We can only expect the "’unexpected" from Koirala’s India visit

-Professor Sushil Raj Pandey, T.U

Dr. Sushil Raj Pandey has been in the teaching profession since well over two decades. To his credit, he has two Masters’ degree in the discipline of Political Science from Nepal and United States of America. He secured his doctoral degree from Banaras Hindu University, BHU, India.

Dr. Pandey teaches Political Science ‘Research Methodology’ based on statistical methods. This is widely considered to be a field, which is taught, in very few academic institutions in entire South Asia.

Pandey also supervises Ph.D. students at the Tribhuvan University.

Last week, we approached this versatile political scientist for an exclusive tete-a-tete on the contemporary national issues at his private residence, which is close to Radisson Hotel, Lazimpat. Below the results-Chief editor.

TGQ1: How do you Professor, assess the political situation of the country after the 1990 change-more so in the recent years? Is it up to the mark, as promised by the champions of the last popular movement or has it gone down shamefully? Your exclusive comments please.

Prof. Pandey: A decade, Mr. Upadhyaya, is a very short period to assess the success and the direction of the existing multi-party democratic system. Answer to this question urges us to look in to the origin of the existing system. In 1990, given the changes in the contemporary international politics and the "pressure" from "India"’, the political parties came to the fore and were legalized. For any party system to perform, it has to have a wide popular base, which unfortunately is not available to political parties in Nepal. The Westminster model of government Nepal has adopted will take a very long time to succeed. I believe if the machinery of the government is "’imported" it has to take root in the societal culture which at the moment is nowhere to be seen. What is happening is that political parties have not yet evolved from the value-system of the people who altogether have a different mindset. The separation of parties from the people can only encourage political alienation and disgruntlement towards the existing set-up.

Unless the political parties work for democracy, nationalism and development, we can not expect the parties’ to perform well. Many of the national issues have not been resolved rather they have lingered and even intensified causing dissatisfaction towards the system now in place.

The track record of the Nepalese political parties is not "’impressive".

TGQ2: Nepalese intellectuals of late talk of a vibrant civil society, political culture, good governance and many a such catching words since the advent of this order. Do you think that these pressure groups or for that matter the suggestions regarding good governance have been heeded to by the present political /system/leadership? What is your opinion in these regards. Your comments please.

Prof. Pandey: Let me once again refer back to what I have already said. A democratic system thrives in a culture where the people are aware and work constantly for its success. Imported ideas with foreign funding(s) can not help democracy to grow. The very concept of civil society is an advanced concept. What we see today is that many civil institutions are dependent on external financial assistance which proves that the cultural base of democracy will be shaky and unbalanced. In America, the civil institutions were largely based on the institution of private property. The question arises how can we across Trans-national boundaries see civil institutions to operate when there are strings attached to them. For a nation to remain independent and healthy, the power of the people should be taken into account, on which civil institutions should grow and flourish.

This is not happening in Nepal. In the name of civil society, nationalistic values and pride in one’s tradition and culture are fast eroding which ultimately will hamper the success of the democratic system.

On the question of good governance, it is up to the leadership from where examples must be set. Unless there is vision, pragmatism and the capabilities, we can not expect public institutions and the political parties to behave well. So, there is little we can expect of transparency and accountability when we talk of good governance. Laws have been bent for personal interests at the cost of the nation and the people, and the people can expect little from the so-called "democratic leaders". The country has become poor, disillusioned and humiliated.

Good governance in my understanding means solving problems the nation has been facing both at the local and the national levels. When simple problems can not be solved due to political haggling, we can not expect solutions to larger problems. As the situation is already chaotic, simply harping on good governance may not be enough. What we need is governance with nationalistic leadership.

TGQ3: Nepal’s Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala is all set to proceed to his pilgrimage to New Delhi. Tall claims, as you must have heard, are emanating from Nepal’s official quarters that they would put all the long compiled genuine Nepali grievances in front of the Indian leadership from issues such as 1950 treaty reviewal; Kalapani imbroglio; Laxmanpur dam construction, refugee issue and a host of other issues. Do you think the present Nepalese leadership possesses enough courage to talk on these lines with India for their urgent redressals? How do you, Professor, look at PM’s India trip by and large?

Prof. Pandey: Your question itself is hypothetical. Judging on the behaviour of Congress party, Mr.Koirala says one thing, and does some thing else. We have many issues on matter related to Nepal-India relations and they have not been taken up seriously by any leadership in the past. Unless the foreign ministry in Nepal opens up in explaining its position we can only expect the "’unexpected"’. We may think that speaking to the parliament and to the press may shed some light, yet there is little to expect. India’s position should be clear. Unilateral approach is not possible in foreign policy matters. Nepal’s foreign ministry should take help from experts and be thorough with issues. I’ve always insisted that the foreign ministry in Nepal should be closely linked with national academic institutions in order to have a better grasp of foreign policy. About courage you are talking of, it can come only if there is the integrity and character in the leadership. Unfortunately, this is lacking.

You see Mr. Upadhyaya! I’m not a pessimist despite India’s "intransigence" but the visit Mr. Koirala will make to Delhi will be a good-will visit in a zero-sum game.

TGQ4: How you Dr. Pandey, view the Maoists’ issue that is continuing here since all along five years or so. Is it a political issue demanding political solutions or a terrorist one? Also tell us how the issue could be resolved?/ Your opinions please.

Prof. Pandey: Whether the Maoists movement is a terrorist movement or a political one, is debatable. The Maoists movement is running in its fifth year and it is an established fact that the problem can be solved politically. Several government(s) over the past five years have failed and at this point to start a dialogue between the government and the Maoists would be in the interest of the country and the people. A small country like Nepal can'’ tax its economy to engage in protracted warfare. It is after the dialogue begins that we can ascertain the requirements for "constitutional reforms".

The Maoists movement is an indigenous movement. It is the product of imbalance in political power. As the parliamentary system without roots can’t ensure the sovereignty of the nation, such conflict(s) between state and the people arises. The 1990 episode in Nepal’s history was not based on nationalism, democracy and development but rather to throw an obsolete system. Unless the political vacuum is filled with needed corrections, we can’t expect a smooth functioning.

TGQ5: With these anomalies remaining intact in the present system, what role you see the Nepali media to play in correcting the "imbalances" what you have just said? Your comments please.

Prof. Pandey: The Nepali media certainly has an important role to play in the nation building task. Unfortunately, a large part of the media here operates on partisan line failing in reporting actual and factual details. The media, I believe, should go for investigative journalism and present news and views in an objective manner.

The media can give direction to the nation by translating the principles of democracy in to action, and it is through the media that the people’s voice is actually represented. Once this is done then we expect greater narrowing down of the imbalances. Therefore, I assume that the media stays at a distance from national politics and bridges the gap between the people and the leaders in the larger interest of the nation. In this regard, let me remind you Mr. Upadhyaya that the Telegraph Weekly has been doing an independent job of reporting which increasingly has been able to attract the intellectuals within and without.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past |