 |
||
|
||
LETTERS |
|
||
|
||
LETTERS |
Authoritative Government Hats off to your cover story
“Uncertain Future” (SPOTLIGHT August 29) that gives thorough details of the
community forest in Nepal. In my view, the government decision to impose tax on annual
income of the forest user groups is a sheer stupidity. Besides its being illegal it is
archetype of unaccountable government. The whole world believes in participatory approach
in every domain of developmental works. They believe in participation and transformation
of authorities. But our government seems to be veering away from this aspect and turning
into an authoritative one. Times have changed. There is no reason to envy the good job
done by local forest user groups. Let them work, as they like. Prem Bahadur KC Don’t Squeeze Environment Forest is the only one natural resource
that Nepal can easily take advantage from (“Uncertain Future” SPOTLIGHT August
29). Perhaps, that’s why there is a popular saying ‘Green forests are
Nepal’s wealth.’ After government nationalized the forest in 1961, forests were
destroyed rapidly. Nepal had lost 14 percent of the total forest cover of the country till
1980s. With the initiative of the community forest users, we could see the situation
change. Undoubtedly, forest user groups must be commended for their remarkable job.
Besides, the income of the forest is used for building schools, health posts, roads and
other developmental works. It is the only income source for them. They are trained to used
as well as protect their property commonly for the benefit of all. Various plans of the
government could not address their problems for a long time. After a long attempt and
investment of foreign donors the program succeeded to yield good results. Forests for
villagers are as dear as their own lives. When government saw the growing forest and
income prospects, it decided to squeezing the money from them. There are over 13 thousand
community-based forests across the country. When government gets 40 percent of annual
income from each group it makes a considerably good sum. Suffering from lack of resources,
the government is groping for ways to get money. But it is completely irrational for the
government to try to impose additional tax on resource generated by community forests. It
could ultimately hit at the environment. Government should review its decision. Kiran Shakya Border Management I differ with your view that Buddhi Narayn
Shrestha's latest book on border Management would have been more credible had he
emphasized opinions based on expertise (SPOTLIGHT, Book Review, 22 Aug. 03). So far he has
written three books on border management (not two) — two in Nepali and one in
English. These are : Nepal Ko Simana, Border Management in context of National Security
and Border Management of Nepal. In all his books he has informed us how India has harassed
us in border management and how India has annexed some 60,000 hectares of our land at
fifty-four places and still continues to steal our land. Why is it that HMG is not at all
concerned about this alarmingly serious matter? Why are we afraid of the Indians and not
stand against their evil intentions and harassment? If HMG is incapable to handle this
situation then we the people, particularly the effected people, and His Majesty King
Gyanendra should take immediate action to stop India's greed and protect our sovereignty
and survival instead of simply watching this movie! Mrigendramani Dixit Forest As Resource It is natural that the government would try
to reap benefit from prospering sector like community forestry (“Uncertain
Future” SPOTLIGHT August 29). At a time when the government is cash-strapped and is
facing mounting security expenses, the authorities naturally tend to set their eyes on
possible sectors. With their huge resource potential, community forests were likely
target. Of course, the user groups who have been enjoying the bounty till now would be
upset. But they should also reconsider and try to help the government. Maybe the
imposition of 40 percent tax is too high, the forest users should try to convince the
government to bring it down to more reasonable level. Lalmani Bista Fair and Just We will not be fair if we say that students
should not be involved in politics. They always have decisive strength in nation building
(“Repeated Abuse” SPOTLIGHT August 29). Therefore, they must have knowledge of
political happenings in their nation. They should not totally indulge in politics. But it
seems these days, students are being made pawns by political parties. Student Unions are
backing up agitating political parties in their movement. They are even pressurizing the
university authorities to defer the exam schedule of Bachelor level first year. In some
colleges, they snatched entrance examination cards forcefully from students who are not
interested in politics. They must realize the significance of one year time in one’s
life. They are not fighting for the well being of the students but they have become tools
of political parties and leaders. They never complain when lecturers do not attend class
regularly. Most of the colleges don’t have toilets nor they have libraries. They
rarely conduct extra curricular activities. Sports facilities are not their priority. But
when time (election) comes they approach the students and offer lots of promises and
plans. By the time they win the election they conveniently forget all promises and
commitments. Unions should not function like this if they want to be taken seriously. Hemanta Guragain Concern Over Misquote I happen to read an article in the
Spotlight weekly on viewpoint section (August 22) attributed to August 13, 2003 Asia
Times. I was deeply shocked to read my quote, which I have never given. Such mistakes
would definitely put a dent in a widely read magazine like yours. I hope such mistakes
would not occur again and the Asia Times would keep its flag high in the days to come. Keshav Raj Jha Wanted Seriousness The article “Access Denied”
(SPOTLIGHT August 22) showed that the government is preparing to introduce a tough law
that would eventually restrict the freedom of press. Unfortunately, we do not see
responsible organizations and rights bodies speaking about this issue. Has it been
over-shadowed by other issues? This deserves an intense debate in society. Is anybody
listening? Latika Gurung |
Send your feedback to the
editor: spotligh@mos.com.np |
