Saturday, June 13, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
सङ्घीयता भ्रम र यथार्थ from gorkhapatra
विचार/विवेचना
सङ्घीयता भ्रम र यथार्थ
महेन्द्र वान्तवा 'मसान्त'
नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ -छैठौ संशोधन)को प्रस्तावनामा राजतन्त्रको विधिवत अन्त्य गरी नेपाल एक सङ्घीय, लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्य भएको घोषण गर्दै -अन्तरिम संविधान, चौथौ संशोधन, २०६५, २०६५ जेठ १५ गते द्वारा थप) भन्ने वाक्यांश उल्लेख गरिएको छ । त्यस्तै नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ -छैठौ संशोधन) को भाग - १ धारा - ४ को उप-धारा १ मा नेपाल एक स्वतन्त्र, अविभाज्य, सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न, धर्मनिरपेक्ष, समावेशी सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक, गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्य हो भनिएको छ ।
नेपाल सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणराज्य हो भनेर माथिका दुई वाक्यबाट प्रष्ट्याइएको छ । नेपाली जनताले २००७ साल पहिलो देखि पटकपटक गर्दै आएको ऐतिहासिक संघर्ष र जनआन्दोलन मार्फत् लोकतन्त्र, शान्ति र अग्रगमनका पक्षमा प्रकट भएको जनादेशको सम्मान गर्न, देशमा विद्यमान वर्गीय, जातीय, क्षेत्रीय, लैङ्गकि समस्याहरूलाई समाधान गर्न, राज्यको अग्रगामी पुनःसंरचन गर्न, आजसम्मका क्रान्ति र आन्दोलनबाट प्राप्त उपलब्धीहरूलाई संस्थागत लगायतका थुप्रै कार्य गर्नको लागि नेपाललाई सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्य बनाइएको हो । तसर्थ नेपाल सङ्घीय राज्य भइसकेकोले यसका स्वायत्तहरूको नामकरण र रेखाङ्कन गर्न मात्र बाँकी रहेको छ । सङ्घीयताको प्रसंगमा मूलुकमा सबै भन्दा बढि जातीय स्वातत्तता र आत्मनिर्णयका अधिकारको विषयमा आवाज उठिरहेको परिप्रेक्षमा सङ्घीयता, आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार र जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत स्वायत्तका सम्बन्धमा प्रशस्तै भ्रमहरू भेटिंदै अइरहेका अवस्थामा यहाँ त्यसलाई प्रस्ट पार्ने प्रयास भएको छ ।
केही व्यक्ति र दलहरूमा नेपाल जस्तो सानो देशमा सङ्घीयता र स्वायत्तता संभव छैन भन्ने भ्रम छ । यस्तो भ्रम छिमेकी देश भारत र चीनको दाँजोमा ठीकै हो तर विश्वमा भएका दुई सय भन्दा बढी देशहरूमध्ये नेपाल चालीसौँ ठूलो मुलुक हो । सङ्घीयता व्यवस्था भएका देशहरू मध्ये आन्टीगुवा र बारबुडाको क्षेत्रफल एक सय ७१ वर्गकिलोमिटर छ भने जनसंखया ७५ हजार मात्र छ । ग्रीनल्याण्डमा ७५ हजार जनसंख्या छ भने १८ वटा नगरपालिका र एउटा नगरपालिकमा १७५ जनसंख्या छ । भानुआतु गणतन्त्रको क्षेफल पाच हजार सात सय वर्गकिलोमिटर छ भने जनसंख्या एक लाख १२ हजार मात्र छ । त्यसैले क्षेत्रफल सानो/ ठूलो जनसंख्या कम/धेरै हुनु सङ्घीयता र स्वायत्तताको निर्धारक तत्व होइनन् । निर्धारक तत्व भनेको जनताको चाहना हो ।
युगोस्लाभिया, सोभियतसंघ जस्ता देशहरूको उदाहरण दिएर सङ्घीय राज्य असफल हुने तर्क राख्नेहरू प्रशस्तै छन् । यहाँ विश्वका ४० प्रतिशत सङ्घीय राज्यमा बसेका छन् । यस्ता राज्यका सङ्ख्या २५ वटा छन् तीमध्ये आठ ओटा मुलुकको मानव विकास सूचाङ्क उच्च छ भन्ने तथ्यलाई बिर्सन हुदैन । नेपालमा दुई सय ४० वर्ष कायम रहेको एकात्मक राज्य संकटपूर्ण र समस्यामूलक रहँदै आएको तथ्यलाई बिर्सेर सङ्घीय राज्य बिफल हुन्छन् भन्नेहरूले एकात्मक राज्यको वकलात गरिरहेका छन् । त्यस्तै सङ्घीयता, आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार र जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत स्वायत्तताले विखण्डन ल्याउछ, सद्भाव बिथोल्छ, रक्तपात निम्त्याउँछ भन्ने समेतको भ्रम केही व्यक्ति र दलहरूमा छ । वास्तवमा संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघ र विश्वसमुदायले स्वीकार गरिसकेको छ कि यी अधिकारहरूले विखण्डन ल्याउने होइन । बरु यी अधिकारहरू नदिनाले विखण्डन ल्याउछ ।
आदिवासी जनजातिको मूल थलो छ तर बाहुन क्षेत्री र दलित कहाँ जाने भन्ने भ्रमको खेती गर्नेहरू पनि यहाँ प्रशस्तै छन् । हो, आदिवासी जनजातिको मूलथलो छ र बाहुन क्षेत्री लगायतकाहरूको छैन । जे भए पनि स्वायत्तता भने सबैले पाउनुपर्छ । त्यसैले बाहुन क्षेत्री र पहाडी दलितहरूका लागि सुदुर र मध्यपश्चिमका पहाडी इलाका स्वायत्त राज्यका रुपमा रहनेछन् आदिवासी जनजातिका स्वायत्त राज्य भित्र बाहुन क्षेत्री र दलितहरू उप-स्वशासनको रुपमा रहन सक्नेछन । खम्बुवान, लिम्बुवान, ताम्सालिङ नेवाः आदि स्वायत्त राज्यहरू निर्माण भयो भने अरु जात जातिहरूलाई धपाउँछन्, त्यहाका सानो जनसंख्या भएका आदिवासी जनजातिहरूको अधिकार खोस्नेछन् र उही जातिको हुने खानेले शोषण दमन, उत्पीडन गर्नेछन् भन्ने भ्रमहरू समेत पाल्ने व्यक्तिहरू छन् । यथार्थ के हो भने नेपालका प्रत्येक जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत समुदायले आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार प्रयोग गरी एकल पहिचान वा समग्र पहिचान सहितको स्वायत्त वा उपस्वायत्तता प्रयोग गर्नु पर्नेहुन्छ । संयुक्त राष्ट्रसङ्घले सुनिश्चित गरेको अल्पसंख्यकको अधिकार उपयोग गर्न पाउनेछन् । जातीय स्वायत्त राज्यहरूमा हुनेखालेले रजाई गर्छ भन्नेसन्दर्भमा जातीय स्वायत्त राज्यको संविधान बनाउँदा संरचना र प्रक्रियागत हिसाबबाटै वर्गीय, लैङ्गकि, क्षेत्रगत र अन्य विभेदहरू अन्त्य गर्ने व्यवस्थाहरू सुनिश्चित गर्नु पर्दछ ।
नेपाल जस्तो जातीय विविधता सहित एकै ठाउँमा धेरैजातजातिको बसोवास भएको तर एउटै जातजातीको बाहुल्यता नभएकोले जातीय स्वायत्तता असम्भव भन्ने भ्रमसमेत रहेको पाइएको छ । नेपालका बाहुन क्षेत्री र पहाडी दलितमा कामी मात्र नेपालका ७५ वटै जिल्लामा छरिएर बसेका छन् । नेपालका आदिवासी जनजातिहरूमध्ये अधिकांश निश्चित भू-भागमा बसोबास गरि आएका छन् । नेपालका आदिवासी जनजातिहरूले आफ्नो भूमीलाई शासकहरू कै कारणले गुमाउन पुगेका र अन्य जातीहरू छरिन पुगेका हुन् । यस मानेमा चीनको एउटा आदिवासी स्वायत्त क्षेत्रमा हानहरूको जनसंख्या ८५ प्रतिशत छ तर १५ प्रतिशत जनसंख्या भएको आदिवासीहरूको स्वायत्तता छ ।
आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार र स्वायत्ता विखण्डनकारी हो भन्ने भ्रम पाल्नेहरू पनि थुप्रै छन् । नेपालका आदिवासी जनजाति र मधेसीहरूले आत्मनिर्णय सहितको जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत स्वायत्तताका मागहरू राखेर आन्दोलन गर्दै आएका छन् । यद्यपि सरकारका जिम्मेवार पदाधिकारी समेतले नेपालको पक्षमा भएका महासन्धि र पक्षमा मतदान गरेका घोषणपत्रमा भएका आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार र स्वायत्तताका प्रावधानहरूलाई बुझ्न नसकेको वा बुझ्पचाउन खोजेकोले भ्रमहरू झन् मौलाइरहेको छ । आर्थिक, सामाजिक तथा सांस्कृतिक अधिकार सम्बन्धी अ्न्तराष्ट्रिय प्रतिज्ञापत्रको भाग १ धारा १ ले सबै जनतालाई आत्मनिर्णको अधिकार दिएको छ सो अधिकारको प्रयोग गरी उनीहरू स्वतन्त्रतापूर्वक आफ्नो राजनीतिक हैसियत निर्धारण गर्ने र स्वतन्त्रतापूर्वक आफ्नो आर्थिक, सामाजिक तथा सांस्कृतिक विकासमा लाग्ने अधिकार दिएको छ । संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघको महासभाले १३ सेप्टेम्बर २००७ मा पारित गरेको आदिवासी जनजातिहरूको अधिकार सम्बन्धी संयुक्त राष्ट्रसङ्घीय घोषणपत्रको धारा ३ अनुसार 'आदिवासीहरूलाई आत्मानिर्णयको अधिकार हुनेछ । यो अधिकारलाई प्रयोग गरी आफ्ना राजनीतिक हैसियत निर्धारण गर्न स्वतन्त्र छन् र आफ्नो आर्थिक, सामाजिक र साँंस्कृतिक विकासलाई हासिल गर्न स्वतन्त्र छन्' भनी स्पष्ट पारिएको छ । त्यस्तै धारा ४ अनुसार 'आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार प्रयोग गर्दा आदिवासीहरूलाई आफ्नो आन्तरिक र स्थानीय विषयहरूमा स्वायत्तता वा स्वशासनका साथै स्वायत्त कार्यका लागि वित्तीय व्यवस्था र साधनहरूको समेत अधिकार छ ।' यसरी घोषणापत्रको धारा ३ र ४ ले आदिवासी जनजातिहरूलाई आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकारसहित जातीय स्वायत्तता लिने वा जातीय स्वशासन लिने दुवैमध्ये एक राज्ने अधिकार दिन्छ । नेपालका आदिवासी जनजातिहरूले खोजेको आत्मनिर्णको अधिकारसहित जातीय स्वायत्तताको अधिकारलाई यी प्रावधानहरूले कानुनी हैसियत प्रदान गर्दछ । नेपालको सन्दर्भमा आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार सहितको जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत स्वायत्तता सुनिश्चित नभएको खण्डमा बरु विखण्डनको सम्भावना टड्कारो रहनेछ तर यस्तो अधिकारको सुनिश्चितताबाट भने विखण्डनका सम्भावनाहरू रहने छैनन् ।
त्यसैगरी आर्थिक स्रोत सम्बन्धी, बाइसे चौबिसे कालमा र्फकने सम्बन्धी, वर्गीय मुक्ति खोज्नेहरूका लागि जातीय स्वायत्तताको कुरा संकीर्ण सम्प्रदायिक सोच सम्बन्धी जस्ता थुप्रै भ्रमहरू विद्यमान छन् । यी भ्रमहरूको पहिचान गरी सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्यको स्थापना गर्ने हाम्रो दायित्य हो । त्यसैले यस्ता भ्रममा नअलमलिकन रगतसंँग सहिदहरूले साटेका कसम र सपनालाई पूरा गर्नका लागि सबैको अस्तित्व, अधिकारलाई स्वीकार/सुनिश्चित गर्नु आवश्यक भए अनुरुप संविधान निर्माण प्रक्रियामा सक्रिय सहभागी भई असल संविधान निर्माण गर्न सके मात्र गणतन्त्रको संस्थागत विकास भई नेपालमा एक सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्यले सार्थकता पाउनेछ ।
सङ्घीयता भ्रम र यथार्थ
महेन्द्र वान्तवा 'मसान्त'
नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ -छैठौ संशोधन)को प्रस्तावनामा राजतन्त्रको विधिवत अन्त्य गरी नेपाल एक सङ्घीय, लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्य भएको घोषण गर्दै -अन्तरिम संविधान, चौथौ संशोधन, २०६५, २०६५ जेठ १५ गते द्वारा थप) भन्ने वाक्यांश उल्लेख गरिएको छ । त्यस्तै नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान, २०६३ -छैठौ संशोधन) को भाग - १ धारा - ४ को उप-धारा १ मा नेपाल एक स्वतन्त्र, अविभाज्य, सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न, धर्मनिरपेक्ष, समावेशी सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक, गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्य हो भनिएको छ ।
नेपाल सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणराज्य हो भनेर माथिका दुई वाक्यबाट प्रष्ट्याइएको छ । नेपाली जनताले २००७ साल पहिलो देखि पटकपटक गर्दै आएको ऐतिहासिक संघर्ष र जनआन्दोलन मार्फत् लोकतन्त्र, शान्ति र अग्रगमनका पक्षमा प्रकट भएको जनादेशको सम्मान गर्न, देशमा विद्यमान वर्गीय, जातीय, क्षेत्रीय, लैङ्गकि समस्याहरूलाई समाधान गर्न, राज्यको अग्रगामी पुनःसंरचन गर्न, आजसम्मका क्रान्ति र आन्दोलनबाट प्राप्त उपलब्धीहरूलाई संस्थागत लगायतका थुप्रै कार्य गर्नको लागि नेपाललाई सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्य बनाइएको हो । तसर्थ नेपाल सङ्घीय राज्य भइसकेकोले यसका स्वायत्तहरूको नामकरण र रेखाङ्कन गर्न मात्र बाँकी रहेको छ । सङ्घीयताको प्रसंगमा मूलुकमा सबै भन्दा बढि जातीय स्वातत्तता र आत्मनिर्णयका अधिकारको विषयमा आवाज उठिरहेको परिप्रेक्षमा सङ्घीयता, आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार र जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत स्वायत्तका सम्बन्धमा प्रशस्तै भ्रमहरू भेटिंदै अइरहेका अवस्थामा यहाँ त्यसलाई प्रस्ट पार्ने प्रयास भएको छ ।
केही व्यक्ति र दलहरूमा नेपाल जस्तो सानो देशमा सङ्घीयता र स्वायत्तता संभव छैन भन्ने भ्रम छ । यस्तो भ्रम छिमेकी देश भारत र चीनको दाँजोमा ठीकै हो तर विश्वमा भएका दुई सय भन्दा बढी देशहरूमध्ये नेपाल चालीसौँ ठूलो मुलुक हो । सङ्घीयता व्यवस्था भएका देशहरू मध्ये आन्टीगुवा र बारबुडाको क्षेत्रफल एक सय ७१ वर्गकिलोमिटर छ भने जनसंखया ७५ हजार मात्र छ । ग्रीनल्याण्डमा ७५ हजार जनसंख्या छ भने १८ वटा नगरपालिका र एउटा नगरपालिकमा १७५ जनसंख्या छ । भानुआतु गणतन्त्रको क्षेफल पाच हजार सात सय वर्गकिलोमिटर छ भने जनसंख्या एक लाख १२ हजार मात्र छ । त्यसैले क्षेत्रफल सानो/ ठूलो जनसंख्या कम/धेरै हुनु सङ्घीयता र स्वायत्तताको निर्धारक तत्व होइनन् । निर्धारक तत्व भनेको जनताको चाहना हो ।
युगोस्लाभिया, सोभियतसंघ जस्ता देशहरूको उदाहरण दिएर सङ्घीय राज्य असफल हुने तर्क राख्नेहरू प्रशस्तै छन् । यहाँ विश्वका ४० प्रतिशत सङ्घीय राज्यमा बसेका छन् । यस्ता राज्यका सङ्ख्या २५ वटा छन् तीमध्ये आठ ओटा मुलुकको मानव विकास सूचाङ्क उच्च छ भन्ने तथ्यलाई बिर्सन हुदैन । नेपालमा दुई सय ४० वर्ष कायम रहेको एकात्मक राज्य संकटपूर्ण र समस्यामूलक रहँदै आएको तथ्यलाई बिर्सेर सङ्घीय राज्य बिफल हुन्छन् भन्नेहरूले एकात्मक राज्यको वकलात गरिरहेका छन् । त्यस्तै सङ्घीयता, आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार र जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत स्वायत्तताले विखण्डन ल्याउछ, सद्भाव बिथोल्छ, रक्तपात निम्त्याउँछ भन्ने समेतको भ्रम केही व्यक्ति र दलहरूमा छ । वास्तवमा संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघ र विश्वसमुदायले स्वीकार गरिसकेको छ कि यी अधिकारहरूले विखण्डन ल्याउने होइन । बरु यी अधिकारहरू नदिनाले विखण्डन ल्याउछ ।
आदिवासी जनजातिको मूल थलो छ तर बाहुन क्षेत्री र दलित कहाँ जाने भन्ने भ्रमको खेती गर्नेहरू पनि यहाँ प्रशस्तै छन् । हो, आदिवासी जनजातिको मूलथलो छ र बाहुन क्षेत्री लगायतकाहरूको छैन । जे भए पनि स्वायत्तता भने सबैले पाउनुपर्छ । त्यसैले बाहुन क्षेत्री र पहाडी दलितहरूका लागि सुदुर र मध्यपश्चिमका पहाडी इलाका स्वायत्त राज्यका रुपमा रहनेछन् आदिवासी जनजातिका स्वायत्त राज्य भित्र बाहुन क्षेत्री र दलितहरू उप-स्वशासनको रुपमा रहन सक्नेछन । खम्बुवान, लिम्बुवान, ताम्सालिङ नेवाः आदि स्वायत्त राज्यहरू निर्माण भयो भने अरु जात जातिहरूलाई धपाउँछन्, त्यहाका सानो जनसंख्या भएका आदिवासी जनजातिहरूको अधिकार खोस्नेछन् र उही जातिको हुने खानेले शोषण दमन, उत्पीडन गर्नेछन् भन्ने भ्रमहरू समेत पाल्ने व्यक्तिहरू छन् । यथार्थ के हो भने नेपालका प्रत्येक जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत समुदायले आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार प्रयोग गरी एकल पहिचान वा समग्र पहिचान सहितको स्वायत्त वा उपस्वायत्तता प्रयोग गर्नु पर्नेहुन्छ । संयुक्त राष्ट्रसङ्घले सुनिश्चित गरेको अल्पसंख्यकको अधिकार उपयोग गर्न पाउनेछन् । जातीय स्वायत्त राज्यहरूमा हुनेखालेले रजाई गर्छ भन्नेसन्दर्भमा जातीय स्वायत्त राज्यको संविधान बनाउँदा संरचना र प्रक्रियागत हिसाबबाटै वर्गीय, लैङ्गकि, क्षेत्रगत र अन्य विभेदहरू अन्त्य गर्ने व्यवस्थाहरू सुनिश्चित गर्नु पर्दछ ।
नेपाल जस्तो जातीय विविधता सहित एकै ठाउँमा धेरैजातजातिको बसोवास भएको तर एउटै जातजातीको बाहुल्यता नभएकोले जातीय स्वायत्तता असम्भव भन्ने भ्रमसमेत रहेको पाइएको छ । नेपालका बाहुन क्षेत्री र पहाडी दलितमा कामी मात्र नेपालका ७५ वटै जिल्लामा छरिएर बसेका छन् । नेपालका आदिवासी जनजातिहरूमध्ये अधिकांश निश्चित भू-भागमा बसोबास गरि आएका छन् । नेपालका आदिवासी जनजातिहरूले आफ्नो भूमीलाई शासकहरू कै कारणले गुमाउन पुगेका र अन्य जातीहरू छरिन पुगेका हुन् । यस मानेमा चीनको एउटा आदिवासी स्वायत्त क्षेत्रमा हानहरूको जनसंख्या ८५ प्रतिशत छ तर १५ प्रतिशत जनसंख्या भएको आदिवासीहरूको स्वायत्तता छ ।
आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार र स्वायत्ता विखण्डनकारी हो भन्ने भ्रम पाल्नेहरू पनि थुप्रै छन् । नेपालका आदिवासी जनजाति र मधेसीहरूले आत्मनिर्णय सहितको जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत स्वायत्तताका मागहरू राखेर आन्दोलन गर्दै आएका छन् । यद्यपि सरकारका जिम्मेवार पदाधिकारी समेतले नेपालको पक्षमा भएका महासन्धि र पक्षमा मतदान गरेका घोषणपत्रमा भएका आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार र स्वायत्तताका प्रावधानहरूलाई बुझ्न नसकेको वा बुझ्पचाउन खोजेकोले भ्रमहरू झन् मौलाइरहेको छ । आर्थिक, सामाजिक तथा सांस्कृतिक अधिकार सम्बन्धी अ्न्तराष्ट्रिय प्रतिज्ञापत्रको भाग १ धारा १ ले सबै जनतालाई आत्मनिर्णको अधिकार दिएको छ सो अधिकारको प्रयोग गरी उनीहरू स्वतन्त्रतापूर्वक आफ्नो राजनीतिक हैसियत निर्धारण गर्ने र स्वतन्त्रतापूर्वक आफ्नो आर्थिक, सामाजिक तथा सांस्कृतिक विकासमा लाग्ने अधिकार दिएको छ । संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघको महासभाले १३ सेप्टेम्बर २००७ मा पारित गरेको आदिवासी जनजातिहरूको अधिकार सम्बन्धी संयुक्त राष्ट्रसङ्घीय घोषणपत्रको धारा ३ अनुसार 'आदिवासीहरूलाई आत्मानिर्णयको अधिकार हुनेछ । यो अधिकारलाई प्रयोग गरी आफ्ना राजनीतिक हैसियत निर्धारण गर्न स्वतन्त्र छन् र आफ्नो आर्थिक, सामाजिक र साँंस्कृतिक विकासलाई हासिल गर्न स्वतन्त्र छन्' भनी स्पष्ट पारिएको छ । त्यस्तै धारा ४ अनुसार 'आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार प्रयोग गर्दा आदिवासीहरूलाई आफ्नो आन्तरिक र स्थानीय विषयहरूमा स्वायत्तता वा स्वशासनका साथै स्वायत्त कार्यका लागि वित्तीय व्यवस्था र साधनहरूको समेत अधिकार छ ।' यसरी घोषणापत्रको धारा ३ र ४ ले आदिवासी जनजातिहरूलाई आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकारसहित जातीय स्वायत्तता लिने वा जातीय स्वशासन लिने दुवैमध्ये एक राज्ने अधिकार दिन्छ । नेपालका आदिवासी जनजातिहरूले खोजेको आत्मनिर्णको अधिकारसहित जातीय स्वायत्तताको अधिकारलाई यी प्रावधानहरूले कानुनी हैसियत प्रदान गर्दछ । नेपालको सन्दर्भमा आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार सहितको जातीय, भाषिक र क्षेत्रगत स्वायत्तता सुनिश्चित नभएको खण्डमा बरु विखण्डनको सम्भावना टड्कारो रहनेछ तर यस्तो अधिकारको सुनिश्चितताबाट भने विखण्डनका सम्भावनाहरू रहने छैनन् ।
त्यसैगरी आर्थिक स्रोत सम्बन्धी, बाइसे चौबिसे कालमा र्फकने सम्बन्धी, वर्गीय मुक्ति खोज्नेहरूका लागि जातीय स्वायत्तताको कुरा संकीर्ण सम्प्रदायिक सोच सम्बन्धी जस्ता थुप्रै भ्रमहरू विद्यमान छन् । यी भ्रमहरूको पहिचान गरी सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्यको स्थापना गर्ने हाम्रो दायित्य हो । त्यसैले यस्ता भ्रममा नअलमलिकन रगतसंँग सहिदहरूले साटेका कसम र सपनालाई पूरा गर्नका लागि सबैको अस्तित्व, अधिकारलाई स्वीकार/सुनिश्चित गर्नु आवश्यक भए अनुरुप संविधान निर्माण प्रक्रियामा सक्रिय सहभागी भई असल संविधान निर्माण गर्न सके मात्र गणतन्त्रको संस्थागत विकास भई नेपालमा एक सङ्घीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक राज्यले सार्थकता पाउनेछ ।
Friday, June 5, 2009
Article from Gorkhapatra
| अल्पसङ्ख्यक तथा सीमान्तकृतको परिभाषा, हक र अधिकार |
| त्रिभुवनचन्द्र वाग्ले |
| संविधानसभाको अल्पसङ्ख्यक तथा सीमान्तकृत समुदायको हक अधिकार संरक्षण समितिले आफ्नोतर्फबाट संविधानमा सो समुदायको हकअधिकार सुरक्षित गर्नका लागि विभिन्न प्रावधानसहितको प्रस्ताव पेश गरेको छ । यसअघि आदिवासी जनजाति उत्थान राष्ट्रिय प्रतिष्ठान ऐनले विभिन्न ५९ जातिलाई आदिवासी जनजाति, स्थानीय विकास मन्त्रालयको २०५४ चैत २८ गतेको निर्णय अनुसार कानुन तथा सरकारको निर्णयले २३ जातिलाई दलित र सरकार र संयुक्त लोकतान्त्रिक मधेसी मोर्चासँगको सम्झौताले झण्डै चार दर्जन जातिलाई मधेसी भनी पहिचान वा परिभाषित गरिसकेको छ । निकटवर्ती सरकारले मधेसी समुदायसँग गरेको सहमतिमा आफूहरूलाई "मधेसी" भनिएपछि मुलुककमा विभिन्न जातिहरूले त्यसविरुद्ध ठूलै प्रतिरोध गरे र सरकारले तराई -मधेस) का सबै आदिवासीहरू मधेसी होइनन् भनेर स्पष्टिकरण दिनु पर्यो । अहिले पालो आएको छ, को को अल्पसङ्ख्यक, सीमान्तकृत र वहिष्करणमा पारिएको समुदाय हुन् ? भन्ने परिभाषा तयार गर्ने । सो समितिले भने अनुसार "अल्पसङ्ख्यक भन्नाले राज्यद्वारा सबैखाले विभेद उत्पीडनमा पारिएका समुदायलाई सम्झनु पर्दछ सो शब्दले यस्तो विभेद र उत्पीडन भोग्दै आएका कम जनसङ्ख्या भएको जातीय, धार्मिक वा भाषिक समुदायलाईसमेत जनाउँदछ ।" यो परिभाषामा भनिएको "अल्पसङ्ख्यक भन्नाले राज्यद्वारा सबैखाले विभेद उत्पीडनमा पारिएका समुदायलाई सम्झनु पर्दछ भन्ने बाक्याशंले यति ठूलो दायरा राखेको छ कि सबै नेपाली जात/समुदाय कुनै न कुनै अर्थमा "अल्पसङ्ख्यक" हुन् । अर्को बाक्याशंमा "कम जनसंख्या भएका जातीय, धार्मिक वा भाषिक समुदायलाईसमेत जनाउँदछ ।" भनेर कमको परिभाषा गरिएको छैन । त्यसैले त्यो कम भनेको कति हो ? भन्ने प्रश्न निरुपण नभएसम्म्ा यो परिभाषाले "भूमिसुधारको खरिदार, रकम बुझिलिंए भरपाई गरिदिएँ" भन्नेभन्दा कुनै स्पष्टता राख्दैन । को हो खरिदार ? कति रकम बुझिलिएको हो ? कहिले लिएको हो? किन लिएको हो ? यो परिभाषा अनुसार कणर्ालीवासी सबैजाति अल्पसङ्ख्यक हुन् । अनि २०५८ सालको जनगणना अनुसार ३५ लाख ९३ हजार ४९६ जनसंख्या भएको क्षेत्रीभन्दा भन्दा २८ लाख ९६ हजार ४७७ जनसंख्या भएको ब्राहृमण अल्पसंख्यक हुनेभयो । यसैगरी, १६४ जनसंख्या भएको कुसुण्डाभन्दा ६५८ जनसंख्या भएको राउटे बहुसङख्यक हुनेभयो । यसैगरी समितिले "सीमान्तकृत समुदाय भन्नाले अर्थिक, सामाजिक, शैक्षिक, स्वास्थ्य, राजनीति, जातीय, धार्मिक, भाषिक, लैङ्गिक वा यौनिकरूपमा पछाडि पारिएको र सो शब्दले अति सीमान्तकृत एवं लोपोन्मुख समुदायलाईसमेत जनाउँदछ ।" भनेको छ । लोपोन्मुख र अतिसीमान्तकृतलाई एउटै परिभाषाले बुझाइने प्रयास गरिएको छ जबकि लोपान्मुख भनेको सङ्ख्यासँग र सीमान्तकृत भन्नाले विकास -मानव विकास सूचकाङ्क) सम्बन्धित पक्ष हो । धेरै जनसङ्ख्या भएको जाति पनि मानव विकास सूचकाङ्कको कारण सीमान्तकृत हुन सक्दछ । यस्तै, समितिले वहिष्करणमा पारिएको समुदाय भन्नाले जातीय विभेद र छुवाछूतमा पारिएको, भाषिक, अर्थिक, सामाजिक, धार्मिक, साँस्कृतिक, लैङ्गिक वा यौनिक वा क्षेत्रीय विभेद र उत्पीडनमा परी वा मानसिक अशक्तताका कारण राज्यसत्तामा समावेश हुन नपाएका समुदायलाई सम्झनु पर्दछ । यसरी हेर्दा मानसिक अशक्तलाई पनि राज्यसत्तामा समावेश गराउनु पर्ने हुन्छ । त्यो अशक्तता भनेको के हो ? के यो सम्भव छ, सबैखाले मानसिक अशक्तलाई राज्यसत्तामा समावेश गराउन ? यसबाहेक मुलुक अब जातीय प्रकृतिका परिभाषा र विभाजनबाट गुज्रने भएको छ, गजव त के छ भने एउटै व्यक्ति पनि एक सन्दर्भमा दलित र अर्को सन्दर्भमा क्रमशः मधेसी, वहिष्करणमा पारिएको समुदाय, लोपान्मुख, क्षेत्रीय उत्पीडन वा लैङ्गिक विभेदमा परेको र सीमान्तकृत समुदायको व्यक्ति हुने भएको छ । कतिवटा परिचय पत्र बोकेर एउटा नेपालीले आफूलाई पहिचान गराउने हो ? परिभाषा र पहिचानके गोलचक्करमा अहिले आदिवासी जनजाति उत्थान राष्ट्रिय प्रतिष्ठान र दलित आयोग रहेछका छन् । आफूलाई नयाँ जातिका रूपमा सूचिकृत गराउने पर्ने मागसहित प्रतिस्ठान र आयोगमा पटकपटक निवेदन परेका छन् भने कतिपय जातिले आफूलाई कुनै एक समुदायमा सूचिकृत गरेको भन्दै सो सूचीबाट आफ्नो जातिलाई हटाउन माग गरेको छ । आज कसैले कसैलाई सीमान्तकृत वा दलित भनिदिने भोलि अर्कोले अर्कालाई लोपान्मुख भनिदिने छाडा प्रवृत्तिले अन्त्ात्वगत्वा जातीय द्वोषलाई मलजल गर्ने छ । वर्तमानमा हचुवाको आधारमा जातीय विभाजन र पहिचानजस्तो गम्भीर विषयमा निर्णय गरियो भने त्यसले भविष्यलाई विवादित बनाउन सक्ने भएकाले यतातिर पनि सबैले ध्यान दिनु आवश्यक छ । हुन त सो समितिले विभिन्न सार्वजनिक माध्यममार्फत सूचना प्रकाशित गरी प्राप्त भएका सुझावलाई समेत आधार बनाइ तयार गरेको यस्तो परिभाषालाई हचुवा भनि हाल्न नमिल्ल्ाा तर "कम जनसंख्या भएको जाति" भनेर हचुवाकै भरमा संविधानबनाउनका लागि प्रस्ताव पेश गर्नु स्वभाविक हँुदैन । हुन त विश्वकै सन्दर्भमा पनि यति नै जनसंख्या भएको जातिलाई अल्पसंख्या भनिने भनी परिभाषा तयार गरिएको छैन । त्यसैले नेपालमा पनि यसरी तोक्नु प्राविधिकरुपमा समस्या होला तर कुन जनसंख्याको एक प्रतिशत पनि जनसङ्ख्या नभएको जातिलाई अल्पसङ्ख्यक भनिने हो कि लोपोन्मुख यसका बारेमा पनि स्पष्ट हुनुपर्दछ । अहिले गरिएको परिभाषाले भविस्यमा जातीय विवादका समस्या ल्याउन नसकुन् भनेर आजै होसियार हुनु आवश्यक देखिएको छ । |
Thursday, June 4, 2009
By Biswas Baral. From kantipur
By Biswas Baral
The future course of Nepali politics could not be more obscure. The largest party in the Constituent Assembly has been left out of the new coalition government. The 22 parties that are in the coalition have more differences than they have let on during the government formation process. As the dust settles, these schisms are bound to come to the fore erecting many now unseen hurdles; running the government with the UCPN (Maoist) ramping up its protests both inside and outside the legislature-parliament will be tougher still.
As of this writing, the jockeying for ministerial berths continues. Girija Prasad Koirala has recommended his daughter Sujata for the post of foreign minister to the chagrin of virtually all of the Nepali Congress top-brass. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) — or the Bijay Kumar Gacchadar faction, at least — for its part, has also upped the ante by demanding nine ministerial berths while CPN-UML is still keen on keeping key portfolios like Home and Finance.
It is hard to see how such a fractious coalition will hold together for any length of time while the Maoists bay for blood from the opposition bench. But political uncertainty is hardly a new phenomenon in a country where not a single government, not even the majority NC government post 1990 revolution, has been able to complete its full term. If there is a silver-lining to this dubious national record, it's that the bigger problems in Nepali politics seem to stem not from diverse demands of ethnic and linguistic communities — though they certainly have been instrumental in complicating national politics — but from the utter incompetence of our political leaders.Many suppressed voices began to make themselves heard after the reinstitution of democracy in 1990. Yet, the monolithic culture imposed from above as well as the lack of political awareness meant that voices of dissent were few and far between. Instead, what people asked for was that their basic needs be taken care of: that they have enough to eat, easy road access to trade their wares and electricity to go about their daily business unhindered. Demands for ethnic and linguistic rights were raised here and there but without the political knowledge imparted by the Maoist rebellion, most of the rural people were even unaware of their socio-cultural rights. This suggests that even now the bigger problem in Nepali politics is not harmonising the diverse demands of its countless ethnic and linguistic communities — which didn't surface before the 2006 April Revolution — but perennial clutches that bedevil Nepali politics: misgovernance, corruption, indifference to people's needs, centralisation of important resources.Thus the ethnic and regional issues might not be as hard to untangle as they seem at the outset. First and the foremost, people want a semblance of peace and political stability so that they can go about their daily lives without any kind of fear and intimidation. Then they want easy availability of drinking water and electricity, schooling for their kids and to be able to live happy and healthy lives. Thus, for the new federal Nepal it is vital to put people first while designing any development programme. For far too long, a section of the population, centered in and around the capital, has enjoyed all the privileges at the cost of the majority living in rural Nepal. For all these reasons (and some more), so much rides on the new constitution and a rigorous adherence to its provisions. Nonetheless, one thing's for sure: It won't be to the satisfaction of everyone.
At this point of time, what make Nepalis pessimistic about their future are the uncertainties that lie ahead: Will the new statute address their needs? Will it invite a new cycle of violence?In such a climate, taking it a day at a time will be hard. As professor of psychology at Harvard, Daniel Gilbert, writes in The New York Times: "...people feel worse when something bad might occur than when something bad will occur... An uncertain future leaves us stranded in an unhappy present with nothing to do but wait."
Nepalis, who have known nothing but uncertainties are justifiably pessimistic about the country's future political course. Yes, amid uncertainties also lies hope. But hope will be hard to come by if the political parties cannot give a clear vision of new Nepal in the next couple of years, by which time, hopefully, we shall have a viable constitution.
The constitution will be important not because it will cure the country of all its ills — far from it. But even if it is able to chart the country's future with some certainty, Nepalis will be able to breathe a sigh of relief. Then, it will be over to the politicians. Let them understand that it's not pains of sticking to a difficult path that keeps Nepalis awake at night, but not knowing where they are headed at all.
The future course of Nepali politics could not be more obscure. The largest party in the Constituent Assembly has been left out of the new coalition government. The 22 parties that are in the coalition have more differences than they have let on during the government formation process. As the dust settles, these schisms are bound to come to the fore erecting many now unseen hurdles; running the government with the UCPN (Maoist) ramping up its protests both inside and outside the legislature-parliament will be tougher still.
As of this writing, the jockeying for ministerial berths continues. Girija Prasad Koirala has recommended his daughter Sujata for the post of foreign minister to the chagrin of virtually all of the Nepali Congress top-brass. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) — or the Bijay Kumar Gacchadar faction, at least — for its part, has also upped the ante by demanding nine ministerial berths while CPN-UML is still keen on keeping key portfolios like Home and Finance.
It is hard to see how such a fractious coalition will hold together for any length of time while the Maoists bay for blood from the opposition bench. But political uncertainty is hardly a new phenomenon in a country where not a single government, not even the majority NC government post 1990 revolution, has been able to complete its full term. If there is a silver-lining to this dubious national record, it's that the bigger problems in Nepali politics seem to stem not from diverse demands of ethnic and linguistic communities — though they certainly have been instrumental in complicating national politics — but from the utter incompetence of our political leaders.Many suppressed voices began to make themselves heard after the reinstitution of democracy in 1990. Yet, the monolithic culture imposed from above as well as the lack of political awareness meant that voices of dissent were few and far between. Instead, what people asked for was that their basic needs be taken care of: that they have enough to eat, easy road access to trade their wares and electricity to go about their daily business unhindered. Demands for ethnic and linguistic rights were raised here and there but without the political knowledge imparted by the Maoist rebellion, most of the rural people were even unaware of their socio-cultural rights. This suggests that even now the bigger problem in Nepali politics is not harmonising the diverse demands of its countless ethnic and linguistic communities — which didn't surface before the 2006 April Revolution — but perennial clutches that bedevil Nepali politics: misgovernance, corruption, indifference to people's needs, centralisation of important resources.Thus the ethnic and regional issues might not be as hard to untangle as they seem at the outset. First and the foremost, people want a semblance of peace and political stability so that they can go about their daily lives without any kind of fear and intimidation. Then they want easy availability of drinking water and electricity, schooling for their kids and to be able to live happy and healthy lives. Thus, for the new federal Nepal it is vital to put people first while designing any development programme. For far too long, a section of the population, centered in and around the capital, has enjoyed all the privileges at the cost of the majority living in rural Nepal. For all these reasons (and some more), so much rides on the new constitution and a rigorous adherence to its provisions. Nonetheless, one thing's for sure: It won't be to the satisfaction of everyone.
At this point of time, what make Nepalis pessimistic about their future are the uncertainties that lie ahead: Will the new statute address their needs? Will it invite a new cycle of violence?In such a climate, taking it a day at a time will be hard. As professor of psychology at Harvard, Daniel Gilbert, writes in The New York Times: "...people feel worse when something bad might occur than when something bad will occur... An uncertain future leaves us stranded in an unhappy present with nothing to do but wait."
Nepalis, who have known nothing but uncertainties are justifiably pessimistic about the country's future political course. Yes, amid uncertainties also lies hope. But hope will be hard to come by if the political parties cannot give a clear vision of new Nepal in the next couple of years, by which time, hopefully, we shall have a viable constitution.
The constitution will be important not because it will cure the country of all its ills — far from it. But even if it is able to chart the country's future with some certainty, Nepalis will be able to breathe a sigh of relief. Then, it will be over to the politicians. Let them understand that it's not pains of sticking to a difficult path that keeps Nepalis awake at night, but not knowing where they are headed at all.
Interview from Kantipur
I am an optimistic person
Surya P. Subedi has just been appointed the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Cambodia by the Human Rights Council, a tough job by any standard. The UN and the Cambodian government have had thorny relationship on the issue of human rights. Although the mandate remains the same, the Special Representative position was changed to that of the Special Rapporteur, following the resignation of Yash Ghai last year. Ghai suffered personal attacks and even a visa ban at the hands of the Cambodian government. Subedi is a Professor of International Law at University of Leeds and a practicing Barrister in England. He was appointed an honorary OBE in 2004 by Queen Elizabeth for his services to international law and Britain-Nepal relations. Surya Subedi spoke to John Narayan Parajuli about his new role and lessons Nepal can draw from Cambodia.
Q: Why were you appointed the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Cambodia?
Subedi: I believe it was because of my standing as a truly independent, impartial, and objective academic; my expertise in international law in general and international human rights law in particular; and my familiarity with legal, political and human rights issues in Asia in general and Cambodia in particular.
I worked as a General Editor of an annual pan Asian publication -- the Asian Yearbook of International Law -- for six years. It enabled me to interact with academics and other intellectuals from many Asian countries, including Cambodia. Perhaps being a Nepali citizen helped. Nepal has no axe to grind against any nation. We Nepali people are generally liked in international circles for our friendly nature and hard working and sincere character. I believe a well-qualified, hard-working and sincere Nepali is well placed to serve in any high international positions.
Q: The UN and the Cambodian government have been at loggerheads over the issue of human rights for quite some time and that makes your job very challenging, doesn't it?
Subedi: Yes, it does make my role challenging. But again the very position of a UN Special Rapporteur is a challenging one -- to perform a difficult and at the same time a noble task. I regard this as a huge privilege and a great opportunity to make my contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights. Promoting human rights and speaking for the oppressed, marginalised and disadvantaged people is always a challenge. I am committed to human rights and the rule of law nationally and internationally and I would do whatever it takes to promote and protect the rights of Cambodian people. That is my main objective. But my approach would be a constructive one -- designed to achieve results rather than unnecessarily antagonizing people.
Q: Your predecessor Yash Ghai resigned in frustration. There is a growing concern among civil society leaders in Cambodia that you might receive the same kind of hostile treatment from the government just like your predecessors.
Subedi: Let us wait and see how the people and the government of Cambodia will deal with me when I begin my task. I am by nature an optimistic person. I was encouraged by the tone and content of the speech delivered by the Cambodian ambassador to the UN after the decision by the UN Human Rights Council to appoint me to this position. His approach was a constructive one and he said his government would co-operate with me. I hope the government authorities realize that the progress, prosperity and peace in Cambodia lies in greater respect for human rights and the dignity of each and every Cambodian citizen.
Q: Does your understanding of conflict in Nepal add value to your work in Cambodia, and vice versa?
Subedi: Yes I believe that my study and analysis of the situation in Nepal for a long time as an independent and objective person will help me to understand and appreciate better the situation in Cambodia and the plight of the people there. I have been writing quite frequently and for a long time in both the Nepali and international media on the constitutional, legal and political situation in Nepal and have advanced my own views on how to make the constitutional, legal and political system in Nepal a fair, inclusive and equitable one for all. Likewise, I hope the experience that I will gain from my work in Cambodia will enable me to make a contribution to improve the human rights situation in Nepal, and to encourage political leaders to embrace democracy and democratic culture both in their words and deeds. I have said elsewhere that democracy has come to the people and the country of Nepal but not to the political leaders. I do not think Nepalese leaders have been able to articulate any foreign policy for the country. The time to go out with a begging bowl to foreign countries should be over. It only lowers Nepal's standing internationally and exposes the naïve and shallow character of Nepal's political leaders. No foreigners will build Nepal. Foreign countries have their own agenda behind whatever assistance they may provide to Nepal. People in Nepal should start believing in themselves and put their act together to build the nation.
Q: Cambodia has had a long period of political transition with occasional setbacks between the Paris Peace Accord signed in 1991 and now, how would you describe the process, and is there a lesson Nepal can learn from it?
Subedi: The lesson Nepal can learn from the Cambodian experience is to abide by the letter and spirit of past agreements reached among the major political actors. Once people start deviating from their own commitments they lose the trust and confidence of other people. Such a breakdown in trust and confidence costs the country and the people dearly. This is what seems to be happening in Nepal. Political leaders should lead the way and set good examples at least in their public life. You are right to point out the commitments expressed in the Paris Peace Accord concerning the situation in Cambodia. But the process to implement the commitments has been frustratingly slow. That is why Cambodia finds itself in this situation. In my personal opinion, both Cambodia and Nepal should honestly honour and implement the provisions in the past agreements to move the country forward so that they can achieve higher economic growth, political stability and social harmony in order to ensure that the fruits of democracy reach to as many people as possible
Q: Is there a chance that the current transitional period in Nepal will drag that long?
Subedi: No it should not last that long in Nepal. I am hopeful that the constitution will be written and promulgated within the stipulated time frame. There is no other way out and any sensible political leader should have realised this. However, writing a new constitution is not an end itself. It is a vehicle to advance the society in a more civilised manner. For this, the political process should take the issues of impunity, transitional justice, and respect for human rights as seriously as the process of writing the new constitution. It is where people like us with independent and objective minds and no party political ties have a role to play in applying more pressure on the government and all political leaders and assist the UN agencies such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in playing a more meaningful and effective role in Nepal.Q: What is your take on the ongoing debate and controversy surrounding the issue of army integration in Nepal?
Subedi: The issue relating to the integration of the Maoist fighters into the Nepal army is basically a political one and should be resolved on the basis of the past agreements reached. The rank and file of the foot soldiers in both camps are the sons and daughters of the same poor Nepali people. They both have same aspirations for themselves and for their country and have similar traits. It should not be a problem to bring them together. There should be a programme of training to depoliticise the mind-set of Maoist fighters fit for a professional army loyal to the nation and the people as a whole rather than to their political masters. The problem may lie in the integration into the upper levels of the military hierarchy as the people in the existing Nepal Army would like to safeguard their current position and their prospects for promotion etc. But the number at the top end of the scale is small and a political solution should and could be found to address such concerns.
Q: What are your hopes and fears for the Nepali peace process?
Subedi: I am optimistic. In terms of the political change, so much has been achieved in Nepal. Some of them have been unprecedented in the world. Now the time has come to capitalize on this political achievement and focus on the overall nation-building process in unison. The fears would of course not necessarily be the derailment of the peace process because it is not a viable option for anyone, but the lack of foresight, wisdom and vision on the party of political leaders resulting in constant bickering and squabbling.
Interview from Kantipur
India has always interfered in Nepal
Barsha Man Pun 'Ananta', a former Deputy Commander of the Maoist People's Liberation Army (PLA), is known to be a close confidant of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. On Friday evening, two days before the Maoists decided to remove Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal from office, Ananta spoke to Akhilesh Upadhyay and Aditya Adhikari about the Army Chief controversy. Contrary to Maoist actions since Friday, Ananta claimed there was no option but to gain consensus from the other political parties before removing the Army Chief from his position.
Q: What could be the solution for the current controversy regarding the removal of Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal?Ananta: From a constitutional and legal point of view, the solution is easy. The government is allowed to ask for clarification, promotions and transfers of officials of the organs under its control. But because the issue regarding the Army Chief has become a controversial national issue, the only option is to form a minimum consensus with other parties in the government and in the opposition and then take action against the Army chief.
Q: What are the chief reasons that your party wishes to remove the CoAS?
Ananta: We've been saying this publicly. There are three major incidents and a number of other smaller ones, where the CoAS has disobeyed the government and gone against the principles of civilian supremacy and democratic control. The government then felt that the CoAS was displaying insubordination and asked him for clarification on his position, in which he implies that the Army does not fall under the control of the government. He says that the president is responsible for appointing him and only the president can remove him. Indirectly, he has also claimed that the government doesn't have the right to ask for clarification. This has further convinced the Maoist party of the Army chief's insubordination and it therefore decided to take action against him.
The other claims that have been made in public - that the Maoists want to consolidate their control over the Army, that they want to establish a one-party state, that they want to integrate the entire Maoist army into the national one -- these are only false rumours.
Q: If the clarification had been more conciliatory, would you have desisted from attempting to take action against him?
Ananta: Yes. There was a situation where the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) was saying that the Army was violating its peace accord obligations. Civil society was saying the same thing. In this context, there was no option but to ask the Army chief for a clarification. We had thought that the clarification would be “soft” and that we would easily be able to find a resolution acceptable to all. But the clarification displayed such deep insubordination, and the Army chief, instead of trying to resolve the issue with the government, went to get the help of various political parties and diplomatic missions. This we felt was the incorrect thing to do.
Q: There were only a few months left before the Army chief's retirement. Why did you decide to take action against him and bring so many problems upon yourself, when it was only a few months before an easy solution could have been found?
Ananta: The row with the Army had reached a climax a few months ago during the controversy over recruitment. But the government displayed patience at that time. There were demands in the party that a clarification should be demanded of the CoAS and that action should be taken against him, but the prime minister managed to calm these voices down. He called a meeting of the five parties and said, “Recruitment has already taken place. Let's take a political decision regarding this and accept it.” The court took the same decision later. But the court also implied that the decision to recruit was wrong as it told the Army not to do so again.
So the government initially tried to reconcile differences with the Army. But these differences increased as the Army continued to disobey the government. We were forced to think of what tradition such moves by the Army would set. They have disobeyed the government on recruitment, then on the renewal of tenure of generals, then on the issue of the National Games. If this continues to be accepted by the government, the next Army Chief may also continue this tradition, and the power of the government over the Army will itself come under question. So we tried to establish the principle of the government's supremacy over the Army. There was no other objective to the government's attempt to remove the CoAS.
Q: Had your party foreseen that this attempt would bring such polarization among political parties and civil society?
Ananta: The chain of events turned out to be very different from what we had thought. We had thought that it falls under the rights of the government to remove the Army Chief. The five parties in government had also already agreed to it. The chief opposition party had also been informed through various means that the government would at any time seek clarification from the Army Chief. Various diplomatic establishments had already been informed. But there was unnecessary reaction from political parties and diplomatic missions. If the CPN-UML had been able to come up with a clear policy towards this issue, it wouldn't have become so controversial.
Q: What are your views regarding India's response?
Ananta: India has always interfered in Nepal and dictated to us what to do. It has its interests here. The general Nepali public feels this, as does the political class. Loktantra has now come to the country, and India had been taking a softer position than before. But with this incident, it seems to us that India has again gone back to its old way of doing things here.
Q: Why do you feel that India reacted so strongly to your attempt to remove the Army Chief?
Ananta: A story has been constructed that the Maoists wish to capture state power and take over the Army. This is false, but they have been influenced by this story. India's position also indicates that perhaps it is not very positively disposed towards the integration of armies and constitution drafting processes. The results of the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections were not in accordance with Indian desires. Even after that things didn't work according to their plan. They felt their relations with the Maoist-led government had become difficult. Their strong reaction to this recent incident seems to be an expression of this.
Q: There is an impression that the Indians are upset with the Maoists attempts to cultivate China.
Ananta: We have an open border with India. Tens of thousands of our citizens go to India to seek employment. On occasion if we want to travel from one area of Nepal to another, it is easier to go through India. Tens of thousands of Indians from Bengal and Bihar come to Kathmandu to do business. We cannot stop this right now. We understand these realities. But if anyone tries to use these realities in their self-interest, this will not be acceptable to us.
That's why we've been trying to develop more neutral, equidistant relations between India and China. But it seems that India is not happy with this. If this is true, then India has to change its mindset. It is developing its economy, trying to become a global power. But if it's constantly engaged in fights with its immediate neighbours, how will it be able to develop as a global power? For that to happen, it has to demonstrate that it is large hearted.
Q: How will the process of integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants proceed after this controversy regarding the attempt to remove the Army Chief?
Ananta: There is the special committee that has two representatives each from the four major parties. This will create the policy for integration and rehabilitation. A technical committee has also been formed of eight members, who, although nominated by the parties, consider themselves to be and are considered by the members of the special committee to be neutral experts. This committee will give recommendations on the modalities of integration and rehabilitation.
Even though work has somewhat halted over the past two weeks, some work is still going on. We recently visited the cantonments. We got a briefing from and held discussions with the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee (JMCC), Peace Ministry, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and the expert from UNMIN
Barsha Man Pun 'Ananta', a former Deputy Commander of the Maoist People's Liberation Army (PLA), is known to be a close confidant of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. On Friday evening, two days before the Maoists decided to remove Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal from office, Ananta spoke to Akhilesh Upadhyay and Aditya Adhikari about the Army Chief controversy. Contrary to Maoist actions since Friday, Ananta claimed there was no option but to gain consensus from the other political parties before removing the Army Chief from his position.
Q: What could be the solution for the current controversy regarding the removal of Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal?Ananta: From a constitutional and legal point of view, the solution is easy. The government is allowed to ask for clarification, promotions and transfers of officials of the organs under its control. But because the issue regarding the Army Chief has become a controversial national issue, the only option is to form a minimum consensus with other parties in the government and in the opposition and then take action against the Army chief.
Q: What are the chief reasons that your party wishes to remove the CoAS?
Ananta: We've been saying this publicly. There are three major incidents and a number of other smaller ones, where the CoAS has disobeyed the government and gone against the principles of civilian supremacy and democratic control. The government then felt that the CoAS was displaying insubordination and asked him for clarification on his position, in which he implies that the Army does not fall under the control of the government. He says that the president is responsible for appointing him and only the president can remove him. Indirectly, he has also claimed that the government doesn't have the right to ask for clarification. This has further convinced the Maoist party of the Army chief's insubordination and it therefore decided to take action against him.
The other claims that have been made in public - that the Maoists want to consolidate their control over the Army, that they want to establish a one-party state, that they want to integrate the entire Maoist army into the national one -- these are only false rumours.
Q: If the clarification had been more conciliatory, would you have desisted from attempting to take action against him?
Ananta: Yes. There was a situation where the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) was saying that the Army was violating its peace accord obligations. Civil society was saying the same thing. In this context, there was no option but to ask the Army chief for a clarification. We had thought that the clarification would be “soft” and that we would easily be able to find a resolution acceptable to all. But the clarification displayed such deep insubordination, and the Army chief, instead of trying to resolve the issue with the government, went to get the help of various political parties and diplomatic missions. This we felt was the incorrect thing to do.
Q: There were only a few months left before the Army chief's retirement. Why did you decide to take action against him and bring so many problems upon yourself, when it was only a few months before an easy solution could have been found?
Ananta: The row with the Army had reached a climax a few months ago during the controversy over recruitment. But the government displayed patience at that time. There were demands in the party that a clarification should be demanded of the CoAS and that action should be taken against him, but the prime minister managed to calm these voices down. He called a meeting of the five parties and said, “Recruitment has already taken place. Let's take a political decision regarding this and accept it.” The court took the same decision later. But the court also implied that the decision to recruit was wrong as it told the Army not to do so again.
So the government initially tried to reconcile differences with the Army. But these differences increased as the Army continued to disobey the government. We were forced to think of what tradition such moves by the Army would set. They have disobeyed the government on recruitment, then on the renewal of tenure of generals, then on the issue of the National Games. If this continues to be accepted by the government, the next Army Chief may also continue this tradition, and the power of the government over the Army will itself come under question. So we tried to establish the principle of the government's supremacy over the Army. There was no other objective to the government's attempt to remove the CoAS.
Q: Had your party foreseen that this attempt would bring such polarization among political parties and civil society?
Ananta: The chain of events turned out to be very different from what we had thought. We had thought that it falls under the rights of the government to remove the Army Chief. The five parties in government had also already agreed to it. The chief opposition party had also been informed through various means that the government would at any time seek clarification from the Army Chief. Various diplomatic establishments had already been informed. But there was unnecessary reaction from political parties and diplomatic missions. If the CPN-UML had been able to come up with a clear policy towards this issue, it wouldn't have become so controversial.
Q: What are your views regarding India's response?
Ananta: India has always interfered in Nepal and dictated to us what to do. It has its interests here. The general Nepali public feels this, as does the political class. Loktantra has now come to the country, and India had been taking a softer position than before. But with this incident, it seems to us that India has again gone back to its old way of doing things here.
Q: Why do you feel that India reacted so strongly to your attempt to remove the Army Chief?
Ananta: A story has been constructed that the Maoists wish to capture state power and take over the Army. This is false, but they have been influenced by this story. India's position also indicates that perhaps it is not very positively disposed towards the integration of armies and constitution drafting processes. The results of the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections were not in accordance with Indian desires. Even after that things didn't work according to their plan. They felt their relations with the Maoist-led government had become difficult. Their strong reaction to this recent incident seems to be an expression of this.
Q: There is an impression that the Indians are upset with the Maoists attempts to cultivate China.
Ananta: We have an open border with India. Tens of thousands of our citizens go to India to seek employment. On occasion if we want to travel from one area of Nepal to another, it is easier to go through India. Tens of thousands of Indians from Bengal and Bihar come to Kathmandu to do business. We cannot stop this right now. We understand these realities. But if anyone tries to use these realities in their self-interest, this will not be acceptable to us.
That's why we've been trying to develop more neutral, equidistant relations between India and China. But it seems that India is not happy with this. If this is true, then India has to change its mindset. It is developing its economy, trying to become a global power. But if it's constantly engaged in fights with its immediate neighbours, how will it be able to develop as a global power? For that to happen, it has to demonstrate that it is large hearted.
Q: How will the process of integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants proceed after this controversy regarding the attempt to remove the Army Chief?
Ananta: There is the special committee that has two representatives each from the four major parties. This will create the policy for integration and rehabilitation. A technical committee has also been formed of eight members, who, although nominated by the parties, consider themselves to be and are considered by the members of the special committee to be neutral experts. This committee will give recommendations on the modalities of integration and rehabilitation.
Even though work has somewhat halted over the past two weeks, some work is still going on. We recently visited the cantonments. We got a briefing from and held discussions with the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee (JMCC), Peace Ministry, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and the expert from UNMIN
Interview from Kantipur
Ram Sharan Mahat has been at the centre stage of Nepali politics since the restoration of democracy in 1990. The technocrat-turned-politician first made his mark in the early 90s after he was appointed as the vice-chairman of the National Planning Commission by the Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala. Mahat has since consistently championed free-market policies. The former finance minister spoke to Akhilesh Upadhyay and Aditya Adhikari about the early 90s and his party's recent disenchantment with the Maoists.
Q: Is there common ground between the policies of the new government and the Maoist-led one that was in office for much of the past year?
Mahat: Even with the Maoist-led government, there are more commonalities than differences. Constitution making is our common agenda. Similarly, creating business confidence, restoring the confidence of the people in administration, delivery of service to the poor, reallocating resources to rural and backwards areas, special programmes for the deprived and marginalized sections. There are hardly any differences on these issues. But there is a huge difference between what the Maoists said and how they acted. Our problem with the Maoists was that their activities on the ground were contrary to what they publicly professed.
Q: So in terms of socio-economic side, there are commonalities between the way the former Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai approached his budget and the way the new government will?
Mahat: There are more areas of agreement than disagreement. But we also disagree significantly with the Maoists on many issues. Their focus was on distribution, not on production. We believe in production. Without creating production and employment opportunities you cannot raise the economic status of the people. They believed that distributing government resources would take care of everything. Similarly, they believed in using their party institutions and politicizing government institutions to deliver services. We strongly believe that government institutions should remain outside politics and apolitical. And we believe in the market forces, private and foreign investments. They weren't very well disposed to this idea. They believe in government intervention even in production and trading. They believe in re-nationalisation.
Q: You are seen as the architect of the liberalization policies of the 1990s. While that created wealth, do you
feel that you could have done better with a better distribution of that wealth?
Mahat: Of course. But distribution of wealth takes time, it cannot happen overnight. We could have done better, but even with the type of development we saw in the private sector, the living conditions at the bottom have improved a lot. Look at the real wages in the rural areas. Now it is difficult to get labour for agriculture, the wage rate is very high. Real wages have gone up. If you look at the National Living Standard Survey (NLSS), it shows that the consumption level of people across regions, across ecological bases, of all income groups have increased significantly. Employment opportunities have increased, there is demand for more labour, more employment. So while it is true that market forces increase disparity, it increases the income level of the poor also.
To raise the economic status of lower income groups, of course, you need a separate package of economic reforms. More consideration needs to be given to the social sector -- health, education, rural development, agriculture.
Q: The Nepali Congress-led government that followed the UML government of 1994 seemed to have followed the UML’s redistributive policies. do you think that the policies of the Maoist government will have an impact on the policies of the new government?
Mahat: Even in the early days our development programme, our budget distribution and expenditure pattern, the focus was on creating infrastructure in rural areas. We strongly believed that without basic infrastructure in place -- like access roads, electricity, education, basic health services -- no matter how much you spend for the downtrodden, it will have no meaning. And infrastructure is not created overnight, it takes time. Now you have started seeing results. Karnali is accessible, you have road links to Kalikot, Jumla. Districts that were not touched by road networks 10-15 years ago now have road access not just in their headquarters but practically in all VDCs. Electricity has reached to far corners of the country. That has helped a lot in improving the status of the common man. Because of improved infrastructure in rural areas, people are now producing for the market. Even from the far corners of Nepal, you see agricultural production coming into the market. So our emphasis was different.
People think that the UML launched populist programmes and the NC didn't. But we also launched populist programmes in those days. But we are poor in publicizing them. Like, land revenue authority was given completely to the VDCs. Practically, we don't raise any revenue from land. It's supposed to all go to VDCs, but they have also stopped collecting it. This was a populist programme. We started giving allowances to widows. This was our programme. There is a general impression that such a populist programme was started by the UML, but that is not true. Similarly, my budget introduced education allowance to Dalit children. Now it has been continued. There is huge assistance from the World Bank and other donors to this programme. Dalit children up to high school get a small monthly allowance. So we also introduced such populist programmes because there was an impression that we were not very populistic and didn't do much for the common man.
Q: How do you view the performance of the Maoist-led government, especially on the economic front?
Mahat: When Baburam Bhattarai introduced his budget we made a number of criticisms. All our criticisms have been validated except on the revenue front. They have been successful there. But they have used all sorts of means to raise revenue, some artificial means too. Like, they have been extracting money from the Nepal Oil Corporation (NOC). NOC has outstanding loans from the bank, interest bearing loans, so instead of making NOC pay back or service the interest bearing loans they are asking the government to pay back the government loan, which we gave of course in expectation of getting it back. The previous government was also collecting income tax from many public institutions like the central bank and the telecommunications corporation in advance just to inflate revenue collection. Such artificial tactics have been employed to show a boost in revenue collection. But nevertheless, they have been successful on the revenue collection front.
Other than that, they have failed on the development side and they have failed on other fronts.
Q: They say that a major reason they have failed is because the other parties did not allow them to form local development bodies through which spending could have been channeled.
Mahat: That is a ridiculous argument. Local bodies have not been in place for the past six or seven years. They did not exist even last year, but the delivery of development expenditure was 100%. In fact, rural expenditure is mainly channeled through user's committees. Community is the main vehicle for implementing rural development programmes. This has been the case for the last several years. If you go to the rural areas, you will see roads being built almost everywhere with government money with local participation. Even in the absence of elected local bodies, development activities are taking place. In other words, alternative mechanisms are in place.
The Maoist-led government failed because they allocated budgeted programmes, ill-conceived, half-baked programmes, without much study. They didn't allocate funds in well-studied, well-prepared programmes. They allocated huge sums of money without any preparation. But how can you spend money? Of course, there are financial rules and regulations that need to be followed. This is why they couldn't deliver.
The Maoists also failed miserably on the price front. The irony is that at the international level prices have been declining. Prices decline during a recession. Indian inflation is almost at 0 now. Fuel prices have gone down. But Nepal's inflation rate is going up. This is because of government mismanagement. There is more purchasing power in the hands of the people without production. Production should go side by side with income. The emphasis on distributive policies leads to easy money in the hands of the people, which leads to inflation. Bandas, hartals, disruptions in the supply chain are also responsible for this.
Q: Will the new government revisit the Army chief controversy and try to find a compromise with the Maoists, or will this issue now be ignored?
Mahat: It can simply be ignored because the whole issue is over now. The Maoists have resigned over the issue. This means that they have admitted their mistake. In any case, the present Chief of Army Staff will not remain in place for too long; it is just a matter of months.
Q: There has been some talk of adopting a “Sri Lankan military solution” against the Maoists. Are these factors likely to affect the way the new government deals with the Maoists?
Mahat: No. The main point is that the Maoists should internalize the peace process. Since they are still indulging in violent activities, killing people, intimidating other party workers, seizing property, there is strong resentment towards them. So people are suggesting that some strong-arm tactics must be used. The point is that the Maoists should change their habits. If they don't then these kinds of suggestions may gain ground.
Q: Do you think that there is a need to now revisit the 12-point agreement?
Mahat: The 12-point agreement was the starting point. It wasn't everything. It was followed by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and other agreements. With the passage of time, as new developments arise, these should also be incorporated. So those who say that a new basis for consensus is necessary may have a point.
Also some of the provisions of the CPA are outdated. Like, it is not necessary to confine the Army to the barracks. They cannot be treated at par with the Maoist combatants. The monarch is gone; there is a republic. The Army should be allowed to function in a normal way. The reason why the Army had to be confined in barracks was because there was a lurking fear that they may intervene and side with the king when Nepal became a republic. That issue is not valid any longer. They have completely cooperated with the republican process. Their role in the transition was very constructive.
Q: How do you view the role of the United Nation's Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) in the transition?
Mahat: UNMIN's role hasn't been very effective. It has come to light that the verification numbers were defective. Not just that, UNMIN's monitoring was also weak.
Q: To give the other side of the story, UNMIN says that it had to stick to the limited mandate given by the Nepali actors and that all the parties were part of the verification process.
Mahat: Their mandate is limited, but they have not been effective in performing even their limited mandate. They don't even take the daily role call. We were told in the beginning that there would be barbed wire and CCTV cameras monitoring the movements of the combatants. This is part of the CPA.
We relied too much on them during verification. And it's not true that everyone accepted the results. The Nepal Army had protested when the results were announced. They had submitted in writing that it was not satisfied with the results.
UNMIN was also not very balanced. They got scared if the Maoists tried to scare them. Even their reporting was biased. We have highlighted that many times. We expected too much from them. I have also worked in the UN. I have seen how laid back their working style is.
Q: Does UNMIN still have a role in Nepal's peace process?
Mahat: It is difficult for them to leave until the process of handing over arms is completed. But if they have to continue they have to be more objective and balanced.
Q: Is there common ground between the policies of the new government and the Maoist-led one that was in office for much of the past year?
Mahat: Even with the Maoist-led government, there are more commonalities than differences. Constitution making is our common agenda. Similarly, creating business confidence, restoring the confidence of the people in administration, delivery of service to the poor, reallocating resources to rural and backwards areas, special programmes for the deprived and marginalized sections. There are hardly any differences on these issues. But there is a huge difference between what the Maoists said and how they acted. Our problem with the Maoists was that their activities on the ground were contrary to what they publicly professed.
Q: So in terms of socio-economic side, there are commonalities between the way the former Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai approached his budget and the way the new government will?
Mahat: There are more areas of agreement than disagreement. But we also disagree significantly with the Maoists on many issues. Their focus was on distribution, not on production. We believe in production. Without creating production and employment opportunities you cannot raise the economic status of the people. They believed that distributing government resources would take care of everything. Similarly, they believed in using their party institutions and politicizing government institutions to deliver services. We strongly believe that government institutions should remain outside politics and apolitical. And we believe in the market forces, private and foreign investments. They weren't very well disposed to this idea. They believe in government intervention even in production and trading. They believe in re-nationalisation.
Q: You are seen as the architect of the liberalization policies of the 1990s. While that created wealth, do you
feel that you could have done better with a better distribution of that wealth?
Mahat: Of course. But distribution of wealth takes time, it cannot happen overnight. We could have done better, but even with the type of development we saw in the private sector, the living conditions at the bottom have improved a lot. Look at the real wages in the rural areas. Now it is difficult to get labour for agriculture, the wage rate is very high. Real wages have gone up. If you look at the National Living Standard Survey (NLSS), it shows that the consumption level of people across regions, across ecological bases, of all income groups have increased significantly. Employment opportunities have increased, there is demand for more labour, more employment. So while it is true that market forces increase disparity, it increases the income level of the poor also.
To raise the economic status of lower income groups, of course, you need a separate package of economic reforms. More consideration needs to be given to the social sector -- health, education, rural development, agriculture.
Q: The Nepali Congress-led government that followed the UML government of 1994 seemed to have followed the UML’s redistributive policies. do you think that the policies of the Maoist government will have an impact on the policies of the new government?
Mahat: Even in the early days our development programme, our budget distribution and expenditure pattern, the focus was on creating infrastructure in rural areas. We strongly believed that without basic infrastructure in place -- like access roads, electricity, education, basic health services -- no matter how much you spend for the downtrodden, it will have no meaning. And infrastructure is not created overnight, it takes time. Now you have started seeing results. Karnali is accessible, you have road links to Kalikot, Jumla. Districts that were not touched by road networks 10-15 years ago now have road access not just in their headquarters but practically in all VDCs. Electricity has reached to far corners of the country. That has helped a lot in improving the status of the common man. Because of improved infrastructure in rural areas, people are now producing for the market. Even from the far corners of Nepal, you see agricultural production coming into the market. So our emphasis was different.
People think that the UML launched populist programmes and the NC didn't. But we also launched populist programmes in those days. But we are poor in publicizing them. Like, land revenue authority was given completely to the VDCs. Practically, we don't raise any revenue from land. It's supposed to all go to VDCs, but they have also stopped collecting it. This was a populist programme. We started giving allowances to widows. This was our programme. There is a general impression that such a populist programme was started by the UML, but that is not true. Similarly, my budget introduced education allowance to Dalit children. Now it has been continued. There is huge assistance from the World Bank and other donors to this programme. Dalit children up to high school get a small monthly allowance. So we also introduced such populist programmes because there was an impression that we were not very populistic and didn't do much for the common man.
Q: How do you view the performance of the Maoist-led government, especially on the economic front?
Mahat: When Baburam Bhattarai introduced his budget we made a number of criticisms. All our criticisms have been validated except on the revenue front. They have been successful there. But they have used all sorts of means to raise revenue, some artificial means too. Like, they have been extracting money from the Nepal Oil Corporation (NOC). NOC has outstanding loans from the bank, interest bearing loans, so instead of making NOC pay back or service the interest bearing loans they are asking the government to pay back the government loan, which we gave of course in expectation of getting it back. The previous government was also collecting income tax from many public institutions like the central bank and the telecommunications corporation in advance just to inflate revenue collection. Such artificial tactics have been employed to show a boost in revenue collection. But nevertheless, they have been successful on the revenue collection front.
Other than that, they have failed on the development side and they have failed on other fronts.
Q: They say that a major reason they have failed is because the other parties did not allow them to form local development bodies through which spending could have been channeled.
Mahat: That is a ridiculous argument. Local bodies have not been in place for the past six or seven years. They did not exist even last year, but the delivery of development expenditure was 100%. In fact, rural expenditure is mainly channeled through user's committees. Community is the main vehicle for implementing rural development programmes. This has been the case for the last several years. If you go to the rural areas, you will see roads being built almost everywhere with government money with local participation. Even in the absence of elected local bodies, development activities are taking place. In other words, alternative mechanisms are in place.
The Maoist-led government failed because they allocated budgeted programmes, ill-conceived, half-baked programmes, without much study. They didn't allocate funds in well-studied, well-prepared programmes. They allocated huge sums of money without any preparation. But how can you spend money? Of course, there are financial rules and regulations that need to be followed. This is why they couldn't deliver.
The Maoists also failed miserably on the price front. The irony is that at the international level prices have been declining. Prices decline during a recession. Indian inflation is almost at 0 now. Fuel prices have gone down. But Nepal's inflation rate is going up. This is because of government mismanagement. There is more purchasing power in the hands of the people without production. Production should go side by side with income. The emphasis on distributive policies leads to easy money in the hands of the people, which leads to inflation. Bandas, hartals, disruptions in the supply chain are also responsible for this.
Q: Will the new government revisit the Army chief controversy and try to find a compromise with the Maoists, or will this issue now be ignored?
Mahat: It can simply be ignored because the whole issue is over now. The Maoists have resigned over the issue. This means that they have admitted their mistake. In any case, the present Chief of Army Staff will not remain in place for too long; it is just a matter of months.
Q: There has been some talk of adopting a “Sri Lankan military solution” against the Maoists. Are these factors likely to affect the way the new government deals with the Maoists?
Mahat: No. The main point is that the Maoists should internalize the peace process. Since they are still indulging in violent activities, killing people, intimidating other party workers, seizing property, there is strong resentment towards them. So people are suggesting that some strong-arm tactics must be used. The point is that the Maoists should change their habits. If they don't then these kinds of suggestions may gain ground.
Q: Do you think that there is a need to now revisit the 12-point agreement?
Mahat: The 12-point agreement was the starting point. It wasn't everything. It was followed by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and other agreements. With the passage of time, as new developments arise, these should also be incorporated. So those who say that a new basis for consensus is necessary may have a point.
Also some of the provisions of the CPA are outdated. Like, it is not necessary to confine the Army to the barracks. They cannot be treated at par with the Maoist combatants. The monarch is gone; there is a republic. The Army should be allowed to function in a normal way. The reason why the Army had to be confined in barracks was because there was a lurking fear that they may intervene and side with the king when Nepal became a republic. That issue is not valid any longer. They have completely cooperated with the republican process. Their role in the transition was very constructive.
Q: How do you view the role of the United Nation's Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) in the transition?
Mahat: UNMIN's role hasn't been very effective. It has come to light that the verification numbers were defective. Not just that, UNMIN's monitoring was also weak.
Q: To give the other side of the story, UNMIN says that it had to stick to the limited mandate given by the Nepali actors and that all the parties were part of the verification process.
Mahat: Their mandate is limited, but they have not been effective in performing even their limited mandate. They don't even take the daily role call. We were told in the beginning that there would be barbed wire and CCTV cameras monitoring the movements of the combatants. This is part of the CPA.
We relied too much on them during verification. And it's not true that everyone accepted the results. The Nepal Army had protested when the results were announced. They had submitted in writing that it was not satisfied with the results.
UNMIN was also not very balanced. They got scared if the Maoists tried to scare them. Even their reporting was biased. We have highlighted that many times. We expected too much from them. I have also worked in the UN. I have seen how laid back their working style is.
Q: Does UNMIN still have a role in Nepal's peace process?
Mahat: It is difficult for them to leave until the process of handing over arms is completed. But if they have to continue they have to be more objective and balanced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
