Policy for far Rolpa and Dolpa community were made by those who had never been there

She is a highly qualified distinguished lady who obtained her Masters degree in Public Policy from , Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia in the year January 2003. Likewise, she secured her Bachelor’s degree in the discipline of Law from T.U in 1999.

Her Post Graduate Diploma course was in Population and Sustainable Development which she managed from the University of Botswana. Botswana, 1998.

Mrs. Savitri Gurung completed her Course in International Development Studies, from the International Summer School, University of Oslo, Norway, in the year 1988.

Concurrently, she did her M. A. in Political Science, from the Tribhuvan University, Nepal, in 1983.

Currently, Mrs. Savitri Thapa-Gurung is a Lecturer and head of the department, Department of Political Science, Ratna Rajya Laxmi Campus, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, and has been working there since July 1990 till todate.

She teaches topics on International Relations, Political Science theory, South Asian Government and Politics, Gender and Politics, Public Policy, Leadership Building and Conflict Management and the likes.

Possesses work experiences as organiser of several talk programs more so on "Conflict, its origin and resolution" from the capacity of an Executive member of Institute of Conflict Management and Development

Has been the Coordinator of organizing committee of "Refresher Workshop/Training for teaching faculty member of Three Years Bachelor Level Course of Political Science" organised by Pol. Sc Dept., R.R.L. Campus with the assistance of University Grants Commission Commencing from 22 to 29 January 2004.

Ms. Gurung has already written a book on Bhutanese Refugee issue but finding it difficult to publish the book for some unexplainable reasons.

She has several articles to her credit which have got printed in national and international newspapers. Her hobbies include reading books and attending to scholarly seminars as and when she finds time for that.

Last week we approached this humble but an imminent lady at a seminar on Conflict management for an exclusive interview to which she readily agreed. Below the results: chief editor.

TGQ1: As an expert on "Public Policy", how you Savitree Jee evaluate the effect of public policy on the entire body politic of the country? Is it the failure in policy formulation that has contributed to the sorry state of country? If yes, then what policies be made that prioritizes the immediate needs of the country? Do you have any suggestions for those policy makers seated in Sighdurbar?

Ms. Gurung: The policies formulated from many years could not have had its effective impact on the entire body politic of the country. In not having taken the cases individually, the imposition of "eutai bhasa eutai bhesh" like policy, could not address the multi culturalism of the country. It was directed to serve certain privileged sector of the society from long years. No one who was excluded could come to mainstream of the country because of the existence of such policies.

For example, those who do not know the pain of labor made policies related to maternal health. Policies for ethnic communities were made by those who do not know the difference of Sherpa and Bhote ethnic castes. The policy for far Rolpa and Dolpa community of Nepal, were made by those who had never been there but had been in Harvard and Oxford like universities (this does not mean that the foreign learned people cannot be policy makers, it is only the matter of concern of bottom-up approach of policy making). There were such policy makers who were so afraid of the word "Mahila, Janajatee and Dalit’. They used to think that these kinds of voices bring division in the country. However, they could not realize that because of the exclusion of most of the sector including above is the present outcome, which Nepal is facing at the moment.

I think the policies of inclusion of all sectors and opinion are the immediate need of the country. More and more policies should address the problem of the downtrodden sectors of the society. Not only policies but also their involvement in the policy making processes should also be there which would show the example of inclusion.

TGQ2: "Equal participation for both men and women" is the citation of the present time. Do you see it being implemented in real practice? If not, then which are the sectors wherein the female folks consider themselves discriminated. Your comments please!

Ms. Gurung: The citation of the present time "Equal participation for both men and women", I think have not been implemented in real practice. Yes, there are more voices in favor of women than before. The voice for women’s participation in every sector of the life is more after the restoration of multiparty system. There is no doubt about this truth. Hence, what we see today is that speeches are made only but nothing is being done in their favor. Let me give a simple example of just how women are discriminated. Let’s take the participation on the seminars, conferences and symposiums (apart from very few exceptional case). In how many such functions you see the women in dais. I have seen lots of seminars conducted without a single women participating in dais. Although there will be few women listeners. The seminars anchored by men, chaired by men, working paper presented by men, comments given by men, vote of thanks given by men, all by men not any single task by women. However, in doing so, they will not forget to tell that participation of women, ethnic community, schedule caste are essential for the betterment of society. The irony here is that in this matter of participation (which is in seminars, conferences and symposiums etc) any body does not lose any post or power. It will just take some sort of common understanding that women should also participate and should be given some sort of responsibility. It is not matter of power and post. If there is the matter any important power and post then that is beyond the imagination of women. I wanted to give just a simple example to give a glimpse, how women are discriminated. There are no single places where women are not discriminated. In policy making places of every sector, in executive, in parliament, in judiciary, in diplomatic arena and where not. Up to now there is no single women executive in this forty plus years (that is Rector, Registrar and Vice Chancellor) of Tribhuvan University just to give you a small example and there are many more…

TGQ3: Coming to the Bhutanese Refugee Crisis, how do you view India’s role in resolving this problem? Is it Nepal’s failure in making India involve in this issue or India does not want to annoy Bhutan for some political considerations?

Ms. Gurung: India has not shown any interest in being involved in the Bhutanese refugee issue. Right from the starting it has been saying that this issue is a bilateral issue between Bhutan and Nepal. However, Nepal has always maintained the view that India’s cooperation is very necessary if the impasse is to be resolved (although it cannot be declared that after India’s involvement the issue will not be there). This is especially relevant, as the Bhutanese refugees used India’s land route while coming to Nepal. Thus India is the first place of asylum, for the Nepali speaking Bhutanese refugees who have now been in Nepal for almost fourteen years. Another view supporting India’s essential involvement in this issue is that India has a dominant role in Bhutan’s foreign policy according to the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1949 between India and Bhutan. So, in any issues related to India, Bhutan should seek advice from India. If India really wants to see the problem solved, it could use her good offices with Bhutan and make a contribution to solve this impasse. However, looking the past evidences, India does not seem interested in involving itself in this issue. It seems, although not totally but in part its not Nepal which is not able to persuade India to involve in this impasse, but it is India which seems, not forthcoming to irritate its another neighbor Bhutan.

TGQ4: How have partisan scholars with vested political interest contributed to pollute academic sector? How badly has it hit the future of the country? Do you agree with this theory or reject it out rightly?

Ms. Gurung: I think the scholars should be free from any kind of political interest. They should be able to say what they think, believe and analyze.

I also agree that most of the scholars are not free from partisan interest. Because the trend, which is developed here, is that, the responsibility of any important nature are given in the basis of the scholar’s devotion towards to the party (or faith), not in the basis her or his capacity. This trend also might have polluted the scholars and they started to speak or write for their party’s interest, and not for the country’s better future. However, the scholars in any case should not follow this trend in any case. This partisan interest of scholars is responsible for country’s dim future. If scholars were out of the party’s interest then they would be able to speak for the betterment of the country and country folk. If they had spoken what they had seen in the back, the situation of the country might not have been this worse.

I think still, they have the chance to speak out for the country not for the party. It cannot be inferred that the parties always work for the betterment of the country, which can be seen from the role-played by most of the party leaders. So, if we want our nation not to see more hazards, killings, and devastation then it is the high time for the scholars to think seriously. They should stop speaking; writing and planning for partisan interest but start thinking for the ordinary person who is in trouble. They should workout for the remedy, which can stop damage of the people and their nest.

TGQ5: Assessing the last fourteen years of democratic order in the country, how you have evaluated the performances of our leaders?

Ms. Gurung: The performances of our leaders do not seem so satisfactory. We saw the leaders mostly all the time fighting for power for themselves and not for the well being of the countrymen. They all wanted the "return of their deed, which they had done in the cause of restoration of the democracy. They did not satisfy with little pie, all wanted a big pie in the name of their sacrifices. Not only those leaders who were fighting for democracy, but the others who were not in for of democracy in past, also intermingled with them and wanted more and more benefits. All the malpractices such as horse-trading of the parliamentarians, Pajero culture etc were introduced in these years. The rich became richer, the ordinary politicians became neo-rich and most of the party workers became luxurious. The only thing had not been done by the leaders was the well being of the ordinary citizen.

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | National |  Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Past