ASIAN AFFAIRS ON TERRORISM Binod P Bista - Former Diplomat - Katmandu University (Nepal) FROM PEACE TO WAR NEPAL'S JOURNEY TO INSURGENCY While the world’s gaze was transfixed on one event, the terrorist strikes against the United States, many other events were taking place in the globe, particularly in the Asian continent. Nepal, a relatively small Himalayan Kingdom made even smaller by the lack of economic development, was also drawn into an internal conflict of a massive scale by Nepal’s standard (1). Multi-party system of Parliamentary Democracy was re-established in Nepal in 1990 after a struggle of over three decades (2). But a sizeable number of Nepalese, including former members of parliament from the communist party (CPN-UML) (3), deviated from the political mainstream, forming a so-called Nepal Maoist communist party and declared a “people’s war” around six years ago (4). And so, once being close to be established as the “Zone of Peace” in the world, recently Nepal suffered from scores of massive attacks from the Maoists which violated a three-month long cease fire and ongoing peace talks. This unexpected action of the Maoists resulted in a break down of the temporary peace talk and further shattered the hopes of 24 million Nepali citizens to live a peaceful life under the current democratic system. Possibility of correcting the flaws in the multi-party political system peacefully through dialogues now being pushed on the edge, the Nepali government retaliated by imposing a national emergency on November 26, 2001, declaring the Maoists and their supporters as ‘terrorists’ and moving against them. To have to undergo through such sad and wasteful experience by Nepal, a country practicing full democratic governance, and fully keeping up with requisite economic and social policies as enunciated by the international community, merits serious attention and purposeful action. THE SETTING In a total area of 147,181 Kilometers, almost two thirds of which is covered by the great Himalayas (snow peaked mountains-the prominent among them being Mt. Everest) and high hills, 24 million people overcrowd the nation. People have found their homes on the foothills of the Himalayas and in several valleys, and even on hilltops across the width and breadth of the country. Difficult and inaccessible terrains, lack of modern transportation and communication network, and language barriers have prevented the Nepalese from stepping fully into the twentieth Century, much less into the twenty-first one. It is still a far cry to the Third Millennium. King Prithivi Narayana Shah the Great, the builder of modern Nepal, had categorically stated that “Nepal is a flower garden having four varieties and thirty six colors”. At the time, the rulers of Nepal, as in India and other places where Hinduism was practiced, had grouped the entire population into four distinct categories, known as the castes. They had assigned the State’s tasks to these four groups with clear responsibility and accountability. Continuance of such practice, though useful at the time, did more harm than good to the social harmony. Thirty-six colors referred to different ethnic groups that lived in small available areas, be they the foothills, valleys or the mountains. Lack of opportunities, communication, trading, and education in most parts of the Kingdom further segregated these groups of people from the mainstream. However, this arrangement did help in the development of art, architecture, culture, tradition, and customs, which collectively has enriched Nepal’s cultural heritage. Isolationist policy and its consequences Nepal’s entry to the Twentieth Century occurred while Nepal was being governed by the Rana Prime Ministers in the name of Shah Monarchs. Mr. Jang Bahadur Rana, the first of the ruling Rana Prime Ministers, was not only able to take the reigns of the country from the Shah dynasty, but he was also successful in building and consolidating transfer of power to the Rana clan. Later, during the Prime Ministership of Bir Shumsher, the power was to be shared between the seventeen brothers and their descendants - the reign passing from elder brother to the younger one. As the population was still fond of its Monarch, opposition from within the country forced the Ranas to take a tight grip of the states’ affairs. Most social amenities to the public suffered; freedom of movement and interactions, especially with the outside world, were restrained. While more and more countries were being ushered to democratic systems of governance, Nepal was kept enclosed within the confines of primitive agriculture and technology, and the people were held virtual slaves to the ruling elite. The policy designed for continuing the dictatorial mode of governance, resulting in a closed-door rule, prevented the fruits of industrial revolution reaching even the capital of the Himalayan Kingdom, Khatmandu, much less the dwellings of the common folk who were entrenched in the pockets of spiraling poverty and destitution. Not surpringly, the disparity between the rich and the poor widened. Even among the poor, owing to the variation in natural resources and arable land, there existed a wide gulf of income distribution between the groups. New opportunities but old behavior The Second World War not only liberated Nepal’s neighboring countries from the Imperial hold of the British, it also uprooted authoritarian rulers from many other Asian countries. Though Nepal, too, received a much-awaited break from the hold of Rana rulers in 1950, the lack of experience in democratic governance, and tardiness in building democratic institutions which were answerable to public scrutiny, were the major impediments that dragged the pace of development below a desirable level. The level and size of poor people grew faster as a result. The democratic exercise hardly continued for a decade before slipping into a party-less system of governance known as the Panchayat. People continued living under extremely stressful conditions of poverty throughout the party-less Panchayat polity (5), as the new system, at the core was incapable of tending to the needs of people fully. After over three decades of experimenting with a self-styled system of governance, Nepalese, once again, got the opportunity to exercise a multi-party system of democratic governance in 1990. This time people regained the desired system of governance with the help of Nepali Congress Party and the Communist Party (United Marxist-Leninist) working together. Starting with the first elections (1992), the major parties and scores of minor ones didn’t leave any stones unturned in making promises. The promises were tall, and they were made everywhere throughout the length and breadth of the country. This obviously raised the awareness as well as aspirations of everybody, including the poor (6). The outcome of the last eleven years after the restoration of democratic governance is a sorry tale in Nepal’s history of economic development. In-fighting within the political parties causing breakup of parties, and block dissention operating within a major party, all for power, has been a hallmark of Nepal’s multi-party system. People appear to have been sidelined and subjected to vagaries of leaders and weather. Despite the people having obtained the opportunity to build a more prosperous nation, outdated policy coupled with lack of preparedness and commitment to manage a democratic system for the well being of the people, seems to be one of the prime reasons for the fallout of a significant productive faction of people from the mainstream politics and development. External assistance and its impact on Nepal The cold war period, following the end of Second World War, proved to be a boon for staunch allies of the superpowers but it didn’t help those countries that chose to remain either on the fringes or get together as a group of Non-Aligned block. Yet, even within the Non Aligned Movement, some countries managed to get into some special relationships with the superpowers, thus enjoying some economic benefits. But Nepal was not one of them! Nepal, a member of the Non Aligned countries, provided very little attraction to the superpowers either on strategic or resource grounds. People of OECD countries and others on sound economic footing impressed upon their governments to offer some help to the poor countries. Nepal, indeed, qualified for that as a member of the group of least developed countries. As a result, Official Development Assistance flowed to Nepal (ODA), but it is alleged that a larger chunk of assistance never reached the target group. Two major factors seem to be responsible for this condition: - the effectiveness of available external assistance, most of which came with conditions for using donor’s expert manpower, supply and equipment, appears to have been compromised at source, obviously with the connivance of policy makers, bureaucrats and local experts; - lack of proper financial rules and regulations, and virtual non-existence of a system of transparency and accountability fueling up corruption at all levels, causing the remnants of the development funds to disappear into thin air. A study of the technical assistance (including expert manpower, goods and training/seminar) received from friendly countries, international funds, programs and organizations, and international non-government organizations (Ministry of Finance, HMG/Nepal, 2055 = 1998) reveals that a significant portion of the funds were earmarked for projects and programs to be carried out in the economically backward districts and regions. The development effort seems to end there (7). In the absence of a status report on each project and program, clearly outlining the outcome of intervention to its preset objective and goals, it is impossible to assess the usefulness of a social program, which even with complete reports, is extremely difficult to quantify objectively. Financial resources received from external sources together with government’s budget expenditures as matching funds for most bilateral and multi-lateral projects and programs, were channeled to the regions genuinely needing help. However, in the absence of a well-established development mechanism, involving political activists, bureaucrats, local officials and representatives and the civil society working in concert for the well being of the people in general, ample opportunity existed for under-using or misusing the funds thus received. The tussle, until recently, between the Social Welfare Council and the international non-government organizations (INGOs) and domestic non-government organizations (NGOs) receiving funding from INGOs merely for acquiring information on funds’ inflow to Nepal and its usage per category/sector (social), reveals the state of many programs and projects. Assistance through multi-lateral agencies should have made the difference for a country like Nepal. These agencies, for a long time, seem to have focused their attention to achieving their programmatic goals set at their headquarters, rather than tending to the real needs of the subject countries. The principal objective of preparing the local manpower with a view to realizing self-sustaining projects and programs is still an objective in paper. It is indeed a pity that a country like Nepal, after decades of planned development efforts supported by international agencies such as UNDP, still lacks: absorptive capacity to funds’ usage, expertise in aid-coordination and well-trained manpower to implement and run projects, such as ARUN III hydro-electric power plant which had to be aborted after spending a huge sum of money during its feasibility study and other preparations locally (8). Arguments, conflicts, dissensions, & insurgencies A careful look at the ‘Nepal Human Development Report 1998’ (prepared by Nepal South Asia Center for UNDP) firmly establishes the fact that the problem experienced by Nepal in recent years is a corollary of an imbalanced development pattern, the Far-Western region suffering the most followed by Mid-Western region. Income Index (I.I) in the Far & Mid Western regions, as provided in the report, ranks lowest. I.I. of Eastern region is higher than the preceding two regions. In terms of districts, from a high of 0.518 I.I, and 0.603 HDI in Kathmandu, the index dips down to as little as 0.071 (I.I) and 0.173 (HDI) in Bajura, and Rolpa (the stronghold of Maoist movement) with 0.115 (I.I) and 0.264 (HDI) better than Bajura but way below Kathmandu and its adjoining districts. Going by the ethnic groups, Newar (nș1-HDI at 0.457), Brahmin (nș 2-HDI at 0.441), Chhetri (nș3-HDI at 0.348), occupied the highest position, followed by Rajbanshi, Yadav, Tharu, Ahir (HDI at 0.313) to Gurung, Magar, Sherpa, Rai, Limbu (HDI at 0.299) and so on. The lowest on the ladder of HDI is a group classified as Occupational Castes (mostly including untouchables from hills and terai regions-HDI at 0.239). Income pattern of these ethnicities revealed that the Occupational castes had I.I. of 0.110 (lowest) as compared to 0.289 of the Newars (highest). On the face of widening disparities made even larger by arguments, it was natural that some downtrodden groups at times engaged in conflicts with the privileged ones out of sheer desperation. General discriminatory practices, particularly at villages, against the low caste people, including at jobs, was bound to worsen the relationship established earlier out of compulsion. Job and relocation opportunities, outside of the villages made possible by improved access to mobility & communication, also provided the much-needed support to the groups hanging at the lower end of the class system in their feeble fight against discrimination. And these groups provided the perfect ground to not only those opposed to bad governance, corruptive practices, and continuing unemployment but also to those who were bent on creating dissension on grounds of: language, caste, occupation, religion, and virtually any conceivable issue. Thus, the position of the Maoists, once a radical faction of the Communist party itself, that declared a “people’s war” and went underground in 1996. It is noteworthy to remember that some of the key members of the movement had taken part in the first general elections under the multi-party democratic polity. Apparently disillusioned by the leaders of major political parties, who had nothing but one goal—to hang on to power, then questioning the effectiveness of the system to provide relief to the weak and vulnerable, they decided to desert the mainstream politics. In just a short period of six years, the group of "dissidents" has been able to garner significant support among the discontented and impoverished population at the local levels. More significantly, they seem to have been able to raise the necessary funds to sustain their movement. Although, part of the money may have come from extortion, blackmail and threats to the public, specifically the businessmen, and some from outside (although there is no real proof of any financial aid coming from another country), the dissidents seem now to have mastered the art of making use of the resources available at the villages. As explained earlier, lack of close monitoring and follow up of projects, mostly those designed for awareness, empowerment programs and the like, created an attractive source of funding that didn’t demand any accountability. The Maoists' movement picked up a good momentum as the political parties, both in power and in the opposition, could never come to terms in defining the Maoists’ problem, much less in resolving it. Even within the ruling party, senior leaders differed on their views as to the best way of getting over the problem. The state of violence and terror continued unabated in the Kingdom, while the government was still trying to grapple with the issue. Many precious lives were lost while the government became engaged in talks through intermediaries, both self-proclaimed and appointed, with the Maoists. Sporadic violence turned into a larger conflict engulfing a wide part of the Kingdom. The land of Buddha lost its relevance to the great soul. Normal civil life became a dream. People’s panic reached a new high. Capital flight accelerated. Foreign as well as domestic investment stopped. The formerly underground movement of Maoists came above ground and it started open rallies and demonstrations against the government, the system and the constitution itself. Yet, no action appeared imminent. Confusion reigned supreme. The Himalayan Kingdom was panting from terror - a terror self-inflicted and from within. It was a totally different war Nepal was fighting against its own people while America chased the terrorists in Afghanistan. State of national emergency and internal terrorism Citing a threat to her sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security arising from Maoist insurgents’ armed rebellion, Nepal declared a national emergency on November 26, 2001. Since the restoration of multi-party democratic system of governance, some twelve years ago, Nepalese have already witnessed few bouts of military curfew in the capital and some other cities, the rioting that broke out on some occasions had more to do with public discontent with government’s handling of state’s economy rather than the apparent reasons cited for such riots. Having declared ‘Maoists’ as terrorists, and banning their organization and affiliates from operating any kind of activities in Nepal’s soil, Nepali government started the process of disarming & recovering the arms and ammunitions looted by ‘Maoists’ from various places. Nepal’s military is now actively engaged in the operations supported fully by the armed and non-armed police forces of Nepal. Prior to coming to this action, Nepal’s closest neighbor, India, had declared the ‘Maoists’ a terrorist organization and she had offered full help to the government in its fight against the Maoists (8). With support coming from American establishment followed by the European Union, Japan and others, the resolve of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal received an important boost when China also supported fully the Nepali government. The constitution of Nepal allows a three-month long emergency period in exceptional circumstances, such as the present one. The parliament, with a two-thirds majority of members sitting, has to ratify the proclamation of the State of Emergency within three months from the date of such proclamation. The maximum duration of an emergency period is six months from the date on which such emergency was first declared. In the event of the Parliament rejecting such a move by the government, the emergency situation ceases automatically. It is difficult to assess at this moment whether the Parliament would accede to the government’s request for an extension of emergency as the opposition members of Parliament, and even some ruling party members, are airing different views already. News reports being received so far give an impression that normalization may take a longer time. Post emergency scenario There is now a better sense of safety and security, at least in major cities and towns. People today appear to be more relaxed, even with the military check points, and armed police force guarding street corners & major commercial and government buildings. It certainly may be better than a state of uncertainty, confusion and chaos, but it can’t be a way of life in a democratic country. Judging by what is taking place in the capital today such as the dismantling of illegal constructions, and removing of unauthorized encroachments, a big question mark is posed on the proper functioning of the state apparatus under the multi-party system of democratic governance in Nepal. Continuance of bad policies, lack of full commitment and strong efforts to implement useful policies, and above all, the ever increasing corruptive practices in the past fifty years of peoples’ involvement, directly or indirectly, in their governance, have in no way helped to lessen the economic disparity among the groups. Discussions on social awareness and empowerment at the local, national, regional & international levels have become a daily affair of the New Age, especially towards the end of the Cold War. Without external support, either coming from bilateral donors through their agencies or regional or international initiatives, the exercise of awareness programs directed against discrimination merely ends in a shouting and a fighting match as there are hardly any funds available locally to support the just cause. At the village and town levels, the discourse is routine; it has a purpose, and the affected people understand the goals clearly. If well monitored and supported on a timely basis, the chances of simple arguments and conflicts being resolved at the local level itself are much better. However, it is difficult to resolve problems arising out of a distinct mindset of well-educated and experienced people. The discussion of the elite class usually centers around inherent biases, blatant exploitation and other social evils whose remedies could be found in attitudinal changes, a difficult and time consuming exercise which might end in total failure. There is no denying the fact that the downtrodden groups in Nepal are in urgent need of serious help. But their cause appears to be overshadowed and belittled by class-based arguments such as ‘Bramhanbad’, generally referring to a class that is perceived as privileged by another class, which in spite of having highest HDI index feels itself to be underprivileged. It is natural that the groups at the lowest end of the development spectrum, residing in remote parts of the kingdom and which really suffered as a result of either neglect on the part of policy makers or bad implementation of development projects or both, are showing serious signs of dissent. The carefully crafted garden of Nepal’s founder is being mauled by forces of destabilization intent on bringing out a complete demise of Nepal as an independent nation. 1.- For one to realize how small is the economy of Nepal, one can compare its population to that of Malaysia. Then the total external debt of Nepal that rose by 24 percent in 1999/2000 is a paltry US$3.4 billion. Yet, it is equivalent to 62% of the GDP of the country! 2.- The Kingdom of Nepal is a constitutional monarchy. The King (currently King Gyanendra) is Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. The Prime Minister heads a Council of Ministers appointed from the elected House of Representatives and the National Assembly. On November 9, 1990, late King Birendra promulgated a new constitution which introduced a multi-party system. The legislature is bicameral: a National Assembly with 60 members, of whom 35 are elected by the House of Representatives, 10 are appointed by the King and 15 are elected on a regional basis and a House of Representatives with 205 elected members for five years from national single-member constituencies. The country is divided in five Development regions, 14 zones, 75 districts, 3995 village development committees and 36 municipalities. The last national election was held in May 1999. The Nepali Congress won an absolute majority of seats in parliament (111) with only 37.3% of the popular vote. The second largest party was the Nepal Communist Party (CPN-UML) with 71 seats with 31.6% of the votes. The third largest party is the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) [National Democratic Party - NDP] that won 10.4% of the votes but only 11 seats in the House of Representatives. The Nepali Congress formed a majority government, the first in five years, with Krishna Prashad Bhattarai, its leader as the Prime Minister. However, an internal power struggle within Nepali Congress led, in March 2000, to the ouster of Bhattarai and his replacement by his long-time rival within the party, Girija Koirala. This government lasted little over a year when Koirala resigned in July 2001 and was replaced by a third rival, Sher Bahadur Deuba. Political infighting and personal rivalries are at the root of the political quagmire of Nepal. There are no records of a Prime Minister lasting a term of the House of Representative as can be seen from the following list of Prime Ministers since World War II. It can also be seen that King Mahendra several times ruled without Prime Minister. Padma Shamshir Jang Bahadur Rana 29 Nov 1945 - 30 Apr 1948, Mohan Shamshir Jang Bahadur Rana 30 Apr 1948 - 12 Nov 1951, Matrika Prasad Koirala 12 Nov 1951 - 14 Aug 1952, (direct rule of) King Tribhuvana -- 14 Aug 1952 - 15 Jun 1953, Matrika Prasad Koirala 15 Jun 1953 - 14 Apr 1955, (direct rule of) King Mahendra -- 14 Apr 1955 - 27 Jan 1956, Tanka Prasad Acharya 27 Jan 1956 - 26 Jul 1957, Kunwar Indrajit Singh 26 Jul 1957 - 15 Nov 1957, (direct rule of ) King Mahendra -- 15 Nov 1957 - 15 May 1958, Suvarna Shamshir Jang Bahadur Rana 15 May 1958 - 27 May 1959, Bishewar Prasad Koirala 27 May 1959 - 26 Dec 1960, (direct rule of) King Mahendra -- 26 Dec 1960 - 2 Apr 1963, Tulsi Giri 2 Apr 1963 - 23 Dec 1963, Surya Bahadur Thapa 23 Dec 1963 - 26 Feb 1964, Tulsi Giri 26 Feb 1964 - 26 Jan 1965, Surya Bahadur Thapa 26 Jan 1965 - 7 Apr 1969, Kirti Nidhi Bista 7 Apr 1969 - 13 Apr 1970, (direct rule of King Mahendra) 13 Apr 1970 - 14 Apr 1971, Kirti Nidhi Bista 14 Apr 1971 - 16 Jul 1973, Nagendra Prasad Rijal 16 Jul 1973 - 1 Dec 1975, Tulsi Giri 1 Dec 1975 - 12 Sep 1977, Kirti Nidhi Bista 12 Sep 1977 - 30 May 1979, Surya Bahadur Thapa 30 May 1979 - 12 Jul 1983, Lokendra Bahadur Chand 12 Jul 1983 - 21 Mar 1986, Nagendra Prasad Rijal 21 Mar 1986 - 15 Jun 1986, (acting) Marich Man Singh Shrestha 15 Jun 1986 - 6 Apr 1990, Lokendra Bahadur Chand 6 Apr 1990 - 19 Apr 1990, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai 19 Apr 1990 - 26 May 1991, Girija Prasad Koirala 26 May 1991 - 30 Nov 1994, Man Mohan Adhikari 30 Nov 1994 - 12 Sep 1995, Sher Bahadur Deuba 12 Sep 1995 - 12 Mar 1997, Lokendra Bahadur Chand 12 Mar 1997 - 7 Oct 1997, Surya Bahadur Thapa 7 Oct 1997 - 15 Apr 1998, Girija Prasad Koirala 15 Apr 1998 - 31 May 1999, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai 31 May 1999 - 22 Mar 2000, Girija Prasad Koirala 22 Mar 2000 - 26 Jul 2001, Sher Bahadur Deuba 26 Jul 2001 - 3.- The Communist Party of Nepal was established on 22nd April 1949. Its first General Secretary was Puspa Lal. Its first slogan was: "Hills, Peaks, Rivers and Land for all" and "Why do we accept slavery? pointing out the direction of the party against feudalism and imperialism. Its impact was important for, within the single year after its historical declaration, the Prime Minister was ousted from power. In 1974, however, its survival was in doubt. A serious upheaval had emerged in the communist movement when Jhapa District Committee of East Koshi Zonal committee, influenced by the Chinese Cultural Revolution and Indian Naxalite movement, started an armed struggle. Hundreds of communists or sympathisers were arrested, or forced to cross the border to India. However the repression backfired badly, for the party expanded its membership throughout the country. Yet, it was the beginning of a pure Marxist-Leninist revolutionary line within the communist movement of Nepal that eventually broke away and is now known as the Maoist line. In June 1975, the revolutionary groups, all officially banned, agreed upon a common agenda and formed the "All Nepal Communist Revolutionary Coordination Committee (Marxist-Leninist)". Later on, the Liberation Front in 1977 and the Revolutionary Communist Organizing Committee, "Gandaki" as well as the Shandesh Group, "Dang" in 1978 folded their actions in a reorganised Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-ML). The party emerged from the shadows in 1990 with the formation of United Left Front for joint mass-movement with Madan Bhandari as the General Secretary of the CPN-UML. 4.-On February 13, 1996, the leadership of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) went openly into war against the government. In the first two weeks, almost 5,000 actions were carried out throughout the country — including armed assaults on police stations in rural districts, confiscation of property from landlords, and what the Party called "punishment of local tyrants". To justify their actions, the Maoists argue that the present Nepalese state which is described as being controlled by a small clique is beset with such irreconcilable contradictions that all reformist efforts to introduce patchworks in the politico-cultural superstructure as well as the economic base have failed to check its gradual slide towards total collapse. Unfortunately, the comments have some truth. The Maoists point out that the country has now slipped down to the position of the second poorest country in the world while economic inequality has increased (the richest 10 percent take up 46.5 percent of the national income). 42 percent of the population is forced to live below the absolute poverty line (71 percent according to the Maoists); 90 percent of the population live in rural areas in primitive conditions and 81 percent of the workforce is engaged in backward agriculture; only 10 percent of the labour force is fully unemployed and another 60 percent is under-employed. As a result, the Maoists say that about one third of the total labour force is forced to emigrate to India and other countries for petty menial jobs and some for mercenary services in Indian and British armies (the Gurkhas). To change the country for the better, the Maoists claim that the "bureaucrat-capitalist class and state system, which are dependent on and serve imperialism must be overthrown". They consider themselves as part of the same Revolutionary internationalist Movement (RIM) fighting the central governments of Peru, the Philippines and India in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar (two of the poorest states of India). Since February 1996, more than 2,000 people are alleged to have been killed and many more have been arrested, jailed, and tortured. In a way, the Maoists have been successful in their campaign, controlling a number of remote rural areas where the government seems to have lost all interests. And it is clear that the target set in the Ninth Plan to bring down the percentage of people below absolute poverty down to 32 percent in 2001/2002 will remain far from achieved. 5.- Panchayat is a Hindi word which means "the village council". Panchayati Raj, the system of governance at the village level, is as old as the Hindu culture. During the Muslim rule, the system continued unobstructed but the British ignored it as it was contrary to their policy of centralization. By 1907, however, a Commission pointed out that "in ignoring the village as the primary unit of local self-government, the (British) government began with a false step". However, no one paid any serious attention to the recommendations of the Commission. After the Independence of India, Article 40 of the Constitution directed the government to take necessary steps to organise village Panchayati and endow them with such power and authority as may be necessary to enable them to work as units of self-government. In 1957, the Indian government appointed a team of experts to study and report on how to achieve such goals. Upon recommendation of the Mehta Committee, a three-tier structure from village to district was set up, but as the Committee did not at the time favour introduction of a uniform system throughout the country, only a number of States created the three-tier system of rural local self-government institutions. Some went on creating a drastically different system as well. Broadly, the Panchayat, which forms the basic unit of the three-tier structure, is an executive body of the village. It chiefly consists of representatives elected by the people of the village. The Panchayat has an elected chairman, known as Sarpanch. As regards the main functions performed by the village Panchayat they include maintenance of roads, wells, schools, burning and burial grounds, public health, street lighting… The Panchayats also keep records of births and deaths. Minor disputes among residents of village are also settled by the village Panchayat. The Panchayats can levy certain local taxes and duties to meet their expenses (on animals, vehicles, houses, vacant land and professions). The second tier is the block, which consists of 20 to 60 villages, depending on the location and population. At this level exists a body called the Panchyat Samiti which consists of about twenty members elected by and from the Panches of all the Panchayats falling into the block area plus a number of members coopted by reservation. The chairman of the Panchayat Samiti is know as Pradhan. The main function of the body was to coordinate the work among the various Panchayats and to look after the development work within its area. For this purpose it was responsible for the preparation of plans for development. The plans had to be approved by the State. Then their implementation were surpervised by the Panchayat Samiti. Those functions gave the impression that the body was vested with very extensive power. But in reality it was a very limited role as the councils have no independence regarding suggestion for allocation of priorities. As a result, the very purpose of associating the rural people with the administration was defeated. The Panchayat Raj system, which remained more or less in place in the region, had not been more a success in Nepal than in India past its independence. It is primarily because the distribution of functions between the structures at different level is not consistent or rational and because there is a tendency to treat the lower structures as subordinates. Furthermore the structure itself does not have adequate finances while the permanent meddling of the central state officials disrupts and dilutes its authority . However the most serious criticism addressed to the Panchayat system is the lack of serious electoral rules. Its undemocratic composition makes it a breeding field of corruption and inefficiency. The process of devolution of power and decentralisation of administrative power, while in motion, is in fact marred by a lack of uniformity and poor organization at all levels. The failure of the Panchayat structure is part of the reason why Nepal's society is breaking down. 6.- As the IMF put it in its annual report 2001: "during the past decade Nepal has grappled with formidable economic and social challenges. Poverty is deeply rooted, with nine out of ten Nepalese living in rural areas and depending on subsistence farming, and two fifth of the population living below the poverty line. Growth has been disappointing". 7.- Nonetheless, Nepal benefited from a surge in external demand and favorable agricultural conditions to post a robust growth of 6.5 percent in 1999/2000, and while growth is estimated to have slowed to 5-5.5 percent in 2000/01, this still exceeded the recent five-year average growth rate by nearly 1 percentage point. With abundant food supplies offsetting the effects of higher energy prices, inflation remained below 4 percent to July 2001 (source IMF annual report). 8.- The project got aborted after the World Bank, which supported it for years, suddenly pulled out in 1995 rather than to fight a coalition of misguided NGOs. The cost of building Arun III had been estimated at US $1 billion in 1995. The price, however, has not yet been reviewed. Officials had said in July 2000 that the government was also planning to allow the same company to develop 335 MW Upper Arun and 308 MW Lower Arun "if Eurorient works satisfactorily on the Arun III project, (which is an unlikely event as the company is an Enron-type company!). Nepal could export low-tech energy, provided it harnesses its vast water resources. NGOs have been instrumental in the demise of the project. The proposed dam is currently at a five day walk from the nearest road. The NGOs argued that the planned 74.4 mile long access road to be constructed through the valley and the influx of up to 10,000 construction workers and their families would jeopardize the lives and cultures of 450,000 indigenous people and threaten over 100 species of endangered and rare flora and fauna. The Arun III project was the first in a series of three dams to be built in the valley. The NGOS argued that there were no cumulative environmental impact assessment for the entire scheme. The World Bank was slated to lend $175 million for the project; other major donors include the Asian Development Bank ($127.6 million), Japanese Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund ($163.3 million) and Germany's KFW $124.4). On October 24th, the Arun Concerned Group, a coalition of Nepali NGOs filed the first claim against the World Bank in the newly created Inspection Panel, an independent appeals mechanism set up to investigate claims from people directly affected by Bank projects. The Arun Concerned Group (ACG) claim charged that the Bank violated its policies and procedures during the preparation of the Arun III hydroelectric project. The ACG believed that there were alternatives to the project that were less expensive, less environmentally and socially damaging, and that would have the advantage of building domestic industrial capacity and developing hydropower more evenly throughout Nepal. The NGOs naively assumed that while Arun III would be largely dependent on international contractors, a range of small to medium dams could be planned, built and run by domestic companies. A so-called Alliance for Energy has put forward to the Bank and the Nepali government a concrete set of alternative proposals which include small and medium scale dam projects of up to 100 MW which could be developed in a number of river basins spread evenly throughout Nepal and could easily meet the growing demand for electricity, according to the Alliance. Although the NGOs proposal made no economic sense, the World Bank, with little input from Nepal, gave up rather than fight it out. It was not the first time.In 1993, the World Bank was forced to withdraw from the Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) dam in India after years of intense international and Indian public pressure. The Japanese government's Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF), one of the bilateral funders of the Arun III project was also stung by international criticism for its co-financing role in the discredited Sardar Sarovar dam. In August 1994, the Japanese government sent two separate delegations to Nepal to conduct assessments and meet with Nepali officials and NGOs. NGOs have accused the World Bank of pressuring the Nepali government to approve the Arun III project at a politically volatile time in Nepal and at a time when open public debates about the project were only beginning. On October 18, 1994, the chief opposition Communist party leader in Nepal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, wrote to Lewis Preston of the World Bank expressing his concern over the perceived attempt to approve Arun III before a permanent government was in place. "Formal and meaningful discussion about the proposed project with the availability of basic project documents and information in advance has not yet taken place in Parliament" he wrote, and added that "Arun III must be reviewed by the new government in light of the ongoing controversies before Nepal makes any commitment to such projects". National elections inside Nepal took place in November 1994 and UML Communist party won the most seats in parliament and has formed the new Communist government. This impacted on the debate around Arun III inside the country. On December 30th, an all day parliament session was devoted to Arun in which critical questions were raised about the cost of the project and the location of the access road. The new Minister for Industry and Water Resources, Hari Prasad Pandey, indicated he would consider alternative designs to Arun III. The project was thus highjacked by the political parties and it has since then been a pawn in the hand of the opposition of the day and the local NGOs against any one in power. In the meantime, the local population that is supporting the project, for it would mean jobs, is left with no jobs and no hope. 9.- India is the main economic outlet for the landlocked Nepal. India and Nepal have signed a Trade Agreement in December 1996 that proved beneficial to both sides. Exports to India grew by 32 percent in 1999/2000, compared to a 22 percent growth of exports to third countries. Nepal's exports remain concentrated in terms of products and markets. Readymade garments, woollen carpets and pashmina products account for almost 60 percent of total exports, and India, the United States and Germany represent over 75 percent of Nepal's markets abroad. Imports from India grew by 16 percent, compared with 28 percent growth of imports from other countries. Furthermore one-third of the tourists visiting Nepal come from India. But another consideration of importance for India is that the Maoists of Nepal are part of the Revolutionary internationalist Movement (RIM) and it provides support to the "revolutionaries" of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, not to mention the fact that the Kashmir region borders Nepal. | |||
 | | | |