Local Development Strategy in Nepal

-Bihari Krishna Shrestha, Sociologist and Development Specialist, Nepal

Introduction: The concept of local development denoted the development of localities both rural and urban. There exist fundamental differences between the two categories in terms of sociological and economic characteristics, and, therefor, the strategies for their development too would have to differ accordingly. Given the fact that Nepal is predominantly a rural country, this essay is designed to discuss the strategies of local development as they apply to the rural situation in Nepal.

Geo-political imperative for rural development in Nepal: Despite the on-going rhetoric about rapid progress taking place in the country, Nepal has remained one of the most agricultural and poorest of all the countries in the world. Although 81 percent of the population is engaged in it, agricultural production makes less than 50% of the country's GDP which has been stagnating at less than 200 US$ per capita for years. Whatever dynamics is there in the economy, overall, it has remained increasingly adverse. The population continues to grow at a rapid rate. Agriculture land availability has hit a plateau and its ownership is constantly being fragmented. Agriculture productivity leaves a very wide gap compared to what is attainable. Some 50% of population suffer from food deficit conditions that lasts for six months or more in a year. Growth of the non-agriculture sector has been sluggish, and the manufacturing sector does not employ more than 5% of the labor force. External employment involving seasonal and long-term migration is a must for a majority of the village households both in the hills and in the Terai.

One of the reasons's why Nepal's non-agriculture sector failed to record any significant growth is its land-locked position which is made much worse by the sadistic attitude of our southern neighbor, India. Nepal has singularly failed to attract any foreign capital primarily because of its handicapped situation to compete in the overseas market and extremely circumscribed access to Indian markets. Until very recently, India doggedly discriminated against Nepal by laying stringent conditions for Nepal's export to India in terms of the fact that they had to have a very high Nepali or Indian raw material content. But India never asked such questions for her imports from other countries and also never had to answer them in regard to her own exports to Nepal. This problem has further been compounded by the harassment that the Nepali exporters regularly face at the hands of the Indian officials while transiting their exports through Indian territory.

The situation was further enormously aggravated by the embargo clamped down by India in 1988 against land-locked Nepal, which would go into the annals of world history, as the only peacetime unilateral embargo imposed by a country against her land-locked neighbor. This embargo, among others, mercilessly exposed the inherent vulnerability of Nepal as a destination for international capital investments. It is probably because of this very handicap that almost none of the over one hundred so-called joint venture agreements signed between potential foreign investors and Nepali entrepreneurs during the UNDP sponsored international investment Mela organized in Kathmandu a few years ago materialized.

Unless India's neighbor strangulating policies undergo fundamental transformations, Nepal is bound to remain an essentially rural country with a predominantly agricultural population. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, the one and the only way for ensuring any possible well-being of the vast majority of the Nepali populace is to achieve effective rural development which must mean nothing more, or nothing less, than effective alleviation of rural poverty.

But as it is, all the intelligent mind in the government are engaged in listening to the sermons of the pundits of the international donor world for devising and continuing policies for the so-called economic liberalization and the possible growth of the industrial sector which, for reasons cited above, has remained miniscule, employed only one-sixteenth of the manpower engaged in agriculture, and historically thrived on protection, trade deflections and other malpractice such as ganging up in cartels.

On the other hand, rural development remained a neglected sector and drew the attention of the politicians merely as a place to implement their vote getting ploys. The eighth plan document itself has made important provisions on local development. It said that targeted individual and group-based programs for the poor people consisting of production credit, training, employment, children's education, etc. would be implemented and that since NGOs have the advantage in implementing such programs, community and non-government organizations will be encouraged to implement them. The Plan also provided that the role of the government would be redefined and limited to facilitation, supervision and monitoring of local development process. All sectoral agencies in the districts and municipalities including their budgets were to be handed over to the respective local bodies within two years of plan implementation. User groups and local cooperatives would be encouraged and would be made free of political influence and control. But in terms of the implementation value of these provisions, they have not been worth even the cost of the paper on which they have been printed. This callousness and irresponsibility on the part of the so-called democratic government and its planning machinery are hard to understand. Our geographical position and our relations with our southern neighbor dictate in no uncertain terms that rural development must be seen as the sector of national salvation for many years to come and therefore, be accorded the highest priority in our national scheme of things.

After the political liberalization of 1990, the country's immense ethnic heterogeneity and the relative socio-economic deprivation of different groups in the society are beginning to express themselves with increasing vehemence and important implications for national integration both at the political and emotional levels. Almost every ethnic or caste group in the society harbors a sense of comparative disadvantage and of oppression and exploitation at the hands of the members of other groups which happen to be socially, economically and politically more fortunate than themselves. In many cases, such feelings are being fanned by none other than the more fortunate members of their own groups who, by so doing, can hope to establish an important political bridgehead for themselves in their ethnic fraternities.

Much of those grievances can also be factually established. There now exists a sufficient body of information to show that poverty is more acute and widespread among such caste/ethnic groups like Sarki; Chepang or Tamang than among others such as Chettri, Bahun, or Newars. While one can argue that the latter too are not entirely devoid of their own share of destitute population, their proportion is relatively and visibly limited. And since social and economic status has traditionally been the basis for the acquisition of political power, the members of these very ethnic groups also enjoy a dominant position both politically and administratively in the country. All these together make them the logical subject of envy at the hands of the critics from other ethnic groups, and therefore, an appropriate basis for fomenting inter-ethnic intolerance.

However, the issue at stake is not one of a few ethnic groups engaged in full-scale exploitation of other ethnic groups but of unequal distribution of opportunities and resources between individuals across different ethnic groups. There are rich Tamangs as there are poor Bahuns and so on. The urban dwellers are generally richer than their rural counterparts. Therefore, the issue that has to be addressed on a priority basis is equality of access to opportunities for all individuals in the society which should eventually dispel the notion that a few select ethnic groups or sections of population are being unduly privileged at the expense of others in the society. Inculcating this feeling in all citizens is indispensable for ensuring what has often been termed as "unity in diversity" in a multi-ethnic society like Nepal. Nepal's nation building and national integration efforts, therefore, must have their roots among the poor in the villages. Only an effective process of rural development and rural poverty alleviation can engender such a feeling among the vast multitude of the poor in Nepal, and in the process, frustrate the designs of those conspiring to foment inter-ethnic hatred in the society.

A united and participatory society is also an essential precondition for successfully dealing with foreign nations. Nepal can never become a super power in terms of military and economic might, but she can still become a  respectable member of the world community, provided her citizens are treated properly, enjoy a decent life and share a sense of common destiny. No Nepali can become a proud minister, ambassador, or diplomat as long as he has to represent a country that is poor and decadent. And none of them can be properly effective in their dealings abroad unless they have their nation solidly behind them. Rural development, thus, constitutes the fundamental basis for Nepal's national existence and prosperity as well as for her relations' abroad.

Text courtesy: Excerpts only. Social economy and National Development, NEFAS/FES Publication edited by Dahal and Mund, 1996-chief editor.

Headline | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past