National 8 (Spotlight Weekly)

Deforestation, Devegetation And The Solitary Tree

By SHREE GOVIND SHAH

Deforestation and devegetation in Nepal are not a recent phenomenon. Forest destruction in the plains began in the early 1800s to meet the timber needs of British India, to raise government revenue as well as to increase the incomes of the people involved. This process continues with some procedural or systemic modifications to suit the people concerned.

During the past three decades, devegetation in hills and mountains have been triggered by neighboring countries and those far away. The socio-political conditions of a country are heavily influenced, both positively and negatively, by the intentions of its neighbors. Cambodia's forests and socio-economic-political life were destroyed primarily to meet the needs and interests of Thailand and Vietnam. These countries worked to destabilize Cambodia in 1950s and 1960s. Their animosity dates back to the 14th century when the rulers fought to show their supremacy. In forests, sensible wildlife species change their path if they sense danger. Animals that cannot make rational decisions are trapped.

The forest is life, a country and an institution. The forest has trees in different stages of growth - young seedlings, saplings, growing, matured, and over-matured trees. They tell history and are admired by many. However, if they are bad, they are cut down to give space for others. This is the law of nature. Sometime, illegal loggers with bad intentions cut down many growing trees. Initially, they enjoy the benefits, but later, like in Cambodia, they repent. Many of us have seen a solitary tree in a few places. We wonder how it survived. Perhaps because of the interest of neighboring settlements. But that solitary tree, usually, does not grow into a forest.

In Nepal, a solitary tree has been the symbol of an elite political group for many years. During election time, that solitary tree multiplies into hundreds of thousands to reach millions of people with promises of shelter, fodder, fruits, materials for compost and many other things. Once the election dust settle downs, that solitary tree remains isolated from the people, but safe and sound, while the trees in the forests are cut to meet the needs of the people. This process continues. Many of us remember our former prime minister proclaiming that not a single tree would be cut anymore. Maybe he sensed that if more trees were cut in natural forests, the solitary tree would vanish!

In recent months, this solitary tree has been put under controversy. Two brothers from the same family considered ownership a prestige issue. Considering the time constraint, the concerned authority was compelled to take an interim decision. The brother who got the solitary tree was hailed by the media as the winner. According to the law of nature, if a family has more than one brother, they have to be separated eventually. So, the terms "winner" or "loser" make little sense. Maybe this is a golden tree. I heard a small boy saying, "There are many trees in the forest, but why they are fighting for a single tree?" It makes sense. Trees in the forests have roots within the country, while this solitary tree has roots spread in many countries. With or without the solitary tree, the two brothers and theirkith and kin have to go to the Nepalese people soon requesting help and assistance for their own survival. Would this solitary tree survive? A big question. Many people are looking for a satisfactory answer. May be the following analysis would tell us something.

Since the mid-1980s, free markets and black markets have flourished, weakening the state but earning profits for entrepreneurs, state officials and governing authorities. The state-controlled enterprises have been mismanaged, and they were considered as a source of perennial corruption. Fortunes are made overnight. The sky has become the limit for corruption, and many people involved in such clever but risky activities do not know how to manage the wealth, and they are exposed. A few have recently been caught by the anti-corruption authority. If this black economy continues, the state will run out of money, sparking anti-government activities.

The leaders, with or without the solitary tree, unfortunately, could not foresee the discontent of hundreds of thousands of primary school graduates, tens of thousands of high school graduates and hundreds of university graduates in the 1990s, who found it hard to obtain employment in the country. The time spent by students and the money spent by parents could not bear any fruit. Political interference in employment, promotion and posting became highly disturbing to all non-political Nepalese. Some of these frustrated and disillusioned young men and women voluntarily drifted into the Maoist movement with dreams of a better life.

The emerging problems in natural resource management - declining land productivity, poor irrigation, lack of fertilizer, forest degradation, disappearing wetlands, natural habitat destruction, energy crisis in rural areas, water pollution, and many others - never attracted the attention of political leaders. They always looked for political elements in these problems and ignored the rest. They ignored problems of poverty, lack of safe drinking water, poor sanitation, and unsafe waste disposal, indoor air pollution, vector-borne diseases and high child mortality. They politicized some issues, such as garbage in Kathmandu Valley, and ignored the problems 90 percent of the people face each day.

Irrational decisions were made in natural resource management, such as land ceiling for cultivation, which adversely affected the commercialization of agriculture. The decision pleased political opponents, and, to some extent, landless families. At the end, the latter could not get any land. There are many other ways to improve the condition of landless families, but they were ignored. Some of the results are increasing imports of cereal grain, vegetable and fruit from India, cooking oil from developed countries, and many other items that could have been produced within the country.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War favored the formation of non-communist political parties in developing countries. The practical concept of Marxism-Leninism in the 21st century seem very shallow and expendable even in countries like China and Vietnam, which support economic liberalization, private management of resources, and open market for overall economic development. The political parties in Nepal have to come out of their 1960s mind-set and make policy changes suited to the needs of the 21st century.

A relevant question here is whether we can act independently. Many of the country's socio-political problems are imposed from outside. Sometime they are born and grown in neighbouring countries, and then imported in Nepal. South Asian countries, unlike their South East Asian counterparts, have been busy not in overall socio-economic development but in growing noxious weeds of mistrust and fighting within and between countries. All seven South Asian countries claim democratic governance, but indicators for health and disease, poverty, food security at household levels, resource management and mutual trust are atrocious.

Secondly, each of these countries claims that terrorists are getting shelter and support from its neighbors. Chinese leaders claim their country has nothing to do with the Maoist insurgency in Nepal, and have supported the government's action. Many people accuse India of sheltering the rebels, a charge flatly denied by the Indian ambassador. How did sophisticated weapons enter landlocked Nepal, then? Maybe the open market system combined with corruption in Nepal and in neighboring countries favored the purchase and import of weapons from individual traders or conglomerates without the knowledge of the governments.

Some countries like India, Bangladesh and Nepal have adopted "open democracy", politicizing all types of institutions from education to sports, ignoring the massive rural population deprived of opportunities to improve their lives. In Nepal, over-politicization has divided the people into two broad classes: a) political - members or blindly supporters of political parties to avail opportunity, and b) non-political - those who cast their votes but do not take interest in politics. The non-political people, even the highly educated or experienced, are victims because the political indifference.

Most of the current breed of Nepalese politicians - communists and non-communists - involuntarily spent many years in India and they inherited that country's democratic system, which they applied here following the restoration of democracy in 1990. Despite generous assistance from donors until the mid-1990s, the country could not provide even the basic needs to its increasing population. They politicized all spheres of life and development, made politics and development inclusive, applied management systems of the 1950s and 1960s, encouraged kinship, and institutionalized rent-seeking behaviour and corruption. The political parties blamed each other for their failures.

We have no alternative but to be optimistic about a political breakthrough involving the massive intervention of both the poorest of the poor and the educated people with knowledge and experience in managing the country peacefully for economic development and prosperity; all on the basis of equity. Could it be possible to achieve this feat when most political party leaders still carry the concept of 1960s Cold War development doctrine?

The time has come for educated people to make aware a large population that the nation needs young and energetic parliamentarians, who could make vital decisions in line with the need of the masses, and the decisions to separate development from politics and to ban political intervention or interference in educational establishments as well as in administration and industry. A decision on economic liberalization and private management of resources should be made at least for another 10-15 years, putting all efforts, including donors', to develop the rural areas.

This is a difficult task, but the country has no alternative. Unless we do this, the forest will be prone to severe devegetation and even deforestation, and the "solitary tree" will vanish forever. Our political leaders should keep in mind that democracy means development of the masses. Individuals and political parties would disappear overnight if they do not care for the masses. The political parties, with or without a solitary tree as their symbol, should make the right decision to punish insensitive and corrupt leaders and civil servants and ban them from entering public life. There are many young, educated and talented Nepalis who can easily replace them.