JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI
The Kathmandu Post
NOV 09 - Upon our arrival at the Heathrow Airport recently, an immigration officer asked me some routine questions. He wanted to know how much my stay would cost me; I replied in Euros rather than Pounds. Perhaps fatigue and having lived in Netherlands recently were to be blamed for the slip. The officer frowned and said: Over here, Pound Sterling is the currency, and we are proud that way.
Britain has maintained a relative distance from some of the European Union’s (EU) common policy, through opt-outs. But there is a growing debate within UK and other member countries on the extent of integration, although mainstream politicians want to clearly avoid it. The Lisbon treaty which will come into force from Dec. 1, following the ratification by Ireland and Czech Republic has triggered fresh discussions. Both Labour and the Conservative Parties in Britain had promised a referendum on the EU constitution. Labour reneged on their promise sometime ago. But the Conservatives who have been jumpy on the issue in the past were buying time to quietly break the news of their change of heart, until they were forced last week after the Czech president signed off on the Treaty.
Now that all ratifications are in on the treaty, Eurocrats may have succeeded in creating a slight distraction, as all eyes are now fixed on the newly created the post of EU President and foreign minister. Tony Blair’s ambitions of becoming the first president of Europe may have been sabotaged. The Conservative Party, which is likely to win the elections, next year, has already opposed Blair’s candidacy.
There is more: Britain’s half-hearted presence within the EU has been frustrating for other EU leaders. It seems British leaders can’t imagine themselves away from the Anglo-Saxon bloc, where they are happy to play second fiddle to the Americans. According to the Guardian, last week the French Minister for Europe, Pierre Lellouche came down heavily on the British Conservative party leaders, and described their policy as ‘autistic’ and blamed them for ‘castrating Britain’s position within Europe.’ “Nobody is going to play with the institutions again. It is going to be, take it or leave it and they should be honest and say that.”
Conflicting impulses
Europe’s problems are manifold: Controlling immigration, maintaining social security amid falling productivity, salvaging some lost glory as the continent where the entire ‘modernisation’ project began. But that’s not all, the core problem that haunts Europe is what it wants to become? Does it want to remain a loose union or push for more integration to become a strong union with federal features? Surely the failed EU Constitution and the current Lisbon Treaty have provided a blueprint, but do the people agree with what the Eurocrats have in mind?
Germany, a key driving force for a stronger Union, like other Euro-heartland countries, remains beset by its own conflicting impulses. The political establishment clearly wants more integration, and was instrumental in drafting the Lisbon Treaty after the Constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters. Critics allege that the Treaty is a mere repackaging of the rejected Constitution, and they insist that it makes a mockery of the public opinion. The biggest criticism is of the EU is exactly that: the democratic deficit. The European Commission, the executive branch, is not an elected body and its office bearers are not accountable directly to the people. The Lisbon Treaty aims to grant more power to the European Parliament to counter some of the criticism. Critics aren’t happy though. They argue that no amount of patch-work can bridge the fundamental democratic gap within a transnational superstructure like EU.
European Union (EU) is surely a model for political and economic integration, although not a perfect one yet, nevertheless, it is one of a kind. But within the continent the ranks of skeptics are swelling, and even some ‘Euro-believers’ fear the rise of a super-state that would swallow sovereignty of the member states and would eventually march on the path of federalism. While in Nepal, the debate is on devolution of power, here in Europe, the debates are evolving around the extent of integration within a supranational instrument.
In June, the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe ruled that many of the competence handed over to the Brussels under the Lisbon Treaty will remain a sovereign German competence. The 8 judges involved also argued that the Lisbon Treaty is merely an international treaty of cooperation. The ruling effectively asked the government to consult the people through a referendum if it were to accept the treaty as a constitutional document. The very thing the treaty was designed to do: to avoid promised national referendum in Czech Republic, Ireland, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and Britain, and other countries where the national constitution stipulates such a provision before the transfer of sovereignty.
The elections for European parliament last year saw in the rise of number of right-wing Member of European Parliament (MEPs), some of whom ran on the platform of working towards abolishing the Union. Of course, it is silly to take a politician’s rhetoric at the face value and seriously believe that Brussels would be powered down; nevertheless their electoral victory is a measure of public’s frustration and resentment with Brussels performance. Right-wing stance may seem ludicrous but it is symptomatic of Europe’s burgeoning problem that could undermine the vision of united Europe.
The failure of Eurocrats to communicate the achievements of their project is equally frustrating. The transnational nature of the set-up allows very little direct contact with people. The democratic deficit is clearly a two-edged sword. Lack of it is equally problematic as its presence may be to the politicians. During a visit to Brussels in April this year, a spokesman for the EU Competition Commissioner, and some journalists who had gone native (by virtue of having spent too many years in Brussels), bitterly complained about how the national press treats Brussels: When everything goes fine, it is out of the press radar, but when something goes wrong national politicians rub it on Brussels, and EU gets hammered badly by the press.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
ROLLER COASTER RIDE
JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI Sunday November 7, 2004
Source: NATION WEEKLY (See page 26, also 36)
Bhim Prasad Tamang was not exactly thrilled by the high profile visit of U.S. official Arthur E. Gene Dewey last month to his dilapidated hut in the Beldangi II refugee camp. He's been through it before. In the last 14 years, a number of foreign dignitaries have come to the camp and raised his hopes for early repatriation, and that was that.
The story never had a happy ending.
"Do you want to go to Bhutan?" Tamang quotes Dewey, the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, as having asked him. "Of course I want to go home," he says. "But what are the conditions?"
Like Tamang, more than 100,000 refugees in seven camps in eastern Nepal now feel that their desire to go home may not come to fruition. That they are doomed to a life of a refugee. Over the years, many high-profile comings and goings have raised expectations, but have amounted to nothing. In 2000, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
Sadako Ogata told them, "Bhutan is ready to welcome you back. You all will be going home soon." But her assurance turned out to be hollow, say refugees. After cycles of hope and bitter disappointment their expectations are now tempered with realism.
"We are optimistic," says Prem Khanal, a refugee teacher. "But we are also keenly aware of how optimistic we should be about these visits." As Dewey took stock of the miserable conditions in the camps, he told the refugees that he was visiting them to learn what they think is the best solution for them. This is the first high-profile visit since Bhutan's disengagement from the bilateral process on December 22, 2003. The process of repatriating refugees verified by the Nepal-Bhutan Joint Verification Team at the Khudunabari camp was to begin from February 15 this year, but following a scuffle between the refugees and Bhutanese officials, Bhutan pulled out of the process, citing poor security as the reason. After almost a year, the United States seems to be keen to revive the stalled process.
"I didn't come just to visit this part of the world," said Dewey to a group of refugees, "but with a serious purpose: to bring a solution." The urgency in U.S. efforts to find a solution comes in part from reports that the Maoists are operating in the refugee camps. The United States wants to resolve the refugee impasse quickly to deny the Maoists another fertile breeding ground. Dewey warned New Delhi and Thimphu that "time is running out." During his discussions in New Delhi he also sought Indian help in "getting Bhutan to agree on steps for repatriating at least some refugees." Dewey is learned to have
explicitly conveyed Washington's concern about the growing Maoist influence in the refugee camps and the dangers this could pose for India and Bhutan, just as well as to Nepal.
Apart from underscoring the urgency for an immediate solution, his visit has also triggered discussion on other options apart from repatriation; local integration or third-country resettlement are high on the list. "We have to look into all options," Dewey told reporters in Kathmandu. "Sometimes there is not just one solution." There are
indications that the United States has given up hope that a complete repatriation will ever take place. "Our hope is that Bhutan at least accepts this segment," Dewey said in Delhi, referring to the 2.5 percent of the refugees in the Khudunabari refugee camp who were
classified as "bona fide Bhutanese." Although Nepal is keen on the repatriation process, the refugee community is, at best, divided over the remaining two alternatives—local integration and third-country resettlement. Some fear that agreeing to either of the options, even in principle, could diminish their cause for a dignified repatriation. "It could end our existence as Bhutanese refugees," says a young refugee Dadiram
Neupane, "and hence our right to return to Bhutan."
But others insist that any solution is better than none at all. "It's fine if they want to give us citizenship here or take us to a different country," says Bhim Prasad Tamang. Refugees like Tamang feel that the two options are, if not adequate, at least a dignified escape from the confinement of camp life. And there are others who want to work towards all three options simultaneously. They say no single option will be practical for all refugees: Not all will be repatriated, if ever Bhutan decides to do so; not all can be locally integrated given their sheer numbers; and not all will be deemed fit by the host country for a third-country resettlement. Most refugees are encouraged that the American representative at least seemed open to all solutions.
Dewey's visit to the camps and the three capitals has renewed hopes, as refugee leaders believe that American pressure was instrumental in pushing forward the bilateral process in 2000, when Julia Taft and Karl Inderfurth, both senior State Department officials, convinced both Nepal and Bhutan to agree on a verification process. U.S. President Bill Clinton's letter to the Nepali and Bhutanese prime ministers in late 2000 was credited with getting the process started.
Source: NATION WEEKLY (See page 26, also 36)
Bhim Prasad Tamang was not exactly thrilled by the high profile visit of U.S. official Arthur E. Gene Dewey last month to his dilapidated hut in the Beldangi II refugee camp. He's been through it before. In the last 14 years, a number of foreign dignitaries have come to the camp and raised his hopes for early repatriation, and that was that.
The story never had a happy ending.
"Do you want to go to Bhutan?" Tamang quotes Dewey, the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, as having asked him. "Of course I want to go home," he says. "But what are the conditions?"
Like Tamang, more than 100,000 refugees in seven camps in eastern Nepal now feel that their desire to go home may not come to fruition. That they are doomed to a life of a refugee. Over the years, many high-profile comings and goings have raised expectations, but have amounted to nothing. In 2000, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
Sadako Ogata told them, "Bhutan is ready to welcome you back. You all will be going home soon." But her assurance turned out to be hollow, say refugees. After cycles of hope and bitter disappointment their expectations are now tempered with realism.
"We are optimistic," says Prem Khanal, a refugee teacher. "But we are also keenly aware of how optimistic we should be about these visits." As Dewey took stock of the miserable conditions in the camps, he told the refugees that he was visiting them to learn what they think is the best solution for them. This is the first high-profile visit since Bhutan's disengagement from the bilateral process on December 22, 2003. The process of repatriating refugees verified by the Nepal-Bhutan Joint Verification Team at the Khudunabari camp was to begin from February 15 this year, but following a scuffle between the refugees and Bhutanese officials, Bhutan pulled out of the process, citing poor security as the reason. After almost a year, the United States seems to be keen to revive the stalled process.
"I didn't come just to visit this part of the world," said Dewey to a group of refugees, "but with a serious purpose: to bring a solution." The urgency in U.S. efforts to find a solution comes in part from reports that the Maoists are operating in the refugee camps. The United States wants to resolve the refugee impasse quickly to deny the Maoists another fertile breeding ground. Dewey warned New Delhi and Thimphu that "time is running out." During his discussions in New Delhi he also sought Indian help in "getting Bhutan to agree on steps for repatriating at least some refugees." Dewey is learned to have
explicitly conveyed Washington's concern about the growing Maoist influence in the refugee camps and the dangers this could pose for India and Bhutan, just as well as to Nepal.
Apart from underscoring the urgency for an immediate solution, his visit has also triggered discussion on other options apart from repatriation; local integration or third-country resettlement are high on the list. "We have to look into all options," Dewey told reporters in Kathmandu. "Sometimes there is not just one solution." There are
indications that the United States has given up hope that a complete repatriation will ever take place. "Our hope is that Bhutan at least accepts this segment," Dewey said in Delhi, referring to the 2.5 percent of the refugees in the Khudunabari refugee camp who were
classified as "bona fide Bhutanese." Although Nepal is keen on the repatriation process, the refugee community is, at best, divided over the remaining two alternatives—local integration and third-country resettlement. Some fear that agreeing to either of the options, even in principle, could diminish their cause for a dignified repatriation. "It could end our existence as Bhutanese refugees," says a young refugee Dadiram
Neupane, "and hence our right to return to Bhutan."
But others insist that any solution is better than none at all. "It's fine if they want to give us citizenship here or take us to a different country," says Bhim Prasad Tamang. Refugees like Tamang feel that the two options are, if not adequate, at least a dignified escape from the confinement of camp life. And there are others who want to work towards all three options simultaneously. They say no single option will be practical for all refugees: Not all will be repatriated, if ever Bhutan decides to do so; not all can be locally integrated given their sheer numbers; and not all will be deemed fit by the host country for a third-country resettlement. Most refugees are encouraged that the American representative at least seemed open to all solutions.
Dewey's visit to the camps and the three capitals has renewed hopes, as refugee leaders believe that American pressure was instrumental in pushing forward the bilateral process in 2000, when Julia Taft and Karl Inderfurth, both senior State Department officials, convinced both Nepal and Bhutan to agree on a verification process. U.S. President Bill Clinton's letter to the Nepali and Bhutanese prime ministers in late 2000 was credited with getting the process started.
FORGOTTEN SOULS
JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI Sunday October, 17 2004
Source: NATION WEEKLY
Last week brought another reminder to the more than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees, languishing in seven camps in eastern Nepal, that they might not be able to continue to enjoy the UNHCR's humanitarian aid for much longer. United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees Rudd Lubbers reiterated the essence of his message last year to Bhutanese refugees during the 55th annual UNHCR executive committee meeting in Geneva on October 5: By the end of 2005, we will withdraw. The UNHCR maintains
that the withdrawal doesn't mean the withdrawal of its protection mandate. "Less encouraging is the situation of the Bhutanese people in camps in Nepal. At ExCom last year I said that we cannot accept that they remain there indefinitely," Lubbers said.
Lubbers last year had unveiled the Convention Plus initiative, intended, according to the UNHCR, to find equitable ways of sharing the burden of caring for the refugees. The UNHCR's hands are understandably full. With more than 20 million refugees worldwide and more continuing to pour in from escalating conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, the UNHCR has initiated the plan to minimize its own role to a legal protection level only. Lubbers' plan could bring some relief to overstretched U.N. refugee agency, but it will surely take the relief away from the refugees.
The U.N. refugee agency is hoping that bilateral and multilateral donor agencies will chip in to substitute for the UNHCR. So far none of the bilateral donors seems to have committed to work in the Bhutanese refugee camps. Even UNHCR officials in Kathmandu haven't briefed the bigger donors about their plans.
Lubbers' reiteration of the message is likely to cause panic among refugees, as most of them were led to believe that UNHCR was just trying to pressure the Nepali and the Bhutanese governments to find a solution quickly. Now there is reason to believe that the UNHCR is serious. "The UNHCR's phase-out program could hinder repatriation,"
Ratan Gazmere, a Bhutanese leader accompanying Tek Nath Rijal to Geneva, told reporters before leaving to attend the UNHCR's executive committee meeting from September 28 to October 8.
Refugees are worried about what would happen to them after the proposed withdrawal, says a journalist from Damak, Jhapa. "The UNHCR is like our parent. Who would look after us after the withdrawal?" asks Moti Bishwa, an inhabitant of Beldangi Camp II. Refugees are already feeling a sense of insecurity. UNHCR officials have been trying hard to explain that phase-out or withdrawal doesn't mean complete pullout; they are also trying to explain that they won't leave unless a substitute comes in.
"The phase down strategy will not have any impact on UNHCR's presence and protection role in Nepal," said Abraham Abraham, the resident representative of UNHCR in Nepal. The idea behind the UNHCR's phase-out plan is to make the refugees self-reliant through development projects and programs. The plan is ambitious and may be too good to be true. Many think that it simply won't work. Refugees aren't willing to believe that any other agency can substitute the UNHCR in terms of expertise. "Is the UNHCR trying to substitute its mandate?" asked SB Subba, former chairman of Bhutanese Refugee RepatriationRepresentative Committee.
Any change of hands, some say, will be a failure. Even as the appointed time for completion of the phase down strategy draws closer, the UNHCR has made no visible preparations; there is no word on who's going to step in. Initially it was expected GTZ, JICA and USAID would chip in, but American diplomats in Kathmandu have already rubbished the idea of USAID's direct involvement. Even UNHCR officials in the
field don't believe that the 2005 deadline can be met, given the pace of progress. And the Nepali government has criticized the UN refugee agency.
In October last year Foreign Minister Bhek Bahadur Thapa even raised the issue with U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan. "I understand that the UNHCR is having a resource crunch," says Thapa.
"But to paralyze the refugee committee when two countries are negotiating cannot be appreciated." There are other refugee camps in the world with longer standing than the Bhutanese camps in eastern Nepal, he says. "I see the need to be fairer to the refugee community in Nepal."
Despite calls for fairness and continuing support by the government and the refugee community, the Convention Plus initiative is likely to continue. The three-pronged approach—repatriation, local integration and third-country resettlement—if adopted by the UNHCR will cause a huge uproar among the refugee community in Nepal. The UNHCR has said that it won't encourage repatriation to Bhutan unless Bhutan allows it
to monitor the process. Bhutan is unlikely to concede to the demand.
"The UNHCR's signals are easy enough to understand," says Rakesh Chettri, a Bhutanese refugee leader: "There won't be any repatriation." Without repatriation, the plan to phase down the UNHCR's role to protection level will increase the sense of insecurity caused by fourteen years of stalemate. "The international community has ignored us," says Chettri. That feeling resonates throughout all seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal.
Source: NATION WEEKLY
Last week brought another reminder to the more than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees, languishing in seven camps in eastern Nepal, that they might not be able to continue to enjoy the UNHCR's humanitarian aid for much longer. United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees Rudd Lubbers reiterated the essence of his message last year to Bhutanese refugees during the 55th annual UNHCR executive committee meeting in Geneva on October 5: By the end of 2005, we will withdraw. The UNHCR maintains
that the withdrawal doesn't mean the withdrawal of its protection mandate. "Less encouraging is the situation of the Bhutanese people in camps in Nepal. At ExCom last year I said that we cannot accept that they remain there indefinitely," Lubbers said.
Lubbers last year had unveiled the Convention Plus initiative, intended, according to the UNHCR, to find equitable ways of sharing the burden of caring for the refugees. The UNHCR's hands are understandably full. With more than 20 million refugees worldwide and more continuing to pour in from escalating conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, the UNHCR has initiated the plan to minimize its own role to a legal protection level only. Lubbers' plan could bring some relief to overstretched U.N. refugee agency, but it will surely take the relief away from the refugees.
The U.N. refugee agency is hoping that bilateral and multilateral donor agencies will chip in to substitute for the UNHCR. So far none of the bilateral donors seems to have committed to work in the Bhutanese refugee camps. Even UNHCR officials in Kathmandu haven't briefed the bigger donors about their plans.
Lubbers' reiteration of the message is likely to cause panic among refugees, as most of them were led to believe that UNHCR was just trying to pressure the Nepali and the Bhutanese governments to find a solution quickly. Now there is reason to believe that the UNHCR is serious. "The UNHCR's phase-out program could hinder repatriation,"
Ratan Gazmere, a Bhutanese leader accompanying Tek Nath Rijal to Geneva, told reporters before leaving to attend the UNHCR's executive committee meeting from September 28 to October 8.
Refugees are worried about what would happen to them after the proposed withdrawal, says a journalist from Damak, Jhapa. "The UNHCR is like our parent. Who would look after us after the withdrawal?" asks Moti Bishwa, an inhabitant of Beldangi Camp II. Refugees are already feeling a sense of insecurity. UNHCR officials have been trying hard to explain that phase-out or withdrawal doesn't mean complete pullout; they are also trying to explain that they won't leave unless a substitute comes in.
"The phase down strategy will not have any impact on UNHCR's presence and protection role in Nepal," said Abraham Abraham, the resident representative of UNHCR in Nepal. The idea behind the UNHCR's phase-out plan is to make the refugees self-reliant through development projects and programs. The plan is ambitious and may be too good to be true. Many think that it simply won't work. Refugees aren't willing to believe that any other agency can substitute the UNHCR in terms of expertise. "Is the UNHCR trying to substitute its mandate?" asked SB Subba, former chairman of Bhutanese Refugee RepatriationRepresentative Committee.
Any change of hands, some say, will be a failure. Even as the appointed time for completion of the phase down strategy draws closer, the UNHCR has made no visible preparations; there is no word on who's going to step in. Initially it was expected GTZ, JICA and USAID would chip in, but American diplomats in Kathmandu have already rubbished the idea of USAID's direct involvement. Even UNHCR officials in the
field don't believe that the 2005 deadline can be met, given the pace of progress. And the Nepali government has criticized the UN refugee agency.
In October last year Foreign Minister Bhek Bahadur Thapa even raised the issue with U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan. "I understand that the UNHCR is having a resource crunch," says Thapa.
"But to paralyze the refugee committee when two countries are negotiating cannot be appreciated." There are other refugee camps in the world with longer standing than the Bhutanese camps in eastern Nepal, he says. "I see the need to be fairer to the refugee community in Nepal."
Despite calls for fairness and continuing support by the government and the refugee community, the Convention Plus initiative is likely to continue. The three-pronged approach—repatriation, local integration and third-country resettlement—if adopted by the UNHCR will cause a huge uproar among the refugee community in Nepal. The UNHCR has said that it won't encourage repatriation to Bhutan unless Bhutan allows it
to monitor the process. Bhutan is unlikely to concede to the demand.
"The UNHCR's signals are easy enough to understand," says Rakesh Chettri, a Bhutanese refugee leader: "There won't be any repatriation." Without repatriation, the plan to phase down the UNHCR's role to protection level will increase the sense of insecurity caused by fourteen years of stalemate. "The international community has ignored us," says Chettri. That feeling resonates throughout all seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal.
PARITY AT LAST?
JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI Saturday January, 29 2005
Source: NATION Weekly
A popular joke out of the Falklands War that was fought in 1982 goes like this: How did the Argentine soldiers know that the Gurkhas had come to fight? Answer: In the morning when they woke up, their heads fell off.
Valor on the battlefield is the Gurkha's hallmark, but their perseverance off the battlefield is remarkable. For 14 years, retired Gurkhas have protested unequal pay and pension rules that make them second-class soldiers in the British Army. Their struggle may finally have paid off. The British government has put aside a longstanding
policy of revising minor aspects of its policy regarding the Gurkhas; something that retired soldiers, now activists, say was a cynical attempt to avoid major revisions. On Jan. 12, British secretary of state for defence, Geoffrey Hoon, made an announcement in the House of Commons: Britain will conduct a wide-ranging review of the Gurkhas' grievances.
Prem Bahadur Bega joined the British Army in 1984 and was given compulsory retirement in 1999 after 15 years of service. A British colleague who was recruited in the same year as Bega was allowed to serve for seven more years before his retirement. The Briton earned several thousand pounds more in a year than Bega and receives far more
in pension—625 pounds a month compared to Bega's 91 pounds. Bega's wife and children were allowed to accompany him for only 18 months out of his 15 years of service: The family of his British counterpart accompanied him throughout his service. "This is gross injustice," says Bega. Many other Gurkha veterans agree.
The Gurkhas want parity with their British colleagues in pay and pension, and also on the prickly issue of promotion. There seems to be a glass ceiling on Nepalis rising to higher ranks. Only three have been promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, and only one has
commanded a Gurkha battalion. Beyond this, the Gurkhas argue, the terms of service should be equal. Only 25 percent of Gurkhas are entitled to married housing, and the length of time that Gurkha families can stay with soldiers and noncommissioned officers is limited. The grievances of pay, pension, promotion and terms of service form the bulk of the Gurkhas' discrimination case against the British government. For years the British refused hear their pleas. "The British government even didn't bother to respond to our
petitions," says Gopal Siwakoti, popularly known as Chintan, a lawyer who acts on behalf of the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organization, the GAESO.
But after the Royal Courts of Justice in London cleared the way in May 2002 for the Gurkhas to sue the British Ministry of Defence, the British government found itself on the legal and moral low road. It has now for the first time conceded that fact. On Jan. 12, Defence Secretary Hoon announced that the government would conduct a "wide-ranging review" of the Gurkhas' pay and pensions. Hoon said that he wants to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is beyond reproach both legally and morally. Hoon's concession raises a few obvious questions: Why did the ministry decide to conduct the review now, and will the proposed review end the unequal treatment regime to the satisfaction of all?
"An ultimatum from us," says Krishna Rai, vice president of GAESO, "prompted the MoD to make the new announcement." GAESO, which is fighting court-battles against the ministry over its unequal treatment, sent the ministry a legal notice on Nov. 19 asking it to address all their grievances within a month or face court action. The Gurkhas see Hoon's announcement as a major victory. GAESO's legal advisers say that their case was strong and that they had collected new evidence that would have brought them a victory in court. The ministry must have found the new evidence damaging, say observers,
because it responded by asking GAESO to wait until January for a major announcement regarding Gurkha pay and pensions.
In a written ministerial statement to the House of Commons Hoon said, "As the House will be aware, our policy is to keep the Brigade of Gurkhas' terms and conditions of service under review, to ensure that they are fair and that any difference from the wider Army are reasonable and justifiable."
As happy as Gurkha activists are with the British action, they are also taking the new announcement with a pinch of salt. They have demanded that the British government make all aspects of the announcement public. In reply Lieutenant Colonel G.R. Harnby, chief of staff of British Gurkhas Nepal, says: "It will be a comprehensive review. It will look into all aspects [and be] sensitive to the Nepali dimension."
A British Embassy statement says that the examination of the terms and conditions of service will be all-embracing and look into the present terms of service for Gurkhas. The review is likely to include their career profiles; length of structures within the Brigade of Gurkhas; pay and pensions; allowances; personal support for soldiers and their families, including pastoral care, education for children, medical provisions and leave arrangements. The Nepali government has already been informed of the review. Hoon told British MPs the review would look at whether differences between the Gurkhas' conditions and those of British soldiers were "absolutely justifiable." But the Gurkhas
have warned the Ministry of Defence not to try to justify any disparity. "We want complete equality," says Chintan. "There can be no justification for any kind of discrimination."
Is British policy racial discrimination? Britain says it's not, but an increasing number of Britons including the wife of current Prime Minister Tony Blair, Cherie Booth Blair, argue that it is a clear case of racial discrimination and a human rights violation.
The argument has merit. Nepalis are treated differently than other foreign nationals serving in the British military. Fijians whom the Ministry of Defence recruits enjoy the same conditions as British troops.
Even the British government's Commission for Racial Equality has supported individual cases filed by some Gurkhas. In the case of Hari Thapa, a retired lance corporal, the commission said that the ministry's responsibilities under the Race Relations Act of 1976
outweigh the terms of the tripartite agreement (refer to Box Story).
Thapa, who lives in Wales, filed a racial discrimination case against the Ministry of Defence in an industrial tribunal after he was given an early discharge from the Army five years ago. During his 15 years in military service, he was paid 43,000 pounds less than his British counterparts.
Growing support among British political parties parallels the court support for the Gurkhas. Opposition Liberal Democrat defense spokesman, Paul Keetch, said that the ministry must recognize that it cannot "treat 21st-century soldiers like 19th-century conscripts." Even the British public seems to care about the Gurkhas. A demonstration of more than 400 retired Gurkhas in Liverpool caught the eye of the press, and the Daily Express ran a campaign supporting the Gurkhas. In a poll of 16,000 people conducted by the newspaper, 99 percent supported the Gurkhas' demand. In October, British Prime
Minister Tony Blair agreed to grant conditional citizenship to Gurkhas.
Gurkhas aren't going to be satisfied with conditions any more. They have called for complete equality with the British soldiers. There is another outstanding issue: more than 10,000 veterans and widows who are without any pension or compensation. In one example, in 1969 some 10,000 Gurkhas were made redundant under a retrenchment scheme. Their British counterparts who were also laid off under the scheme were handsomely compensated; Gurkhas were paid 150 pounds and sent home. In 1986, 111 Gurkhas soldiers on training in Hawaii were disciplined and dismissed en masse for mutinous behavior. Gurkhas said they were sent home without compensation or the right to appeal. When asked if the review would include these two issues, a British official in Nepal says that the review will be forward looking, although he quickly adds that he hopes the reviewers will look into the past and the future before reaching any conclusions.
Some Gurkhas are optimistic that the review will get them equal treatment. "Let's hope the Ministry of Defence will end the discrimination," says retired Lance Corporal D B Bomjon, who receives 71 pounds a month, about Rs.9,000, as pension while his British
counterparts receive 475 pounds.
The money is a big issue, and it is perhaps the reason the British have tried to avoid a full review. Full parity could cost the British government more than 2 billon pounds in total. It may finally be worth the cost to shake-off one of the last bits of the colonial hangover.
And if complete parity isn't forthcoming, the Gurkhas say they are ready to prove their mettle in the courtroom, just as they have in the battlefields.
Source: NATION Weekly
A popular joke out of the Falklands War that was fought in 1982 goes like this: How did the Argentine soldiers know that the Gurkhas had come to fight? Answer: In the morning when they woke up, their heads fell off.
Valor on the battlefield is the Gurkha's hallmark, but their perseverance off the battlefield is remarkable. For 14 years, retired Gurkhas have protested unequal pay and pension rules that make them second-class soldiers in the British Army. Their struggle may finally have paid off. The British government has put aside a longstanding
policy of revising minor aspects of its policy regarding the Gurkhas; something that retired soldiers, now activists, say was a cynical attempt to avoid major revisions. On Jan. 12, British secretary of state for defence, Geoffrey Hoon, made an announcement in the House of Commons: Britain will conduct a wide-ranging review of the Gurkhas' grievances.
Prem Bahadur Bega joined the British Army in 1984 and was given compulsory retirement in 1999 after 15 years of service. A British colleague who was recruited in the same year as Bega was allowed to serve for seven more years before his retirement. The Briton earned several thousand pounds more in a year than Bega and receives far more
in pension—625 pounds a month compared to Bega's 91 pounds. Bega's wife and children were allowed to accompany him for only 18 months out of his 15 years of service: The family of his British counterpart accompanied him throughout his service. "This is gross injustice," says Bega. Many other Gurkha veterans agree.
The Gurkhas want parity with their British colleagues in pay and pension, and also on the prickly issue of promotion. There seems to be a glass ceiling on Nepalis rising to higher ranks. Only three have been promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, and only one has
commanded a Gurkha battalion. Beyond this, the Gurkhas argue, the terms of service should be equal. Only 25 percent of Gurkhas are entitled to married housing, and the length of time that Gurkha families can stay with soldiers and noncommissioned officers is limited. The grievances of pay, pension, promotion and terms of service form the bulk of the Gurkhas' discrimination case against the British government. For years the British refused hear their pleas. "The British government even didn't bother to respond to our
petitions," says Gopal Siwakoti, popularly known as Chintan, a lawyer who acts on behalf of the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organization, the GAESO.
But after the Royal Courts of Justice in London cleared the way in May 2002 for the Gurkhas to sue the British Ministry of Defence, the British government found itself on the legal and moral low road. It has now for the first time conceded that fact. On Jan. 12, Defence Secretary Hoon announced that the government would conduct a "wide-ranging review" of the Gurkhas' pay and pensions. Hoon said that he wants to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is beyond reproach both legally and morally. Hoon's concession raises a few obvious questions: Why did the ministry decide to conduct the review now, and will the proposed review end the unequal treatment regime to the satisfaction of all?
"An ultimatum from us," says Krishna Rai, vice president of GAESO, "prompted the MoD to make the new announcement." GAESO, which is fighting court-battles against the ministry over its unequal treatment, sent the ministry a legal notice on Nov. 19 asking it to address all their grievances within a month or face court action. The Gurkhas see Hoon's announcement as a major victory. GAESO's legal advisers say that their case was strong and that they had collected new evidence that would have brought them a victory in court. The ministry must have found the new evidence damaging, say observers,
because it responded by asking GAESO to wait until January for a major announcement regarding Gurkha pay and pensions.
In a written ministerial statement to the House of Commons Hoon said, "As the House will be aware, our policy is to keep the Brigade of Gurkhas' terms and conditions of service under review, to ensure that they are fair and that any difference from the wider Army are reasonable and justifiable."
As happy as Gurkha activists are with the British action, they are also taking the new announcement with a pinch of salt. They have demanded that the British government make all aspects of the announcement public. In reply Lieutenant Colonel G.R. Harnby, chief of staff of British Gurkhas Nepal, says: "It will be a comprehensive review. It will look into all aspects [and be] sensitive to the Nepali dimension."
A British Embassy statement says that the examination of the terms and conditions of service will be all-embracing and look into the present terms of service for Gurkhas. The review is likely to include their career profiles; length of structures within the Brigade of Gurkhas; pay and pensions; allowances; personal support for soldiers and their families, including pastoral care, education for children, medical provisions and leave arrangements. The Nepali government has already been informed of the review. Hoon told British MPs the review would look at whether differences between the Gurkhas' conditions and those of British soldiers were "absolutely justifiable." But the Gurkhas
have warned the Ministry of Defence not to try to justify any disparity. "We want complete equality," says Chintan. "There can be no justification for any kind of discrimination."
Is British policy racial discrimination? Britain says it's not, but an increasing number of Britons including the wife of current Prime Minister Tony Blair, Cherie Booth Blair, argue that it is a clear case of racial discrimination and a human rights violation.
The argument has merit. Nepalis are treated differently than other foreign nationals serving in the British military. Fijians whom the Ministry of Defence recruits enjoy the same conditions as British troops.
Even the British government's Commission for Racial Equality has supported individual cases filed by some Gurkhas. In the case of Hari Thapa, a retired lance corporal, the commission said that the ministry's responsibilities under the Race Relations Act of 1976
outweigh the terms of the tripartite agreement (refer to Box Story).
Thapa, who lives in Wales, filed a racial discrimination case against the Ministry of Defence in an industrial tribunal after he was given an early discharge from the Army five years ago. During his 15 years in military service, he was paid 43,000 pounds less than his British counterparts.
Growing support among British political parties parallels the court support for the Gurkhas. Opposition Liberal Democrat defense spokesman, Paul Keetch, said that the ministry must recognize that it cannot "treat 21st-century soldiers like 19th-century conscripts." Even the British public seems to care about the Gurkhas. A demonstration of more than 400 retired Gurkhas in Liverpool caught the eye of the press, and the Daily Express ran a campaign supporting the Gurkhas. In a poll of 16,000 people conducted by the newspaper, 99 percent supported the Gurkhas' demand. In October, British Prime
Minister Tony Blair agreed to grant conditional citizenship to Gurkhas.
Gurkhas aren't going to be satisfied with conditions any more. They have called for complete equality with the British soldiers. There is another outstanding issue: more than 10,000 veterans and widows who are without any pension or compensation. In one example, in 1969 some 10,000 Gurkhas were made redundant under a retrenchment scheme. Their British counterparts who were also laid off under the scheme were handsomely compensated; Gurkhas were paid 150 pounds and sent home. In 1986, 111 Gurkhas soldiers on training in Hawaii were disciplined and dismissed en masse for mutinous behavior. Gurkhas said they were sent home without compensation or the right to appeal. When asked if the review would include these two issues, a British official in Nepal says that the review will be forward looking, although he quickly adds that he hopes the reviewers will look into the past and the future before reaching any conclusions.
Some Gurkhas are optimistic that the review will get them equal treatment. "Let's hope the Ministry of Defence will end the discrimination," says retired Lance Corporal D B Bomjon, who receives 71 pounds a month, about Rs.9,000, as pension while his British
counterparts receive 475 pounds.
The money is a big issue, and it is perhaps the reason the British have tried to avoid a full review. Full parity could cost the British government more than 2 billon pounds in total. It may finally be worth the cost to shake-off one of the last bits of the colonial hangover.
And if complete parity isn't forthcoming, the Gurkhas say they are ready to prove their mettle in the courtroom, just as they have in the battlefields.
Monday, October 26, 2009
We want results
The Kathmandu Post
John Narayan Parajuli
OCT 26 - Despite the ongoing political deadlock and the bad blood between the UML-led coalition and the Maoists, something tangible happened early this month that could go some way in securing lasting peace: the first steps towards addressing the status of the Maoist army. Despite the doom and gloom emanating from the rhetoric of the top leaders, there is room for optimism from the work that has been happening away from the constant glare of the media.
The government intends to separate the disqualified Maoist combatants from the cantonments and house them separately in a transit facility by Nov. 22. That is an ambitious timeline given past experience. One can only hope that the process doesn’t get stalled again like it did back in July. But the government and the UN agencies can do a number of things to ensure that the process sails smoothly.
The cooperation of the Maoists is vital to its success. The government and the international community have to dangle both the carrot and the stick. One of the reasons why the Maoists want to cooperate is their own difficulties in keeping the combatants at ease. They have been getting increasingly restive about the peace process that has brought almost no dividends since they were put into the cantonments. Their discharge and the subsequent plan for their rehabilitation gives the Maoist leadership an argument with the combatants that this is a win-win situation.
The Maoists also have some genuine concerns about releasing these ex-combatants into society without a solid plan. One has to be careful about the potential of these ex-combatants being lured into other armed groups. Matrika Yadav’s reconstituted outfit has already poached some combatants from the cantonments. It is conceivable that Yadav hopes to expand his organization by recruiting demobbed combatants. I hope there is a plan to deal with that possibility and that we are not simply discharging combatants of one army to supply recruits for another.
Strings attached
The financial assistance provided by the international community for the upkeep of the combatants and other areas of the peace process have to be tied to compliance within a given time-frame.
Norway announced an aid package of “US$ 5 million for the discharge and rehabilitation of disqualified Maoist army personnel on the condition that concrete progress gets underway and formal discharge takes place by Jan. 22, 2010.” Other donors should follow suit and pool their weight to put pressure on both the government and the party leaders. The international community should make it clear that the support for the peace process isn’t unconditional. Not to do so now will only be seen as rewarding unacceptable behaviour. Politicians are already operating under the assumption that the deadline for writing the constitution will be extended, and there is little tangible pressure on them to assume otherwise.
Lack of clear strategy
The urgency shown by the prime minister in dealing with the issue of the combatants shows his sensitivity towards the biggest stumbling block in the peace process, but he shouldn’t forget the bigger picture. Discharging combatants is only one aspect of the larger security agenda. The debate on Security Sector Reform (SSR) is not even at an embryonic stage. Prime Minister Nepal should take the initiative to convene an all-party panel and expert panel — similar to the Army Integration Special Committee — to look at the debate. Without doing a detailed study of Nepal’s security needs, issues of rehabilitation, integration and rightsizing of the army cannot be completed.
The prime minister has an opportunity, no matter how long his government lasts, to contribute towards the sustainability of the peace process. His party’s position is more acceptable among the two extremes represented by both the Maoists and the Nepali Congress on the issue of SSR. He is in a position to explore more common grounds with both the NC and the Maoists in areas where there is shared interest to expedite things related to the peace process.
The prime minister should also consider issuing a gag order on matters related to the peace process on his ministers who often speak their mind too freely — contradicting the government’s position and contributing to an environment of mistrust. Defence Minister Bidya Devi Bhandari’s statements have been least helpful. The Maoists maybe hell-bent on seeing this government fail, but they have to admit there are certain areas they want to wish otherwise. There could be many more areas of common interest only if they stop talking past each other.
Despite apprehensions about the Maoists’ democratic credibility, there is no doubt that they want to sit through the peace process. Sure, they have their own internal contradictions and different strands of thinking within the party where they are constantly negotiating, but so far they have remained within the general parameters of the peace process. Indeed, there is an element of good faith and bad faith on both sides. And in areas where it is politically expedient for them to cooperate, the Maoists have been more than willing to do so. The same is more or less true of the other parties. The parties will only move forward with urgency in implementing the peace process where it serves their interest.
That is where the international community and civil society needs to play a more effective role in encouraging the politicians where it works and showing some tough love where it doesn’t. Both the donors and civil society have underestimated their own ability; they can easily do more if they stand united. It is high time they put pressure on Nepal’s lackadaisical politicians. The country cannot hold its breath each time the politicians go to the edge, look over and pull back at the last minute. The international community should certainly demand more bang for their buck.
(jnparajuli@gmail.com)
John Narayan Parajuli
OCT 26 - Despite the ongoing political deadlock and the bad blood between the UML-led coalition and the Maoists, something tangible happened early this month that could go some way in securing lasting peace: the first steps towards addressing the status of the Maoist army. Despite the doom and gloom emanating from the rhetoric of the top leaders, there is room for optimism from the work that has been happening away from the constant glare of the media.
The government intends to separate the disqualified Maoist combatants from the cantonments and house them separately in a transit facility by Nov. 22. That is an ambitious timeline given past experience. One can only hope that the process doesn’t get stalled again like it did back in July. But the government and the UN agencies can do a number of things to ensure that the process sails smoothly.
The cooperation of the Maoists is vital to its success. The government and the international community have to dangle both the carrot and the stick. One of the reasons why the Maoists want to cooperate is their own difficulties in keeping the combatants at ease. They have been getting increasingly restive about the peace process that has brought almost no dividends since they were put into the cantonments. Their discharge and the subsequent plan for their rehabilitation gives the Maoist leadership an argument with the combatants that this is a win-win situation.
The Maoists also have some genuine concerns about releasing these ex-combatants into society without a solid plan. One has to be careful about the potential of these ex-combatants being lured into other armed groups. Matrika Yadav’s reconstituted outfit has already poached some combatants from the cantonments. It is conceivable that Yadav hopes to expand his organization by recruiting demobbed combatants. I hope there is a plan to deal with that possibility and that we are not simply discharging combatants of one army to supply recruits for another.
Strings attached
The financial assistance provided by the international community for the upkeep of the combatants and other areas of the peace process have to be tied to compliance within a given time-frame.
Norway announced an aid package of “US$ 5 million for the discharge and rehabilitation of disqualified Maoist army personnel on the condition that concrete progress gets underway and formal discharge takes place by Jan. 22, 2010.” Other donors should follow suit and pool their weight to put pressure on both the government and the party leaders. The international community should make it clear that the support for the peace process isn’t unconditional. Not to do so now will only be seen as rewarding unacceptable behaviour. Politicians are already operating under the assumption that the deadline for writing the constitution will be extended, and there is little tangible pressure on them to assume otherwise.
Lack of clear strategy
The urgency shown by the prime minister in dealing with the issue of the combatants shows his sensitivity towards the biggest stumbling block in the peace process, but he shouldn’t forget the bigger picture. Discharging combatants is only one aspect of the larger security agenda. The debate on Security Sector Reform (SSR) is not even at an embryonic stage. Prime Minister Nepal should take the initiative to convene an all-party panel and expert panel — similar to the Army Integration Special Committee — to look at the debate. Without doing a detailed study of Nepal’s security needs, issues of rehabilitation, integration and rightsizing of the army cannot be completed.
The prime minister has an opportunity, no matter how long his government lasts, to contribute towards the sustainability of the peace process. His party’s position is more acceptable among the two extremes represented by both the Maoists and the Nepali Congress on the issue of SSR. He is in a position to explore more common grounds with both the NC and the Maoists in areas where there is shared interest to expedite things related to the peace process.
The prime minister should also consider issuing a gag order on matters related to the peace process on his ministers who often speak their mind too freely — contradicting the government’s position and contributing to an environment of mistrust. Defence Minister Bidya Devi Bhandari’s statements have been least helpful. The Maoists maybe hell-bent on seeing this government fail, but they have to admit there are certain areas they want to wish otherwise. There could be many more areas of common interest only if they stop talking past each other.
Despite apprehensions about the Maoists’ democratic credibility, there is no doubt that they want to sit through the peace process. Sure, they have their own internal contradictions and different strands of thinking within the party where they are constantly negotiating, but so far they have remained within the general parameters of the peace process. Indeed, there is an element of good faith and bad faith on both sides. And in areas where it is politically expedient for them to cooperate, the Maoists have been more than willing to do so. The same is more or less true of the other parties. The parties will only move forward with urgency in implementing the peace process where it serves their interest.
That is where the international community and civil society needs to play a more effective role in encouraging the politicians where it works and showing some tough love where it doesn’t. Both the donors and civil society have underestimated their own ability; they can easily do more if they stand united. It is high time they put pressure on Nepal’s lackadaisical politicians. The country cannot hold its breath each time the politicians go to the edge, look over and pull back at the last minute. The international community should certainly demand more bang for their buck.
(jnparajuli@gmail.com)
Sunday, October 25, 2009
OUT OF THIS WORLD
TEXT AND PHOTO JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI
(From the Kathmandu Post, October 24, 09)
A late-monsoon holiday to Mustang is filled with landslides, unexpected breaks and surreal landscapes
A delayed monsoon and strikes had made our plans to visit Mustang uncertain. After weeks of agonising over it, my wife and I finally boarded a tourist bus from Thamel to Pokhara at the end of August, but once inside the bus, everyone had the same look of disbelief and was probably wondering the same thing: Where are the damn tourists? Tourism in Nepal seems to be going through a period of transition. Western tourists are increasingly being replaced by domestic and regional visitors. Some tourism entrepreneurs will tell you, even off-season is good season for business nowadays. The green-plated tourist buses are packed more and more with locals and Indians. While the phenomenon has partly to do with the issue of road safety, it is also partly because a new class of upwardly mobile Nepalis has emerged along with an increase in Indian tourists. As we were approaching Damauli, a speeding truck smashed the side mirror of the bus scattering broken pieces of glass all over our vehicle. While trying to avoid a total collision, the driver had forcefully jammed the brakes— quite literally—that rendered the bus totally immobile, and he had to send for a technician to fix the brakes. Since we had to reach Beni that day, we waived down and hopped onto the next Beni-bound bus that came our way. We arrived at Beni very late in the evening after being stranded near Maldhunga in Baglung, where a bus that had been caught in a landslide had blocked the whole road. As we approached Beni, a fellow passenger, a total stranger, invited us to her house—the worry in our faces must have been visible, but we had to politely decline. She then volunteered and took us to her relative's hotel. We ran into two young and possibly trainee monks next to our room who, perhaps in secrecy, were taking some worldly pleasures by gulping down few glasses of local raksi. We could overhear them rationalising among themselves why they drink, and other monks don't. The next morning, a bus took us to Chamere, which was an hour away. Because of the landslide, we had to walk for about 20 minutes to go past a section where the boulders and mud were still crumbling. After another hour's jeep ride, we arrived in Beg Khola, where the swollen rivers had swept a section of the road. We found another jeep on the other side of the river, but we were 4 people short of the full capacity. We offered to pay some extra, but the driver wouldn't agree. So we decided to make use of our two limbs, and after a good seven-hour walk, arrived in Ghasa. We did stop on the way for tea and rest—chatting with locals and travellers, while marvelling at the scenery. As we would stop and enquire about the time it would take to reach the next point, people would confuse us with different estimates. It is amazing how fleeting a sense of time and direction do we have. Never take the time estimates of village folks at face value: Half an hour can mean anything between ten minutes to two hours. The locals seemed to have mixed feelings about the construction of the new road. Transportation had definitely become easier and goods cheaper, but the downside was that not many tourists trekked along the Annapurna Conservation Area routes as earlier. It is quite visible that people have invested a lot of money in facilities for tourists to stay overnight along the route. Like many trekkers did before the road was built, we intended to stay in Ghasa overnight and leave the next morning. Instead, we met two government employees who were headed to Jomsom. They assured us that they will find a jeep to travel and a hotel for us no matter how late at night we arrived in Jomsom. So, we continued, and reached Jomsom at 10:30 in the night, after a change of three more jeeps on the way, walking up and down the hills, and on suspension bridges that would swing violently in the pitch-black night. We were really touched by the warmth of the locals. Despite commercialisation in places like Jomsom, folks in these mountains have not lost their honesty and hospitality. Trust still seems to be a currency around here, and the guest word is taken quite literally. Although we were paying for the services, it did feel almost at home. Next morning, we woke up to the sounds of a landing airplane. We didn't know that our hotel was just opposite the airport when we arrived the night before. The landings and take-offs of twin-otters silhouetted by the mountains were a breathtaking sight. A Sri Lankan friend once put it after visiting Mustang: The landing at Jomsom airport always brings prayers to the mind of even a non-believer. We took a jeep headed for Muktinath. Drivers in these parts of the country are quite young. Among the half-a-dozen drivers that we used during the whole trip, only two appeared to be in their late 20s, while the rest were much younger. None of the drivers were from Mustang. They were either from Pokhara or further away. Local men seemed to be in short supply. All the businesses like restaurants and hotels are run by mothers and daughters, quite literally a women's land. Perhaps it epitomises the predicament of Nepal's rural areas in general. As we walked up to the Muktinath temple at a staggering 3,800 m, I could feel the effects of the thinning oxygen in my lungs and knees. I panted for the most part as we scaled up to the temple from breathlessness and excitement alike. Three hours later, we took another jeep down to Kagbeni, but to our dismay, it didn't live up to the impression created by the film. The next morning, we walked down to Jomsom. I had slightly sprained my right foot the previous day while navigating between boulders in one of the landslide affected sections. So we took four hours in a lazy downhill walk—sometimes scavenging for ammonites, at other times just awed by the surroundings—an unwinding effect, a calm that was accentuated by the almost silent flow of the Kali Gandaki River—and occasionally punctuated by the sounds of speeding jeeps and the gushing wind.
Rule of law? What?
JOHN N PARAJULI
OCT 5 - In a bid to fight off the Maoists’ carefully calibrated obstructions, Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal’s team tried to reach out to the people by resorting to a sleek public relations drive. The airlifting by the prime minister of Kamala Chand, who was suffering from internal bleeding and labour pains, from Rukum in the second week of September stands out. The rescue effort has helped him to come off as a caring individual in the eyes of the public.
It has also highlighted Nepal’s qualities as a leader who is conscious of public opinion, and is perhaps capable of acting accordingly. Unfortunately, events like this are exceptions rather than the norm. It is a fluke when Nepali leaders hit the right note; but as a habit, they seldom dwell on the issue of public aspirations.
Madhav Kumar Nepal’s elevation to the post of prime minister was unnatural; and for that reason, he is walking the extra mile to claim legitimacy. He is acutely aware of the flimsy foundation that his government is standing on. So Nepal is trying hard not to leave any stone unturned when it comes to mending fences on the public relations front.
For a moment in the first week of September, it appeared as if Nepal and his team had finally understood that the basics of good governance begin with good public relations (PR). Of course, it is a slippery slope, and politicians can soon resort to too many pseudo-events to improve their image. The resulting PR overload would lead to another cycle of cynicism. Nevertheless, politicians responding to public distrust by doing something about it is a good start.
Many times it appears as if our leaders are impervious to the public pulse, and that their only drive is partisan and individual interests. The kind of politics that is being played out in Nepal at the moment repels most citizens. Many have retreated in utter cynicism concluding that nothing good is going to come out of the leaders who not very long ago collectively apologized to the public and vowed not to repeat the nasty politics of the 1990s. That promise has long been forgotten, and business as usual continues. The bitterness of losing the elections, personality clashes and other turns of events following the Constituent Assembly elections effectively snuffed the spirit of consensus that was the driving force behind the successful steering of the peace process until that point.
Any hope-inspiring act of the political leaders goes a long way in changing the public psychology and attitude towards the state. More positive gestures would rekindle faith among the people in the government and its ability to deliver, and that in turn will boost the confidence of the leaders and the state machinery. But that optimism was short-lived. Before Nepal left for New York, the cabinet took some decisions that will only perpetuate impunity.
The decision to dole out money from the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund to party workers and to withdraw serious criminal charges against Rishi Dhamala and others in order to include him in the delegation to the United Nations overshadows the few positive deeds, if any, the government has done. The work of angels seen in the act of saving Kamala’s life was drowned out by the work of the coalition’s demons.
Dhamala may be innocent, but the public perception of him is not favourable. The law should have taken its due course. A government that is staking so much on restoring the rule of law as a measure of its progress has so brazenly violated the due process by extending special treatment to an individual. The prime minister claims that an investigation found Dhamala and company innocent. What the prime minister is then saying is that the Nepal Police had framed Dhamala and the others; and what that implies is that the police cannot be trusted. Dhamala was facing criminal charges, not political ones. And he is too well connected for even senior police officers to touch without a strong basis. The charges against him are serious.
The police have him on tape assuring the security of alleged Rana Bir Sena operatives. The police may or may not have violated the due process in obtaining those tapes; but the important thing is that if the voice on the tape is Dhamala’s, these are explosive charges. Senior police officials naturally find the development disturbing. What they worry most is that this will set a precedent for other criminals with ties to politicians to operate with impunity. What it assures is that if a minister’s son is arrested tomorrow on a serious criminal charge of rape or peddling weapons, a cabinet meeting will withdraw the case. What this incident is effectively telling law enforcement officers is this: Do not touch those with connections to power centres.
Madhav Kumar Nepal assured the United Nations General Assembly that his government was working to end impunity and ensure transitional justice. But his government’s actions speak louder than his words. His failure to secure a meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is an indication that the international community no longer takes Nepali leaders at their word. Ban’s snub was nothing compared to the insult he faced at the hands of some Nepalis in New York.
At a programme organized by the Federation of Indigenous Peoples of Nepal in America on Sept. 26 in New York, where Prime Minister Nepal had been invited as the chief guest, he was reportedly insulted both by the organizers and some in the audience. Some of the anger is said to have been attributed to Dhamala’s presence in the delegation and the issue of the misuse of the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. The rest is displeasure over the way he has climbed to the top.
johnparajuli@hotmail.com
From the Kathmandu Post, October 5, 2009
OCT 5 - In a bid to fight off the Maoists’ carefully calibrated obstructions, Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal’s team tried to reach out to the people by resorting to a sleek public relations drive. The airlifting by the prime minister of Kamala Chand, who was suffering from internal bleeding and labour pains, from Rukum in the second week of September stands out. The rescue effort has helped him to come off as a caring individual in the eyes of the public.
It has also highlighted Nepal’s qualities as a leader who is conscious of public opinion, and is perhaps capable of acting accordingly. Unfortunately, events like this are exceptions rather than the norm. It is a fluke when Nepali leaders hit the right note; but as a habit, they seldom dwell on the issue of public aspirations.
Madhav Kumar Nepal’s elevation to the post of prime minister was unnatural; and for that reason, he is walking the extra mile to claim legitimacy. He is acutely aware of the flimsy foundation that his government is standing on. So Nepal is trying hard not to leave any stone unturned when it comes to mending fences on the public relations front.
For a moment in the first week of September, it appeared as if Nepal and his team had finally understood that the basics of good governance begin with good public relations (PR). Of course, it is a slippery slope, and politicians can soon resort to too many pseudo-events to improve their image. The resulting PR overload would lead to another cycle of cynicism. Nevertheless, politicians responding to public distrust by doing something about it is a good start.
Many times it appears as if our leaders are impervious to the public pulse, and that their only drive is partisan and individual interests. The kind of politics that is being played out in Nepal at the moment repels most citizens. Many have retreated in utter cynicism concluding that nothing good is going to come out of the leaders who not very long ago collectively apologized to the public and vowed not to repeat the nasty politics of the 1990s. That promise has long been forgotten, and business as usual continues. The bitterness of losing the elections, personality clashes and other turns of events following the Constituent Assembly elections effectively snuffed the spirit of consensus that was the driving force behind the successful steering of the peace process until that point.
Any hope-inspiring act of the political leaders goes a long way in changing the public psychology and attitude towards the state. More positive gestures would rekindle faith among the people in the government and its ability to deliver, and that in turn will boost the confidence of the leaders and the state machinery. But that optimism was short-lived. Before Nepal left for New York, the cabinet took some decisions that will only perpetuate impunity.
The decision to dole out money from the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund to party workers and to withdraw serious criminal charges against Rishi Dhamala and others in order to include him in the delegation to the United Nations overshadows the few positive deeds, if any, the government has done. The work of angels seen in the act of saving Kamala’s life was drowned out by the work of the coalition’s demons.
Dhamala may be innocent, but the public perception of him is not favourable. The law should have taken its due course. A government that is staking so much on restoring the rule of law as a measure of its progress has so brazenly violated the due process by extending special treatment to an individual. The prime minister claims that an investigation found Dhamala and company innocent. What the prime minister is then saying is that the Nepal Police had framed Dhamala and the others; and what that implies is that the police cannot be trusted. Dhamala was facing criminal charges, not political ones. And he is too well connected for even senior police officers to touch without a strong basis. The charges against him are serious.
The police have him on tape assuring the security of alleged Rana Bir Sena operatives. The police may or may not have violated the due process in obtaining those tapes; but the important thing is that if the voice on the tape is Dhamala’s, these are explosive charges. Senior police officials naturally find the development disturbing. What they worry most is that this will set a precedent for other criminals with ties to politicians to operate with impunity. What it assures is that if a minister’s son is arrested tomorrow on a serious criminal charge of rape or peddling weapons, a cabinet meeting will withdraw the case. What this incident is effectively telling law enforcement officers is this: Do not touch those with connections to power centres.
Madhav Kumar Nepal assured the United Nations General Assembly that his government was working to end impunity and ensure transitional justice. But his government’s actions speak louder than his words. His failure to secure a meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is an indication that the international community no longer takes Nepali leaders at their word. Ban’s snub was nothing compared to the insult he faced at the hands of some Nepalis in New York.
At a programme organized by the Federation of Indigenous Peoples of Nepal in America on Sept. 26 in New York, where Prime Minister Nepal had been invited as the chief guest, he was reportedly insulted both by the organizers and some in the audience. Some of the anger is said to have been attributed to Dhamala’s presence in the delegation and the issue of the misuse of the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. The rest is displeasure over the way he has climbed to the top.
johnparajuli@hotmail.com
From the Kathmandu Post, October 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)