| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| noname | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 05:08 PM
Cities of hope By Daniel Lak in Nepali Times Nepalis have national unity on one issue: Kathmandu has too much power and money.  Time and again, as I travel around this land, one overwhelming complaint recurs. Kathmandu has too much power and money. Even as hill districts empty of their productive labour force, bound for the capital, people tell you that everything bad comes from Kathmandu. Bahun men listening to the radio news in the remote west, Tharu women netting fish in a flooded paddy field in the tarai, a Dalit activist in Dhading, Rai and Limbu families in the east and mountain people everywhereall have achieved national unity on one issue. Too much Kathmandu in their lives. For years, a powerful and compelling development mantra here has been decentralisation. The empowering of the District and Village Development Committees in the 90s may have been the great success story of Nepali democracy, although it seldom gets celebrated by morose foreign aid officials these days. DDCs and VDCs, until they were crudely terminated by the Deuba government in July 2002, were the countrys great hope. Some of them were doing sterling work, and hey, guess what, they were political, they were occasionally corrupt, but they worked. Local people saw democracy in action on their doorsteps. Eventually, depending on the outcome of the current crisis and whats done to restore democracy in this country, DDCs and VDCs will spring up again. Theyll be greatly hamstrung by Maoist destruction of their property and the sheer trauma of post-war life in the countryside. But I have little doubt that theyll recover and start to make a different in this country. As we saw during the peace, Kathmandu failed to deliver any development or progress to remote or distant areas outside the Valley. Why? Because the governments command structure is too centralised and unresponsive to local needs, which, in any event, are well down the priority list of problems drawn up at the Palace and in Singha Durbar. But perhaps its time to do more radical thinking on decentralisation. Really radical thinking. Dr Harka Gurung and others have postulated a canton system of government for Nepal, along the lines of Switzerland. (See Nepali Times, The centre cannot hold by Harka Gurung, #88) Each of the Swiss cantons are practically independent countries. They bow to the national capital on questions of defence and national finance and thats about it. The plan here to shrink the number of districts to 25 or so and give them greatly enhanced authority is a good one and needs to be dusted off and debated (see map). What strikes me though is that political authority alone wont be enough to revitalise the districts of Nepal, even with a gusher of development money flowing through. No, whatever form of local set up is eventually agreed upon, it is going to need is a city. One each, or at least one between two or three, much as Chandigarh is shared by Punjab and Haryana states in India. The point is that Kathmandu is such a large and lone entity in Nepal that no amount of constitutional or administrative change will diminish its defacto authority. Other cities, with vibrant local and regional economies, can do that. I humbly propose a sweeping plan to build 10 new cities all across Nepal. Each with the capacity to hold a million people. Each with parks, schools, hospitals, a university campus, regional parliaments, if you like, and so on. Housing stock is a top priority so people can live and work in comfort. And, of course, local markets and industry need electricity and other services. This would be a capital and labour intensive project on a grand scale that could pump immense new life into war-torn regions. Hundreds of thousands of laborers would be needed, skilled architects, engineers, tradespeople and so on. It would be a New Deal that will pull Nepal out of its great depression. This country would be transformed. Kathmandu court intrigue would never again hold the hills and the tarai to ransom, and the burden on a bursting capital would be eased. Nepal would come into its own, thronging with tourists and prosperous local people whove made it in their own area, on their own, and are proud of it. I have seen the future, and its urban. - http://www.nepalnews.com/ntimes/issue164/herenthere.htm |
| ashu | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 05:54 PM
Great idea, Daniel Lak. This is a nice "I have a dream" proposal. But how are we going to find money to pay for the implementation of this "radical thinking"? Or perhaps, like in a proverbial field of dreams, once you build the cities, they [money and people] will just come? oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| VincentBodega | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 09:20 PM
Yeah Nepal is pretty much a proverbial country these days... once you build a city the money will just come. Give me a break from these childish sarcasm!!! Is it really that hard to see that, Nepal can make more that ten easy tourist destinations all over the country? Well rather than let all these money hoarding businessmen to keep all the change, lets give half of the money to the implimentation of this "radical thinking." Why is it fair, cuz the businessmen didnt make Nepal beautiful. If they want to live off the natural beauty of the country then I think the country can take a bite or two off too of that pie right? Sounds fair to me. Daniel Lak, I think, has made a good observation on how Nepal has been all about Kathmandu these days. The thing is its not though. Its not even half of the country. -- BV |
| czar | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 09:45 PM
If, as Mr. Lak posits, it is the court and its intrigue that is the cause of all the trouble, then the least expensive and quickest solution is to dispose of the entire bunch of scallywags that consist of the court. One fell sweep and voila! we're delivered from evil, Amen. Exactly what Messrs. Badal and comrades have been proposing to do too, albeit with slighty messy methods. No? [Do I hear a heartfelt and resounding sigh from Nepe?] To fully achieve decentralization and maintain equality, the proposition is to herd our rural masses into concerete blocks and, voila, we've arrived ! So how come I am afflicted by recollections of the soulless city of Chandigarh, especially the grey and dreary main market in Sector 17, or the lifeless markets in the centre of each Sector of that most beautiful of le Corbusier's dreams cities? Just what the Soviets did from the 1930's when they built nearly nearly 70 cities in 30 years and changed Russia from a largely rural to urban country. Best of all, the newly emptied countryside will witness huge leaps in agricultural productivity thanks to efficiences of scale prevented by the present hodgepodge of fractured land holdings. Who knows, the next 5 years may find tarkari vendors in Patna selling pyaaj and golbheda from Dhalkebaar, aloo from Rolpa and syau from Helambu ! Now I feel a deep sense of unease over these grandiose plans, but I just can't seem to put my finger on it. Nah, I'm just being a stick in the mud who can't appreciate a brilliant plan or bear to see his fellow countrymen get ahead in life and enjoy the comforts of piped hot water. Instead, why don't I simply bust my piggy bank and mak a beeline for construction stocks and shares. Now lemme see, there's Sumitomo... Caterpillar... |
| czar | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 09:55 PM
I make no claims to sanity, urban planning, agricultural economics, or plain good sense ! |
| noname | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 09:59 PM
In the time of war, successful implementation of any idea radical or not boils down to the basic question of peace and security. Although Daniel Lak mentions in his article that "[this project] could pump immense new life into war-torn regions," he, I suppose, did not mean this idea to end the war. Anything sort of addressing the major issue now at hand can not get fair amount of attraction, and won't be radical either. One of my friend observed that this model resembles development concept of Japan, where many urban centers like Sapporo, Nagoya, Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto hold majority of the population. (Any one expert here in Japanese development to take on this issue?). Given that peace is prevailing in the country, this may be New Deal for Nepal. However, who is our version of Roosevelt? |
| ru | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 10:11 PM
what Lak has so articulately presented was probably, or at least arguably, in many people's head, myself included. I am actually doing my thesis on decentralization and its potential impacts on the positive future resonance in Nepal. However, I am encountering several concepts that, albeit of eurocentric origin, apply to nepal as well in terms of the lacking infrastructural capacity to handle fiscal and other forms of decentralization. One of them being inability of the central government to apply hard budget contraints on the local government. Juxtaposed with the present reality that the central government too has failed to deliver and, especially so as evidenced by the present political scenario,how would one react to Mr. Lak's thesis... ..any opinions or solutions or just reactions?? |
| czar | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 10:20 PM
I agree with the idea of increased urbanization. Historically, the past century has seen an increasing and rapidly growing movement of people from the country to cities. Many migrations of people towards cities have often been driven by war and civil disturbances. Another cause has been the lure of economic opportunities as economies transform from agriculture to industry and services. It is projected that Sao Paulo and Shanghai will be metropolises of 20 million people sometime in the next decade. Thats nearly the entire population of present day Nepal in each city. It is often cheaper and less demanding to deliver public services to the higher concentration of citizens in an urban setting than when they are scattered about the countryside. Education, health and medical services, industry and commerce are but some entities that benefit from having a certain density of people within easy commuting distance. When the same number is spread out over vast distances, such as the bush country in Australia or south Africa, then delivery of the services costs more and is harder to organize and dispense. This is but one example. I am sure our assorted specialists here in sajha can come up with others. Or refute my arguments in blistering fussilades. (Ouch!) Either way, the future is indeed an increasing Nepali urban population displaced by war or drawn by economic impetus. Perhaps not quite in the manner prescribed by Mr. Lak, but certainly headed in that direction. |
| ru | Posted
on 01-Oct-03 10:28 PM
nice pointers there czar, but again the problem comes up logistics...how do we get a take off, although we all acknowledge it's faster in the sky. |
| ashu | Posted
on 02-Oct-03 03:15 AM
I think it's time to give credit to geographer and planner Dr. Harka Bahadur Gurung who FIRST championed this idea -- if my memory serves right -- at least 10 years ago, if not more, way before we found ourselves in the throes of current cycles of violence. oohi ashu ktm,nepal |
| Arnico | Posted
on 02-Oct-03 03:34 AM
Great discussion. I'll join in soon, after freeing up some time to write... |
| DWI | Posted
on 02-Oct-03 05:17 AM
Nice points to ponder by Mr. Lak. Strong arguments, Czar. Definately, the priority of the country should be the main focus before any such plans are implemented.They are guaranteed to fail unless peace prevails. Once the security (& the soveirnity) of the country is under control, such 'radical' ideas should be analysed. May be our ministers should be given a copy of SIM city each. Whatever happened to the idea of Nepal as free trade zone between China & India? These ideas should be thoroughly analysed by the planning commission. I can see the youths are filled with ideas and good knowledge to back them up. It is time for them to join the mainstream politics and replace the bihar-themed netas now. |
| RBaral | Posted
on 02-Oct-03 07:53 AM
Czar You have good points. I would like to mention some of the towns that grew and sustained during the last decades: 1. Jomsom developed and flourished 2. Dhangadhi 3. Pokhara 4. Pashupatinagar (Ilam) 5. Hile (Dhankuta District) It is the local economy that dominates the formation and progress of a town. Strengthen the local economy -- that should be the root mantra. If mere decentralization would serve the purpose, what was Panchayat's one of the root agendas? Namaste. Rishi |
| noname | Posted
on 02-Oct-03 05:44 PM
In the similar vein, I would like to add name of few cities, which remained either stagnant or declined in last couple of decades. 1. Bhadrapur/Chandragadhi 2. Biratnagar 3. Rajbiraj 4. Janakpur 5. Malangawa . ... .... 7. Dhangadi For wrong or right, King Mahendra chose to link Mechi Mahakali via Forest area - not via nodal urban centres of Terai, which were already connected by Hulaki Roads. Mahendra Highway runs about 20 Km north from all of the earlier terai urban areas. The settlement than followed ribbon type of growth building vibrant cities like Birtamod, Damak, Itahari, Lahan, Kohalpur all along the Higway. Even forced economic activies like development of Industrial area (like one in Rajbiraj) did not help change fate of the terai areas. Daman loast all it's attraction once TALLO BATO was opened. Mugling and Lahan are stagnant - in a sense, declining - once the track was made faster and accordingly BHAT KHANE THAU was changed. |
| KaleKrishna | Posted
on 03-Oct-03 03:08 AM
Chitwan ma kehi ministry sarne bhanne halla theyo, halla nai raheyo. Is it feasible to make Chitwan the second capital, Bharatpur as its administrative site, it gives ample space for expansion, and is rightly suited in the center of the nation |
| Arnico | Posted
on 04-Oct-03 03:43 AM
Okay, am back. Agree with most of the arguments that Nepali could use some more CONTROLLED and MANAGED urbanization OUTSIDE the Kathmandu Valley. And ABSOLUTELY agree that a central component of these cities should be EDUCATIONAL institutions. Colleges and universities. About the question of how to finance such a project.... I am not an economist, and don't have a clear sense of what I am talking about .... but it seems to me that the public works and infrastructure projects required for these plans would create immense gains in productivity, land value, and economic growth... that the wealth they would eventually generate would far outweigh their initial costs... i.e. they would be a GOOD investment with a good economic return. But who has the money to invest? NOT HMG. Not the traditional formal sector entrepreneurs, and may be not even the banks... The ones with money to invest in Nepal, are the diaspora, and the hundreds of thousands of people receiving remittances from abroad. THAT is what is keeping the consumer spendings going; THAT is what is continuing to drive up land prices, despite a formal economy that is almost broke. And yet, these people have so few options for safely investing their money in Nepal. Investing hard earned cash in real estate alone, in a country that is falling to pieces, is a very bad investment... just drives the land prices up, leaving few people better off... So, isn't there a way to set up an institutional framework that can tap into a vast and diffuse group of small investors, both providing them with attractive investment opportunities (safe, decent rate of return), while using that money to build the public works projects that boost the economy? What would be the best mechanism? Bonds? Stocks in a company in charge of building these projects? I'm afraid I know far too little economics to figure out how to best make it work... but I do think that we have a huge untapped source of investment money (just think of the comparative size of remittance to the government's annual budget)... and a large number of people looking for investment opportunities.... Could some economist or economic historian enlighten us about the menu of possible financing mechanisms and what has been used in the past in other places for similar large projects? |
| Arnico | Posted
on 05-Oct-03 09:06 PM
...just hoping that this thread does not die in the obscurity of the second page... |
| noname | Posted
on 05-Oct-03 10:05 PM
>>The ones with money to invest in Nepal, are the diaspora, and the hundreds of thousands of people receiving remittances from abroad. This can be one of the viable option. Initiation can be taken by a small group of like minded people, who can start by forming an informal group, extend that to a multidisciplinary team, launch a contact office in Nepal, register with company act, select some model cities, do reccy, prefeasibility, feasibility.....and so on. Brainstorming can be done in upcoming NRN conference or anywhere e.g. SAJHA. Although I don't want to sound pessimistic, the million dollar question is again there: with so much of violence and attack on infrastructre, can this be a good time for attracting investors? But looking at the success of Manakamana Cable, sometimes I am compelled to think that with good negotiation skill, the answer may be YES. |
| Ghost | Posted
on 05-Oct-03 11:14 PM
I think this is a great idea too, but the question most people seem to propose is "where is the money going to come from?" And that's a good question but there are several possibilities of what steps can be taken to start the flow of money: 1. There has to be political stability within Nepal before any outside investors are going to willingly setup business's and invest in the future of Nepal. One of the biggest things that will throw a company off when thinking about expanding operations into a foreign country is if the government there is not stable. Because in their eyes, what's to keep the government from being overrun and then all of their time, effort and money that has been put into that operation could possible be lost. Coca-Cola in Vietnam is a prime example of this, when Vietname became Communist Coke's entire operation was repo'd by the Communist government and they lost their footing in that country for the next 20 years. 2. With Nepal recently joining the WTO, the opens up so many trade barriers to them and will definitely get them moving on the fast track to industrialization and economic assimilization very shortly. With initiation into the WTO, it shows the world an increased responsibility within Nepal and should give them more opportunities for supporting loans from entities like the IMF, etc. Any country has the opportunity to develop itself more but it needs to happen like a proper business with proper managers. Corruption within the government\board of directors will eventually keep a company from becoming all that it can if left unchecked. I agree with many of you that a decentralization of power would be worthwhile, especially into each individual state with the country. I'm sure with many people contributing such positive ideas and having such an earnest interest in the future and success of the country, only good will come in the future but patience is a virtue and political changes in the government take time to implement and really begin to work. |
| Arnico | Posted
on 06-Oct-03 12:04 AM
I agree that the violence has to stop before projects like this can proceed. HOWEVER, we be better start dreaming, thinking, and planning out post-violence projects, so that we are ready for a fast start once the situation improves. Meanwhile, yes politics in Nepal has been very unstable, but at least the bureaucracy has been more stable and able to get work done without being completely affected by changing cabinets. One example that comes to mind is a particular long term planning document in which I had a small involvement last summer. Begun more than two years before that, the document kept moving forward... Deuba's cabinet was finally supposed to approve it. He got dismissed. The signature line on the foreword got changed to Lokendra Bahadur Chand. Then to Suryua Bahadur Thapa and the approval year got changed from 2002 to 2003. The document was finally approved by an appointed cabinet that made almost no changes to contents that were first prepared under an elected government. Though I don't know sufficient details about it, I suspect that Nepal's WTO approval was also the result of hard work by a few dedicated bureaucrats who were able to work relatively freely of the frequent cabinet changes. So, bureaucratic stability has been partly able to offset some of the worst problems of political instability. HOWEVER, the credibility of several sectors of the bureaucracy (especially ones that collect revenue and ones that handle lucratic projects) is still severaly undermined by real and assumed corruption practices. That needs to change. |
| ujol sherchan | Posted
on 06-Oct-03 02:58 AM
wish daniel lak had probed dr. harka gurung's thinking on canton-isation of Nepal further and come up with some insights rather than propose something surfacial like ten new cities. firstly, there are already towns all across Nepal, and i do not know how or why cities are better. true much of the developing world suffers from the first city bias, and nepal is no exception. however, just propping cities up where there are none does not seem like a solution to me. if policies are sincerely formulated with consultations and inclusive representation of stakeholders and enforced honestly, we will see these existing towns develop into model cities by and by. but the problem is with the Maoist insurgency, people are not only fleeing villages, but also towns. i would tend to think that many who have the means to do so may already be in the process of leaving Kathmandu until such times, what with the city coming under Maoist attacks lately. the thing is when the fundamentals of governance, democracy, decentralisation and development are not sound in practice (however sound they may be on paper), ten new cities seems like a bad idea coming at the worst time. a country cannot plan or run its villages and towns properly owing to political interferences; how can you plan and run big cities. it is tantamount to running ahead of ourselves, a physical/financial/infrastructural impossibility. moreover, while daniel lak's proposal may be music to the ears of urban planners, architects, construction companies and investors, i do not see how it will checkmate the burgenoing power of Kathmandu. it is like wishing that we can negate or even minimize the influence of foreign powers, esp. of India and China, in Nepal by sealing our porous borders. not realistic. we are talking about checkmating power that transcends cities and borders here. over 100 countries can not checkmate the power of the USA or of say Washington D.C. to think ten new cities can checkmate the power of Kathmandu! who will run the ten new cities...political appointees from the centre??? |
| Arnico | Posted
on 06-Oct-03 07:40 AM
I had chosen to understand the idea not as building brand new cities, but as upgrading the infrastructure in existing towns and smaller cities so as to be able to accomodate growth in a healthy manner, and to be able attract investment, shoppers, students, and patients away more than Kathmandu can. |
| KaleKrishna | Posted
on 06-Oct-03 08:04 AM
I was surpised no one is conserned about the eco-construction. One thing that has to be considered is the shrink in national population that will attain let us after another century. Then the need will be for reduced infrastructure and more environment oriented life style. Even now look at our metropolitians and developing cities, where are the parks and playgrounds for childrens. One aspect we need to consider is how we can achieve development and also save and preserve the balance of eco-system that can never be regained once destroyed. |
| ujol sherchan | Posted
on 06-Oct-03 11:51 PM
hi tyehi moro ashish, here is an excerpt from mr. d. lak's article and you decide for yourself what he suggested: ...I HUMBLY PROPOSE A SWEEPING PLAN TO BUILD 10 NEW CITIES ALL ACROSS NEPAL. EACH WITH THE CAPACITY TO HOLD A MILLION PEOPLE..... i still wish he had said we should invest more in primary education on roads and bridges or turn existing towns into engines for growth and development through proper economic/urban planning. or anything less radical and more mundane! ten new cities? how will that help the peoples of mugu and rolpa? it is not even clear how it will promote decentralisation, the central thesis of his article. Roosevelt's New Deal was struck to reduce double-digit unemployment during the Depression...but what we have in Nepal is a different situation. What we have here is something akin to intermittent civil war. i think daniel lak is taken by the economies of agglomeration that big cities enjoy...the only thing i even remotely find appealing about ten new cities. building ten new cities smacks of Soviet style central-planning, which was all the rage in the Stalinist era as Stalinists espoused 'bigger is better' doctorine, if only to show the West that they too could industrialise in a gigantic scale. it was all supply-driven. my question is what is wrong with the existing towns, big or small, that dot the Nepali landscape? why do we need ten new Gothams? i say let us revisit the basics that have so often defeated us in the past: spend more on education, infrastructure, and good governance. let us revisit the cliches...and for once let us master them. best regards, ujol sherchan ---------------- |