mikeldunham

Nepal: Tibetan refugees photographing Tibetan refugees -- PART 20

July 10, 2009

Click on photos for enlargement

 

...............................................................................

Nepal: Tibetan refugees photographing Tibetan refugees -- PART 19

July 3, 2009

click on photograph to enlarge

......................................................................................................

Political Update: The Habitual Sandstorms of Nepal’s Leaders

June 14, 2009





























During the last month, there has been something unsettlingly familiar about the swift shifts of Nepal’s political winds.

The Maoists pulled the plug on their own government after only eight months in power. The second strongest party in Nepal, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) – UML, stepped in to form a coalition government with Madhav Kumar Nepal as its new Prime Minister. The Prime Minister named Bijay Kumar Gachhadar (of the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum – MPRF- party) as Deputy Prime Minister. Immediately after, the notion of a coalition was thrown into question: Upendra Yadav, Chairman of Madhesi People’s Rights Forum – the fourth strongest party in Nepal -- expelled the new Deputy Prime Minister Gachhadar from the party and withdrew MPRF support of the new government. The new Prime Minister also appointed two controversial figures for plum cabinet positions: Sujata Koirala (Nepal Congress party) as Foreign Minister and Kul Bahadur Khadka as the security advisor.

In the meantime, an endless succession of strikes plagued the nation. An underground Hindu fundamentalist army blew up the Catholic Church in Kathmandu, killing three and injuring many others. Acts of violence perpetrated by parties against other parties proliferated. A long-bitter border dispute between India and Nepal found new oxygen fanned by the shrill anti-India rhetoric of Maoist leaders Prachanda and Dr. Bhattarai, who blamed India for destabilizing their administration  --  just as Delhi police announced that Lashkar-e-Taiba, (the terrorist organization responsible for the November 2008 bombing of the Taj Mahal Palace hotel in Mumbai) had run a logistical hub that funneled dozens of jihadists through Nepal, thus renewing the debate of the dangers of a porous border, wherever and if ever that disputed border locks in on a concise demarcation.

For the last four dismal weeks it’s been hard to know which way to look. One sandstorm after another. The residual effect is not only to lose sight – sight of what Nepal’s main goals are – but also to blur the memory of Nepal’s major achievement of having conducted the 2008 elections.

And in the meantime, the most important role the Constituent Assembly has to play – to pen a new constitution by the May 28, 2010 deadline – is no closer to a working reality than when the recent Maoist regime fudged this prime obligation.
 
The overall impact is corrosive, both in terms of the peace process and the general morale of the people. Analysts are beginning to ask: Have we returned to the 1990s, when there was a different government annually, which accomplished little beyond each successive ruling power succeeding in feathering its personal nest? A ten-year insurgency rose out of that cynical and selfish brand of government. It’s mind numbing to think that -- after all the effort put into the 2006 peace accord and the morale-boosting 2008 elections – the political parties are now simply drifting back to the reprehensible habits of the 1990s “me-first” politics.

A few days ago, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR) voiced its concern that “the growing number of acts of violence by political parties and affiliated groups, and subsequent threats of retaliation, could threaten the peace process.” But who cares what the OHCHR has to say? Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal has said that OHCHR´s role has become ineffective since it is more focused on politics than human rights violations. OHCHR will be gone by this autumn. Nepal has categorically turned down the OHCHR´s request to extend its term by three years.

Perhaps the country doesn’t require outside perspectives.

But the personal mirrors of Nepal’s politicians – from Prachanda, who blew a wonderful opportunity for rectification, to G.P. Koirala, whose dictatorial and dynastic bullying make a mockery of his professed love for democracy – their mirrors don’t seem to be providing much wisdom these days, and certainly no clarity.

Where does this leave the people of Nepal? Ashamed of their politicians, who can’t tear themselves away from their own reflections? Beginning to wonder if the future they envisioned when they walked to the polling booths last year was nothing more than an elaborate sandcastle peddled by the powerbrokers? Beginning to wonder if their participation in a “New Nepal” was not worth the hike to the next village?


..................................................................

The Credibility and Management of NGOs in Nepal: Dunham’s interview with DR. ARJUN KUMAR KARKI

May 3, 2009































There’s a joke in Kathmandu Valley: When someone offers you his or her business card, you look at it for a moment as if you are confused, and then you ask, “Why didn’t you list your NGO?”

The joke is that having an NGO is socially obligatory in Kathmandu. But the subtext is more cynical: It’s the easiest way to make money in Kathmandu. The veracity of this assumption remains to be seen. Very little transparency or accountability is required to register an NGO in Nepal. People who donate to altruistic-sounding NGOs put their trust in the pamphlets given them, rather than the ledgers locked up in private offices. Even the number of NGOs in Nepal is an unknown, although 40,000 to 60,000 are the estimates one hears most often.

Obviously, there are many NGO’s that contribute greatly to the betterment of Nepalis’ quality of life. But the lack of accountability, the question of motive and the assessment of achievement have always seemed troubling to me. It was with this in mind that I sought out Dr. Arjun Kumar Karki, PhD, President of the NGO Federation of Nepal, the largest NGO umbrella group in Nepal. We also discussed the main stumbling blocks for NGOs succeeding in their development goals, given the current political situation.

DUNHAM: What exactly is the NGO Federation of Nepal and what is its purpose?

KARKI: The NGO Federation of Nepal is an umbrella organization made up of more than 4, 500 civil society organizations. Many of our members are working in the area of human rights, democracy, and development issues. Most of our members are very small, village-based, grassroots organizations.

DUNHAM: When was the federation created?

KARKI: It was established right after the big political change in 1990. [1990 marked the end of absolute monarchy and the panchayat system in Nepal, and the emergence of a new constitutional monarchy.]

Until 1990, most of the NGOs were, more or less, banned. Only the people who were close to the royal palace, royal family and the panchayat system were allowed to run NGOs.

So there was a very sudden growth of NGO’s after 1990 and we thought that we should have a federation of these new organizations based on certain criteria. From the beginning, our mandate was 1) to build the capacity of small village-based grassroots civil society organizations and 2) to serve as a watchdog or pressure group for governmental activity involving basic human rights – to promote human rights, and to advocate whenever human rights are violated.

In short, we have a two-pronged strategy:  pressure and partnership. If the government comes up with a pro-poor, pro-people policies and programs, we partner with the government. And if the government comes up with an anti-poor, anti-people programs, we will work as a pressure group.

We also work with other federations so, on an informal level, we work as a confederation of different federations in Nepal. Internationally, we work with numerous campaigns and advocacy work. We are part of an international media campaign, for instance -- a campaign against poverty.

DUNHAM: So you represent 4,500 NGOs. How many NGOs are there in Nepal?

KARKI: That is very difficult to determine. Our government lacks the proper regulations to define what an NGO is in this country. There was no NGO act created after the political change in 1990. Since 1990, all the successive governments – not just one political leadership – all the governments that have been in power since 1990 have been very reluctant to introduce new laws covering NGOs.

As a result, most NGOs are operating on an old act that was enacted in 1974 during the panchayat system. The act is called “Organization Restriction Act 2034”. That law says that all organizations that are not a part of the government are considered non-governmental organizations.

DUNHAM: That covers a lot of territory.

KARKI: Yes. The act allows the inclusion of professional unions, prayer clubs, sports clubs, monasteries, temples, libraries, Syambhunath, Pashupatinath -- all belong to the NGO category according to Nepal’s legal definition. So it has really created a lot of confusion when one tries to determine the number of NGOs in Nepal.

In the NGO Federation of Nepal, we have created our own definition: An organization that is voluntary, non-profit-making, non-partisan, service oriented and not working for the interests or benefits of the people running the NGO. This is the kind of group that is allowed to receive membership in the NGO Federation. We don’t allow religious groups, sports clubs or professional unions to become members.

DUNHAM: How many NGOs -- groups that are not part of your federation – would you define as credible institutions?

KARKI: OK, there are some credible organizations that are not part of the NGO Federation. Maybe an additional 500 that are not part of the NGO Federation. I have to say that.

But if you read the local newspapers, they report that there are more than 40,000 NGOs in Nepal. But that number includes all the groups that the NGO Federation disallows, according to our definition of an NGO.

DUNHAM: So you are saying that, in a country with 40,000-plus NGOs, no more than 5000 are credible?

KARKI: Yes, something like 5000.

DUNHAM: And you say that you focus on small, grassroots organizations. Is that because you feel that small NGOs tend to be more successful?

KARKI: Of course. The small NGOs tend to be much more aware of the ground realities. They are locally initiated. They organize the resources themselves. So our main interest focuses on these small groups. We do have large organizations that are members – large national development organizations – including Rural Reconstruction Nepal [RRN], for example, which is one of the largest development NGOs in the country. RRN has a staff of more than 700, dispersed throughout most of the districts of Nepal. But the larger organizations are the exception rather than the rule. Most of the NGOs are quite small: they work in two or three villages at most – this is the typical NGO that we recognize.

DUNHAM: Can you give me an example of a small, grassroots NGO that has been particularly successful and explain why it works so well?

KARKI: Let me clarify something first. There are two distinct categories of NGO. One is large and one is small but they both have their own competitive advantages in their areas of specialization. Being large doesn’t, in itself, make an NGO bad. Many are doing wonderful work. They are capable of mobilizing large amounts of foreign aid and taking it to remote areas of Nepal that the government has failed to reach. Some of the large NGOs are also helping the smaller NGOs to build their capacity. In many cases, the small NGOs work in partnership with the large NGOs.

But the smaller NGOs -- many of them are autonomous, independent, self-funded --they understand the ground reality, they understand the local dynamics. That’s why they tend to serve people better than the large NGOs, which originate from somewhere else.

DUNHAM: Can you give me a specific example?

KARKI: OK, Begawan Youth Club, for example. Very close to Kathmandu. It’s in a village 30 minutes from Kathmandu. They have mobilized more than 15,000 members. They don’t receive foreign funding. But they run so many projects, including their own ambulance service for women and children. They have their own banking system: They have introduced their own kind of local credit card. I was very impressed when I was invited to their annual meeting held only last week. They work with women’s health. They do a lot of awareness raising. They even have clinical service in some cases. They promote homemade ayurvedic medicines. They work on the issue of gender injustice. The majority of their members are women. OK, many of their projects are like other NGOs that receive foreign funding. But what’s encouraging and impressive about Begawan Youth Club is that they are doing all of this without foreign help.

That’s one example. But there are thousands of examples where local groups are really excelling and doing so on their own initiative. Not many people are aware of them because you ordinarily have to go out to the more remote areas to see their operations.

DUNHAM: How do you monitor the NGOs who have joined the federation?

KARKI: We operate on the district, regional and national level, based on a code of conduct we have imposed on our member organizations. The code of conduct focuses on transparency and accountability. All members are expected to follow a basic minimum standard procedure that complies with the existing government regulations; but in addition, they must maintain certain international standards of transparency.

First, the organization must be autonomous, non-partisan and registered with the government. In addition, it has to submit an original financial statement to the government and the NGO Foundation of Nepal annually. It is also required to submit to us a yearly progress report. This is our monitoring system.

DUNHAM: What happens if they fail to meet the code of conduct requirements?

KARKI: The procedure varies according to the situation. Sometimes we give them a warning. We try to create awareness, first and foremost. We don’t just go in there and expel them. But we do expelled members who have failed to maintain the code of conduct over a period of time.

DUNHAM: If an NGO wants to join your federation, what’s the procedure? Do you join on a trail basis, for instance?

KARKI: No, but they must subscribe to the basic principles. Membership is open. Everyone is free to apply. If they meet the criteria, then they can receive membership.

DUNHAM: You mentioned earlier that you are represented in all of Nepal’s districts. Is there any specific region in Nepal that is in more need of NGOs than other districts? I’m thinking of the most remote districts – Humla, for instance.

KARKI: There are so many thousands of villages in Nepal. You mention Humla and the needs are great there. But the same thing can occur anywhere in Nepal. I was in Dolpa, for instance, only last month, and the conditions you are referring to are present in Dolpa, just like in Humla.

And you don’t have to go that far away! If you drive one or two hours from the center of Kathmandu, you’ll find numerous “Humlas” very close to the city – very similar situations.

The problem in this country -- so far, Nepal’s development planning or development approach has been very much Kathmandu-centric – confined among the political elites’ interests. The budgetary allocations have been based on the biases of political party leaders and their political interests.

DUNHAM: Can you give me specific examples?

KARKI: OK, for example, the amount of money allocated to the district from where G.P. Koirala was elected is double to that which was allocated to the Karnali district. Similarly, the amount of money allocated to the district from where CPN-UML leader Madhav Nepal was elected, was also double the budget for the Karnali district. During the time of the panchayat system and Surya Bahadur Thapa was in power, he used to bring resources to Dhankuta, his home district. When Sher Bahadur Deuba was in power, he concentrated on developing the corridor in the far west. If you go to the far west you will see that is far more developed than the mid-west, right? So this is the reality in Nepal. Nepal has very much a constituency-based politics and led by the interests of those who are politically in power at any given time.

All of these specific allocations have had a political impact on Nepal. For instance, although Marichman Singh was prime minister during the panchayat time [Marichman Singh Shrestha was prime minister from June 1986-April 1990], he was not able to bring a lot of resources to the mid-west, partly because we had USAID concentrating on the mid-west. And sometimes we call this the root cause of the eventual conflict: the failure of the governments to bring changes, improvements for the people in the mid-west which, in turn, created fertile ground for the [Maoist] uprising there.

But anyway, this is the reality. I’ve been to Karnali. I’ve been to Humla, Jumla, and Dolpa and, obviously, I agree with you that these are some of the most deprived areas in Nepal. And there are lots of possible geographical targets where we can bring more resources to address the needs and demands of the people.

But so many big political changes! We had a big political change in 1990. And again we had a big political change in 2006. But the expectation of the people toward the political elite – in 1990 and 2006 – are quite different. In 2006, the people thought, “OK, our leaders have learned a lot, they have changed, they’re not going to make the same mistakes twice, the leaders will be more pro-poor, they will not waste their time in-fighting, and there will be a big peace dividend for all of us.” That’s what people thought or hoped.

But after the big political change of 2006, not only our government, but also our donors expected something big.

And if you say to the political leaders in Kathmandu, “OK, let’s resolve the larger political issues first, then we will address the smaller problems in the villages,” you get nowhere.

The ongoing peace process, to me, has faltered because it remains a Kathmandu-centric process, confined to the political elite. There is no sensible effort to build peace from the common people upward. It is the remote villages that were hardest hit by war, but what have they gained since 2006? How have their lives improved? This is the big challenge for the NGOs.

DUNHAM: Reconciliation seems to be a big stumbling block.

 

KARKI:  What kind of reconciliation are you talking about? Reconciliation between G.P. Koirala and Prachanda? Reconciliation between Prachanda and the UML or any other party you care to mention? They are always talking. Even in wartime, there was always some sort of dialogue going on between the parties –they were meeting each other. But while the political leaders talked, outside in the countryside, the cadres and government forces were killing each other and destroying the rural infrastructure, which left the people no choice but to flee their villages. Where’s the reconciliation there?

So now we tell the displaced people, “You can go back to your homes, we have peace now, there is no risk there.” But the truth is that their land has not been cultivated for the last several years. Their irrigation canals are not functioning. Their drinking water system was damaged. Their school systems were used as military barracks. Their health posts were used as training centers for the armed groups. In some cases, the infrastructure was damaged by the Maoist; in other cases, government forces created damage.

And now we ask people to just go back and live there! “There is peace. There is no danger,” we tell them.  The problem is obvious. Prior to 2006, there was only one armed group: the Maoists. Now there are 27 recognized armed groups in Nepal. There are so many incidences of violence taking place in Nepal that it is very difficult to get to the bottom of each incidence: Who had done what? We never seem to get to the bottom.

And my understanding of this continuing violence is that it is due to the frustrated expectations of the people. It has nothing to do with ideological orientation of any particular political or philosophical movement. It’s the people’s frustration: They are unhappy with the political elite and so they are vulnerable to the mobilization of any disgruntled group. This is what is happening.

Therefore, we badly need a peace agreement with our people. Our political elite got a peace dividend from the 2006 peace agreement. There had been a price tag on their heads in the past. Now, they became prime minister, ministers, members of Parliament and the Constituent Assembly. They were rewarded. But what about the ordinary people living in Humla, Dolpa, and even Rukum-Rolpa, which was recognized as the capital of the Maoist uprising? They were not rewarded by the peace agreement. They received no reward.

Peace building from the bottom up is what is so badly needed right now in Nepal. I’m not saying that the peace process that is taking place in Kathmandu is bad – it is also important – but peace building in the villages is just as important. Both need to take place – not one at the cost of the other. That is the only way that there will be a lasting democratic peace in this country. This is what our government and all donors need to be looking at.

DUNHAM: There are also the obstacles of widespread impunity and absence of rule of law. Recently I spoke with Matrika Yadav, for instance. The lawlessness that is going on in the southern part of Nepal is very unsettling. I guess what I’m trying to get my head around is: How can you ensure development if the country does not respect rule of law and allows impunity? Which brings me to my next question: To what extent do the NGOs of your federation face extortions, intimidation?

KARKI: We haven’t received any reports from our NGOs, since 2006, about extortion or threats to their development projects. But there are so many other threats. For example, there are regular strikes that make progress so difficult; you can’t really move or go where you need to go. That kind of threat is ever present and makes development in Nepal impossible.

But I agree with you about the issue related to impunity – a gross and systematic violation of human rights – it is pervasive at this moment. The Federation is very much bothered by this. Of course, we should remind ourselves that we are going through a serious political transition and some of the lawlessness can be attributed to the management of that transition. It has happened in other countries as well. But beyond that, there is growing political anarchy everywhere. People have high expectations. Every section of our society wants their demands met now. There is no patience. So the ultimate tool that they use to fulfill their demands is the strike. This is what they do. They burn tires in the streets, throw stones at the shops and buildings and shut down the economy -- whatever they feel like doing and with impunity. And this is the everyday phenomenon in Nepal. And it very much bothers and interrupts the development work of the NGOs in our federation.

But it’s more complicated than that. It must be remembered that, whenever there are major political changes -- when we fight for democracy – the people have no choice but to also raise the issue of civil and political rights. We must demand our rights so that we will be in the position to exercise democratic freedom. We have been under the rule of autocracy and absolute monarchy for so long and we are trying so hard to change the direction once and for all.

But, after 2006, what I think is this: When you talk about human rights, you shouldn’t overlook the fact that having the right to develop and improve your life is also a basic human right. That particular right is being ignored everyday in this country. The right to development should be given equal importance. And that might just address the frustrated expectation of the people, which has not been accomplished so far. This is the issue that our government and our donors and our NGOs need to look at seriously.

DUNHAM: And has the present Home Minister accomplished the task of creating a better atmosphere to nurture development in this country?

KARKI: I wouldn’t personally blame the Home Minister. This is much more widespread. This is the everyday-everywhere phenomenon prevalent in our country right now. There is such a pervasive lack of governmental presence in our lives – in every sphere of our lives -- at this moment – perhaps every developing country has the same experience. But one thing is certain. Lawlessness in this country is a huge problem. The government is failing to maintain law and order. Anarchy threatens all strata of Nepali society. It goes far beyond a Home Minister.

DUNHAM: So what is the solution? Peace building beginning with your small grassroots NGOs?

KARKI: That is one of the solutions.

But there should also be a very firm political commitment among the political elite to maintain rule of law. Look at the way the sister organizations of all the major political parties behave. They engage in violence, they engage in breaking the law – how can you have rule of law in a country, if the parties themselves – the parties that wield power in the country -- ignore rule of law?



Dr. Karki also serves as President of Rural Reconstruction Nepal and President of LDC Watch. He is currently conducting research on issues related to agrarian relations, rural social movements and the peace-building process in Nepal. His most recently published works include The People's War in Nepal: Left Perspective, The People's War in Historical Context and Movement from Below: Land Rights Movements in Nepal, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies.


To contact or learn more about the NGO Federation of Nepal:

http://www.ngofederation.org/



……………………………...............................…………………………..

Dunham’s interview with Nepal’s five-time-appointed Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa

May 30, 2009






















The Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal celebrated its first Republic Day on Friday -- a country that, while still in its infancy, has already witnessed two prime ministers.

Over the years, the turnover frequency of Nepal’s prime ministers has taken on a kind of flavor-of-the-month quality. Few were in power long enough to produce sustainable legacies, the (until quite recently) Maoist prime minister being no exception. Entrusted with the orchestration of the framing of a new constitution – the nascent republic’s most important task – Ex-Prime Minister Prachanda watched progress languish while being preoccupied with other matters.



The newest prime minister is Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML) leader Madhav Kumar Nepal. Mr. Nepal has his work cut out for him. The deadline for writing a constitution is one year away with a six-month extension admissible; beyond that time, the legality of anything the Constituent Assembly might deem to pen becomes dubious. Obviously, a show of unity between the parties has never been more crucial, but so far there is very little evidence of sincere intercourse. Instead, on display is the embarrassing inter-party squabbling and jostling for the plum Cabinet posts suddenly left vacant by the departure of the Maoists, who seem to have found fresh oxygen by resuming their original role as outsiders. From outside and from within, Prime Minister Nepal inherited an unruly mess. At this juncture, no one cares to lay odds on how long he will remain in power.

Recently, I spoke to Surya Bahadur Thapa, the 81-year-old politico who knows more about the impermanence of Nepali leadership than anyone: He has assumed the role of Prime Minister a record-breaking five times. Among other things, we discussed the difference between the political climate of today and 60 years ago, when he personally witnessed Nepal opened its borders for the first time to the outside world. 


DUNHAM: What was the political atmosphere like in the 1950s, when you began your political career? And how does that atmosphere differ from today’s political scene?

THAPA: It’s quite different today. When I was a young man, the major power was the king. The parties, still testing their wings, were struggling to be represented in the government. The parties just weren’t very strong.

Prior to 1950 and the Ranas’ fall from power, there was the Praja Parishad party. [Nepal’s first political party established in 1935– a secret society fueled by Kathmandu intellectuals but supported by a broad spectrum of castes and ethnic groups, dedicated to ushering in democracy to Nepal.] The Praja Parishad’s reach was basically limited to the Kathmandu Valley. They were an underground group. They had to be. If the government caught them, they were imprisoned and silenced in that way.

By 1950, the leading democratic party was Nepali Congress. It had a socialistic base and had entered into an armed struggle to overthrow Rana rule, which resonated throughout the country. But also there was a communist party in Nepal that was growing rapidly. And there was the Gorkha Parishad party, [a party formed in 1951 by a group of Rana revivalists – no longer existent]. When the Rana dynasty was overthrown, the Rana clan created the Gorkha Parishad in reaction to the governmental shift. They attempted to project democratic concepts, but it was too rightwing, too old-school to gain much popularity. There were other parties emerging, though with less impact than the ones I have mentioned.

And that was basically the political scene: It was an uphill battle for all the parties to gain ground. The king had a very strong power base. The concept of the monarchy, as well as the king himself -- both were popular with the people.

DUNHAM: I’m interested in the 50s because it was a remarkably dynamic and transitional time for Nepal. Up until the 1950s, Nepal’s borders had been closed to the outside world. Suddenly, there was an influx of Western notions coming in. What was it like, to experience the dramatic infiltration of outside cultures?

THAPA: Yes, prior to that time, the Ranas had maintained a closed society. The only outside presence to be found in the Kathmandu Valley was the British legation. Then after the Ranas were overthrown, we suddenly felt the impact of Indian presence. They had just gained their own independence from the British a few years before.

But beyond that, at least for the first few years, there was not much additional foreign presence felt here. Treaties were made with America, Russia, China and some other countries. Embassies followed. But there was no tourism yet. There were no roads leading out of Nepal yet. There was a small airport that was constructed but the influx of foreign presence remained extremely limited.

Then the first road was built: Tribhuvan Rajpath, which linked Kathmandu with the border town of Birganj. It was constructed by the Indian government. This, of course, allowed a significant flow of traffic from India. But I must say that, even then, the introduction of foreign culture into Nepal remained limited.

The Kathmandu Valley is, historically, very rich, very dense in culture and religion. And those foreigners who came to Nepal, didn’t try to influence or alter our customs.

Socially, on the other hand, there was definitely a shift. Many advisors and experts arrived, especially American advisors, who set up residence here. They didn’t socialize with commoners. They mixed with the privileged classes and within that group you could see that a social fusion was taking place. Our social customs began to reflect some of the Western ways. There was also an introduction of various political ideologies that had a significant impact on Nepali intellectuals. And people working in Nepal’s government were sent abroad for training –especially to America and, to a lesser extent, to Britain and India – and that had a big impact in so many fields: administration, agriculture, technology.

Remember, during most of the 1950s, there was still no university in Nepal. Naturally, many young people began going to the universities of our nearest neighbor, India. And that experience -- getting an education outside Nepal -- colored every aspect of their lives. It was profound. They learned other languages, cultures and attitudes of foreign societies. And when they returned to Nepal, there was a huge impact here – the social structure of traditional Nepali society began to expand -- slowly at first, but continually reaching out to a broader community. And eventually, foreign social elements became more and more acceptable to Nepali society.  What I want to say is this: When you ask about the modernization of Nepal, those early years of our young people going abroad to study – that was what really got the wheels turning in a new, more modern direction.

DUNHAM: One of my major interests in Nepal is the impact of its youth – both now and in the past. I’ve interviewed so many young people here. Today, the effect of brain drain on Nepal is increasingly significant. So many talented and intelligent youths are leaving Nepal and not coming back, to the detriment of Nepali society, which needs all of its human resources to build a stable, modern Nepal. What’s your take on this? How can Nepal’s leaders, whichever party is in power, reverse the pattern and persuade the youth to remain in Nepal?

THAPA: Yes, you are right about its significance. But to be fair, I think this is a phenomenon prevalent in all the third-world countries.

Still, that’s no excuse for what is going on here in Nepal. It’s true. We are facing a problem with our youth that we didn’t have in the past. Just as we were discussing: In the early days, after the youth received their higher educations, they came back to Nepal to help with its development. They contributed to all sectors of society: political, economic, health, education -- all sectors.

But now we are facing a different trend. Job opportunities in Nepal? Where are they? Show them to me! There is a stalemate here – wanting to keep our youth here but failing to be able to offer them opportunities here. Complete stagnation – that’s what the youth see. The youth see their future in job opportunities in America, or Australia or Europe. Those who are brilliant and studied abroad and find themselves competitive with the job opportunities in that country, will remain there. Not being able to keep our youths in the country is one of Nepal’s weakest points.

I see two problems. Until and unless we create an atmosphere of political stability in Nepal and until Nepal’s economic horizon is broadened, we do not have a persuasive argument to keep our youth in Nepal. And who wants to stand in the way of their children’s opportunities? The dilemma actually falls into the category of human rights, if you think about it. The youth should have the right to pursue a better standard of living; if a better standard cannot be offered here, what right do we older people have to prevent them from going elsewhere?

If we could provide political stability and economic opportunity for our youths, they would certainly return. But first and foremost, we must be able to honestly tell our youths that the country is politically settled and in a state of permanent peace. With peace established in Nepal, economic opportunities can follow and the youth will want to remain here. 

DUNHAM: Then the next question is how do you achieve political stability? Obviously rule of law must be firmly established and the tradition of impunity must be reversed. But what about the integration of the Maoist army into the Nepal army? It would seem that nothing will move forward until that problem is solved – the Maoists won’t allow it.

THAPA: This is such a sensitive topic in Nepal. And it’s not the first time it has happened here.

Looking back in history, after the Ranas were overthrown, there was a similar problem with what to do with the armed faction of Nepali Congress supporters. They too came into the Kathmandu Valley and needed to be offered some sort of future. But the difference was that they were not trained ideologically. They were simply against the Rana rule. They did not espouse any sort of dogma that had been taught to them by party leaders. They were just open like common citizens, except that they were trained to raise arms against the Rana government. So they came here and when Nepali Congress came into office, they were then trained to serve in the police force. And the amalgamation process was a successful one. Some of the armed people even managed to join the national army, without negative results.

Of course those who were allowed to join the army had an entirely different background than the Maoist rebels today. Back then, the Nepali Congress armed fighters had fought in the Burma War during the era of World War II. They were top-notch soldiers, trained by the British in a completely professional fashion.  So they could be integrated into the army and the police force without bringing into question their levels of proficiency in military expertise. Even more important: There was no problem because they didn’t come to the army with ideological differences.

The Maoist rebels came completely equipped with an extreme brand of communism. The Maoist command trained them first in ideology and second in military skills. That was the order of importance.

What happens if the ex-combatants are integrated into the national army? If you want to make a communist country, if you agree to have an extreme communist military force here, there is no problem. You can integrate them into the regular army. In five or six years, there will be a first-class revolutionary army in Nepal.

But just now, the Nepal army is very much independent from communist ideology. They don’t adhere to any ideology. They are a professional army, trained by world-class officers. If you compare army officers with civilian professionals who have, more or less, the same level of expertise in their fields, you will find that the army officers are far superior. Why? Because of their exceptional training. They have been sent all over the world for training: Britain, America and India.

And if you try to integrate the PLA into this highly trained organization, forget about having a professional army. So the people have a choice: they can choose to have an ideologically based army or a professional army. But they can’t have both.

More important: Does Nepal want a Maoist country or a democratic country? You can’t have both.

This is a vital question, particularly while the constitution is being written. The Maoists are very clever. They can make very beautiful speeches about democracy, but their real intentions lead in an entirely different direction.

Outside of the Valley, throughout the countryside, the Maoists have been able to control the people through the YCL -- by threats and intimidation. And no one has tried to prevent them from doing so, including our neighbor to the south. The Indians underestimated the Maoists. Before the election, the Indians never dreamed that they would, overnight, have an open border with a neighbor that was Maoist. India was not alert.

The army is the only institution that has remained alert. And that is why Prachanda was so determined to get rid of General Katawal – to break down the professionalism of the army. The Maoists are not interested in real integration.

DUNHAM: The Supreme Court supported General Katawal, but it is being attacked by the Maoists as well.

THAPA: Yes, and the democratic parties must be very cautious about these attacks and come to the defense of the Supreme Court. That’s one thing. The second thing is the international community should be defending the Supreme Court as well. This is no time for the international community to remain silent.

DUNHAM: Yes, to take my country as an example, for instance: America. It’s been interesting for me to watch the difference in diplomatic approaches -- between Nancy Powell and James Moriarty. Moriarty, the former ambassador, never failed to speak his mind -- especially when it came to the Maoists. It’s been the very opposite with Ambassador Powell. The current embassy is very discreet.

THAPA: And I think this is a problem. Since there is no political mandate in Nepal, the people who want to see democracy work in Nepal, very much look to three countries -- USA, UK and India – to support their democratic ambitions. They want to hear theses countries’ voices.

Perhaps, to some extent, the Nepali government – whoever is in power – is to blame for international silence. Our politicians always like to give the impression to their constituents that, “We are a very independent country and we can judge and determine what to do without the interference of international powers.” But the reality is different. All parties, including the Maoists, are at least partially dependent on the attitudes and wishes of the three countries I mentioned. Those countries inspire much of how Nepali politicians proceed in governmental activities.

You mentioned, the previous American ambassador – Mr. Moriarty. He was very frank. He said what he thought. Now, whether it was diplomatically correct for him to do so or not is not for me to say. But personally I never regarded it as interference with our government.

I do understand that, in the diplomatic world, there are norms that cannot be stepped over. If a democratic government in Nepal is strong enough, then the foreign powers can act significantly to support that government. But if the international powers are watching how an unstable, tentative government proceeds, they will be hesitant to go too far in making their voices heard.

Still, given the current situation here, I find the international silence disturbing. In principle, it is OK to say that each sovereign country should make its own decisions, but in practice, these countries’ goals are to safeguard democracy throughout the world, so they should speak up.

DUNHAM: Your position -- as I understand it -- your desire is to bring the moderate parties together to create a meaningful block, as a response to the Maoists.

THAPA: Yes, as I’ve been watching this transition, what I’ve seen is that the Maoist have not come to Kathmandu to surrender their basic ideology. And if you think that is not the case, then you will be surprised one day. So in Nepal, just now, the democratic forces – and I’m not talking about any particular party right now -- all the democratic parties must speak up as one voice – to create a strong opposition to the non-democratic parties.

As it stands now, the democratic parties are off-balance and the Maoists are taking advantage of them, as well as the common people, to see how far they can go. If there were a strong democratic block in Nepal, the Maoists would be automatically checked.

In particular, I am asking Nepali Congress to get unified. There are many good, young people in the Nepali Congress party who understand the dynamics of the situation. Unfortunately, they are still not in the positions of power. They are not part of the upper echelon of the party hierarchy. But I’m telling the Congress party to please take the initiative. And I think what I am saying is beginning to have some resonance within the party. But without Koirala’s consent, no one can do anything. So it all hangs on what GP Koirala will do.


………………………...........................................………………………

What Constitution? What law and order? Dunham's Interview with Bishwa Kanta Mainali, President of the Nepal Bar Association

May 26, 2009





























With all eyes on the newly appointed Prime Minister, the judiciary remains besieged. The foundation of law and order is grounded in a nation’s constitution; the writing of the constitution – the signal responsibility of the constituent assembly – has been put on hold yet again. The Supreme Court, which has several crucial decisions pending, continues to be attacked from various factions. And security continues to reveal its soft underbelly with such condemnable acts as last week’s bombing of Kathmandu’s catholic church, resulting in two deaths and fourteen injured, with little expectation that the culprits will be brought to justice.

The previous Maoist Prime Minister had his showdown with the judiciary and ended up tucking his tail and beating a hasty retreat. The Supreme Court remains a power to be reckoned with. But the fact remains that Nepal’s judiciary system – like every other public institution in Nepal -- faces an extremely precarious future until and unless the drafting of the new constitution becomes a reality.

About a month ago, I spoke with Bishwa Kanta Mainali, President of the Nepal Bar Association, about the importance (as well as the shortcomings) of Nepal’s judiciary system. (No one envisioned at the time of the interview that the Maoist government was about to implode.) He brought with him an impressive and sometimes controversial array of perspectives to the discussion – historical, cultural and ethnic observations -- that brought a multi-faceted overview very much worth considering: Now more than ever.

In addition to being President of the Nepal Bar Association, Bishwa Kanta Mainali serves as a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court. Among other accomplishments, he advised the 1990 Constitution Drafting Commission and helped frame enactments such as the Consumer Protection Act, the Human Rights Commission Act as well as working on various amendments to the constitution. He also served as Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of "Jan Jagran", a vernacular weekly newspaper, is a founding member of Nepal Eye Hospital, Nepal Law Society and is affiliated with numerous other organizations. Mainali holds degrees in Economics and Law from Tribhuwan University and is currently a visiting faculty at Nepal Law Campus. He is also very proud of his Nepalese heritage, identifying himself as a member of the 19th generation of Mainali hailing from Nepal.



DUNHAM: Let’s begin by discussing your background and how you became a leading spokesman for Nepal’s judiciary system.

MAINALI: I have been a practicing lawyer in the judiciary for 37 years. Indirectly, I was also involved with bringing democracy to Nepal: supporting early on the political parties and defending their cases.

DUNHAM: What cases?

MAINALI: During the period of autocracy in Nepal, there were no lawyers who dared to take the cases of leaders in the political parties, who were charged on citizen, criminal, moral, arms and ammunitions cases.

Before I joined this profession, I was a lecturer of economics in Tribhuvan University. Some politicians came to me and requested that I enter law school so that there would be someone to defend their cases. Basically, that’s why I joined this profession. Prior to that, I had no interest in joining the judiciary because it was one of the most neglected organs of the State. I saw its deficiencies firsthand. There were already many of my family members who were in the judiciary: they were lawyers, judges of the District Courts and judges of the Supreme Court.

So I joined the judiciary on the understanding that my practice would be restricted to pro bono service – just to help the people restore democracy in Nepal. That was my ambition. I didn’t join the profession for money and certainly not for prestige! When I became a lawyer in Nepal there was no dignity associated with this profession. Society looked down on lawyers and characterized them as tricky, untrustworthy people.

But beginning with my generation, we helped to build the reputation of the judiciary. Today, society as a whole has grown to respect us. Today, both cadres and political party leaders are in need of our services and we have come to their aid while valuing and upholding the dignity of the profession. We really are trying our level best to uphold rule of law in this country.

But going back to the early days, in the 1960s, when there was a coup d’etat led by the king, and then the elected government was dissolved after 16 months, parliament was dissolved – I was a school student having just joined the law college and witnessed the upheaval, at least to some extent through my father’s eyes. My father was a freedom fighter in 1950. He was with the Nepali Congress and a friend of B.P. Koirala and that’s the kind of family I grew up in. He was against the Rana regime and the Panchayat system. And like B.P. Koirala, my father felt animosity for Nehru’s party and was in opposition to India’s control over Nepal.

During the 1990 democratic movement, I took a leading role as a civil rights activist and human right’s lawyer. I was imprisoned at that time. By then I had adopted some leftist inclinations. I was disenchanted with Nepali Congress because of their rules and behavior and their dependence on Indian politics. I still don’t like that aspect of Nepali Congress. I accept all of their principles, but I oppose their dependence on Indian politics. And even though I come from a landlord family – a wealthy, upper-middle class family, my leftist inclinations stem from the fact that I live in a country that is very poor. When I see the future of so many poor, marginalized people in Nepal -- all the people who are excluded from mainstream politics on the basis of caste, gender, ethnicity and region – I find it insupportable. I take objection to the injustice that arises from that discrimination. Everyone must have equal rights in the political power. Otherwise the country cannot develop. And in that sense, to some extent, Marxist ideology interests me. Although we must follow the independent line of freedom of thought, expression and rule of law, we must also follow the socialistic pattern of economy. This is my view: The two lines must be followed. At the cost of economic development, we cannot sacrifice our personal freedom; at the cost of personal freedom, we cannot allow the people to be deprived and marginalized forever and ever.

DUNHAM: So you began your career as a human rights activist lawyer?

MAINALI: Actually I was a founding member and president of the Forum for Human Rights, which is one of the first such organizations, initiated during the Panchayat-autocratic regime. And based on my experiences, the political and civil rights and the economic and social and cultural rights are indivisible.

DUNHAM: And you have been jailed a half dozen times over the course of your career because of your views?

MAINALI: That’s correct.

DUNHAM: As a president of the Nepal Bar Association, what is your assessment of the health of the judiciary system in Nepal? How does Rule of Law play out against a persistent disregard for the written law, for instance?  Has this been a pervasive problem regardless of which political party is in power? And if so, how can the trend be reversed?

MAINALI: In a nascent or fragile democracy such as Nepal’s, the judiciary is very weak – especially if the ruler feels that he is above the law. Rule of law must be inclusive. By that I mean that everyone should have to answer to the rule of law. No one should be above the law.

But I would like to begin by placing your question in an historical context.

250 years ago, before Prithvi Narayan Shah united this kingdom, this country was divided into many principalities – more than 100 tribal groups and small isolated states --  -- very underdeveloped. Feudal lords ruled over these various ethnic communities. It was an extremely crude form of rule of law.

Prithvi Narayan Shah, the direct ancestor of the recently deposed king, initially ruled the small state of Gorkha. He was young, bright and proved capable of uniting all the principalities. And after his death, Prithvi’s brother and son continued his work by adding additional principalities in what was then regarded as part of northern India. Nepal became much bigger than it is today. The border of Nepal abutted the area of Kalimpong to the east, Kashmir to the west, the Himalaya to the north and the Ganges River to the south.

But at the same time Britain was expanding its control over India. In terms of Nepali boundaries, this culminated in the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-16, when the British forced Nepal into the Treaty of Sagauli. There were both positive and negative aspects to that treaty. Positive: Britain recognized Nepal as an independent state. Negative: We lost many territories in the bargain.

Now let’s jump ahead to the post World War II era, which had a huge impact on India and Nepal. India gained independence from the British Empire, profoundly impacting Rana rule in Nepal. Up until that time, the Ranas had been able to enjoy good relations with British rule, but now they were left out in the cold. Suddenly the Indian political landscape was completely new. It forced Nepal into thinking differently about itself. And this was what made possible the dramatic changes that occurred in Nepal in the early 1950s.

Nepal wanted to have independence from Rana rule and tried to have a multi-party system. But it was too fragile to really take hold; it could not be sustained under the major changes that had taken place in the Nepal government. Prior to 1950, the monarchy was very weak. Suddenly, there was a reverse in fortunes and the king became very strong and popular. Also, the leaders of the political parties were immature and made the mistakes of newcomers. They lacked vision and they were not fully committed to the huge task at hand. To begin with, they were fighting and uphill battle in a profoundly feudal country that had very little idea what a democracy was all about.

In 1960, democracy again looked like a possibility. We had a multi-party election and Nepali Congress party received a sweeping two-thirds majority. The leader of Nepali Congress, B.P. Koirala was very charismatic – huge character. Still people remember him, myself included, as a man with vision. But the main stumbling block of his career was that he had a conflict of interest with India. As I said before, B.P. and Nehru did not get along at all. And that’s a good thing. If B.P Koirala had allowed himself to become the stooge of India, the sovereignty of Nepal would have been over.

Still, Nepali Congress rule was not very acceptable to the Nepali people. There was unrest and insecurity. Civil unrest grew. The people still had great faith in the monarchy.  And King Mahendra took advantage of the frailties and failures of the political parties and ultimately introduced the one-party system [Panchayat], which was operational for the next thirty years. Once again, democracy was foiled.

With this in mind, we should pause for a moment to discuss Nepal’s political, social and judiciary cultures.

First, as I indicated previously, Nepal’s political culture has always been a very autocratic on. What needs to be said is that, even today, nothing has changed. Nepal still has an autocratic culture. Second, Nepal still doesn’t have political stability. It continues to be in a state of flux, which has, in turn, made it impossible for true democracy to function here.

People try to put an optimistic spin on political stability in Nepal. Most of the donor agencies -- NGOs and INGOs – seem to have come to the conclusion that Nepal is in a post-conflict situation. But personally I don’t agree with that view. We are still in a conflict situation.

DUNHAM: Why do you come to that conclusion?

MAINALI: Because, according to Foreign Minister Yadav, 42 small-armed groups are operational in Terai, using hit-and-run methods. They take shelter across the border in India. Most of these groups have criminal backgrounds and strike out at the Nepalis like criminals: Kidnapping, asking ransom money, looting and extortion in the name of politics. In addition, various ethnic groups in the Terai and eastern hilly regions are preparing for independent states. And these groups are also armed.

So this criminalization of politics is the most dangerous thing. I already mentioned to you that the politics of Nepal is not free from the impact of Indian politics. Indian politics is so much criminalized. And in Nepal, now, also it is very much criminalized. It’s very difficult to separate between the criminals and the politicians. So many people agree about this that it’s as if the criminalization of Nepali politics is taken for granted. That’s the political culture we are living in.

DUNHAM: You also mentioned that Nepal’s social culture compromised the judiciary. Why?

MAINALI: Because our social culture is basically feudal.

DUNHAM: Even today?

MAINALI: Even today -- a fusion of autocratic and feudal cultures. This fusion is the biggest hindrance for rule of law. This fusion is the main enemy of development in Nepal.

DUNHAM: Could you explain?

MAINALI: In the first place, autocratic and feudal attitudes have prevailed in the minds of the rulers -- but not just the rulers. The various political parties must be included. It doesn’t matter if they advertise “democracy” or  “social democrat” in their party names; the autocratic and feudal attitudes within the parties have prevailed. In addition, there is an identical attitude among the individual citizens of Nepal. Even among the poorest people in Nepal – who have no political clout -- they have this tendency to think autocratically and feudally.

Rulers, political parties and individuals – none of us have been able to change our feudal attitude. And until we free ourselves from this attitude, we will never be able to have rule of law in Nepal.

DUNHAM: Is this what feeds the prevalence of impunity in Nepal?

MAINALI: Absolutely. Our attitude prohibits a law-abiding culture. We actually feel proud if we can break the law. We feel glory, breaking the law. And none are more proud of this that our political leaders and their cadres.

But again, let’s step back for a moment and look at the history of the judiciary.

Before 1950, we had a family autocratic rule. It wasn’t until 1952-3, that we established an independent judiciary. Before that, the judiciary was merged with the executive – the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister. That’s a very brief history, if you think about it. We have had a very short history of an operational judiciary with the law profession serving as the manpower behind that organization.

People speak of the revolution of the early 1950s. The change was not revolutionary. It may have looked like that to the people but it was merely a political transference of power from one family, the Ranas, to another, the Shahs. In fact the people’s movement joined with the autocratic government, preventing it from becoming a true revolution. Nepali Congress was the party that led the people’s movement at that time, and it was made supportable by the Peace and Friendship Treaty signed with India.

And it did nothing to clarify the rule of law in a modern state.

This is a serious challenge not only to Nepal, but all to all developing countries around the world as well. To have a truly modern State, a country must understand the importance of maintaining separation of powers – separation of the judiciary from the executive branch – and the mutual respect that goes with that.

This kind of understanding and respect is not present in Nepali leadership. When the Supreme Court comes down with a decision, it is the executive branch’s duty to respect that decision. The decisions inform the government as to what they can and cannot do. Instead, in this country, we see constant examples of the executive branch trying to inform the Supreme Court what it can and cannot do.

Nor are the decisions upheld. For instance, the Court has imposed many fines on politically connected men. Based on those judgments, millions and millions of rupees are supposed to be collected in fines. But do the convicted pay? No. The fined people ignore the decisions. They know they don’t have to pay. If the court passes sentence on a man for murder – let’s say life imprisonment – if that man belongs to a political party, not only will he not serve time, he will be seen traveling in a minister’s car or even finding shelter in a political leader’s home.

So you see, if the political parties – especially the leaders of the political parties – don’t respect the law or the constitution, how can one expect the common man to respect the law and the constitution? There is a famous saying in Nepal: “The law is a privilege for the people who are rich and have the power, but the law is a curse for the people who are poor and helpless.” Unless and until the government respects the law and the judgments of the court, unless the government respects the judiciary, there will be no real rule of law in Nepal.

DUNHAM: So the politicians are to blame?

MAINALI: The kingpin of every State is the politics. The political parties control the political workers. If political parties refuse to instruct their followers to respect rule of law, what can the rest of society do?

DUNHAM: Let’s cite specific examples: I’m thinking about Dr. Bhattarai, when he lambasted the Supreme Court recently about the ruling on General Katawal. Apart from it being non-productive, it’s also duplicitous. When Dr. Bhattarai and Prachanda recently visited foreign countries, they promulgated the notion that they supported democracy. And yet when they return to Nepal, they immediately tear into the judiciary or, in Prachanda’s case, the media by calling them “smugglers”, etc. 

MAINALI: That was very hurtful, all of that. I immediately called a Nepal Bar Association executive committee meeting. I condemned this kind of governmental reactions to Supreme Court decisions. There is such a thing as due process of law, which the government seemed to have forgotten. If you disagree with rulings, you go through the legal system to change the existing laws. If a person, who is dissatisfied with a court decisions, he has the right to appeal.

On the other hand, if you simply go to the street and authorize the parading of effigies, if you disrespect the authority of the judiciary, then how can you follow the rule of law? What you have done is to exemplify an extremely anti-rule-of law posture. And if you happen to also be a leader within the government, then how can you claim that you want a democratic constitution?

The Bar Association condemned the remarks you are referring to. Many political parties also condemned those comments, including Nepali Congress and UML.

But we also have to take into account the background of the Maoists.

It is my observation that the Maoist party has not yet fully accepted the Western idea of democracy. Remember that they embodied an insurgency for 12 years in the name of a very dogmatic, classical communism. The leaders were brought up with that kind of communism. But not all of them are such hard-line communists, in my opinion. So some of the leaders, when I have talked to them, I have found some changes in them. They have come to understand the ground reality that classic Stalin-like communism simply cannot prevail in a country like Nepal and that, at some point, rule of law must be address.

DUNHAM: How have the ethnic communities played their part in the fragility of rule of law?

MAINALI: In a way, all groups in Nepal are ethnic. No civilization was created in Nepal. The Burma-Tibetan tribal culture seeped down from the north, while Aryans, like my forefathers, migrated up from the subcontinent long before the British Empire came and placed the “India” stamp on what was really a conglomerate of separate independent states.

Nepal has always been a fusion of different cultures – never its own unique culture. So the basic problem for us is in defining “ethnicity”. Who is really indigenous in Nepal? Who is ethnic? It’s very confusing. We lack a scientific formula to make these calculations and deductions.

Take the Sherpas, for example. History tells us that they didn’t arrive in Nepal until the 16th-17th century. They have not been residents of Nepal for more than three or four centuries. Originally, the Sherpas were a Khampa tribe from southeaster Tibet. They moved south into what is now Nepal. There was no border system at that time, of course. People could migrate wherever they liked. So the Tibetan Sherpas came down from Kham. Even the Tibetan language defines them as migrants: Sher means “south” and pa means “residence” – in other words, “Tibetans who moved south”. And yet here in Nepal they are widely regarded as an indigenous people! The Sherpas are just one example.

Conversely, while tribes were moving into Nepal, other tribes were moving out of Nepal.  Take the migrants who moved to Assam, for instance.

This coming and going of communities is nothing new nor is it unique to Nepal. It happens in many places where there is a no concept of “State”, or at best a disregard of  “State”. If you visit the Afghan-Pakistani border, there are many places that are still under the control of tribal rulers. They don’t follow the rules of Pakistan. They have their own rules and sense of national boundaries means nothing to them in their daily lives.

But in Nepal, the most pressing ethnic problem in the 21st century is the ethnic problem arising in the south, in Madhes. The Madhes have been excluded from the Nepali power structure, no doubt about it. The question is: Why?

The history behind this exclusion is that there was never a recognized state of Terai. There was never a Terai king, or any sort of Terai ruler, for that matter. It was always the hilly people to the north of Terai who ruled the various communities in Terai.

In short, Madhes, as a concept, lacks an historical premise. Actually, the meaning of Madhesi is “those people who came from Madhya Pradhes – the middle province -- of India”. The word indicates Indian origin. It’s not dissimilar to your country’s usage of compound nouns to identify groups who have migrated to the United States: You have African Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, Nepali Americans and the list goes on and on.

The usage of “Madhes” is a fairly new phenomenon. According to Nepalese historical documents, you will see that the southern area of Nepal was referred to as “Terai” – a word of Tharu origin.

So the question arises: What constitutes authentic ethnic identity?

In March, the Nepal Bar Association’s held an historical conference, which was inaugurated by the President; the [then] Prime Minister and all main political leaders were speakers. The association’s intention was to bring the leaders together in a spirit of unity for framing the constitution within the designated timeframe.

And I asked the leaders, “When you just talk about ethnic identity, what exactly to you mean? Do you want to recognize these various groups, as they were 300 years ago, or 500 years ago? The Raos, for instance: Do you want them to return to the jungle life the led 100 years ago? Or do you want to bring them downtown and develop them into civilized people? What do you want to do with these recognized ethnic communities? If you intend to support the ethnic people, then you have to help them define themselves, but also allow room for the creation of a modern identity.”

Likewise, here in Nepal, we need to define “indigenous”. Yes, there is a universal definition, but for Nepal, we have to redefine the term. The government can easily declare some 60-65 indigenous groups but the identification must be scientific, not emotional, which is often the case in Nepal. We are easily drawn into to provocative stances that are not based on research. Provocation leads to disaster.

We have seen what happened in South Africa, Rwanda, and the Congo -- how ethnic disputes turned into genocide. In South Africa, they handled the problem very wisely. In 1993, I was an international observer for the South African elections. I visited some of the tribal communities and they were seething with vengeance. You could see it in their faces and hear it in their voices. There was an appetite for white massacre. And it could have easily taken place. But with the help of international groups and the wise leadership of Nelson Mandela, the crisis was averted.

During that conference, we also talked about federalism. How did the notion of federalism get introduced to the Nepalis? Out of 200 plus countries, there are only 25 countries that have federalism. United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Switzerland – these countries and others have managed to combine small states to become a perfect union for development. The holding-together concept can backfire, however. Just look at the former Soviet Union: A powerful empire conquered all the different states but when the central power grew weak, the states wanted to peel away and go on their own.

For Nepal, I hope that we can “hold together” as much and as long as we can. We can separate and every group can have self-determination anytime you like. So you have two things going on in Nepal: One is combining smaller states to make a more perfect union and the other is the separation of groups. If we are dragged into the separation of groups, it will be because of Maoist and Indian influence. That’s why there is rampant confusion about ethnicity in Nepal.

Federalism doesn’t mean ethnic-based states. The supremacy of any ethnic community is abhorrent to the Nepal Bar Association. We, therefore, advocate any ethnic supremacy because Nepal is a multi-ethnic, cultured country. That is the beauty of Nepal. We have a mosaic culture. Furthermore, more than 80 of the listed ethnic groups have a population of less than 100,000 members. Only 10-15 ethnic groups have more than 1,000,000 populations. So what that means, if we have an ethnic-based federation, the larger ethnic groups will profit while the majority of the ethnic groups will suffer.

During the time of insurgency, when the Maoists talked about class struggle, it really didn’t take hold among the people. So what they did was they took the class struggle issue and mixed in the ethnic, regional and language issues – the three most sensitive aspects of any society. And it caught on with the ethnic communities. The Maoists promised all the ethnic groups that they, the Maoists, would in effect return the control of ancient principalities to the original ethnic groups that had been conquered by Prithvi Narayan Shah 250 years ago.  The restructuring would take on a modern form, but it was still a return to old ways. This was the Maoist promise.

So how can they withdraw that promise now? Within the rank and file of Maoist supporters, they still cling to that promise. Many of the cadres have criminal backgrounds, were neglected by society and family, were vagabonds or street people –a disadvantaged group that can easily be worked into frenzy and persuaded to commit all sorts of inhumane acts.
 
But civilized, intellectual leaders know that they cannot simply get by with a force of guns – certainly not in the 21st century.

The Nepal Bar Association wants the nation to tread very carefully with the ethnic issue. We want a very democratic, pluralistic, and inclusive nation, which we believe will lead to a permanently peaceful and developing nation. The reason why we support federalism is so that those were historically excluded by the power structure in Kathmandu can now be included -- not marginalized as in the past – equality for the poor and ethnic communities so that they can see their quality of life improve from now on.  We want a nation in which all people can enjoy a prosperous future.

DUNHAM: You spoke of the criminal element existing in the Maoist rank and file. Would you care to amplify on that?









MAINALI: Criminality has always been an element within the Maoist rank and file. During the time of the insurgency, the Maoists fueled their hatred and recruited criminals, frustrated youths, disenfranchised ethnic groups and religious extremists – as a means of strengthening their ability to eliminate the despised monarchy and feudalist State.

The king is gone. But once you have fomented this kind of emotion, it is difficult to reverse the process as well as ceasing to utilize criminal modes as a mean of getting what you want. It takes time. It is their dilemma.

DUNHAM: But it’s not just the Maoists’ dilemma, is it? A remarkable number of politicians, regardless of the party to which they belong, have, or have had criminal charges leveled against them. You yourself have represented an astounding number of political leaders in court cases.

MAINALI: True. Any time you bring about changes in a country, there is someone who is breaking the law. If you succeed in bringing about changes, you are labeled a hero. If you fail, you are labeled a criminal. This is the history of the world.

Nepal was a feudal country. Nepal is still a feudal country. To bring about changes, evolutionary changes are not possible. Only when there is political stability is evolutionary change possible. When there is no political stability and you have to change one system to another, you need force. Force means struggle. You can give it any name you like. In a struggle, you use arms, muscle, money, power -- anything you can get your hands on.












Nepali Congress, in 1950, used guns to change things in Nepal. The Panchayat used guns to change things in Nepal. The Maoists used guns to change things in Nepal.

Even in European and American history, guns were used during the process of major political change.

The more important question is: What is your motivation for using force and power to change society? If you are struggling for the good of the people and nation, if you are a leader who has a vision and if you are broadminded, then that country will develop and make a new and better nation. But if you are political leader who is self-centered and selfish and motivated by your own interests, your country will surely continue to suffer.

DUNHAM: Let’s move on to another question. How good are the odds that the Constituent Assembly will frame the constitution in the allotted time?

MAINALI: There’s no easy answer. Nepalis never follow the process. And Nepalis are always compromised in their actions by India and China.

India always wants an independent Nepal, as long as they have control of security and water resources. They don’t want to grab Nepal like they did to other principalities in the 1950s. Even then, the nearby presence inhibited India’s advance on Nepal. And anyway, today in the 21st century, it’s not so easy to just grab a country and call it your own. But India continues to expect Nepal to serve India’s security interests. And they do want to have control over our water. In the 21st century, water will be like a blue diamond. The scarcity of water will increase until it is more valuable that petrol.

As for China: The most unstable area within China is Tibet. The Western world, with the help of India, wants to use Nepal to support the efforts of Tibetans. So China is very much careful about this matter. Besides, China now has multiple interests in Nepal.

So these two regional powers have conflicting interests in Nepal.

To make the matter more complicated, the international community tends to see Nepal through a New Delhi window. American ambassadors, UN representatives like Ian Martin and others -- all of these leaders seem to have to go have consultations with Delhi.

Regional and international interests are very much here in Nepal.

Second, the political parties who are in CA have various philosophical and historical backgrounds. Their interests clash with each other. These conflicts may prolong the actual writing of the constitution. If the conflicts aren’t solved, it is not possible for the constitution to be written on time. But if the CA can unify, and if the regional and international interest permits us to make the constitution, the members of the CA can write the constitution overnight.

With that in mind, there are still three main problems facing the Constituent Assembly in framing the constitution:

1.    Identity. Each ethnic community wants recognition of their identity in the constitution – their language, their culture. The leaders of the ethnic communities are demanding this.
2.    Development and quality of life. A man cannot survive on ethnic identity alone. He needs a good quality of life, a means of bettering himself and his family, a way of improving his economic conditions. How should this be written into the constitution?
3.    Devolution of Power. Every citizen must feel he or she has equal power, dignity of life, no matter what part of Nepal he or she lives in. He or she must have full right to explore his potential. Equal opportunity.

Above all, it should be remembered that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land. I want to see a nation that realizes the importance of the supremacy of the constitution -- not the supremacy of any particular party or individual or ethnic community.

First, we must adopt certain constitutional principles seen around the world. Universal rules. The United Nations has declared many common principles -- political, social, cultural, economic, human rights issues – that Nepal should adopt. Second, we need to look to our neighbors India and China: We must learn from the economic success of China and the civic and political rights successes of India. We have to adapt the best qualities of both nations.

Representing the Nepal Bar Association, I have visited many districts in Nepal for in an effort to collect the aspirations of the people. The Association also had the help of the Canadian Bar Association; we had a joint project regarding the making of the new constitution. What the Association discovered was that there are 99 challenges the CA has to resolve in order to write a new constitution. We counted 106 ethnic communities in Nepal. Now, even I’m getting information that there are 111-113 ethnic communities. There are 155 languages, dialects, and sub-dialects. The Association, after gathering this information, submitted the 99 challenges to the CA, with the request that the members think over our report and come to a consensus over the numerous challenges.

The dialogue within the CA must go something like this: How many issues are we already in agreement of? How many differences do we have? How can resolve these differences? This kind of dialogue would significantly shorten the process and would make it much easier to frame the constitution in the given time.

And if some of the differences are not possible to resolve amicably, then the only democratic process, which is mentioned in the constitution also, is to go to a referendum – the people’s verdict. That is the only solution. That is the most democratic process. Or the CA needs a 2/3 majority for each article, to pass the constitution. Try to use the democratic process. Above all, don’t resort to guns, muscles, money and power.

If you try that method again, there will be a big conflict in society.

Let me go back a little. The 1990 constitution was one of the best. There were some problems. It lacked the devolution of power to the individuals. That was not written in. Inclusion of the excluded Nepali groups was not written in. These were shortcomings. But we could have incorporated the omissions, over the course of time, through the process of amendment making. Instead, the people weren’t allowed to feel ownership of their own constitution. They didn’t see their aspirations reflected in that constitution. So the constitution ultimately failed because our rulers were self-centered and never practiced democracy within their own parties, they were not broadminded, they were haughty, they didn’t take the advice of experts, they never thought that perhaps others possessed wisdom, that they knew best for everyone.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a think-tank mentality in Nepal.

Conceptually, one of the most beautiful aspects of a constitution is that it is understood that no constitution can be a perfect document as it is passed down from generation to generation. That’s what amendments are for. You amend a constitution according to the time and need.

But our leaders in the 1990s failed to listen to the people’s aspirations and to amend the constitution accordingly.

Let me ask you this: Why has the United States’ constitution prevailed for 250 years? Because it is one of the shortest constitutions in the world. In its brevity, it neither bars, protects nor imposes the values of the previous society. And the values are allowed to shine through according to the generations.

In contrast, the Indian constitution is one of the lengthiest in the world. And it has been amended more than a 100 times! Granted: India is constantly swamped with big problems, but it does become clear that a big constitution such as India’s doesn’t automatically mean a better constitution.

The bottom line is this: A constitution doesn’t lie in the statutes. A constitution lies in the hearts of the people.

DUNHAM: But my concern is about over-optimism. If leaders insist that the constitution will be written on time, over and over again, and if they fail in their promise  -- what about the impatience of the people, the people who put their trust in these politicians? What’s the fallout?

MAINALI: This is a very serious question.

The interim constitution has clearly mentioned that the present CA can extend the time of writing up to six months. Beyond that, the very legality of the Constituent Assembly will come into question.

Suppose some of the political parties agreed to frame the constitution within the given time, but unseen and unhappy forces chose to intervene: There will be 60 armed insurgency groups that will appear inside Nepal – not only the 42 already identifies within Nepal – the unseen power will support the insurgency groups, which will disturb the whole nation. Nowadays, the 42 groups in Terai are silent. They have been advised to be quite for the time being. But that could change.

The basic security problem for Nepal is it’s open border with India. The hit-and-run methods of these groups – after they cause problems here, they know that they will find safety on the other side of the border. And the truth is that if India wished to control this movement, they could. During the time of the 2008 elections, the border was effectively sealed off and it was completely under control.

Frankly, the current scenario for the constitution is very unpredictable. The Nepalis are not the masters. Seeds of conflict are still sprouting up in many direction. Some of these conflicts are arising for the single purpose of destroying the harmony of Nepalese society.



  






























………………………………………………………….

Whatever happened to Nepal’s Vice-President? Dunham's interview with Paramananda Jha

May 18, 2009









































The career of Nepal’s first vice-president pivots on a single initial event that became a national lightning rod of controversy; the result was verbal contrition, then silence and finally near invisibility. 

Paramananda Jha hails from the Saptari district of eastern Terai, the breadbasket of Nepal that extends across the Indo-Gangetic Plain. It is also known as Madhes. The vice-president’s Madhesi roots explain part of the controversy. There is an ongoing argument among Nepalis as to whether or not the Madhesis are Indian or Nepali. Culturally and linguistically, they are certainly bound to people on the Indian side of the border.

For many centuries the southern jungles acted as a buffer between Nepal and India. In the mid-20th century, eradication of malaria and large-scale deforestation made the suddenly fertile plains attractive to migrants both from the northern hilly regions of Nepal and from southern Indian neighbors who moved north into Nepal. Since then, the mainly uncontrolled migration from India has been of concern to the Nepali government and it was reluctant to grant civil rights even in the second or third generations. What is clear is that about half the Nepali population now live in the Terai and a considerable proportion of the Terai population is of Indian decent.

Paramananda Jha’s qualifications came readymade with controversy. He was a former Supreme Court judge who resigned in December 2007 following allegations of drug smuggling. But the matter seemed to have evaporated, especially after he joined politics by becoming a member of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, which eventually led to his appointment by the Constituent Assembly as Nepal’s first vice-president.
 
Instead of taking his oath of office in Nepali, Jha spoke in Hindi, the official language of India. The nation was shaken to the core. Demonstrators poured into the streets for seven days, deepening the rift between Indian-origin Nepalis and others. Transportation and education strikes effectively shut down the nation. Property was destroyed. Protesters demanded his resignation and/or a public apology. Neither came, although he did express his regret in a statement, adding that he had signed the oath document, which was written in Nepali.

For many, he seemed suitably chastened and, in any case, there would be a myriad of other more pressing problems that would leave the vice-president’s dust-up forgiven if not forgotten. His role has been one of obscurity ever since.

I spoke to Jha – two weeks before Prachanda stepped down from office -- in the old Rana palace that serves as the Vice-Presidential headquarters. He granted me the interview on the condition that I would steer clear of anything that might aggravate the public sore spots he had come to know so well.

 
DUNHAM: Mr. Vice President, my first question is about the Madhesi situation because, only three years ago, most foreigners had never given cause to think about the southern swath of Nepal. For most of us – with perhaps the exception of tiger safaris in Chitwan – Nepal conjures up pictures of Mt. Everest, the Kathmandu Valley and Pokhara  -- but beyond that, our knowledge is limited, particularly when it comes to the importance of southern Nepal. Now, we are beginning to understand how important Madhes is, not only economically but also politically.

JHA: “Madhes” is not a new word. It was mentioned in the regulations of the Madhesi Sawaal Act -- an act that came into being during the Rana rule. Terai is the word for any plain. So in the past, people in the government sector only used the Terai word. But a few years ago, “Madhes became more common usage. Some people say Madhes and some people say Terai, but what is clear is that, ever since Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered and unified Nepal two-an-a-half centuries ago, the southern part of Nepal has been the only place in Nepal where rulers went and took the income and the agriculture production of the land, but failed to provide help or relief of the people of that land. There has always been discrimination in Terai. And that is the main reason for the present situation of hostilities and discontent. Even after the panchayat system, the situation remained the same. Then after 1990, after democracy returned to Nepal, the succession of governments—Congress, UML, etc—the government didn’t make any moves to help the people of Terai. The people of Madhes remained discriminated against and overlooked and neglected.

Then, during the recent insurgency, the Maoists very successfully penetrated and permeated the Terai region and awakened the people about their basic rights and what could be done to better the welfare of the Madhesi people. So the primary credit of outlining the problems in Madhes goes to the Maoists.

But when the Maoists actually took control of the government, the feeling of the Madhesi people was that the Maoists had completely forgotten about them. Their support of Madhesi issues was fifty-fifty, actually. Sometimes they supported Madhes and sometimes they ignored them.

Upendra Yadav, the leader of the Madeshi Janadhikar Forum, which began in 2003, took Madhes issues throughout the Terai. And he told the people “We are like people in a colony. So this is the right time to fight for our rights. Fight for your rights to have property, water and jungle. Fight against discrimination from the hilly people and government.”

Then there were the general elections in 2008. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum ran candidates just like the other parties. And it became quite clear that we were a group to be reckoned with.

I would like to give you a picture of the discrimination –- what it is like to live in Madhes as a Madhesi. Madhesis are the majority in southern Nepal and yet we are not treated like a majority. Hilly-people landlords own 81% of the fertile land in Terai. Only 19% of the land is controlled by Madhesis. Even in government services, people from Madhes are only represented by 4-5% involvement. In the military, we are not represented at all.  In the police sector, there are very few Madhesis. If you look at the Gorkhas, Nepal’s most famous armed personnel, who are renown and serve all over the world, the Madhesi have never been allowed to join. Zero persons. Our land is so fertile, but everything we are growing -- fruits, rice paddy, wheat – is sent to the hilly regions. We Madhesi people are used by the rest of Nepal – used like tenants.

These are the factors that the people of Madhes are feeling and experiencing from the very beginning and up to now.

DUNHAM: And now, since the Maoists have take control of the government, is there better representation of Madhesi people in the police, the army and the other sectors you mentioned?

JHA: Actually, in terms of the Madhesi and other indigenous groups in Terai, the government has signed some understandings or agreements. In the agreements, there is one clause that stipulates that government services—equal proportions on the basis of the population in Madhes, they will get proportional representation in government, military, everywhere. We have a public service commission. And the government has made an amendment in the public service commission regulation that is inclusive of Dalits, Madhes, women, backward tribes, etc. So I think now it has been included in the rules, but in practice, it hasn’t changed much.

DUNHAM: Then it still has a long way to go before there is true proportional representation in Terai.

JHA: Definitely. It will take -- we are very much hopeful, because this time the government has made the promise -- but in practice it may or may not be actualized or effective before a few years from now. But some things should be changed sooner than that. The Chief District officers, for instance -- the main administrators of the districts: the question is that why aren’t Madhesis appointed in the districts? But so far the government hasn’t found Madhesi people to fill these positions. Why? Because prior to the present, the Madhesi weren’t allowed the opportunity to take leadership roles -- to serve in responsible positions. That situation remains a total vacuum. From the other sectors -- the educational, agricultural sectors -- they have not brought in people from Madhes either.

These are the problems with this government. But as I said before, it will take time. We must hope that everything will go in a good way.

DUNHAM: This is a time in Nepal of unprecedented transition. Never have things changed so quickly, so radically. Please talk a little bit about the problems and challenges that this rapid transition has created—how the government hopes to overcome these problems.

JHA: I think the first thing is that the mindset of the people of Nepal is that this is the perfect time to make their various demands. The constitution is being written. Remember, before Prithvi Narayan Shah unified Nepal it was divided into many, many principalities  -- from Mustang to Madhes. Now that the government has announced a federation, the various groups of ethnic backgrounds are demanding their own states. They see the opening for this kind of discussions and they want to discuss it now. The main problem with that is that all these demands are coming in from all sides at the same time. It has become an overwhelming number of demands from the people. That is the main thing we are struggling with.

The other thing is that the previous government of Nepal under GP Koirala -- that government made various agreements with the Maoists -- the way in which the peacemaking process would unfold, for instance. The government agreed to the PLA integration with the national army. It included conditions and terms for that integration. But these things are still in dispute.

What happened was that during the period of the Maoist insurgency, the infrastructure of the country -- schools, VDC offices, electricity powerhouses – all of the infrastructure was destroyed. All of that destruction must be developed yet again. So from every corner of the country, groups are demanding that the infrastructure – and in many cases there is no infrastructure -- in their area be addressed immediately. Security forces were concentrated in stations, but during the war, everywhere, the security moved to district headquarters. So now people are demanding that that pattern be reversed, for instance. How can the people feel secure, if they don’t see security in their remote villages?

Another problem is that the people gave the mandate for the members of the CA to write the constitution in the allotted amount of time. But I think that every political party has a different mindset – they are using this time for their own benefit, to strengthen their bases. And the clock is ticking. The parties are allowing themselves to be diverted from the main focus. I still believe that they will write the constitution in time, but even the intellectual community is not assured of this and they remain skeptical.

DUNHAM: Do you think it would be better for the government to get the constitution written before they attempt to solve all the various issues you have been discussing? Would that be better in a perfect world? The Tharus, the Madesh, everyone wants their demands met now, but is this the proper time to expect that to happen?

JHA: The problem is that the people in the remote areas are illiterate. They don’t know what should be in a constitution. They only know that they need education, health and food and, therefore, their only real concern is that education, health and food should be mentioned in the constitution. So this is the first problem – the limited scope of understanding within the groups of people of the remote areas.

In the intellectual sector, we used to say that the first thing that needed to be decided was whether or not our constitution would be lengthy or brief. Thus there is a provision that has created numerous committees to go out and collect the data and opinions of the people. And these committees have scoured the countryside to collect this information. But the information – “we want education, health and food” – has not proved to be very helpful input. It’s a long way from the original plan to, first and foremost, decide how long the constitution should be, as well as other basic questions that still need to be determined.

DUNHAM: What is the best way to assure the people that the constitution will, in fact, be completed by the 2010 deadline? I’m thinking about the inter-fighting between parties, which is obvious to anyone who cares to examine the situation.

JHA:  Yes. The only obstacle is lack of cooperation between the parties. The results of the election showed that the Maoist got a majority of the votes, but not a mandate. The other parties – Congress, UML and the others – have used this against them and have therefore called this “an interim government”.

This government must focus on the main problem: to write the constitution. They don’t have the right to make major agreements with other countries or to make big promises to the voters of this nation. We have to write the constitution. But that’s not the reality. The parties are utilizing the time to strengthen their party bases. And we will all suffer for it.

 

…………………………………………………………

Mikel Dunham’s third interview with Gagan Thapa, Nepal’s brightest young leader

MAY 15, 2009

Gagan Thapa may be the best argument yet for old politicians in Nepal making way for young blood. Wise before his time, down-to-earth, articulate, passionate about the major issues plaguing Nepalis -- whatever their backgrounds or ethnicity -- Gagan has quickly emerged (from leading Nepal Congress' youth organization) as one of the most insightful officials elected to last year's newly created  Constituent Assembly.

Our meeting took place several weeks before Prachanda stepped down as Nepal's first Maoist prime minister. My questions included Maoist leadership, brain drain in Nepal, the writing of the constitution and shortcomings within Gagan's own party. His answers were, as always, generously seasoned with candor.


DUNHAM: How much headway has the constituent assembly really been able to achieve in creating a new constitution? Should the people be concerned that the constitution is not going to be written by the deadline next year?

GAGAN:  Yeh, let me start this way. The first four or five months of this new constituent assembly was, in a way, wasted. If you look into the use of the time during that initial period, it was a complete waste in terms of the writing of the constitution. We managed to address organizational matters of the new government -- we elected a president, that sort of thing. But it took five months to get to the creation of fourteen different committees to begin the process of writing the constitution.  Out of the fourteen committees, eleven were subject committees and three were technical committees. Had we created these committees at the beginning, by now, we would have concluded at least the first part of the constitutional writing.

After the formation of the committees, it took another two months to lay out the outline, discuss the issues with experts, and then we decided to go to the public and seek their opinions. But thing is, this aspect was not well discussed in advance. The procedure we adopted to seek public opinion wasn’t very scientific.

To begin with, the questions posed to the public were so complicated that lawyers would have to spend five hours to answer the questions that arose from the technical language used in our questions; especially the people living in remote areas could not understand the language because of all the technical jargon.

Another problem was the criteria for sampling public opinion. It was done on a more-or-less ad hoc basis – no consistent system had been adopted. We distributed over 300,000 questionnaires but it doesn’t look as if anyone knows how to process the information. Any number of people have expressed their views in different ways – that is to be expected – but the question remains: How should the information be processed? Only now is the Secretary of the Constituent Assembly discussing this issue with the Central Bureau of Statistics. “Is there any way to help us out?” But the bureau has responded by saying that it doesn’t have any specific answers as to how to resolve this issue.

Now we have collected the questionnaires and now we have only one week left. Within this week, all the eleven subject committees have to finish writing the concept -- the first draft for each subject committee. It means that the next week is going to be very telling, extremely crucial. It will indicate if we are on the right track or not.

As a member of the CA, what I’ve observed is that it’s easier for some of the subject committees – those that are dealing with less controversial issues -- to finish this task on time. But for the committees that are tasked with issues like creating new states within the nation or deciding on the intricacies of the electoral system, the work is much more difficult.

And then there is this:  We have already spent almost a complete year sitting across the table from one another, but so far, the members of the various political parties have discussed these issues only among their own party members, not the other parties. We have been listening to various experts, both domestic and international. We have been listening to the people’s opinions. But we – the various political parties – haven’t talked to each other. So no one knows: We only know the public position of our own political party. It remains to be seen how flexible the parties will be on any given issue.

The law says that two-thirds of the CA has to endorse each and every article. It means that there must be consensus among the major political parties – the Maoists, Congress, UML, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum – only if we can achieve consensus among ourselves can we move forward. Let’s take an example: The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum – it is their political position that they want one single Madhesi province. Congress is set dead against it. UML has a different viewpoint. The Maoists have a different viewpoint. So far, these are the parties’ positions. But to write this into the constitution, you have to arrive at a consensus. In order to do that, you have to start talking to each other and determine how flexible can one party be, what can be the common points of interest. This crucial process hasn’t yet begun.

Another thing that I have observed is – honestly – it’s again the issue of the political parties. We have 601 members in the CA, from diverse backgrounds. We represent diverse communities, diverse interests – that’s one side of the coin. But the other side of the coin is that again we are members of different political parties. My observation is that the parties still hold sway over their CA members, not the communities whose interests the politicians are supposed to represent.

My point is that it’s not only what’s going on within the CA. The most important thing is what’s going on outside the CA.  I mean, the Maoists, Congress, UML, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum – forget about what’s happening inside the CA. Let’s imagine that all the various parties were right now in good working relations with one another, that they were moving forward with a common aim within a framework of a particular time, that they were listening to each other, trying to make compromises – then it’s going to influence what’s going on inside the CA.

But what if it’s not happening like that? The problem is that the working relationship within the major political parties is getting worse, not better. There is stark polarization between the parties. The truth seems to be that the writing of the constitution is not a priority in the CA.

DUNHAM: If that’s the case, what happens, psychologically, to the mindset of the Nepali people, if the deadline for the completion of the writing of the constitution, in May 2010, comes and goes without the CA’s task having been achieved? Granted, there’s a stipulation that the time can be extended for another six months. Nevertheless, the people are sitting, waiting, watching -- listening, time and again, to their political leaders assuring them that the constitution will get written on time. What happens to the general morale of the voters who put stock in the member of the CA to get the job done? Isn’t there a real danger of the public just getting fed up with the whole process?

GAGAN: Exactly. Just after the election of the CA for the declaration of a republic, people had such high expectations. They were expecting some difference in their own lives – positive indications that things were going to be better in the coming days. That was the public mood. But so far we have been unable to deliver on these promises. People are not very happy with what has happened in the last year.

But is spite of that, there remains a hope, stemming from the mere presence of the CA, that it is making enough progress that life – in spite of growing skepticism – is going to get better. But once the public concludes that the CA is incapable of writing a constitution, people will become so disenchanted with the peace process, as you said, that things would become really difficult for political parties to control.

DUNHAM: Then things get really ugly. The blame game. Maybe the Maoists going back to Plan B, for instance – the unfinished revolution, all that.

GAGAN: Then things get really ugly. But I’m more worried…I mean look at all the new political groups. Look at the eastern districts where groups are demanding an autonomous ethnic province. You can see this all across the country. Right now, these demands aren’t getting organized to the point that people are rallying around them – right now they’re not getting the public support that they would like. But once the public realizes that the CA is not getting the job done, then these people will cease looking for the big political parties for help and they will take the lead within their own constituencies. They won’t wait to see what the CA will do. This will lead to a kind of political anarchy. The parties that were main players in the peace process will be elbowed to the sidelines. That is my worry.

I have traveled all over the country in the last one year. I have seen this mood. In the western part of Nepal for example, Tharus are demanding a separate province. As it stands now, it’s the CA that is supposed to decide this issue. Still, the Tharus continue to organize so that they will be in a better position for bargaining with the CA. That’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. But if they conclude that the CA is incapable of doing its work, the Tharus will stop demanding anything from the CA. They will claim their province on their own – with or without the CA’s approval. This kind of thing might not only lead to political anarchy but civil war as well. That is my worry.

DUNHAM: Something else that I find worrisome is recent Maoist belligerence – I’m thinking of Dr. Bhattarai’s public attack on the judicial system. My belief is that the judiciary should always be kept separate from the political arena. Other political parties have registered objections to Bhattarai’s attack, but it takes more than an objection or two to put an end to such lambastes – to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. Do you agree?

GAGAN: I do agree. We’ve been discussing this situation in my party as well. We have been disrupted in parliament for the last twenty days because of this. We would like Bhattarai to come to parliament and make a statement as to why he condemned the Supreme Court in public and to make it very clear what his party’s position is about judiciary independence. That was the issue we have been distracted by instead of addressing other issues involving the YCL and all of those things – principle issues.

Clarification will of course help the entire peace process as a whole. Again, the Maoists have to commit to what they agreed to in the peace agreement and they have to express their commitment to respect the independent judiciary. But unfortunately neither Congress nor UML has pressed this issue. Instead, they have focused on less vital issues.

DUNHAM: What about freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? The press has been under attack by the Maoists, coming, I guess, on the heels of Prachanda’s son being photographed dead drunk. The Maoists reacted by castigating the press – calling them everything from foreign lackeys to smugglers. Mustn’t they also be held accountable for that, if they support a democratic society?

GAGAN: Mikel, there is one interpretation that, in a very planned way, the Maoists are trying to weaken all institutions -- the press, the judiciary, the industrial sector, the military, and the school system – everything in a deliberate way. That’s one interpretation. I still don’t want to believe it. We have to wait for the coming days to see whether this is true or not. But there is a pattern emerging – the back and forth.

After the Prime Minister came back from his European tour, he condemned all the political parties. The next day the characterization of the press as “smugglers” came out. The next day, in one particular program, a senior Maoist leader challenged the rival political parties by saying, “If you’re going to change the government, you’ll have to face the consequences.” Then, Prachanda came to parliament, completely conciliatory, and said he was ready to listen to any political party – this backward and forward – this has been the pattern for the last six or seven months. Neither have the Maoists stopped attacking institutions, nor have they stopped making the conciliatory statements.

DUNHAM: A well-choreographed plan to create confusion and maintain confusion? When people are confused, they don’t act.

GAGAN: True.

DUNHAM: Is it a fishing expedition to see how far they can push the envelope? I’m including here the recent attempted enforced retirement of the generals.

GAGAN: The generals are quite a different case because G.P. Koirala did the same thing after he became prime minister after Janandolan II. He didn’t extend the period for a few generals. So that’s why it doesn’t really allow the moral ground for other parties to come out and object. That’s one thing. Another thing is that the impression of the national army hasn’t been completely positive. That issue will have to proven, resolved in the coming days. But you’re right about the confusion.

What I’ve found, when I travel to different districts, is that there is a kind of frustration even among the Maoist cadres – not just people like us.

When I talk about “us”, I mean the people who did not vote for the Maoists. But when the Maoists first came into power, I personally thought, “OK man, they are going to run the country in quite a different way. They are going to set some principles and standards that we will have to follow. And it’s going to benefit the whole political system. The parties like National Congress and UML will have to meet those standards. They will have to democratize themselves, look for different perspectives – the Maoists are going to change everything.” That was my expectation.

There was another thing going on -- during the build-up to the election -- before Prachanda was elected. The country was expecting an ongoing high level of charisma from that individual. The people of Nepal have seen Koirala leading the country, Deuba leading the country. The general population was thinking, “This man is going to make a difference.” And since then, Prachanda has disappointed a large portion of the public.

But, in traveling to the various districts I’ve seen that, even though some of the Maoist cadres are disappointed and frustrated, the Maoist party, itself, doesn’t bother itself too much about all these things. They are so busy in their expansion of their organization -- they are so busy in penetrating certain established organizations  -- that they are giving the impression that they don’t care about the popular vote.

DUNHAM: Then what do they care about?

GAGAN: They care about the strength of the party itself.

Right now the Maoists can beat any of the other political parties, as far as the number of active cadres, the resources, the capacity of mobilization are concerned. And this is what they are focusing on, rather than addressing or influencing a large portion of the population with good policies and programs. They are more concerned with expanding the organization.

DUNHAM: Expansionism is one of their superlative talents.

GAGAN: Yeh.

DUNHAM: Their ability to define who they are for public consumption is also very impressive. Someone told me the other day that – someone who loathes the Maoists: “The brilliant thing about the Maoists is that they are perceived by the public as having a plan. What’s the Congress’ plan? What’s the UML’s plan? It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. The point is that the Maoists have won in the perception game that they are the party with a plan.”

GAGAN: It’s not only the outsiders who are saying this. Even inside our party, we are so concerned about Nepali Congress being out of power, that our effort is focused on getting back into power and mobilizing our cadres and instigating party programs. Why are we doing all this? We want to win the next election. We need to make all the proper preparations to win the next election. That’s all obvious.

But my question to party leaders is, “What are we going to do, once we regain the office? We don’t have any plan. Let’s discuss this. We are just discussing that we are worried that we are out of office. Are we going to repeat the same mistakes that we have made in the past? Have we ever discussed that, after getting democracy in 1990 – when everywhere in the worldwide communist movement -- Russia was collapsed, even in China, the communists were reforming themselves – and yet in tiny Nepal, the communists exhibited new life! Why is that? Have we ever discussed that within our party?”

So it’s not only about looking at the Maoists. It’s also about looking in the mirror. In 1990, we, the Nepali Congress were the major political party; we were running the government. So where did we fail?

It was the weakness of our programs. It’s always about the programs, Mikel. Even in the most recent bi-elections, what we have seen is that the constituency that used to be ours, the Nepali Congress’ – the poor, the disadvantaged, the Dalit – they are no longer with Congress because they believe that Congress, even if they came to power, would no longer serve or address their needs. That’s the public’s perception of Congress.

Does the perception fit the reality? Does Congress accept that perception? Does Congress think of itself as a party that does not offer solutions to the ultra-poor?  Have we become more about serving the interest of the middle-class?

If you look at our election manifestos, we are still described as a party with a socialist approach. We define ourselves as social democrats. Really, if you compare our manifesto with the Maoists’, there’s not a significant difference. But what about our policies? How can we make people believe that we’re not the same old Nepali Congress?

DUNHAM: Well, why would anyone change their mind about Congress as long as G.P Koirala is leading the party? He represents the past and all that went with it, not the hope of a better future. When I think of G.P., I don’t think of a new Nepal.

GAGAN: Mikel, what I’ve seen during the recent bi-election and student elections is that -- although Congress wants to portray itself as the party that is for the democratization of Nepali society, that we abide by democratic principles, that we want to democratize all institutions, that we take credit for bringing in the Maoists from the underground into the peace process and convinced them to accept all the norms of a democratic polity -- people haven’t trusted our claims.

Why? Because G.P. Koirala controls all the party decisions. It’s a one-man show. It’s a one-man party.

DUNHAM: Autocratic. The perception is that Congress is autocratic.

GAGAN: Yeh. And people have read this in the newspapers, they’ve seen it for themselves, they’ve observed it, and so they don’t trust our party’s claims to the contrary. How can you trust a “democratic” party that is saddled with an undemocratic inter-party process? How is such an organization going to democratize society as a whole? Prior to 1990, the party’s internal process was limited to private sympathizers, but today the party’s actions are a public affair. In the 21st century, people have come to expect transparency in party matters – party affairs are no longer regarded as a private affair.
You cannot control the thinking process of any individual. These days, an individual will judge for him or herself, if a party serves democratic goals. That judgment will be based on the party’s working style. And Congress’ non-democratic style is it’s major defect.

Honestly, the whole peace process is suffering from Congress’ defects. Had Congress been stronger, it would have helped to keep the Maoists in check. Keeping the Maoists in check would have helped the whole peace process. Even if the Maoists had had some sort of secret game plan, a strong unified Congress could have forced the Maoists to abide by the peace agreement.

DUNHAM: Let’s talk about unity. What are the key issues that prevent Congress and UML from uniting to create a majority rule?

GAGAN: This is the irony. The UML has already proved that, as far as the political system is concerned, it doesn’t have a different stance from Congress. You cannot doubt UML’s commitment for multi-party democracy. It maintains a communist ideology, but you cannot put the UML and the Maoists in one basket. Therefore, there is room for Congress to start a meaningful dialogue with the UML.

But again it’s this thing of one party trying to prevail over the other. And what has happened is that the two parties are, in fact, drifting apart, not coming closer together. I always see the room for a genuine dialogue to exist, but the parties aren’t picking up on the opportunity. There again, on the UML’s part, it seems so unified, but there are very different viewpoints within UML leadership.

DUNHAM: Are we talking about ideological differences?

GAGAN: No. What I see is personal issues. Power games within the party. But again, instead of blaming UML, I prefer to get back to Congress, which also has issues with personal power struggles.

NC claims to be a watchdog for democracy, for helping UML to get on board with the democratic process. So it’s in NC’s court to initiate a dialogue with UML. The differences are so few between the parties -- except that the UML wants an executive Prime Minister, who would be directly elected by the people, while Congress wants a parliamentary democracy in which parliament elects the Prime Minister. But 25 parliamentarian members of the NC came out with a different proposal, which was identical to the UML proposal for the election of the prime minister. It’s not a major difference, which proves that we can discuss this. It’s just about a model. The difference is not insurmountable.

But let’s return to the most basic question: What is the constitution about? The constitution is about the foundation of society. What foundation do you want for a new society? And it’s the same: the NC and UML proposals are the same. We both want a welfare state that takes care of health, education, employment, and the right to private property – even if the state doesn’t run the business, it must still oversee the operation.
You will not find a single difference between NC and UML. We can come together but we have not. That’s the irony.

DUNHAM: What would it take to induce NC-UML unification: A major controversial development coming from the current government? And if so, might that not be too late?

GAGAN: Yeh, exactly. It would be wiser if the two parties took the initiative, rather than to wait for a common threat.  Otherwise it could be too late and just a political reaction. Let’s say UML and NC could form some kind of alliance: It shouldn’t be against the Maoist; it should be tailored to take the peace process to its logical conclusion – exerting enough pressure on the Maoists to abide by the previous peace agreement. Such a partnership between UML and NC would really boost both parties in the esteem of the Nepali people.

DUNHAM: Again, back to the general public’s perception of politics. The image that sticks in my minds is one in which all the parties are standing in a straight line, shoulder-to-shoulder, looking at each other, pointing the finger at each other, instead of lifting up their feet and stepping forward. Of course issues arise that must be addressed – I’m thinking of the recent Tharu movement here – but the parties must also keep their eye on the prize: peace in Nepal. The parties are far too easily distracted, in my opinion.

GAGAN: But there are issues that must be addressed. One of the issues that is really pressing on Congress and UML alike is the integration of the Maoist combatants into the national army. A party with an army cannot be compared with non-armed parties. It is a primary concern. You cannot just expect the Maoists to say, “OK, the army has been dismantled, don’t worry about integration.” That’s not the reality and, in the past, we recognized this as a primary issue in the peace agreement, in which we stated that the combatants would be kept in cantonments and dealt with in a very thorough process.

We can doubt Maoist motives. OK, fine. But we signed a 12-point agreement promising to deal with the issue. Why did we do that? Why did we agree to Maoist-inclusive elections? So now, why do we drag our heels in dealing with an issue we agreed on? Until and unless we satisfactorily deal with the question of army integration, we cannot say that we have concluded the peace process. We have to deal with it. We have to open the basket.

But what do the Maoists really want? They have been saying different things in public. They have been saying one thing to the civilian community and they have been saying other things to the combatants. So we have to address the problem once and for all. This is not going to just go away. There is no magic wand that can be waved around to fix the problem.

DUNHAM: True. But to what extent have the combatants been asked to help solve the issue? Has anyone really gone to them, without coercion, and asked them what they want? Have they been given real options, or are they just sitting there waiting for Maoist leadership to tell them what to do? How many of them want to remain in a military?

GAGAN: International groups, including the Indian government and the World Bank, discussed this. Both groups offered the Maoists all the financial assistance they needed in order to give these combatants real options: Option A was to given them enough money that they could reestablish themselves in the community; Option B was to join the national army; Option C was to open up new avenues for them like working for the police, the armed police, or creating a new industrial security force. These were real options.

But there was skepticism that, as the Maoists have complete control over the combatants, very few would risk accepting the options -- that they would be too intimidated by the desires of Maoist leadership.

But my view is that, if you don’t offer the options, how can you ever hope to know what the combatant would like to do?  Simply crouching behind skepticism doesn’t answer the question, does it?

DUNHAM: Say the integration does take place. What happens to the professional fabric of the existing army and the morale of the regular soldiers?

GAGAN: From the Maoist perspective – what they argue is: “Yeh, it’s a professional army and they’ve proved themselves on a global standard, but the Maoists fought them and the army didn’t win the war.” So it gives the Maoists a kind of confidence to argue that a colonel in a rebel army can match a colonel in a professional army. But I completely agree with your concern about the fabric of the Nepal army being compromised. Otherwise, it could create new complication.

But the thing is that we still have to begin the discussions, including what the army has to say. The army will say, “OK, it’s not our decision, but we have these conditions. A rebel combatant has to go through the institutionalized steps like everyone else. A rebel has to earn merit for each level of service.” Then the Maoists will provide their conditions. Then you look at common points.

But my point is that Maoists don’t really want the integration process to be resolved within the next few months. They don’t want it and we’re not supporting a resolution within the next few months. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister stated in parliament that in the next four months this issue is going to be resolved. I don’t believe that.

And the NC and UML are, unknowingly, supporting their interests.

And the question of integration is not just a local issue. India is very concerned about this. Other members of the international community are concerned. And the Maoists have assured the international community that the professionalism of the army will be kept in tact while integrating the rebels into the army. But at the same time, Maoist leadership has been assuring their rebels, “Don’t worry, you’ll get everything.” So the Maoists have been playing those games. That doesn’t serve the peace process. So let’s bring the Maoists to the table and create a genuine discussion. Let the Maoists define what their real stand is.

DUNHAM: The various politically affiliated youth organizations just had elections and the NC didn’t do all that well. How does Congress plan to reverse the trend of youth feeling disenfranchised by your party? So many of the youth are just sick of the political process in general. I’ve spent the last few weeks talking to youth and, in fact, most of them are just trying to get the hell out of Nepal. They are very cynical about politics in Nepal and see their best shot abroad, not here. They don’t see the parties having their best interests at heart – any of the parties. And yet 60% of the population is now under the age of 30. What group should Congress be concentrating on, if not the youth?

GAGAN: I traveled to a number of campuses during the student union elections – both in and outside the Kathmandu Valley. I was able to pull in huge crowds and talk to them for hours. And they listened to me seriously. They found my arguments convincing. But they didn’t vote for our student union even though they apparently like me as a person. Why? Because I don’t represent Congress Party to them. I’m still perceived as a sidelined Congress member who doesn’t have influence in policy making.

At Tribhuvan University, for instance, I spoke for an hour in front of 3,500-4,000 students. I started speaking at 6:30 at night. There were no lights. They used their mobiles to record my speech. But in the end, the number of votes my party got was less than 2,000. Obviously, the crowd is not convinced that the NC is in tune with the youth. You’re right; we have to find a way to regain their trust.

The second thing is that just giving promises to the youth will no longer work. 250,000 youths leave Nepal each year. Every day, 556 young people leave Nepal, from the international airport. Most of them are going to the Middle East for jobs.

You cannot keep these young people here, in Nepal, with mere promises.  We have to create meaningful, sizable projects and jobs – enough so that a kind of hope will be generated in them that things are getting better for the youth. Promises don’t fill people’s stomachs.

It’s not that we don’t have the money to invest in such projects. If you look at the commercial banks in Kathmandu, when they made shares available to the public, the applications overtook the available number. It means there is money here. Look at the skyrocketing prices for property in Kathmandu. We’ve got the money. But there’s no appetite for investing in the kinds of projects that would keep Nepali youth in Nepal because there is no security in investing here.

We are not building new hydroelectric projects. We are not building new infrastructure. We are not opening up new industries. We are not reforming our international trade. We’re not commercializing agriculture. We are not creating new markets. We’re not doing anything and every year Nepal is getting more and more young!

The youth of Nepal is the very strength of Nepal and we’re not using it to our advantage. India, Europe, the United States, the Middle East are getting the benefit of our demographic bonus.

Sometime back there was a discussion about this in parliament. The Minister of Water Resources was there and I asked him about a provision in the constitution in which it states that, while building micro hydropower projects, the government is encouraged to hire local people to participate, thus giving some share of the money back to the local people. And I asked the Minister, “Is the government following this provision?” His reply was, “No, the locals don’t have enough resources, so we have to look for independent investors.”

Then I said, “I went to Qatar and met lots of young Nepalis under the age of 30 working in 50 degrees Centigrade conditions. And I asked them, “How many hours per day do you work?” And they said “eight to ten hours.” I’m not talking about sophisticated jobs. They’re working on construction sites under the sun. Such a miserable life there. Their families are far away. And with all this, they hardly save 8-10,000 rupees a month. And then I asked these guys, “How much did you spend to get to Qatar?” And the reply was, “Around 100,000 Nepali rupees.”

So I told the Minister, “One guy spends 100,000 rupees to leave Nepal! If you got only 100 local guys spending 100,000, you would have one crore Nepali rupees investment power. So how much does one of your micro-hydropower projects cost?” And the Minister replied, “Less than one crore.”

So there is one crore local investment power, right? But it goes far beyond that. Remember, these 100 guys were under the age of 30, able-bodied and ready to work eight hours a day on, let’s say, a micro-hydropower project. That’s 800 work hours per day.
So the potential is here, the financial resources are here, right here in Nepal, for young people. All you have to do is be able to assure the youth that the government is behind them.

The government has talked about big projects -- fast-track roads and railway projects, 10,000 megawatts in ten years – dreamed about such big projects. And Nepal has some of the cheapest labor in the world. If a guy is willing to work in 50 degree Centigrade in Qatar for eight hours a day and only save 7-8000 rupees, just imagine how willing he would be to could come back home, be close to his family, and work ten hours a day for only 5,000.

But it all goes back to the struggling between various parties. Congress and UML are scared that if the Maoists create projects, they will take the money and it will end up in the pockets of their own cadres – so the other parties put hurdles in the Maoists’ way. To some extent, the Maoists have themselves to blame for this mistrust. They have failed to gain the trust of the other parties. All of this lack of understanding between parties, finally, is at the bottom of the government’s failure to address the needs of the young people in Nepal. It’s all connected.

A better future for the youth of Nepal? From my perspective, it’s not just a distant dream. We can give them that better future. The youth are here, the human resource is here, right now, waiting for jobs. Let’s talk about tourism potential. You can hire 100,000 young people in that project. 10,000 megawatts: You need to employ two lak Nepali engineers. Health as a fundamental right to each and every citizen: that means the construction of a considerable number of hospitals, which in turn, require a lot of human resources. The opportunity is here in Nepal just waiting to be tapped.

People are ready to invest in Nepal. What they don’t have is the assurance that their investment is going to be secure.

And that’s what the Maoists have to understand. They can’t perform magic here. The Maoists like to talk about the “people’s constitution” and I used to ask them, what is the special feature of your “people’s constitution?” And the Maoists told me, “The people will get free food, free education.” And I told them, but that’s already in the interim constitution, the one that exists now. There is a provision already that says that health is a fundamental right, education is a fundamental right, employment is a fundamental right, environment is a fundamental right, food source is a fundamental right – all of this is clearly stated in the interim constitution.

So I asked the Maoists, “What’s stopping you from implementing programs that are already guaranteed by the interim constitution? You don’t have to wait for a ‘people’s constitution’, they provisions already exist. But you also know the limitations. You can’t do it overnight, for one thing. It needs the mobilization of all the resources. New projects need to be introduced.”

And where are we today, since the Maoist took the leadership? Look at the tourist industry, agriculture sector, the trade sector – everything is the same. Nothing has changed.


……………………………………………………………..

Nepal: Tibetan refugees photographing Tibetan refugees -- PART 18

May 13, 2009

click on images for enlargements

....................................................................

When Prachanda played the UN for a fool – the controversial speech now translated into English

May 9, 2009































 
The Asian Human Rights Commission has just released an abridged transcript of the controversial videotape, in which Nepal's former PM Prachanda is captured mocking and defying the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that he signed with Nepal's political parties on November 21, 2006.

The tape, leaked to the media, came on the heels of Prachanda’s May 4th resignation from office after his determination to sack Chief of Army General Rookmangad Katawal was scuttled by President Ram Baran Yadav. The video intensified the vitriol of street demonstrations already beleaguering the peace process.




























































The video was filmed during a speech Prachanda made to Maoists’ People's Liberation Army commanders sixteen months ago (January 2, 2008) at Shaktikhor Cantonment in southern Nepal. Prachanda’s speech offers a rare peek into the Maoist ploy to politicize and take over the national army. But it also documents Prachanda’s successful plan to inflate the actual size of the PLA in an effort to hoodwink the UN’s verification process – a strategy designed to boost monetary assistance to the PLA fighters sequestered in UN-monitored cantonments.


Highlights from the speech are as follows:

On national army:
Integration will not happen before the Constituent Assembly elections. It cannot happen. You just have to look around, and you will know. Do you understand? This is the reality. Nowhere does it say that integration has to happen before the elections – there is no decision, no agreement and no understanding. We have said that it will happen after the elections. About the elections, either the Congress will not let it happen, or we won't. Let us say that somehow it does happen. We cannot say it will not happen, 100 percent. Marxists do not say such things.

If it looks likely that the Maoists will capture power before the elections, they may be compelled to go for elections, thinking it will allow them to last for a few more months. If we do well, then we can implement socio-economic change under our leadership, with our majority. If we win, then the current verification will not be considered to be the criteria. Please explain this to all of our friends. Once we become the rooster – please pardon expression – once we have won, why would we need to obey the verification? When we win, we will just create a new law that includes our people and eliminate those from the other side. When we have already won and have the upper hand, why would we obey the current verification?

We will have integration – in a way that decreases the size of the army. From the start, I have said that we do not need such a large army. Let's keep it between 30,000 and 50,000. We will bring it down from 100,000 to 50,000. Ours may drop from 20,000 to 10,000, let's just say. You heard what Katawal said the other day. Even if the army absorbs only 3,000 Maoist combatants, that the whole army will be finished. Did you read that? He said a mere 3,000 could destroy their 100,000. That is true.

If we are going to place 10,000 combatants in the army, the whole force will come under our influence. It will be Maobaad-maya, under our total influence. I fully believe this. We will introduce our agenda in there at that time. The issue here is not about more or less; it is about awareness. We have concepts, policies and vision. They do nothing but bang their boots. The enlightened ones will eat up the boot-bangers. The 3,000 will swallow the rest.

If there are no elections, we will win through a movement. We will first capture power, and then work on integration. We will not throw out all of them, as it will be necessary to keep some of them. We will reduce them systematically, and bring the army under our leadership.

You expressed worries about continuing the revolution. This is how it will happen. It will happen in a new way. Please don't look for examples from Russia or China, or Vietnam or Cuba. Our solution will be specific to Nepal, but it will happen. Integration will happen in this way. It will not happen one-by-one, on an individual basis. We will do it unit-wise. Our battalions and theirs will be separate, under one command. Our people will also be in command. The plan is to 'democratize' the army, which means to politicize it. It'll take five to seven years to do that. If we are really going to have integration, the way to do it is unit-wise, so that our units remain with us. This is important: if we do it unit-wise, we can react if we are betrayed. I have had talks with the army leadership about going about this on a unit-wise basis.

On funds, arms and elections:
We have said that for elections to happen, the martyrs' families must receive relief, information on the disappeared must be gathered, the injured receive relief, and the combatants be paid. Elections cannot happen without these conditions. Over the last 3-4 months, the world has been repeating our formula; it has been accepted all over. They've been saying the Maoists are right on this. Believe me, I have seen it all. This is great for us; this will take us to the top. When we insist that we will not go to elections without money for the families of martyrs, they all say, "Yes! Yes!"

Now a relief package is being promised to the martyr families by Magh (Jan/Feb). For now, this is one lakh [one hundred thousand], though the full compensation is 10 lakh. Now don't think this is just money; it is politics. We will distribute this money in mass meetings. We will make a plan from the top and go district to district. All of this is not preparation for elections; it is preparations for revolt. With the money, our relationship with the people will improve. They will feel this is their party. And we will say, "One lakh is not enough, we will get you the nine lakh." Of course, we will not say, "Take this and go home."

Now, about the 60 crore [one crore is equivalent to ten million] for the cantonments, we will use this for the revolt. We need money to prepare for the revolt. Remember my point about the need for 10 crore, to bring it all in a truck. We need money for what the truck carries; nobody gives it for free. We don't have enough money for that. Of the 60 crore, you will take a little bit, and about 20 crore will come to us. Just imagine the preparations we can do with 20 crore.

To make good battle plans you need money. With lots of money, we can make good plans. We need quite a bit for a revolt. So, it you only look at the form, it may look like the party is heading towards agreement. Look deeper and you will understand how the brave party is preparing for revolt.

On combatant numbers and verification:
Revolution calls for renunciation, penance, and sacrifice. How is today's situation different from during the people's war? Talking of form, earlier you were holding the machine gun, killing or being killed. Today, it seems like we are sitting at the table with the enemy, chatting and sipping tea. The form is very different. But the gist is still the same: we are both taking the revolution forward.

Did you see the Naya Patrika the other day? It says that B. P. Koirala said that if he had been able to keep just 500 soldiers in 1960, the Panchayat takeover would not have happened. That seems correct. If they had not dissolved their insurrectionary force, Mahendra would not have had the guts to act. Because we have thousands in the People's Liberation Army, nobody has the guts to challenge us.

Your position today can be called renunciation, penance or sacrifice. I would say you are doing penance, for revolution. Our actions in Baluwatar, Singha Durbar, inside and outside the country, have been successful only because of you. Without you, nobody would listen to us. Because we have an army, everybody is petrified, even now. The Congress and UML don't want to admit it, but they feel the fear.

Earlier today, the UML's Bam Dev called, saying that our friends in Kavre had badly beaten up their party workers. I said yours are hardly better, they beat us up yesterday. His reply was, "We can hardly hurt you. Yours are all trained, and they beat hard." They are terrorized by us – everyone is. I have also talked to the top officers in the other army, and they too feel terror, great terror. They fear our numbers.

You say our numbers have decreased. That's not true. Our army has grown significantly. Where is the shrinking? You must understand strategy and tactics. Tell me, how many of us were there earlier? Speaking honestly, we were few before the compromise. We were at 7,000 to 8,000. If we had reported that, we would have had 4,000 left after verification. Instead, we claimed 35,000, and now we have 20,000. This is the truth. We cannot tell others, but you all and I know the truth.

How can anyone say our numbers have decreased? Look how wisely our leadership took a 7,000-person army and made it a 21,000-person regular army. That is what you are now. We have not shrunk; we have grown. And on the outside, we have created the YCL infrastructure, and we have thousands in the YCL. So we have built a lot, and are still building. It is true that there are some complexities, but they are still a strength. About our friends who did not make it through the verification process, there is a fear that they are done. But arrangements will be made.

On Constituent Assembly elections:
What will come of the elections is not agreement but revolt. First, let me assure you that elections will not happen. But we cannot share this understanding. We must insist that the country needs elections that it is the only way out. If we show enthusiasm, then they will stop the process. You may remember that in June, before the peace process, I said that if it looks like we will win they would not let it happen. And if it looks like they will win, we will not let it happen. Either way, I have said there will be no elections. I was never confused about that.

If it looks like the Maoists are going to win, the reactionaries, America and India, will together prevent the elections. If there is an anti-Maoist conspiracy making things difficult for us, we will not let the elections happen. Before we had the meeting with the UML, you may recall that I told them, "If you go above board on this, we can break the legs [of your candidates] across the country. We can destroy your elections." This, then, is our line today. It is the only line that prepares us for revolution. One cannot have a revolution by panicking and merely wanting it.

[The Asian Human Rights Commission, founded in 1984, is a Hongkong-based non-governmental organization that monitors human rights issues in Asia.]


FALLOUT FROM THE SPEECH

The leaked footage created an outcry from the opposition Nepali Congress (NP) party, who said it proved that the Maoists had no moral authority to lead a new government. An indignant Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) also pressed Prachanda for a clarification.
Prachanda’s response was as swift as it was dismissive. “I made that speech one and a half years ago,” Prachanda told journalists on Wednesday. “Things were different then. We were an underground party with a price tag on our heads. …There are innumerable such videos.”
He also took the offensive by saying the tape scandal was simply a red herring to deflect attention from the “unconstitutional” step taken by the president, which put the army “above civilian supremacy.”

Interestingly, some analyists are saying that Prachanda’s resignation this week -- the embarrassing video notwithstanding -- actually works in the Maoists’ favor. John Narayan Parajuli wrote this week in Kantipur:

Apart from measuring the preparedness of their adversaries, these conflicts provide a big propaganda victory for the Maoists. First, it keeps the cadres united and prepared against the "enemy". Second, every reaction or criticism is an opportunity to highlight how "regressive elements" are working to scuttle the aspiration of the people. Dahal's resignation shows to what length they will go to keep the party united. But they have killed two birds with one stone. They have managed to bury their poor performance with a political drama that ended with Dahal appearing to be resigning over a principle.











In the event, Maoists are not pleased with the leakage of the video. They have detained an unknown number of “suspicious people” for interrogation, according to Image FM. These suspects include the videographers who filmed the speech in January 2008. 

And outside the Kathmandu Valley, away from bothersome photojournalists, Maoists have stepped up attacks on other political parties, specifically the CPN-UML and NC, who are working on forming a new coalition government to replace the now defuct Maoist government.

This week Maoists thrashed NC and the CPN-UML supporters in Ramechhap and Rolpa districts. In Ramechhap, the Maoists Ramechhap district committee ordered NC and UML activists to leave their village by Saturday. In Rolpa, over a dozen NC workers were beaten.


……………………............................................……………………

From Maoist to Independent: 8 Young Men Discuss Brain Drain in Nepal

A Youth Initiative group discussion hosted by Mikel Dunham
Shangri-La Hotel, Kathmandu, Nepal

May 7, 2009

Members of the panel included: Daman Katuwal, Balram Yadav, Bikki Yadav, Jagrit Rayamajhi, Bishnu Panthi, Manish Pokharel, Ashis Luitel, Madhav Dhungel, and Bhusita Vasistha

DUNHAM: As youth leaders of Nepal, you come from disparate backgrounds. And yet I’m sure that you have experienced many similar situations growing up in the distinct Nepali culture. I’d like to begin by having you identify yourselves, what group you represent, where you were born and what were some of the basic problems you encountered while making a place for yourself in this society.

DAMAN KATUWAL: I am the General Secretary of the Nepal Progressive Student Federation. The student wing is associated with the CPN-United Marxists. I am trying to help solve students’ problems.

My birthplace is Udaypur district [south-eastern Nepal]. My village is Rampur Tokshila VDC. It is a very remote area of Nepal and there is still not a single hospital in the VDC. It wasn’t until last year that a secondary school was established. I passed my school level in that village.

Like the other children in my village, I faced many problems. [Daman is from the Dalit community; Dalit is a generic term reserved for what was previously called the “untouchable” class.] My parents are poor farmers. We have no other income.  The problems of rural poverty still exist in my village. Nothing has really changed in the last two decades. There were no facilities in the village so it was a struggle -- not like in your country, America, where there are so many facilities.

When I finished my lower schooling, I entered Tribhuvan University, at the Dharan campus. I studied Management and Commerce. I rented a room in Dharan for study. My college life was also a struggle.

My involvement in politics began early on, in 1990, when I was 13 years old. The local political leaders of our impoverished village told us that the only way we would free ourselves from class oppression and our endless state of poverty was if we fought for democracy. That promise attracted me and made me join politics.

It’s true that, since my childhood, certain societal advancements have been made in Nepal. But not in my village; we still don’t feel that change. Improvement has come to people from the higher classes but not the lower classes. Advancement has come to leaders of the big parties, but not for the little parties. The lower classes are still miserable, trapped in poverty and feel the full sting of neglect

By 2001, the Maoists had gained a great deal of popularity. I, too, was attracted to their message that the political and social environment of Nepal must change. But ultimately I rejected their party because their means to gain power was not right: Shooting people to gain power is not right.














BALRAM YADAV: I’m with the Madeshi Youth Forum of the Madeshi People’s Rights Forum. I am from Rajbiraj in Saptari district.

My childhood was a struggle because of the language issue. We would have understood much better had we been taught in our native tongue instead of having been forced to learn in Nepali. Recent research has proven that those students who are taught in their native tongue perform much better scholastically than those who are forced to learn in Nepali. Our marks in science and math were much better than our marks in language. The Madeshi Youth Forum believes that if we should be able to go through secondary school using our mother tongue; other languages, including English could then be introduced in college.

DUNHAM: But if you don’t learn Nepali, won’t you be penalized later on? Won’t it curtail your chances of getting better jobs in Nepal?

BALRAM: Yes, but only because of the government policy that has been in place up until now. It doesn’t have to be like this. The government is talking about federalism right now. If federalism is achieved, then we hope that the people who speak in their mother tongues – no matter what that language is—will have equal opportunity for good jobs and place in this society. However, the government has not moved to make that a working reality for us.

As of now, the new state of federalism isn’t possible. I really doubt that, as things stand, there will be a change into federalism. The language problem is not just in the Terai. It’s also in the hilly regions. For example, the Tamang people, who cannot speak Nepali, are nevertheless forced to learn in Nepali. The results there are the same as in the Terai. According to recent data of Tamang school dropouts, those students who don’t speak Nepali are much more likely to drop out.

DUNHAM: As a Madhesi child, did you feel discriminated against whenever you were in contact with the hilly people? Were you treated was if you were their inferior?

BALRAM: I studied in a remote Madeshi village where there were no hilly people. Therefore I was unaware of discrimination at that time. But when I entered college, I felt alienated because the majority of the students were from the hilly regions.

DUNHAM: Where did you go to college?

BALRAM: I studied in Biratnagar. I was held back from a scholarship even though I had only one paper to finish. But those who were close to ANNFSU [All Nepali National Free Student Union of UML] or NSU [Nepali Student Union of NC] got the scholarship even though they were failing in all their subjects.

In another incident, when the Morang campus conducted entrance exams for the BSC [Bachelor of Science], the students from the hilly regions were automatically granted 10 extra points, whereas the Terai students got only 5. This was done to tip the balance for scholarship eligibility. When we Madhesis protested to this unfair practice, the authorities said it was because the hilly people were poor. We asked, “Are there not poor people among the Madhesi?” But they didn’t answer.

Also, we Madeshi students were not allowed to stay in the Morang college hostel. The rooms were given to the hilly people, regardless of their academic achievement or their economic background. We are victims of internal colonization in Nepal. Madhesi are totally colonized. The country is going toward federalism, but in the hilly people’s mind, the colonization is still justifiable.










BIKKI YADAV: I am the central president of the Nepal Student Front and represent the Nepal Sadbhawana Party, [another Madeshi party that was the first party to bring up the issue of Madhesi inequality]. Like Balram, I am also from Saptari district in Terai.

I hail from a very poor family. After school, I had to go home a herd buffalo. I didn’t know anything about nutrition: We just ate buffalo and drank buffalo. I spent my childhood in a remote area where, even today, there are still no telephones or electricity of road network.

I studied in my village until my ninth grade. I didn’t understand Nepali until then. I learned by rote, but I didn’t understand what I was saying. I was not really aware of discrimination until the ninth grade. But I had witnessed in my Madhesi community that, even if there were only one hilly person in the village, he would be selected as the village leader.

I changed schools – Sirasha Bashtipur --in the 10th grade. That’s when discrimination became very clear to me. Education, hospitals, everything was controlled by the hilly people, even though they were a minority. And when I discovered that Madhesis weren’t allowed to participate in the school sports, that’s when I really felt personally discrimination against for the first time.

So I became politically active. I was attracted to the communist party.

Even after I finished my SLC [school leaving certificate], even after I had a clear understanding of what discrimination was, I still thought I should not react against it, but rather go with it because there was discrimination everywhere in the world. That was my rationale at the time.

You see, even though I was from an impoverished rural district, I had high ambitions. I wanted to become a doctor. It was the only thing I dreamt of. I hoped to go to China to study to become a physician. In order to do that, I had to produce various forms of identity, including a copy of my citizenship, which has to be notarized at the office from which the certificate had originate. . But the Chief District office refused to notarize my citizenship certificate because I didn’t have any inside connections in the office. They wouldn’t even look for my records. I tried several other offices in my district, but no one would help me. So I went to the Education Ministry and quarreled with the secretary of the ministry. Almost 100 other applicants got to go, but I didn’t because I was Madeshi and couldn’t get my document notarized by the hilly officials.

Eventually, they notarized my document, but by then it was too late. My application for going to China had passed the deadline.

The process completely defeated me. I thought, “Well, what good would it be for me to become a doctor, if I can’t get an official identity?”

So that is when I joined my party and entered politics.

The Sadvhawana Party was the only party at that time that was raising the issue of regional identity, ethnicity and discrimination. This was in 2001. At that time, the student’s movement against the monarchy had begun and I participated in it. I am proud that we were able to create a platform among the various student wings of the political parties. I represented Madesh in these various enterprises.

Today, you can see the result of the student protests. We have a democracy.










JAGRIT RAYAMAJHI: I am Vice President of the ANNISU [All National Independent Student Union - Revolutionary] student wing of the Maoist party. I’m from Daman in Makawanpur district [east from Chitwan]. It’s one of the most beautiful places in Nepal, from which you can see 44 different peaks of the Himalaya.

I hail from a middle-class family background. Both of my parents had small jobs but my family really didn’t have to struggle to survive.

There used to be quite a strange left-leaning leader from my village by the name of Rupchandra Bista. He was -- is my political hero. He used to come to my house frequently, which sparked my interest in getting involved in politics. At the age of 11, I was already a representative for a student union national conference—at which time I couldn’t even talk nicely. I cried while I was at the conference because I missed my family, but still I had the feeling that I had to be in politics. I had no knowledge, just determination. My family was political, which helped me. 

Basically, I got into politics because of the rampant discrimination within Nepali society and the atrocious autocratic nature of the panchayat system [a one-party system designed to serve the monarchy]. I couldn’t think of anything else -- politics, speech, rallies, participation, etc. became my life.

DUNHAM: Did your parents have a problem with that? Did the resist your activism or try to persuade you to pursue another career?

JAGRIT: In the beginning, they encouraged my political enthusiasm. But eventually they had second thoughts. After. I was a full-time activist, my parents told me they wished I would return to my. But they never tried to force me to stop. In fact, at one point I tested them by suggesting that I might stop politics. They backed down immediately.











BISHNU PHANTI: I am Vice President of the Nepali Student Union, which is the student wing of the Nepali Congress party. I’m from Ghulmi district in western Nepal.

I went to high school in my village. At that time, there were few boarding schools in Nepal. My father was a teacher so scholasticism was very much a part of my upbringing. I came to Kathmandu to attend college.

Democracy in Nepal actually goes back many decades. Nepal had the beginnings of  democracy in the 1950s, through the efforts of the Nepali Congress party – that was when the atrocious Rana regime was brought down. In the very first elections in Nepal, one of my family members, Nilambra Phanti, was elected as a member of parliament from the Nepali Congress party; he was my inspiration to get into politics.

But two years later, King Mahendra imposed the panchayat system on the nation and democracy was placed on hold. Then in 1990, all the parties protested, and we regained democracy for the Nepali people.

In the mid-90s, the Maoist conflict begin and, towards the end, NC, UML and the other parties joined hands – and also the Maoists joined hands with the seven-party alliance, which led to the second popular movement.  Democracy has returned to Nepal and I have been involved with this long process. Since the 1970s, the NSU [Nepali Student Union] under the guidance of NC, has been participating every step of the way – either on our own, or jointly – to achieve viable democracy in the country.

DUNHAM: Any problems in getting your voice heard as a youth? How much autonomy was the NC really allowing its student wing?

BISHNU: This is a matter of the old generation vs. young generation. In our party, the perspective of the youth is being implemented. Our voices are being heard. When new ideas are raised by the youth, the party implements them. The NC party has accepted our demands, and the party has reflected our voice in this politically critical time. Freedom of justice, freedom of press, community development, democratic growth, human rights, freedom of expression, judicial supremacy – these are the points that we are advocating for and trying to protect. The NC adheres to international norms and values of democracy. Our leader, G.P. Koirala is very old now, but he accepts the youths’ voice and revolutionary character. That is why we young people are satisfied with what our party is doing.











MANISH POKHAREL: I am a freelance journalist and, politically, I’m not aligned with any political party. I’m an independent. I was born in Khotang district, in the eastern hilly region of Nepal. My family was farmers.

Today, infants have to go for vaccinations. But going back to my youth -- when I was a baby -- I didn’t receive those vaccinations because there was no hospital built in my area. Health-wise, it was struggle for all the people in remote areas. When I was four, for instance, I fell from a roof and broke an arm. I had to depend on local traditional treatment. I couldn’t get modern medical attention.

Traditionally, Nepalese education utilizes the old-fashion rote method. It is not a good system. When I was studying in class 1 or 2, our teacher carried a long stick to frighten students into learning things by heart. I was scared of that stick and I used to skip classes because of my fear. In fact, when I was in class 3, I ran away from home because I wanted to be free of all that – not only the primitive education but the hard work that I was required to do when I wasn’t in school. My grandfather made me herd and care for the buffalos in the shed and I was punished if I didn’t do as I was told. I was scared of him too. So I ran away from home. But after several months, my parents found me in a bazaar and brought me back home.

But I was still scared of going back to school. But after one year, our school organized an open poem competition. I wrote and read my poem and received first prize. That inspired me to change my opinion about going to school.

There was no freedom in my school, particularly in the younger years: the senior classes got all the positions in sports, for instance. We had to wait our turn. But once I got to play sports and I was able to score a couple of goals, I got the opportunity to play with the older students.
I’m still in college -- a student at Kathmandu University. It’s a school where political activities are prohibited. I’m informed about politics, but not a part of it. I do admire BP Koirala, who was the first elected Prime Minister of Nepal in 1950. He was also a poet and writer. I have read all of his books, which inform me about politics.















ASHISH LUITEL:  I’m also a student at Kathmandu University and, politically, an independent. I’m studying electric and electronics engineering. I was born in Okhaldhunga; it’s the district next to Khotang, in the eastern hilly region of Nepal. I completed my secondary schooling in a government school. My parents were government jobholders.

I have a keen interest in politics. However, I have never been actively involved in it for two reasons: First, I fail to see how it will benefit my future career. Second, politicians repel me because they have a bad reputation. To become too involved in student politics is a distraction from my personal ambitions. For example, if NSU organizes a protest program, it will not be for the welfare of students, but because it is on their mother party’s agenda. If this trend continues, I doubt that I will ever become actively involved in politics. I would love to share my ideas with the parties, but the fact is the parties have never listened to the youth. A certain leader rules them and it is like an autocratic system. Once the leaders attain power, they cease listening to the common people.

Talking about freedom to chose: I secured the maximum marks in high school. Because of my high marks, I was pressured by everyone – family, teachers and friends -- to do nothing but study; not participate in sports or politics or other social activities. I would love to have participated but I was always discouraged to do so. Also, the students who had attended boarding schools regarded me as inferior; I was always reminded that I had only attended a government school.












MADHAV DHUNGEL: I am the General Secretary of ANNFSU, the youth wing that is -- theoretically and morally attached to the UML [Unified Marxist-Leninist] party.
I come from Pakarbash, in the Ramechhap district [hilly region two districts east of the Kathmandu Valley].

I completed my SLT in my home village. My parents were farmers. My village had a lot of political activity as I was growing up -- lots of panchayat leaders came from my village. That trend of political activism in my district has continued even after the 1990 democratic movement.

I’ll tell you a little about the unfairness that I experienced in school.

I studied with the daughter of the chairman of the school management committee. Even though I was the smartest guy in the class and had secured the highest marks, I was never recognized as such. Instead, the daughter of the chairman got the recognition. This was when I was in grades 4 and 5. The unfairness of that incident made me dig in my heels and intensified my ambitious to be recognized in the future. It also created a distance between the school administration and me. I regarded the school negatively. Eventually, it transformed me and inspired me to enter into politics.

In 1990, with the advent of the popular uprising, and when I was in grade 7, the police was hunting a senior from our school. He came to our house and asked for refuge. We hid him. He was carrying pamphlets in his bag that protested the panchayat system. It was I who swayed my parents to hide him. The police didn’t find him. That evening, he gave me some of the pamphlets and told me to distribute them in every class of the school the next day.  I did just that. He also asked me to report back to him and recount how the people reacted to his pamphlets.

The teachers’ reaction was of utter fear and panic. They collected the pamphlets and burned them.

I passed on the information to the guy hiding in our house. He was in the same student party that I am in today. It is that simple and small event that brought me into politics. From that time on, I became the leader of most of the student activities – debate competitions, speeches, and essays, that sort of thing – and I won many district level awards. I was the founding secretary of this student wing in that school.

I studied at Mohendra Morang Campus, and then transferred to RR campus in Kathmandu. I also returned to my village and taught for a year. The school was a stronghold for the NC during that time, but I helped convert NC sympathizers into members of the UML party.

Eventually, I decided to quit my teaching job and join politics full time – something my parents didn’t want. But as I climbed up the political ladder, my parents gradually accepted my career change. That’s where I am today.

............


DUNHAM: My second question entails the problem of brain drain in Nepal. So many young men, if given the opportunity will leave Nepal, often permanently. As young leaders, what your ideas on reversing this trend and who have the political parties either addressed the problem or ignored it?


DAMAN: Brain drain begins with the inferior educational system offered in Nepal. The youth would stay in Nepal if they were offered competitive opportunities here. To make matters worse, we are doubly hobbled by the insensitivity of the main parties and the instability of the government. When the government is instable, their policies are not stable. That directly hampers the attempt to improve the quality of education.

Recently, the Finance Ministry introduced a program to provide 200,000 rupees per person -- designed for people who want to create a small business but lack the capital. It’s a good idea. A program like this, which is in a test phase right now, could be expanded in the other youth fields as well. For instance, students could and should be given loans without collateral. These kinds of programs can generate enthusiasm among young people to remain in the country instead of what we have right now, which is an atmosphere in which young people are determined to leave Nepal. If the government doesn’t implement such youth-oriented programs, the youth will continue to leave. Maybe 10% will return but most will try to stay away from Nepal.


BALRAM: There are two kinds of youth who are migrating: the educated and the uneducated. To keep the educated youth from leaving Nepal, we definitely need to improve both education and research. The government lacks a significant youth policy. The government should create a powerful youth commission, inclusive in nature – inviting young people from different ethnic, linguistic, political and geographical backgrounds – which could then shape future youth-empowering policies to be implemented by the government. Including different geographical backgrounds is crucial. There is the Kathmandu Valley and there is the rest of Nepal. Our government has a long tradition of identifying the problems of rural areas from a boardroom in Kathmandu.

The proposed commission should include young political leaders as well as youths who represent various regions and organizations dedicated to empowering youth. Also independent, not-party-affiliated youths should be included.

BIKKI: A government is ruled by politics and the youth should be able to trust their political leaders. But the youth of Nepal regard politics as a dirty game. All the same old politicians, who continue to lead this country and who have failed for many years to earn the trust of the youth, create this attitude.

There have been many movements that have taken place, dedicated to achieving true democracy in Nepal. They occurred in the 1950s, 60s, 80s, 90s and 2006. But the youth aren’t convinced that enough has been accomplished. We are now wondering if another movement isn’t necessary in order to achieve a secure democracy. 

Until the youth have confidence in the country’s leaders, and until the leaders rise above shouting empty slogans and promises – until they get down to the tough work of creating job opportunities and creating an environment in which investors will want to open factories which will, in return create jobs – jobs that will directly benefit even the youth who aren’t affiliated with any particular political party – the brain drain in Nepal will continue. The youth need real change, not talk.

Just take a look at India. India used to have the brain drain phenomenon. But once good jobs were created and became available, the youth began to return to India in large numbers.

The youth must organized and join forces in order to create pressure on the government -- like the situation in 2006, when we forced the king to step down.


JAGRIT:  In the past, all political struggles were based on four sequential goals. None of the goals were achieved, regardless of which political system happened to be in power.

The first goal of the Nepali people was to abolish the elitist establishment, represented by the monarchy.

The second was to end the conflict [the Maoist-led ten-year insurgency] – a conflict that existed before the Maoist conflict and which continues to exist up to present time.

The third goal was to change Nepal’s social, economic, and cultural structures.

The fourth goal was to create a government in which the people of Nepal could make their own decisions without the influence of outside powers. In the past, the successive governments have danced to the music of foreign governments.

It’s important to mention that the student political movement in Nepal is very strong. No significant political changes have been made in Nepal without the participation of the student political movements – not since the 1950s. And the student movement in Nepal is unique in the world. The people rely on the students to support their grievances such as price hikes and other social difficulties.

But so far, despite the success of the youth movement, we have not been able to effect change in the education system. We have failed to address youth issues. This is very unfortunate for the youth and the country as a whole.

If we categorize the problems surrounding the youth and students, the first is poverty. 2.25 million children are still unable to attend school because they must go to the jungle to herd their families’ cattle.

Lack of education – the second problem -- is therefore directly connected to poverty. Within this category, there are several root causes.

The first involves those youth who are unable to attend school; we must create an environment that includes them.

The second involves our elitist system, which is completely impractical. For example, our educational system still teaches the youth that a person from the Brahman caste is a person of virtue, which may or may not be true. In school, our history lessons dwelled on people of high caste. We had to study about kings and ranas and how many wives they had. This was the history we had to study. We have to remove such elitist excesses in the educational system.

The third involves a disconnect between our present educational system and the realities of the workplace, once we get out of school. The truth is that our schools have become factories to produce unemployed children. Each year, about 300,000 children pass their SLC, but only 30-40 governmental positions are available.

The fourth involves the dual nature of our educational system – boarding schools versus government schools. Boarding schools seem to be producing better-educated children, but the students in boarding schools care only about themselves, not society.

The fifth involves the cultural anomaly in which the youth simply aren’t required to consider the society-as-a-whole. Instead, we are encouraged to think about our future careers. We are living in a culture in which we are groomed to think about ourselves, not the wellbeing of others. This is because we have been influenced by the poisonous values of Western culture.

In addition to these major problems are secondary issues involving sports, HIV/AIDS, disabled youth and drug abuse – none of which have been adequately addressed.

In coming up with solutions, we must first deal with the youths’ hopelessness in regard to procuring jobs. I’ve visited many parts of the country to study this phenomenon.  Other than in the urban areas, I have found that – with the exception of Ilam district [in the far east] -- youth are not living in the rural regions in significant numbers because there are no jobs. Why have the youth in Ilam not left? Because of the tea plantations -- there is plenty of work for the youth there.

Creating hope among the youth, through initiatives such as the recently announced self-employment project, can work. Some 700,000 youths have applied for those loans. I think the government should focus on programs like this, which will definitely instill hope in the youth.

In short, Nepal cannot afford to overlook the problems of the youth and students when addressing the political problems of our country.


BISHNU: In my view, the brain drain problem is a problem created by globalization. But globalization can also be regarded as an opportunity for Nepal. Our colleges, universities and other schools are producing quality manpower, employed all around the world. The question is: why are these same young people not being employed here, in Nepal, in our own society? This is a problem arising from shortcomings in our governmental policies. As mentioned before by other panel members, the government must create an environment that not only produces educated youth but also provides them with jobs and positions within Nepal, to encourage them to remain here instead of looking elsewhere.

Natural resources, which include human resources, should be regarded as a powerful source for national development. Instead, our problem is that when Nepali youth gain skills that could help their country, they leave the country in search of more lucrative employment.

There is also a problem of national and regional security in Nepal. Without security, investment in this country will not happen. Political instability, governmental instability, and lack of policy to keep skilled people in the country are our nation’s biggest problems.

It’s ironic: this country is so poor. The government always begs foreign powers for money for various programs. But the government never asks foreign countries for aid in producing young skillful workers. The youth leave the country because of jobs. The youth would return to this country if jobs were available.

Another problem is that we gain knowledge through our education, but it is not placed in a social or value-based context. We educate the children in the classroom only. The process does not bring them closer to our society. Clearly, the educational system we are now using will not solve the problem of brain drain.

If the government concentrated on tourism development, agricultural industrialization, hydropower, and other programs that encouraged skilled workers to remain in Nepal, the brain drain problem would be solved. This cannot happen without peace, security, and rule of law, political stability. This also cannot happen if, when a business becomes successful, political powers insist on donations from the successful business, which discourages investment in commerce.


MANISH: First of all I would like to say that our country is poor but we have the capacity to generate 83,000 megawatts of electricity. But unfortunately, we are facing 16 hours of load-shedding every 24 hours, every day. In another context, what good is it if every Nepalese family has a motorbike or a vehicle, but there is no road drive on? These are the things that are making Nepali youth frustrated.

As an alternative, the youth are spending 6-700,000 rupees per person to move to European countries to work, and 1-200,000 rupees to go to the countries in the Middle East.

If these people had opportunities and salaries here comparable to the Gulf countries, they would stay here. Like one of our colleagues mentioned, the youth in Ilam are not leaving because they have opportunities there to work and to earn. We have plenty of rocks to smash in Nepal. If we could duplicate Gulf salaries given to smash rock, we would smash our own rocks, not theirs.

The main reason why youth go abroad is economics. Those who go to Europeans countries think only of dollars as a means to develop and improve their futures.

To stop the brain drain, the government can play a major role by creating a country that has adequate security and implementing programs similar to the self-employment program. Such programs will create jobs among the educated youth.

Another problem for Nepali youth: Everyone is migrating to Kathmandu. But Nepal is not only Kathmandu. It is also the hilly, Himalayan and Terai regions. These are big, productive areas. And the workforce is empty of youth. If the youth had a reason to return to their home areas – like the self-employment program—they would not only develop Nepal in general, but they would specifically develop themselves—even those highly educated youths with diplomas in their hands.

Another key is to reach the 83,000 megawatts of electricity, sell it to India and China, which would in turn give us the money to fully develop Nepal – instead of having only 8 hours per day of electricity which is where we find ourselves today.

Youths going to Europe and America: Their first goal is to study and their second goal is to earn money. They may get a green card or a PR [Permanent Resident status], and only 10 or 20% of them will return to Nepal. If they do decide to return to Nepal, they will buy a car, a house and property, but very quickly they will get frustrated because the country itself is not progressing at the same pace as their personal progress.

One last thing: I remember Prachanda saying before the 2008 elections that he would turn Nepal into an Asian Switzerland in 50 years. I would like to say that Nepal is already more beautiful than Switzerland. They only thing we don’t have is money. If we had money, Nepal would be twice as beautiful as Switzerland.


ASHISH: Perhaps we should first define the word “opportunity”: Opportunity for youth in this country is compromised by four obstacles: the brain drain, the traditional society, the ineffective politics and the fashion trend. Leaving Nepal is not only a practical trend among youth –it has become socially fashionable as well.

About politics affecting youth in Nepal: If politics is stable, society is stable. The trend of brain drain is totally reduced if politics is stable. But as it stands now, leaving is preferable because the political situation here is anything but stable. I personally am going to go to America in two years. So I am part of the trend. I would not follow this trend if Nepal had political stability. Cause-effect: Political instability creates frustration, which creates brain drain. Frustration must be replaced by hope in this country. If we had hope, we would remain in Nepal instead of going abroad.

The idol of Nepali youth is Mahabir Pun. [Pun won the Myagasese Award, the Asian equivalent of the Nobel for introducing Internet technology into schools located in remote areas where there was no electricity or telephones.] We need more leaders and innovators like Pun.

In terms of information technology, Nepal is surrounded by India and China. India is rich in software and China is rich in hardware. Nepali youth go to China because they know they can get jobs in factories that manufacture computer hardware. But we buy that same hardware in Nepal as a Chinese product! With our cheap labor, we should be manufacturing those same products here in Nepal. As for India: I have a friend who works in India, creating software. So if I want to buy my Nepali friend’s software, I must buy it as Indian software.

Our political leaders have a tendency to blame away problems, always blaming someone else. Everyone here who is with a political party is blaming their political foes for the brain drain problem. Blaming is just an easy way of scoring political points, but it doesn’t help the youth of Nepal, not at all.

Instead of blaming others, we should be looking at who we are and what our own shortcomings are. We have examples of youth who are working in Nepal but are gaining a name for themselves internationally…like Pun. You youth political leaders sitting here at this panel discussion have done nothing nearly as important as Pun. All you do is talk and blame.

In fact, looking around at this table, I am depressed by politics because of you youth political leaders. If I protest in front of a college and burn tires, it’s not so that my science lab will be improved. It’s because I want to help strengthen the power of the party I’m attached to. Your demonstrations never really help the youth in Nepal.

We need to join hands instead of blaming each other. Opportunity is not here in Nepal because we are too busy blaming each other to have time to create opportunity. We youth only think about being employed, but we never think about being the employers o f a new Nepal. That’s the problem. We need solutions, not blame.


MADHAV: Thank you Mikel Dunham, a citizen of America.

America is still ruled by a constitution that was written by a 52-members constituent assembly that represented the original 13 states, back in 1786. Today, 225 years later, Nepal is exercising the same process, with a 601-member assembly.

A long-term struggle for political changes and the establishment of fundamental rights have waylaid us, so we haven’t yet been able to properly focus on development issues that impact Nepali youth. Political stability, development and opportunity are related to each other.

A successful person embodies five qualities: happiness, health, humanity, hopefulness and creativity.  All of these qualities are developed if a person has a good education. Skills are created by a good education. Opportunity and self-confidence arise if the country can employ the skills picked up by the youth. Opportunity creates the environment crucial to retaining the youths of a country – to stop the process of brain drain.

Nepal is now in a transitional phase of political stability. Let’s take a moment to look at the history of other countries in the world. Britain, for example, became a great world power with the help of an oceanic network and steam engines. America became a world power in part because of its geographical location. To the east and west, two oceans protect it. To the north and south, two non-hostile neighbors, Mexico and Canada, protect it. America has never had to deal with the fear of direct foreign invasion from neighboring powers, and thus development has never suffered.

My party believes it is time to tap into Nepal’s natural resources. Water resources, tourism based on the beauty of our natural resources, mines, herbs and agriculture are the five main natural resources and natural capital that Nepal has available to it. If we refocus our educational system so that it concentrates on these five elements, we believe that the manpower and skills produced by that system will provide enough opportunity to keep youth from leaving the country for better jobs elsewhere. To achieve this we need to form a common understanding on what is needed in educational development – that, along with political stability within the government.

There are a lot of issues that need to be included in the constitution-making process. Various Nepali youth and student organizations need to be included in the process. A strong youth commission, represented by youth, should be implemented so that their visions and ideas and insight can be employed in the decision-making process. This commission should be given real authority, not just token authority.

Nepal needs to formulate a 20-year education plan, supplemented by foreign aid. Such an educational plan, with proper funding, can definitely work here in Nepal.

Unfortunately, India, our neighbor to the south compromises all of Nepal’s hopes and plans. We are landlocked. India denies us the right to access to the sea. In addition, India has encroached upon our southern border in 62 places. We have had to spend far too much time opposing India’s encroachment. India dominates Nepal and attacks our national interests and we do not have the power to declare war on India. This has been one reason why our country has not developed the way it should have. If we can improve our relations with China, however, it will benefit Nepal by providing a counterbalance against India’s domination.

If we carefully implement the ideas I have discussed, we can create the environment to accommodate the youths in Nepal with opportunity and prosperity.




My thanks goes out to Youth Initiative, a non-party youth organization that, over the last few years, has made great strides in encouraging Nepal’s young people to organize themselves into a real force to be reckoned with. Many of the best and brightest young women and men belong to the organization. It’s been my privilege to be associated with them. Youth Initiative assembled the eight young leaders who talked to me.

To find out more about YOUTH INITIATIVE, go to its website:

http://www.youthinitiative.org.np

telephone:  (977-1) 204-1674


..............................................................................

Nepal’s Maoist Prime Minister Resigns

With concluding thoughts by Dibyesh Anand

April 4, 2009



Today, when the Maoist government collapsed, it tumbled with all the hushed rapidity of a riffling house of cards.

It took Prachanda a mere thirteen minutes, in his televised address to the nation, to announce his dénouement, precipitated by his failed attempt to fire Chief of Army General Katawal. In the previous 48 hours, two major allies of his coalition government had pulled out, the President of Nepal had ordered General Katawal to remain in office despite his dismissal by the Prime Minister and, in what would be Prachanda’s final cabinet meeting, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and the Communist Party of Nepal (United) – the last remaining allies of the Maoists -- boycotted the proceedings, leaving it clear that Prachanda had come full circle in successfully, unilaterally, isolating himself from Nepal’s political multi-party power base.

Anger and frustration in Nepal had been building for months. Power shortages of 16 hours per day had become the norm. Fuel shortages were equally vexing. Industrial output had flat-lined. And prices for food and other necessities had continued to rise in spite of Maoist claims that the economic situation was being properly handled.

Many people in Kathmandu were forced to huddle in hushed groups around the facades of TV shops in order to hear their Prime Minister resign; they had no electricity in their homes.

Prachanda’s brief speech claimed moral high ground. He told his audience that he had struggled to serve the public but that the Maoist party had been “barred from leading the government for four months. …I announce, through this address, my resignation from the cabinet I have chaired so as to put an end to this difficult situation and create a positive environment for salvaging democracy, nationalism and the peace process that are currently at risk.”

Then he pointed the finger. He blamed the CPN-UML party for creating a series of obstacles: First the UML had consented to the Maoists’ wish to sack the army chief but then later retracted their support. He blamed the president for breaching his constitutional limitations by ordering General Katawal to stay in office, in direct contradiction of Prachanda’s order. He blamed foreign powers for sticking their noses into Nepalese domestic affairs.

What Prachanda did not address was the possibility that he and the Maoist party had painted themselves into a corner by making promises to their rural voting base that were never realistic; that the Maoists had behaved as if they had garnered a mandate during the elections, instead of a simple majority that would require cooperation and consensus with the other parties; and finally, that he had grievously misread the tealeaves when he determined that he was powerful enough to oust Nepal’s Army Chief.


WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IN NEPAL?

Some of the more high-spirited bloggers are already sounding the death knell for democracy in Nepal by either predicting that the Indian government is going to reassert itself within a new “old” power coalition of Nepali sycophants, or that the Maoists will join forces with their Indian counterparts, the Naxalites, thereby creating hell on earth in southern Nepal and the Indian states of Bihar and Bengal.

The latter scenario seems particularly unlikely to this writer, at least at this juncture, because there has been no persuasive argument put forward to suggest that Maoist leadership has procured an appetite for abandoning constitutional politics.

It seems more likely, then, that the Nepali Congress and the Communist UML party, with the help of other smaller groups, will form a new coalition. The Maoists may or may not choose to lead an opposition party.

Street protests of varying degrees of severity can be expected. If they reach a certain level of volatility and violence, any coalition party would find it nearly impossible to proceed with the drafting of a new constitution and the other hurdles set down as key parts to the 2006 peace deal.

Economic stability, already under fire from external conditions, will continue to fight for its life.

Fresh elections could be ordered. But what party in Nepal is currently ready to risk the outcome of free elections?

One thing is certain: Nepal now finds itself in an unprecedented political mess and the peace process has never been more unlikely. Prachanda may have exited quietly, but the rumblings can already be heard in the distance.


DIBYESH ANAND








Dibyesh Anand, a young  British-Indian writer based in London, has written an impressive piece in today’s London Guardian on what the Prime Minister’s resignation may mean to Nepal’s fledging democratic process. Its thought-provoking content is worth republishing here:

Nepal is an important crucible for the idea of democracy. Can democracy as a system accommodate, moderate and discipline political forces that owe their existence to revolutionary violence and populism directed against an authoritarian establishment? Or will democracy unravel itself amid irreconcilable differences? Western democracies' stability is ascribed to a certain level of socio-economic development and broad agreement over the fundamentals of the political system. In the absence of such conditions, are postcolonial democracies like Nepal doomed to be forever fragile?

The ongoing political crisis in Nepal – the sacking of the army chief by the Maoist government, followed by the president's declaration of the act as unconstitutional, and then the resignation of the powerful prime minister Dahal (more commonly known as Prachanda) – comes as a jolt to the international community. The absence of Nepal from international news circuit in recent months provided a false sense of satisfaction that democracy and peace had won there.

The sequence of largely orderly elections, Maoists moving into the government and working along with other political parties, the abolition of the monarchy and the constituent assembly's declaration that there will be a new constitution by May 2010, had indicated that a democratic system was finding its feet in the shifting sands of Nepalese politics. But beneath the surface lay the unresolved tension over the basic principle of statehood – monopoly over legal violence. The key question was and is, who controls the armed forces?

The tricky task for the new government headed by the Maoist-led alliance was to integrate the former rebels into the army. Stable representative systems require the civilian government's control over armed forces. In Nepal, the peace process left the two fighting sides – the army as well as the Maoist rebels – fully armed and, more crucially, in distrust of each other.

The army chief in question, an establishment man to his boots, acted in defiance of the orders of the government by continuing a recruitment drive while keeping former rebels out. His behavior must be seen in the context of the old establishment's contempt for the Maoists' victory in democratic elections, divisions within the governing coalition over the pace of change and the tacit disquiet India had with the Maoists' warmer relations with China.

The crisis was in the making for weeks, but finally blew up because the Maoists in power were being made to look weak against the defiant army chief. By resigning, the prime minister has clearly decided to play the game of brinkmanship rather than compromise for he was losing credibility within the Maoist rank and file.

While the Maoists would like to project themselves as the injured party facing insurmountable obstruction from the conservative establishment, they are not blame-free. They had the option of avoiding this debacle, yet lacked caution and patience. They could have waited for three more months for the general to retire or persevered with coalition allies opposed to the immediate sacking. Democratic process is about compromises and deliberations, and the Maoists clearly haven't made a full transition from their mindset of being in revolutionary opposition where all other political parties are branded as stooges of the establishment.

The big powers in the neighborhood should resist the temptation to meddle in Nepal's internal affairs and let the various parties sort out the mess. By taking the dispute to the streets, the different sides are attempting to flex their populist political muscles, but by doing so, they are playing for very high stakes indeed – the very future of peace and stable democracy in Nepal.

………………............................………………….......………………..

NEPAL: Prime Minister Prachanda sacks General Katawal and the People Hit the Streets

May 3, 2009



Today, Nepal has plunged into a fresh political crisis, after Prime Minister Prachanda fired Chief of Army General Katawal.

Deputy Prime Minister (and Home Minister) Bam Dev Gautam, Minister for Water Resources Bishnu Poudel, Minister for Local Development Ram Chandra Jha, Minister for Industry Asta Laxmi Shakya and Minister for Youth and Sports Gopal Shakya – all resigned from the cabinet after Prachanda’s announcement.

The CPN-UML party withdrew its support of the Maoist-led government.

Other cabinet members who boycotted the decision included the Madhesi People’s Rights’ Forum, Sadbhavana party and CPN-United. Said General Secretary of CPN-United, “Prachanda made the proposal despite opposition from other parties,” adding that the Maoist unilateral decision has thus isolated itself from the rest of the floundering government. 

As for General Katawal, he has remained consistently defiant and refused to accept Prachanda’s letter that ousted him, pointing out that the only person who has the authority to fire him is the President of Nepal, Ram Baran Yadav.





Meanwhile, President Yadav rejected the ouster in a letter written to Katawal, calling the Prime Minister’s move unconstitutional. The letter was delivered to Katawal's office late Sunday night and copies were also sent to Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal's residence. Yadav was the first person elected as president in Nepal, where a centuries-old monarchy was so recently abolished. The army is officially under the president's command, not the prime minister. Yadav is a member of the Nepali Congress, the main opposition party, which has vowed to fight the decision.

Prachanda’s decision came despite domestic and international calls against such a move, including from India, which had repeatedly conveyed its concern over the planned sacking of Katawal. Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood met Prachanda on 26 April for a fourth meeting in ten days. Obviously, those meetings left Prachanda unmoved.

Some political analysts are now characterizing the teetering Maoist government as on the verge of implosion.

This, however, did not stop thousands of demonstrators filling the streets of Kathmandu. Maoist youths waved red flags and rejoiced, declaring a “victory for people’s views”. Other student unions affiliated with the main opposition Nepali Congress paralyzed traffic, (particularly around university campuses), in protest of Prachanda’s “non-constitutional ousting” of Katawal.








The plot thickens as the Maoists flourish their one-party decision-making policy in a country already peeling away from their heavy-handed agenda. Lt.Gen. Kul Bahadur Khadka, the number two in the army and -- according to the Wall Street Journal -- “a confidant of Prachanda”, was named as acting Army chief to replace General Katawal.





……………………………………..........................………………………….

Nepal: The Prime Minister vs. the General

May 1, 2009































During the decade-long insurgency, the fight was between the Nepal army and the Maoist combatants. And although a democratic process arose from the ashes of that conflict, three years down the line it would appear that not all that much has changed.

The foes remain the same: the Maoists vs. the Nepal Army (with a majority of the political parties currently weighing in favor of the army). The underlying issue is whether or not the Maoist rebels can be integrated into the professional army – an increasingly nebulous prospect. What’s at stake here is nothing less than the derailment of the peace process and, in the gloomiest scenario, a return to armed struggle.
 
For the last two months, the central players in this drama have been Prime Minister Prachanda and Chief of Army General Rookmangad Katawal. Prachanda has done everything in his power to undermine Katawal’s position and Katawal has refused to budge.

Prachanda’s sense of urgency to integrate his PLA with the state army is no doubt fueled by his fellow Maoist Central Committee leaders as well as 19,000 malcontent guerrilla combatants, who have been squirreled away and left moldering in distant cantonments for almost three years now. For the Maoist rank and file, the integration is more a matter of prestige. Grumblings abound that Prachanda is coming off as a weak leader, uncharacteristic of a leader of a revolutionary party.

Katawal’s resistance stems from what he regards as the sheer folly of a wholesale merger of irregular combatants with his highly professional, non-political military operation.

And in the meantime, the world takes notice with mounting misgiving: India, China, the US and numerous EU countries, and now the UN with a just-released report of the Secretary-General that cites the Maoist-Army standoff as a deepening rift played out in front of a Legislature-Parliament who bicker among themselves instead of tending to the far more crucial business of getting a constitution written:

“Notwithstanding the formation of coordination committees to strengthen relations and cooperation between UCPN-M and its major governing coalition partner, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (UML), and among the four political parties in the Maoist-led coalition Government, those relations remained fractious, marked by public acrimony and weak consultation over major decisions.”


MARCH-APRIL PLAYBACK

The Maoist-Army feud erupted last month when General Katawal recommended that eight brigadier-generals nearing retirement be given a three-year extension. Prachanda ignored the recommendation and, instead, attempted to force them to retire – a move that backfired when the Supreme Court failed to uphold Prachanda’s edict; that, in turn, prompted several Maoist leaders to issue diatribes against the Court’s (to put it mildly) sagacity. The outcome of that legal battle is still pending but has left many analysts wondering how sincere the Maoists really are when they claim that they seek democracy in Nepal. How does assailing the Supreme Court  -- if the judges’ decisions don’t suit Maoist political priorities – jive with the democratic notion that the judicial branch must be held separate and sacrosanct?

Regardless, a bouquet of hostilities has befouled the halls of Parliament since then. Kid gloves, if there ever were any, have now been unceremoniously dropped and “to keep Katawal or to sack him” has become the central question that has eclipsed all else in the backrooms of Nepalese politics.

Katawal is a formidable opponent – both lighting rod and Achilles’ heel for Maoist resentment and self-esteem respectively. He’s either loved or despised by the general public and frequently portrayed as the villain of the 2006 19-Day Uprising. Moreover, there’s no dearth of rumors that he is capable, if not actually planning, a “soft coup” – but one wonders if there isn’t wishful thinking at play here.

Katawal is a graduate of India’s National Defense Academy, the Indian Military Academy and he trained with Special Forces in the United States. (Over the years, American taxpayers have spent a lot of money training Nepal’s military elite.) Interestingly, King Mahendra, (the father of the recently deposed King Gyanendra) adopted Katawal when he was a boy – a legacy that has dogged him with a “royalist” tag ever since.

But his monarchial upbringing hasn’t appeared to be an obstacle to his support of the democratic process as mandated by the people of Nepal. Throughout the controversy, he’s been assiduously adamant that his role is strictly non-political. [Soon after the 19-Day Uprising reached its culmination, a leading foreign diplomat at the time assured me that it was “Army top brass that told the king he must step down – that killing dozens of unarmed demonstrators was going to escalate into hundreds of killings and no one in security could stomach that eventuality.” In effect, it was Katawal who gave the king his walking papers by taking “his” army away from him.]

In any event, when it comes to defending Nepal – in spite of who runs the government -- Katawal seems to have the narrow-eyed focus of a bull terrier. Also like a bull terrier, he doesn’t back down from perceived infringement upon his appointed territory. I have never spoken to anyone who is more determined to (literally) stick to his guns. Put in another way: Katawal is a man one wants to have on one’s side.

Maoist Defense Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa does not have Katawal on his side. Katawal defied Thapa’s order to stop recruitment to NA and, during Thapa’s brief but stormy tenure, has repeatedly opposed Thapa’s plan to induct guerrillas of the PLA en masse. A fresh provocation occurred in April when the new government held the National Games after a hiatus of eight years. When Prachanda issued a last-minute order to allow a Maoist team to join in the games, the Nepal Army-affiliated team staged a boycott, leaving the event decidedly lackluster and Maoist leadership once again publicly foiled and with egg on its face.

Prachanda’s determination to remove Katawal is beginning to look like personal obsession. Katawal is due to retire in August, a mere four months away. Many onlookers are now murmuring, “Why not get back to Constituent Assembly business and let Katawal quietly exit at the end of summer?”

Regardless, Prachanda’s urgency became pronounced earlier in April when the Maoist government served Katawal with a notice that he was to submit a written explanation in 24 hours for his list of “misdeeds” – a move that made it clear that the Maoists intended to sack him forthwith. Katawal’s reply was prompt and to the point: He contended that the only man who could sack him was the president of the republic. Maoist leadership was furious. Finance Minister Dr. Bhattarai went to the media with the threat that the Maoists would quit the government if they were not allowed to fire the army chief – a renewal of an armed insurgency being the implication behind the threat.

An additional back-story, furnished by The Telegraph, says that in a meeting with Katawal, Prime Minister Prachanda assured him that, if he quietly resigned, “he could be appointed as an ambassador or appointed as a security advisor to the Prime Minister. …However, as Katawal rebuked both the lucrative propositions, PM Dahal told him that the Military Act could be amended to sack him.” [This story has not been verified by other sources.]

Whatever was or was not offered behind closed doors, in the third week of April Prachanda backed down.

According to Republica, “India and the United States…put intense pressure on the government not to sack the army chief. Indian Ambassador, Rakesh Sood, met Prime Minister Dahal for the second time in as many days and appraised [sic] him of the Indian government’s view. US Ambassador, Nancy J Powell, also called on Home Minister Bam Dev Gautam and informed her country’s reservation against the government action.”

In addition, the political parties lined up against Prachanda’s plan, both in the ruling and opposition camps. “Except the ruling Maoists, Madhesi People’s Rights Forum, Sadbhavana Party and opposition Dalit Janajati Party, Sanghiya Loktantrik Rastriya Manch and National People’s Front, all the parties have stood united against the government move. …Ruling party CPN-UML came up openly with protests against the decision in a meeting of 17 parties initiated by Nepali Congress. Party Vice-Chairperson Bidya Bhandari termed the Maoist move as “motivated by ill intention” and said her party was “against all the attempts aimed at inviting instability and imposing single party authoritarianism by demoralizing judiciary, press and national security agencies.”


WHERE IS INDIA AND CHINA IN ALL THIS?

India is obviously deeply concerned about the clash between Prachanda and Katawal. Delhi is keen to see the Constituent Assembly succeed in drafting a new constitution by next year’s deadline.

Prachanda is equally intent on not being perceived as being dependent on Indian support.

But the fact is that the Maoists have always, to some extent, been dependent on Indian protection. Prachanda himself spent eight of the ten years of insurgency in hideouts on Indian soil – mostly in the eastern states of West Bengal and Bihar. The acrimony between deposed king Gyanendra and Sonia Gandhi also helped to emasculate Nepal’s monarchy, thus playing into the hand of the Maoists. When Indian External Affairs Minster Pranab Mukherjee claimed earlier this year that the Maoists rose to power thanks to Delhi support, the Nepali Maoists were uncharacteristically mute in responding to the assertion.

Once the Maoists came into power, however, the emphasis, at least publicly, shifted from India to China. China, it will be remembered, supported the monarchy but did a flip-flop once Prachanda took the helm. China is now seen as the most significant international backer of the Prachanda’s sequestered PLA.

But the Katawal ruckus has thrown a monkey wrench into Prachanda’s Chinese agenda. Only a few days ago, the Prime Minister summoned Chinese ambassador Qui Guohang to his residence and postponed a much-anticipated trip to Beijing that was to commence on May 2. It was regarded as an important trip for the Maoists – an opportunity to dispel Beijing suspicions over the Maoists’ closeness to Delhi and, no doubt, to discuss the army integration process.

Still it would be foolish for the Maoists to ignore or downplay the extent to which Nepal is, indeed, dependent on India. If, as some surmise, the Maoists’ ultimate goal is to take over the Nepal Army, India would not look kindly on that unwanted shift in the balance of power – a northern neighbor with an army backed by China – particularly since China supports Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), India’s arch-enemy.



IS INTEGRATION REALISTIC OR EVEN WANTED BY THE EX-REBELS?

Lasting peace is impossible in a country where parallel armies exist, particularly if one or more armies have opposing political agendas.

The Nepal Army proved itself to be non-political by standing back while a centuries-old monarchy was transformed into a republic.

The Maoist rebel combatants, who did not win militarily and, as a result, have found themselves miserably sequestered in cantonments for several years, have failed to establish themselves as a non-political entity.


In other countries, it has been proven that integration cannot proceed successfully until the end of a political process has transpired. In other words, ex-rebels cannot be expected to conform to state armies unless their ideological ambitions have either been attained or dissolved. There is also the question of their emotional state: Have they adjusted psychologically to the point that they are now capable of joining hands with previous enemies? Forcing integration – on either army regulars or ex-rebels -- before psychological adjustment takes place is asking for failure.

According to the Seven-Point agreement: “The verified combatants of the Maoist Army will be offered a choice of various alternatives for rehabilitation including an economic package.” [Clause 2.2.2]

What alternatives has the Maoist leadership offered its languishing combatants? Apart from force-feeding them into the Nepal Army, what options have been offered them for reintegration into Nepali society? There are many options including financial support while pursuing further education, training in skilled occupations or placement in commercial, agricultural or foreign employment.

The entire peace process hangs in the balance because of 19,000 under-skilled, under-educated sidelined rebels.

Has anyone -- apart from Maoist leaders, who could easily employ coercion -- canvassed these poor guys to see if they actually want to join the Nepal Army? Has anyone asked if they might prefer to hang it all up, to go back to their villages, to find a wife, to secure a new trade, or get a better education?

Has anyone bothered to ascertain what these dysfunctional combatants really want – without their officers noting down what they say?





















…………………………………...................................……………………..

NEPAL: Tibetan refugees photographing Tibetan refugees -- PART 17

April 27

click on image to enlarge

 

..............................................................................

Nepalese discrimination: Interview with Dalit activist DINESH KUMAR PARIYAR

April 23, 2009































At least on paper, the question of “the untouchables” has been eliminated from the hierarchal system of Nepalese society. “Untouchables” are now referred to as Dalit, a self-designation for a South Asian group of people traditionally regarded as “polluters of the upper classes.” While the caste system has been formally abolished under the Nepali constitution, there is still widespread discrimination and prejudice against them in the private sphere.

In the context of traditional Hindu society, Dalit status has often been historically associated with occupations regarded as ritually impure, such as any occupation involving butchering, removal of dead animals and removal of night soil (human feces). Dalits still work as manual scavengers, cleaning latrines and sewers by hand and clearing away dead animals. Engaging in these activities was (and is) considered to be polluting to the individual who performed them, and this pollution was considered to be “contagious”. But they were also consigned to certain trades: Kami (ironsmiths), Sarki  (leather workers), Damai (tailors) and Badi (entertainers, musicians). Historically, Dalits were commonly banned and segregated from full participation in Hindu social life. They could not enter the premises of a temple or a school and stayed outside the village, while elaborate precautions were sometimes observed to prevent incidental contact between Dalits and other castes. Even today, many Dalits are doomed as bonded workers and many work in slave-like conditions to pay off debts that were incurred generations ago. The majority of Dalits still live in segregation and experience violence, murder, rape and other atrocities on a scale that dwarfs the victimization of other caste groups in Nepal.

As a result, inferiority, humiliation, resignation, lack of self-esteem and dependency on upper castes has developed because of geographical exclusion, social exclusion, capability deprivation and domination by external powers. All of this has contributed to underdevelopment with in the Dalit community.

In spite of the new Maoist regime, which relied heavily on Dalit participation during the decade-long “People’s War”, the Dalits’ lot in life has not improved significantly. It is perhaps pertinent to note that the Maoist leadership hails from upper caste lineage, including Prime Minister Prachanda, a Brahmin by birth.

****************

Last week I had the opportunity to sit down with Dinesh Kumar Pariyar, a Dalit who -- through intelligence, talent and a lot of hard work – has managed to extricate himself from the normal preordained Dalit occupations. He has gone on to make a place for himself in urban 21st century Nepal. Among other things, he has worked with the Dalit Welfare Organization, under the UK Government's Department For International Development (DFID, where he produced and directed the television program SAHAYATRA, (broadcast on Nepal Television). On KANTIPUR FM 96.1 Radio, he produced and presented “The Voice of Dignity”, an advocate program concerning Dalit rights, development, governance, human rights, poverty, gender and children. Currently, he is a producer, writer and news reporter for IMAGE CHANNEL PVT. LTD.





























DUNHAM: Tell me a little about your early background.

DINESH: I was born in 1979, in a village not too far from Kathmandu called Dhaksi, in Matatirtha VDC-9. My ancestors came from Gorkha, along with King Prithivi Narayan Shah. We have been in the Kathmandu Valley for six or seven generations. I studied in a school near my home, called Nandi Ganesh, up to grade five. I took my SLC with excellent results in 1997. I’m the first Dalit in my community who passed the SLC.

DUNHAM: Did your family encourage you to get an education?

DINESH: My family came from the lower class and it was a real struggle to pay for my studies. But I received some help through scholarships -- that made it a little easier. My family was involved in traditional sewing and tailoring work – their income was not enough for food, let alone school costs. To augment our income, we also did some farm work and poultry work, and hard labor. Everyone in the family worked long hours each day.

So I went school in the morning, but in the afternoon, I joined the rest of my family, who were working somewhere.

DUNHAM: How many brothers and sister do you have?

DINESH: One sister and two brothers. All are married.

DUNHAM: When was the first time that you sensed that your caste, the Dalits, was discriminated against?

DINESH: When I was in grade five, the school organized a picnic program. All the school kids were there. There was a circular seating arrangement set up for the students. But when I arrived I realized that there was another place where three of us – all Dalits – had to sit – apart from the main group. Before that, the three of us Dalits had sensed that we were discriminated against, but at that picnic I saw very clearly, by the seating arrangement, how condemned we really were.

DUNHAM: Who were the adults who made you sit apart from the rest of your classmates? Brahmins? Chhetris?

DINESH: Well, they were definitely from castes above Dalits: Brahmins, Chhetris – yes – but it was a mixed community so there were various castes involved. Also, there were ethic groups that looked down at us.

DUNHAM: As a child, what did you want to be when you grew up? Did you have any hope that, one day, you could break away from upper caste discrimination? Or did you feel resigned to the old traditions and constraints?


DINESH: Before I answer that, I would like to tell you a story about one of my friends who was a Brahmin. The guy’s family had a store in the village; it was my friend’s chore to carry merchandise to the store. One time I helped him; we took turns carrying the packages. But as we approached the store, my friend told me to quickly give him the packages. I didn’t say anything at the time. But later, when we were alone, I asked him, “Why did you insist that I give you the packages before we got to the store?” And he said, “You are a Dalit. If someone saw you carrying the store merchandise, I would be in big trouble. Our customers wouldn’t buy our goods if they knew you had touched it.” That experience taught me a big lesson.

And there were other incidents that I saw as a child that informed me of the community’s prejudice against my low caste. My mother, for instance, was never allowed to draw water from the village well. When my father went to a teashop to buy a cup of tea, he had to wash his teacup after he was finished. None of the other castes in the village had to wash their own cups. It was everyday things like that.

These examples – and there were many – began to build upon one another and, as I grew older, I realized that I was feeling more and more rebellious. I didn’t just want to change the way my village was. I realized that the entire society of Nepal would have to change. I thought, “I have to be the change-maker of society.”

DUNHAM: Where did you go after you got your SLC? And what was the villager’s reaction, once you achieved that milestone within the Dalit community? Was there any sort of backlash, or did they accept your achievement of being the first Dalit to receive an SLC?

DINESH: Actually, the villagers accepted it. Even the upper caste students – who didn’t get first division marks – they didn’t have a problem with my success. They were just happy that someone in our region of Nepal had proven to be capable of achieving scholastic superiority. They also appreciated that I got these good marks even though I also has to work as a laborer when I wasn’t in school. No, the whole community was happy for me.

DUNHAM: What did you do after you got your SLC?

DINESH: Well, I wanted to continue my studies and become and a civil engineer. I applied to Pulchok College [in Patan]. As it turned out, I wasn’t selected for civil engineering but I got into auto-mechanical engineering, which had been my second choice. I studied auto-mechanical engineering for six months, but I didn’t have enough money to continue, so I dropped out.

Instead, I enrolled in RR [Ratna Rajya Laxmi] College in Kathmandu. I took a bus from home and commuted to college each day. But also each day, I spent some hours teaching in my home village. The income from teaching school provided me with enough money to pay for my daily expenses. RR College is a government college, so the fee is minimal. So at RR, I took a career turn and enrolled in journalism and mass communication, along with English and political science. I was very interested in the political situation and also the country was, at that time, in political upheaval. I graduated from RR and then enrolled in another college to get a Masters Degree in sociology. I still haven’t finished my Masters.

DUNHAM: You went from a quiet village to the urban environment of Kathmandu Valley. In terms of discrimination, was there a perceptible change from village to city?
Was one more biased than the other?

DINESH: In my village, there was always biasness, in one form or another. There still is. But the degree of rudeness has definitely been reduced. But during my college years, I really didn’t and haven’t felt discriminated against.

The village attitude towards me has changed because of my higher education. Now, I am welcomed into the villagers’ houses more often. There is another factor: I was the village schoolteacher; the children were learning and the parents were very happy that their kids were advancing in knowledge. On one level, you could even say that my status in the village is higher than members of the community who come from higher castes. But I’m something of an exception. I got this recognition because of what I had achieved through my studies. Even my immediate family members’ status has risen because of me. However, I’m rather unique. Other members of the Dalit community in my village are still rejected as social inferiors. 

DUNHAM: OK, earlier you mentioned that there was political upheaval while you were in school. There was ten years of insurgency swirling all around you. In general, did the rising popularity of the Maoists have any impact on changing the attitude of the upper castes toward Dalits?

DINESH: Change is achieved through two means: one is through self-awareness and the other is through some sort of external pressure. To answer your question, though, the political movement had very little impact on the Dalit community in the Kathmandu Valley. Bias against Dalits might have been reduced a bit, but there has really been no significant change.

In other areas of Nepal, however, the change has been far more significant. In the far west, for example, there are areas in which discrimination against Dalits has been substantially reduced. In some cases, equality has been truly established. The way people look at Dalits has totally changed. In the far west, the picture is quite positive. And the Maoists can take credit for forcing the change in attitude.

But as I said, that change is not universal – certainly not in the Kathmandu Valley.

DUNHAM: Why?

DINESH: So many things have improved in Kathmandu: more people are educated, more people have more resource; but the humanistic attitude and conscience of Kathmandu’s citizens has not developed along with the other things. The fact is that the Dalits in Kathmandu have not experienced improvement – not in lifestyle and not in attitude from higher castes.

DUNHAM: So how do the Dalits feel about this? And by the way, how many Dalits are there in Nepal?

DINESH:  According to the government census, 13% of Nepal’s population is of the Dalit caste, but the Dalits themselves refuse to accept that number.

DUNHAM: Why?

DINESH: Because the surveyors didn’t bother to go to areas where high concentrations of Dalits lived. Dalits are not just one caste. Dalits are many castes, all of which are or were considered “untouchable”. But the government has overlooked many of the castes that fit into the “Dalit” category. And so many people have not been properly counted in the census.

Let me give you an example. There are many Newari castes, six of which are Dalit. But the government categorizes them as Newari, not Dalit.

What the Dalits are claiming is that 20% of Nepal’s population is Dalit.

DUNHAM: And do you thing that the 20% is more accurate?

DINESH: Yes.

DUNHAM: But isn’t it also true that a substantial number of Dalits have changed their surname to disguise the fact that they are Dalit?

DINESH: Yes, yes, yes. They have to survive in Kathmandu and other urban areas, so it’s easier on Dalits to simply disguise the fact that they are Dalit. They take the surnames of higher castes to avoid discrimination. 

DUNHAM: Has the Dalit community become unified and politically organized? Is there any kind of Dalit movement?

DINESH: There is definitely some shift in that direction. But Dalit political movement is based on ad hoc incidents.

You can divide Dalit movement into two aspects: political and social. The political movement is not as effective as it could be. Every major political party has a Dalit sister organization. For example: the Maoists have the Nepal Dalit Mukti Morcha wing; the president of that wing is Tilak Pariyar. Nepali Congress has Nepal Dalit Sangh; the president of that wing is Man Bahadur Biswakarma. UML has Utpidit Jatiya Mukti Samaj; Lal Bahadur Biswakarma is the president of that party wing. The list goes on.

But these parties are simply using the Dalit wings as an easy voters’ bank. The Dalit political movement doesn’t have a voice of its own; it’s dependent on larger political parties for its voice.

Looking back at the brief history of the Nepal democratic movement, the Dalits have participated in and contributed to every step forward in that development. But instead of organizing themselves, they have always been organized by political parties. So what happens is that their agenda gets lost in the larger agenda of the powerful political parties.
The political party leaders have never prioritized the Dalit issue because the parties have always been lead by non-Dalits. Thus, we have a vacuum of Dalit leadership, which has prevented the movement from going forward.

The constitution of 1990 was a very good constitution, but it was biased against Dalits – biased because the Dalits were never mentioned in the constitution, completely overlooked. And the Dalits failed to rise up in meaningful protest against the oversight. As a result, this has contributed to the fact that we continue to be marginalized by the government and discriminated against by the general population.

It also led Dalits to be sympathetic to the Maoists during the “People’s War”. The Maoists roused them with their slogans of equality and brought them into their fold in the mid-1990s onward. A lot of Dalits joined the Maoist People’s Revolution. The percentage of Dalits in the People’s Revolution was very high. The Maoists gave the Dalits hope for a better life.

Another reason the Dalits joined the Maoists was that the Maoists promised them a better constitution – one in which Dalits would be guaranteed equality. So they fought for the Maoists and died for the Maoists. A lot of Dalits became martyrs during the ten-year insurgency.

DUNHAM: Now the Maoists are in power. They have transformed themselves from rebels to the central administration. The government is supposed to finish writing a new constitution by May 2010. At the present time, do you believe that the Dalits are a priority for the Maoist leaders?

DINESH: No. Not really. Understand that the Dalits fought in the insurgency, not only for themselves but for the general public as well. They believed that if the general condition of people in Nepal improved, their group would benefit as well. So they fought. Over 1500 Dalits died during the insurgency. In the April 2006 rebellion, 3 of the 25 people killed were Dalits. The Dalits have fought for freedom and more than paid the price in blood. Still, time after time, the system has failed the needs of the Dalits.

According to the current interim constitution, Dalits are no longer “untouchables” and they must be treated as equals to the rest of the population. But the reality is quite different. Dalits women are still being barred from drawing water from the wells. Very recently, a Dalit woman was treated atrociously because the village claimed she was a witch; she was brutally beaten and then forced to eat human excrement. But the government failed to take any action against her torturer, who happened to be a woman and the principle of the local school.

Have the Maoists come to the rescue for the Dalits? No. The Dalits are still knocking on the door of justice, now controlled by the Maoists, hoping to achieve equality. The new Maoist government shouts its new slogans but its attitude is in no way different from previous administrations when it comes to helping the Dalit community.

The irony is that, in the past, if we used some kind of force and raised our voices, some kind of justice could be achieved. But now, with the Maoists in power, even that has been taken away from us. Why? Because other castes now appose our demands. For example, when the cabinet was created under the Maoist leadership, for four or five months, not one Dalit was represented in the cabinet. Even during the king’s regime, there were two or three Dalit cabinet leaders. But the party that shouted the slogan of “proportional representation” -- the Maoists -- has failed to apply the slogan to their own cabinet. There was not 20% representation of Dalits in the Maoist cabinet. That has changed recently, but the Dalits who have been given posts are more aligned with the Madeshi issue than their own Dalit caste. So even now, Dalits don’t feel like they are being properly represented. The party that touted social inclusive and equal rights has now shown its true face. And the Dalit community is completely unsatisfied by what they see.

DUNHAM: Because people know that they can still mistreat Dalits with impunity? If someone wants to abuse a Dalit because they think that person is a witch, or if someone wants to single out a Dalit in the community because they don’t like them for some reason – is it fair to say that those people can proceed without fear of being brought to justice?

DINESH: Yes, and the reason is that higher caste people run the judicial system in Nepal. They are members of the very castes who chronically discriminate against Dalits. They even feel proud to be asserting their old caste privileges when dealing with us. Justice is achieved through an administrative process. Even if the judiciary would like to rule in favor of Dalits, the administrative process – the police, the government attorneys, etc. – all from higher castes, mind you – the administrative process works against the Dalits ever having their day in court.

For example, torturing someone in the name of “witch” is banned according to law. If the case goes to court, the victim will get justice, but the police won’t even accept the complaint against the torturers. So how can the victim get justice if they can’t jump the hurdle of police discrimination?

If an upper caste woman is tortured for being a witch, there are many cases in which the torturer has been brought to justice and punished. But if the victim is Dalit, the torturer escapes justice.

DUNHAM: Dalits are easy victims – sitting ducks.

DINESH: Yes, yes. For example, at the beginning of my career in journalism, I used to produce short documentaries, funded by DFID (Dept. for Foreign and International Development – a UK government organization); the documentaries were broadcast on Nepalese TV with the help of a local NGO. I was producer, director and resource director. I still remember an incident in Bungmati [in Lalitpur] where one Dalit woman was severely beaten by the local people for drawing water from the community well. She hadn’t had water in her house for three or four days. She was dying. She knew that she would be tortured if she went to the well but she went to the well anyway, so dire was her condition.

We heard about the incident and went there to film and interview her. She was bed-ridden. While we were filming location shots around the well, 1500 – 2000 locals surrounded us. They seized and smashed our camera. They accused us of being there just to defame their community. I was abused and beaten badly – and not only that—the Dalit woman was again beaten, accused of having inviting us, even though she had not invited us.

DUNHAM: When did this happen?

DINESH: In 2004, while the Maoist insurgency was at its height. The police had no intention of arresting the culprits. If we had run a story that accused the police, we, in turn, would have been accused of being Maoists. We were threatened that that would be what would happen. It’s not just my theory. So, in the end, we ended up dropping the story.

It was one of the saddest moments of my life. I was born in the Kathmandu Valley, I was raised here and I was discriminated against all my life, but I never realized the depth with which the people of Kathmandu despised us and the extent to which they could be so cruel.

That was the moment when I realized that little protests, here and there, are not going to have any impact on improving the status of the Dalit community. It’s going to require a huge, broad revolution.


And I promised myself that, from that time on, I would not compromise; I would devote my life to furthering the cause of Dalit equality. That incident is the overriding experience that continues to motivate me to fight Dalit discrimination.

DUNHAM: Are you personally politically involved in organizing the Dalit community?

DINESH: For a long time, I believed that society could be improved through political action. As a student I became alternative Central Committee member of ANNFSU – the student wing of UML. Our group led a lot of protests in Kathmandu. I led the movement to grant a 33% discount for student transportation and we prevailed. It was one of the most successful student protests to date. After that, some of the leaders of the protest, joined the Maoists, some drifted off into the private sector, and some of us, like me, shifted from political activism to social activism.

Being part of the media is one part of my social activism. My journalism is all about social justice and activism. Raising awareness through the media has proven to have more impact than if I had remained just a wingman for a political party.

I’ll give you an example: I produced a documentary about a group of upper castes that refused to buy milk from the local Dalits. There is an old tradition saying in Nepal:  “If the Dalit touches the milk, the cow will climb the tree”. In other words, even the cows are afraid of Dalits touching them. They would rather fall out of tree than being contaminated by Dalits. Such a ridiculous belief.

But through my documentary -- when we showed the reality of how Dalit dairy farmers conducted their daily operations, things changed significantly in that community. The attitude of the upper castes changed. Today, they have no problem purchasing milk from the Dalit dairy farmers.

In another documentary, I covered the story of an oppressed Dalit woman from Kapilvastu [Terai town along the Indian border]. Even though she was educated, extremely intelligent, she was repressed by the local community. After my televised profile on her, however  – and it was aired several times here in Nepal – she was allowed to participate in local politics. And she proved to be so active, so effective that the UML used her in several rallies.  Her success continued and finally she was selected to be a UML sponsored member of the current Constitutional Assembly.

These are examples of what my efforts, through the media, have brought in terms of concrete change. Imagine what could be done if more Dalits had significant jobs in the media and were allowed to cover the subjects with which they have intimate knowledge.

DUNHAM: How will the proposed federal system affect the Dalit community?

DINESH: If it happens, if will be very bad for the Dalit community. We have accepted it because the government has really committed itself to Federalism. But we want a special clause included in the new constitution that guarantees equal opportunity for Dalits. Why? Under federalism, the Dalit community will be scattered among several states and the focus on them will be diluted.

Dalits don’t lack skill—they have already acquired these skills through the work-based caste system that has been forced on them for centuries. No, the main problem for Dalits is social discrimination. If discrimination were eliminated, the Dalits could profit from their skills -- go ahead and thrive on their own abilities.

But here’s the problem – the uneven percentage of Dalits who have odds stacked against them. 47% of all Nepalis are under the poverty line, out of which 90% are Dalit. In terms of education, 33% of all Nepalis continue past the SLC level but only .04% of Dalits continue past the SLC level. Every political party can boast of Dalit representation, but none of the Dalits in those parties have a powerful enough position to have an impact on party decision. Out of 601 members in the CA, only 51 are Dalit. And within the assembly itself, the Dalit members have not been given any important roles. There is no meaningful representation of Dalits in the judicial system.

My position is that, since the State has been responsible for keeping Dalits downtrodden in the past, it is now the responsibility of the State to rectify that system by including special clauses in the new constitution that will assure Dalits of special rights—not only based on proportional representation.

But it’s not just external powers that are keeping the Dalits down. The Dalit community itself needs to find a unified voice and rise up to insure that the State includes new provisions in the constitution.

In the last several years, many of the cultural and ethnic groups have unified and focused on insuring that their voices are heard. The Dalits need to follow suit.

The Nepali government owes us for past grievances. The Nepali rulers followed the Indian custom of using the caste system. Jayasthiti Malla divided Nepal into four groups and many sub-castes. The religious law he wrote presented prevented the Sudra group [the untouchables] from touching water used by upper castes. Different occupations were forced on the Dalits, which remains in place today. Then, when civil codes were introduced, the same religious laws were applied to the codes – thus extending Dalit servitude. So it’s the State who must rectify the injustice they put into law many years ago. The time has come for the Nepali government to make things right.


……………………………………………………………………….

SURVIVOR: The Story of a Nepali Girl Sold into Sexual Slavery

INTERVIEW WITH SUNITA DANUWAR

April 17, 2009
































DUNHAM: Sunita, thank you so much for taking time to speak with me – particularly since this is Nepali New Years day, when everyone is on holiday. We are here in Kathmandu at the office of AATWIN and also Shakti Samuha. You, along with fourteen other girls, founded Shakti Samuha in 1996. Why was it founded?

SUNITA: In 1996 India enacted a law that made it illegal for girls under the age of eighteen to be involved with the sex trade. Many brothels were raided at that time and underage girls were rescued. Of the 500 girls rescued, 128 were from Nepal. I was one of them.

Our organization rose out of decision to dedicate ourselves to rehabilitating survivors of sex trafficking.

DUNHAM: When you were a girl, you were drugged, abducted and sold into a Bombay brothel. Please tell me about your childhood and how it came about that you met such an awful fate.

SUNITA: I was born in a remote area of mid-western Nepal: Dailekh district.

DUNHAM: What is your birth year?

SUNITA: I’m not really sure. My citizenship certificate says 1976, but that may be off by two or three years. My father was involved in politics and was respected in our VDC. I had ten siblings, six of whom died in childhood, leaving three girls and one boy. My mother was of conservative beliefs: My brother was the most important child in her eyes because, if he died, there would be no one to conduct her funeral rites. This is very important in Hindu society.

When I was approximately five years old, my mom took my siblings and me with her on a long journey. She said we were going to my older sister’s house – my sister was already married and living to the south in Bardia [Midwest district along the Indian border]. My father was away at that time: He had gone to the district headquarters for some political function. He had no idea that my mother was planning on leaving. We were children, so we followed our mother without question.

There were no vehicles. We had to walk a great distance. Some Jumlis [natives of Jumla district] were acting as our guides to Bardia. But because we were walking so slowly, they eventually abandoned us. We were so hungry. There were no houses around. At some point we found a roadside teahouse. My mom almost begged for some food, to save our lives. The innkeeper took pity on us and fed us.

My father, who in the meantime had discovered what my mother had done, caught up with us at that teahouse. We saw him approaching from a distance and my mother tried to hide us, but he found where we were hiding. He scolded my mother. “Why did you do this? If you wanted to visit your daughter, I would have taken you. Now look what you’ve done to the children! They’re worn out, their feet are swollen, and they are hungry.”
My mother kept silent. But the next day, we all continued to Bardia, including my father

Once in Bardia, my mother refused to go back to Dailekh. She said the place was cursed by a witch and that, if she returned, my brother, her only remaining son, would die. The problem was that one of my sisters had been left in our village in Dailekh, so my father returned to the village, sold our property, and came back with my sister to start a new life in a different district.

My parents decided to set up a teashop as a means of making a living. This was in the adjoining district of Surkhet. The teashop was a success because it was on a main east-west road. There were lots of travelers who passed by each day. Gradually, my father worked less and less and, finally, he stopped working altogether. Every day he took 2-3000 rupees, disappeared, then came back late at night empty-handed. This went on for some time: we worked and my father spent all the money we had worked for. It made things difficult.

One day after my father left the teashop, my mother told me and my brother to secretly follow him -- to find out where he had been going each day and what he was really doing. We followed him some distance until we reached a Badi community [Badi signifies a prostitution caste]. He went into a Badi house. We peeked inside a window and saw my father and a woman together, naked. We rushed back to our teashop and told Mom what we had seen. She ran to the Badi house and saw my father and the woman with her own eyes. She couldn’t take it. There was a big fight. Finally, she forced my father to sell our teashop and to move away from there. We migrated to India.

We went through so many hard times in India. Initially, we settled in Himanchal Pradesh, or maybe it was Jammu or Kashmir. Wherever it was, I remember that the land produced a lot of potatoes. We got involved in potato farming. My father had a job collecting potatoes from all the farmers. There were many seasonal laborers who came down to this place from Dailekh, my home district. They found harvesting potatoes.

In the meantime, I was so eager to study! and I constantly asked my father to let me go to school. But he told me that it would be impossible because we were always migrating. “We don’t know where we will be tomorrow,” he would tell me. My father had passed his SLC, so he promised me that he would teach me enough so that, at least, I could read and write the alphabet. He kept his promise.

As I said before, the reason we became migrants was because of my mother’s belief that my brother had had a curse cast on him by a witch in our hometown. We kept moving because she wanted to protect my brother. But in the end, it didn’t do any good.

One day, my father’s youngest brother showed up and, soon after, left with my brother. We had no idea where my uncle took him or what that uncle of mine had said to him to persuade my brother to leave. My mother was beside herself.

Another one of my father’s brothers made a living by bringing seasonal laborers from Dailekh to our potato farm. Later we realized that he had secretly made a deal with a Brahmin – a deal that would change my life: He had sold me to the Brahmin for 3000 Indian rupees, promising him that he could have me as his wife. I must have been around twelve at the time.

Meanwhile, my father was trying to find out where his brother had my brother. Psychologically, my mother was is a very bad way. She became very quite and withdrew into herself. Then, there was more sad news: My paternal grandfather died, so my father left to attend to the funeral rites in Nepal.

One day, while my father was away and while my mother was working in the potato field, the Brahmin arrived. He found me in our house alone and cornered me. He told me that he had paid my uncle 3000 Indian rupees to marry me. The Brahmin was around 35 years old. He told me that I was his wife and then he raped me. Then he left.

When my mother found me, I was crying and I told her what he had done to me. She said that the only thing we could do was to wait until my father returned from Nepal, and then he would do whatever had to be done.

My father loved me. He treated me as if I were his son, not a daughter. I always helped him in his carpentry and masonry. When he returned, he said that the only way to protect me from the Brahmin—who would surely return – was for the family to flee.

We abandoned all of our possessions, including the potato crop. We were ashamed of what had happened to me and didn’t want our neighbors to know. We left for Nainital [India], where it was now rumored that my brother had been taken by the uncle.

After walking for many many hours through jungle, we arrived at small town, got on a bus and drove to Manali or maybe Kulu. Anyway, Nainital was still far away and we had run out of money. My father found a job in a rock-crushing factory. His plan was to earn just enough money to continue our trip to Nainital.

It so happened that there were two young Nepali guys who were also working at the rock-crushing factory. They carried big rocks onto the back of the tractor. They tried to ingratiate themselves with my family. We had no idea at the time, but later it became clear that they also acted as sex-trafficking brokers.

The two young guys succeeded in getting close to my mother first. She began to trust them and ended up telling them our entire story – all the things that had happened to us --the story about my missing brother, about the fact that we had no money, and that once we saved enough money we would continue on to Nainital.

The young guys acted like they sympathized with my mother and told her how they, too, had fallen on hard times and were forced to work in the rock factory. They said, “We should travel with you, when we get ready to go the Nainital.” A week later, with my father’s pay, we headed out for Nainital and the young guys came with us.

I had a not-very-good-feeling about these guys. They kept trying to get close to me. They told me that if I was looking for a job to help my parents, they could help me. But I kept avoiding them. During the trip, we stopped to spend the night in a roadside lodge. That night the two guys offered me some sweets, but I refused to accept. Then my father told me, “They are behaving like brothers. What harm is there in accepting their sweets?” So I reluctantly took the sweets because my father insisted.

And I don’t remember anything after that. I passed out.

When I came to, I was in a brothel in Bombay.

Everything was foreign. My parents weren’t there.  The room I woke up in was completely strange. There were strangers around me and I asked, “What am I doing here? Where are my parents?” One woman told me, “Your two brothers brought you here. They have gone out to buy some clothes for you. You stay here and they will be back soon.”

I was completely confused: I had only one brother. How could I suddenly have two brothers? I told them, “I don’t have two brothers”. But they convinced me to stay there until the guys came back.

But the “two brothers” didn’t return. A few days passed, and still they didn’t come back. I fell into despair. All I could do was cry and shout. I was only thinking about my parents. I told the people to let me go, that I would somehow find my parents on my own, without anyone’s help. But they wouldn’t let me leave.

Some time passed. One day a fat Nepali lady came into my room and informed that I had been there for a long time and that now I must do dhanda. [In Hindi, “dhanda” means sex-related work.] But in Nepali “dhanda” means “household work”. I thought household work was what she was talking about. So I told the fat Nepali woman, “But I don’t know how to do household work! My mother always does the cooking and washing, so I’m of no use to you. Let me go!”

It was only then that she told me that I was in Bombay. I was completely shocked. I passed out I was so shocked. You see, I had once overheard my father saying that, in Bombay, Nepali girls were sold into brothels.

The people who were keeping me in the room didn’t care how long or hard I cried. One day, the manager, who was supposedly the husband of the fat Nepali women, barged into the room and came at me with a long Nepali khukuri [curved knife] and threatened me – he said he would cut me into pieces and throw the pieces in the road if I didn’t do dhanda.

I told him, “I don’t care if you kill me, cut me or burn me alive. I will never do dhanda.”
I managed to resist for about a month and caused a lot of trouble for them.

One day, the two young guys who had drugged me and sold me suddenly appeared at the brothel. They headed off in the direction of the toilet and I followed them and waited for them to come out. I went crazy. I beat the hell out of them. The manager was nearby and he came up and beat me, then locked me in a room. Later I found out why the two Nepalis had returned to the brothel. It had nothing to do with me. They had brought another girl – a nine-year-old girl – and had sold her to the brothel. Just like they had sold me before.

Soon after, the owner of the brothel sold me to another brothel in Bombay for twice the money. In the new brothel, I put up a fight and resisted for one week. But there came a moment when I could resist no longer. I was forced to have sex. And that was that.

DUNHAM: The new brothel: what was it like?

SUNITA: There are two types of brothels in Bombay. One is called a pilos, which is small -- one room with beds separated by many curtains. In a pilos the girls grab customers off the street, then they take them inside to one of the beds.

The other kind of brothel is called a bungalow. That’s where I was. In a bungalow, there is a fixed rate, per hour, per day, per month and up to six months. For an Indian customer for an hour, it would cost 3-500 rupees. For a foreigner, the cost would be 1,000-1200 rupees. In bungalows, there are beautiful girls with nice bodies; the customer comes and selects the girl he wants. It was a big house where I was. There were 40-45 women living there.

DUNHAM: How did you cope?

SUNITA: I was having these feelings. I was drowning in self-pity. I started to realize the hopelessness of my situation. I saw new girls arriving – children arriving – I couldn’t go to talk to them or in any way comfort them. If I had tried to do that, I would have been tortured. There was always punishment if I didn’t do what they told me to do. If I refused to have sex, I would be tortured – pinched everywhere – they would do anything that came into their minds that might hurt my body. And also the way they talked to us…they talked to us as if we were animals. That’s what my life turned into: day after day.

One day, after five or six months in the new brothel, I suddenly had a premonition that something very big was going to happen. I couldn’t sleep the whole night, in spite of the fact that I was so tired. I was confused, scared. Finally, just before sunrise, I passed out.

Now as it happened, the owner of the brothel hadn’t bought me; instead, it was one of the prostitutes in the brothel who had bought me – that sometimes happens. Originally, she had been trafficked as well. Anyway, that morning, she knocked on my door, which was strange. She had never knocked before – no one every bothered to knock on my door – and there she was, standing in the doorway. In the brothel, my name was “Usha” [Sanskrit for “dawn”]. The prostitute said, “Usha, get up and dress. You and I are going to the cinema!”

Nothing like that had ever happened to me before. I wasn’t even allowed to approach the gate, or go outside -- let alone go to the cinema! Security was always tight. The gate was always locked. When clients came, the guard would open the gate for them, and then he immediately locked it, once they passed through.

I didn’t know what to think about going to the cinema. If I said “no” I would be tortured and beaten. So I started to get dressed, but very slowly, while I tried to gather my thoughts. They kept saying “hurry up, hurry up!”

I came out of the room in a kurtha-suruwal, but then I changed my mind. I wanted to put something else on. So I went back inside and started to change. By the time I came out the second time, and was heading out toward the gate, the police barged through the gate. (Had I not gone back to change, I would have been already out of the brothel, on my way to the cinema, and I never would have been rescued. Obviously, the brothel owner had been tipped off about the raid and the cinema invitation was just a ploy to get me out peacefully.)  The police asked me “Where are you going? Come here!” and told me to step over to the side and stay there. Then the police went inside and brought all of the girls under the age of eighteen outside where I was standing. That is how I was rescued.

DUNHAM: How many of the girls were underage?

SUNITA: Twelve. Of course if a brothel has really young girls, they put them in a separate house called a kholi. They feed the girls with food full of nutrients and protein so that they will grow faster and start to dhanda sooner. Other girls who were under eighteen, told the police that they were over eighteen because that’s what the brothel owner had taught them to say. So they remained in the brothel. Since few of the girls have official documents, it’s impossible for the police to know who is really underage.

DUNHAM: What happened next, after you were freed from the brothel?

SUNITA: We were placed in various Indian government rehabilitation centers. There was no freedom in the centers. We were guarded and couldn’t go out. They were very abusive. We were abused while eating, walking, speaking. We were mentally tortured by all the foul words they called us. They repeated, over and over, how bad we were.

Eventually, some of the girls got released. The girls who were Indian nationals were returned to their homes. The Bangladeshi girls were returned to Bangladesh. It was us -- the Nepali girls  -- who weren’t released.

[Note: Though petitioned to do so, the Nepali government refused to allow the Nepali girls to return to Nepal. The government demanded proof, documentation, that the girls were Nepali citizens – something few, if any, of the girls were in a position to provide.]

In the meantime, many of the Nepali girls were so afraid of our keepers, and so afraid that they would be resold to different brothels, that they decided it would be safer to return to our old brothel. They managed to escape from the center.

That left my group of twelve. There were other girls in the center, but my group was all from the same brothel. We were determined not to return to the brothel, no matter what happened. We would take our chances, out on the streets of Bombay, if necessary, but we would stay together as a group.

There was a twelve or thirteen year old girl in the center who was in the last stages of AIDS. Blood was oozing out of her skin. We implored the lady in charge of our detention to do something, to take her to the hospital for treatment. We were afraid that the girl’s blood was going to infect us; we were all sequestered in the same room.

But the lady had no pity. She said to us, “Why are you worried? All of you came from the same place so all of you are going to die the same way. If you see this girl die in front of you, then it will be easier for you when you die. At least you know now what fate awaits you.”

The next day, the AIDS victim fainted while going to the toilet and died. My group could no longer control our anger. We had begged and begged for the lady to help the twelve-year-old but she had just mocked us. She and the whole institution killed that innocent girl.

Anyway, we couldn’t stand it any longer. We were locked in the room but each day a big iron pot was brought into our room. The pot held the roti, which was our daily meal. So after the girl died, we broke the lock on our door by smashing the pot against the lock. We rushed out. And our anger was directed at the lady who had been so cruel. The lady had two daughters and she was just getting ready to take her daughters to school when we ran out.

The first thing we did was cut the telephone wire. Our intention was to fight as long as possible before the police were tipped off.

The center where we were living was located on the main road of Chainpur. We threw everything we could lift and threw it out the windows into the street below. And then we turned our attention on the lady’s private quarters, which was a separate part of the compound. We threw stones at her windows and door. Our intention was to kill her daughters. We really intended to do it. Our only thought was “an eye for an eye”. There was a young dead girl in our quarter and we wanted there to be dead girls in the lady’s quarters. The lady saved her daughters by hiding them under a bed. In the meantime, the police were tipped off, they arrived and charged us with batons, brutally beating us, hitting us especially around the sensitive areas. Many of us passed out from the pain.

We were dragged back up the stairs, back to our old quarters; only the windows and door were replaced with iron. We couldn’t even look out. Everyone at the center changed after that. We kept asking them to either send us back to Nepal or let us go but they answered back, “Why would we let you go? Your country doesn’t want you and if we release you, you’ll just run back to the brothel.”

Finally, Mr. Gauri Pradhan [now one of three commissioners for the Nepal National Human Rights Commission] and a lady we didn’t know came to the center to talk to us. Mr. Pradhan sat down and we pulled up around him in a tight circle – there about twenty-five us – and we ridiculed him for being a Nepali man. It was Nepali men who had deceived us and sold us – we hated all Nepali men. We asked him how much was he going to sell us for and how much money would he make from selling us.

But after a while, he managed to calm us down and made us believe that he was there for our benefit. He informed us the Nepali government was unwilling to bring us home. But he and the lady with him represent seven human rights organizations that sincerely wanted to bring us to Nepal and challenge the government in its decision to leave us in India.

When he left, we were so happy to know that we were getting out of India. A week later, we were flown back to Kathmandu.

But the mental torture was not over.

When we arrived in Nepal, the media hunted us all the way from airport. They were taking picture in the airport with big cameras. The television networks and the papers published our photos and that really hurt us mentally. How could we start a new life if everyone knew we had been working in Bombay brothels? Being trafficked was bad enough – now the media was ridiculing us.

Twelve of us, including me, were placed in WOREC (Women rehabilitation center). Some girls were staying in Maiti Nepal, SAATHI and other organization. Once all of us were settled in different rehabilitation center, WOREC brought us to Bir Hospital for HIV testing and many girls were infected with HIV.

The girls who were infected started to cry. There were so many mixed feeling. On the one hand we feared death and on the other hand we felt guilty, thinking that it was our fault, that we had brought our fate upon ourselves.

Those of us who were not infected began to focus our attention on those who were: We tried to convince them that it was not their fault and that we might be infected as well, it just hadn’t shown up yet.

When Dr. Renu, [who was the president of WOREC at that time], saw us crying she understood the trauma we were going through. She organized basic health training for us. There were fifteen participants including the twelve of us living in WOREC.

The ten-day training really helped our morale: In addition to basic health and hygiene issues we were also counseled on how to bring positive change in our own lives. We heard seminars on trafficking, human rights and women rights. It was only after the training that we began to realize that we weren’t responsible for being victims of trafficking and that there was no reason for us to feel guilt. 

So we decided to form a group to help girls who had faced the same crisis that we had endured. We believed in the power of our group, so we called our organization Shakti Samuha [Nepali for “power group”].

DUNHAM: Was it difficult to get Shakti Samuha recognized as a legitimate organization?

SUNITA: We had to fight with the government for four years before we were officially recognized. The difficult thing was that it was required that at least seven members on the board have citizenship certificates. Those of us who had parents asked them to help us get the certificates, but they refused on the grounds that we were bad girls and that we might later on try to get our hands on their property.

Eventually we overcame that hurdle, but there were other obstacles even after we had prepared all the legal documents.

On the first line of our manifesto, it says that we were girls who had been rescued from India brothels. When the Chief District Officer read that and looked at us and said, “You don’t have the skills or knowledge to run an organization. You need to be educated people, like doctors or engineers. Why don’t you be realistic? You are attractive young girls; why don’t you get jobs in cabin restaurants?

[Note: “Cabin restaurants” is a Nepali euphemism for cafes or bars with cubbies in the back designed for prostitution.]

We tried for four years to get that CDO’s signature before the organization was officially registered. That was in 2000. Finally we could proceed to work on the rights of those trafficked girls who had survived.

We discussed our agenda with one another and based on personal experience, we decided that we would first concentrate on the places that had the highest rate of sex trafficking: the slums and the carpet factories. Our initial drive was to raise awareness among the girls who worked in those areas. At the same time, we began to publicize our organization.

Then we concentrated on the anti-trafficking laws and rape laws that were in effect at that time. They were completely unsatisfactory so we organized road dramas in districts and also on the national level to raise awareness among the locals that laws need to be changed. We even traveled to India, Thailand with our road dramas.

DUNHAM: Why did you target the carpet factories?

SUNITA: The girls in the carpet factories were mostly illiterate and completely naïve of the manipulation and trickery of traffickers. The factories also had children working in them, and traffickers always targeted them. The sex brokers lured them with dream-promises and easily trapped them.

DUNHAM: Were these Nepalese or Tibetan carpet factories?

SUNITA: Nepalese. Most of the factories have been closed down.

Then we turned our attention to the organizations in Nepal that claimed that they were rehabilitating survivors of traffickers. You see, there are so many organizations in Kathmandu that spend a lot of money promoting their programs, making big conferences in five-star hotels, delivering sweet speeches and informing the press that they have helped huge numbers of girls. But in our center, we were hearing an entirely different story: We were interviewing lots of girls who told us that they hadn’t received any help. So who was telling the truth? We decided to do our own study to verify the claims made by the big organizations.

We conducted research in five districts: Sindhupalchok, Nuwakot, Makwanpur, Bara, and Rautahat. The survey concentrated on, “What is the condition of the rescued girls at the present time?”

I still remember one incident, during the survey, in Makwanpur district. There was a woman in the last stage of AIDS. Her family members had kept her in a cowshed with the farm animals. When we discovered her and introduced ourselves to her, she was furious with us because she had grown to be completely cynical about NGOs. But when we told her that we were different because we ourselves were victims of traffickers, she softened. She cried and told us how helpless she felt and she asked us, “What can you learn from me? I’m just waiting for my death.”

That response really touch us because we knew first-hand what she was talking about. She died a few days later.

We concluded from our survey that most of the NGOs were not of significant help. They would have a survivor may spend six to seven months in a rehabilitation center where she would receive training in sewing and tailoring. The NGO would then donate a sewing machine and a few thousand rupees to the survivor and then they would tell her, “Now you are rehabilitated. You have a skill that makes you self-reliant.” And then the survivor would be sent on her way.

But there was no follow-through.

The real situation was that, once they left the rehabilitation centers, most of the girls were faced with the problem of where to go: either they had no parents or they had stepparents. Most of the girls would not be welcomed in the stepparents’ homes. And if they were, they would be badly mistreated. The girls would sell the sewing machines for survival and suddenly, they were back to where they started before the “rehabilitation”.

We presented our findings to the donor agencies and briefed them on the real situation of the rescued girls. Save the Children Norway came forward and backed our projects in the five districts we had covered. We created a district-level network of survivors, through which we conducted trainings, provided [unintelligible] support, education support for both survivors and their children. These projects are still operating in the five districts.

Nuwakot, Sindhupalchok, and Makwanpur districts are still heavily target areas for sex-traffickers; the girls are still vulnerable in those areas. It used to be that the reported cases were isolated in these districts because of the stigma attached to being a sex-worker. But now, because of the awareness campaigns of various organizations, more and more cases are being reported; the woman want to take it to court, they want the criminals who forced them into sex-work brought to justice.  In fact, we have so many cases to bring to court that it’s all we can do to stay ahead.

DUNHAM: So you can get them to come forward and take their cases to court?

SUNITA: Yes. We have launched girls clubs (age 10-20) in various communities in the Kathmandu Valley. In the clubs, the girls are trained in self-awareness, ability to make others aware of the dangers of sex-trafficking, street drama performance training, interaction with parents (which includes the formation of mother-child groups), orientation, workshops and conferences. Once the training is completed, the clubs are fully capable of launching their own programs within their local communities. Nine clubs have completed our program, and we are training seven additional, new clubs at the present time. These clubs arise out of the community, but they also interact with the local school systems.

We are also working with other programs: a literacy program for women in Satidevi VDC of Nuwakot; shelters for rescued women – one in Kathmandu, and one in Sindhupalchok.

DUNHAM: How many women can each shelter accommodate?

SUNITA: 12-15 women in Kathmandu and that capacity will soon be increased. 10 in Pokhara. 20 in Sindhupalchok. We would like to accommodate more in Sindhupalchok – there certainly is the need – but we are not receiving any help from the government, so it’s difficult to extend the facility.

DUNHAM: Regarding the shelters: Do you also accept women who have been abused by their husbands, or is it restricted to victims of sex trafficking?

SUNITA: Our priority is survivors of sex trafficking. With the help of TDH here, we are receiving 16 survivors from Calcutta next week. These women are our priority. But, as we are a community-based organization, sometimes a case will be presented to us that we cannot refuse. We accept abused women for a limited time—usually around seven days – and refer them to another organization called Saathi, which specializes in abused women.

The other organization that I’m involved with, Alliance Against Trafficking in Women and Children in Nepal (AATWIN) is an alliance that supports Shakti Samuha to protect the human rights of the victims. Currently, I’m president of AATWIN. There is another anti-trafficking alliance based in Bangkok, called GAATW; I’m on its executive board. It’s a global organization that gives priority to organizations, which were created and are run by victims, not just outside people who want to help that particular cause.

DUNHAM: How is your organization funded?

SUNITA: Save the Children, Aasha Nepal UK, (for the hostels), TDH, and CWS, (for the emergency center in Pokhara.

DUNHAM: Do you have any private donors?

SUNITA: No.

DUNHAM: Do you need private donors?

SUNITA: Yes, we have lots of problems.

DUNHAM: We’ve been talking only about girls. Are there also boys who are trafficked?

SUNITA: Sometimes, yes. Mostly for manual labor. But they aren’t trafficked to India. The boys are trafficked to countries like Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries, Malaysia.

DUNHAM: Do you know how many boys are trafficked each year?

SUNITA: No, but I still remember an incident in which there were 12 boys from Udaypur district [southeastern Nepal]; they were told they would get goods jobs in Saudi, but once they got to Saudi, they had to work as shepherds in the desert. There was no food. Their only sustenance was sheep’s milk. When they complained to the broker that they wanted to return to Nepal, the broker told him he would turn them over to the police. They were in the desert for one-and-a-half years before getting back to Nepal.

There is a lot of that sort of problem. Because of the political instability and the ten-year conflict here, lots of women, children and youth have ended up in Gulf States like Oman and Qatar. And the women and children often end up being sold to the brothels. We conducted a regional workshop last year to find out the current trafficking trends. Today, the brokers first convince the people to go abroad, then they help the Nepalis get genuine citizenship papers, then they help them get passports, then they take them to India and on to the Gulf states like Oman. Once they get there, they’re forced to become sex workers –either that or forced to become household workers, where they are forced into sexual activities with the house owner or his guests.

I know of one case recently, in which a girl from Jhapa was trapped is sex work, couldn’t take it any more, and finally jumped out of a third-story window. She fell to her death.

DUNHAM: My last question is what happened to your family?

SUNITA: The sad thing is that it’s been twelve years since I’ve seen any of my family and I am not in contact with any of them. I don’t know where my parents are. I don’t know if they ever got to Nainital. I don’t know if they ever found my brother. I don’t even know if they’re dead or alive. I don’t know if the Brahmin is dead or alive.

The only good news for me is that my uncle who sold me to the Brahmin is now dead. When I was told about his death, I was advised to mourn him. Instead I went to a butcher shop and bought a kilo of meat and had a big party and invited all of my friends. 

Because of that man’s greed and treachery, because he sold me for 3000 rupees, my whole life was ruined.

Because of him, I went through hell.



For more information about Sunita Danuwar’s work, contact:

SHAKTI SAMUHA
Phone: 449-4815
Website: www.shaktisamuha.org.np
Email: Shakti@samuha.wlink.com.np

The Risks of Nepalis Working Abroad: Interview with Raj Kumar Guni

April 15, 2009



























In 2004, twelve Nepali non-skilled laborers were captured in Iraq, held hostage, tortured and finally murdered. One was beheaded while being videoed. The grizzly event was later aired on television throughout the Middle East. The remaining eleven hostages were shot, execution-style.

A terrorist group calling itself the “Army of Ansar al-Sunna”, who took credit for the carnage, later explained that the Nepalis had been “punished for helping the US.”

In fact, the victims’ connection to the US-led coalition was non-existent. They were lured to Iraq -- promised that they would earn the kind of money that was hard (if not impossible) to get back home.   They had no political agendas. They were simply coming to Iraq to be cooks and cleaners.

 This week I interviewed Raj Kumar Guni; a young Nepali who worked in Iraq two years after the twelve Neaplis had been murdered.

Raj’s determination to get ahead financially, in spite of the inherent risks in seeking work outside Nepal, speaks volumes about the plight of Nepali youths who, like Raj, feel that they must look to foreign countries for a brighter future. They take a deep breath, walk away from everything that is dear and familiar to them, and hope that luck is on their side.



RAJ: My name is Raj Kumar Guni. I was born in Nuwakot district, Sunkhani VDC. I’m 24 years old.

DUNHAM: What was your job in Iraq?

RAJ: I catered to the armed forces fighting in Iraq. I was kind of a waiter in a dining hall facility.

DUNHAM: Who was employing you?

RAJ: KBR. The main contractor was KBR. But the subcontractor was an Oman-based company. In our company there were about 500 Nepalis.

DUNHAM: Were you trained once you got to Iraq?

RAJ: Those who were there for security got training. But in the dining hall, there was no real training. We were feeding a multinational force, but there were only American troops in our camp.

DUNHAM: Where in Iraq was the camp located?

RAJ: Tikrit. It was a very big camp. We were working for Section C1.2. We served four to five thousand people each day, including civilian workers and troops.

 


DUNHAM: Was there any interaction between you and the American troops?

RAJ: No, not really. Very simple conversations limited to “yes” and “no” and the names of the food.

DUNHAM: No personal attachment or friendships?

RAJ: No.

DUNHAM: What was your daily routine, from the time you got up to the time you went to bed?

RAJ: It was a 24-hour facility. My group woke up at 8 am and began work at 8:30. Once we arrived at the facility, we cleaned the mess that had been left by the breakfast crew. Then we set the tables and prepared for the arrival of troops for lunch, which began at 11:00am and was over by 2:00pm. From 2-3 we had free time, either to eat or rest. It didn’t take us long to eat, so the hour was mostly about resting. Then we cleaned up the dining hall again, then got ready for the 5 pm dinner, which lasted until 8:30. After that, we returned to our quarters and went to sleep. It was a twelve-hour workday.

DUNHAM: What were your accommodations like? Prefab buildings?

RAJ: They were like transport containers, movable containers. Each container was well furnished and air-conditioned. The outside temperature went as high as 58 degrees centigrade, [136 degrees Fahrenheit] so when we went inside, it felt like we had gone to heaven.

If there was enemy action, our housing could be easily moved to a safer location. Each cabin had two sets of bunk beds. The toilets were portable too. To avoid getting too hot, we ran to the toilets.  We ran everywhere.

DUNHAM: Was the dining hall air-conditioned?

RAJ: Yes. Even though it was so big. The hall could accommodate 1500 troops in one sitting.

DUNHAM: So your movement was restricted between the sleeping containers and the toilets and the dining hall? That was your life while you were in Iraq?

RAJ: Yes, pretty much. There was a pathway that led from building to building, and if you varied from the paths, you didn’t know where a bullet might come from. There was always a chance of catching a bullet.

DUNHAM: You were never allowed off the base?

RAJ: No, except for one time: We had to get a multi-national identity card, which had the description of our jobs and nationality – it was issued by the American army – for that we had to go outside the camp once. It was about 20 kilometers outside the camp. That was the first and last time we got to see any Iraqis outside the camp.

We low-level employees were only allowed to go to the canteen, the hospital, the sleeping containers and the free bus that circled the base. Those were the only places we had permission to visit. The hospital was free for the workers.

DUNHAM: How long were you there?

RAJ: About one year. I was there in 2006-7.

DUNHAM: Any firefights around the base during your stay? 







RAJ: We were in the red zone in Tikrit. Tikrit was the hometown of Saddam Hussein. His birthplace was 15 kilometers from the base. Our camp had once been one of Saddam’s army base camps. 

On September 11, 2006, the Iraqis who loved Saddam celebrated in Tikrit. Everyone celebrated the anniversary of the bombing of the World Trade Center. That night, helicopters circled and patrolled our base non-stop. There was exchanged of gunfire that night. We saw tracers in the night sky. And then we were rushed into the bunker.

Another time I can’t forget ... It was fearful. Whenever the base was attacked, a red light would flash and we would have to run to the bunker. But the most dangerous times were when there were also sandstorms. It wasn’t just sand. Big pebbles would come flying. There would be no visibility. The wind was fierce. The terrorists would wait for these sandstorms and then they would fire RPGs on the base while there was no visibility. All we could do was seek shelter in the bunkers. It was terrifying.

DUNHAM: Was the camp ever seriously under fire while you were there?

RAJ: No, we never had to face that, though we heard that a nearby camp was heavily targeted.

DUNHAM: What about the Nepalis, who were captured, tortured and murdered? That was two years before you arrived, but you must have known about them.

RAJ: Oh yes. What I heard was that the twelve guys who were killed were part of a larger group of twenty-five. Twelve were captured and killed and thirteen got away.

In fact, I talked to one of the guys who escaped being kidnapped and killed. He told me that the capture took place just inside the Iraqi border. They drove into Iraq from the Jordanian border. They had waited a long time in Jordon to get to Iraq. That wait was really hard on them. Not all the Nepalis had enough money for the lengthy stay in Jordon. They almost ran out of money for food and housing before they were transported across the Jordanian border.

The twelve guys who were murdered had, in fact, some money with them. So they reserved a jeep with their own money, to drive into Iraq. But the other thirteen guys were almost out of money, so they had to take a cheap local bus to drive into Iraq. That crowded bus saved their lives. They blended in with the local people and, even if there were checkpoints, they were somehow overlooked by the Iraqi checkpoint guys. But the guys in the jeep stood out as foreigners and paid the price.

DUNHAM: Given the dangers of working in Iraq, I’m assuming the only reason you went was because of the good pay, right?

RAJ: It wasn’t only for the money. Yes, I was told that I would get 30,000 rupees a month [$350 US], so the money was a big part of it.

DUNHAM: How did you get the job?

RAJ: I knew a guy: I had a friend who owns a foreign employment company. I had transferred some Nepali laborers to Delhi for him, several times.

DUNHAM: How does that work – getting from Nepal to Iraq?

RAJ: Nepalis who want to go to Iraq first have to go to Delhi. From Delhi, they go to Bahrain, then to Dubai, then to Jordan, and finally to Iraq. It’s a long trip. During the journey into India, if the police suspect that the Nepalis are going abroad for employment, they confiscate their passports and extort money from them. So generally, the Nepalis know to keep their passports hidden.

But one of these guys, who was using my friend as a broker, hid his passport in his socks, and the humidity ruined his passport. My friend contacted me and said that if he didn’t replace the guy who had ruined his passport, he might lose his contract for the whole group. So I went to India. It was a good deal for me. I didn’t have to pay the brokers fee because I was doing my broker-friend a favor. In Delhi, I bought 5000 rupees worth of supplies [that I would need in Iraq].

DUNHAM: Did you like the work in Iraq?

RAJ: The food was good but I did not enjoy it. Then, eight months into my service there, I came down with appendicitis. They took out my appendix in Tikrit – in a very good army hospital called the 47th Combat Support Hospital.

In addition to the sick and wounded army troops, there were Iraqi terrorists being treated at the hospital – although the terrorists were bedded in a separate unit. The funny thing was that the wounded terrorists had to wear blindfolds the whole time -- even in bed.

After I healed, I told the company that I had had enough and wanted to return to Nepal. So I was sent to Baghdad, then Oman, where I received further treatment for ten days. And finally, I got back to Kathmandu.

DUNHAM: I’m guessing you won’t be going back to Iraq any time soon.

RAJ: I don’t think I’ll go back. The pay isn’t high enough to be tempted to go back. Still, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I took the challenge and I’m not sorry that I went. I went there with full knowledge of the twelve Nepalis who had been murdered there. I think I was brave. And also, during the process, I visited five countries. I received nice treatment at the hospital.

DUNHAM: What are you doing now? What is your job in Nepal these days?

RAJ: I’m a tire supplier here in Kathmandu.

DUNHAM: Would you ever consider going overseas again?

RAJ: Not right away. I’m in business with my maternal uncle. My brother is working in South Korea, but he will come back soon. After that, I really hope that I can find work in a European country.

DUNHAM: But it must be a big challenge to find work overseas these days. Malaysia, which offered jobs to so many Nepalis, has now closed its doors, for instance. What countries are still allowing Nepalis to enter their borders to work?

RAJ: I want to go to a European or developed country. Not the Middle East or Southeast Asian country. I know that Dubai has stopped recruiting as well.

DUNHAM: Are there European countries recruiting Nepalis?

RAJ: No, none. I’ve heard that Poland is going to accept workers sometime soon, but I’m not really sure. I have friends in Spain. If I go there, I can stay with them and they will support me, but it’s impossible to get a work permit if I go to Spain. At the same time, I’m considering the possibility of going to Israel to work as a caregiver.

DUNHAM: How much would it cost you to get to Spain, including visa?

RAJ: I don’t know about the visa, but I will have to pay the broker somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000 rupees [7,000 -- 8,000 US dollars].

DUNHAM: My god, that’s a lot! Tell me about these brokers you have to go through: are they legitimate or is their work illegal?

RAJ: Totally illegal. And it’s not worth paying a broker unless you have friends and relatives already in the country where you want to go. If your relatives have assured you that they will get you work, it’s OK to pay the broker the money, but otherwise you’ll just end up in a foreign country without job possibilities.

DUNHAM: Would you go on a tourist visa?

RAJ: Yes.

DUNHAM: While you were in Tikrit, were you able to send money back home to your family?

RAJ: Not personally. I never saw one dollar while I was there. I provided the company with my father’s bank account number in Kathmandu. They would wire money to the account and give me a receipt. From time to time, I would call home to make sure my father was getting the wires. There was no need for money in Tikrit. The food and accommodations were free. There was no place to go. No place to spend money.

DUNHAM: As a young Nepali man with experience abroad, what opportunities do you see in Nepal for good jobs? Are there any economic incentives that might make you want to remain in Nepal?

RAJ: There could be opportunities here. If the youth could unite and create collective projects, it would be possible to make as much money here as it would be to go abroad.

What happens to a young Nepali who grows up in a village is that, after you pass your SLC, you come to the urban area for further study, but all the urban advancements tempt you. So your studies are affected by all the city distractions and you want to be able to afford all the things you can buy in the city. Ultimately, this leads you to the conclusion that you have no other alternative but to go to the Gulf countries for work.

DUNHAM: What about Dr. Bhattarai’s recently announced program to launch self-employment grants. Do you think that is a step in the right direction?

RAJ: I didn’t apply for the program, but I think it’s a good one. What I understand is that 200,000 rupees is the maximum amount to be granted per person. But if you look at the budget allocation for that program – 500 million rupees – and the number of people who applied for grants – four to six thousand applicants per district [there are 75 districts in Nepal]– it seems to me that it’s just a populist slogan. But if the government significantly increases the budget for the program – enough to finance a large portion of the applicants – it would be really significant.

DUNHAM: Do you think that there is any one political party in Nepal that is more attuned to the youth and the problems that arise because of the high unemployment among the youth?

RAJ: Most of the parties have united and mobilized the youth to show the strength and muscle of the parties. It also seems that the youth are blindly following and rallying behind the most populist groups. In terms of the allocation of responsibility and representation, it seems that the United CPN (Maoists) are in the forefront of youth popularity and unity.

DUNHAM: Do you still feel, however, that the youth are under-represented in Nepal? Could, for example, the Maoists be doing more for the youth?

RAJ: I don’t precisely know how the Maoists divide and mete out responsibility to the youth within their party, but it’s obvious that large numbers of youth are mobilized for their political campaigns, elections, and rallies. Based upon that, I believe that they are being given proper representation. I believe that it would be better for everyone if the parties would give more responsibility to the youth and less to the old guys.

DUNHAM: I’m trying to figure out how many of the youth are actually trying to get the hell out of Nepal. In your village in Nuwakot, for example, what’s the percentage of youth who want to work outside of Nepal?



RAJ: Our village is no different than any other village in Nepal. From what I can tell, 80% of the youth in my village want to work abroad. And among the 80%, the only reason they haven’t gone abroad is because they either don’t have the money or they have other problems that are keeping them from leaving. As for the other 20%, they have enough financial security to keep them here.

DUNHAM: Are we talking about guys, or do the young women also want to go abroad?

RAJ: There are very few girls in my village who have gone abroad. But those who have went to Israel. Anyway, everyone -- including male and female -- the talk of the town is: who went where, who applied for which country and which company, how much money per month in salary, how long is the contract for, and who will return when? And who failed to get a contract? Who was rejected? Wherever you go, you only hear them talking about employment abroad.

DUNHAM: What kinds of Israeli jobs are offered to Nepali women?

RAJ: Caregivers.

DUNHAM: Are the young women treated well in Israel?

RAJ: Mostly, yes, they’re treated nicely. But we have heard that a few of the girls have been psychologically harassed, tortured, exploited as laborers.

DUNHAM: In your village, is there a history of girls being lured to India – thinking that they are being offered good jobs when, in fact, they’re being trapped into sex trafficking?

RAJ: Yes, there have been some cases and some of them have returned to the village. In the past, people would talk about girls coming back from Bombay with gold and jewelry and they would gain recognition because of their wealth. Back then, the villagers were not aware of the diseases that accompanied that line of work.

DUNHAM: Did the girls go to Bombay knowingly or unknowingly?

RAJ: Some were sold unknowingly and some of them went fully aware of what they were doing. In those days, if a house had a tin roof, you knew without asking that some girl connected to that house was working in Bombay.

DUNHAM: Has the trend to go to Bombay now stopped?

RAJ: It has been reduced significantly. There may be a few isolated incidents, but I hear that there are organizations along the border that stop the girls from crossing into India and continuing on to Bombay.

DUNHAM: Have any of the women who returned to your village from India come back with AIDS?

RAJ: One girl died two years after she returned from Bombay; I don’t know for sure but everyone in the village believed that she died from AIDS.

DUNHAM: So the younger girls in your village are now more aware of the dangers inherent in the sex trade?

RAJ: Yes, there is more awareness. They have been warned about being lured into fake jobs. Even the uneducated girls in the village are wary of people coming in and offering big dreams to them – great jobs, marriage, big houses, rich life. They will reject those offers. They suspect that they will be sold. And our district, Nuwakot, used to be famous for being the number one district in which girls were being sold into prostitution. Now there are programs organized in our district specifically designed for making girls aware of sex trafficking.

DUNHAM: If you had the chance to make a lot of money here in Nepal, would you forget about leaving the country?

RAJ: If I had such an opportunity here in Nepal, I would stay here in Nepal. This is my country. This is where I was born. I would stay in Nepal.

DUNHAM: Last question: If a young guy came up to you today and said to you, “Raj, you’ve been in Iraq; should I go to Iraq and serve the American forces?” how would you respond?

RAJ: The promise of getting work in Iraq at an American base is never guaranteed. The Nepali might end up inside a base … or he might end up outside the base. And outside the base is terrible for Nepali workers. They could end up in Baghdad. They could end up in Tikrit, Mosul. Even in Baghdad, they could end up in the red zone. Or they could end up in the green zone. What I’m trying to say is that, in the end, it depends on each worker’s luck. If a guy told me that he wanted to go to Iraq just to make money, I would advise him not to go.

DUNHAM: You were one of the lucky ones?

RAJ: Yes.

……………………………………………………..

Nepal: Mikel Dunham’s Interview with Matrika Prasad Yadav

April 13, 2009

































Four days ago I interviewed Matrika Prasad Yadav, the leader of the newest off-shoot of the Maoist regime, the CPN (Maoist) party. One of Nepal's most controversial leaders, he's a man who speaks his mind -- a thorn in the side of Prachanda’s Unified Maoist Party –- a colorful wild cannon to some but a serious threat to many others.  I spoke to him in Lazimpat.


DUNHAM: You are well known in Nepal but people in the West are just beginning to take note of your leadership in the new CPN (Maoist) party. So I would like to begin with a few background questions regarding your childhood and early years. Let’s begin with here were you born.

YADAV: I was born in Sabaila VDC -5, in Dhanusha district [southeastern Terai].

DUNHAM: What did your parents do?

YADAV: My father was a small businessman and he was also involved in farming. When he suffered losses in his business, he became a laborer.

DUNHAM: What was your childhood like? Was it easy? Was it difficult?

YADAV: My early years were very easy but after 13 years of age my life was a troubled one

DUNHAM: Where did you go to school?

YADAV: I studied in my village. But I had to leave school in grade 8. My father and my brother were falsely accused and jailed by the landlords, the local government and police. After 5 years I resumed my studies in Katari, [Udayaur district] and completed my SLC from there. I did my I. Ed [Intermediate Education] on the Siraha Campus in Siraha.

DUNHAM: What were your father and brother accused of?

YADAV: Robbery. The authorities confiscated all the things from our house and produced them as evidence – as the items obtained from the alleged robbery. That is how they made the false case against us. And this happened right in front of my eyes.

DUNHAM: Who was accusing them? Who were the people who were setting your family up?

YADAV: The local government and landlords.

DUNHAM: Was that when you were 13?

YADAV: Yes.

DUNHAM: So you had to quit school and go to work at 13 to help your family?
YADAV: It is not only to help the family. The society was harassing me for being a robber’s son, which I could not tolerate.

DUNHAM: Where did you go?

YADAV: I left my home without informing my family where I was going. I went to India. There, I worked as a dish-washer and cook’s assistant. Then I thought about the condition of my brother and mother so I came back home. I worked as a laborer for a rich businessman for awhile. A year-and-a-half later, my father was released from jail. I started to help him in his business and other manual labor.  I also resumed school.

DUNHAM: Were these landlords and business people from the hilly region?

YADAV: They were from Terai.

DUNHAM: When your father was falsely accused, who was the PM at that time?

YADAV: I don’t remember who was the PM at the time.

DUNHAM: When was the first time you realized that Madeshi were discriminated against?

YADAV: I had already felt discriminated when I was 10-12 years old. Our village was dominated by hilly landlords and the discrimination from the Madeshi landlords was also equally present there.

DUNHAM: How did discrimination first evidence itself? Was it from other kids in school?

YADAV: Discrimination was everywhere: in the village, in the school, during sports activites -- wherever there were rich people. The son of the hilly landlords dominated us socially and the Madhesi landlords dominated us economically.

DUNHAM: In what sense were you discriminated against. Did the other kids gang up against you?

YADAV: Not only economic discrimination but also caste discrimination. The hill people discriminated against us on a caste basis and on an economic basis. And the Madeshi landlords discriminated against us economically.

DUNHAM: Did this domination prompt you to get into politics?

YADAV: Yes.

DUNHAM: When did you say to yourself, “I want to join this political group?”

YADAV: That started in 1971. I didn’t have much political insight at that time. My village was dominated by Nepali Congress presence. So I originally thought of myself as being part of NC. My first name, Matrika, was also the first name of Matrika Prashad Koirala, a former NC prime minister so, as a young kid, that also made me partial to the NC party.

DUNHAM: How old were you at that time?

YADAV: I think I was 13.

DUNHAM: When did you have your first encounter with the ideology of the Maoists? When did you become actively involved with the Maoists?

YADAV:  When BP Koirala introduced the policy of reconciliation in 1976-77, I thought to myself that Congress was not going to bring revolution to the country, so I broke with the party. I thought that the monarchy was the most dangerous institution imaginable in Nepal. So I looked for a party that would reflect my revolutionary instincts. In 1977-8, I took membership with the Nepal Communist Party, Fourth National Congress. The principles of the Fourth National Congress are the same ones still adhered to by the CPN-Maoist [Matrika’s new party].

I had a very deep feeling that, without the eradication of the monarchy, the real emancipation of the Nepali people was impossible.

DUNHAM: So the elimination of the monarchy was the driving force behind your political affiliations at that time?

YADAV: Yes, the abolishment of the monarchy, but not limited to just that. Caste and class discrimination also needed to be abolished.

DUNHAM: Skipping ahead a few years, what were you doing when the insurgency began in the mid-1990s? Did you go underground?

YADAV: I was already underground even before the people’s revolution started. I had been jailed several times during the Panchayat system. But during the revolution, yes, I was working underground. I was arrested and imprisoned twice.

DUNHAM: Were you arrested for political agitation? What were the charges brought against you?

YADAV: I was a member of an opposition political party during the Panchayat system. I was also of the opinion that the monarchy and the Panchayat systems needed to be abolished. These charges were leveled against me. But on top of that, I was charged with crimes like murder, robbery, and possession of arms and ammunition.

During the People’s Revolution, I was even accused of incidences that occurred while I was in police custody! I was accused of so many things, even when I was in jail. I was accused of crimes committed in areas in which I had never been. Since I was a member of Central Party, being accused of crimes I didn’t commit, I took it lightly. My statements to the police and courts of that time reflected my willingness to shoulder the responsibility, morally, of the party line. I used these opportunities to repeat the goals of the Maoists. So most of the charges against me were crimes against the state.

One time I was even arrested for drug-related crimes.

DUNHAM: You resigned your position as Forestry Minister in September 2008. What were the events that led up to the resignation? What is your version?

YADAV: The CPN (Maoist) party, during the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, were the leading force. It was not the Seven-Party-Alliance who represented mainstream politics. We represented mainstream politics.  It was the other parties who had to accept our demends – no the other way around. The demands for a ConstitutionalAssembly, a republic state and federalism were our demands.

Coming back to your question, a team of five members of the CPN(Maoist) party were appointed  cabinet members during the time that GP Koirala was Prime Minister. I was named Minister of Forestry. What I encountered at that time was heavy intervention from various national and international elements -- wrong doing on their part was widespread. When I objected to these various forms of interference, nobody helped me.

Let me give one example – that of the sandalwood controversy. Everyone was involved in the smuggling of red sandalwood, from the Prime Minister, to his daughter, to the Home Minister, to the Finance Minister – all were implicated. I personally oversaw the arrests of perpetrators and the inspection of the stolen sandalwood, sometimes late at night if necessary. What I discovered was that the police were actually involved, escorting the smuggled woods to the China border. The army was involved too. They were replacing real sandalwood with utiis [a red wood that could be confused with sandalwood], to be sent across the border into China.

In short, I got no support to help stop the smuggling.  I got no support to further the main agendas of our party, including the declaration of martyrs and making public the status of the disappeared. There was rampant corruption from top to bottom. All the parties were also involved with illegal deforestation, including members from my own party. I protested against all of this, time and again, to no avail. Even my own party did not support my efforts. Therefore, I resigned from the cabinet.

DUNHAM: So that is why you finally decided to resign? There was not just a single event, but rather a series of events that led to this decision?

YADAV: I was not satisfied with anyone, including my own leaders.

DUNHAM: W    hat are the deficiencies in the United Maoist Party that prompted you to create your own party?

YADAV: First, the people had voted for the Maoists because they wanted an end to the endless cycle of corruption, black market and smuggling. The people also believed that, after the Maoists took control, all citizens would have proportionate representation and enjoy equal rights -- especially among those who had been discriminated against on the basis of class, caste, region and sex. These were the slogans of our party for 10 years, which was the basis of our people’s revolution. But it became clear to me that our party leadership was not ready to implement what was promised in the slogans.

Those killed during the revolution were to be declared martyrs. The party promised to make public the status of the disappeared. The party promised treatment to and respectful rehabilitation of the wounded and disabled. The party promised compensation to the martyred families. The party failed in these promises. They did not take steps to emancipate the people. They did not do anything that required the immediate attention of the government.

In my view, as well as in the view of the public, our party ceased to look different from the other parties -- the Congress party or the UML party.

It was then that I came to the conclusion that – rather than just sit back and witness all this wrong-doing – it would be better to reorganize and fight for the rights of the people. So I started to reorganize the Maoist Party.

There are three major necessary elements required to achieve revolution: party leadership, army [PLA] and the rank and file cadres.

The old Maoist party, the United CPN (Maoist) party, failed in all three of the those areas. The party abandoned the main principle on which the ten-year people’s revolution was based. Today, the party is taking a reformist line and abandoning the revolutionary line. This is why I decided to reorganize the party.

Also, I was against the decision to merge with the Unity Center Mashal. It was an unnecessary compromise of Maoist principles. After all, the Unity Center Mashal was against the 10 years of people’s revolution and cursed the revolution; they were cowards, and ran away from the revolution.

Finally, our party used to operated on collective decision-making and  a personal responsibility system. But now, Prachanda makes the decisions and we are expected to follow him without questioning him, just like GP Koirala’s authoritative leadership in the Nepali Congress party.

DUNHAM: So, you have this new party and Nepal has about one year between now and the deadline for the new constitution that is, supposedly, being written. What would you like your party like to achieve with in this next year?

YADAV: Our role will be to make people aware based upon our assessment of  the current situation and our examination of the party leaders’ commitments.

First, I don’t think the constitution will be written. Second, even if the constitution is written it will not represent what the people really want. In response to this, it is our plan to strengthen our organization and exert pressure to create a representative constitution.

DUNHAM: Will this be in the form of political rallies, speeches? How are you going to implement the goal of strengthening the organization and informing the people?

YADAV: We will help people understand what is going on in the political arena, then organize them to create pressure against the government. We will carry out peaceful protests.

DUNHAM: Will you inform through the media, newspapers printed materials?

YADAV: We will utilize all means and we will also conduct mass demonstrations. And if the government attempts to suppress our movement, we will strike back with similar means.

DUNHAM: You are from Madesh; I know this issue is very close to you. What do you want to see for the Madeshi people in the future and how do your party’s ideas vary form the Madeshi Forum?

YADAV: Not only of the Madeshi people, all Nepali citizens including the various castes and indigenous communities  -- all have four problems. The first is internal colonialism created by the Gorkhali state. The second is indirect external colonialism or neo-colonialism. The third are the class-related problems of economic domination and discrimination. The fourth is cast discrimination based on the theosophy of Manu, the Aryan root race. Both the hilly people and Madeshi people have these four problems. Neither the hilly nor the Madeshi people will be truly free unti these four problems have been eliminated

Madeshi people are different in one aspect. It is wrong when people say that the Madeshi came from India. There are historical documents and other types of evidence that assert that the Madeshi people have had a long term connection with this land. But the problem of Nepali identity is a unique problem among the Madeshi people.

To solve all these kind of problem we need the right of self-determination, self-governance-- federal states with a proportional representation system. That will solve the problem of the both the Madeshi and hilly people.

As for the Forum: There are many differences between the Forum and my party. The Forum wants to replace the rule and domination of hilly landlords with Madeshi landlords. My party is against any kind of domination of the people, regardless of whether or not they are of hilly or Madeshi origin. That is where our difference lies.

DUNHAM: What is the difference between internal and external colonialism?

YADAV: There are several countries that are directly involved, are intervening and are dictating all aspect of life in Nepal -- that is external colonialism. Internal colonialism refers the Gorkhali and the Khash, whe were expansionists. They expanded Ghorka but they did not unite it.

DUNHAM: Unification versus fragmentation is a key debate here in Nepal. I was struck a couple of months ago by the organizational powers and the determination of the Tharu people. They have risen as a unit and made their voice heard. Do you support that kind of movement demonstrated by the Tharus?

YADAV: We support them, but with a few reservations.

DUNHAM: What would they be?

YADAV: I have issued a press release that illustrates my views about the Tharu movement.

The whole country is protesting. Every protest has its negative and positive sides. Our party supports and looks favorably on the efforts of people who have no rights. When Ghorkha was expanding, a lot of nations’ identities were lost; in their place Khash, Brahmin and hilly feudal nationalism was imposed. Now, the feudal monarchy has ended, but Khash, Brahmin and hilly feudal nationalism remains. Without elimination of this feudal nationalism and until a common nationalism is created, freedom from caste and class is not possible. The discriminated castes and classes are making a mistake when they accept the nationality of those who are dominators and oppressors – the same people who have deprived Madeshi and indigenous people of their national identity. Those who are revolutionary in words but opportunists and super-nationalists in practice -- Khash, Brahmin, hilly feudal nationalists – are trying to create a rift between the stateless, identity-less communities. Instead of division and rift, those stateless and identity-less communities should stick together, respect each other’s rights and identities, and checkmate the conspiracies, and fight as one body to secure their rights. Our party is in favor of the right to have self-determination and supports the struggle of the Tharu community in their movement to achieve self-determination and identity. We request, however, that you remain aware of the conspiracies of the reactionary rulers, which would divide and conquer the powerless and identity-less. We would like to warn the government and other groups who are making decisions without first evaluating the ground realities – and without consulting the people in question – that such actions will invite conflict in this country, ridicule from the outside world, and force Nepal back into civil war.

DUNHAM: What about the Dalits? At this point in time, they don’t seem to be as well organized as the Tharus or some of the other ethnic groups. Do you support the Dalit movement?

YADAV: They are organizing, but their leaders are not being honest. Leaders from every community focus more on their own interest than the community as a whole – the community they claim to represent. It is the same in every community: the Madeshi,  the indigenous people, the hilly people, the Tharus, the Dalits – all these groups attempt to unite, but the leaders always betray them. This is the truth that we need to seriously discuss.

DUNHAM: I read a article on bonded labor a few days ago. Some of the ex-bonded laborers are now trying to get back their jobs as bonded laborers. What happened was that after they were “freed”, they couldn’t find jobs. The government had not provided them with a support system or alternatives to the work they had left behind. It’s a very sad statement about a government not watching out for the most vulnerable people.

YADAV: What you read is absolutely correct. During the 10 years of the people’s revolution, the landlords and the government and the local landlords thought that the Kamaiyas would capture their land and they panicked because the revolution was in the ascendancy and the Kamaiyas were raising their voice as well. So, they made a preemptive strike – they just announced the bonded laborers were free – without and furth planning or follow-up. Therefore I do not call it “freedom.” I call it an act to move those Kamaiyas from the house to the road – left abandoned on the road to suffer further injustice and hardship. They had no opportunity and now they have no alternative but to try to return to their old bondage. They have returned as Kamlaries, as servants in dire condition. But the government does not care about that. The government does not care about anything.

I/NGOs have misused a lot of money in under the pretext of helping the Kamaiyas. But most of the money has not reached the Kamaiyas.

When I was a minister, I was of the view that the Kamaiyas should be allotted enough land to be able to be self-sufficient. I raised this issue in the cabinet, time and again. We discussed many times but nobody listen to me. I raised this issue when I was Minister of Forestry and also when I was Minister of Land Reform.

DUNHAM: So by throwing them out onto the open road, the government was, essentially, giving them the freedom to die.

YADAV: They were left to die.


 


























…………………………………………..............……………………………

Sanam Chitrakar: Interconnection of Youth, AIDS and Migration in Nepal

April 1, 2009




























Sanam Chitrakar, a native of Kathmandu, has spent years working in the far west helping the local populations. Most recently, he has served as program directory for Gangotri Rural Development Forum (GaRDeF), Achham district. His work with youth, HIV/AIDS and the hazards of migration as a way of life, has given him a unique perspective on the interconnectivity of all three phenomena.

I had the opportunity to sit down and speak with Sanam two days ago in Kathmandu.


DUNHAM: You first started working in Achham in 1999, in the midst of the insurgency. What was the far west like in those days?

SANAM: In 1999, I could really feel that the insurgents were moving from the mid-west to the far west -- from Kalikot to Achham. The signs were everywhere. People were leaving Achham to get away from the unrest. By 2000, most of the people who went out of the district did not return. In February 2002, there was a big conflict in Achham in which 142 members of security were killed.

There were many kinds of threats facing the civilians. Abduction was one of them. The insurgents were targeting youths around the age of 15-16. This was the group that was also recruited as PLA. I found it quite surprising that the abductions were not being recorded well. After 2003-4, most of the human rights organizations really started to focus on the abductions. It was only gradually, after 2003, that this information of abductions came out.

At the same time, most of the youth in that area were in the habit of migrating to India, as seasonal laborers. The social phenomenon of seasonal migration is a long-standing one in the mid and far west. It’s more like a coping strategy for the people there -- to migrate to India. Even if they have a holiday for a month or so, they migrate to India. But after the insurgency, the migration trend drastically went up.
 






























DUNHAM: Villages suddenly being emptied of their population?

SANAM: Yes, I can still recall a VDC [Village Development Committee] named Quika, in Achham: There were no males. No men in the VDC at all. Also, in the far west, women aren’t usually seen plowing their fields. But at that time, women started to plow. So, yes, some of the villages were empty.

As for the schools, I could see that government monitoring was very poor at that time. Even the district education office could not work properly in the conflicted areas. The Maoists came to the schools to do their programs, to indoctrination. The education sector therefore was very much troubled by the conflict at that time.

DUNHAM: Were the Maoists targeting the NGOs at that time?

SANAM: Some of the NGOs were very much targeted by the Maoists. Unfortunately, the organization I worked for was also attacked once. My general impression was, however, that individuals working in NGOs were targeted more than the NGOs themselves. There were examples of personal vendettas. That’s why some of the organizations were heavily targeted. Someone had a personal problem with an NGO, or something like that.

DUNHAM: Were you ever personally threatened?

SANAM: Yes I was. I was taken by the insurgents for five hours once. They asked me many questions.

DUNHAM: Were they interested in which country was funding the NGO?

SANAM: Yes, they were very much interested in that. They were particularly interested the fundings from the USA. They were very specific about wanting to know about any connections with the USA.

DUNHAM: Were they trying to extort money from you, personally?

SANAM: I was asked a few times to make donations, but I did not.

DUNHAM: Now the conflict is over. Has the migration reversed? Are people coming back to their villages in the far west?

SANAM: There has always been on-off migration in the far west. In some of the places in mid-west, the migration has been diverted to Middle Eastern countries. But when it comes to the far west, they are still migrating to India. They migrate during the summertime, and then come back in the winter. This seasonal migration increases their vulnerability to contracting HIV/AIDS, which, in turn, is then transmitted to women and children.

DUNHAM: When you first worked in the far west, what was the locals’ general knowledge about HIV/AIDS?

SANAM: The awareness was very low at that time. Discrimination was incredibly high. AIDS victims were socially excluded. They were not allowed to participate in social functions. Unfortunately, people from occupational castes…dalits…they were especially discriminated against because there is a high concentration of dalits who migrate because of the dire economic situations in Accham. In the late 90s, the dalits had very little idea how HIV/AIDS was transmitted. There were some incidents in which the corpses were just dug into the ground, not burned. There was this rumor that AIDS was transmitted through the air.

At first, the people believed that only those people who went to Bombay were infected by HIV. Of course we identified specific target groups within the migrant population -- truck drivers and highway hawkers – but we also had to include other sub-groups, so that the people didn’t fall into the illusion that, if they weren’t truck drivers, they weren’t at risk.

But now days, the situation is gradually changing. Now people know how HIV/AIDS is transmitted. NGOs have been very helpful on this issue, as well as the hazards of migration, especially in districts like Achham, Doti and Bajura.

Unfortunately, some districts have been largely overlooked.

DUNHAM: Which districts?

SANAM: Humla. Karnali.

But it’s not just about NGOs supplying information. The people now have the information. They know about condoms. What they need right now….I just had a group discussion with people with AIDS in the far west, just a few weeks ago…it was quite an amazing fact that they still go to brothels when they are drunk. I think alcohol abuse is one of the triggering factors of contracting HIV/AIDS. When they are in India, they visit brothels after they have consumed alcohol and engage in risky sex, even though Indian brothel owners are beginning to pressure the clients to use condoms.

DUNHAM: You say they know about condoms. But do the far west districts have adequate supplies of condoms?

SANAM: No. In those districts only 50,000 condoms are distributed per six months in the VDCs. That is very low. We have submitted a request to the government to increase that number in those VDCs.

There is no real resistance to using condoms. But if a woman asks her husband to use a condom, the men will think that they’re wife is having an extra-marital affair with someone in their village, or something like that. We have seen this happen.

DUNHAM: Today, when someone returns from India with HIV/AIDS, are they still stigmatized and separated from the rest of the population?


SANAM: That situation has definitely improved. And I think one of the main contributing factors to that improvement has been SOVHA, which we launched in 1999.

SOVHA (Social Volunteers against HIV/AIDS) is an organization comprised of volunteers in the local communities who are concerned about the HIV/AIDS issue in their communities. The strategy has worked out very well. It was funded by Save the Children UK. After 2003, Norway came in and SOVHA is now led by Save the Children Norway. We now have 5,500 social volunteers -- people from all age groups and professions, including politicians.

The volunteers work on a person-to-person basis. If they’re sitting in their bazaar for half an hour, they’ll just dig out the issue of HIV/AIDS for a minute or so. They just incorporate their volunteer work into their daily lives. The politicians who are attached to SOHVA, for instance, never fail to bring up the issue in their speeches.

This concept has worked out very well. Instead of NGO staff going out into the field –a system that has often failed – we empower the little guy to do something in his own community. Our program involves and activates the entire community. And they are motivated to join. These people have seen their relatives dying; they’ve seen their friends dying. They’ve seen with their own eyes what the disease can do. And we can approach the problem in depth and target a broad variety of people, including women – particularly women whose husbands have migrated to India. We are also targeting the youth who are vulnerable to migration.

Also the volunteers visit the AIDS patients during their leisure time. This has drastically reduced the stigma attached to associating with AIDS patients. Discrimination is reduced when the community sees people from their own community visiting the patients.

DUNHAM: What about AIDS patients’ access to medicine in the far west?

SANAM: Donors like USAID and FHI (Family Health International) -- we are working with them and we are monitoring the AIDS patients on their behalf. We also assist the patients when they need to go to public health centers. Gradually, the situation is improving.  But public health infrastructure is very poor here in Nepal. And in the hilly areas, you cannot find even the most basic medicines. You are just given paracetamols for everything.






What we have managed to do in Achham is to initiate community-based care support for AIDS patients. Prior to this, the patients had to go to Kailali, Banke, and Bardiya districts to get health accesses. We are working very closely with the district public health office of the government coordinating to provide enough resources for these institutions.

DUNHAM: Do patients now have access to the appropriate medicines?

SANAM: Many patients have now been started on ARV (antiretroviral) medicines.

DUNHAM: Let’s talk about the numbers.

SANAM: There are approximately 600 AIDS patients in Achham. But the current trend shows that the number is increasing in what were once thought to be less vulnerable areas. The risk group has shifted from the migrant workers, to the migrant workers’ families – women and children. We are currently providing support to 32 children living with AIDS.

DUNHAM: What about future plans? Where would you like to see SOVHA go next?

SANAM: I would really like to see SOVHA duplicated in other districts. We started this program with very limited amount of money, and yet it’s done quite well. We are now covering 55 out of 75 VDCs in Achham. This could be duplicated in neighboring districts. That is my basic hope. But we have encountered obstacles in achieving this goal. We have not yet successfully advocated this idea to the national government.

DUNHAM: Why not?

SANAM: Because of the problems that are inherent in any bureaucracy. Leaders keep changing; keep being replaced by new people. Lack of continuity. And in general, we have not yet been able to sensitize them to the issue adequately.

And in the meantime, the migration has not stopped.

Of course, migration is always going to be there. And the migrants are not always informed. Very small things make them vulnerable to dangers. Like remittances: when they return to Nepal from India, bandits often rob them. If only the migrant workers were allowed to send their money from a national bank in India, the danger of robbery would be eliminated. But the Nepalese government hasn’t initiated all of these things.

DUNHAM: Early on, you mentioned that you are also focusing on the youth in the far west. Would you like to say a little more about this issue?

SANAM: In our HIV/AIDS program, we really promote peer education. The youth are a great resource for us. They go to their peers and educate one another. We go to both the school systems and outside the school system -- because there are still children who are not part of the school system. Still, our primary focus is on the schools, because these children are in the position to most easily grasp the situation. Then we encourage them to return to their communities and spread the word to those children who are not in school – the very population of youths who will probably end up migrating to India – usually by the time they become 16 or 17.






























DUNHAM: How old are they when you introduce them to AIDS awareness information?

SANAM: We have a children’s club associated with the organization I’m working for. We begin with children who are  12 or 13 or 14 years old. At this time the children also get information from government curriculum.

DUNHAM: In the far west have you seen a problem with child sex trafficking?

SANAM: No, not in the far west. This practice of luring young girls is found primarily in the mid-west and the eastern districts. In the far west, it is males who go to India to find jobs. The females mostly stay in the villages to look after the children.

DUNHAM: What about people from the far west migrating to Kathmandu and other urban areas?

SANAM: Oh yes. During the conflict, especially after 2001, I could really see the difference in the towns in mid and far west -- like Dhangadi, Attaria, even Nepalgunj – the population was rising dramatically in those towns. The IDPs were seeking protection in towns where the government was in control. But now that the conflict is over, many of the IDPs are returning to their villages.

DUNHAM: Migration, AIDS and youth: You really see a deep interconnection, don’t you?

SANAM: Yes. Migration is a coping strategy in the far west, and totally socially accepted within the communities.

And what’s interesting is that I’ve interviewed youths in the far west who don’t really have any reason to go to India. They could pursue opportunities here that pay as much. They just go to India because that’s what others have done before them. Unfortunately, they mostly end up in Bombay, and Maharastra [Bombay’s State] has one of the highest rates of AIDS in South Asia.

This is where my interest in youth is really focused:  These youths are disengaged from their communities because the people from the older generation are not ready to hand over the activities like community development to youth. The youth are tokenized. They are blocked from significant community participation.

DUNHAM: So the marginalization they experience in their own community results in them going elsewhere.

SANAM: Yes. And it’s a very sad note that many of the organization are not focusing on this problem. They are targeting dalits, they are targeting children and very specific age group but they have failed to target youths – those are ready to migrate. Recently the government has stated that it is committed to youth policy but not enough is being done.

The issue of youths, as far as I have seen, has dramatically emerged after the comprehensive peace agreement.

DUNHAM: Why is that?

SANAM: Before the peace agreement, the age group primary targeted by both insurgents and security forces was Nepal’s youth. It is more a thematic target right now, they are not specifically targeting youth but they are thematically targeting them as peace building. I am quite worried about the marginalization of youth here in Nepal – a group that includes the rural youths, sub-urban youth, dalit youths and especially the women youths.

When we talk about Girija Prasad Koirala, he is 85 years old. Ram Chandra Paudel is the Youth Minister, despite the fact that he is already above 55 in age.

The entire problem starts from the fact that older leaders are not ready to hand over responsibilities to the youth. We have a very odd social structure of not believing in the younger generation. You can see youths are doing outstandingly well in each and every sector but they are still not well recognized or given their due.

The results of the general election in 2008 were a lot about the frustrations of the general public. The people were very much ready to vote for youths because they are the ones who best understand new technologies and many other things. Youths are the population who can readily accept the changes and old generation can not do that, especially in Nepal.

DUNHAM: Yet Nepal remains a patriarchal society. It is the old men who have the final say -- from the family unite to national government.

SANAM: So what do you see happening? You see the youth flying to Middle East and East Asia to work and they get as low as 8000 rupees per month. I have heard that they get even less then that - less than 100 USD. Apart from that they also have to pay for the flight.

Another problem that I have seen recently is about missing youth. It’s not just about remittance and money but also about the social cost to Nepal when the youth continue to vanish from this country. They will not be here to contribute to a future stronger Nepal.

DUNHAM: The brain drain.

SANAM: Yes. In general, I think there needs to be some major intervention for youth in Nepal.

DUNHAM: But how can any program be accomplished in Nepal before rule of law is achieved, before impunity is rectified

SANAM: We have this discussion in our youth forums regularly; the issue of impunity was raised after Maoist came in to the power. In fact, impunity was always prevalent in Nepal, even before Maoist came to power. You can see all these political youth activist riding without helmets, with three people on a motorbike – and in front of the traffic police – as long as they have their party logo printed somewhere. You can see the state of impunity spreading everywhere. Even bus drivers, truck drivers and even transportation workers do not pay any attention to the traffic police. Why? Because they belong to a union that will back them up.  It is good that they have unions, but not when they regard them as trump cards, which allow them to do whatever they want.

The needs of the people are very basic. They feel that they are being overlooked.


































…………………………………......................……………………..

Nepal: Free Student Union Elections continue

Monday 30, 2009

This morning marked the second batch of Free Student Union elections in two weeks.  The first elections were fiercely contested and the murder of one of the leaders of the UML-affiliated student wing later created havoc in Butwal. The effects of that violence are still being felt and there is the ongoing issue of stalled vote counting, which has kept temperatures high.
     
This morning I went to the gates of RR College to test the mood of the students massing for today’s rescheduled elections – initially cancelled because of violence. There was a massive voter turnout, something American readers – particularly American college students -- would scarcely understand.

Nepal lacks many things but activism and political involvement is not one of them. 60% of the population is under the age of 30.

At RR College, there was significant police presence controlling the entrance to the voting area. Vehicular traffic was blocked almost a kilometer from the college gate. A bit of scuffling could be observed here and there but the prevailing mood was youthful enthusiasm.

The following photographs were taken by my assistant Govinda Rijal.

























































































































































































































































































 































The elections in Pokhara were not such a pretty picture.


……………………………….........................…………......………….

Reinventing Nepal – Gagan Thapa and Sumit Sharma Sameer

March 19, 2009

The following is an article co-authored by Gagan Thapa and Sumit Sharma Sameer. Kantipur Online published it today. Their discourse steps back from the wobbly Nepali peace process, takes a deep breath and refocuses at just the right moment in these groundbreaking times. The photographs were taken on Election Day 2008, while I covered Sunsari, Morang and Dhankuta districts as an international observer for the Election Committee.





























Remaking of the world and the Nepali order seems to have begun at the same time. The global recession, global terrorism, global warming and global indigenization of politics have compelled world leaders to rethink and reinvent the ideas, ideals, principles and practices that dominated the global world order since the end of the Second World War. The present global threats force us to believe that all has not been well with the invention of knowledge that guided modern civilization.

The brutality of Nazism and Fascism may have come to an end; but the exploitation brought by unequal and unfair economies, unscientific interpretations of clashing civilizations, devastating exploitation of the environment and suppression of indigenous nationalities remain intact. Assumptions that the cruelty perpetuated by present-day systems and crises are comparatively lesser to that of Nazism and Fascism are far from the truth. Hitler created torture camps to eradicate millions of Jews. Modern inventions, knowledge and philosophic systems have devastated billions of lives in both the First and Third Worlds due to unequal economies, centralized politics and a devastated environment.

Human experimentations carried thus far have equally humanized humanity. Ideals that centred on the values of human freedom, justice and equality have created generations that will find it extremely difficult to fall back on the totalitarianism and dictatorship of the past. Hitler may rise, but Gandhi will triumph. Information technology and globalization are other innovations of the modern world. Globalization is both unique and faulty. In theory, globalization is a virtue. In practice, it is a vice. However, explosion in information technology and globalization has led to the birth of new powerful economic regimes. In Asia, India and China are such economies that are striding forward against all odds.

Global political, economic, environmental and cultural forces that are in the process of making and remaking themselves are already being felt in Nepal. Apart from global forces, Nepal faces various internal and specific issues and forces that have remained unresolved for centuries. Unlike the world, we are also in the process of remaking ourselves. Can Nepal sustain such massive global and local forces that are in operation today -- pulling, pushing and exerting pressures from various sides? With the growing weaknesses of the Nepali state, how can it be possible to handle both internal and external forces together?

Various social, ethnic and political movements that materialized in Nepal in the past 50 years have convinced us that Nepal is a nation of nations. We have multiple and contesting identities. We have competing nationalisms. With such a realization, Nepal entered the peace process and guaranteed its citizens a democratic federal system with equal rights and opportunities regardless of class, caste, religion, language, region, sex or ethnicity. It was the right choice made by the people of Nepal as the nationalism that remained a powerful weapon in tearing apart the forces of colonial empires and communism after the Second World War has today been torn apart by the indigenization of politics. There are many internal issues that will be addressed and institutionalized through the Nepalese peace process, and one such contentious issue is federalism.

 



In Nepal, federalism has been broadly categorized into and debated for and against ethnic and non-ethnic lines. There are certain components that have been agreed upon in principle by both ethnic and non-ethnic models while federating a state. Can proponents of ethnic and non-ethnic states differ on territory, geography, population, political rights and representation, democratic and inclusive institutions, natural resources and state languages as variables that are taken into account while federating a state?

Let's, for example, interpret Limbuwan along ethnic lines. A Limbuwan federal state will have a certain territory, a population consisting of both Limbus and non-Limbus, political rights and representation of the entire population within that territory, democratic and inclusive institutions, natural resources and infrastructure within the ownership of the federal state, and use of Limbu as an official state language while allowing people of other ethnic groups to use their own languages like Nepali, Newari or Maithili. With these variables intact, what's wrong with the ethnic federal model?

Now let's look at the same Limbuwan state from a non-ethnic lens. A non-ethnic interpretation will define Limbuwan as a state which has a certain territory, population, equal political rights and representation of people residing within that territory, democratic and inclusive institutions, natural resources and infrastructure and use of the official state language and other languages. The ethnic and non-ethnic camps could differ on whether the territory is based on ethnicity, language, geography or economy; but they do not differ on ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all the major and minor groups residing within that territory. So, in principle, the ethnic and non-ethnic federal models have more similarities then differences.

No Nepali minority group or ethnic community wants a division of Nepal. We have a single vision where we want to prosper as individuals, groups, communities, regions and as a nation. Advocates of the ethnic federal model claim that Nepal will disintegrate if the states are not federated along ethnic lines, whereas advocates of non-ethnic federalism claim that Nepal will disintegrate if the states are federated along ethnic lines. Clearly, what is common between the advocates of the two theories is their concern for Nepal. Neither wants this country to disintegrate. Yet our approaches, perspectives and strategies towards achieving a just society are different. Our differences compared to our similarities are fewer.

The need of the hour is management of the demands by agreeing on the larger framework that keeps the national interest at the centre. This seems to have been overshadowed due to our focus on our differences. Understandably, there are differences between Madheshis, Tharus, Pahadis and Limbus; but what are the agendas that are common to us, agreeable to us? While discussing our differences, could we start discussing our commonness as well? While trying to impose territorial autonomy and language preferences, could we accept the preferences of others as well? How can we demand dignity for ourselves while rejecting others' dignity?

Tharu Tarai can have no dignity if they don't stand for the dignity of Madhesh. Madheshi Madhesh will have no dignity if they don't support the dignity of Tharus or other minorities. Nepalese Nepal will have no dignity if they don't support the dignity of all national minorities and communities. Our dignity does not stand in isolation from each other or against each other. A single Nepali identity is rather a sum total of the entire Nepalese dignities. A Nepali identity can only reach its zenith when we respect the dignity of our entire population. Could a “space and respect” for each other be the variables while defining our new nationalism -- a new thread of unity among Nepalese? 

Historically, Nepal has had few chances of reinventing herself. One such opportunity came after the expansion of Nepal by Prithvi Narayan Shah. Another such opportunity came after the movements of 1950 and 1990 and the April revolution of 2006. During all these moments, the common Nepali was elated with the hope that the lives of both individuals and the nation would be renewed. A Nepalese renaissance and reformation would transfer the lives of Nepalis. Unfortunately, the renewed convictions and elation of the Nepali people have been shattered. History is testimony that prices are paid if such elated convictions of the citizens are suppressed. And we stand today at such a moment when we will have to collectively pay the heaviest price if the citizens' conviction towards politics and nation erodes further. It's not only Madheshis, Pahadis, Limbus, Tharus or Janajatis who will lose -- we will lose collectively.

Given the present global and national context, it has become urgent to reflect on the framework or premise that led us to achieve federal democratic republic as our guiding political philosophy. Such political philosophy is based on the premise of empowering and ensuring the rights of individuals, groups, communities, ethnicities, regions and the nation. The time for remaking begins now. The national groups, communities and forces that exist in today's Nepal are the greatest strengths and resource any country would crave to have, and we are endowed with such resources. Let's capitalize on our resources in order to reinvent our country.



Gagan Thapa may be reached at: thapa_republican@yahoo.com

Sumit Sharma Sameer may be reached at: sharmasumit@yahoo.com



………………………………………………………….

Tharu – the Nepali ethnic minority – Finally Roars

The Play of Inclusion and Appeasement in the Peace Process

March 18, 2009
































After a violent two-week general strike in Terai, Tharu activists ended a protest that had paralyzed business and education and had shut down the roads of the southern plains. At least five people were killed and scores of others were injured. The strike also affected hilly regions, including the Kathmandu Valley, which experienced a cut off of fuel and produce.

On March 15, the government reached a six-point agreement with the Tharus, agreeing to remove them (and other ethnic communities) from a classification that had arbitrarily lumped them in with the dominant Madhesi group. But on a a more crucial level, the protest was aimed at demanding equal rights and representation.

Who are the Tharu?
Historically, the Tharu people have been largely helpless and underprivileged  -- a long oppressed group of farmers and peddlers --  the primary victims of the kamaiya system outlawed by the government of Nepal in 2000. (Indentured labor is now illegal in Nepal– at least on paper.)

 


click on map to enlarge






The indigenous Tharus are the largest and oldest of all the southern ethnic groups. They are 1.2 million strong, thus constituting 6.6% of Nepal’s 28 million people. They are distributed along the southern border as well as inhabitants of the inner Terai valleys of Surkhet (west mountain region), Chitwan, Dang, Deukhuri, Sindhuli and Udyapur. (A smaller number  – approximately 170,000 -- live in India, mostly in Bihar and Uttarakhand.)
   




Their unique character is indisputable. They speak their own language of Indo-Aryan origin. Their religion is often described as “folk Hinduism”, although recent conversions to Buddhism have been noted, perhaps due to the growing belief that the historical Buddha was from their ethnic group. Their distinctive culture includes a readily identifiable decorative art, music, etc.

Genetically, they are even more unique. Having lived in villages ensconced in dense malaria-infested jungles, in regions that were isolated over the millennia, has allowed them to develop an innate resistance to malaria. (The genetic factor is presumed though, as of yet, unidentified.)

Brief History






According to Nepali author Subodh Kumar Singh, a series of invasions by other groups from northern India and from hills and mountains of Nepal, eroded the influence of the indigenous Tharus. In 1854 Jung Bahadur, the first Rana prime minister of Nepal, developed the Mulki Ain, a codification of Nepal's indigenous legal system which divided society into a system of castes. The Tharus were placed near the bottom of the hierarchy, just above the so-called untouchables. Their land was taken away, disrupting their community and displacing the people.

In the 1950s, World Health Organization helped the Nepalese government eradicate malaria in the Terai region. This resulted in immigration of people from other areas to claim the fertile land, making many Tharus virtual slaves of the new landowners and developing the kamaiya system of bonding generations of Tharus families to labor.

In spite of social change in recent years, Tharu has remained without representation. With the exception of the Dalits and perhaps the Muslims, the Tharus remain the most suppressed and ignored group in the country.

The last two weeks have done much to change that.











At first, the rounds of talks between the Tharus and the government lacked real traction.
The recurring deadlock centered over the issue of replacing the term “Madhesh” with “Terai” in the interim constitution. By the third round of talks it was clear that the Tharus wanted the term “Madhesh” removed altogether.

Peace Minister Janardan Sharma, who (along with Water Resource minister Bishnu Poudel) chaired the early talks, complained: "In the name of giving rights to one [organization], we can’t deprive others’ of their rights." Madheshi Janadhikar Forum leader Jaya Prakash Gupta chimed in by warning that his party would start an agitation if the term ‘Madhesh’ was removed from the constitution.

But Laxman Tharu, chairman of the Tharu Sturggle Committee, upped the ante. "We will take part in the next round of talks only if the government team is led by the Prime Minister.”

The following day, the Telegraph came out with a blistering interview with Laxman Tharu. Excerpts are worth repeating because Laxman, a longstanding member of the Maoist party, assailed Maoist leadership on both personal and ideological levels:

I was the General Secretary of the Maoists' affiliated Tharuwan Liberation Front and a member of the Maoists' regional bureau. I was affiliated to the Maoists party since 1993 and went underground after 1997. I have also served in the Maoist's People's Liberation Army, however, I quit the party in 2007.