I do not think King Gyanendra would make any move which can be interpreted as Royal Coup or takeover in the conventional sense

-Dr. Upendra Gautam, President CMS

He started his career as a lecturer of Rural Development and Institution Building at the Public Administration Campus, T.U, Nepal, as back as in 1975. He resigned from the Associate Professorship in 1996.

Dr. Upendra Gautam secured his Doctoral degree in 1985 from the Department of Public Administration, Panjab University, India, on "Organizational Effectiveness of Rural Development Projects in Nepal" with particular reference to "Irrigation Schemes".

Besides teaching and research, Dr. Gautam was active, I recall, in Nepali journalism and remained associated with this profession from early 70s till early 80s.

Apart from this, he served as consultant in a good number of International organizations which among others include, USAID, the World Bank, ADB, IFAD and UNDP.

He is undoubtedly an expert on Water Resource Management and in the process has provided his expertise in planning and implementation assistance to water and agricultural development projects not only in Nepal but abroad as well, for example, India, Guyana and more specifically in China.

Dr. Gautam is a Nepali scholar of international repute who could be seen at various seminars participating actively and forwarding his forceful but yet convincing comments.

At the moment, Dr. Gautam is serving as President of CMS, a private sector consulting firm; vice-chairman of FMIS Promotion Trust; Director of Nepal Engineering College and Secretary General of China Study Center. He is a life time member of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi; life member of Eastern Region Organization of Public Administration, Manila and member International Association of Common Property Resources, Bloomington, Indiana, USA and consulting partner of Global Water Partnership, Stockholm,

Last week, we approached this highly qualified scholar for a tete-a-tete to which he readily agreed. Below the results: Chief editor.

TGQ1:At the moment Nepalese civil society remains divided; media is excessively partisanised; political parties have lost their credibility in the eyes of the majority of the population; the nation is apparently engaged in a sort of civil war where Nepalese are killing their own brethren and the economy, we are told, is counting its last breath. What does this all mean Dr. Gautam? Is there any way out of this extraordinary situation? Your exclusive comments please.

Dr. Gautam: I would like to respond to this complex question in several parts. I do not think the Nepali civil society in itself is divided. The reported "division" is more at the political level. My point is our experience tells us that forces represented by political parties can be brought together most of the times for the sake of "power politics" but not for purposes of civil society. Precisely for this reason, forces represented by political parties have incentive to create division in the civil society so that their power-politics-oriented collusion is not challenged by the civil society. The Nepali civil society should have realized this fact long before. It was late in this realization because it just could not ascertain the difference that exists between a civil society organization and a political party. For civil society it is NOT the power politics, rather it is the social capital (peace, and security) and the cooperative relations between the members that are of eternal significance. The Nepali civil society organizations that include professional associations, socio-economic organizations, education institutions, should rise to effectively tell the forces represented by political parties about their niche and not to interfere in the process and tasks of civil society.

As up-till now the Nepali civil society has not been able to deliver its message effectively to the forces representing political parties, the civil society organizations such as the media has remained its favorite victim. The 2 May Kantipur main news-item on the chalkhel of foreign forces on the Nepali soil provides one of the most glaring evidence of victimization of media in favor of those interests that intend to divide and rule. This news-item, at the hindsight, indicated the vulnerability and weakness of the newspaper management. Essentially the Nepali media need not to be partisan. Partisan way is not the character of an independent media in the fourth state. Therefore punitive action against a media or persons associated with it is absolutely not justifiable. It should be the politicizing agents who should be brought to the book.

Political parties are increasingly loosing their credibility in the eyes of the people because

people have seen and experienced the repression and exploitation of the people at the hands of the ruling parties. People's livelihood is threatened and their life is endangered. Political parties do not have to be accountable and there is no mechanism to enforce accountability.

It was in this sort of situation the rebels started gaining ground in the country. At the best, it was a sort of armed rebellion for pro-poor people changes and reforms in the country. But a section of the rebel organization, being infected by the power game, started being used by the power brokers. Thus, consequently, this section of the rebel organization has turned the "people's war" against the poor people. This is the worst aspect of the power that is being played out in this part of the region.

As the roots of the current negative violence in the country lies in the bad governance and unfair play, "civil war" may not be the appropriate words to honestly express the country's present situation. Personally I feel that any honest person whether in uniform or without uniform, in Kathmandu or in Rolpa, does not want a division of the country. But what this honest person should do when the political governance and the machinery supported by public revenue ignores to deliver any goods? I do not think that these are only the rebels who are dead against the political governance, which does not deliver, there may be people in the uniform and without the uniform who may think equally strongly about the partisanship and non-performance of the political governance. This aspect is important because failure of the national economy can not only be attributed to the rebellion. Rebellion indeed has accelerated its negative dive. Originally, it was the political governance of the major political parties that have introduced and intensified all sort of heinous corrupt practices in the political system. Rebels have simply put fire on the gunpowder that was provided to them by the bad political governance in the country.

For me, all this means the urgency of a major surgery to take out the ills from the body politic. The political forces, which have taken oath under the present constitution of the land, are primarily responsible for the extremely bad situation in the country. As the first measure, this section should be made accountable for its anti-nation and anti-people deeds. As an integral part of this measure, necessary action should be initiated to return all the wealth of the nation that has been illegally and covertly accumulated and sent out to the foreign countries.

TGQ2:Rumors in the districts and Kathmandu as well say that Nepal awaits a big political change in the coming months. The majority of the population who is tired of their corrupt leaders too wishes a change now. But then will it be advisable for the monarch to go in for effecting a big change as wished by the common people? Will the King's move get endorsement from the neighbors and more so by the "Western Democracies" plus the international donor community? In case the King takes a step what is the guarantee that his moves would restore normalcy in the country? What you would suggest the constitutional monarch in such a case?

Dr. Gautam: The talk of big political change, as I see it, is the logical end product of the national need I have referred to above. It is corruption and most unethical game at the central political governance that has intrinsically damaged the country more than the rebels were capable to do and given all ammunitions to the rebels to bleed this country and its poor people. It is therefore natural for all the honest people in the country to be desirous of a change. It should be clearly the bad and negative governance against which the King should rally all civil society's strength. The King should openly and legitimately have dialogue with every honest political person in any organizations (including patriotic and people-loving rebels who love the people and care for peace, security and prosperity of the country). I do not think endorsement of the King's move by the neighbors, western democracies and donors should be the sole consideration for the King to initiate the move. Rather, it should be the nature and extent of the move the King should be serious about. Personally I do not think King would make any move which can be interpreted as Royal Coup or takeover in the conventional sense. The King, in my considered opinion, would continue to maintain constitutionalism in the sense that he will make a move according to the needs of the constituents of the constitution. So basically it will not be the King's move. One may criticize my remarks as a technical interpretation that lacks in legitimacy. But a closer analysis of the constitution reveals that under the constitution the King has the responsibility to act as the symbol of national unity and guardian of the constitution. The flaw in the constitution is that the King can not enforce his constitutional responsibilities. He has duties but no rights. So the King will depend on the rightful institutions. His commitment to democracy that took firmer roots after the death of his illustrious Brother-King Birendra will come very handy in taking Nepal to the second generation of constitutional monarchy. In this context, for example, Royal Thai political process can provide some good insights to the rightful institutions and the general people in Nepal.

TGQ3:You have ever remained a critic of open border phenomenon. You also at times have talked of "demographic invasion". How you link the open border with demographic invasion? Will you kindly elaborate for the benefit of our valued readers? Your comments please.

Dr. Gautam: Open border with India has threatened Nepal's independence and peace. In Nepal, you can see all sort of illegal people-from Afghanistan to Burma. Every one can come to Nepal through India. Indian authority pushed the Bhutanese refugees to Nepal through this border. Liberal and politically and commercially-motivated issuance of citizenship certificate in the presence of the open border has provided huge possibility for demographic invasion of Nepal by religious and economic migrants on the one hand, and intrusion of unfriendly elements on the other.

My thesis is issuance of citizenship certificate as a commercial commodity in the context of the open border is an invitation to destroy one's own national identity, and become minority in one's own country. The government says it wants to provide citizenship certificate to every body who is eligible to get it. It sounds nice and democratic. But this is the trap. Issuance of citizenship certificate will never be completed as the borders are open with India. The subsequent governments in Nepal have been happy to generate a huge amount of money out of this certificate transaction. The extended South and Central Asians once in Nepal would like to have this certificate because it provides him/her a license to do all sort of "politics" in Nepal.

It is a very critical need therefore to take out the country from the "citizenship certificate" trap. The state should withdraw all the citizenship certificate(s) issued so far. It should provide an identification card to every body (above 14 years in age) residing in Nepal except the tourists and diplomats. A resident in Nepal may be a Nepali, Chinese or an Indian, or a Pakistani or Sri Lankan. This approach is very consistent with the approach of the Supreme Court in India. This Court decided on 5 April 2002 that any foreigner(s) residing in India can not claim Indian citizenship even though he or she has been voting for the last 50 years and also legally enjoys facilities provided by the provincial governments. A foreign resident in a country may have all the users' rights but he/she can not have ownership entitlement and occupy a position in public decision making system.

TGQ4:Comrade Prachanda prefers talks. Deuba rejects. The army has clearly supported Deuba's line. Congress president and other opposition parties favor Prachanda's line, which I suppose is being backed by the common populace. Given this diametrically opposing scenario, do you sense extraterritorial designs in the whole affairs? Or do you posses an entirely different view? Your opinion please.

Dr. Gautam: Congress-Girija takes Deuba as pro-American. Congress-Deuba takes Girija as pro-Indian. It is thus the ruling government and party, which are externalizing the situation. Originally the rebellion was an internal issue. The conflict in the Nepali Congress has brought out the external factor in a sharp focus. The Indian government, which has so large a role in domestic Nepali politics, now wants to be seen artificially neutral to the extent that Americans feel it is their duty to help Nepal. In addition to this, the fact remains that the open border and politically and commercially motivated issuance of citizenship certificate has facilitated the international networks to work effectively against the Nepali interest.

TGQ5:A section of Nepalese intellectuals consider that Nepal has already become a playground of alien forces, which perhaps has gone against Nepal-China ties. As an expert on China, do you subscribe to this view or reject it? Also tell us whether China has already acquired the status of a "power" in the region or is yet to achieve that status?

Dr. Gautam: I feel that China is not much amazed by the activities of alien forces in Nepal. In a country where the political governance is so weak, such a situation is rather a rule than exception. China will nevertheless rather prefer Nepal to assess its national capability and make specific and transparent request for the Chinese cooperation. China would like to have peaceful borders and political stability in all neighboring countries. If peace and stability is disturbed by outside forces in Nepal, then probably China will deal with this problem rather directly with the sources of interference.

I agree with the assertion that China is more than a region. An American scholar had said this when he visited Kathmandu in early 80s. The seat in Security Council provides China a great power status. But in addition to this, China is rapidly moving to become a power not only in a nuclear sense, but also in an economic and cultural sense. Unlike the former Soviet Union, this makes power base of China unprecedentedly enriched. Nepal should put serious efforts to get extensively linked with the development process in China through short Trans-Himalayan roads, communication networks, and should enter into a transit treaty with China for the mobility of the Nepali people and goods between and through the Chinese territory on a permanent basis.

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