COMMENT

Be transparent

The whole nation is waiting with abated breath to learn as to what may have been the reasons for the hijack of the Indian Airlines aircraft that had taken off from Kathmandu for New Delhi, India on December 24, 1999. The high level probe committee, formed by His Majesty’s Government under the stewardship of former IGP Hem Bahadur Singh, has already submitted its report to Minister for Tourism and Civil Aviation Bijaya Kumar Gachhedar.

When it happened the hijack incident not only rattled the Nepali Congress government headed by Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, but it also severely tarnished the image of the country in the international arena. International media coverage was so negative, that they painted Nepal as a haven for terrorist and the Tribhuvan International Airport as ordinary as a bus terminal. Such irresponsible media coverage naturally outraged all thinking Nepalese and the local media retaliated in full. But quite sadly, this attack from outside, gave good cover for Home Minister Purna Bahadur Khadka and Civil Aviation Minister Gachhedar to hide behind. Cleverly sensing the mood of the nation, they tried to escape moral responsibility by outrightly denying there were any shortcomings regarding security measures at the Tribhuvan International Airport. Now there are hints from insiders that the Probe Committee has blamed security management at TIA for being inefficient. If this is true, then won’t these two “upright” ministers have to resign?

But to come back to the report itself, Minister Gachhedar indicated that he will present the report for discussion in tomorrow’s (Thursday’s) Cabinet meeting. He is right in saying he can’t give the government’s comment on the report until it has been discussed by the Cabinet. But if this government wants to uphold any credibility among the people, then it better study the report fast, come to a quick decision on who is at fault and how they should be punished and then reveal what has been said in the report to the public. This is an ideal opportunity for the government to follow the much touted policy of transparency. It is also a time when the authorities here can clean the tarnished image of the country by firmly dealing with any person, including outsiders, who may be responsible for the terrible air ordeal, which even resulted in the death of a young man. Those responsible for this tragedy, cannot be allowed to go scot free.

Sans commission please

After a murky history behind its aircraft leasing deals, Royal Nepal Airlines had finally decided on buying an aircraft that it needed so badly for its international flights.. The country has had enough of the shady deals, kick backs et al regarding the leasing of aircraft. Had the formalities of the purchase been made on time, the buying of a new aircraft could not have come at a better time when the country so desperately needed it; especially now at the peak of the tourist season.

But the decision not to lease now has made a volte-face. Parties that would not benefit out of the deal are vehemently opposing the decision.  With the latest decision that RA will be going for a lease again, the main concern seems to be on whose laps the hefty commission would land. Petty individual interests shadow the larger interest of the country.

The lawmakers and the opposition should be more concerned about the image of the country in the tourism sector and the losses it is making every day due to lack of timely flights. As far as the public is concerned, lease or buy, the deals have to be transparent. Kickbacks should not be tolerated. Any legal commission, if at all should be spelt out and its destination known.

It is high time those actively involved in deals as big as these took the initiative towards corruption free trading. It is no use eyeing the big bucks on one hand and moaning and groaning about the system on the other.

Democratisation of SAARC

-By Prof. Hari Bansh Jha

The dismissal of the duly elected government of Nawaz Shariff in Pakistan by the self-proclaimed Chief Executive Gen. Pervez Musharraf was a major development in South Asia. As a mark of reaction to this development, many of the SAARC member states and also the countries outside this region opposed this move. In their bid to express solidarity with the democratic forces in Pakistan, the academicians, journalists and all those who influence the course of society in South Asia raised their united voice against the unfortunate development in this region.

In fact, the opposition to the new army regime in Pakistan was the reflection of the faith that the people of this region have towards democracy. The criticism of the new army rule was so strong that even certain South Asian governments had to bow to the people’s pressure. The situation reached its climax when India had to express its solidarity with the international democratic forces by asking the SAARC chairperson and the host country Nepal  ‘to defer the summit for the time being’ which was scheduled to be held in November 1999. Subsequently, both Bhutan and Bangladesh echoed Indian stand on SAARC summit postponement.

However, in certain quarters there is still some confusion in regard to the postponement of SAARC. A false impression in created by certain vested interests as if the postponement of the summit is a permanent affair. Considering the role and importance of Indian for the growth of SAARC, there is no reason why this country would not like the next summit to be organized at the earliest.

The legitimacy of Musharraf as the head of state or government is questioned both within and outside the country. The situation is so precarious that even the deposed Nawaz Sharif is not in a position to accept that he is not the Prime Minister of his country. While attending the funeral of his mother-in-law in Lahore. Sharif categorically mentioned that he is still Prime Minister of Pakistan. He added, “Pervez has no right to dismiss the elected government or suspend the Constitution...My government was robbed at gun-point by Gen. Musharraf as he harbors personal vendetta against me. What he did was highly unconstitutional and illegal.”

It is not to be forgotten that the case of Musharraf is entirely different from that of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Ziaul Haq of Pakistan or Ziaur Rahman and Erashad of Bangladesh. All these leaders were formally accepted as Presidents of their respective countries at certain periods of time. By the same token, the King of Bhutan and President Gayoom of Maldives occupy legitimate status in their countries no matter whether they have given inadequate democratic  rights to their people.

Gen. Pervez Musharraf is merely the “interim” Chief Executive and he has no status of either the Prime Minister or President of Pakistan. It would, therefore, be wrong to accord him the same status as that of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan or Ziaul Haq. On the day Musharraf gains the status of virtual Prime Minister or President of Pakistan, there should be no hitch for India or so to say any other country of South Asia to sit with him in SAARC summit. But for this let him prove his worth in his own country.

Ironically certain forces support the army rule in Pakistan on the ground that it is trying to hold control over rampant corruption. But this too is not the answer to the problem. Corruption is the ‘result’ and not the ‘cause’ of the problem. As such, so long as the cause of the corruption is not eradicated, it is not likely to go.

Even if the army rule is fighting with the tax defaulters in its bid to curb corruption, it cannot be supported at the cost of democracy. There is no justification whatsoever to throttle democracy just for punishing the tax defaulters. It might not be overlooked that in Pakistan corruption is not built during the rule of Nawaz Sharif but it is the accumulated problem of the army rule of last several decades. If corruption cannot be controlled in democracy amidst freedom of expression and press, it will not be eradicated within the tightly closed wall of army rule. The development of past few weeks has shown that the army rule in this country has met utter set-back in curbing the deep-rooted corruption.

If the whole world is skeptical about the legitimacy of Chief Executive of Pakistan, there is no harm in postponing the SAARC summit for the time being. As per the interview given by former US Senator Larry Pressler to Zee News on November 25, 1999, the US President Bill Clinton is likely to cancel his visit to Pakistan in next year. Pressler categorically mentioned that there has never been democracy in Pakistan and that no one knows who is in-charge of what in this country. Considering the deep-rooted friendship between the US and Pakistan, there was no reason for President Bill Clinton to cancel this trip to Pakistan if the developments in this country were justified. Similarly, the strong criticism of the army rule in Pakistan by the Commonwealth countries is also a matter of serious concern for the world.

Since the case of dismissal of the elected government is still pending in the court, it would have been wrong for the host country Nepal to give Gen. Musharraf the status of head of State/Government in the SAARC summit.

The postponement of the SAARC summit, thus, will give a fatal blow to the forces trying to highjack democracy in South Asia. It should be understood that no revolution is as important as the revolution for democracy and no country can be its exception.

Talk Back

Ignorant anti-force?

The article titled Forces published in your esteemed paper dated January 12 by a certain C K Lal should be a matter of concern for any patriotic Nepalese citizen. As a member of a traditional family that has served the nation in various capacities and having close affiliation with the Royal Nepalese Army, I feel that the article has been prompted either by ignorance, personal animosity of sinister motives backed by anti-national elements or a combination of the three.

In an attempt to tarnish the image of an instrument of National power, Lal has distorted the facts without going into the depth of the matter. His accusation that the army is not a national army because of the fact that it does not include all the races in the composition, citing examples of certain races not attaining the rank of a General, is baseless. My associates in the army confer that there are no Tharu, Yadab or a Sherpa General but does C K Lal know that Generals are not created overnight.

If such an individual had joined the army as an officer about thirty year’s back, and had worked diligently, I am sure nothing would have prevented him from attaining the rank of a General. I am also told that any Nepalese citizen is allowed to join the army but there are no short cuts or special privileges. As a civilian, I know that soldiering is not a profession for all and certain aptitudes are required. In the past decade lots of the so called discriminated races have joined the ranks of the Royal Nepalese Army and the number is increasing day by day.

C K Lal also does not seem to know that armies all over the world are the machinery of the state and each state has certain procedures to use the army. Can we cite any example in the modern era where the Royal Nepalese Army has acted without the orders from the Government? Is he ignorant that armies all over the world carry out orders from their respective Governments even if it means firing shots at their own citizens? How does he rate the Indian Army whose major task at present is maintaining internal security and many Indians have been shot in the process. Is the Indian Army being used to suppress the democratic aspirations of the people of Assam?

C K Lal’s remarks about the importance of media are quite valid but how has he come to the conclusion that the army does not have any media-sense? For that matter does the army really need to have that qualification? Are there not other organisations of the Government that can deal with the matter? Does he want the army to lap up to persons like him to prove their media-sense?

C K Lal’s attempt to capatalise on an issue about the Army Chief’s remark, which the concerned authority had not defended but vehemently denied, has no value. The Defense Ministry did not justify but outrightly denied that the Army Chief had made such remarks. Even if the Army Chief had made such remarks, which law has he broken? Did he deny to follow orders from the Government?

Furthermore I feel that as a member of the National Security Council, the army chief has the right to voice his opinion on matters of national importance. Lal’s remarks about lieutenants lording over Ministers and Zonal Commissioners in the name of Supreme Commander can be termed a blatant lie. Any people serving in such a capacity at that time can vouch for this. As far as I know, the only disciplined and dedicated organisation in the country at present is the Army and that is mainly because of the Supreme Commander.

In another section of the article Lal has talked about the lavish lifestyle of the army and he has also referred to the Pakistani Army, I have been to the mess that he has mentioned for a friend’s wedding party. The mess is allowed on rent to civilians also. I have also been to such institutions in India with a friend and I don’t see much difference. In fact the mess in India was much better. My query is why is Lal referring to the Pakistan army when making a comparison? The pay, perks and facilities are much higher in India than in Nepal. Should he not compare  with India or does he not want to hurt certain sentiments? Or is he trying to give same status to the Royal Nepalese Army as the Pakistan Army?

From Lal’s article, I feel that he is not aware of the contributions of the army. Having witnessed the army working in various calamities and situations, having read about their contributions to peacekeeping operations, and having an insight about their concerns for national security from personal contacts, I feel that we in Nepal should feel proud about this dedicated, disciplined organisation which is very much committed to the people and the country. I hope that Lal’s remarks are an offspring of ignorance or personal animosity because such misunderstandings can be cleared. But if he has sinister motives backed by certain elements then all patriotic citizens should be ware of people like C K Lal. r

Sanjaya Thapa
Kathmandu