Few days back Super Religare Laboratories (SRL), a multinational company with the largest diagnostic services network of South Asia, launched a joint venture in Nepal with Life Care Services of NE Group. Dr. Sanjeev K Chaudhry, the CEO of SRL India says that the company plans to have up to 40 percent market share in the next two or three years. He is also confident that it will increase the services, employees and investment with time and plan to open “international standard” hospital in the next two years is underway. Dr. Chaudhry mentions that SRL Nepal has eight collection centers across the country and its new lab has different segments of clinical pathology, including biochemistry, microbiology and hematology which will provide “accurate solution with ethical standards”. He concludes that it will become cheaper for people to have all the necessary tests in his/her country itself. Also stressing that the company will give special prices to “needy people if approached by government hospitals”.
While I read the entire interview I was pinched with humiliation at the way the representative of SRL summed up the sorry state of our public health care services to market his company. I request the readers to go back to the last two sentence of the first para and ask themselves , doesn’t it imply- sick people in this country would eternally be going to other countries for treatment and spending millions if this generous multinational company hadn't come to our rescue? Angry as we have right to be at this crude(but nearly accurate) assessment of our health sector, we also need to question our government- are we ever going to have a good public health care system or are we doomed forever to empty our national wealth on hospitals and diagnostic centres in other countries? The fact that these hospitals have now come to our doorsteps does not change the fact that our national wealth will still be drained away in profits. Yesterday if hundreds of Nepalese including our heads of state went to Appolo in Delhi and Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok and spent millions of rupees in treatment, tomorrow when multinational health companies capture our health sector, billions of rupees will be drained out in profits. Bringing these multinational companies into the nation does not change their multinational character and economics. Why cant the government focus on building and improving its own capacity and infrastructure to provide a better health services to the people? To celebrate that SRL is willing to give “special price” to the needy if government hospitals approach them is to accept that our government hospitals will never ever be able to provide its needy citizens good hospitals with equipped laboratories. What prospect of a better Nepal do we have then when government has to commercialize most basic of public services in order to maintain standard? Drinking water has been privatized, education sector is already one of the most commercialized sector and now the entry of a multinational company in health sector only makes the picture more grim.There is frankly nothing to cheer about it. An upper middle class or a rich Nepali might save a couple of million for himself but Nepal will loose billions of rupees in profit every year.
The only argument I am trying to make here is that lack of quality public health care services in the country demands its extension through investment in public sector. Privatization and commercialization of basic public amenities is neither its substitute nor can it be good for a nation’s health, especially if it involves a multinational company. Markets are for trading consumer goods and services not basic public amenities. Apart from these ethical and principle arguments, what should also deter government is the potentially devastating impact the country might face during global recession(a recurring phenomenon) if its economy is exposed to hazards of international market through multinational companies. Besides, when subsidiaries of multinational companies violate law in the host country, victims can encounter significant obstacles in obtaining effective redress both in the host and the home country. Weak judicial and enforcement capacities, in some cases combined with apparent corporate pressure exercised over decision-makers and local communities, can impede effective access to justice in the State where the violation occurs. At the same time, the current international legal framework makes it difficult for third-country victims to hold corporations accountable in their domestic courts for abuses committed by their subsidiaries in the host country. Do the decision makers sitting in the government have slightest idea about all these ? What is their proposed response to such situation if and when they arise? We have seen powerful government like Indian government fail to secure justice for its victimized citizens of Bhopal against DOW chemicals, an American multinational company.
Therefore, the government must immediately take measures to discourage expansion of multinational companies into our health sector. And the most effective way of doing this is to invest in the domestic health care system, to maintain its quality and make it accessible to all at the same time. Even countries like Cuba which has been under heavy international economic sanctions for 6 decades is able to provide its people with free health services. Why can Nepal, then not afford to keep its population healthy by itself? Is it really about scarce resources or is there a genuine deficit of political will on the part of our political leadership?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Septembers gone by
When the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center killed 2977 American civilians and injured more than 6000, I was among many around the world who happened to watch the horrors of initial Live pictures on television. Nine years since, 9/11 has become a signpost that marks coming of an era where we are reminded every day that we live in a “Post 9/11 World”. But what is the significance of 9/11? Does the history of 9/11 stretch only as far as the ruins of Ground Zero and the lives of the victims and the mourning families and friends they left behind? Well, that’s what we would believe or should I say “are expected to believe”. Gone are the days when might was the power. Power, today is defined by what it chooses to illuminate and what it hides in the cold dark corners of the history that has seen rise of an unparalleled global Superpower in the last six decades. But the history of September goes further.
It was a fateful day in September of 1493, when Columbus led his army of soldiers and priests from Europe to colonize the New World that he had discovered in his first voyage. Does anybody ask the Native Americans if the 500 Septembers have healed the scarred memories of millions of unaccounted deaths of their forefathers? Again the might of the history makers casually chooses to limit the count to “countless”. But the human history had seen bloody Septembers before. It must have been several long Septembers of deaths and starvation for the Carthaginians (Modern Tunisia) after the mighty Roman Empire declared Third Punic war in Africa (150 BC-146 BC). After burning and plundering Carthage for more than two weeks, the surviving population was taken as slaves and thus expanded the might y white Europe in “the Dark Continent”. Centuries later, the September of 1857 saw a similar carnage in India. The demands of the rebelling Indian soldiers were turned down on August 30 by the colonial British and hence began the brutal suppression of all rebelling voices. Delhi was completely looted and plundered by the East India Company’s troops and similar carnage was orchestrated by the British in Awadh,Kanpur and Jhansi. It’s been more than 150 Septembers and no official and authentic records of the casualties are available. No annual memorials are held for the faceless and nameless thousands who died that September. But those were centuries gone by and 21st century does not wish to stand accountable for the civilizations lost or cultures uprooted; for 21st century is the century of one civilization, the Globalization and of one culture the liberal democracy. The parts of this global village that are still living in denial of this reality are being woken up to them Iraq and Afghanistan are only the latest. From Latin America to Africa and East Asia to Central Asia and the Middle East, the campaign of “Freedom and Democracy” has shaped the “ New World Order” that has been an utterance without much elaboration. From George Bush Senior and Henry Kissinger to George Bush Junior and Donald Rumsfeld; the declaration of the New World Order gives us indication of what it means without us knowing what it amounts to or what is of consequence. The power to define it is indeed of as much significance as the power to limit the understanding of it.
When Samuel Huntington proposed his Clash of the Civilization theory in 1992, what he did was that he forecasted what the coming September holds for humanity. What he chose not do was that he did not sum up the burdens of past Septembers which would lead to that clash. There is little room for disagreement that the unforgettable September of 1923 when the British Mandate came into effect in Palestine was the direct result of the Balfour declaration of 1917 in which the British had promised the Zionists of a homeland in Palestine. This was much before the plight of the Jews began under Nazism. Winston Churchill had brought out a White Paper claiming that it was an “….exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favoring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917”; a white lie that only served to convince the League of Nation to award the Palestinian mandate to the British. Two and half decade later, the British fulfilled their promise as the State of Palestine was declared in 1948. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed in direct and indirect combat operations since 1948 and millions have been displaced. There is no official and authentic data of the casualties and refugees. According to B’tselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights; around 1491 Palestinians were killed by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and Israeli civilians in the first Intifada from 1987-2000 of which 304 were children. But since September 2000, 6404 Palestinians have lost their lives and ten years on the terror of September has yet to cease in Palestine.
The September still traumatizes Latin America when they recall Chile’s 1973 military coup of General Pinochet under whose regime 40,000 were arrested at least 3,197 people were killed and 29,000 tortured, says a Chilean government’s data testified by over 30,000 witness. From the recently declassified US government documents related to the Coup, after Salvador Allande won the election in September 1970, the Nixon government passed National Security Council’s decision in its Memorandum 93 signed by Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Adviser and the US Secretary of the State. The document titled “Policy towards Chile” called for “maximizing pressure on the Chilean government to it from doing things that goes against American Interests in Chile” and “to convey the other Latin American governments that US opposes the communist state in Chile which might influence other Latin American States to adopt similar posture”. Kissinger has publicly summed up his policy saying "I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." Salvador Allande was found dead in his palace after the coup. Military government said he committed suicide and thus materialized American policy on Chile. The campaign for promoting American “Freedom and Democracy” in Latin America has continued to this day with several failed and exposed Coup attempts on countries like Cuba and Venezuela which have declared their own path to progress.
The last decade of the 20th century will be remembered for its yet another fateful September 11 when George Herbert Walker Bush declared in Joint Session of US congress "[The war in Iraq is] a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a new world order can emerge." When Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians with American aid money, the whole world had stood silent including the US. But the same Saddam was declared threat to humanity when his rhetorics against western imperialism began to echo in the Arab world. By putting conditions like Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories as a precondition to his withdrawal from Kuwait, Saddam was getting too much of Arab world’s attention for President Bush’s liking. Besides, the Gulf region was lifeline for the US and with American economy totally dependent on oil from the region, Bush administration decided that threat of Saddam had to be eliminated before it became detrimental to American interests. But Saddam survived the father’s regime only to be brought down by his son as a first trophy in his “War on Terror”, the war that promised to bring “freedom and democracy” to the Iraqis but on September 1 2010 after the last American combat troops had left, Iraq woke up to everything but “Freedom and Democracy”.
Septembers have gone by but wars continue to be wedged and the number of graves grow . If at all, the clash of the civilization has been brought home to our communities and to our locality. Wars are being fought in our streets, temples, churches and mosques. Stabbing of the Muslim Cab driver and Florida pastor’s threat to burn copies of Quran over construction of an Islamic center 2 blocks away from Ground Zero are not just two isolated incidents. The rise in random incidences such as these also point towards the direction we are heading, an overall rise in intolerance in the society. And this is something we should worry more about. Recently, there has been enormous pressure put on North Korea and Iran to release American citizens who had managed to travel thousands of miles to “accidentally” cross into their territory while hundreds of innocent Muslims including children who were simply picked off their own streets, airports, and from other countries were tortured, humiliated and kept in inhuman conditions for several years in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib. Who will account for the Septembers lost for the likes of Muhammad Jawad a 12 year old boy picked off his streets in Afghanistan, detained and tortured illegally for 6 years at Guantanamo Bay? Who will pay for the rape and molestation of innocent Iraqi women and children whose pictures have been withheld by President Obama from being made public stating “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.” ? Is there any imaginable compensation for the lives lost, innocence betrayed and faith maimed? Until when will the white world look down upon Black, Brown and Yellow or bearded faces with suspicion? When will their discomfort with the Red and the Green flags end? When will they learn that peace, democracy and freedom are relative terms that mean different thing to different people, that each society has its own ways of appreciating and appropriating them? How many September will it take for the world to accept that there are hundreds and thousands of unmarked graves beyond Ground Zero? Shreds of bleeding humanity still hinges on a faint hope as I sing to the tune of Greenday’s “Wake me up when September ends”.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Blow the whistle, we are heading Colombo way
Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal has proposed limiting of the role of UNMIN in Nepal. To be more precise, he has proposed that UNMIN’s role be downgraded from Political mission overseeing the peace process to technical mission that would only monitor Maoist combatants in the cantonments. He is quoted saying that in the wake of “changed circumstances” the concept of two party has ceased to exist after the UCPN-Maoists have entered parliamentary politics. It is also not surprising that this proposal has quickly gained wide acceptance among different political camps including Nepali Congress. What I would attempt to do in three sections of this article is to dig into a Srilankan-Tamil conflict in order to make indications as to what this proposal could potentially mean to Nepal and the future of its peace process. I do not wish to delegitimize Srilankan people’s aspiration for peace and stability in their country which is emerging from two decades of conflict, nor am I making comparative judgments on the parties in conflict. My attempt here is to question Nepalese government if we are prepared to risk the peace process and million lives to do it the harder way as Srilanka did? And as far as my understanding tells me, when Prime Minister Madhav Nepal talks about limiting the role of UNMIN in Nepal and Congress leader Ram Sharan Mahat advocates to bringing Nepal Army out of UNMIN surveillance, there is more than a mere “downsizing” going on and not only the political stakeholders but every sections of citizenry need to be aware of the paramount-ness of this proposal.
I
In the year 2002, when the Srilankan government and LTTE were in political negotiation with Norwegian government lending its good office, there was a growing optimism that it would bring a peaceful end to one of the bloodiest conflict in the region which saw tens of thousands of deaths on both sides. The horrors of high ranking assassinations of Srilankan politicians and the brutal assassination of ex-Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi were indication to the entire world of the extent that the Tigers were willing to go in their course of action. The mounting death tolls and international pressure forced the Srilankan government and the LTTE to initiate a peace dialogue, although the hardliners within the Island nation were not happy with the government’s “softened” approach to dealing with the situation. From December 2001 when the ceasefire agreement was signed between the government and the LTTE to July 2006 when the major military offense against LTTE in the eastern province began, two important events took place which would ultimately lead to tragic events post January 2008. In March 2004, Colonel Karuna, one of the chief commander of the LTTE in the eastern Srilanka broke away with his soldiers from LTTE which substantially decreased Tiger’s military strength. He would go on to join the ruling Srilankan Freedom Party (SLFP) and become an influential parliamentarian, which has now cleared initial doubts about his defection being engineered. The other event that turned the political tide against the LTTE is their decision to boycott the 2006 presidential election. Political analysts are of the view that most of the vote for Ranil Wicramasinghe who wanted to negotiate peace with the LTTE was lost due to election boycott called by the LTTE. This paved way for election of Mahinda Rajapaksha who has been known for his hardline rhetoric against the LTTE. Mr. Rajapaksha quickly read the geopolitical situation of the post 9/11 South Asia. With American “War on Terror” in the neighborhood, the US State Department’s warning to LTTE came as a green signal for Rajpaksha. And amidst all the talk efforts going on and ceasefire still “officialy” existing in papers, the Srilankan military began major offence against LTTE in July 2006 from their most vulnerable point, the eastern province. The Vankalai Massacre where both mother and a nine year old daughter were raped next to each other before being murdered on cold blood along with their family members by the Srilankan Army and execution of 17 French Charity workers from Action Against Hunger (ACF) in their office in Mooduthara of Muthur district caused international condemnation as Srilanka Military Monitaring Mission (SLMM) claimed in its statement that the government forces were behind the execution. As the military moved towards the north, Srilankan Air Force carried out an air strike in the Mullaitivu area, killing unarmed civilians.SLMM stated they counted 19 bodies of young Tamil girls whom the LTTE claimed were orphans attending first aid training. The government stated that it was an LTTE training facility and that the children were LTTE child soldiers. In either case, what is clear is that innocent children were bombed to death in that attack. What could be the justification- a collateral damage? After these events, the Srilankan government became very critical, almost intolerant of SLMM presence in the area. To further the problems, the SLMM was substantially reduced in its manpower when Swedish, Danish and the Finnish members pulled out of the SLMM after LTTE questioned their neutrality on the basis that their government had banned LTTE and hence its citizens could not be expected to become an impartial observers. The SLMM press release dated 12 December 2006 expressed its displeasure over Srilankan Forces’ restricting SLMM monitors from visiting the areas where ground operations were taking place.The ruling party ministers and politicians kept attacking SLMM and Norwegian diplomats of being “pro LTTE”. Lakshman Kadirgamar, the ex-foreign minister demanded that they leave if they they would not help bring democracy to LTTE controlled areas. Anura Bandaranaike, a minister of the ruling party questioned Norway's credibility as an impartial negotiator. In this way, the peace monitor and the negotiator were first discredited, restricted and gradually sidelined as SLMM terminated its mission in Srilanka in January 2008 when the military operations intensified from east to the north. In war, there are no heroes and everybody has blood in their hands. But in order to decode the complexities of the political conflict, one has to go into the politics of narratives. The images and stories coming out of the war zone have a politics behind them, the politics which silences the images and stories that run counter to them, and with SLMM terminating its mission, we would never know about those images and stories.
II
In this section I will focus on the challenges and criticisms UNMIN has faced in its mandate and role in Nepal’s peace process and why inspite of several pitfalls, it still has a crucial role to play in the peace process. But before I get into that I would like to quote from UNMIN’s official website where it is clearly stated that coming into existence as per UNSC resolution 1740, it was established in response to the letter to the Secretary-General sent on 9 August 2006 by the then Seven-Party Alliance Government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) requesting United Nations' assistance in creating a free and fair atmosphere for the election of the Constituent Assembly and the entire peace process. The resolution specifies the mandate as following:
• monitor the management of arms and armed personnel of the Nepal Army and the Maoist army, in line with the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
• assist the parties through a Joint Monitoring Coordinating Committee in implementing their agreement on the management of arms and armed personnel
• assist in the monitoring of ceasefire arrangements
• provide technical assistance to the Election Commission in the planning, preparation and conduct of the election of a Constituent Assembly in a free and fair atmosphere
It is clear that, with CA elections taking place in April 2008, UNMIN still has three mandate of which all three are continuous and crucial part as far as peace process is concerned. So when PM Madhav Nepal proposes “limiting UNMIN’s role”, it consequently means UNMIN operating short of its stated mandate. Even a layperson’s analysis could rationalize the fact that limiting any of the three mandate could have significant impact on the overall peace process.
In the last few weeks there is an idea floated by COAS Chattra Man Gurung, which has been supported by PM Nepal and Defense Minister Bhandari that Nepal Army should be kept outside UNMIN’s monitoring if its mission be extended at all. As the date for UNMIN to terminate its mission comes closer PM Nepal has been in serious marketing campaign for this idea. But in case this proposal is pushed forward, the government will face serious legal and moral questions within nation and internationally as to why one army is being kept in surveillance while the other is exempted. The decision could also lead to the PLA refusing to continue being monitored, causing a breakdown of the peace process, the moral burden of which would ultimately come on the current government. Is the government willing to risk the peace process just because the army is having some administrative problems like recruiting in vacant positions? If it is then one is justified in questioning the intention of the government especially when the AMMAA (Agreement on Monitoring and Management of Arms and Armies) has clearly stated that any recruitment in either of the two armies amounts to breach of the CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement). What is even more baffling is that the government is not even willing to consider a clause “unless agreed by parties” in the AMMAA article 5.1.9 which leaves possibility for negotiated recruitment on case-to-case basis and could serve purpose for the interim period.
The other logic being floated for terminating UNMIN’s mandate is that “the concept of two parties in conflict” is no more valid after Maoists have formally entered parliamentary system. But does this logic hold any merit? The “two parties in conflict” are the Nepal Army and the PLA neither of whom are in the parliament. On 27th May 2008, only the political wing of the UCPN-M entered the Parliament, its armed wing PLA is very much a rebel Army which still has its physical presence in the cantonments in different parts of the country and is currently in a state of cease fire with the Nepal Army. So to argue that there are “no two parties” is misleading and incorrect by political and legal interpretation.
The other thing that we have to keep at the back of our mind is the fact that there has been several instances where political actors have used public platform to openly question UNMIN’s neutrality and these accusations would certainly haunt the political discourse in the country as 15th September approaches and there would be many casual indications made in this regard. On December 1 2008, in a televised interview when Ian Martin, who then headed the UN mission in Nepal, was asked about Nepali Congress’s criticism “that UNMIN focused too much on army integration and not on property return”; he had replied that the reason for UNMIN’s focus on the issue is in consistent with its specified mandate and that issue of property return is a political issue to be settled between the political parties. However, he did express UNMIN’s principled position in favor of compensating the victims and return of their properties but said that UNMIN does not have mandate for actual role in the issue. Another criticism directed at UNMIN in the same program was a quoted remark from a retired Indian General Ashok Mehta who had said that UNMIN was a “referee without a whistle”. But Martin made it very clear to his host and his audience that although UNMIN may not have an authority to card the player, it does have a whistle that it would blow whenever a player fouls the game. And there is enough evidence to prove that UNMIN has blown its whistle time and again reporting violations on either side. I state some of them here;
• On Feb 7, 2008 UNMIN criticizes CPN-Maoists for declaring people’s councils and asks them for clarification on the issue.
• On 18 April 2008, in its report to Secretary General, UNMIN expressed concern over recruitment of child soldiers in the PLA. This issue was raised continuously by UNMIN until Maoists finally released all the identified child soldiers on 8th February 2010.
• In its 15 January 2010 briefing to Security Council, UNMIN referred to fresh recruitment in Nepal Army as being “problematic to peace process”. The report also condemns UCPN-Maoists’ land grab in Southern Terai belts and seizure of crops in the mid and far western districts.
• In its report to Secretary General on April 2010, UNMIN expressed its concern over Nepal Army’s recruitment drive which had received clearance from Ministry of Defense. The report also criticized the views expressed by some of the UCPN-Maoist leaders as raising suspicion about their commitment to peace.
• On 3rd August 2010 UNMIN expressed its concern over possible recruitment drive in both the armies reminding both the parties that it would amount to breach of CPA. It had earlier rejected the proposal to fill natural vacancies under AMMAA article 5.1.9.
The above facts not only explains the role UNMIN has played in Nepal’s peace process but infers as to why its presence is so crucial in the coming days and as long as the last of the combatants in the cantonment has either been rehabilitated or integrated in the national army.
III
As the country enters an important phase marked by uncertainty over the timely completion of the constitution writing amidst outstanding issues and six unsuccessful attempts to forming a consensus government; the political atmosphere in Nepal is getting muddy. The line of fair and unfair play are getting blurred as major parties are taking short-cuts to country’s political steering after being unable to agree on a common road map to peace. In such a situation, role of UNMIN as a whistle blower becomes all the more crucial and attempts to discredit or limit its role short of its mandate has to be viewed with skepticism because these are dangerous times where blunders can result into political disasters and nothing short of peace and country’s future is at stake. A Srilankan friend of mine once said to me how much he envies the way Nepal handled its peace process. On any other day I would have found the statement ironic given the mess our political elites have created in the country. But having seen the abjection of broken peace with my own eyes, I am still glad to live in this prolonged transition with hope for peace still in sight, rather than go back to the horrors of Madi, Dorambha and Ghorahi. In a volatile atmosphere, it is quite natural to be cynical but to be blinded by this cynicism, refusing to reason through is even more blasphemous and there are plenty of those who enjoy fishing in troubled waters. This is something that worst of the critics on either end of the political spectrum as well as the “holiest” of the liberal intellectuals of Nepalese society need to appreciate about the region we live in. Why make ruckus over who is talking in the taped conversation, whether authentic or not? I would instead worry more about the kind of political culture on which we are trying to lay foundation of this new republic. If 10 million was the negotiated individual demand, why should we believe that there was no contending price in offer? I was taught in my eighth standard Physics class that when there is a vacuum, pressure is exerted from all direction- north or south. Why blame the market? As long as somebody makes demand, somebody always supplies- that’s market. What the political elites of Nepal need to decide now is whether they are marketing politics? If they are not then the leaders have to first stop trying to sell their road maps and resist importing them as well. They should stop trying to score against one another because there are no adversaries here. We are all supposed to be on the same side with the same goals to score - Peace, Stability and Constitution. If the turf remains, the games may be played again. And until we learn to live and play by the rules, we need a whistle blower. So every section of Nepalese as well as international community who genuinely want to see the country safely out of transition, should unequivocally urge the government to extend UNMIN’s mission until the completion of the peace process in Nepal.
I
In the year 2002, when the Srilankan government and LTTE were in political negotiation with Norwegian government lending its good office, there was a growing optimism that it would bring a peaceful end to one of the bloodiest conflict in the region which saw tens of thousands of deaths on both sides. The horrors of high ranking assassinations of Srilankan politicians and the brutal assassination of ex-Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi were indication to the entire world of the extent that the Tigers were willing to go in their course of action. The mounting death tolls and international pressure forced the Srilankan government and the LTTE to initiate a peace dialogue, although the hardliners within the Island nation were not happy with the government’s “softened” approach to dealing with the situation. From December 2001 when the ceasefire agreement was signed between the government and the LTTE to July 2006 when the major military offense against LTTE in the eastern province began, two important events took place which would ultimately lead to tragic events post January 2008. In March 2004, Colonel Karuna, one of the chief commander of the LTTE in the eastern Srilanka broke away with his soldiers from LTTE which substantially decreased Tiger’s military strength. He would go on to join the ruling Srilankan Freedom Party (SLFP) and become an influential parliamentarian, which has now cleared initial doubts about his defection being engineered. The other event that turned the political tide against the LTTE is their decision to boycott the 2006 presidential election. Political analysts are of the view that most of the vote for Ranil Wicramasinghe who wanted to negotiate peace with the LTTE was lost due to election boycott called by the LTTE. This paved way for election of Mahinda Rajapaksha who has been known for his hardline rhetoric against the LTTE. Mr. Rajapaksha quickly read the geopolitical situation of the post 9/11 South Asia. With American “War on Terror” in the neighborhood, the US State Department’s warning to LTTE came as a green signal for Rajpaksha. And amidst all the talk efforts going on and ceasefire still “officialy” existing in papers, the Srilankan military began major offence against LTTE in July 2006 from their most vulnerable point, the eastern province. The Vankalai Massacre where both mother and a nine year old daughter were raped next to each other before being murdered on cold blood along with their family members by the Srilankan Army and execution of 17 French Charity workers from Action Against Hunger (ACF) in their office in Mooduthara of Muthur district caused international condemnation as Srilanka Military Monitaring Mission (SLMM) claimed in its statement that the government forces were behind the execution. As the military moved towards the north, Srilankan Air Force carried out an air strike in the Mullaitivu area, killing unarmed civilians.SLMM stated they counted 19 bodies of young Tamil girls whom the LTTE claimed were orphans attending first aid training. The government stated that it was an LTTE training facility and that the children were LTTE child soldiers. In either case, what is clear is that innocent children were bombed to death in that attack. What could be the justification- a collateral damage? After these events, the Srilankan government became very critical, almost intolerant of SLMM presence in the area. To further the problems, the SLMM was substantially reduced in its manpower when Swedish, Danish and the Finnish members pulled out of the SLMM after LTTE questioned their neutrality on the basis that their government had banned LTTE and hence its citizens could not be expected to become an impartial observers. The SLMM press release dated 12 December 2006 expressed its displeasure over Srilankan Forces’ restricting SLMM monitors from visiting the areas where ground operations were taking place.The ruling party ministers and politicians kept attacking SLMM and Norwegian diplomats of being “pro LTTE”. Lakshman Kadirgamar, the ex-foreign minister demanded that they leave if they they would not help bring democracy to LTTE controlled areas. Anura Bandaranaike, a minister of the ruling party questioned Norway's credibility as an impartial negotiator. In this way, the peace monitor and the negotiator were first discredited, restricted and gradually sidelined as SLMM terminated its mission in Srilanka in January 2008 when the military operations intensified from east to the north. In war, there are no heroes and everybody has blood in their hands. But in order to decode the complexities of the political conflict, one has to go into the politics of narratives. The images and stories coming out of the war zone have a politics behind them, the politics which silences the images and stories that run counter to them, and with SLMM terminating its mission, we would never know about those images and stories.
II
In this section I will focus on the challenges and criticisms UNMIN has faced in its mandate and role in Nepal’s peace process and why inspite of several pitfalls, it still has a crucial role to play in the peace process. But before I get into that I would like to quote from UNMIN’s official website where it is clearly stated that coming into existence as per UNSC resolution 1740, it was established in response to the letter to the Secretary-General sent on 9 August 2006 by the then Seven-Party Alliance Government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) requesting United Nations' assistance in creating a free and fair atmosphere for the election of the Constituent Assembly and the entire peace process. The resolution specifies the mandate as following:
• monitor the management of arms and armed personnel of the Nepal Army and the Maoist army, in line with the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
• assist the parties through a Joint Monitoring Coordinating Committee in implementing their agreement on the management of arms and armed personnel
• assist in the monitoring of ceasefire arrangements
• provide technical assistance to the Election Commission in the planning, preparation and conduct of the election of a Constituent Assembly in a free and fair atmosphere
It is clear that, with CA elections taking place in April 2008, UNMIN still has three mandate of which all three are continuous and crucial part as far as peace process is concerned. So when PM Madhav Nepal proposes “limiting UNMIN’s role”, it consequently means UNMIN operating short of its stated mandate. Even a layperson’s analysis could rationalize the fact that limiting any of the three mandate could have significant impact on the overall peace process.
In the last few weeks there is an idea floated by COAS Chattra Man Gurung, which has been supported by PM Nepal and Defense Minister Bhandari that Nepal Army should be kept outside UNMIN’s monitoring if its mission be extended at all. As the date for UNMIN to terminate its mission comes closer PM Nepal has been in serious marketing campaign for this idea. But in case this proposal is pushed forward, the government will face serious legal and moral questions within nation and internationally as to why one army is being kept in surveillance while the other is exempted. The decision could also lead to the PLA refusing to continue being monitored, causing a breakdown of the peace process, the moral burden of which would ultimately come on the current government. Is the government willing to risk the peace process just because the army is having some administrative problems like recruiting in vacant positions? If it is then one is justified in questioning the intention of the government especially when the AMMAA (Agreement on Monitoring and Management of Arms and Armies) has clearly stated that any recruitment in either of the two armies amounts to breach of the CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement). What is even more baffling is that the government is not even willing to consider a clause “unless agreed by parties” in the AMMAA article 5.1.9 which leaves possibility for negotiated recruitment on case-to-case basis and could serve purpose for the interim period.
The other logic being floated for terminating UNMIN’s mandate is that “the concept of two parties in conflict” is no more valid after Maoists have formally entered parliamentary system. But does this logic hold any merit? The “two parties in conflict” are the Nepal Army and the PLA neither of whom are in the parliament. On 27th May 2008, only the political wing of the UCPN-M entered the Parliament, its armed wing PLA is very much a rebel Army which still has its physical presence in the cantonments in different parts of the country and is currently in a state of cease fire with the Nepal Army. So to argue that there are “no two parties” is misleading and incorrect by political and legal interpretation.
The other thing that we have to keep at the back of our mind is the fact that there has been several instances where political actors have used public platform to openly question UNMIN’s neutrality and these accusations would certainly haunt the political discourse in the country as 15th September approaches and there would be many casual indications made in this regard. On December 1 2008, in a televised interview when Ian Martin, who then headed the UN mission in Nepal, was asked about Nepali Congress’s criticism “that UNMIN focused too much on army integration and not on property return”; he had replied that the reason for UNMIN’s focus on the issue is in consistent with its specified mandate and that issue of property return is a political issue to be settled between the political parties. However, he did express UNMIN’s principled position in favor of compensating the victims and return of their properties but said that UNMIN does not have mandate for actual role in the issue. Another criticism directed at UNMIN in the same program was a quoted remark from a retired Indian General Ashok Mehta who had said that UNMIN was a “referee without a whistle”. But Martin made it very clear to his host and his audience that although UNMIN may not have an authority to card the player, it does have a whistle that it would blow whenever a player fouls the game. And there is enough evidence to prove that UNMIN has blown its whistle time and again reporting violations on either side. I state some of them here;
• On Feb 7, 2008 UNMIN criticizes CPN-Maoists for declaring people’s councils and asks them for clarification on the issue.
• On 18 April 2008, in its report to Secretary General, UNMIN expressed concern over recruitment of child soldiers in the PLA. This issue was raised continuously by UNMIN until Maoists finally released all the identified child soldiers on 8th February 2010.
• In its 15 January 2010 briefing to Security Council, UNMIN referred to fresh recruitment in Nepal Army as being “problematic to peace process”. The report also condemns UCPN-Maoists’ land grab in Southern Terai belts and seizure of crops in the mid and far western districts.
• In its report to Secretary General on April 2010, UNMIN expressed its concern over Nepal Army’s recruitment drive which had received clearance from Ministry of Defense. The report also criticized the views expressed by some of the UCPN-Maoist leaders as raising suspicion about their commitment to peace.
• On 3rd August 2010 UNMIN expressed its concern over possible recruitment drive in both the armies reminding both the parties that it would amount to breach of CPA. It had earlier rejected the proposal to fill natural vacancies under AMMAA article 5.1.9.
The above facts not only explains the role UNMIN has played in Nepal’s peace process but infers as to why its presence is so crucial in the coming days and as long as the last of the combatants in the cantonment has either been rehabilitated or integrated in the national army.
III
As the country enters an important phase marked by uncertainty over the timely completion of the constitution writing amidst outstanding issues and six unsuccessful attempts to forming a consensus government; the political atmosphere in Nepal is getting muddy. The line of fair and unfair play are getting blurred as major parties are taking short-cuts to country’s political steering after being unable to agree on a common road map to peace. In such a situation, role of UNMIN as a whistle blower becomes all the more crucial and attempts to discredit or limit its role short of its mandate has to be viewed with skepticism because these are dangerous times where blunders can result into political disasters and nothing short of peace and country’s future is at stake. A Srilankan friend of mine once said to me how much he envies the way Nepal handled its peace process. On any other day I would have found the statement ironic given the mess our political elites have created in the country. But having seen the abjection of broken peace with my own eyes, I am still glad to live in this prolonged transition with hope for peace still in sight, rather than go back to the horrors of Madi, Dorambha and Ghorahi. In a volatile atmosphere, it is quite natural to be cynical but to be blinded by this cynicism, refusing to reason through is even more blasphemous and there are plenty of those who enjoy fishing in troubled waters. This is something that worst of the critics on either end of the political spectrum as well as the “holiest” of the liberal intellectuals of Nepalese society need to appreciate about the region we live in. Why make ruckus over who is talking in the taped conversation, whether authentic or not? I would instead worry more about the kind of political culture on which we are trying to lay foundation of this new republic. If 10 million was the negotiated individual demand, why should we believe that there was no contending price in offer? I was taught in my eighth standard Physics class that when there is a vacuum, pressure is exerted from all direction- north or south. Why blame the market? As long as somebody makes demand, somebody always supplies- that’s market. What the political elites of Nepal need to decide now is whether they are marketing politics? If they are not then the leaders have to first stop trying to sell their road maps and resist importing them as well. They should stop trying to score against one another because there are no adversaries here. We are all supposed to be on the same side with the same goals to score - Peace, Stability and Constitution. If the turf remains, the games may be played again. And until we learn to live and play by the rules, we need a whistle blower. So every section of Nepalese as well as international community who genuinely want to see the country safely out of transition, should unequivocally urge the government to extend UNMIN’s mission until the completion of the peace process in Nepal.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Demilitarizing the National Security
The right to define ‘security’ has long been the monopoly of the military. Traditionally, it is the military that has defined the security interests of a country, and is considered to be sole provider and guarantor of its security. The State itself has been obsessed with this restrictive concept of security which dwells in and around its own military might. It has been near impossible to openly criticise security policies of the State, let alone engaging in a public discussion on its meaning. In such a context, it has been difficult for civil society actors and society in general to consider the security domain as the one they can or should engage with. There is little evidence of explicit debates on traditional conceptions of national security, or articulation of alternative security concerns. Further, in the supposedly democratic and open academic sphere, we might safely say that civilian scholarship on Security Studies in Nepal is unknown and rather ‘silent’, and that it has largely internalised the traditional understandings and practices of security that are promoted by the State. Stephen Walt, in his illuminating write up titled “Renaissance of the Security Studies”, has convincingly argued that since military threats alone do not account for all the threats faced by the State, the parameters defining as to what are issues of security need to be redefined. Walt has pointed out issues like arms control, diplomacy and crisis management. Whereas scholars like Barry Buzan go to an extent of including issues of poverty, HIV/AIDS, environmental hazards and drug abuse under the realm of Security studies. Although Walt cautions that the expansion of domain of Security studies might dilute much needed focus on the primary security threats, i am more of the opinion that every state has to have a clear vision as to what are its primary security needs. Theoretically, the security measures adopted by any state will be effective only if it conceptualizes its security needs after careful study of external and internal threats. And i believe this is where we have been left wanting.
The autocratic Rana regime (1846-1950) had kept the Nepalese society virtually blindfolded for over a century. So, when the people’s movement overthrew the regime, Nepal not just woke up to democracy but also to a post-enlightenment industrial world unknown to it. While people in one corner of the world prepared to land on the moon, Nepalese were still scared of the eclipses. While one part of the world celebrated the spirit of human “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”, large sections of Nepalese society was untouched and outcaste. In such a context, modern Nepal’s security need demanded more than a military solution. It required securing the ruptured fabric of the society. The unequal human relations in the society which deemed one “kind of being” as superior to the others by birth not just divided the country’s human capital but also created insecurities among them where few groups of privileged remained so while the large sections of the marginalized population lacked opportunities for a better future in a newly democratic society. Hence, the feeling of animosity crept in among the population. When Nepal was under the Ranas, most of the population was uneducated as the Ranas only allowed their family and friends to educate their children. As a result of this historic deprivation, most of the ethnics, dalits, the madhesis and the other marginalized sections of the society and especially women among them were left out of any tangible benefit that the democracy had to offer, for all the opportunities were seized by the small sections of the rich and the educated. Poor only got poorer and the illiterate remained so. When Prithvi Narayan Shah had unified Nepal, he was aware of its ethnic diversity, which is why he had declared Nepal as a common garden for all. He had said that if the country was to prosper, all the sections would have to be involved in the nation building. But what happened after 1950 and continued since was deepening of the animosity and widening of the gap between the haves and the have nots. This vicious cycle was especially evident in the countryside that ultimately led to the “people’s war”. Although the conflict was largely political, its roots ran deep in the society and manifested the sense of alienation and insecurity that large sections of the population felt. Regime changed, but none were able to provide the people with the sense of security where an individual could realise his or her potential, irrespective of one’s social, economic or cultural background. While all this was happening, the State itself was busy trying to militarily secure the country. The state spent huge amount of its budget on arms and ammunitions as our security needs became more lethal and more sophisticated. But the state was trying to physically deal with problems that was essentially rooted in the psychology of Nepalese society at large- that the State had failed in its fundamental duty to protect its citizen.
If we look at the state we are in it is safe to say that we face more threats from ourselves than others. Pointing fingers towards south or north is fine but let us accept the fact that only a sick body gets attacked by foreign bodies. Spare me the statistics here but none of the government that has come to power till date in Nepal has spent even close to what is required on basic infrastructure and services that are fundamental duty of the State. The evidence is loud and clear in the form of our government education system which lacks in quality and standard, because of which more and more private institutions are mushrooming with unregulated fee structure. On the one hand, State is shying away from providing quality services to its people while on the other hand it is responsible for creating an uneven playing field in the job market where a graduate from a government institution has to compete with a graduate from a private institution to which even this writer belongs. We all know where the competition leads to on most of the occasion. Do our security experts have any policy measures for the sense of the insecurity that such youths feel towards their future? Today, as the new constitution is being drafted, there is a strong voice asking for security of property rights. But what about the insecurities that large sections of population have faced historically on the remote countryside due to lack of basic health care? Will the constitution of new Nepal provide them with that security that they have came out demanding time and again in the all three episodes of the people’s movement? When there is an intense debate going on in the legislative parliament about having an industrial security force to protect and safeguard the investments of the business people in the economy, will someone raise the minimum wage and other workplace related security issues for the workers who are the very foundation of the economy that we seek to enhance? We all need to ponder upon these questions, especially our self proclaimed intellectuals who grace media pages and screens with their unapologetic criticism and condemnation of “violence” by “so and so” groups, bands or leagues. Somebody please answer: why is it that the regular school going and jobholding youths of Kathmandu and elsewhere in Nepal have never taken to streets? Hint: Hint: They do not need to, even though some may want to. They still enjoy basic amenities that the state provides. So who are those in the streets? What do they want? Why are they doing what they are? And if someone feels they are being “misguided” or “threatened”, why just them and why do they choose to be? And most importantly: how and when will this stop? You are allowed to be ideologically biased as long as you make an honest attempt to find an answer but please don’t insult people’s intelligence by claiming that everything is happening because one group is threatening to “capture the power” and impose dictatorship. We have seen regimes come and go and they have taught us that anybody and everybody that comes to power, seizes it. Shah dynasty had it for centuries and then the Ranas used it for their family interests, The Congress had it before the King seized it. All of them failed to bring any qualitative change in the lives of people. In the 15 years of democratic practice, attempt was made but those were not effective and lead to a lopsided growth that deepened social inequality and conflict. So the issue is not what system exists or who seizes power. Democracy will be no better than aristocracy or tyranny if things are done in the name of people but never in their interest. The question really is whether the power is being used to empower the people or to serve interests of a particular groups of people.
The country is undergoing a epochal transformation and there is a clear mandate from the people for various structural changes including Security Sector Reform (SSR). But the experts have to broaden their conceptualization of national security, go beyond the conventional militaristic outlook and make an integrated approach while designing a national security policy which puts human security at the centre and seeks to address multiple challenges that threaten their long term security. Only then can the strategy and implementation become tangible on ground.
The autocratic Rana regime (1846-1950) had kept the Nepalese society virtually blindfolded for over a century. So, when the people’s movement overthrew the regime, Nepal not just woke up to democracy but also to a post-enlightenment industrial world unknown to it. While people in one corner of the world prepared to land on the moon, Nepalese were still scared of the eclipses. While one part of the world celebrated the spirit of human “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”, large sections of Nepalese society was untouched and outcaste. In such a context, modern Nepal’s security need demanded more than a military solution. It required securing the ruptured fabric of the society. The unequal human relations in the society which deemed one “kind of being” as superior to the others by birth not just divided the country’s human capital but also created insecurities among them where few groups of privileged remained so while the large sections of the marginalized population lacked opportunities for a better future in a newly democratic society. Hence, the feeling of animosity crept in among the population. When Nepal was under the Ranas, most of the population was uneducated as the Ranas only allowed their family and friends to educate their children. As a result of this historic deprivation, most of the ethnics, dalits, the madhesis and the other marginalized sections of the society and especially women among them were left out of any tangible benefit that the democracy had to offer, for all the opportunities were seized by the small sections of the rich and the educated. Poor only got poorer and the illiterate remained so. When Prithvi Narayan Shah had unified Nepal, he was aware of its ethnic diversity, which is why he had declared Nepal as a common garden for all. He had said that if the country was to prosper, all the sections would have to be involved in the nation building. But what happened after 1950 and continued since was deepening of the animosity and widening of the gap between the haves and the have nots. This vicious cycle was especially evident in the countryside that ultimately led to the “people’s war”. Although the conflict was largely political, its roots ran deep in the society and manifested the sense of alienation and insecurity that large sections of the population felt. Regime changed, but none were able to provide the people with the sense of security where an individual could realise his or her potential, irrespective of one’s social, economic or cultural background. While all this was happening, the State itself was busy trying to militarily secure the country. The state spent huge amount of its budget on arms and ammunitions as our security needs became more lethal and more sophisticated. But the state was trying to physically deal with problems that was essentially rooted in the psychology of Nepalese society at large- that the State had failed in its fundamental duty to protect its citizen.
If we look at the state we are in it is safe to say that we face more threats from ourselves than others. Pointing fingers towards south or north is fine but let us accept the fact that only a sick body gets attacked by foreign bodies. Spare me the statistics here but none of the government that has come to power till date in Nepal has spent even close to what is required on basic infrastructure and services that are fundamental duty of the State. The evidence is loud and clear in the form of our government education system which lacks in quality and standard, because of which more and more private institutions are mushrooming with unregulated fee structure. On the one hand, State is shying away from providing quality services to its people while on the other hand it is responsible for creating an uneven playing field in the job market where a graduate from a government institution has to compete with a graduate from a private institution to which even this writer belongs. We all know where the competition leads to on most of the occasion. Do our security experts have any policy measures for the sense of the insecurity that such youths feel towards their future? Today, as the new constitution is being drafted, there is a strong voice asking for security of property rights. But what about the insecurities that large sections of population have faced historically on the remote countryside due to lack of basic health care? Will the constitution of new Nepal provide them with that security that they have came out demanding time and again in the all three episodes of the people’s movement? When there is an intense debate going on in the legislative parliament about having an industrial security force to protect and safeguard the investments of the business people in the economy, will someone raise the minimum wage and other workplace related security issues for the workers who are the very foundation of the economy that we seek to enhance? We all need to ponder upon these questions, especially our self proclaimed intellectuals who grace media pages and screens with their unapologetic criticism and condemnation of “violence” by “so and so” groups, bands or leagues. Somebody please answer: why is it that the regular school going and jobholding youths of Kathmandu and elsewhere in Nepal have never taken to streets? Hint: Hint: They do not need to, even though some may want to. They still enjoy basic amenities that the state provides. So who are those in the streets? What do they want? Why are they doing what they are? And if someone feels they are being “misguided” or “threatened”, why just them and why do they choose to be? And most importantly: how and when will this stop? You are allowed to be ideologically biased as long as you make an honest attempt to find an answer but please don’t insult people’s intelligence by claiming that everything is happening because one group is threatening to “capture the power” and impose dictatorship. We have seen regimes come and go and they have taught us that anybody and everybody that comes to power, seizes it. Shah dynasty had it for centuries and then the Ranas used it for their family interests, The Congress had it before the King seized it. All of them failed to bring any qualitative change in the lives of people. In the 15 years of democratic practice, attempt was made but those were not effective and lead to a lopsided growth that deepened social inequality and conflict. So the issue is not what system exists or who seizes power. Democracy will be no better than aristocracy or tyranny if things are done in the name of people but never in their interest. The question really is whether the power is being used to empower the people or to serve interests of a particular groups of people.
The country is undergoing a epochal transformation and there is a clear mandate from the people for various structural changes including Security Sector Reform (SSR). But the experts have to broaden their conceptualization of national security, go beyond the conventional militaristic outlook and make an integrated approach while designing a national security policy which puts human security at the centre and seeks to address multiple challenges that threaten their long term security. Only then can the strategy and implementation become tangible on ground.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
If neighbor indeed, talk only when need
After a prolonged crisis and stalemate, Nepali politics is once again taking an encouraging step forward. The government has agreed Maoists’ demand and formed a three member High Level Political Mechanism (HLPM) to be led by veteran Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala along with Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” of CPN (Maoist) and Jhalanath Khanal of CPN (UML) which would play an active role in facilitating the Constitution drafting process and taking the peace process to its logical end. The idea of new Nepal conceived by April revolution of 2006 had slipped into a painful labor after a democratically elected government of “Prachanda” resigned in May 2009 on high moral ground protesting an “unconstitutional intervention” by President Ram Baran Yadav in the executive decision of the government after he reinstated the expelled Chief of Army Staff Gen. Rukmangad Katwal. Prachanda had expelled Katwal stating that the decision was based on maintaining civilian supremacy over the military which he alleged Katwal of undermining on more than one occasion.
However grave the situation, opportunism has always prevailed to the disaster of Nepalese politics and this time was no exception. The other political parties who had so far been unable to play any influence in the government following their unpopularity in the Constituent Assembly election grabbed at the opportunity to establish their lost legitimacy. The result was a government led by CPN (UML) leader Madhav Kumar Nepal who had been defeated in the CA election from his own constituency. However the government soon ran into crisis due to a nationwide protest, strikes and obstruction of CA proceedings led by the Maoists demanding reinstatement of civilian supremacy and action against Yadav’s move. The government existed without actually doing anything for almost eight months as it was impossible for CA to proceed onto any political agenda with the largest party agitating in the street. The last eight months have been one of the most traumatic times in the Nepali politics, when the hope for new Nepal have been depressed by lack of progress on agendas that are crucial to it namely: drafting of the Constitution by May 2010 and taking the peace process towards a logical end by rehabilitation of the Maoists combatants in cantonments as well as their integration in the Nepal Army. Political commentators and civil society bigwigs in Nepal have spent these eight months doing little beyond criticizing one party for being “undemocratic” and violent and occasionally criticizing other parties for their arrogance. But none provoked the nation to come together across parties and ideologies to end the stalemate. If the parties were not reminded that no matter how much they may enjoy disagreeing, it is their responsibility to find out why they disagree and then work on how they can mutually agree, the so-called watchdogs of the society have surely fallen short of their duties.
As these lines are being written, the rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants have already begun and the High Level Political Mechanism is already working towards building trust among the parties as they prepare to get into the most contagious issues that have so far obstructed the drafting process. But road ahead is uncertain and there will be times when their loyalties and trust would be tested and the same would have to be stated and restated. India, who would be eying the proceedings with interest is expected tol occasionally make seemingly casual calls into the political circle of the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML). Nomatter how flowery India’s statements about respect for Nepalese sovereignty, when it comes to its own interest, the South Block is well known for its covert diplomacy. Therefore, Gen. Deepak Kapoor’s advice to his Nepalese counterpart on the latter’s visit to India last month expressing the Indian displeasure over the prospect of integration of Maoist combatants in the Army en masse should above all be seen as a breach of diplomatic norm and direct interference in Nepal’s internal affairs. Gone are the days when India’s “constructive interferences” were accepted by the landlocked Nepalese as a price to pay for logistical dependence on its neighbor. On 22 december, within few days of Kapoor’s statements, Prachanda strongly criticized government’s silence on the matter and inability to protect nation’s sovereignty. In a satirical note Prachanda even expressed his willingness to talk directly to India to take the peace process to its logical end if the other political parties could not act without instructions from their “Lords” in Delhi. This was not just Prachanda’s attack on what he called “meekness and muteness” of Madhav Nepal government on issue of national sovereignty but also his subtle note to New Delhi as to what is expected out of good neighbor.
India understands that Nepal’s stability and prosperity is ultimately in their interest. There is so much potential to be exploited by both the nations from mutual cooperation. Nepal’s largely unharnessed hydro resource can find a profiting market in India and India on the other hand can meet energy needs for its booming economy. The rivers that flow from Nepal causing disasters in the Indian villages and towns can be tamed to bring light and power to the same towns and villages. India has been maintaining that there is frequent infiltration of terrorists into India through Nepal as well as counterfeit Indian currencies smuggled into India through Nepal. If these claims have any validity and if there is any way to check this then India has to do its bit to help Nepal through this transition to strengthen rule of law in the country and controversial statements are certainly not going to help. New Delhi has to get rid of its Nehruvian hangover that “anything coming over the Himalayas in the North is a threat to Indian security”. China is a neighbor and certainly an important one for Nepal. Nepal’s trade ties with China have been historical and the two countries have always been in warm relationship irrespective and inspite of Nepal’s affair with India. But it will always be in Nepalese interest to maintain its friendship with India. Thousands of Nepalese study and work in India not in China. Nepal shares boarder on three sides with India not with China and Nepalese cultural bonds are stronger with India than with China. Hence, India has no reason to get cranky about Nepal-China cordial relations as often Indian security pundits are found cribbing in their overstated string of pearls theory.
After its much appreciated role in securing a historical Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the seven political parties and the Maoists which led to latter’s introduction in the mainstream Nepali politics, India’s image has taken some bashing due to its involvement in the Katwal affair which was made quite obvious by Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood’s frequent statements in the media and his visits to the President at awkward hours. However, now that the Neplalese political parties seem to have found themselves in “no-holds barred” situation with May deadline alarmingly close and scores of unsettled issues, India should help to foster the atmosphere of cooperation among the parties urging them not to detract from consensus and to finish drafting the constitution in time. That will be the most welcome New year wishes from New Delhi for what is hopefully going to be the most important year in the history of the himalayan republic.
However grave the situation, opportunism has always prevailed to the disaster of Nepalese politics and this time was no exception. The other political parties who had so far been unable to play any influence in the government following their unpopularity in the Constituent Assembly election grabbed at the opportunity to establish their lost legitimacy. The result was a government led by CPN (UML) leader Madhav Kumar Nepal who had been defeated in the CA election from his own constituency. However the government soon ran into crisis due to a nationwide protest, strikes and obstruction of CA proceedings led by the Maoists demanding reinstatement of civilian supremacy and action against Yadav’s move. The government existed without actually doing anything for almost eight months as it was impossible for CA to proceed onto any political agenda with the largest party agitating in the street. The last eight months have been one of the most traumatic times in the Nepali politics, when the hope for new Nepal have been depressed by lack of progress on agendas that are crucial to it namely: drafting of the Constitution by May 2010 and taking the peace process towards a logical end by rehabilitation of the Maoists combatants in cantonments as well as their integration in the Nepal Army. Political commentators and civil society bigwigs in Nepal have spent these eight months doing little beyond criticizing one party for being “undemocratic” and violent and occasionally criticizing other parties for their arrogance. But none provoked the nation to come together across parties and ideologies to end the stalemate. If the parties were not reminded that no matter how much they may enjoy disagreeing, it is their responsibility to find out why they disagree and then work on how they can mutually agree, the so-called watchdogs of the society have surely fallen short of their duties.
As these lines are being written, the rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants have already begun and the High Level Political Mechanism is already working towards building trust among the parties as they prepare to get into the most contagious issues that have so far obstructed the drafting process. But road ahead is uncertain and there will be times when their loyalties and trust would be tested and the same would have to be stated and restated. India, who would be eying the proceedings with interest is expected tol occasionally make seemingly casual calls into the political circle of the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML). Nomatter how flowery India’s statements about respect for Nepalese sovereignty, when it comes to its own interest, the South Block is well known for its covert diplomacy. Therefore, Gen. Deepak Kapoor’s advice to his Nepalese counterpart on the latter’s visit to India last month expressing the Indian displeasure over the prospect of integration of Maoist combatants in the Army en masse should above all be seen as a breach of diplomatic norm and direct interference in Nepal’s internal affairs. Gone are the days when India’s “constructive interferences” were accepted by the landlocked Nepalese as a price to pay for logistical dependence on its neighbor. On 22 december, within few days of Kapoor’s statements, Prachanda strongly criticized government’s silence on the matter and inability to protect nation’s sovereignty. In a satirical note Prachanda even expressed his willingness to talk directly to India to take the peace process to its logical end if the other political parties could not act without instructions from their “Lords” in Delhi. This was not just Prachanda’s attack on what he called “meekness and muteness” of Madhav Nepal government on issue of national sovereignty but also his subtle note to New Delhi as to what is expected out of good neighbor.
India understands that Nepal’s stability and prosperity is ultimately in their interest. There is so much potential to be exploited by both the nations from mutual cooperation. Nepal’s largely unharnessed hydro resource can find a profiting market in India and India on the other hand can meet energy needs for its booming economy. The rivers that flow from Nepal causing disasters in the Indian villages and towns can be tamed to bring light and power to the same towns and villages. India has been maintaining that there is frequent infiltration of terrorists into India through Nepal as well as counterfeit Indian currencies smuggled into India through Nepal. If these claims have any validity and if there is any way to check this then India has to do its bit to help Nepal through this transition to strengthen rule of law in the country and controversial statements are certainly not going to help. New Delhi has to get rid of its Nehruvian hangover that “anything coming over the Himalayas in the North is a threat to Indian security”. China is a neighbor and certainly an important one for Nepal. Nepal’s trade ties with China have been historical and the two countries have always been in warm relationship irrespective and inspite of Nepal’s affair with India. But it will always be in Nepalese interest to maintain its friendship with India. Thousands of Nepalese study and work in India not in China. Nepal shares boarder on three sides with India not with China and Nepalese cultural bonds are stronger with India than with China. Hence, India has no reason to get cranky about Nepal-China cordial relations as often Indian security pundits are found cribbing in their overstated string of pearls theory.
After its much appreciated role in securing a historical Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the seven political parties and the Maoists which led to latter’s introduction in the mainstream Nepali politics, India’s image has taken some bashing due to its involvement in the Katwal affair which was made quite obvious by Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood’s frequent statements in the media and his visits to the President at awkward hours. However, now that the Neplalese political parties seem to have found themselves in “no-holds barred” situation with May deadline alarmingly close and scores of unsettled issues, India should help to foster the atmosphere of cooperation among the parties urging them not to detract from consensus and to finish drafting the constitution in time. That will be the most welcome New year wishes from New Delhi for what is hopefully going to be the most important year in the history of the himalayan republic.
Enemy of the State
25 October, 2009
Few weeks back i read an illuminating article on Naxalism (synonymously used for “left wing terrorism”) in India titled “The Weapons of Mass Desperation” (Tehelka, October 3, 2009) in which Shoma Chaudhary has exposed the contradictions and hypocrisies of Indian State's failed counter insurgency policies. Far from the biased mainstream media reporting which demonize the Naxalite movements in India, the article uncovers the bitter truth that the Indian State has not been able to swallow. Its a sad tale that most of the Indian people as well as the World do not get a true picture of what is happening in the tribal areas of Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Bihar and West Bengal. The cumulative result of this distorted image has amounted to ignoring one of the largest mass genocide in the human history, with tens of thousands of people already dead since the inception of the Naxalbari Movement in the 1960s. The Indian State has always adopted policy of military cleansing towards the Naxal problem which clearly stems out of deep rooted Socio-Economic alienation, marginalization and exploitation of millions of poor Adivasis and Dalits, the tribals and the socially marginalized groups. The CPI (Maoists) who are leading the armed struggle against the state have been branded terrorist groups. But who is the Indian State actually hunting in the name of Naxalites for the last four decades? If one could only take a look at the desperate tribals who have no ideological orientation or Utopian interests other than saving their land and forests from the greedy corporates who are eying this resource rich belt, it would be clear beyond doubt that the Indian State is wedging war on its own people to satisfy the economic lust of its corporate masters....who have been cutting each other's throat to establish Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in these highly resource rich land. One should not and must not endorse the violence committed by the Maoists, but one definitely has to appreciate the fact that pushed beyond a point, these are only ordinary tribal people acting in desperation, trying to save their home from a MIGHTY MIGHTY Indian State....
The post Soviet World Order has in the last two decades made an offensive propaganda against Communism, inventing and coining terms like Naxalism ( taken from Naxalbari movement to derogatorily refer to all the resistance movements in India), Red Terror, Ultra Reds, Communist Extremists, and so on....This is nothing but manifestation of Macarthists' fear of Communism, disregard and disrespect for ideological coexistence and exercise of ideological hegemony by the Market Ruled American brand of Western Liberal Democracy - which claims that it is the only brand of democracy that has right to exist. This bullying and forceful imposition is proved in the policies of American infested and infected donor agencies like World Bank and IMF who blackmail sovereign countries not just into opening their domestic markets for MNCs and TNCs but also bar the host nations from protecting their domestic industries against severe international competition. Nepal's Carpet industry, which is almost in its death bed ever since Nepal's entry into WTO proves this point beyond doubt and so does the plight of South Korean farmers who have been destroyed by encroachment of WTO into their agriculture sector. (Read ex World Bank chief economist and Joseph Stiglitz's powerful book Globalization and its discontents).
I believe that we really need to think twice before buying the idea of a "Welfare State" which might appeal to our common sense but is a heavily loaded term in itself with complex political economy behind it. Let us be admissive to the fact that any State in today's Capitalist World Order only caters to the need and greed of a particular class. Hence its policies will be directed and dictated by the interest of the same class. In the Indian context it is even more disturbing. I highlight some of the most disturbing facts (that can be cross checked online) that will expose the Indian State's fabricated self portrayal of a Superpower:
1.1/3% of the world’s hungry live in India.
2.Over 7000 Indians die of hunger every day. Over 25 lakh Indians die of hunger every year.
3.Ironically, the number of hungry people in India is always more than the number of people below official poverty line (while around 37% of rural households were below the poverty line in 1993-94, 80% of households suffered under nutrition). This has to either imply that inspite of not being poor Indians choose to starve themselves or that there is something wrong with the way poverty is being measured.
4.99% of the 1000 Adivasi households from 40 villages in the two states, who comprised the total sample, experienced chronic hunger (unable to get two square meals, or at least one square meal and one poor/partial meal, on even one day in the week prior to the survey). Almost as many (24.1 per cent) had lived in conditions of semi-starvation during the previous month.
Sources:
UN World Food Programme UN World Health Organization: Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition, 2006 UN Food and Agriculture Organization: SOFI 2006 Report
National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (India)
National Family Health Survey 2005 – 06 (NFHS-3) (India)
Centre for Environment and Food Security (India)
Rural 21 (India)
What superpower are you trying to become when your people dont even have enough power in their body to walk to the nearest polling station to exercise their most celebrated democratic right? What does democracy itself means to a farmer who has to commit suide along with his family simply because he does not even have freedom of choice...choice to life over hunger and death? One has to ask these difficult questions to the ruling elites of India. By its own admission the latest figures of National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS) states that over 836 million people out of 1.5 billion Indian population survive on less than Rs.20, i.e. less than half a dollar per day. So for those who are disproportionately thrilled by the idea of “Rising and Shining India”, this should at least provoke reconsideration. As for the Operation Green Hunt, honestly i feel sorry for the political bankruptcy of the Indian State who has in the 6 decades of its independence, failed to understand its own people. They have failed to understand that the Naxalism is not just about few armed men shooting policemens and ambushing the government buildings. It is the the spirit of peoples' resistance- from Naxalbari to Nandigran, from Singur to Lalgarh,....You may call Maoists a terrorist, but they only reflect the terror that you have injected in these areas. Putting Kobad Ghandy or Chhatradhar Mahato behind bars might give you a sense of victory, but as long as the asault on people 's livelihood continues, they will rise in one form or the other. Maoists just happen to be a militant face. However not the only one existing . This is where the State plays foul and fishes in the troubled water. The intentions are covert but not unknown. The idea is to crush all voices of resistance in the pretext of hunting for the Maoists. How the people retaliate and why they retaliate to these assault on their life has got a lot to do with the failed development initiatives in the so called “Naxalite Belt” (see point 4). The top-bottom therapy approach of the State in these areas, colluded with the ill-intended corporate land grabbing in the name of development aka industrialization of the tribal areas has not only made the tribal people suspicious but highly antagonistic towards the State. The corrupt local authorities abuse the State power by inflicting various forms of atrocities on the innocent tribal people, who have at different points in time either run away from the area or simply been put behind bars without any charges. When the media went crazy criticizing the government's release of the 14 dreaded terrorists in return for the police officer abducted by the Maoists, comparing it with the Kandhahar swapping – very few gave it a second thought that the 14 “terrorists” were poor Adivasi women, including 70 year old widow who were caught and tortured for protesting the inhuman beating of a local kid in Lalgarh who failed to tell the patrolling CRPF soldiers where the “Maoists” were hiding.
If the right to speech and right to peaceful gathering and protest amounts to act of terrorism then most of the people in the developed world that exercise these privileges without fear should have been behind bars. In the tribal villages of the eastern and Central India, if the weakest and the most marginalized sections of the State dare enough to pick up bows and arrows to fight the sophisticated, armed and dangerous wing of the State, something is definitely wrong with the way power relationship is operating there. Operation Green Hunt is all set to be launched and collateral damage will be there, for the State is fighting an enemy without a face in a battlefield where every suspect has a common face-Poverty!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)