| khaja biscuit |
Posted
on 11-Jan-03 09:47 AM
Here's something I wrote in response to the article 'Why
Sikkim Works', which appeared in Nepali Times, a Kathmandu-
based weekly paper. I have adapted this piece for the
Mountain Forum. The opinion expressed herein is solely mine
and should NOT be attributed to the organization I work
for.)
Why Sikkim Works? By Kunda Dixit
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue126/headline_2.htm
------
What Ails Nepal?
By Ujol Sherchan
Why Sikkim Works [NT#126, 3-9 January 2003] reinforces my
suspicion that unless Nepal gets its act together by
drawing on the Bhutanese and Sikkimese models and adapting
them to its own, it will continue to flounder. Why draw on
these two models? Because these are geographically very
similar countries/state, sharing specificities such as
cultures, population composition and shared history,
however checkered.
Firstly, we do not have 'representational democracy' in
Nepal in the sense that indigenous groups/tribes, women and
the Dalits are grossly under- represented in the
government. On the other hand, since we have constitutional
monarchy, why aren't these same groups adequately
represented in the decision-making organs of the Palace and
the Army? One has only to look at the organisational charts
(if there are any) of the Ministries, INGOs, NGOs, public
schools, government hospitals, Village Development
Committees, District Development Committees, including the
much-hyped community forestry user groups, community
radios, and other currently headline-making institutions
which purport to speak out on behalf of the marginalized,
to notice the gaping holes. If these groups are not there
yet because they are not qualified, why aren't they
qualified and what is being done about it?
Secondly, we fail to realise that Nepal has never been
properly united, let alone assimilated. The border disputes
notwithstanding, the divisive 'bainse chaubinse' mentality
still prevails. This mentality continues to feed the 'afno
manchhe' syndrome and the north-south divide (hill people
vs. the 'madishes') - not to mention the hierarchies
induced by the Hindu caste system (also called the
apartheid of South Asia) into the larger Nepali society, if
it can be called that. If proximity to Kathmandu Valley -
the power center - has not had significant positive impact
on the rural Tamang communities in and around the valley,
what can one expect of say, Mugu District [in far western
Nepal], which is another planet altogether? The prevailing
conditions in the Tamang villages on the valley rim, where
'bhaye makai, nabhaye bhokai' ['if corn grows, we eat corn;
otherwise we go hungry'] is a common refrain, could serve
as an indicator of our government's commitment to its
peoples.
Thirdly, Nepal's reliance on foreign aid, while sometimes
justified, is not always so. Nepal's over-reliance,
however, is never justified if one takes a long view. Nepal
is getting highly medicated on foreign aid…and becoming
sicker still…because its body, if you will, is not able to
develop its own immunity. To draw an analogy, a mountain
farming 'best practice' teaches that if a field is
subjected to intensive farming (with chemical fertilizers
and all), it has to be left fallow for a certain period if
it is to be able to regain its regenerative capacity. Has
Nepal lost its native/indigenous vigor as a result of over-
dosing on foreign aid or because people are being 'over
managed' while blindly pursuing the fads of the donor-
driven development world? Can Nepal, weaned for so long on
foreign aid, forego foreign aid without developing
withdrawal symptoms, or falling into shambles? How do you
address the moral hazard problem associated with foreign
aid? Moreover, Nepal does not need fly-by-night foreign
consultants telling us what to do? What Nepal has got to do
is to start listening to its own peoples and develop its
own human resources, not relegate them to second-class
citizen status in their own countries. As a Bhutanese
acquaintance put it: "Forget about per capita GDP and
economic growth. Think about a remote rural mountain family
of four- five with no land of their own? How do you even
begin to learn of their needs, let alone begin to
internalize and address them?"
A country, especially a developing country, doesn't need to
develop its own technologies to make progress; it can
import them. A developing country needs infrastructure more
than technologies. A country doesn't even have to be rich
in natural resources: just look at Singapore. Yet, although
Nepal is blessed with both indigenous technologies (ghatta,
kodalo, doko, dhikki, janto) and natural resources (waters,
forests, mountains), it has failed to improve on or exploit
these sustainably/productively to overcome its peoples'
subsistence existence because it has consistently failed to
invest adequately on human resource development (HRD). HRD,
COUPLED WITH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND GOOD
'REPRESENTATIONAL' GOVERNANCE, HOLDS THE KEY TO NEPAL'S
DEVELOPMENT. And HRD has got to begin with world-class
primary education for each and every Nepali child. No
wonder Bhutan and Sikkim, who have better internalised
these common sense truths than Nepal, have left Nepal far
behind.
P.S.: A very wise man may as well have been describing my
poor and wounded country weakened by unresolved political
crisis and Maoist insurgency the two biggest problems
confronting Nepal today - when he sang the following lines:
"Hey, hey Woody Guthrie, I wrote you a song
About a funny old world that's a-coming along.
Seems sick and it's hungry, it's tired and it's torn,
It looks like it's a-dying and it's hardly been born."
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 11-Jan-03 08:10 PM
Khaja Biscuit and Rastaman,
Very important discussion. Keep it up. I just have two comments regarding why Sikkim and Bhutan have made it and Nepal flounders:
1. The geopolitical factors
Sikkim and Bhutan do not have to deal with externally instigated/promoted destabilization since Sikkim got absorbed into India and Bhutan agreed way back in 1949 to let India handle foreign, defense and development issues. As India has realized all its goals in these two countries, it does not support or promote any oppositional force/s against the internal regimes there. As we all agree, political stability and peace is the foundation for progress.
2. Nepals Problems
India has not achieved its strategic objective of total control of Nepal. To achieve that objective, it continues to support/instigate one group against the other whether it is the Nepali Congress, Sadhbhavana, UML, or the Maoists! As long as there is this level of conflict and disunity, it is no suprise Nepal is going nowhere.
3. So, in order to achieve the level of political stability, should Nepal follow the example set by Sikkim and Bhutan either become part of India or arrange a formal dependency relationship with India? This could be one issue that needs to be discussed.
4. However, merging with India is not going to automatically bring in peace and prosperity. Kashmir also merged with India, but it faced such a different fate!
Humbly yours
|
