been trying since last two months, but in vain. When we
disclose nature of our works, they frown their eyebrows and twist the matter," said Sahinla
Shrestha, a group leader.

Many young people from backward communities have become the victims of such attitudes
prevailing in the society. "Many of young boys are forced to change their surnames so not to
experience such attitude and to get employment. If they don’t do so, they will remain jobless,"
said Ram Prasad.

"Don’t ask me, ask those ‘higher class’ officials," Ram Prasad unwillingly replied to a question on
discrimination during the selection of right candidates for jobs.

It’s an irony, as Ram Prasad claimed, that some of Pode’s ancestors were Rajopadhyaya who
hid their identity to get the cleaning job at Royal Palace. And now the Pode youth are forced to
change their identity once more.

However, Jagdish Nepali of Kathmandu Mahanagar Solid Waste Management Service believed
that remarkable changes have been experienced.

"The youth of our communities are working in offices, studying modern science and technology,
are involved in music and other creative works," Nepali said, adding that the situation is improving
particularly after the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990.

But again, despite the qualification, the youth from these communities are not easily accepted if
they do not hide their identity. There are many of those working in offices, but they have changed
their surname. They still believe that if their ‘boss’ knew their identities they would be sacked.

Ram Prasad Pode added that many from the traditional communities, mainly involved in the solid
waste cleaning for ages, were displaced as people of other communities started working in the
area. This trend began after the involvement of the private sector in solid waste management in
Kathmandu.

However, the exchange of professions has positive consequences. Earlier, those communities
were segregated as they were assigned just to manage wastes and clean the cities. Now, the
situation has changed a little.

Engineer Rajesh Manandhar of the Kathmandu Metropolis City (KMC) opined that the changes
certainly had positive aspects. Illiteracy is a big problem for them because the majority of them
are still uneducated. Manandhar hoped that with the passage of time, the situation would become
favourable.

Ram Prasad criticised those who change their identity. He maintained that they should be equally
treated even without having to changing their identity.

The abolition of discrimination against any citizen in Nepal was officially announced when the Civil
Code was introduced by the then Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher.

Article 11, under the fundamental rights, of the existing Constitution has clearly ensured the
equality for all citizens. "No discrimination shall be made against any citizen in the application of
general laws on grounds of religion, race, sex, caste, tribe or ideological conviction or any of
these."

The Constitution also mentions, "No person shall, on the basis of caste, be discriminated against
as untouchable, be denied access to any public place, or be deprived of the use of public utilities.
Any contravention of this provision shall be punishable by law." Well, good words, but putting
them into practice is still a daunting task.