March towards destruction

By GORDON LIVINGSTON

As the United States prepares to launch a pre-emptive war, it is worth looking at what is driving President Bush to ignore the reservations of most of our allies and at least half the American people in pursuit of his obsession with Iraq.

The answer clearly lies in the combination of the myth of the Old West and Southern religion that informs his every action. The former evokes images of the lonely gunfighter as a force for good; the latter provides a moral justification for the constructive use of violence.

Deeply religious people are, by definition, certain that they are right about life’s large questions. It is in the nature of religious belief to have complete confidence about the (unprovable) existence of a particular deity and assurance in a specific interpretation of some set of religious writings that purport to reveal God’s will.

For some reason, perhaps the love of a good story, it also appears necessary to create a metaphysical adversary for our chosen divinity who, out of pure, unexplained corruption, competes for our allegiance and immortal souls. It is this cosmic conflict that gives rise to the two-alternative view of human events that has such destructive implications for relationships between people and nations in a diverse and ambiguous world.

Moral certainty is the reward of the true believer. The ambiguities that beset the rest of us do not weigh on those who are sure that they are right. There is great comfort in this, and the deeply religious among us think of themselves as "chosen." What is interesting is how much fundamentalists of dissimilar faiths resemble each other in their conviction that they have a monopoly on the truth and in their intolerance of those who believe differently.

This is, as much as anything, the lesson of 9/11: The defining belief of the suicide bombers was that they were engaged in a profoundly religious act, striking at the secular hearts of the infidels. Their degree of certitude cannot be doubted, and their last words almost certainly were "God is great."

Though he has attempted to separate the terrorists from their religion, Bush invokes his own faith in his call to "disarm" (the preferred euphemism for attack) Iraq. Having identified Saddam Hussein as evil, it only remains to remove him to achieve good. If this seems a simple-minded solution to a complex problem, it’s because it is. That’s the beauty of dividing the world into two camps: us and the evildoers. All ambiguity and moral qualms evaporate.

In words that echo Richard Nixon’s call to arms in Vietnam, Mr Bush says, "The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action.’’ As usual, we seem to have only two choices.

In 1993, just before running for governor of Texas, Bush told a Jewish reporter that only believers in Jesus go to heaven. Contained in that statement was a foreshadowing of the arrogance that now amazes (and frightens) much of the world as he prepares to impose a Pax Americana on an Arab country. The justification here is that we are bringing freedom to the Iraqi people _ whether or not they have asked for it. This is, in the president’s words, "God’s gift to every human being in the world.’’

There is a story told of a man who is looking for something under a street light. A passerby asks what he is looking for.

"My keys," says the man.

The passerby helps him search for a while, then asks, "Are you sure this is where you dropped them?’’

"Actually," the man replies, pointing, "I dropped them over there.’’   "Then why are you looking here?" asks the passerby.

  "Because this is where the light is," replies the man. Why are we attacking Iraq and not the much more evidently dangerous and belligerent North Korea? Because we think we can defeat the Iraqis easily and at minimum expense in American lives.

We could be wrong, of course. The eventual cost of this adventure could exceed what we are willing to pay. But even to contemplate such a pre-emptive attack contravenes our historical reluctance to make war first and is a violation of the sense of fairness and proportionality that we consider to be bedrock American values. Former President Ronald Reagan defined the former Soviet Union as "the Evil Empire," but he did not attack it. We are all alive now as a result.

With the capture of an important al-Qaida suspect, we speculate about whether representatives of our government should torture him (or perhaps turn him over to another government that will). What’s happening to us? Do we imagine that because we believe that God is on our side we have the right to do anything to anyone in the name of protecting ourselves? How much like our enemies do we have to become before we sacrifice those values that we are ostensibly defending?

Perhaps Bush should pay more attention to Mark 8:36: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’’

(Livingston is a West Point graduate, Vietnam War veteran and Johns Hopkins-trained psychiatrist who practices in Columbia, Md)

(LA Times- Washington Post)

Resolution one-foe-for-one

By DILIP DHAKAL

Iam an interviewer and I talk to different people. But I didn’t know my interviewer instincts are so deep rooted. Yesterday, Saddam Hussain came in my dream. It was something I hadn’t dreamt of. What would a scribe do? I started an interview. It was my first ever impromptu interview, with someone so big, so impotent. But I didn’t have any problem over what to ask and what not to, since I have been studying the Iraq standoff from up close. I started with my first question: "Mr Saddam why are you so damned all around the world?" What is the under-wearing reason? He replied, "Well Mr Dhakal this is all nodding butt, the madman proper gander. Actually I am not that damned rather the madman has dammed me up. You see, I cannot go out of my country and it’s been years. You don’t know how much I miss Europe, the US, those Hawaii bitches, Miss Venezuela, Miss Costarica....."

Before he could elaborate on the Hawaiian bitches, I instantly poked another question: Why do they always talk of madam Hussain and her weapons of mass seduction? Visibly furious he said, "I object this. Mr Dhakal, this is all for that greasy lubricant. I have already told you this is nodding butt, a madman proper gander. You know he walks like a gander."

"They often talk of that Resolution 1441. Do you agree with that?"

(Squirms) "Oh, I don’t want to remember that resolution one-foe-for-one. Actually they passed it because one Saddam is one-foe-for-one US. Contrary to the spirit of the resolution one-foe-for-one, the whole world is against me. All fief-teen members of the Insecurity Council signed on that. Since fief-teen countries signed that against me then it should have been one-foe-for-all resolution. I announced on Nov 8 that the day they adopted that resolution be marked as dark day in Iraq."

"Mr Pres, why do you think that Pony Blare is all against you though Robin Crook resigned, citing his differences of opinion over Pony’s handling of the Iraq crisis?

(Laughs) "You know that Pony is a mad guy. He blares much but doesn’t have gray matter inside his head. When whole Europe is on one side, Pony is with the cowboy. He’s cowboy’s pony. Yeah, Crook resigned because he is crook and spoilsport, just like me."

"But Mr Hussain, France and Russia seem to be with you."

(Giggles) "That Frenchman Chirac is very frank, a jack, so open that his mind often comes out of his head. I have seen that several times. When he starts blabbering he forgets even to go to the loo. And Putin, that sly spy, he supports me just because I had helped him during his KGB days."

"One last question Mr President. There is war on one side and peace on the other. Where do you stand?"

"I have repeatedly been saying that I have always stood for piss. And you cannot ignore piss, can you?"

"Mr President, they are all out for war, and in one corner of the world you are standing for piss. How ridiculous? You are just like the Roman Emperor Nero who played his flute as Rome was blazing."

(Gets excited) "Really? Do I look like Roman Emperor Nero? Yeah, they say everything lies in the eyes of beholder. Bush sees me as a terrorist, but you see an emperor in me. Thank you Mr Dhakal, how nice you are. If I survive the war, then we will meet again." (Saddam clicks his finger and vanishes in the thin air).

Insight from Imran Khan

By DR SHREEDHAR GAUTAM

Imran Khan, the president of Tehrik eInsaaf Party, and a member of the National Assembly, Pakistan, was recently in India to participate in India Today conclave held in New Delhi. Imran Khan, one of the star speakers, in his speech, focussed mainly on two points that determine any country’s social character.

Firstly, a strong judiciary system that protects the weak, and secondly a humane society that looks after the poor and underprivileged. What Imran spoke in the conclave is relevant for all the poor counties. Whether in India, Pakistan or Nepal, it is always the little, small, corrupt elite that keeps siphoning off all the resources. If we look at our own country, rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer because we do not have a government that cares for social welfare and justice. Imran himself is not a successful politician in Pakistan because he does the politics for them who have been denied their basic rights for years. He is against status quo, and wants to subvert the basic structure of Pakistan bureaucracy that pursues the policies in view of the interests of well-entrenched people, not the neglected ones. Imran’s example shows how difficult it is for them who want to change the game of politics that is so far controlled by the corrupt elite, no matter which party comes to power.

People like Imran Khan cannot think that just by having bombs or big army any country can claim to be a regional power, if its people are denied the basic needs. In Asia, Malaysia and Thailand are small countries and they come nowhere close to India and Pakistan in terms of their military power. However, the governments there are successful in pursuing welfare schemes even by ignoring the IMF and World Bank directions. Both countries have initiated several independent measures, keeping in view their people’s interest. We need leaders like Mahathir Mohammad and Thaskin Sinawatra who speak their own mind, not caring how the western masters will react. Mahathir created a history of his kind by openly declaring that "any attack on Iraq would be taken as an affront and aggression on all Muslims". He could say so because of his commitment to his people and his own political conviction. Imran, who spent many years in England, knows that English society forged its way ahead of third world countries because, whatever its colonial character, it maintained strong judicial system, and also continued social welfare programme at home to protect those who were either unemployed or semi-employed.

In Pakistan, Imran was not advocating for any radical ideology, but for the simple social justice and opportunities even to the weakest ones. However, he faced several obstacles and he could not make his party a strong political force in Pakistan, showing how feudal elements in his country are still powerful to dictate the term of politics. He has shown wisdom by suggesting Pakistan and India to start dialogue immediately. We too want them to start the dialogue as there is no other option. India’s insistence on not talking to Pakistan until the ‘cross border terrorism’ is stopped is quite irrational. In today’s world, it is largely difficult for any government to control terrorism, if the social environment is not humane. It is in both countries’ interest to sit across the table and sort out their outstanding problems. We feel that in both countries, leaders should rise above the parochial politics and show the world that two nuclear powers can show restrain and understanding in an exemplary way. Imran has rightly pointed out that if the Indian and Pakistan leaders do not see the lines on the wall; there is no way to stop religious fundamentalists in both countries.

If there is a religious party with 52 seats in Pakistan’s parliament, there are fanatic elements in India like Shiva Sena and VHP, who are threatening to convert the whole India into Hindu Rastra. In both countries, moderate voices are losing their importance because of the politics of blind nationalism. Pakistan and India need leaders like Imran Khan who can show the courage to speak truth and change the public opinion. If they remain rigid on their position, they will never become giant industrial countries. It might take some time, but the two giant neighbours should start the process first by initiating talks, because nothing can move forward if they take a hard stand. Our country too needs leaders like Imran’s vision and insight. The root cause of misery of our country is the politics of elite that makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. We should end the status quo and begin the politics that provides employment and raises the dignity of the underprivileged. We have to awaken the mass to make them realise who are their enemies and friends. It is the duty of a few like Imran to lead the people, whatever the cost.

In our country, the present government ministers are using the meanest, and sometimes even vulgar words, to denounce the rule of previous governments. The main reason of their outburst is that they feel no fear of backlash from the people against them. It is obvious that the so-called people’s leaders did not behave in any way better than the Panchayat leaders. The replacement of Panchayat leaders by multiparty leaders subverts the myth that the change of government naturally changes the nature of power. Politicians in both systems are conditioned by feudal culture. If Imran’s insight is not taken as guidance, many countries, like India Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, will be torn apart by vicious civil war.

It is more important now when the entire world is under the spell of brutal imperialism that shows old order’s decadence. Because of the growing anarchy in the old feudal culture, the imperialists have used blind patriotism as a means of their monopoly to deceive the people, and perpetuate the corporate Raj. In the false and imaginary fear, governments controlled by the corporate and corrupt elite, are sacrificing their own people’s life, happiness and health. If Iraq is being attacked in the name of safeguarding American people’s lives, Indian and Pakistan governments are engaged in constant war in the name of their countries’ interest. Actually, these are all pretension to harm their own people’s happiness as well as other nations’. As said by Imran, the corrupt elite’s interests are sharply opposed to the interest of common people. There is an urgent need to turn the present anarchic, neurotic society into an organised sane and humane one. Imran’s comment has come at a time when the entire world has seen how a strong nation can become coercive and irrational not to safeguard the people’s lives but to ensure the interest of corporate masters. The same elements want to halt the revolt against naked capitalism by making the state more and more ruthless and coercive. Whatever these governments do for the safety of corporate giants in the name of blind patriotism, they are bound to fail and face severe consequences in future. It is the duty of every thinking person to oppose irrational policies and steps of government that adversely affect the people’s interest.

Don’t keep your hair loose

ARJUN BHANDARI

Lord Krishna helped his sister Subhadra elope with Arjun and threw cold water on Balram, who wanted her to get married with Duryodhan. Krishna reminded Arjun that he should ask Subhadra to hold the reins of the horse pulling his chariot rather than himself. Balram, after learning that Arjun persuaded Subhadra to elope with him, became furious and readied to punish Arjun for stealing his sister without his consent. Then, Krishna, the younger brother, reminded Balram that it was not Arjun who persuaded his sister to elope; rather it was his own sister who run away with him going against Balram’s wish. But it was pre-planned which Balram never knew. Krishna made him a fool.

There is another significant episode in the Mahabharat epic in which Bed Byas cautions Draupadi not to let her lock of hair loose. Everybody, including Krishna, became stunned upon publicly making such a strong warning when Draupadi was brought to the Indraprastha as a queen of the Pandavas. Bed Byas was hinting at the possible war between the Pandavas and Kauravas, who were his descendents. Nobody but Krishna knew about his warning against letting her hair loose. Later on, Dushasan, the brother of Duryodhan, dragged Draupadi holding on to her loose hair out of her room on the third day of menstruation. Rape of the lock of her hair sparked the deadly war of Mahabharat.

The Mahabharat epic is a huge repository of political tactics and diplomacy of Krishna and conspiracy of Sakuni that are still relevant in Nepali politics.

Many say politics is a game of possibilities. Actually, it can be predicted well before the consequences of any political decision taken at present. Efficiency of a statesman is judged based on his long-term political vision in dealing with current political situation. Those who are entangled with day-to-day politics can only become the pawn of larger political conspiracy and can never emerge as the statesmen. This truly applies to the Nepali politicians who lack long-term vision and strategy.

It is the irony of the major political parties of the country that they never understood what the king had in mind before dissolving the House of Representatives on May 22 last year. Had they perceived the motive behind the dissolution of the Lower House, they would have definitely supported the extension of an emergency rule for a period of one more year; rather than allowing the multiparty system go non-functional. Even Sher Bahadur Deuba could not understand the future strategy of the king with whom he had good rapport and used to consult whenever necessary. Deuba was happy to be called as "royalist" and ultimately became the royal scapegoat on October 4. He will be remembered as an "incompetent" prime minister in the pages of history.

There was nothing wrong on the part of the political parties, especially the Nepali Congress, to extend support to the emergency rule for a second time because they had already approved it after the rebels attacked in Dang on the third week of November in 2001. GP Koirala, instead of understanding the ‘grand design’ made by anti-democratic forces, once again attempted to come to power by rejecting Deuba’s plan of emergency rule. Deuba, who was familiar with Koirala’s game plan, dissolved the House after receiving a green signal from the palace that he would emerge as victorious in the snap polls. Deuba’s split with his mother party was also pre-planned though it could not materialise because of larger political strategy of the palace. None of the major political parties perceived that the palace had a big hand to dissolve the House. They would have supported Deuba if they knew his secret plan of dissolving the House in case of the failure of the proposal for the extension of the emergency. They proved to be a failure to anticipate the future course of politics.

Soon after the House was dissolved, the main opposition the CPN-UML was ‘surprised over the sudden dissolution of the House’ but ‘cautiously’ welcomed the House dissolution, hoping to come to power with an absolute majority.

Slowly, the political situation took a new turn after the rebel Maoists launched a daring raid in the district headquarters of Arghakhanchi on September 8, one day after they attacked in Bhiman in Sindhuli. The massive attacks by the rebels after the dissolution of the House forced both the government and the political parties to defer the election indefinitely. After the Maoist attacks, all the political parties advised the PM to defer the polls. They did not mind that deferring the already scheduled election was unconstitutional. But the parties in parliament chose to bypass the constitutional provision to serve their partisan interests.

The parties realised the king’s motive only after he sacked Deuba and his cabinet on October 4 and took executive power in his hand. They had never thought that the king could go to that extent. PM’s recommendation to the king to defer the election by more than one year proved to be a boomerang to them. Now, they are demanding the return of the executive power, which they handed over to the king without their knowledge. If leaderships of the political parties were that much mature, they would not have committed such silly mistakes – dissolving the House and recommending the king to use Article 127 – in such fluid political situation.

For the last 13 years, relations between the palace and the political parties have never been cordial, mainly because of political parties’ immaturity in handling issues of national importance. Be it the issue of Maoist insurgency or Bhutanese refugee impasse, or Mahakali River Treaty, the political parties have always been inefficient in dealing with them properly. In spite of having strong backings of people, they are yet to emerge as ideologically well-organized political institutions, which could ultimately help strengthen the multiparty democracy and lead the nation toward prosperity. Now, they are paying heavy prices for their political immaturity over the last 13 years. The traditional force will undermine them unless parliamentary forces prove their maturity in national politics.

Indigenous media network, a pro-poor approach

CHUN BAHADUR GURUNG

Mainstream media sell news-products and provide infotainment to their viewers, readers and listeners. They, in fact, rent eyes of the audiences and makes money. Most importantly media provide services to the advertiser and generate revenue. This is how mainstream media usually run. For a media tycoon, it is a very lucrative industry throughout the world. A business analyst in ‘The Global Media’ states about Rupert Murdock, leader of News Corporation, that ‘Murdock seems to have Washington in his back pocket.’ Viacom CEO Sumner Redstcne remarks that ‘Murdock basically wants to conquer the world.’ In the same way, Time Warner executive Ted Turner views Murdock in a more sinister fashion, comparing him with Adolf Hitler.

News Corporation today owns and runs 132 newspapers primarily in Australia, Britain and the United States, making it one of the three largest newspaper groups in the world. It also posses Twentieth Century Fox, a major film, television and video production centre, US Fox Broadcasting Network and many more. It now operates nine different media in six continents. Today, ten to fifteen world media tycoons are holding the global media market.

Community-based public journalism practice has now been dictated by commercial media system. The commercial media practitioner naturally concentrates mostly on issue intend to please the advertisers for their survival and sustainability. It clearly shows that items relating to the poor and minorities do not fall on their priorities.

For the professional journalists, time has come to redefine the word ‘news’ and report accordingly. Now, communication theorists are worried on present practice and understanding of ‘news’ reporting and editing. Currently, in general practice, events are deemed important enough to report only if it concerns to the rich. In other words, present rule dictate that stories on the rich and powerful personality are hard news for the first page of the newspaper and articles on landless peasants and their plights go on weekend section.

Further, journalists report only if the poor die by a thousand, commit a gruesome crime and migrate by million. Partiality, unfairness, discrimination and exploitation between rich and poor begin from this point and professional journalists hardly report from pro-poor perspective. If it remains unchanged, what will happen to the minority and poor communities? It has been estimated that there are 300 million minorities in the world and most of the world populations are living under poverty line. It will unquestionably give birth to chaos and conflict and eventually an insurgency. And media must not be part of this tragedy.

If we look at the picture of Nepal from indigenous perspective, state owned TV, radio and newspapers are using and conducting all their programmes in Khas-Nepali languages as their medium of transmission. Time analysis of Radio Nepal, suggests that 88.90 percent of time is expensed in Khas-Nepali language. According to the 1991 census, 50 percent of total population is non-Khas-Nepali speaking communities. Due to such practice, minorities’ language, culture and religion are being threatened and their socio-economic condition is deteriorating.

Research findings further show that issues related to minorities is hardly covered by the mainstream media. Even if they cover, most of the issues are unfairly reported. In most of the countries, the situation is same. However, there has been some network initiative being undertaken in indigenous media sector. World Conference against Racism held in Durban in 2001 pointed out that indigenous media could play a critically important role in combating discrimination against indigenous peoples. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, therefore, organised two training sessions and workshops for indigenous journalists.

In order to establish network within indigenous journalists, throughout the globe, some of them have formed Indigenous Media Network (IMN) and according to them, it mainly aim to support indigenous journalists and to strengthen indigenous cultures. They further say that many of indigenous journalists see a strong link between journalism and activism as many of their people live in small and isolated communities. They therefore strongly feel to disseminate information from indigenous perspective.

Moana Durie-Sinclair, an international lawyer and journalist from New Zealand, is currently working as a co-ordinator of IMN in the office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. Her main task is to build and develop network of indigenous journalists. The Minister of Maori Affairs honorable Parekura Horomia of New Zealand had made a strong plea that indigenous peoples should be the experts in the UN process advocating for their own rights. At the same time he also announced a grant of NZ$50,000 to cover the costs of an interim secretariat to administer the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous issue. Now, this has brought the rays of hope for the 300 million indigenous people of the world.

To sum it up, alliance of worlds’ indigenous journalists is a significant movement in order to report and present their issues impartially and fairly. The endangered language, culture, religion, custom and eventually identity of indigenous communities will preserve through indigenous media network. IMN will further pressurises the respective governments of the world to safeguard right of the indigenous and they will also co-ordinate and share ideas and experiences with mainstream media as well.

Victory won’t end, distrust of Bush

PAUL KRUGMAN

Of course America will win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I’m not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: The most recent US military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.

What frightens me is the aftermath - and I’m not just talking about the problems of post-war occupation. I’m worried about what will happen beyond Iraq - in the world at large, and in the United States.

The members of the Bush team don’t seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to believe that other countries will change their minds once they see cheering Iraqis welcome American troops, or that US bombs will shock and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis), or that what the world thinks doesn’t matter.

They’re wrong on all counts.

Victory in Iraq won’t end the world’s distrust of the United States, because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn’t play by the rules.

Remember: This administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defence, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court - all in just two years.

Nor, as we’ve just seen, is military power a substitute for trust. Apparently the Bush administration thought it could bully the UN Security Council into going along with its plans; it learned otherwise. "What can the Americans do to us?" one African official asked. "Are they going to bomb us? Invade us?" Meanwhile, consider this: The United States needs $400 billion a year of foreign investment to cover its trade deficit, or the dollar will plunge and its surging budget deficit will become much harder to finance - and there are already signs that the flow of foreign investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about to fight a whole series of wars.

It’s a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neo-conservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." In February 2003, according to Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under-secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely - and not only because the "Bush doctrine" seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren’t likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: They’re going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first.

People who really know what they are talking about have the heebie-jeebies over North Korea’s nuclear program, and view war on the Korean Peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at the rate things are going, it seems America will fight that war, or the war with Iran, or both at once, all by itself.

What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it’s not a case that the Bush administration ever made.

Instead Americans heard assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; they got assertions about a link to al-Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by US domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn’t trust the Bush administration’s motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.

So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that sabre-rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honourably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can’t help worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war will turn out to have been the shape of things to come.

International Herald Tribune
International finance and resource mobilisation

CHANDRA THAPA

Mr Ghale, a notional but an ordinary inhabitant of remote hill in Nepal, uses his bullock for ploughing the field, although a very small one. Because of the rugged terrain, it’s very difficult to carve out cultivatable field. He is endeavouring to use it as productively as possible despite the geographical constraint. At the end of the day, when he exhaustively return back home, his wife and the two destitute children awaiting for their father to bring something for them to feed have a despair look on their faces. Somehow, the evening supper is managed, but the next day brings a big question for Mr. Ghale as far feeding the family is concerned.

What will be the plight of these children when they grow-up in a circumstance where they are without the minimum feeding facility and education? Whom they will blame for the pathetic plight? And what they will be with all the hatred they encounter throughout their lives?

Thus, it is safe to say that all our social evils begin with the hunger, which is unbearable to any human being. And the hunger also shepherds them to get involved in the unwanted activities, which is the only way to fill in their appetite. Poverty must be empathised instinctually before dealing with it as it is not enough to say; ‘Yes I understand what poverty is?’ One must feel the hunger, problems of malnutrition and what it feels when the family members are starving to death before dealing with it.

Most of the problems have only one root, that is the meagre economic environment and the only solution of these problems is to make the people economically independent. This is not possible unless we contemplate some vision to use the resources, which the god has gifted us, in an optimum manner and make these poor people a part of the mobilisation process. Lets talk about one of the richest resources of Nepal and craft a mechanism which would allow us to use the international capital like pension funds of US citizen to mobilise it and ultimately get smile on the face of Mr. Ghale and his family.

Nepal is the second richest nation in terms of water resources. Our estimated release capacity is approximately 225,000 cubic feet per second. Water can be used for different purposes such as in industry for operating boiler machine and flowing away unnecessary wastes, for farm irrigation and, most importantly, for the generation of the basic commodity – Hydropower. Theoretically, Nepal has the potential of around 83,000 MW hydro-electricity, which is approximately double than the world average.

In practical and economic terms, the potential that can be marshalled using the technical capabilities is around 42,000 MW. But, obviously there arises many queries, which need to be answered to exploit our immense water resource. The biggest among them is are we mobilising this sonorous resource optimally for benefiting Nepal and its people? Every Nepali would say no. What do we do to use this idle resource and help the people to escape the harshness of poverty? And from where the capital to finance such projects will come or is our domestic capital enough to finance such ventures?

Studies have clearly shown that our domestic capital is not enough to finance big projects and foreign capital is needed into this sector. Getting international capital, its channel and the financiers to exploit the resources and giving back the incentives to the financiers needed to be answered. For that, Nepal could even use the pension funds of US citizens apart from other sophisticated capital. Is that possible? Yes.

Mr and Mrs Andrews, a notional couple in Florida, invest a part of their monthly income in a pension fund. Fund managing companies manage these pension funds employing experts known as fund managers. These fund managers invest the money into stocks and bonds of different companies such General Electric, Chevron, Universal Movie Making Company and even in companies like ABB, which is a Swiss Hydroelectric Company exploring potential of hydro-electricity throughout the world. ABB is working in India and benefiting the locals and all other stakeholders. The company gets return from the sale of the energy and pays back to the fund managing companies in the form of dividend and interest; and ultimately the American couple gets back their money with the bonus. We can see that savings of a working couple of Florida is being used in the remote village of India and is helping people get rid of their catastrophic plight.

If we draw think parallel, we could see that the international capital could also be utilised on our resources to generate employment, enhance the technical know-how of the Nepalis professional and to commercially project Nepal as a lucrative and potential centre for investment in the international arena. These big corporate bodies can sell the generated hydropower to neighbouring countries like India, Bangladesh, and China and, thus fetch good and lucrative return. That will further encourage them and other such investors to invest more. If we understand how the above channel of pulling international capital works and how can we allure these giants and specialised companies to use their capabilities to usher our resources, we could definitely benefit, and meet the objective of economically empowering people.

Similarly, even though we do not have good market like India or China, we could still attract multinational companies on the basis of exploring the potential of cheap labour. This will generate employment opportunities for the people.

It is not possible to meet the objective of poverty reduction without creating a long-term and sustainable economic environment to flourish market activities. We have to come out of the self-sustenance economy and should be able to sell our resources. Conclusively, we should make every possible effort to invite foreign direct investment and create a favourable environment for the flow of international capital into our productive sectors.